From fboyle at illinois.edu Wed Nov 1 13:49:53 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2017 13:49:53 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] NG on New Mascot Search:"Blood and Soil" Message-ID: "The committee also said it was important as part of the process, for the campus to officially recognize the Chief {Illiniwak} as an important part of the UI's history and traditions." Sure just like the Nazis living down in the Confederate States of this country who revere and honor and worship the traditions and history of slavery and Robert E. Lee and the Confederate Flag and Whistling Dixie all: "Blood and soil!" The Blood of American Indians and the Soil stolen right out from under them as they were ethnically cleansed out of Illinois. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2017 10:18 AM To: David Green ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay ; David Johnson ; Mildred O'brien ; Estabrook, Carl G ; David Swanson Subject: University of Illiniwaks on Chief Illiniwak Here is a 1990 internal university document that proves that the highest level officials of the University of Illiniwaks know full well that everything about Chief Illiniwak is bogus and fake and an insult to everything American Indians hold sacred. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Sunday, November 1, 2015 7:49 AM To: Boyle, Francis A > Subject: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Chief_Illiniwek_Band_Mascot.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 288875 bytes Desc: Chief_Illiniwek_Band_Mascot.pdf URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Wed Nov 1 13:49:53 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2017 13:49:53 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] NG on New Mascot Search:"Blood and Soil" Message-ID: "The committee also said it was important as part of the process, for the campus to officially recognize the Chief {Illiniwak} as an important part of the UI's history and traditions." Sure just like the Nazis living down in the Confederate States of this country who revere and honor and worship the traditions and history of slavery and Robert E. Lee and the Confederate Flag and Whistling Dixie all: "Blood and soil!" The Blood of American Indians and the Soil stolen right out from under them as they were ethnically cleansed out of Illinois. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2017 10:18 AM To: David Green ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay ; David Johnson ; Mildred O'brien ; Estabrook, Carl G ; David Swanson Subject: University of Illiniwaks on Chief Illiniwak Here is a 1990 internal university document that proves that the highest level officials of the University of Illiniwaks know full well that everything about Chief Illiniwak is bogus and fake and an insult to everything American Indians hold sacred. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Sunday, November 1, 2015 7:49 AM To: Boyle, Francis A > Subject: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Chief_Illiniwek_Band_Mascot.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 288875 bytes Desc: Chief_Illiniwek_Band_Mascot.pdf URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Wed Nov 1 14:00:29 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2017 14:00:29 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] NG on New Mascot Search:"Blood and Soil" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Why we could even build The Temple of Chief Illiniwak. Put it right there on the vacant field next to the football stadium West of the graveyard. That way everyone could go in and worship and pay their respects and make their offerings and burn a little incense just before the football and basketball games. The University could charge an admission fee. I am sure it would pay for itself many times over. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2017 8:50 AM To: David Green ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay ; David Johnson ; Mildred O'brien ; Estabrook, Carl G ; David Swanson Subject: NG on New Mascot Search:"Blood and Soil" "The committee also said it was important as part of the process, for the campus to officially recognize the Chief {Illiniwak} as an important part of the UI's history and traditions." Sure just like the Nazis living down in the Confederate States of this country who revere and honor and worship the traditions and history of slavery and Robert E. Lee and the Confederate Flag and Whistling Dixie all: "Blood and soil!" The Blood of American Indians and the Soil stolen right out from under them as they were ethnically cleansed out of Illinois. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2017 10:18 AM To: David Green >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; Estabrook, Carl G >; David Swanson > Subject: University of Illiniwaks on Chief Illiniwak Here is a 1990 internal university document that proves that the highest level officials of the University of Illiniwaks know full well that everything about Chief Illiniwak is bogus and fake and an insult to everything American Indians hold sacred. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Sunday, November 1, 2015 7:49 AM To: Boyle, Francis A > Subject: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Wed Nov 1 14:00:29 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2017 14:00:29 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] NG on New Mascot Search:"Blood and Soil" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Why we could even build The Temple of Chief Illiniwak. Put it right there on the vacant field next to the football stadium West of the graveyard. That way everyone could go in and worship and pay their respects and make their offerings and burn a little incense just before the football and basketball games. The University could charge an admission fee. I am sure it would pay for itself many times over. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2017 8:50 AM To: David Green ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay ; David Johnson ; Mildred O'brien ; Estabrook, Carl G ; David Swanson Subject: NG on New Mascot Search:"Blood and Soil" "The committee also said it was important as part of the process, for the campus to officially recognize the Chief {Illiniwak} as an important part of the UI's history and traditions." Sure just like the Nazis living down in the Confederate States of this country who revere and honor and worship the traditions and history of slavery and Robert E. Lee and the Confederate Flag and Whistling Dixie all: "Blood and soil!" The Blood of American Indians and the Soil stolen right out from under them as they were ethnically cleansed out of Illinois. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2017 10:18 AM To: David Green >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; Estabrook, Carl G >; David Swanson > Subject: University of Illiniwaks on Chief Illiniwak Here is a 1990 internal university document that proves that the highest level officials of the University of Illiniwaks know full well that everything about Chief Illiniwak is bogus and fake and an insult to everything American Indians hold sacred. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Sunday, November 1, 2015 7:49 AM To: Boyle, Francis A > Subject: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Wed Nov 1 14:05:55 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2017 14:05:55 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] NG on New Mascot Search:"Blood and Soil" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: As for the new mascot, I nominate Porky The Pig. We could have a greased pig run around Memorial Stadium while the Marching Illiniwak Band do their famous 3 in 1 march with their Fake Indian Music in the middle. And the fans could all chant: Oink! Oink! Oink! Instead of Chief, Chief, Chief as they do now. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2017 9:00 AM To: David Green ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay ; David Johnson ; Mildred O'brien ; Estabrook, Carl G ; David Swanson Subject: RE: NG on New Mascot Search:"Blood and Soil" Why we could even build The Temple of Chief Illiniwak. Put it right there on the vacant field next to the football stadium West of the graveyard. That way everyone could go in and worship and pay their respects and make their offerings and burn a little incense just before the football and basketball games. The University could charge an admission fee. I am sure it would pay for itself many times over. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2017 8:50 AM To: David Green >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; Estabrook, Carl G >; David Swanson > Subject: NG on New Mascot Search:"Blood and Soil" "The committee also said it was important as part of the process, for the campus to officially recognize the Chief {Illiniwak} as an important part of the UI's history and traditions." Sure just like the Nazis living down in the Confederate States of this country who revere and honor and worship the traditions and history of slavery and Robert E. Lee and the Confederate Flag and Whistling Dixie all: "Blood and soil!" The Blood of American Indians and the Soil stolen right out from under them as they were ethnically cleansed out of Illinois. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2017 10:18 AM To: David Green >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; Estabrook, Carl G >; David Swanson > Subject: University of Illiniwaks on Chief Illiniwak Here is a 1990 internal university document that proves that the highest level officials of the University of Illiniwaks know full well that everything about Chief Illiniwak is bogus and fake and an insult to everything American Indians hold sacred. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Sunday, November 1, 2015 7:49 AM To: Boyle, Francis A > Subject: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Wed Nov 1 14:05:55 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2017 14:05:55 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] NG on New Mascot Search:"Blood and Soil" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: As for the new mascot, I nominate Porky The Pig. We could have a greased pig run around Memorial Stadium while the Marching Illiniwak Band do their famous 3 in 1 march with their Fake Indian Music in the middle. And the fans could all chant: Oink! Oink! Oink! Instead of Chief, Chief, Chief as they do now. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2017 9:00 AM To: David Green ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay ; David Johnson ; Mildred O'brien ; Estabrook, Carl G ; David Swanson Subject: RE: NG on New Mascot Search:"Blood and Soil" Why we could even build The Temple of Chief Illiniwak. Put it right there on the vacant field next to the football stadium West of the graveyard. That way everyone could go in and worship and pay their respects and make their offerings and burn a little incense just before the football and basketball games. The University could charge an admission fee. I am sure it would pay for itself many times over. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2017 8:50 AM To: David Green >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; Estabrook, Carl G >; David Swanson > Subject: NG on New Mascot Search:"Blood and Soil" "The committee also said it was important as part of the process, for the campus to officially recognize the Chief {Illiniwak} as an important part of the UI's history and traditions." Sure just like the Nazis living down in the Confederate States of this country who revere and honor and worship the traditions and history of slavery and Robert E. Lee and the Confederate Flag and Whistling Dixie all: "Blood and soil!" The Blood of American Indians and the Soil stolen right out from under them as they were ethnically cleansed out of Illinois. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2017 10:18 AM To: David Green >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; Estabrook, Carl G >; David Swanson > Subject: University of Illiniwaks on Chief Illiniwak Here is a 1990 internal university document that proves that the highest level officials of the University of Illiniwaks know full well that everything about Chief Illiniwak is bogus and fake and an insult to everything American Indians hold sacred. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Sunday, November 1, 2015 7:49 AM To: Boyle, Francis A > Subject: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davidcnswanson at gmail.com Wed Nov 1 15:48:50 2017 From: davidcnswanson at gmail.com (David Swanson) Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2017 11:48:50 -0400 Subject: [Peace-discuss] NG on New Mascot Search:"Blood and Soil" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Illinois State Capitol Hit by War Disease Epidemic By David Swanson http://davidswanson.org/illinois-state-capitol-hit-by-war-disease-epidemic/ The state capitol of Illinois is ground zero of a contagious outbreak of war fever. The origins, I’m afraid, may lie in part in a resolution I drafted that was passed, with various modifications, by numerous cities around the United States and by the U.S. Conference of Mayors. The resolution did educate some people, create some good discussion, generate some attention for antiwar organizing, and bring some peace groups together in a coordinated effort to advance a number of similar resolutions. But its demand that Congress move money from the military to human and environmental needs, rather than the other way around, has not yet been met. In fact, Congress has given the military even more money than Trump had proposed. The text of the resolution is apparently safe for urban dwellers to handle. But evidence suggests that it may be toxic to genetically modified state legislators. I thank Robert Naiman for alerting me to a video of what happened when it came into contact with Illinois state representatives. In watching the video, at first the virus seems to produce no reaction. State Rep. Laura Fine describes the resolution accurately and notes the polling that indicates its agreement with the public at large. Very quickly, however, Rep. Jeanne Ives suffers clear cognitive impairment. She yells out that she does not want her son to fly an “unfit” plane, as if a reduced military budget would produce just as many airplanes but ones even more likely to crash than the F35. During her rant, Rep. Ives appears to suffer a worsening of symptoms. At one point she denounces the government in which she is yelling incoherently as “the worst run state in the union.” In the same breath she says that state legislators should not have opinions on federal spending, says that especially those with no family in the military should have no such opinions, and gives her opinion — which is apparently for unlimited military funding. By the time Ives has run out of breath, the virus has clearly spread through the chamber. Rep. David Harris wobbles to his feet to declare entirely falsely that the resolution calls for a complete elimination of the military budget, and just as falsely that military spending is for the benefit of soldiers, and then — way over the top into the ludicrous — that all these wars are “protecting our freedom.” Yet no medical personnel appear on the scene and no alarms are heard. Rep. Carol Ammons, with no mask or other protection, seems entirely unaffected by the disease. She praises the resolution as opposition to the threat of cuts to Social Security. Rep. C.D. Davidsmeyer quickly takes over, however, with contagious puss oozing from his mouth and nose. Clearly in a state of delirium, he announces that if Trump were cutting the military to fund human and environmental needs then supporters of the resolution would rewrite it to say the opposite. The politician comes out against politics before collapsing in his seat. Rep. Allen Skillicorn coughs out his fervent opinion against having any opinion, and, recognizing the danger at hand, Rep. Fine withdraws the proposed resolution and sprints out of the Capitol, heading toward the Emergency Room. The video cuts off before the ambulances and police arrive to begin the now-famous quarantine. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davidcnswanson at gmail.com Wed Nov 1 15:48:50 2017 From: davidcnswanson at gmail.com (David Swanson) Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2017 11:48:50 -0400 Subject: [Peace-discuss] NG on New Mascot Search:"Blood and Soil" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Illinois State Capitol Hit by War Disease Epidemic By David Swanson http://davidswanson.org/illinois-state-capitol-hit-by-war-disease-epidemic/ The state capitol of Illinois is ground zero of a contagious outbreak of war fever. The origins, I’m afraid, may lie in part in a resolution I drafted that was passed, with various modifications, by numerous cities around the United States and by the U.S. Conference of Mayors. The resolution did educate some people, create some good discussion, generate some attention for antiwar organizing, and bring some peace groups together in a coordinated effort to advance a number of similar resolutions. But its demand that Congress move money from the military to human and environmental needs, rather than the other way around, has not yet been met. In fact, Congress has given the military even more money than Trump had proposed. The text of the resolution is apparently safe for urban dwellers to handle. But evidence suggests that it may be toxic to genetically modified state legislators. I thank Robert Naiman for alerting me to a video of what happened when it came into contact with Illinois state representatives. In watching the video, at first the virus seems to produce no reaction. State Rep. Laura Fine describes the resolution accurately and notes the polling that indicates its agreement with the public at large. Very quickly, however, Rep. Jeanne Ives suffers clear cognitive impairment. She yells out that she does not want her son to fly an “unfit” plane, as if a reduced military budget would produce just as many airplanes but ones even more likely to crash than the F35. During her rant, Rep. Ives appears to suffer a worsening of symptoms. At one point she denounces the government in which she is yelling incoherently as “the worst run state in the union.” In the same breath she says that state legislators should not have opinions on federal spending, says that especially those with no family in the military should have no such opinions, and gives her opinion — which is apparently for unlimited military funding. By the time Ives has run out of breath, the virus has clearly spread through the chamber. Rep. David Harris wobbles to his feet to declare entirely falsely that the resolution calls for a complete elimination of the military budget, and just as falsely that military spending is for the benefit of soldiers, and then — way over the top into the ludicrous — that all these wars are “protecting our freedom.” Yet no medical personnel appear on the scene and no alarms are heard. Rep. Carol Ammons, with no mask or other protection, seems entirely unaffected by the disease. She praises the resolution as opposition to the threat of cuts to Social Security. Rep. C.D. Davidsmeyer quickly takes over, however, with contagious puss oozing from his mouth and nose. Clearly in a state of delirium, he announces that if Trump were cutting the military to fund human and environmental needs then supporters of the resolution would rewrite it to say the opposite. The politician comes out against politics before collapsing in his seat. Rep. Allen Skillicorn coughs out his fervent opinion against having any opinion, and, recognizing the danger at hand, Rep. Fine withdraws the proposed resolution and sprints out of the Capitol, heading toward the Emergency Room. The video cuts off before the ambulances and police arrive to begin the now-famous quarantine. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Thu Nov 2 12:48:36 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2017 12:48:36 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Gen. lets slip US escalation in Syria Message-ID: [http://www.wsws.org/img/title.png] [http://www.wsws.org/img/logo.png] Published by the International Committee of the Fourth International (ICFI) Click here for advanced search » * Home * Perspectives * World News * World Economy * Arts Review * History * Science * Philosophy * Workers Struggles * ICFI/Marxist Library * Chronology * Full Archive * Print * Leaflet * Feedback * Share » General lets slip US escalation in Syria 2 November 2017 Asked at televised briefing Tuesday for the number of US troops presently deployed in Syria, US Army Maj. Gen. James Jarrard, the commander of the Special Operations Joint Task Force deployed in both Syria and Iraq, told Pentagon reporters that the number was “a little over 4,000.” The figure took the assembled members of the media aback. It had recently been reported that over 1,000 troops were on the ground in the illegal US intervention in the Middle Eastern nation, twice the official ceiling set by the Obama administration and ostensibly maintained under President Donald Trump. In April, however, the Trump administration announced that it was turning over to the military brass the authority to set troop limits as it sees fit, allowing for rapid and unannounced escalations of the US interventions in the Middle East. Similar authority has been given to the generals in relation to the 16-year-old war in Afghanistan. When the reporter repeated the general’s figure of 4,000 US troops in Syria and pointed out that previous reports had indicated closer to 1,000, the general stumbled briefly and, apparently receiving a rapid correction over his earpiece, said, “I’m sorry, I misspoke there; there are approximately 500 troops in Syria.” What remains unanswered is whether the general “just made a mistake,” as the Pentagon later claimed, or inadvertently revealed that the actual number of US soldiers and Marines intervening in Syria has quadrupled in recent months. Previously there were credible estimates by military analysts that the number of troops had grown to 2,000. The additions to the official ceiling of 503 troops have been hard to conceal. US Marine artillery units have been deployed in Syria to aid in the decimation of Raqqa and other population centers. Army Rangers have been photographed storming across the north of the country in Stryker combat vehicles, while attack helicopters and their crews have been heavily involved in combat. Earlier this year, the Pentagon revealed that the real number of US troops in Afghanistan exceeded 11,000, rather than the 8,400 previously reported to the public in a deliberate undercount maintained with the complicity of the US media. The revelation came as the Trump administration gave the military brass free rein to escalate Washington’s longest war. While another 4,000 US troops are reportedly being sent, Trump and his defense secretary, former Marine Gen. James Mattis, have insisted that the exact number be kept secret so as not to “tip off the enemy.” The wall of secrecy surrounding the Afghanistan intervention grew higher this week, with the US military’s censoring of a quarterly report issued for the last nine years by the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR) to monitor the efficacy of the hundreds of billions of dollars spent in the subjugation of the South Asian nation. This has coincided with the report that the CIA has been authorized for the first time to carry out drone strikes and organize “hunt and kill” militias, a shift of what had been military functions to the US intelligence agency. Frequently, the CIA carries out such operations using not only its own covert forces, but also military personnel. The sole motive for placing them under CIA control is to throw a mantle of secrecy over some of the most murderous actions being carried out against the Afghan people. Then there is Niger, where the deaths of four Green Berets in a fire fight early last month cast a bright light on what had previously been a war fought in the shadows, with some 1,000 US troops deployed in the central West African country and on its borders, an intervention that leading members of the US Senate claimed to have known nothing about. Whatever the sincerity of these claims, the politicians clearly understood that the war in Niger and the spreading tentacles of AFRICOM, the US military’s continental command, overseeing some 6,000 US troops spread across 24 African nations, were well-kept secrets as far as the American people are concerned. The Pentagon has made it clear that the military intervention in Africa’s Sahel region will only intensify. This was underscored by the statement of Niger’s prime minister, Brigi Rafini, that his government is prepared to allow US drones to carry out armed attacks on the country’s territory. Behind the lies and secrecy about troop deployments from West Africa, through the Middle East and into South Asia there is the bigger lie as to the purpose of these interventions, all of which are justified in the name of a never-ending “war on terror.” The Syrian intervention exposes the utter duplicity of this claim. The fact is that Washington has been a chief sponsor of terrorism against the Syrian people, funneling over $1 billion in arms and money to Islamist militias linked to Al Qaeda in a bloody war for regime-change. Its key regional allies, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey, poured in billions more to ignite a war that has killed hundreds of thousands and turned millions into refugees. The expansion of US deployments in Syria is directed not against ISIS, which has collapsed, but at seizing territory, particularly the oil fields of eastern Deir Ezzor province, in order to undermine the Assad government and combat the regional influence of its main allies, Iran and Russia. Similar considerations underlie the US intervention in Afghanistan, where American imperialism seeks to maintain its military hold over a strategic region bordering the oil-rich Caspian Basin, as well as the US presence in Niger. The latter is part of a broader attempt to counter China’s rise as the African continent’s chief trading partner through the use of US military force. All of these regional conflicts have the potential of metastasizing into a full-blown world war pitting US imperialism against nuclear-armed Russia and China. Despite the feigned shock of American senators over American military operations in Niger, there is no appetite within Congress to assert that body’s constitutional power to declare war, something it long ago surrendered to the White House and the Pentagon. At a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing Monday, the US defense secretary, Gen. “Mad Dog” Mattis, and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson made it clear that while Congress is welcome to pass a new Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) to provide a legal fig leaf for Washington’s global wars and interventions, they have no problem continuing the fiction that the 2001 AUMF passed in the wake of the September 11 terrorist attacks justifies all of these actions as well as any future acts of aggression. In the midst of a growing war danger, with the power to order military escalation placed firmly in the hands of a cabal of right-wing former and current generals, the Democratic Party has mounted no opposition to the Trump administration on the question of war. On the contrary, it has worked in tandem with the Pentagon and the CIA to wage a campaign of anti-Russia hysteria aimed at paving the way for a new and far more terrible conflagration. There exists within the US ruling establishment no constituency whatsoever for either reigning in the US military or upholding fundamental democratic rights. The struggle against war and the threat of dictatorship requires the building of a new mass antiwar movement based on a socialist program to mobilize the working class internationally against the capitalist system. Bill Van Auken -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Thu Nov 2 12:52:22 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2017 12:52:22 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] US military role in West Africa Message-ID: “They are waging war when necessary” Niger defense minister exposes US military role in West Africa By Eddie Haywood 2 November 2017 Making clear the October 4 ambush that killed four Green Berets is to be utilized as a pretext for a major escalation of American military operations in the region, Nigerien Defense Minister Kalla Mountari requested that the US deploy armed drones against reputed militants. During an interview with Reuters on Wednesday, Mountari said, “I asked them some weeks ago to arm them (the drones) and use them as needed.” When asked if Washington had granted the request, Mountari replied ominously, “Our enemies will find out.” Washington has claimed that the 800 US special forces personnel stationed in Niger are restricted to providing training and surveillance assistance to Nigerien forces and have no direct combat role. Shedding further light on the nature of the joint operation of October 4 conducted by the US elite troops with Nigerien forces, Mountari revealed that the team of 12 elite commandos and 30 Nigerien troops had been “right up to the Mali border and had neutralized some bandits” moments before the ambush took place. Further exposing Washington’s fraudulent claims of a non-combat role, Mountari said, “They [U.S.-Nigerien contingent] came back to Niger, they greeted the population, they gathered intelligence and it was inside the country, when they didn’t expect anything, that the attack happened.” This damning admission by the top military official in Niger not only exposes as a lie Washington’s claim that its elite soldiers have no direct combat role, but illustrates clearly that the US is spearheading the military offensive in the region. Mountari corroborated this, saying, “The Americans are not just exchanging information with us. They are waging war when necessary. We are working hand in hand. The clear proof is that the Americans and Nigeriens fell on the battlefield for the peace and security of our country.” The public announcement of the request for drone strikes comes as the Trump administration has agreed provide $60 million for a new UN-backed military offensive in West Africa, together with the completion of a $100 million drone facility in Agadez, Niger. When all these developments are taken together it must be presumed that a major US military onslaught is imminent in the resource rich region. The extent of US forces arrayed across the region has been highlighted by recent reports on the June murder of Green Beret Staff Sgt. Lance Melgar in a housing complex at the US embassy in neighboring Mali, suspected to have been carried out by two unidentified Navy Seals. The elite troops were part of the US counter-terrorism effort in Mali, charged with a mission similar to the one carried out by elite soldiers in Niger. Illustrating the murderous character of the type of operations carried out by the elite commandos deployed to the Sahel, Navy Seals were part of the special operation that conducted the 2011 raid on Osama Bin Laden’s compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan, in which the Al-Qaeda leader was killed. The US soldiers deployed to West Africa have been mostly drawn from elite military units, such as Navy Seals and Green Berets, which carry out Washington’s most secret and illegal operations around the globe, including assassination, counter-terrorism raids, special reconnaissance, unconventional warfare, psychological operations, and training of foreign troops. On Monday in an appearance before the United Nations Security Council, UN Ambassador Nikki Haley officially pledged $60 million towards the UN-authorized G5 Sahel force, a joint US-French-led military unit consisting of 5,000 military troops from the five West African countries of Burkina Faso, Chad, Mali, Mauritania, and Niger. In June, France drafted a resolution before the UN Security Council asking the body to fund G5 Sahel, as well as requesting the council grant the 5-nation force a sweeping mandate to use “any means necessary” to carry out its mission of neutralizing Islamist militants, drug smugglers, and human traffickers. The request for the designation of G5 Sahel as an offensive force bares similarity to the mandate granted to the UN Force Intervention Brigade formed in 2013 to neutralize the Rwandan M23 militia in Eastern Congo. Washington, in agreeing to provide funding for the G5 Sahel, sharply opposed the French proposition to give the force full authorization, arguing that the resolution was overly broad and unnecessary. Fundamental to Washington’ s opposition are concerns that France may gain a strategic advantage over the US in West Africa. US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson in announcing the funding pledge, elucidated Washington’s aim of geopolitical domination of the Sahel: “Defeating terrorism depends on making sure terrorist organizations cannot have safe havens on any continent. This is a fight we must win, and these funds will play a key role in achieving that mission.” Washington’s professed objective of “fighting Islamist rebels” deliberately leaves out the fact that these same Islamist militants wreaking havoc across the Sahel are the product of the US strategy of utilizing these same forces as a proxy army in the 2011 US/NATO war against Libya. Following the shattering of Libyan society and the assassination of the country’s leader Muammar Gaddafi, these fighters scattered across Northern Africa and throughout the Sahel. Behind the US escalation of its military offensive in the Sahel is the configuration of Washington’s broader imperialist design of securing Africa’s vast economic resources for the American capitalist elite, coming in direct competition with their European rivals who maintain significant economic interests in their former colonial holdings on the continent. Above all, Washington’s push for geostrategic dominance over West Africa is being driven by concerns over China’s expanded economic influence in the region, which Washington perceives as an intolerable intervention which can only be countered by military might. Beijing secured agreements with the Nigerien government in 2008 to extract the country’s oil deposits, acquiring the Agadem block near the border with Chad. Under the terms of the agreement, China’s state-owned China National Petroleum Company (CNPC) set out a plan for the construction of a refinery and a 2,000-mile pipeline for a capacity of 20,000 barrels per day. The author also recommends: Washington exploiting Green Beret deaths to escalate Africa intervention [27 October 2017] Why is the US at war in West Africa? [14 October 2017] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Thu Nov 2 14:10:20 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2017 14:10:20 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Col. Larry Wilkerson at the Code Pink Conference on war/ No holding back by Larry. Message-ID: Text provided below: NO ADVERTISING, GOVERNMENT OR CORPORATE FUNDING DONATE TODAY * Home * Special Programs * Member Benefits * About Us * Contact Us * Jobs * Log In * Subscribe to our Newsletter HOT TOPICS ▶ North Korea Target: Iran The Real Baltimore Reality Asserts Itself United Kingdom ________________________________ November 2, 2017 Code Pink Conference: Divest from the War Machine Larry Wilkerson: "We have become a national security state, that means our reason for existing is war and defense contractors are the merchants of death" ________________________________ Full Episode US Military [http://therealnews.com/media/trn_2017-10-01/codepink1021wilkerson-thumb.jpg] Code Pink Conference: Divest from the War Machine [http://therealnews.com/media/trn_2017-09-01/hpeltier0929boats-thumb.jpg] Study: Military Spending Ineffective for Creating Jobs [http://therealnews.com/media/trn_2017-09-01/dmonk0915warfare-thumb.jpg] Killer Robots: The War Over Artificial Intelligence [http://therealnews.com/media/trn_2016-10-01/mprysner1025veterans-thumb.jpg] War Vet: Reenlistment Bonuses a Pittance Compared to the Billions Wasted in Iraq [http://therealnews.com/media/trn_2014-11-01/rnaimanPANELpbennis1124hagel-thumb.jpg] Hagel Resigns - A Look at His Record [http://therealnews.com/media/trn_2014-06-01/cmejiapaneljbranum0611warresisters-thumb.jpg] Do U.S. Soldiers Have Restricted First Amendment Rights? [http://therealnews.com/permalinkedgraphics/video_page_banner.png] ________________________________ audio [Share to Facebook] [Share to Twitter] [http://therealnews.com/permalinkedgraphics/webml_share.png] [http://therealnews.com/t2/images/donate_btn.png] Thank you, The Real News does an excellent job - FedupwithR Log in and tell us why you support TRNN ________________________________ transcript [Code Pink Conference: Divest from the War Machine]LARRY WILKERSON: I've brought a whole lot of things with me. I don't know if I'm going to use a lot of them, but I was very intrigued by the scholarly, if you will, juxtaposition of what I take as your ultimate purpose and what has been the progress of that ultimate purpose in the past. My specialty in teaching, both in the nation's two most prestigious war colleges, in my view, the Naval War College at Newport and then the Marine Corps War College at Quantico, and my experience now for 12 years on three civilian campuses, longest at William and Mary, has led me to understand, I think, that scholarly division between Republican Empire. There was a lot of, shall we say, dastardly deeds done in the Republic, not least of which was from 1866 to 1890, the so-called Indian Wars where we ethnically cleansed over 100 Native American tribes, generally to extinction or reservations that one could say were worse than extinction and still are today. I'm not saying there were no crimes and ravages. In the war with Mexico, for example, was- Okay. The war with Mexico, for example, was as Lincoln said from the floor of the House of Representatives, an illegal war. He said, essentially, in his famous spot speech, "Show me the spot, Mr. President. Show me the spot," where Mexico invaded Texas because, as most historians know, it didn't. We just wanted that territory. Interestingly, a story you may not know, might be apocryphal but I doubt it, because records weren't too good at that time and communications weren't too speedy. When Winfield Scott got to Mexico City, the President asked him by courier, "Should we keep it all?" Scott said, "Good Lord, no, Mr. President. You don't want this place." All we took was Texas and a land equivalent of the Louisiana Purchase from Mexico, including, most prominently, the most prosperous state in the Union today, a populous state, a state that has the fourth largest economy in the world and, after Brexit, will probably pass the U.K. and have the third largest economy in the world, California, which I expect anytime in the next decade, perhaps before I go to my grave if I'm lucky, to leave this Union. Were I California, I would. I was giving a talk at Iowa State University recently, and a gentleman in the back stood up and took some objection to one of my comments and said, "What do you mean, the electoral college is a vestige of slavery and inhibits pure democracy? What do you mean? I'm from Wyoming and it has 400,000 and I can't stand up to that 30 million state next to me called California." I said, "Can I answer you as a corporate executive would answer you? Get thee into California." I would never tolerate the existence of Wyoming with two senators when California sits beside it with two senators. I would never tolerate it. If I were a businessman, I would say to Wyoming, "Get into California because that's the only way I could consolidate and make efficient and effective my government, my management, whatever you want to call it." That's how badly organized the United States of America is today, terribly organized. So terribly organized that now 40 percent of my Army comes from seven states. Forty percent comes from seven states. Alabama, with a population of 4.8 million, provides more recruits for your Army than Los Angeles, Chicago and New York, with a combined metropolitan population of over 25 million. In Alabama, the Reserve components tell me that almost every male is a member of the National Guard or the Reserve. A lot of women, too. West Virginia, the most obese state in the Union, provides an inordinate number of recruits. It is also one of the poorest states in the Union. Right now... of the 18- to 24-year-olds who would be eligible for the Selective Service System if we had a draft, cannot be drafted. They're too obese. Right now, one-third of that group cannot be drafted, cannot be recruited because they are intellectually incapable of passing the Armed Forces Aptitude Battery. My Army, my Marine Corps and, by extension, the Navy, the Air Force, are all restricted when they go to recruit to one-third of the people who are out there and I will guarantee you that Princeton and Harvard and National Merit Scholars and sons and daughters of Congresspeople and so forth, ain't going to be recruited. What do we have in the Armed Forces today? We have those people, either because of poverty in most cases, or because of a patriotism that goes to their family experience with the Armed Forces, that's the most powerful proclivity to enlist, is their family, uncle, grandfather, brother, father, sister, whatever, has been in the military. Now that's falling off. With the Millennials, that's falling off a cliff. The Millennials have the least propensity to serve of any generation your Army or Marine Corps has looked at in its history. It is a propitious moment for people who would like to stop this country engaging in war after war, indeed, engaging in interminable war. What we have become, in scholarly terms, is a national security state. That's means our raison d'etre, our reason for existing, is war. You don't need a new term for defense contractors, they are merchants of death. It's that simple. That may be a little bit too pejorative in some channels if you're trying to be effective, but that is, in essence, what they are. Many of my friends, many of my former colleagues in the military, work for Lockheed Martin, work for General Dynamics, work for Raytheon, work for Boeing. I still talk with them. Their conversations go something like this, usually, if they have a conscience: "Well, I know what you're saying, Larry, but you know I have to support my family." You know I have to do this and I have to do that. There's reason there. What I usually come back with is what Colin Powell used to come back with, with me all the time when he said, "Never be a Beltway bandit or a defense contractor or anything associated there with." They don't pay as much. That's true. I have a student right now, that's the other group that goes to these people sometimes. I do my best to talk them out of it. I don't try to talk them out of going to the CIA, the NSA, the State Department, the Peace Corps or any of those places, though, because if we don't change the people there, we'll never change the actions there. I don't try to talk my students out of that but, generally speaking, when my colleagues in the defense contract industry tell me that they're making lots of money, they'll also tell me how they're making it. You haven't heard anything until you hear these people, and some of my students, too, who are now revealing to me after six or seven years with Booz Allen Hamilton, Halliburton and so forth, what goes on. The latest boondoggle is cyber warfare. I'm sitting down in a Starbucks with one of my former students, really bright guy, former E-6 in the Army, went to William and Mary his last two years on the GI Bill, smart kid. Came from Colombia, his mother still lives in the mountains north of Bogota, but every bit an American citizen and, in fact, probably more an American citizen than three-quarters of the people I know in the Republican Party who were born here and live here. He says to me, "You know, I may have to leave." I said, "Sebastian, you're making a lot of money." He said, "No, I may have to leave because you won't believe what's going on." I said, "Sebastian, yes I would. I've been there, done that, I know what goes on." This is the new terrorist industrial complex, as Colin Powell coined it a few years ago. This is the new one, the cyber terrorist complex. They're going to kill us through our computers. That may well be true, but that doesn't mean we need $5-billion-programs that we sell to the Defense Department or others that are as effective as nothing. That is to say, they're boondoggles. It reminds me of the time when a Senate staffer came into my office when I was Chief of Staff at the State Department. This was an epiphany for me in this regard. I knew things were going on, but I had no idea of the proportions of the things going on. He said to me, "You know we're getting ready to vote in my committee on a $100-billion-plus, and we know the cost overruns are going to be at least that much, so call it $200-billion program for a new family of satellites." He said, "There is no one in the staff or on the committee who has a clue what the consortium of defense contractors, who are building these satellites, are talking about." Led by Lockheed Martin but, increasingly now, what Lockheed, Boeing and others will do is they'll be the prime and then they'll hire three or four of the others as subs, so this was a consortium of the last remaining big six, if you will, of defense contractors. I said, "So you don't even know how to ask questions, right?" He said, "Right. Of all the staffers on this committee, I'm the only one who has any experience at all with the NRO, the National Reconnaissance Office, and satellites in specific, and I don't even know the right questions to ask, I don't know the right points to ask elaboration on and so forth and so on. I am lost, too. What do you think I should do?" I said, "Obviously, you can't see me because you know that Colin Powell has some really powerful bona fides with the Congress and you're trying to get me to go in and get Secretary Powell to talk to the committee about this." "Bingo," he said. I said, "Well, I'll try. I'll do what I can. I don't know if it'll be successful, but I think what you need really fast is a stop. Don't go any further, and let me tell you as a military man right now, I don't see the good that those $5-billion-apiece satellites are doing for us to the price that they cost." We had a real discussion about cost-effectiveness, about the ratio between the price for the instrument and the product that the instrument produced. We this same argument when we were abrogating the anti-ballistic missile treaty, solely on our own. We said, ballistic missile defense? Think about this for a minute, now. Ballistic missile defense was going to cost, at that time, about $100 billion. One hundred billion the Armed Forces needed for lots of other things, everything from mop gear for potential chemical defense to tanks and other weapons. There was absolutely no engineering guarantee that ballistic missile defense would work. There still isn't. I don't know what the total now is. Bill can probably tell you better than I, but I guess it's well over $100 billion in total expenditure. Military fought it tooth and nail because they knew the other things that they needed, and they knew this money would take from those other things. Then, all of a sudden, you had to create this ballistic missile defense office, and then it just grew and grew and grew and now your government is confronted with a situation that it may be embarrassed too majorly when someone shoots a group of missiles and it fails. My prediction is it will fail. Bill Perry, former Secretary of Defense, as far as I know, the only one who ever served as Secretary of Defense who was an engineer, a real engineer. Said to me one time, "I've done the study, Larry. I've done the study. We've never achieved more than .19 kill against any airborne target, never." We've played with that a little bit as we got four-barrel Gatling guns that would shoot at 4,000 rounds per minute and we got missile and so forth and so on, but at the same time, the platforms got faster, they're defenses got better and so forth, so we're still around .02." Imagine 10 missiles, nuclear warhead-equipped, coming at you and you stop two. The other eight get through. Have you spent $100 billion for that, especially when you needed that money elsewhere? Yet, you hear nothing of that today, except every now and then around the fringes, as yesterday, there was an article in the mainstream press about, what if it doesn't work? The egg on the face of some people? We'll come up with something. We'll come up with something, just as we've done during the testing of this system. We'll say, well, this part was not right or this part was not right. We've fixed this, we've fixed that. That's where we've come to in this country. That's what we've come to. We've come to spending trillions of your taxpayer dollars without the expertise, even, to justify that expenditure even on a cost-effectiveness basis. Your money is going out the door. Brown University convinced me, and I've been there and looked at their stats, that we've spend $4 trillion since 9-11. The official, official total, is about $2.7. We have spent that money, your taxpayer dollars. If you stretched it to the moon, it would probably go and come back twice with $100 bills. That's how much money it is. We spent that money on the probability of your dying from a terrorist attack, which is about, statistically, the same probability as your dying from a lightning strike. Go look at the Cato Institute's graphs on that. You're more likely to die falling down the stairs, especially if you're like me, over 65. You're more likely to die in an auto accident by far, and yet we spent $2.7 trillion on this phenomenon. Colin Powell was right, it's the terrorist industrial military complex now, and soon to be the cyber terrorist industrial military complex. The last time we really tried to do anything about this phenomenon called war that was comprehensive, even, you might say, global, was, as you all know, the Kellogg Briand Pact. I was reminded of that in Chicago recently at a Veterans for Peace conference. It's quite a remarkable document. I recommend you all go back and read it. It's very short, it's right here. I'd read it to you, but I don't want to bore you. The signatories are, besides our Republic, under Woodrow Wilson, one would doubt that it was a Republic, and the Imperial Empire of Japan, the sort of Parliamentary Monarchical Empire of Great Britain, and so forth. They all agreed to renounce war in language, even though it's very short, language that's really beautiful. 1928, I believe, it was concluded and then in 1929 in Washington, we had a ceremony and made our signature apparent to all the American people. Then in 1931, one of the signatories, Japan, went into Manchuria and established the puppet state of Manchukuo and, arguably, began the hot part of the Pacific war that would result in their defeat in 1945. It didn't work. Recently, I got myself very heavily involved in what you might call a very focused, pointed, specific effort to do the same thing with regard to the most brutal war and, remember, Syria's still going on, on the planet right now. That's the Saudi UAE war in Yemen, where more than 500,000 people, yep, might die in the next weeks or so from a combination of cholera and starvation, where the Saudis and the UAE are bombing almost everything, including the port and the cranes that offload food and water at that port. The are blockading, navally, the ships with cranes that we have provided as replacement cranes from landing and being reconstructed so that the food and water can be offloaded. It's a brutal war, a brutal war. I'm over with the Quakers, Friends Committee for National Legislation, a very effective lobby group. I found that out when we were lobbying for the Iran Nuclear Agreement for President Obama. I'm over with them and I'm in, we said it, we're going, we're going to do it, Republican offices. We already had two Republicans, one from Kentucky and one from North Carolina, on the bill and we had two Democrats on the bill, Mark Pocan and Ro Khanna from California, and we had 26 co-sponsors amongst the Democrats and now we were attacking the Republicans. We went to the Senate and the House. Our vehicle was something called House Concurrent Resolution 81. What it did was it invoked the Constitution of the United States with regard to the war power. Specifically, that abdication of that power, partial abdication by the Congress in 1972-73 with the War Powers Act. We used that act to get privileged status for the bill, which means it must go out of committee to the floor of the House, it must be voted on, to say the war in Yemen that the United States is participating in, constitutes an illegal action under the War Powers Act by the United States. Guess what? That was President Obama, not President Trump. Some of my audiences are somewhat shocked by that. The excuse at the time that President Obama offered was that he had punished Saudi Arabia so badly with the Iran Nuclear Agreement, now looking more defunct than ever, that he had to do something with the Saudi royals or he'd lose them. I would have said, "Mr. President, lose the goddamned bastards." Here is Donald Trump on the day he decides for domestic political purposes, as the German Foreign Minister carefully pointed out, to decertify the nuclear agreement with Iran. Here he is, this is a quote almost, might get the order backwards, but the words are right. "Iran is spreading death, destruction and chaos across the globe." Saudi Arabia is spreading death, destruction and chaos across the globe, Mr. President. Those guys you did the sword dance with, those guys who had more to do with 9-11 than any other state actor in the world, those guys who are still spreading Wahhabist, Salafist terrorist attitude from madrassa to madrassa from Pakistan to the Philippines, those guys with whom the United States has been so embedded that I used to go to parties featuring Prince Bandar at his residence, where I ate off gold with gold utensils and listened to Roberta Flack warble in my ear. My wife turned to me and said, "Let's leave. This is the most ostentatious display of greed and obscenity I have ever been in. Let's leave," and we did. You saw Bandar in the film there? Bandar, in my view, is one of the most corrupt human beings and evil people who ever tread this earth. Many of his Saudi compatriots are. I'd say the same thing about the current heir apparent, MBS, as he's called in acronym, Mohammad bin Salman, who started this bloody brutal war in Yemen for no other purpose, really, than Saudi Arabia wanted to show it had a pair, and got the UAE to come along with it because the Emirates are always with the Saudis. We cast off the most populous, cohesive country in the region, a country whose young people, and most of them are young people, virtually lust for what we could give them, what the world could give them economically, financially and so forth. A country whose people are not indisposed to us, except at the top, a country that is the natural hegemon in the Persian Gulf. We testified to that for 26 years when the Shah was our man. We cast them off for this corrupt, venal, terrorist-supporting bunch of dudes in Riyadh. This is unconscionable. Your foreign policy, your security policy is not only dominated by the merchants of death and the military industrial university think tank complex, it is dominated by idiots. This is what really troubles me today, it's because they are idiots. That's not to say they aren't smart. Richard Perle, Bill Kristol, Nikki Haley at the United Nations, all those neo-conservatives are relatively smart, but smart is not necessarily what we require. What we require is people with a respect for the decent opinions of mankind and a respect for the American people, less those 48 million Dominionist Christians out there, who worship a Christ I never met in the Bible or elsewhere, Mike Pence, our Vice President, being one most prominent of them. If you lust for Trump, you'll love Pence. How did we get here? How did we get to this point where you have a man who's fought in three wars, who's been in the military, served nine presidents, seven of them in uniform, two of them in mufti, and I'm telling you, the country is in grave peril, grave peril, as much peril as it's been in, in my 72 years on this planet, 50 of them I like to think...years. What do we do about this? How can we do something about what's happening because I'm telling you, there are two outcomes and history screams this. My students say, wait, how can you talk about dismemberment of the state? My God, one of the most powerful forces in human history for 5,000 years has been states falling apart, whether they're monarchical empires or they're democratic empires and, by the way, we aren't a democracy, haven't been for some time. Not sure we ever were. Mark Twain once remarked, "You know, if voting were so important, they wouldn't let us do it." He was onto something. At least we had sort of the elasticity of democracy. The people could rise up in virtuous anger and it did make a difference. The last time I saw it, and President Obama himself said this to me, with John Kerry sitting right beside him in the Roosevelt Room, and four or five senators and several representatives said the same thing to me about the Hill. When President Obama was being pressed by John Kerry to put U.S. ground forces into Syria, major U.S. ground forces, they were getting ready to do it and, all of a sudden, the telephones rang off the hook. The cards and letters kept flowing in. The emails flowed in, the constituent visits picked up to one point where a senator told me, "I've never seen anything like it and I've been here 22 years." The American people said, "No," and both the President and the Congress took heed and there were no major ground forces going into Syria. It does work, but it's got to happen and it's got to happen in a focused, effective way. How would you do that today? Well, you're working on that. You're working on a long-term strategy? I'm sure you've got some short-term versions of it, too. One of the things I think is important right now is this resolution. This resolution is the camel's nose under the tent. This resolution could embarrass the bejesus out of the Senate and the House. What Massie from Kentucky a Republican, said to me, I can't say it exactly because I'd be divulging words in confidence, but what he said in essence was, I just want the opportunity to read this bill on the floor of the House of Representatives and have people have to listen. It is a very short, it's only three pages, a very specific bill. It does not poke fingers in the eyes of the Saudis or the UAE, except indirectly, what it does is say, Mr. President, you are involved in an illegal war and the Congress says stop. The people's representatives say stop. Even if he only just gets to read it and the media picks up on it, then we start something. We start something that could possibly bring the war power back into the 535 people who constitute the people, where it should be with regard to the Constitution. That would be a great start, in my view. That would be a tremendous start to getting people in the country and, most importantly, in the Congress, to thinking about how much power they relinquish to the chief executive. Believe me, I've seen that. In the three presidents I've served closely, I have seen how that power has gone to the White House in such a way, for example, that in 2002 it produced a nation willing to torture other human beings. At the end of November, I'll be a part of a commission in North Carolina. God bless the North Carolinians in this respect, some of them, anyway. We've been after Burr, the North Carolinian at the head of the Intelligence Committee now, we've written in the Charlotte Observer, the Raleigh newspapers and everything, let's fire that bastard, get him out of there. He suppressed the torture report. You would fall off your chair if you read that report. That Americans did what is in that report is reprehensible, unconscionable and would devastate you if you read it. He suppressed that and we may never get it out now, because they've tied the few copies that are still in existence up in legal paraphernalia that will keep them from your eyes for probably at least 25 to 30 years. We tortured people viciously in the name of freedom, justice and the American way. We rendered people and North Carolina was participant par excellence, because the CIA flew out of North Carolina airports with North Carolina airplanes. We're having this hearing in Raleigh the 30th of November, the 1st of December, and we are going to, as best we can, expose North Carolina and by that, expose the United States. We've got such stellar people as Alberto Mora, maybe William H. Taft IV and others coming, Powell's lawyer at the time, maybe others coming down to testify and to participate in these hearings. We don't expect to get anybody, President Obama wouldn't do it, to reopen this business. What we're going to do is force at least the North Carolinians to recognize their complicity in this dastardly business. This is incredible, what we did. If there was one issue, one issue that broke my back with regard to keeping my mouth shut, which is the tradition in the military, no matter how many crimes you see, no matter how many crimes you might have participated in, you go to your grave in silence. That's the military protocol, you're not supposed to speak out. The thing that broke my back was torture. I simply couldn't believe it. When Colin Powell walked into my office in 2004 and said to me, "There are some horrible photographs going to come out about Abu Ghraib." "Where's that?" I said. "Oh, it's that prison Saddam Hussein used to use in Iraq." "Oh, yeah, I remember it. What kind of photographs?" He described some of them to me and, by the way, you and the American people haven't seen the worst ones. President Obama again, made a decision after George Bush made a decision, not to expose those photographs to you. It would create too many terrorists. Well, my God, the drone strikes are creating the terrorists, so why the hell worry about some photographs? When he told me what was happening, he said also to me, "I want you to join Admiral Church in the Pentagon, Don Rumsfeld has appointed him his investigator, I want you to be mine. Will Taft will handle the legal issues, but I want you to do the tick-tock. I want you to do the chronology. I want you to tell me how we got to this point." For the next six months, I did everything I could to build what I called then a dossier on U.S. complicity in torture. When I came to share things with Admiral Church, it was a one-way street. Admiral Church took everything I gave him that I could get my hands on and gave me nothing. Then when his report came out, I read it with great eagerness, to find that throughout the report were things that echoed my own findings, but at the end, he concluded that even though torture was widespread amongst contractors, the CIA and the military, there was no clear policy implication. Here you've got torture all over the place, in three different entities, and you say they just did it because in Rumsfeld's famous words, they were just "bad apples." There was no policy implication. Even Rick Sanchez, a three-star in charge in Iraq later, had real remorse and said, "I should never have done that. I should never have passed those instructions on. I should never have let that guy from Guantanamo come into Iraq." By the way, that guy has been indicted, General Miller, he's been indicted in France and he can't travel anymore, I guarantee you, because the French will pick him up and try him. Recently I was in Paris and we were talking about that very same individual, along with several other things. The third day there, we had the opportunity to talk with a prosecutor from the International Criminal Court, a very competent young lady. She told us, "We've got a case working in Afghanistan. We're going to bring war crimes charges against the Afghan government, against the Taliban and against the United States of America." I said, "Okay, you just killed it." She said, "We know that, and you know what they've just done? They've just cut our budget because of that." I said, "How big was the cut?" "It was pretty big, so we can only take the very biggest, most difficult complex and what we consider to be the worst, cases on, so we're probably not going to pursue that one." I said, "That's the way your country does business." That's the way your leadership business in the world now, whether it's human rights, human dignity, war, you name it, we are, in the eyes of at least 3.5 billion people on this globe, that's 50 percent, in poll after poll, the greatest terrorist organization the world has ever seen. That's where we are, so you know why I speak out. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Thu Nov 2 14:38:50 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2017 14:38:50 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] News Gazoo against BDS Message-ID: By trying to shore up the collapsing Zionist criminal apartheid regime in Israel, the University of Illiniwaks has once again placed itself on the wrong side of History and Principle along with Chief Illiniwak. Fab D in BDS. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Thu Nov 2 14:38:50 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2017 14:38:50 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] News Gazoo against BDS Message-ID: By trying to shore up the collapsing Zionist criminal apartheid regime in Israel, the University of Illiniwaks has once again placed itself on the wrong side of History and Principle along with Chief Illiniwak. Fab D in BDS. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From galliher at illinois.edu Thu Nov 2 14:47:03 2017 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2017 09:47:03 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] News Gazoo against BDS In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: And on the hundredth anniversary of the ‘Balfour Declaration’: > On Nov 2, 2017, at 9:38 AM, Boyle, Francis A wrote: > > By trying to shore up the collapsing Zionist criminal apartheid regime in Israel, the University of Illiniwaks has once again placed itself on the wrong side of History and Principle along with Chief Illiniwak. > Fab > D in BDS. > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign, IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) From galliher at illinois.edu Thu Nov 2 14:47:03 2017 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2017 09:47:03 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] News Gazoo against BDS In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: And on the hundredth anniversary of the ‘Balfour Declaration’: > On Nov 2, 2017, at 9:38 AM, Boyle, Francis A wrote: > > By trying to shore up the collapsing Zionist criminal apartheid regime in Israel, the University of Illiniwaks has once again placed itself on the wrong side of History and Principle along with Chief Illiniwak. > Fab > D in BDS. > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign, IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) From fboyle at illinois.edu Thu Nov 2 14:50:58 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2017 14:50:58 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] News Gazoo against BDS In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Yeah pretty pathetic aren't they all. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -----Original Message----- From: Carl G. Estabrook [mailto:galliher at illinois.edu] Sent: Thursday, November 2, 2017 9:47 AM To: Boyle, Francis A Cc: David Green ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay ; David Johnson ; Mildred O'brien ; David Swanson Subject: Re: News Gazoo against BDS And on the hundredth anniversary of the ‘Balfour Declaration’: > On Nov 2, 2017, at 9:38 AM, Boyle, Francis A wrote: > > By trying to shore up the collapsing Zionist criminal apartheid regime in Israel, the University of Illiniwaks has once again placed itself on the wrong side of History and Principle along with Chief Illiniwak. > Fab > D in BDS. > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign, IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) From fboyle at illinois.edu Thu Nov 2 14:50:58 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2017 14:50:58 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] News Gazoo against BDS In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Yeah pretty pathetic aren't they all. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -----Original Message----- From: Carl G. Estabrook [mailto:galliher at illinois.edu] Sent: Thursday, November 2, 2017 9:47 AM To: Boyle, Francis A Cc: David Green ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay ; David Johnson ; Mildred O'brien ; David Swanson Subject: Re: News Gazoo against BDS And on the hundredth anniversary of the ‘Balfour Declaration’: > On Nov 2, 2017, at 9:38 AM, Boyle, Francis A wrote: > > By trying to shore up the collapsing Zionist criminal apartheid regime in Israel, the University of Illiniwaks has once again placed itself on the wrong side of History and Principle along with Chief Illiniwak. > Fab > D in BDS. > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign, IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) From fboyle at illinois.edu Thu Nov 2 15:49:21 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2017 15:49:21 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] ICEman UI Yale Law Mafia Dean Amar Aligns with Trump/Sessions against Sanctuary Cities & 11 Million Undocumented Migrants Message-ID: Yeah well in 1986 I convinced Urbana to become a Sanctuary City which it continued to be for 30 years and then with all your help got that reaffirmed in 2006—according to USA Today the only Sanctuary City between Chicago and New Orleans until Governor Rauner—a Conservative Republican— signed legislation that turned the entire State of Illinois into a Sanctuary State. Amar can stuff that up his bucket. Maybe Amar is tired of being Dean at the No. 44 Law School in the country and is gunning for a slot in the Trump/Sessions Department of Injustice or ICE—become an ICEman? Fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Justia Verdict [mailto:verdictsupport at justia.com] Sent: Thursday, November 2, 2017 10:08 AM To: Boyle, Francis A Subject: Vikram David Amar - The Need for Clearer Understanding of the Basic Federalism Doctrines Concerning Sanctuary Cities and Other Federal-State Flashpoin Illinois Law dean and professor Vikram David Amar explains the federalism doctrines implicated by Attorney General Sessions’ attempt to deny funding to sanctuary jurisdictions. Amar points to lower court decisions that reflect a misunderstanding of the doctrines and calls upon federal courts and their law clerks to better understand and apply not just the nuanced technical details of various specific doctrines, but the overall federalism big picture as well. Click here to view in your browser if you are having trouble viewing this email. [Verdict - Legal Analysis and commentary from Justia.] The Need for Clearer Understanding of the Basic Federalism Doctrines Concerning Sanctuary Cities and Other Federal-State Flashpoints Vikram David Amar Nov 2, 2017 [https://i2.wp.com/verdict.justia.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/shutterstock_579926992.jpg?quality=90&resize=426%2C350&strip=all&fit=1000%25&ssl=1] As many of the lawsuits against Trump administration policies brought by state and local entities move towards their resolution on the merits in both federal district and appellate courts, it is becoming clear that courts are confused about some basic ways that various aspects of the doctrine of federalism—that is, the proper relationship between the federal and state governments—relate to each other. Case in point: the dispute between various cities and the Trump Department of Justice (DOJ) concerning Attorney General Sessions’ attempts to deny federal funding to so-called “sanctuary cities.” The Trump administration believes that jurisdictions that hold themselves out as sanctuaries facilitate crime. (The trial that began last week of Jose Ines Garcia Zarate, an undocumented man accused of murdering San Francisco woman and American citizen Kate Stienle two years ago, is directing a lot of publicity to the administration’s stance here.) Based on his views, President Trump issued an executive order shortly after taking office in which he directed relevant cabinet officers to deprive “sanctuary jurisdictions” of federal funding and to “take [additional] appropriate enforcement action” against them. That is the framework within which Attorney General Sessions has been trying to deny funding to sanctuary jurisdictions who seek grants under the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program, which supports state and local law enforcement with money for equipment, training, and personnel. In particular, the federal DOJ is requiring all funding applicants to: (1) provide federal agents with advanced notice of the scheduled release from state custody of certain individuals suspected of immigration violations; (2) provide the feds physical access to non-citizens who are being housed in state and local detention facilities; and (3) certify compliance with 8 U.S.C. § 1373. Section 1373, in pertinent part, provides that “a . . . State, or local government entity or official may not prohibit, or in any way restrict, any government entity or official from [maintaining,] sending to, or receiving from, [federal immigration authorities] information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual.” Thus, the statute prevents a state or local government from having a policy or practice that forbids maintaining or giving to the feds information on the immigration status of individuals. Many cities have challenged one or more of these conditions, arguing that the federal government exceeds its powers under the Tenth Amendment by imposing such requirements on states and localities. There are two possible federal responses to this Tenth Amendment challenge. An Argument for Authority Under Article I to Regulate Immigration First, the feds can and do argue that they have authority to adopt these conditions pursuant to their power under Article I of the Constitution to regulate immigration, naturalization, and foreign affairs. As a general matter, this power is quite broad and may very well suffice to support the federal government’s requirements in this realm, but states and cities have a rejoinder here—a series of cases the Supreme Court decided in the 1990s that, collectively, create a rule known as the “anti-commandeering” doctrine. The basic idea is that, notwithstanding broad Article I powers of the federal government, the Tenth Amendment forbids the federal government coercing states and localities into providing affirmative enforcement assistance to federal authorities. In this setting, states and cities argue that the anti-commandeering principle prevents the feds from requiring state and local authorities to affirmatively provide information about or access to individuals who may have committed immigration law violations. Perhaps the most important Supreme Court case on this point is Printz v. United States (1997), in which the Supreme Court held that the federal government could not require state and local law enforcement officers to conduct background checks on gun purchasers as part of the implementation of a federal law (the Brady gun control law). “The Federal Government,” the Court said, “may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program.” According to many cities, this is precisely what Attorney General Sessions is trying to do. There are many questions about whether Printz would continue to command majority support at the Supreme Court today, whether there might be an “immigration exception” to the Printz doctrine, and whether Printz by its own terms even applies to information-only demands by the feds (which would mean § 1373 would be ok, regardless of whether the demands for access to persons in state and local detention would be). If courts conclude that statutes like § 1373 do not constitute commandeering and are permissible under Printz (for any of the reasons in the previous sentence) then the feds can require that states and cities comply with them, pure and simple, under the Article I powers (concerning immigration, naturalization and foreign affairs) mentioned earlier. An Argument for Authority Under the Spending Clause But if one concludes that something like § 1373 constitutes impermissible commandeering in violation of federalism principles laid out in Printz, then the federal government would try to overcome the cities’ Tenth Amendment objection by relying on a second, different basis for federal power—the power the feds enjoy to attach strings to federal funding under the so-called Spending Clause of Article I. The Spending Clause in some circumstances gives the federal government power to achieve what it cannot directly command by creating monetary incentives for state and local governments. The spending authority, as it has been interpreted by the Court, is limited, however, in that it requires that any conditions the feds impose on the funding: (1) be clearly communicated to the states/cities up front, so the recipients can knowingly decide whether to accept the deal; (2) be rationally related to the purposes of federal funding in the first place; and (3) not require the states to do something that violates any other part of the Constitution. In addition, the Court has recently held, the funding at issue cannot be something on which states/cities have come to rely to such a great extent in the past so that they really have no choice but to accept any new strings that are attached. If these four aspects are satisfied, then the funding conditions are valid requirements under Article I and do not violate the Tenth Amendment, whether or not the feds could mandate compliance with the conditions in the absence of the funding carrot. Misapplication or Misunderstanding by Lower Federal Courts All of this is chock full of doctrinal details to be sure, but is nonetheless relatively clear and straightforward, even with all the steps involved. Except that some lower courts don’t seem to understand it. For example, in a ruling last month by a district court in the City of Chicago’s challenge to Attorney General Sessions’ insistence that Chicago comply with § 1367, the court conceived of the inquiry into § 1373’s constitutionality as follows: [The AG’s insistence on] compliance [with § 1373] must be proper under the Spending Clause, and 1373 must pass constitutional muster [under the Printz analysis.] As the City has not argued that the compliance condition violates the Spending Clause, the Court now turns to the Section 1373 question [under the Printz line of cases]. The court ultimately concluded that § 1373 did not run afoul of the Printz anti-commandeering principle (for reasons similar to some that were mentioned above), so running the statute through the Printz analysis did not in the end cause the federal government any harm. But the key point is that once it is conceded that compliance with § 1373 to obtain federal money is a valid condition on funding under the Spending Clause doctrine, it is irrelevant whether 1373’s mandate—in the absence of a conditional funding scheme—would violate the Printz anti-commandeering rule. Passing muster under Spending Clause doctrine and passing muster under the Printz doctrine are alternative ways for the federal government to prevail. If it wins on either, it wins. It needn’t win on both, the way the district court erroneously thought. Put another way, if a federal condition on funding is permissible under Spending Clause doctrine, it cannot, by definition, be an impermissible commandeering, since (by hypothesis) states have an option of turning the deal down. Hence, there is no federal mandate that could be considered to be commandeering. The point may seem nit-picky, but it’s not. It goes to the fundamental ways in which different yet related doctrines (in this case Spending Clause doctrine and the anti-commandeering principle) involving federal-state relations fit together. If federal courts are going to be able to enforce the limits that federalism creates on the national government, while at the same time permit the feds to operate in their own proper sphere (and inspire confidence in the public as they accomplish both objectives), they (and their law clerks) need to understand not just nuanced technical details of various specific doctrines, but the overall federalism big picture as well. [https://justatic.com/v/20171005a/verdict/images/authors/thumbs/amar.jpg] Follow @prof_amar Vikram David Amar is the Iwan Foundation Professor of Law and the Dean at the University of Illinois College of Law. Previously, he served as the Associate Dean for Academic Affairs and Professor of Law at the University of California, Davis School of Law. He is a 1988 graduate of the Yale Law School and a former clerk to Justice Harry Blackmun. He is a co-author, along with William Cohen and Jonathan Varat, of a major constitutional law casebook, and a co-author of several volumes of the Wright & Miller treatise on federal practice and procedure. Before teaching, Professor Amar spent a few years at the firm of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher. RECENT ARTICLES The Troublingly Widening Gyre of Complicity Claims Cornell University law professor Michael C. Dorf describes a principle most famously articulated by Thomas Jefferson, under which there should be a right to avoid providing financial support for causes one strongly opposes. Dorf argues that the Jeffersonian principle has lately run amok. He points out that the government’s argument against allowing a seventeen-year-old undocumented immigrant in federal custody to obtain a privately funded abortion is but one example of the government’s too-broad definition of “facilitation” of acts with which it disagrees. Dorf argues that adoption of such a position would convert every objectionable private exercise of rights into government participation.... Read More Body Worn Cameras: The Dog That Won’t Bark Cornell University law professor Joe Margulies comments on the findings of a recent study of police body cameras that body-worn cameras made no statistically significant difference in how police go about their jobs. Margulies points out that the story is not in the absence of a difference, but in people’s surprise to the absence of a difference. Indeed, it is the routine, not the anomalous, that requires reform.... Read More What Needs to Happen Next for the #MeToo Campaign to Fulfill Its Potential Professor and resident senior fellow in the Fox Leadership Program at the University of Pennsylvania, Marci A. Hamilton praises the #MeToo campaign and explains what more needs to happen to meaningfully address the pervasive issues of sexual assault and abuse against children and adults. Hamilton points to the brave actions by Olympic gymnast McKayla Maroney and elaborates on what must change in our society to empower victims and hold those in power accountable.... Read More [Forward this email.] Have friends who like law? Forward this email. [Like Verdict on Facebook] Like Verdict for legal discussions on Facebook. [Follow @verdictjustia on Twitter] Follow @verdictjustia for news and updates on Twitter. [Justia] Contact Us | Privacy Policy [Facebook][Twitter][LinkedIn][Justia][GooglePlus] You received this email because you have subscribed to the Verdict News E-Mail Feed. . Justia | 1380 Pear Ave, Suite 2B, Mountain View, CA 94043 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Thu Nov 2 15:49:21 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2017 15:49:21 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] ICEman UI Yale Law Mafia Dean Amar Aligns with Trump/Sessions against Sanctuary Cities & 11 Million Undocumented Migrants Message-ID: Yeah well in 1986 I convinced Urbana to become a Sanctuary City which it continued to be for 30 years and then with all your help got that reaffirmed in 2006—according to USA Today the only Sanctuary City between Chicago and New Orleans until Governor Rauner—a Conservative Republican— signed legislation that turned the entire State of Illinois into a Sanctuary State. Amar can stuff that up his bucket. Maybe Amar is tired of being Dean at the No. 44 Law School in the country and is gunning for a slot in the Trump/Sessions Department of Injustice or ICE—become an ICEman? Fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Justia Verdict [mailto:verdictsupport at justia.com] Sent: Thursday, November 2, 2017 10:08 AM To: Boyle, Francis A Subject: Vikram David Amar - The Need for Clearer Understanding of the Basic Federalism Doctrines Concerning Sanctuary Cities and Other Federal-State Flashpoin Illinois Law dean and professor Vikram David Amar explains the federalism doctrines implicated by Attorney General Sessions’ attempt to deny funding to sanctuary jurisdictions. Amar points to lower court decisions that reflect a misunderstanding of the doctrines and calls upon federal courts and their law clerks to better understand and apply not just the nuanced technical details of various specific doctrines, but the overall federalism big picture as well. Click here to view in your browser if you are having trouble viewing this email. [Verdict - Legal Analysis and commentary from Justia.] The Need for Clearer Understanding of the Basic Federalism Doctrines Concerning Sanctuary Cities and Other Federal-State Flashpoints Vikram David Amar Nov 2, 2017 [https://i2.wp.com/verdict.justia.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/shutterstock_579926992.jpg?quality=90&resize=426%2C350&strip=all&fit=1000%25&ssl=1] As many of the lawsuits against Trump administration policies brought by state and local entities move towards their resolution on the merits in both federal district and appellate courts, it is becoming clear that courts are confused about some basic ways that various aspects of the doctrine of federalism—that is, the proper relationship between the federal and state governments—relate to each other. Case in point: the dispute between various cities and the Trump Department of Justice (DOJ) concerning Attorney General Sessions’ attempts to deny federal funding to so-called “sanctuary cities.” The Trump administration believes that jurisdictions that hold themselves out as sanctuaries facilitate crime. (The trial that began last week of Jose Ines Garcia Zarate, an undocumented man accused of murdering San Francisco woman and American citizen Kate Stienle two years ago, is directing a lot of publicity to the administration’s stance here.) Based on his views, President Trump issued an executive order shortly after taking office in which he directed relevant cabinet officers to deprive “sanctuary jurisdictions” of federal funding and to “take [additional] appropriate enforcement action” against them. That is the framework within which Attorney General Sessions has been trying to deny funding to sanctuary jurisdictions who seek grants under the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program, which supports state and local law enforcement with money for equipment, training, and personnel. In particular, the federal DOJ is requiring all funding applicants to: (1) provide federal agents with advanced notice of the scheduled release from state custody of certain individuals suspected of immigration violations; (2) provide the feds physical access to non-citizens who are being housed in state and local detention facilities; and (3) certify compliance with 8 U.S.C. § 1373. Section 1373, in pertinent part, provides that “a . . . State, or local government entity or official may not prohibit, or in any way restrict, any government entity or official from [maintaining,] sending to, or receiving from, [federal immigration authorities] information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual.” Thus, the statute prevents a state or local government from having a policy or practice that forbids maintaining or giving to the feds information on the immigration status of individuals. Many cities have challenged one or more of these conditions, arguing that the federal government exceeds its powers under the Tenth Amendment by imposing such requirements on states and localities. There are two possible federal responses to this Tenth Amendment challenge. An Argument for Authority Under Article I to Regulate Immigration First, the feds can and do argue that they have authority to adopt these conditions pursuant to their power under Article I of the Constitution to regulate immigration, naturalization, and foreign affairs. As a general matter, this power is quite broad and may very well suffice to support the federal government’s requirements in this realm, but states and cities have a rejoinder here—a series of cases the Supreme Court decided in the 1990s that, collectively, create a rule known as the “anti-commandeering” doctrine. The basic idea is that, notwithstanding broad Article I powers of the federal government, the Tenth Amendment forbids the federal government coercing states and localities into providing affirmative enforcement assistance to federal authorities. In this setting, states and cities argue that the anti-commandeering principle prevents the feds from requiring state and local authorities to affirmatively provide information about or access to individuals who may have committed immigration law violations. Perhaps the most important Supreme Court case on this point is Printz v. United States (1997), in which the Supreme Court held that the federal government could not require state and local law enforcement officers to conduct background checks on gun purchasers as part of the implementation of a federal law (the Brady gun control law). “The Federal Government,” the Court said, “may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program.” According to many cities, this is precisely what Attorney General Sessions is trying to do. There are many questions about whether Printz would continue to command majority support at the Supreme Court today, whether there might be an “immigration exception” to the Printz doctrine, and whether Printz by its own terms even applies to information-only demands by the feds (which would mean § 1373 would be ok, regardless of whether the demands for access to persons in state and local detention would be). If courts conclude that statutes like § 1373 do not constitute commandeering and are permissible under Printz (for any of the reasons in the previous sentence) then the feds can require that states and cities comply with them, pure and simple, under the Article I powers (concerning immigration, naturalization and foreign affairs) mentioned earlier. An Argument for Authority Under the Spending Clause But if one concludes that something like § 1373 constitutes impermissible commandeering in violation of federalism principles laid out in Printz, then the federal government would try to overcome the cities’ Tenth Amendment objection by relying on a second, different basis for federal power—the power the feds enjoy to attach strings to federal funding under the so-called Spending Clause of Article I. The Spending Clause in some circumstances gives the federal government power to achieve what it cannot directly command by creating monetary incentives for state and local governments. The spending authority, as it has been interpreted by the Court, is limited, however, in that it requires that any conditions the feds impose on the funding: (1) be clearly communicated to the states/cities up front, so the recipients can knowingly decide whether to accept the deal; (2) be rationally related to the purposes of federal funding in the first place; and (3) not require the states to do something that violates any other part of the Constitution. In addition, the Court has recently held, the funding at issue cannot be something on which states/cities have come to rely to such a great extent in the past so that they really have no choice but to accept any new strings that are attached. If these four aspects are satisfied, then the funding conditions are valid requirements under Article I and do not violate the Tenth Amendment, whether or not the feds could mandate compliance with the conditions in the absence of the funding carrot. Misapplication or Misunderstanding by Lower Federal Courts All of this is chock full of doctrinal details to be sure, but is nonetheless relatively clear and straightforward, even with all the steps involved. Except that some lower courts don’t seem to understand it. For example, in a ruling last month by a district court in the City of Chicago’s challenge to Attorney General Sessions’ insistence that Chicago comply with § 1367, the court conceived of the inquiry into § 1373’s constitutionality as follows: [The AG’s insistence on] compliance [with § 1373] must be proper under the Spending Clause, and 1373 must pass constitutional muster [under the Printz analysis.] As the City has not argued that the compliance condition violates the Spending Clause, the Court now turns to the Section 1373 question [under the Printz line of cases]. The court ultimately concluded that § 1373 did not run afoul of the Printz anti-commandeering principle (for reasons similar to some that were mentioned above), so running the statute through the Printz analysis did not in the end cause the federal government any harm. But the key point is that once it is conceded that compliance with § 1373 to obtain federal money is a valid condition on funding under the Spending Clause doctrine, it is irrelevant whether 1373’s mandate—in the absence of a conditional funding scheme—would violate the Printz anti-commandeering rule. Passing muster under Spending Clause doctrine and passing muster under the Printz doctrine are alternative ways for the federal government to prevail. If it wins on either, it wins. It needn’t win on both, the way the district court erroneously thought. Put another way, if a federal condition on funding is permissible under Spending Clause doctrine, it cannot, by definition, be an impermissible commandeering, since (by hypothesis) states have an option of turning the deal down. Hence, there is no federal mandate that could be considered to be commandeering. The point may seem nit-picky, but it’s not. It goes to the fundamental ways in which different yet related doctrines (in this case Spending Clause doctrine and the anti-commandeering principle) involving federal-state relations fit together. If federal courts are going to be able to enforce the limits that federalism creates on the national government, while at the same time permit the feds to operate in their own proper sphere (and inspire confidence in the public as they accomplish both objectives), they (and their law clerks) need to understand not just nuanced technical details of various specific doctrines, but the overall federalism big picture as well. [https://justatic.com/v/20171005a/verdict/images/authors/thumbs/amar.jpg] Follow @prof_amar Vikram David Amar is the Iwan Foundation Professor of Law and the Dean at the University of Illinois College of Law. Previously, he served as the Associate Dean for Academic Affairs and Professor of Law at the University of California, Davis School of Law. He is a 1988 graduate of the Yale Law School and a former clerk to Justice Harry Blackmun. He is a co-author, along with William Cohen and Jonathan Varat, of a major constitutional law casebook, and a co-author of several volumes of the Wright & Miller treatise on federal practice and procedure. Before teaching, Professor Amar spent a few years at the firm of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher. RECENT ARTICLES The Troublingly Widening Gyre of Complicity Claims Cornell University law professor Michael C. Dorf describes a principle most famously articulated by Thomas Jefferson, under which there should be a right to avoid providing financial support for causes one strongly opposes. Dorf argues that the Jeffersonian principle has lately run amok. He points out that the government’s argument against allowing a seventeen-year-old undocumented immigrant in federal custody to obtain a privately funded abortion is but one example of the government’s too-broad definition of “facilitation” of acts with which it disagrees. Dorf argues that adoption of such a position would convert every objectionable private exercise of rights into government participation.... Read More Body Worn Cameras: The Dog That Won’t Bark Cornell University law professor Joe Margulies comments on the findings of a recent study of police body cameras that body-worn cameras made no statistically significant difference in how police go about their jobs. Margulies points out that the story is not in the absence of a difference, but in people’s surprise to the absence of a difference. Indeed, it is the routine, not the anomalous, that requires reform.... Read More What Needs to Happen Next for the #MeToo Campaign to Fulfill Its Potential Professor and resident senior fellow in the Fox Leadership Program at the University of Pennsylvania, Marci A. Hamilton praises the #MeToo campaign and explains what more needs to happen to meaningfully address the pervasive issues of sexual assault and abuse against children and adults. Hamilton points to the brave actions by Olympic gymnast McKayla Maroney and elaborates on what must change in our society to empower victims and hold those in power accountable.... Read More [Forward this email.] Have friends who like law? Forward this email. [Like Verdict on Facebook] Like Verdict for legal discussions on Facebook. [Follow @verdictjustia on Twitter] Follow @verdictjustia for news and updates on Twitter. [Justia] Contact Us | Privacy Policy [Facebook][Twitter][LinkedIn][Justia][GooglePlus] You received this email because you have subscribed to the Verdict News E-Mail Feed. . Justia | 1380 Pear Ave, Suite 2B, Mountain View, CA 94043 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Thu Nov 2 15:58:20 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2017 15:58:20 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] ICEman UI Yale Law Mafia Dean Amar Aligns with Trump/Sessions against Sanctuary Cities & 11 Million Undocumented Migrants In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: And for the record, back in the mid-1980s, I was also personally involved in turning San Francisco into a Sanctuary City and Evanston into a Sanctuary City—which they both still are three decades later. Amar can stick all that where the sun don’t shine! Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Thursday, November 2, 2017 10:49 AM To: David Green ; C. G. ESTABROOK ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay ; David Johnson ; Mildred O'brien ; Estabrook, Carl G ; David Swanson Subject: ICEman UI Yale Law Mafia Dean Amar Aligns with Trump/Sessions against Sanctuary Cities & 11 Million Undocumented Migrants Yeah well in 1986 I convinced Urbana to become a Sanctuary City which it continued to be for 30 years and then with all your help got that reaffirmed in 2006—according to USA Today the only Sanctuary City between Chicago and New Orleans until Governor Rauner—a Conservative Republican— signed legislation that turned the entire State of Illinois into a Sanctuary State. Amar can stuff that up his bucket. Maybe Amar is tired of being Dean at the No. 44 Law School in the country and is gunning for a slot in the Trump/Sessions Department of Injustice or ICE—become an ICEman? Fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Justia Verdict [mailto:verdictsupport at justia.com] Sent: Thursday, November 2, 2017 10:08 AM To: Boyle, Francis A > Subject: Vikram David Amar - The Need for Clearer Understanding of the Basic Federalism Doctrines Concerning Sanctuary Cities and Other Federal-State Flashpoin Illinois Law dean and professor Vikram David Amar explains the federalism doctrines implicated by Attorney General Sessions’ attempt to deny funding to sanctuary jurisdictions. Amar points to lower court decisions that reflect a misunderstanding of the doctrines and calls upon federal courts and their law clerks to better understand and apply not just the nuanced technical details of various specific doctrines, but the overall federalism big picture as well. Click here to view in your browser if you are having trouble viewing this email. [Verdict - Legal Analysis and commentary from Justia.] The Need for Clearer Understanding of the Basic Federalism Doctrines Concerning Sanctuary Cities and Other Federal-State Flashpoints Vikram David Amar Nov 2, 2017 [https://i2.wp.com/verdict.justia.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/shutterstock_579926992.jpg?quality=90&resize=426%2C350&strip=all&fit=1000%25&ssl=1] As many of the lawsuits against Trump administration policies brought by state and local entities move towards their resolution on the merits in both federal district and appellate courts, it is becoming clear that courts are confused about some basic ways that various aspects of the doctrine of federalism—that is, the proper relationship between the federal and state governments—relate to each other. Case in point: the dispute between various cities and the Trump Department of Justice (DOJ) concerning Attorney General Sessions’ attempts to deny federal funding to so-called “sanctuary cities.” The Trump administration believes that jurisdictions that hold themselves out as sanctuaries facilitate crime. (The trial that began last week of Jose Ines Garcia Zarate, an undocumented man accused of murdering San Francisco woman and American citizen Kate Stienle two years ago, is directing a lot of publicity to the administration’s stance here.) Based on his views, President Trump issued an executive order shortly after taking office in which he directed relevant cabinet officers to deprive “sanctuary jurisdictions” of federal funding and to “take [additional] appropriate enforcement action” against them. That is the framework within which Attorney General Sessions has been trying to deny funding to sanctuary jurisdictions who seek grants under the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program, which supports state and local law enforcement with money for equipment, training, and personnel. In particular, the federal DOJ is requiring all funding applicants to: (1) provide federal agents with advanced notice of the scheduled release from state custody of certain individuals suspected of immigration violations; (2) provide the feds physical access to non-citizens who are being housed in state and local detention facilities; and (3) certify compliance with 8 U.S.C. § 1373. Section 1373, in pertinent part, provides that “a . . . State, or local government entity or official may not prohibit, or in any way restrict, any government entity or official from [maintaining,] sending to, or receiving from, [federal immigration authorities] information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual.” Thus, the statute prevents a state or local government from having a policy or practice that forbids maintaining or giving to the feds information on the immigration status of individuals. Many cities have challenged one or more of these conditions, arguing that the federal government exceeds its powers under the Tenth Amendment by imposing such requirements on states and localities. There are two possible federal responses to this Tenth Amendment challenge. An Argument for Authority Under Article I to Regulate Immigration First, the feds can and do argue that they have authority to adopt these conditions pursuant to their power under Article I of the Constitution to regulate immigration, naturalization, and foreign affairs. As a general matter, this power is quite broad and may very well suffice to support the federal government’s requirements in this realm, but states and cities have a rejoinder here—a series of cases the Supreme Court decided in the 1990s that, collectively, create a rule known as the “anti-commandeering” doctrine. The basic idea is that, notwithstanding broad Article I powers of the federal government, the Tenth Amendment forbids the federal government coercing states and localities into providing affirmative enforcement assistance to federal authorities. In this setting, states and cities argue that the anti-commandeering principle prevents the feds from requiring state and local authorities to affirmatively provide information about or access to individuals who may have committed immigration law violations. Perhaps the most important Supreme Court case on this point is Printz v. United States (1997), in which the Supreme Court held that the federal government could not require state and local law enforcement officers to conduct background checks on gun purchasers as part of the implementation of a federal law (the Brady gun control law). “The Federal Government,” the Court said, “may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program.” According to many cities, this is precisely what Attorney General Sessions is trying to do. There are many questions about whether Printz would continue to command majority support at the Supreme Court today, whether there might be an “immigration exception” to the Printz doctrine, and whether Printz by its own terms even applies to information-only demands by the feds (which would mean § 1373 would be ok, regardless of whether the demands for access to persons in state and local detention would be). If courts conclude that statutes like § 1373 do not constitute commandeering and are permissible under Printz (for any of the reasons in the previous sentence) then the feds can require that states and cities comply with them, pure and simple, under the Article I powers (concerning immigration, naturalization and foreign affairs) mentioned earlier. An Argument for Authority Under the Spending Clause But if one concludes that something like § 1373 constitutes impermissible commandeering in violation of federalism principles laid out in Printz, then the federal government would try to overcome the cities’ Tenth Amendment objection by relying on a second, different basis for federal power—the power the feds enjoy to attach strings to federal funding under the so-called Spending Clause of Article I. The Spending Clause in some circumstances gives the federal government power to achieve what it cannot directly command by creating monetary incentives for state and local governments. The spending authority, as it has been interpreted by the Court, is limited, however, in that it requires that any conditions the feds impose on the funding: (1) be clearly communicated to the states/cities up front, so the recipients can knowingly decide whether to accept the deal; (2) be rationally related to the purposes of federal funding in the first place; and (3) not require the states to do something that violates any other part of the Constitution. In addition, the Court has recently held, the funding at issue cannot be something on which states/cities have come to rely to such a great extent in the past so that they really have no choice but to accept any new strings that are attached. If these four aspects are satisfied, then the funding conditions are valid requirements under Article I and do not violate the Tenth Amendment, whether or not the feds could mandate compliance with the conditions in the absence of the funding carrot. Misapplication or Misunderstanding by Lower Federal Courts All of this is chock full of doctrinal details to be sure, but is nonetheless relatively clear and straightforward, even with all the steps involved. Except that some lower courts don’t seem to understand it. For example, in a ruling last month by a district court in the City of Chicago’s challenge to Attorney General Sessions’ insistence that Chicago comply with § 1367, the court conceived of the inquiry into § 1373’s constitutionality as follows: [The AG’s insistence on] compliance [with § 1373] must be proper under the Spending Clause, and 1373 must pass constitutional muster [under the Printz analysis.] As the City has not argued that the compliance condition violates the Spending Clause, the Court now turns to the Section 1373 question [under the Printz line of cases]. The court ultimately concluded that § 1373 did not run afoul of the Printz anti-commandeering principle (for reasons similar to some that were mentioned above), so running the statute through the Printz analysis did not in the end cause the federal government any harm. But the key point is that once it is conceded that compliance with § 1373 to obtain federal money is a valid condition on funding under the Spending Clause doctrine, it is irrelevant whether 1373’s mandate—in the absence of a conditional funding scheme—would violate the Printz anti-commandeering rule. Passing muster under Spending Clause doctrine and passing muster under the Printz doctrine are alternative ways for the federal government to prevail. If it wins on either, it wins. It needn’t win on both, the way the district court erroneously thought. Put another way, if a federal condition on funding is permissible under Spending Clause doctrine, it cannot, by definition, be an impermissible commandeering, since (by hypothesis) states have an option of turning the deal down. Hence, there is no federal mandate that could be considered to be commandeering. The point may seem nit-picky, but it’s not. It goes to the fundamental ways in which different yet related doctrines (in this case Spending Clause doctrine and the anti-commandeering principle) involving federal-state relations fit together. If federal courts are going to be able to enforce the limits that federalism creates on the national government, while at the same time permit the feds to operate in their own proper sphere (and inspire confidence in the public as they accomplish both objectives), they (and their law clerks) need to understand not just nuanced technical details of various specific doctrines, but the overall federalism big picture as well. [https://justatic.com/v/20171005a/verdict/images/authors/thumbs/amar.jpg] Follow @prof_amar Vikram David Amar is the Iwan Foundation Professor of Law and the Dean at the University of Illinois College of Law. Previously, he served as the Associate Dean for Academic Affairs and Professor of Law at the University of California, Davis School of Law. He is a 1988 graduate of the Yale Law School and a former clerk to Justice Harry Blackmun. He is a co-author, along with William Cohen and Jonathan Varat, of a major constitutional law casebook, and a co-author of several volumes of the Wright & Miller treatise on federal practice and procedure. Before teaching, Professor Amar spent a few years at the firm of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher. RECENT ARTICLES The Troublingly Widening Gyre of Complicity Claims Cornell University law professor Michael C. Dorf describes a principle most famously articulated by Thomas Jefferson, under which there should be a right to avoid providing financial support for causes one strongly opposes. Dorf argues that the Jeffersonian principle has lately run amok. He points out that the government’s argument against allowing a seventeen-year-old undocumented immigrant in federal custody to obtain a privately funded abortion is but one example of the government’s too-broad definition of “facilitation” of acts with which it disagrees. Dorf argues that adoption of such a position would convert every objectionable private exercise of rights into government participation.... Read More Body Worn Cameras: The Dog That Won’t Bark Cornell University law professor Joe Margulies comments on the findings of a recent study of police body cameras that body-worn cameras made no statistically significant difference in how police go about their jobs. Margulies points out that the story is not in the absence of a difference, but in people’s surprise to the absence of a difference. Indeed, it is the routine, not the anomalous, that requires reform.... Read More What Needs to Happen Next for the #MeToo Campaign to Fulfill Its Potential Professor and resident senior fellow in the Fox Leadership Program at the University of Pennsylvania, Marci A. Hamilton praises the #MeToo campaign and explains what more needs to happen to meaningfully address the pervasive issues of sexual assault and abuse against children and adults. Hamilton points to the brave actions by Olympic gymnast McKayla Maroney and elaborates on what must change in our society to empower victims and hold those in power accountable.... Read More [Forward this email.] Have friends who like law? Forward this email. [Like Verdict on Facebook] Like Verdict for legal discussions on Facebook. [Follow @verdictjustia on Twitter] Follow @verdictjustia for news and updates on Twitter. [Justia] Contact Us | Privacy Policy [Facebook][Twitter][LinkedIn][Justia][GooglePlus] You received this email because you have subscribed to the Verdict News E-Mail Feed. . Justia | 1380 Pear Ave, Suite 2B, Mountain View, CA 94043 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Thu Nov 2 15:58:20 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2017 15:58:20 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] ICEman UI Yale Law Mafia Dean Amar Aligns with Trump/Sessions against Sanctuary Cities & 11 Million Undocumented Migrants In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: And for the record, back in the mid-1980s, I was also personally involved in turning San Francisco into a Sanctuary City and Evanston into a Sanctuary City—which they both still are three decades later. Amar can stick all that where the sun don’t shine! Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Thursday, November 2, 2017 10:49 AM To: David Green ; C. G. ESTABROOK ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay ; David Johnson ; Mildred O'brien ; Estabrook, Carl G ; David Swanson Subject: ICEman UI Yale Law Mafia Dean Amar Aligns with Trump/Sessions against Sanctuary Cities & 11 Million Undocumented Migrants Yeah well in 1986 I convinced Urbana to become a Sanctuary City which it continued to be for 30 years and then with all your help got that reaffirmed in 2006—according to USA Today the only Sanctuary City between Chicago and New Orleans until Governor Rauner—a Conservative Republican— signed legislation that turned the entire State of Illinois into a Sanctuary State. Amar can stuff that up his bucket. Maybe Amar is tired of being Dean at the No. 44 Law School in the country and is gunning for a slot in the Trump/Sessions Department of Injustice or ICE—become an ICEman? Fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Justia Verdict [mailto:verdictsupport at justia.com] Sent: Thursday, November 2, 2017 10:08 AM To: Boyle, Francis A > Subject: Vikram David Amar - The Need for Clearer Understanding of the Basic Federalism Doctrines Concerning Sanctuary Cities and Other Federal-State Flashpoin Illinois Law dean and professor Vikram David Amar explains the federalism doctrines implicated by Attorney General Sessions’ attempt to deny funding to sanctuary jurisdictions. Amar points to lower court decisions that reflect a misunderstanding of the doctrines and calls upon federal courts and their law clerks to better understand and apply not just the nuanced technical details of various specific doctrines, but the overall federalism big picture as well. Click here to view in your browser if you are having trouble viewing this email. [Verdict - Legal Analysis and commentary from Justia.] The Need for Clearer Understanding of the Basic Federalism Doctrines Concerning Sanctuary Cities and Other Federal-State Flashpoints Vikram David Amar Nov 2, 2017 [https://i2.wp.com/verdict.justia.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/shutterstock_579926992.jpg?quality=90&resize=426%2C350&strip=all&fit=1000%25&ssl=1] As many of the lawsuits against Trump administration policies brought by state and local entities move towards their resolution on the merits in both federal district and appellate courts, it is becoming clear that courts are confused about some basic ways that various aspects of the doctrine of federalism—that is, the proper relationship between the federal and state governments—relate to each other. Case in point: the dispute between various cities and the Trump Department of Justice (DOJ) concerning Attorney General Sessions’ attempts to deny federal funding to so-called “sanctuary cities.” The Trump administration believes that jurisdictions that hold themselves out as sanctuaries facilitate crime. (The trial that began last week of Jose Ines Garcia Zarate, an undocumented man accused of murdering San Francisco woman and American citizen Kate Stienle two years ago, is directing a lot of publicity to the administration’s stance here.) Based on his views, President Trump issued an executive order shortly after taking office in which he directed relevant cabinet officers to deprive “sanctuary jurisdictions” of federal funding and to “take [additional] appropriate enforcement action” against them. That is the framework within which Attorney General Sessions has been trying to deny funding to sanctuary jurisdictions who seek grants under the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program, which supports state and local law enforcement with money for equipment, training, and personnel. In particular, the federal DOJ is requiring all funding applicants to: (1) provide federal agents with advanced notice of the scheduled release from state custody of certain individuals suspected of immigration violations; (2) provide the feds physical access to non-citizens who are being housed in state and local detention facilities; and (3) certify compliance with 8 U.S.C. § 1373. Section 1373, in pertinent part, provides that “a . . . State, or local government entity or official may not prohibit, or in any way restrict, any government entity or official from [maintaining,] sending to, or receiving from, [federal immigration authorities] information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual.” Thus, the statute prevents a state or local government from having a policy or practice that forbids maintaining or giving to the feds information on the immigration status of individuals. Many cities have challenged one or more of these conditions, arguing that the federal government exceeds its powers under the Tenth Amendment by imposing such requirements on states and localities. There are two possible federal responses to this Tenth Amendment challenge. An Argument for Authority Under Article I to Regulate Immigration First, the feds can and do argue that they have authority to adopt these conditions pursuant to their power under Article I of the Constitution to regulate immigration, naturalization, and foreign affairs. As a general matter, this power is quite broad and may very well suffice to support the federal government’s requirements in this realm, but states and cities have a rejoinder here—a series of cases the Supreme Court decided in the 1990s that, collectively, create a rule known as the “anti-commandeering” doctrine. The basic idea is that, notwithstanding broad Article I powers of the federal government, the Tenth Amendment forbids the federal government coercing states and localities into providing affirmative enforcement assistance to federal authorities. In this setting, states and cities argue that the anti-commandeering principle prevents the feds from requiring state and local authorities to affirmatively provide information about or access to individuals who may have committed immigration law violations. Perhaps the most important Supreme Court case on this point is Printz v. United States (1997), in which the Supreme Court held that the federal government could not require state and local law enforcement officers to conduct background checks on gun purchasers as part of the implementation of a federal law (the Brady gun control law). “The Federal Government,” the Court said, “may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program.” According to many cities, this is precisely what Attorney General Sessions is trying to do. There are many questions about whether Printz would continue to command majority support at the Supreme Court today, whether there might be an “immigration exception” to the Printz doctrine, and whether Printz by its own terms even applies to information-only demands by the feds (which would mean § 1373 would be ok, regardless of whether the demands for access to persons in state and local detention would be). If courts conclude that statutes like § 1373 do not constitute commandeering and are permissible under Printz (for any of the reasons in the previous sentence) then the feds can require that states and cities comply with them, pure and simple, under the Article I powers (concerning immigration, naturalization and foreign affairs) mentioned earlier. An Argument for Authority Under the Spending Clause But if one concludes that something like § 1373 constitutes impermissible commandeering in violation of federalism principles laid out in Printz, then the federal government would try to overcome the cities’ Tenth Amendment objection by relying on a second, different basis for federal power—the power the feds enjoy to attach strings to federal funding under the so-called Spending Clause of Article I. The Spending Clause in some circumstances gives the federal government power to achieve what it cannot directly command by creating monetary incentives for state and local governments. The spending authority, as it has been interpreted by the Court, is limited, however, in that it requires that any conditions the feds impose on the funding: (1) be clearly communicated to the states/cities up front, so the recipients can knowingly decide whether to accept the deal; (2) be rationally related to the purposes of federal funding in the first place; and (3) not require the states to do something that violates any other part of the Constitution. In addition, the Court has recently held, the funding at issue cannot be something on which states/cities have come to rely to such a great extent in the past so that they really have no choice but to accept any new strings that are attached. If these four aspects are satisfied, then the funding conditions are valid requirements under Article I and do not violate the Tenth Amendment, whether or not the feds could mandate compliance with the conditions in the absence of the funding carrot. Misapplication or Misunderstanding by Lower Federal Courts All of this is chock full of doctrinal details to be sure, but is nonetheless relatively clear and straightforward, even with all the steps involved. Except that some lower courts don’t seem to understand it. For example, in a ruling last month by a district court in the City of Chicago’s challenge to Attorney General Sessions’ insistence that Chicago comply with § 1367, the court conceived of the inquiry into § 1373’s constitutionality as follows: [The AG’s insistence on] compliance [with § 1373] must be proper under the Spending Clause, and 1373 must pass constitutional muster [under the Printz analysis.] As the City has not argued that the compliance condition violates the Spending Clause, the Court now turns to the Section 1373 question [under the Printz line of cases]. The court ultimately concluded that § 1373 did not run afoul of the Printz anti-commandeering principle (for reasons similar to some that were mentioned above), so running the statute through the Printz analysis did not in the end cause the federal government any harm. But the key point is that once it is conceded that compliance with § 1373 to obtain federal money is a valid condition on funding under the Spending Clause doctrine, it is irrelevant whether 1373’s mandate—in the absence of a conditional funding scheme—would violate the Printz anti-commandeering rule. Passing muster under Spending Clause doctrine and passing muster under the Printz doctrine are alternative ways for the federal government to prevail. If it wins on either, it wins. It needn’t win on both, the way the district court erroneously thought. Put another way, if a federal condition on funding is permissible under Spending Clause doctrine, it cannot, by definition, be an impermissible commandeering, since (by hypothesis) states have an option of turning the deal down. Hence, there is no federal mandate that could be considered to be commandeering. The point may seem nit-picky, but it’s not. It goes to the fundamental ways in which different yet related doctrines (in this case Spending Clause doctrine and the anti-commandeering principle) involving federal-state relations fit together. If federal courts are going to be able to enforce the limits that federalism creates on the national government, while at the same time permit the feds to operate in their own proper sphere (and inspire confidence in the public as they accomplish both objectives), they (and their law clerks) need to understand not just nuanced technical details of various specific doctrines, but the overall federalism big picture as well. [https://justatic.com/v/20171005a/verdict/images/authors/thumbs/amar.jpg] Follow @prof_amar Vikram David Amar is the Iwan Foundation Professor of Law and the Dean at the University of Illinois College of Law. Previously, he served as the Associate Dean for Academic Affairs and Professor of Law at the University of California, Davis School of Law. He is a 1988 graduate of the Yale Law School and a former clerk to Justice Harry Blackmun. He is a co-author, along with William Cohen and Jonathan Varat, of a major constitutional law casebook, and a co-author of several volumes of the Wright & Miller treatise on federal practice and procedure. Before teaching, Professor Amar spent a few years at the firm of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher. RECENT ARTICLES The Troublingly Widening Gyre of Complicity Claims Cornell University law professor Michael C. Dorf describes a principle most famously articulated by Thomas Jefferson, under which there should be a right to avoid providing financial support for causes one strongly opposes. Dorf argues that the Jeffersonian principle has lately run amok. He points out that the government’s argument against allowing a seventeen-year-old undocumented immigrant in federal custody to obtain a privately funded abortion is but one example of the government’s too-broad definition of “facilitation” of acts with which it disagrees. Dorf argues that adoption of such a position would convert every objectionable private exercise of rights into government participation.... Read More Body Worn Cameras: The Dog That Won’t Bark Cornell University law professor Joe Margulies comments on the findings of a recent study of police body cameras that body-worn cameras made no statistically significant difference in how police go about their jobs. Margulies points out that the story is not in the absence of a difference, but in people’s surprise to the absence of a difference. Indeed, it is the routine, not the anomalous, that requires reform.... Read More What Needs to Happen Next for the #MeToo Campaign to Fulfill Its Potential Professor and resident senior fellow in the Fox Leadership Program at the University of Pennsylvania, Marci A. Hamilton praises the #MeToo campaign and explains what more needs to happen to meaningfully address the pervasive issues of sexual assault and abuse against children and adults. Hamilton points to the brave actions by Olympic gymnast McKayla Maroney and elaborates on what must change in our society to empower victims and hold those in power accountable.... Read More [Forward this email.] Have friends who like law? Forward this email. [Like Verdict on Facebook] Like Verdict for legal discussions on Facebook. [Follow @verdictjustia on Twitter] Follow @verdictjustia for news and updates on Twitter. [Justia] Contact Us | Privacy Policy [Facebook][Twitter][LinkedIn][Justia][GooglePlus] You received this email because you have subscribed to the Verdict News E-Mail Feed. . Justia | 1380 Pear Ave, Suite 2B, Mountain View, CA 94043 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Thu Nov 2 16:34:40 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2017 16:34:40 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] ICEman UI Yale Law Mafia Dean Amar Aligns with Trump/Sessions against Sanctuary Cities & 11 Million Undocumented Migrants In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Sorry, Correction that is 2016 on Urbana reaffirming itself as a Sanctuary City having been one since 1986. According to his biography ICEman UI Yale Law Mafia Dean Amar had just graduated from college in 1985 around when I originally argued the case for Urbana to become a Sanctuary City under a public death threat from the American Nazi Party if I did so. Back then going door to door against us in Urbana were the American Nazi Party, the Ku Klux Klan, Phyllis Schaffly’s Eagle Forum and the Republican Party of Champaign County. Birds of a Feather Flock Together. I don’t like Nazis and Klanners. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Thursday, November 2, 2017 10:58 AM To: David Green ; C. G. ESTABROOK ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay ; David Johnson ; Mildred O'brien ; Estabrook, Carl G ; David Swanson Subject: RE: ICEman UI Yale Law Mafia Dean Amar Aligns with Trump/Sessions against Sanctuary Cities & 11 Million Undocumented Migrants And for the record, back in the mid-1980s, I was also personally involved in turning San Francisco into a Sanctuary City and Evanston into a Sanctuary City—which they both still are three decades later. Amar can stick all that where the sun don’t shine! Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Thursday, November 2, 2017 10:49 AM To: David Green >; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; Estabrook, Carl G >; David Swanson > Subject: ICEman UI Yale Law Mafia Dean Amar Aligns with Trump/Sessions against Sanctuary Cities & 11 Million Undocumented Migrants Yeah well in 1986 I convinced Urbana to become a Sanctuary City which it continued to be for 30 years and then with all your help got that reaffirmed in 2006—according to USA Today the only Sanctuary City between Chicago and New Orleans until Governor Rauner—a Conservative Republican— signed legislation that turned the entire State of Illinois into a Sanctuary State. Amar can stuff that up his bucket. Maybe Amar is tired of being Dean at the No. 44 Law School in the country and is gunning for a slot in the Trump/Sessions Department of Injustice or ICE—become an ICEman? Fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Justia Verdict [mailto:verdictsupport at justia.com] Sent: Thursday, November 2, 2017 10:08 AM To: Boyle, Francis A > Subject: Vikram David Amar - The Need for Clearer Understanding of the Basic Federalism Doctrines Concerning Sanctuary Cities and Other Federal-State Flashpoin Illinois Law dean and professor Vikram David Amar explains the federalism doctrines implicated by Attorney General Sessions’ attempt to deny funding to sanctuary jurisdictions. Amar points to lower court decisions that reflect a misunderstanding of the doctrines and calls upon federal courts and their law clerks to better understand and apply not just the nuanced technical details of various specific doctrines, but the overall federalism big picture as well. Click here to view in your browser if you are having trouble viewing this email. [Verdict - Legal Analysis and commentary from Justia.] The Need for Clearer Understanding of the Basic Federalism Doctrines Concerning Sanctuary Cities and Other Federal-State Flashpoints Vikram David Amar Nov 2, 2017 [https://i2.wp.com/verdict.justia.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/shutterstock_579926992.jpg?quality=90&resize=426%2C350&strip=all&fit=1000%25&ssl=1] As many of the lawsuits against Trump administration policies brought by state and local entities move towards their resolution on the merits in both federal district and appellate courts, it is becoming clear that courts are confused about some basic ways that various aspects of the doctrine of federalism—that is, the proper relationship between the federal and state governments—relate to each other. Case in point: the dispute between various cities and the Trump Department of Justice (DOJ) concerning Attorney General Sessions’ attempts to deny federal funding to so-called “sanctuary cities.” The Trump administration believes that jurisdictions that hold themselves out as sanctuaries facilitate crime. (The trial that began last week of Jose Ines Garcia Zarate, an undocumented man accused of murdering San Francisco woman and American citizen Kate Stienle two years ago, is directing a lot of publicity to the administration’s stance here.) Based on his views, President Trump issued an executive order shortly after taking office in which he directed relevant cabinet officers to deprive “sanctuary jurisdictions” of federal funding and to “take [additional] appropriate enforcement action” against them. That is the framework within which Attorney General Sessions has been trying to deny funding to sanctuary jurisdictions who seek grants under the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program, which supports state and local law enforcement with money for equipment, training, and personnel. In particular, the federal DOJ is requiring all funding applicants to: (1) provide federal agents with advanced notice of the scheduled release from state custody of certain individuals suspected of immigration violations; (2) provide the feds physical access to non-citizens who are being housed in state and local detention facilities; and (3) certify compliance with 8 U.S.C. § 1373. Section 1373, in pertinent part, provides that “a . . . State, or local government entity or official may not prohibit, or in any way restrict, any government entity or official from [maintaining,] sending to, or receiving from, [federal immigration authorities] information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual.” Thus, the statute prevents a state or local government from having a policy or practice that forbids maintaining or giving to the feds information on the immigration status of individuals. Many cities have challenged one or more of these conditions, arguing that the federal government exceeds its powers under the Tenth Amendment by imposing such requirements on states and localities. There are two possible federal responses to this Tenth Amendment challenge. An Argument for Authority Under Article I to Regulate Immigration First, the feds can and do argue that they have authority to adopt these conditions pursuant to their power under Article I of the Constitution to regulate immigration, naturalization, and foreign affairs. As a general matter, this power is quite broad and may very well suffice to support the federal government’s requirements in this realm, but states and cities have a rejoinder here—a series of cases the Supreme Court decided in the 1990s that, collectively, create a rule known as the “anti-commandeering” doctrine. The basic idea is that, notwithstanding broad Article I powers of the federal government, the Tenth Amendment forbids the federal government coercing states and localities into providing affirmative enforcement assistance to federal authorities. In this setting, states and cities argue that the anti-commandeering principle prevents the feds from requiring state and local authorities to affirmatively provide information about or access to individuals who may have committed immigration law violations. Perhaps the most important Supreme Court case on this point is Printz v. United States (1997), in which the Supreme Court held that the federal government could not require state and local law enforcement officers to conduct background checks on gun purchasers as part of the implementation of a federal law (the Brady gun control law). “The Federal Government,” the Court said, “may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program.” According to many cities, this is precisely what Attorney General Sessions is trying to do. There are many questions about whether Printz would continue to command majority support at the Supreme Court today, whether there might be an “immigration exception” to the Printz doctrine, and whether Printz by its own terms even applies to information-only demands by the feds (which would mean § 1373 would be ok, regardless of whether the demands for access to persons in state and local detention would be). If courts conclude that statutes like § 1373 do not constitute commandeering and are permissible under Printz (for any of the reasons in the previous sentence) then the feds can require that states and cities comply with them, pure and simple, under the Article I powers (concerning immigration, naturalization and foreign affairs) mentioned earlier. An Argument for Authority Under the Spending Clause But if one concludes that something like § 1373 constitutes impermissible commandeering in violation of federalism principles laid out in Printz, then the federal government would try to overcome the cities’ Tenth Amendment objection by relying on a second, different basis for federal power—the power the feds enjoy to attach strings to federal funding under the so-called Spending Clause of Article I. The Spending Clause in some circumstances gives the federal government power to achieve what it cannot directly command by creating monetary incentives for state and local governments. The spending authority, as it has been interpreted by the Court, is limited, however, in that it requires that any conditions the feds impose on the funding: (1) be clearly communicated to the states/cities up front, so the recipients can knowingly decide whether to accept the deal; (2) be rationally related to the purposes of federal funding in the first place; and (3) not require the states to do something that violates any other part of the Constitution. In addition, the Court has recently held, the funding at issue cannot be something on which states/cities have come to rely to such a great extent in the past so that they really have no choice but to accept any new strings that are attached. If these four aspects are satisfied, then the funding conditions are valid requirements under Article I and do not violate the Tenth Amendment, whether or not the feds could mandate compliance with the conditions in the absence of the funding carrot. Misapplication or Misunderstanding by Lower Federal Courts All of this is chock full of doctrinal details to be sure, but is nonetheless relatively clear and straightforward, even with all the steps involved. Except that some lower courts don’t seem to understand it. For example, in a ruling last month by a district court in the City of Chicago’s challenge to Attorney General Sessions’ insistence that Chicago comply with § 1367, the court conceived of the inquiry into § 1373’s constitutionality as follows: [The AG’s insistence on] compliance [with § 1373] must be proper under the Spending Clause, and 1373 must pass constitutional muster [under the Printz analysis.] As the City has not argued that the compliance condition violates the Spending Clause, the Court now turns to the Section 1373 question [under the Printz line of cases]. The court ultimately concluded that § 1373 did not run afoul of the Printz anti-commandeering principle (for reasons similar to some that were mentioned above), so running the statute through the Printz analysis did not in the end cause the federal government any harm. But the key point is that once it is conceded that compliance with § 1373 to obtain federal money is a valid condition on funding under the Spending Clause doctrine, it is irrelevant whether 1373’s mandate—in the absence of a conditional funding scheme—would violate the Printz anti-commandeering rule. Passing muster under Spending Clause doctrine and passing muster under the Printz doctrine are alternative ways for the federal government to prevail. If it wins on either, it wins. It needn’t win on both, the way the district court erroneously thought. Put another way, if a federal condition on funding is permissible under Spending Clause doctrine, it cannot, by definition, be an impermissible commandeering, since (by hypothesis) states have an option of turning the deal down. Hence, there is no federal mandate that could be considered to be commandeering. The point may seem nit-picky, but it’s not. It goes to the fundamental ways in which different yet related doctrines (in this case Spending Clause doctrine and the anti-commandeering principle) involving federal-state relations fit together. If federal courts are going to be able to enforce the limits that federalism creates on the national government, while at the same time permit the feds to operate in their own proper sphere (and inspire confidence in the public as they accomplish both objectives), they (and their law clerks) need to understand not just nuanced technical details of various specific doctrines, but the overall federalism big picture as well. [https://justatic.com/v/20171005a/verdict/images/authors/thumbs/amar.jpg] Follow @prof_amar Vikram David Amar is the Iwan Foundation Professor of Law and the Dean at the University of Illinois College of Law. Previously, he served as the Associate Dean for Academic Affairs and Professor of Law at the University of California, Davis School of Law. He is a 1988 graduate of the Yale Law School and a former clerk to Justice Harry Blackmun. He is a co-author, along with William Cohen and Jonathan Varat, of a major constitutional law casebook, and a co-author of several volumes of the Wright & Miller treatise on federal practice and procedure. Before teaching, Professor Amar spent a few years at the firm of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher. RECENT ARTICLES The Troublingly Widening Gyre of Complicity Claims Cornell University law professor Michael C. Dorf describes a principle most famously articulated by Thomas Jefferson, under which there should be a right to avoid providing financial support for causes one strongly opposes. Dorf argues that the Jeffersonian principle has lately run amok. He points out that the government’s argument against allowing a seventeen-year-old undocumented immigrant in federal custody to obtain a privately funded abortion is but one example of the government’s too-broad definition of “facilitation” of acts with which it disagrees. Dorf argues that adoption of such a position would convert every objectionable private exercise of rights into government participation.... Read More Body Worn Cameras: The Dog That Won’t Bark Cornell University law professor Joe Margulies comments on the findings of a recent study of police body cameras that body-worn cameras made no statistically significant difference in how police go about their jobs. Margulies points out that the story is not in the absence of a difference, but in people’s surprise to the absence of a difference. Indeed, it is the routine, not the anomalous, that requires reform.... Read More What Needs to Happen Next for the #MeToo Campaign to Fulfill Its Potential Professor and resident senior fellow in the Fox Leadership Program at the University of Pennsylvania, Marci A. Hamilton praises the #MeToo campaign and explains what more needs to happen to meaningfully address the pervasive issues of sexual assault and abuse against children and adults. Hamilton points to the brave actions by Olympic gymnast McKayla Maroney and elaborates on what must change in our society to empower victims and hold those in power accountable.... Read More [Forward this email.] Have friends who like law? Forward this email. [Like Verdict on Facebook] Like Verdict for legal discussions on Facebook. [Follow @verdictjustia on Twitter] Follow @verdictjustia for news and updates on Twitter. [Justia] Contact Us | Privacy Policy [Facebook][Twitter][LinkedIn][Justia][GooglePlus] You received this email because you have subscribed to the Verdict News E-Mail Feed. . Justia | 1380 Pear Ave, Suite 2B, Mountain View, CA 94043 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Thu Nov 2 16:34:40 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2017 16:34:40 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] ICEman UI Yale Law Mafia Dean Amar Aligns with Trump/Sessions against Sanctuary Cities & 11 Million Undocumented Migrants In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Sorry, Correction that is 2016 on Urbana reaffirming itself as a Sanctuary City having been one since 1986. According to his biography ICEman UI Yale Law Mafia Dean Amar had just graduated from college in 1985 around when I originally argued the case for Urbana to become a Sanctuary City under a public death threat from the American Nazi Party if I did so. Back then going door to door against us in Urbana were the American Nazi Party, the Ku Klux Klan, Phyllis Schaffly’s Eagle Forum and the Republican Party of Champaign County. Birds of a Feather Flock Together. I don’t like Nazis and Klanners. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Thursday, November 2, 2017 10:58 AM To: David Green ; C. G. ESTABROOK ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay ; David Johnson ; Mildred O'brien ; Estabrook, Carl G ; David Swanson Subject: RE: ICEman UI Yale Law Mafia Dean Amar Aligns with Trump/Sessions against Sanctuary Cities & 11 Million Undocumented Migrants And for the record, back in the mid-1980s, I was also personally involved in turning San Francisco into a Sanctuary City and Evanston into a Sanctuary City—which they both still are three decades later. Amar can stick all that where the sun don’t shine! Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Thursday, November 2, 2017 10:49 AM To: David Green >; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; Estabrook, Carl G >; David Swanson > Subject: ICEman UI Yale Law Mafia Dean Amar Aligns with Trump/Sessions against Sanctuary Cities & 11 Million Undocumented Migrants Yeah well in 1986 I convinced Urbana to become a Sanctuary City which it continued to be for 30 years and then with all your help got that reaffirmed in 2006—according to USA Today the only Sanctuary City between Chicago and New Orleans until Governor Rauner—a Conservative Republican— signed legislation that turned the entire State of Illinois into a Sanctuary State. Amar can stuff that up his bucket. Maybe Amar is tired of being Dean at the No. 44 Law School in the country and is gunning for a slot in the Trump/Sessions Department of Injustice or ICE—become an ICEman? Fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Justia Verdict [mailto:verdictsupport at justia.com] Sent: Thursday, November 2, 2017 10:08 AM To: Boyle, Francis A > Subject: Vikram David Amar - The Need for Clearer Understanding of the Basic Federalism Doctrines Concerning Sanctuary Cities and Other Federal-State Flashpoin Illinois Law dean and professor Vikram David Amar explains the federalism doctrines implicated by Attorney General Sessions’ attempt to deny funding to sanctuary jurisdictions. Amar points to lower court decisions that reflect a misunderstanding of the doctrines and calls upon federal courts and their law clerks to better understand and apply not just the nuanced technical details of various specific doctrines, but the overall federalism big picture as well. Click here to view in your browser if you are having trouble viewing this email. [Verdict - Legal Analysis and commentary from Justia.] The Need for Clearer Understanding of the Basic Federalism Doctrines Concerning Sanctuary Cities and Other Federal-State Flashpoints Vikram David Amar Nov 2, 2017 [https://i2.wp.com/verdict.justia.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/shutterstock_579926992.jpg?quality=90&resize=426%2C350&strip=all&fit=1000%25&ssl=1] As many of the lawsuits against Trump administration policies brought by state and local entities move towards their resolution on the merits in both federal district and appellate courts, it is becoming clear that courts are confused about some basic ways that various aspects of the doctrine of federalism—that is, the proper relationship between the federal and state governments—relate to each other. Case in point: the dispute between various cities and the Trump Department of Justice (DOJ) concerning Attorney General Sessions’ attempts to deny federal funding to so-called “sanctuary cities.” The Trump administration believes that jurisdictions that hold themselves out as sanctuaries facilitate crime. (The trial that began last week of Jose Ines Garcia Zarate, an undocumented man accused of murdering San Francisco woman and American citizen Kate Stienle two years ago, is directing a lot of publicity to the administration’s stance here.) Based on his views, President Trump issued an executive order shortly after taking office in which he directed relevant cabinet officers to deprive “sanctuary jurisdictions” of federal funding and to “take [additional] appropriate enforcement action” against them. That is the framework within which Attorney General Sessions has been trying to deny funding to sanctuary jurisdictions who seek grants under the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program, which supports state and local law enforcement with money for equipment, training, and personnel. In particular, the federal DOJ is requiring all funding applicants to: (1) provide federal agents with advanced notice of the scheduled release from state custody of certain individuals suspected of immigration violations; (2) provide the feds physical access to non-citizens who are being housed in state and local detention facilities; and (3) certify compliance with 8 U.S.C. § 1373. Section 1373, in pertinent part, provides that “a . . . State, or local government entity or official may not prohibit, or in any way restrict, any government entity or official from [maintaining,] sending to, or receiving from, [federal immigration authorities] information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual.” Thus, the statute prevents a state or local government from having a policy or practice that forbids maintaining or giving to the feds information on the immigration status of individuals. Many cities have challenged one or more of these conditions, arguing that the federal government exceeds its powers under the Tenth Amendment by imposing such requirements on states and localities. There are two possible federal responses to this Tenth Amendment challenge. An Argument for Authority Under Article I to Regulate Immigration First, the feds can and do argue that they have authority to adopt these conditions pursuant to their power under Article I of the Constitution to regulate immigration, naturalization, and foreign affairs. As a general matter, this power is quite broad and may very well suffice to support the federal government’s requirements in this realm, but states and cities have a rejoinder here—a series of cases the Supreme Court decided in the 1990s that, collectively, create a rule known as the “anti-commandeering” doctrine. The basic idea is that, notwithstanding broad Article I powers of the federal government, the Tenth Amendment forbids the federal government coercing states and localities into providing affirmative enforcement assistance to federal authorities. In this setting, states and cities argue that the anti-commandeering principle prevents the feds from requiring state and local authorities to affirmatively provide information about or access to individuals who may have committed immigration law violations. Perhaps the most important Supreme Court case on this point is Printz v. United States (1997), in which the Supreme Court held that the federal government could not require state and local law enforcement officers to conduct background checks on gun purchasers as part of the implementation of a federal law (the Brady gun control law). “The Federal Government,” the Court said, “may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program.” According to many cities, this is precisely what Attorney General Sessions is trying to do. There are many questions about whether Printz would continue to command majority support at the Supreme Court today, whether there might be an “immigration exception” to the Printz doctrine, and whether Printz by its own terms even applies to information-only demands by the feds (which would mean § 1373 would be ok, regardless of whether the demands for access to persons in state and local detention would be). If courts conclude that statutes like § 1373 do not constitute commandeering and are permissible under Printz (for any of the reasons in the previous sentence) then the feds can require that states and cities comply with them, pure and simple, under the Article I powers (concerning immigration, naturalization and foreign affairs) mentioned earlier. An Argument for Authority Under the Spending Clause But if one concludes that something like § 1373 constitutes impermissible commandeering in violation of federalism principles laid out in Printz, then the federal government would try to overcome the cities’ Tenth Amendment objection by relying on a second, different basis for federal power—the power the feds enjoy to attach strings to federal funding under the so-called Spending Clause of Article I. The Spending Clause in some circumstances gives the federal government power to achieve what it cannot directly command by creating monetary incentives for state and local governments. The spending authority, as it has been interpreted by the Court, is limited, however, in that it requires that any conditions the feds impose on the funding: (1) be clearly communicated to the states/cities up front, so the recipients can knowingly decide whether to accept the deal; (2) be rationally related to the purposes of federal funding in the first place; and (3) not require the states to do something that violates any other part of the Constitution. In addition, the Court has recently held, the funding at issue cannot be something on which states/cities have come to rely to such a great extent in the past so that they really have no choice but to accept any new strings that are attached. If these four aspects are satisfied, then the funding conditions are valid requirements under Article I and do not violate the Tenth Amendment, whether or not the feds could mandate compliance with the conditions in the absence of the funding carrot. Misapplication or Misunderstanding by Lower Federal Courts All of this is chock full of doctrinal details to be sure, but is nonetheless relatively clear and straightforward, even with all the steps involved. Except that some lower courts don’t seem to understand it. For example, in a ruling last month by a district court in the City of Chicago’s challenge to Attorney General Sessions’ insistence that Chicago comply with § 1367, the court conceived of the inquiry into § 1373’s constitutionality as follows: [The AG’s insistence on] compliance [with § 1373] must be proper under the Spending Clause, and 1373 must pass constitutional muster [under the Printz analysis.] As the City has not argued that the compliance condition violates the Spending Clause, the Court now turns to the Section 1373 question [under the Printz line of cases]. The court ultimately concluded that § 1373 did not run afoul of the Printz anti-commandeering principle (for reasons similar to some that were mentioned above), so running the statute through the Printz analysis did not in the end cause the federal government any harm. But the key point is that once it is conceded that compliance with § 1373 to obtain federal money is a valid condition on funding under the Spending Clause doctrine, it is irrelevant whether 1373’s mandate—in the absence of a conditional funding scheme—would violate the Printz anti-commandeering rule. Passing muster under Spending Clause doctrine and passing muster under the Printz doctrine are alternative ways for the federal government to prevail. If it wins on either, it wins. It needn’t win on both, the way the district court erroneously thought. Put another way, if a federal condition on funding is permissible under Spending Clause doctrine, it cannot, by definition, be an impermissible commandeering, since (by hypothesis) states have an option of turning the deal down. Hence, there is no federal mandate that could be considered to be commandeering. The point may seem nit-picky, but it’s not. It goes to the fundamental ways in which different yet related doctrines (in this case Spending Clause doctrine and the anti-commandeering principle) involving federal-state relations fit together. If federal courts are going to be able to enforce the limits that federalism creates on the national government, while at the same time permit the feds to operate in their own proper sphere (and inspire confidence in the public as they accomplish both objectives), they (and their law clerks) need to understand not just nuanced technical details of various specific doctrines, but the overall federalism big picture as well. [https://justatic.com/v/20171005a/verdict/images/authors/thumbs/amar.jpg] Follow @prof_amar Vikram David Amar is the Iwan Foundation Professor of Law and the Dean at the University of Illinois College of Law. Previously, he served as the Associate Dean for Academic Affairs and Professor of Law at the University of California, Davis School of Law. He is a 1988 graduate of the Yale Law School and a former clerk to Justice Harry Blackmun. He is a co-author, along with William Cohen and Jonathan Varat, of a major constitutional law casebook, and a co-author of several volumes of the Wright & Miller treatise on federal practice and procedure. Before teaching, Professor Amar spent a few years at the firm of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher. RECENT ARTICLES The Troublingly Widening Gyre of Complicity Claims Cornell University law professor Michael C. Dorf describes a principle most famously articulated by Thomas Jefferson, under which there should be a right to avoid providing financial support for causes one strongly opposes. Dorf argues that the Jeffersonian principle has lately run amok. He points out that the government’s argument against allowing a seventeen-year-old undocumented immigrant in federal custody to obtain a privately funded abortion is but one example of the government’s too-broad definition of “facilitation” of acts with which it disagrees. Dorf argues that adoption of such a position would convert every objectionable private exercise of rights into government participation.... Read More Body Worn Cameras: The Dog That Won’t Bark Cornell University law professor Joe Margulies comments on the findings of a recent study of police body cameras that body-worn cameras made no statistically significant difference in how police go about their jobs. Margulies points out that the story is not in the absence of a difference, but in people’s surprise to the absence of a difference. Indeed, it is the routine, not the anomalous, that requires reform.... Read More What Needs to Happen Next for the #MeToo Campaign to Fulfill Its Potential Professor and resident senior fellow in the Fox Leadership Program at the University of Pennsylvania, Marci A. Hamilton praises the #MeToo campaign and explains what more needs to happen to meaningfully address the pervasive issues of sexual assault and abuse against children and adults. Hamilton points to the brave actions by Olympic gymnast McKayla Maroney and elaborates on what must change in our society to empower victims and hold those in power accountable.... Read More [Forward this email.] Have friends who like law? Forward this email. [Like Verdict on Facebook] Like Verdict for legal discussions on Facebook. [Follow @verdictjustia on Twitter] Follow @verdictjustia for news and updates on Twitter. [Justia] Contact Us | Privacy Policy [Facebook][Twitter][LinkedIn][Justia][GooglePlus] You received this email because you have subscribed to the Verdict News E-Mail Feed. . Justia | 1380 Pear Ave, Suite 2B, Mountain View, CA 94043 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Thu Nov 2 21:02:55 2017 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2017 16:02:55 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Proposed flyer for peace demonstration in Champaign, Sat. 4 Nov. 2-4pm Message-ID: <6B807677-934C-4E3E-BC52-7C268C31F52B@gmail.com> A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: flyer2017nov.rtfd.zip Type: application/zip Size: 4689 bytes Desc: not available URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Thu Nov 2 21:21:47 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2017 21:21:47 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: Fall Street Journal on " Scalia Speaks" Message-ID: Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Thursday, November 2, 2017 4:21 PM To: sectns.aals at lists.aals.org Subject: Fall Street Journal on " Scalia Speaks" "Underlying Scalia's appreciation of moral character was his faith in God...It was even why, in part, he liked turkey hunting, which afforded him quiet time alone, out in the woods where "you can pray to the Creator""-while Scalia systematically, mercilessly and needlessly slaughtered God's Creatures over a period of many years including innumerable Mothers of Bambis--RIP. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Thu Nov 2 21:21:47 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2017 21:21:47 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: Fall Street Journal on " Scalia Speaks" Message-ID: Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Thursday, November 2, 2017 4:21 PM To: sectns.aals at lists.aals.org Subject: Fall Street Journal on " Scalia Speaks" "Underlying Scalia's appreciation of moral character was his faith in God...It was even why, in part, he liked turkey hunting, which afforded him quiet time alone, out in the woods where "you can pray to the Creator""-while Scalia systematically, mercilessly and needlessly slaughtered God's Creatures over a period of many years including innumerable Mothers of Bambis--RIP. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Thu Nov 2 21:30:27 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2017 21:30:27 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: Francis Boyle sent you a video: "Bambi Meets Scalia" Message-ID: Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Thursday, November 2, 2017 4:29 PM To: sectns.aals at lists.aals.org Subject: FW: Francis Boyle sent you a video: "Bambi Meets Scalia" Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Francis Boyle via YouTube [mailto:noreply at youtube.com] Sent: Thursday, November 2, 2017 4:27 PM To: Boyle, Francis A > Subject: Francis Boyle sent you a video: "Bambi Meets Scalia”" [http://s.ytimg.com/yt/img/email/digest/email_header.png] [https://yt3.ggpht.com/-w4phvYGWivc/AAAAAAAAAAI/AAAAAAAAAAA/_Vq2X19VNEk/s50-c-k-no-mo-rj-c0xffffff/photo.jpg] Francis Boyle has shared a video with you on YouTube [https://i.ytimg.com/vi/8s3UogfAGg0/mqdefault.jpg] Bambi Meets Godzilla Original (1969) by World of Gojira Bambi is contentedly nibbling the grass, seemingly unaware of his impending encounter with Godzilla. Written by Marv Newland. Help center • Report spam ©2017 YouTube, LLC 901 Cherry Ave, San Bruno, CA 94066, USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Thu Nov 2 21:30:27 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2017 21:30:27 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: Francis Boyle sent you a video: "Bambi Meets Scalia" Message-ID: Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Thursday, November 2, 2017 4:29 PM To: sectns.aals at lists.aals.org Subject: FW: Francis Boyle sent you a video: "Bambi Meets Scalia" Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Francis Boyle via YouTube [mailto:noreply at youtube.com] Sent: Thursday, November 2, 2017 4:27 PM To: Boyle, Francis A > Subject: Francis Boyle sent you a video: "Bambi Meets Scalia”" [http://s.ytimg.com/yt/img/email/digest/email_header.png] [https://yt3.ggpht.com/-w4phvYGWivc/AAAAAAAAAAI/AAAAAAAAAAA/_Vq2X19VNEk/s50-c-k-no-mo-rj-c0xffffff/photo.jpg] Francis Boyle has shared a video with you on YouTube [https://i.ytimg.com/vi/8s3UogfAGg0/mqdefault.jpg] Bambi Meets Godzilla Original (1969) by World of Gojira Bambi is contentedly nibbling the grass, seemingly unaware of his impending encounter with Godzilla. Written by Marv Newland. Help center • Report spam ©2017 YouTube, LLC 901 Cherry Ave, San Bruno, CA 94066, USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Fri Nov 3 09:06:58 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2017 09:06:58 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] ICEman UI Yale Law Mafia Dean Amar Aligns with Trump/Sessions against Sanctuary Cities & 11 Million Undocumented Migrants In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: As I said last year in our Rally against Killer Koh, the College of Law is an intellectual and moral cesspool. We have about 10,000 Undocumented Migrants in Champaign County. If it had been up to “Dean” Amar instead of me, Urbana would have never become a Sanctuary for them. Ditto for 1986 when we had about 8000 Undocumented Migrants in Champaign County. QED. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2017 11:35 AM To: David Green ; C. G. ESTABROOK ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay ; David Johnson ; Mildred O'brien ; Estabrook, Carl G ; David Swanson Subject: RE: ICEman UI Yale Law Mafia Dean Amar Aligns with Trump/Sessions against Sanctuary Cities & 11 Million Undocumented Migrants Sorry, Correction that is 2016 on Urbana reaffirming itself as a Sanctuary City having been one since 1986. According to his biography ICEman UI Yale Law Mafia Dean Amar had just graduated from college in 1985 around when I originally argued the case for Urbana to become a Sanctuary City under a public death threat from the American Nazi Party if I did so. Back then going door to door against us in Urbana were the American Nazi Party, the Ku Klux Klan, Phyllis Schaffly’s Eagle Forum and the Republican Party of Champaign County. Birds of a Feather Flock Together. I don’t like Nazis and Klanners. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Thursday, November 2, 2017 10:58 AM To: David Green >; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; Estabrook, Carl G >; David Swanson > Subject: RE: ICEman UI Yale Law Mafia Dean Amar Aligns with Trump/Sessions against Sanctuary Cities & 11 Million Undocumented Migrants And for the record, back in the mid-1980s, I was also personally involved in turning San Francisco into a Sanctuary City and Evanston into a Sanctuary City—which they both still are three decades later. Amar can stick all that where the sun don’t shine! Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Thursday, November 2, 2017 10:49 AM To: David Green >; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; Estabrook, Carl G >; David Swanson > Subject: ICEman UI Yale Law Mafia Dean Amar Aligns with Trump/Sessions against Sanctuary Cities & 11 Million Undocumented Migrants Yeah well in 1986 I convinced Urbana to become a Sanctuary City which it continued to be for 30 years and then with all your help got that reaffirmed in 2006—according to USA Today the only Sanctuary City between Chicago and New Orleans until Governor Rauner—a Conservative Republican— signed legislation that turned the entire State of Illinois into a Sanctuary State. Amar can stuff that up his bucket. Maybe Amar is tired of being Dean at the No. 44 Law School in the country and is gunning for a slot in the Trump/Sessions Department of Injustice or ICE—become an ICEman? Fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Justia Verdict [mailto:verdictsupport at justia.com] Sent: Thursday, November 2, 2017 10:08 AM To: Boyle, Francis A > Subject: Vikram David Amar - The Need for Clearer Understanding of the Basic Federalism Doctrines Concerning Sanctuary Cities and Other Federal-State Flashpoin Illinois Law dean and professor Vikram David Amar explains the federalism doctrines implicated by Attorney General Sessions’ attempt to deny funding to sanctuary jurisdictions. Amar points to lower court decisions that reflect a misunderstanding of the doctrines and calls upon federal courts and their law clerks to better understand and apply not just the nuanced technical details of various specific doctrines, but the overall federalism big picture as well. Click here to view in your browser if you are having trouble viewing this email. [Verdict - Legal Analysis and commentary from Justia.] The Need for Clearer Understanding of the Basic Federalism Doctrines Concerning Sanctuary Cities and Other Federal-State Flashpoints Vikram David Amar Nov 2, 2017 [https://i2.wp.com/verdict.justia.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/shutterstock_579926992.jpg?quality=90&resize=426%2C350&strip=all&fit=1000%25&ssl=1] As many of the lawsuits against Trump administration policies brought by state and local entities move towards their resolution on the merits in both federal district and appellate courts, it is becoming clear that courts are confused about some basic ways that various aspects of the doctrine of federalism—that is, the proper relationship between the federal and state governments—relate to each other. Case in point: the dispute between various cities and the Trump Department of Justice (DOJ) concerning Attorney General Sessions’ attempts to deny federal funding to so-called “sanctuary cities.” The Trump administration believes that jurisdictions that hold themselves out as sanctuaries facilitate crime. (The trial that began last week of Jose Ines Garcia Zarate, an undocumented man accused of murdering San Francisco woman and American citizen Kate Stienle two years ago, is directing a lot of publicity to the administration’s stance here.) Based on his views, President Trump issued an executive order shortly after taking office in which he directed relevant cabinet officers to deprive “sanctuary jurisdictions” of federal funding and to “take [additional] appropriate enforcement action” against them. That is the framework within which Attorney General Sessions has been trying to deny funding to sanctuary jurisdictions who seek grants under the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program, which supports state and local law enforcement with money for equipment, training, and personnel. In particular, the federal DOJ is requiring all funding applicants to: (1) provide federal agents with advanced notice of the scheduled release from state custody of certain individuals suspected of immigration violations; (2) provide the feds physical access to non-citizens who are being housed in state and local detention facilities; and (3) certify compliance with 8 U.S.C. § 1373. Section 1373, in pertinent part, provides that “a . . . State, or local government entity or official may not prohibit, or in any way restrict, any government entity or official from [maintaining,] sending to, or receiving from, [federal immigration authorities] information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual.” Thus, the statute prevents a state or local government from having a policy or practice that forbids maintaining or giving to the feds information on the immigration status of individuals. Many cities have challenged one or more of these conditions, arguing that the federal government exceeds its powers under the Tenth Amendment by imposing such requirements on states and localities. There are two possible federal responses to this Tenth Amendment challenge. An Argument for Authority Under Article I to Regulate Immigration First, the feds can and do argue that they have authority to adopt these conditions pursuant to their power under Article I of the Constitution to regulate immigration, naturalization, and foreign affairs. As a general matter, this power is quite broad and may very well suffice to support the federal government’s requirements in this realm, but states and cities have a rejoinder here—a series of cases the Supreme Court decided in the 1990s that, collectively, create a rule known as the “anti-commandeering” doctrine. The basic idea is that, notwithstanding broad Article I powers of the federal government, the Tenth Amendment forbids the federal government coercing states and localities into providing affirmative enforcement assistance to federal authorities. In this setting, states and cities argue that the anti-commandeering principle prevents the feds from requiring state and local authorities to affirmatively provide information about or access to individuals who may have committed immigration law violations. Perhaps the most important Supreme Court case on this point is Printz v. United States (1997), in which the Supreme Court held that the federal government could not require state and local law enforcement officers to conduct background checks on gun purchasers as part of the implementation of a federal law (the Brady gun control law). “The Federal Government,” the Court said, “may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program.” According to many cities, this is precisely what Attorney General Sessions is trying to do. There are many questions about whether Printz would continue to command majority support at the Supreme Court today, whether there might be an “immigration exception” to the Printz doctrine, and whether Printz by its own terms even applies to information-only demands by the feds (which would mean § 1373 would be ok, regardless of whether the demands for access to persons in state and local detention would be). If courts conclude that statutes like § 1373 do not constitute commandeering and are permissible under Printz (for any of the reasons in the previous sentence) then the feds can require that states and cities comply with them, pure and simple, under the Article I powers (concerning immigration, naturalization and foreign affairs) mentioned earlier. An Argument for Authority Under the Spending Clause But if one concludes that something like § 1373 constitutes impermissible commandeering in violation of federalism principles laid out in Printz, then the federal government would try to overcome the cities’ Tenth Amendment objection by relying on a second, different basis for federal power—the power the feds enjoy to attach strings to federal funding under the so-called Spending Clause of Article I. The Spending Clause in some circumstances gives the federal government power to achieve what it cannot directly command by creating monetary incentives for state and local governments. The spending authority, as it has been interpreted by the Court, is limited, however, in that it requires that any conditions the feds impose on the funding: (1) be clearly communicated to the states/cities up front, so the recipients can knowingly decide whether to accept the deal; (2) be rationally related to the purposes of federal funding in the first place; and (3) not require the states to do something that violates any other part of the Constitution. In addition, the Court has recently held, the funding at issue cannot be something on which states/cities have come to rely to such a great extent in the past so that they really have no choice but to accept any new strings that are attached. If these four aspects are satisfied, then the funding conditions are valid requirements under Article I and do not violate the Tenth Amendment, whether or not the feds could mandate compliance with the conditions in the absence of the funding carrot. Misapplication or Misunderstanding by Lower Federal Courts All of this is chock full of doctrinal details to be sure, but is nonetheless relatively clear and straightforward, even with all the steps involved. Except that some lower courts don’t seem to understand it. For example, in a ruling last month by a district court in the City of Chicago’s challenge to Attorney General Sessions’ insistence that Chicago comply with § 1367, the court conceived of the inquiry into § 1373’s constitutionality as follows: [The AG’s insistence on] compliance [with § 1373] must be proper under the Spending Clause, and 1373 must pass constitutional muster [under the Printz analysis.] As the City has not argued that the compliance condition violates the Spending Clause, the Court now turns to the Section 1373 question [under the Printz line of cases]. The court ultimately concluded that § 1373 did not run afoul of the Printz anti-commandeering principle (for reasons similar to some that were mentioned above), so running the statute through the Printz analysis did not in the end cause the federal government any harm. But the key point is that once it is conceded that compliance with § 1373 to obtain federal money is a valid condition on funding under the Spending Clause doctrine, it is irrelevant whether 1373’s mandate—in the absence of a conditional funding scheme—would violate the Printz anti-commandeering rule. Passing muster under Spending Clause doctrine and passing muster under the Printz doctrine are alternative ways for the federal government to prevail. If it wins on either, it wins. It needn’t win on both, the way the district court erroneously thought. Put another way, if a federal condition on funding is permissible under Spending Clause doctrine, it cannot, by definition, be an impermissible commandeering, since (by hypothesis) states have an option of turning the deal down. Hence, there is no federal mandate that could be considered to be commandeering. The point may seem nit-picky, but it’s not. It goes to the fundamental ways in which different yet related doctrines (in this case Spending Clause doctrine and the anti-commandeering principle) involving federal-state relations fit together. If federal courts are going to be able to enforce the limits that federalism creates on the national government, while at the same time permit the feds to operate in their own proper sphere (and inspire confidence in the public as they accomplish both objectives), they (and their law clerks) need to understand not just nuanced technical details of various specific doctrines, but the overall federalism big picture as well. [https://justatic.com/v/20171005a/verdict/images/authors/thumbs/amar.jpg] Follow @prof_amar Vikram David Amar is the Iwan Foundation Professor of Law and the Dean at the University of Illinois College of Law. Previously, he served as the Associate Dean for Academic Affairs and Professor of Law at the University of California, Davis School of Law. He is a 1988 graduate of the Yale Law School and a former clerk to Justice Harry Blackmun. He is a co-author, along with William Cohen and Jonathan Varat, of a major constitutional law casebook, and a co-author of several volumes of the Wright & Miller treatise on federal practice and procedure. Before teaching, Professor Amar spent a few years at the firm of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher. RECENT ARTICLES The Troublingly Widening Gyre of Complicity Claims Cornell University law professor Michael C. Dorf describes a principle most famously articulated by Thomas Jefferson, under which there should be a right to avoid providing financial support for causes one strongly opposes. Dorf argues that the Jeffersonian principle has lately run amok. He points out that the government’s argument against allowing a seventeen-year-old undocumented immigrant in federal custody to obtain a privately funded abortion is but one example of the government’s too-broad definition of “facilitation” of acts with which it disagrees. Dorf argues that adoption of such a position would convert every objectionable private exercise of rights into government participation.... Read More Body Worn Cameras: The Dog That Won’t Bark Cornell University law professor Joe Margulies comments on the findings of a recent study of police body cameras that body-worn cameras made no statistically significant difference in how police go about their jobs. Margulies points out that the story is not in the absence of a difference, but in people’s surprise to the absence of a difference. Indeed, it is the routine, not the anomalous, that requires reform.... Read More What Needs to Happen Next for the #MeToo Campaign to Fulfill Its Potential Professor and resident senior fellow in the Fox Leadership Program at the University of Pennsylvania, Marci A. Hamilton praises the #MeToo campaign and explains what more needs to happen to meaningfully address the pervasive issues of sexual assault and abuse against children and adults. Hamilton points to the brave actions by Olympic gymnast McKayla Maroney and elaborates on what must change in our society to empower victims and hold those in power accountable.... Read More [Forward this email.] Have friends who like law? Forward this email. [Like Verdict on Facebook] Like Verdict for legal discussions on Facebook. [Follow @verdictjustia on Twitter] Follow @verdictjustia for news and updates on Twitter. [Justia] Contact Us | Privacy Policy [Facebook][Twitter][LinkedIn][Justia][GooglePlus] You received this email because you have subscribed to the Verdict News E-Mail Feed. . Justia | 1380 Pear Ave, Suite 2B, Mountain View, CA 94043 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Fri Nov 3 09:06:58 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2017 09:06:58 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] ICEman UI Yale Law Mafia Dean Amar Aligns with Trump/Sessions against Sanctuary Cities & 11 Million Undocumented Migrants In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: As I said last year in our Rally against Killer Koh, the College of Law is an intellectual and moral cesspool. We have about 10,000 Undocumented Migrants in Champaign County. If it had been up to “Dean” Amar instead of me, Urbana would have never become a Sanctuary for them. Ditto for 1986 when we had about 8000 Undocumented Migrants in Champaign County. QED. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2017 11:35 AM To: David Green ; C. G. ESTABROOK ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay ; David Johnson ; Mildred O'brien ; Estabrook, Carl G ; David Swanson Subject: RE: ICEman UI Yale Law Mafia Dean Amar Aligns with Trump/Sessions against Sanctuary Cities & 11 Million Undocumented Migrants Sorry, Correction that is 2016 on Urbana reaffirming itself as a Sanctuary City having been one since 1986. According to his biography ICEman UI Yale Law Mafia Dean Amar had just graduated from college in 1985 around when I originally argued the case for Urbana to become a Sanctuary City under a public death threat from the American Nazi Party if I did so. Back then going door to door against us in Urbana were the American Nazi Party, the Ku Klux Klan, Phyllis Schaffly’s Eagle Forum and the Republican Party of Champaign County. Birds of a Feather Flock Together. I don’t like Nazis and Klanners. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Thursday, November 2, 2017 10:58 AM To: David Green >; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; Estabrook, Carl G >; David Swanson > Subject: RE: ICEman UI Yale Law Mafia Dean Amar Aligns with Trump/Sessions against Sanctuary Cities & 11 Million Undocumented Migrants And for the record, back in the mid-1980s, I was also personally involved in turning San Francisco into a Sanctuary City and Evanston into a Sanctuary City—which they both still are three decades later. Amar can stick all that where the sun don’t shine! Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Thursday, November 2, 2017 10:49 AM To: David Green >; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; Estabrook, Carl G >; David Swanson > Subject: ICEman UI Yale Law Mafia Dean Amar Aligns with Trump/Sessions against Sanctuary Cities & 11 Million Undocumented Migrants Yeah well in 1986 I convinced Urbana to become a Sanctuary City which it continued to be for 30 years and then with all your help got that reaffirmed in 2006—according to USA Today the only Sanctuary City between Chicago and New Orleans until Governor Rauner—a Conservative Republican— signed legislation that turned the entire State of Illinois into a Sanctuary State. Amar can stuff that up his bucket. Maybe Amar is tired of being Dean at the No. 44 Law School in the country and is gunning for a slot in the Trump/Sessions Department of Injustice or ICE—become an ICEman? Fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Justia Verdict [mailto:verdictsupport at justia.com] Sent: Thursday, November 2, 2017 10:08 AM To: Boyle, Francis A > Subject: Vikram David Amar - The Need for Clearer Understanding of the Basic Federalism Doctrines Concerning Sanctuary Cities and Other Federal-State Flashpoin Illinois Law dean and professor Vikram David Amar explains the federalism doctrines implicated by Attorney General Sessions’ attempt to deny funding to sanctuary jurisdictions. Amar points to lower court decisions that reflect a misunderstanding of the doctrines and calls upon federal courts and their law clerks to better understand and apply not just the nuanced technical details of various specific doctrines, but the overall federalism big picture as well. Click here to view in your browser if you are having trouble viewing this email. [Verdict - Legal Analysis and commentary from Justia.] The Need for Clearer Understanding of the Basic Federalism Doctrines Concerning Sanctuary Cities and Other Federal-State Flashpoints Vikram David Amar Nov 2, 2017 [https://i2.wp.com/verdict.justia.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/shutterstock_579926992.jpg?quality=90&resize=426%2C350&strip=all&fit=1000%25&ssl=1] As many of the lawsuits against Trump administration policies brought by state and local entities move towards their resolution on the merits in both federal district and appellate courts, it is becoming clear that courts are confused about some basic ways that various aspects of the doctrine of federalism—that is, the proper relationship between the federal and state governments—relate to each other. Case in point: the dispute between various cities and the Trump Department of Justice (DOJ) concerning Attorney General Sessions’ attempts to deny federal funding to so-called “sanctuary cities.” The Trump administration believes that jurisdictions that hold themselves out as sanctuaries facilitate crime. (The trial that began last week of Jose Ines Garcia Zarate, an undocumented man accused of murdering San Francisco woman and American citizen Kate Stienle two years ago, is directing a lot of publicity to the administration’s stance here.) Based on his views, President Trump issued an executive order shortly after taking office in which he directed relevant cabinet officers to deprive “sanctuary jurisdictions” of federal funding and to “take [additional] appropriate enforcement action” against them. That is the framework within which Attorney General Sessions has been trying to deny funding to sanctuary jurisdictions who seek grants under the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program, which supports state and local law enforcement with money for equipment, training, and personnel. In particular, the federal DOJ is requiring all funding applicants to: (1) provide federal agents with advanced notice of the scheduled release from state custody of certain individuals suspected of immigration violations; (2) provide the feds physical access to non-citizens who are being housed in state and local detention facilities; and (3) certify compliance with 8 U.S.C. § 1373. Section 1373, in pertinent part, provides that “a . . . State, or local government entity or official may not prohibit, or in any way restrict, any government entity or official from [maintaining,] sending to, or receiving from, [federal immigration authorities] information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual.” Thus, the statute prevents a state or local government from having a policy or practice that forbids maintaining or giving to the feds information on the immigration status of individuals. Many cities have challenged one or more of these conditions, arguing that the federal government exceeds its powers under the Tenth Amendment by imposing such requirements on states and localities. There are two possible federal responses to this Tenth Amendment challenge. An Argument for Authority Under Article I to Regulate Immigration First, the feds can and do argue that they have authority to adopt these conditions pursuant to their power under Article I of the Constitution to regulate immigration, naturalization, and foreign affairs. As a general matter, this power is quite broad and may very well suffice to support the federal government’s requirements in this realm, but states and cities have a rejoinder here—a series of cases the Supreme Court decided in the 1990s that, collectively, create a rule known as the “anti-commandeering” doctrine. The basic idea is that, notwithstanding broad Article I powers of the federal government, the Tenth Amendment forbids the federal government coercing states and localities into providing affirmative enforcement assistance to federal authorities. In this setting, states and cities argue that the anti-commandeering principle prevents the feds from requiring state and local authorities to affirmatively provide information about or access to individuals who may have committed immigration law violations. Perhaps the most important Supreme Court case on this point is Printz v. United States (1997), in which the Supreme Court held that the federal government could not require state and local law enforcement officers to conduct background checks on gun purchasers as part of the implementation of a federal law (the Brady gun control law). “The Federal Government,” the Court said, “may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program.” According to many cities, this is precisely what Attorney General Sessions is trying to do. There are many questions about whether Printz would continue to command majority support at the Supreme Court today, whether there might be an “immigration exception” to the Printz doctrine, and whether Printz by its own terms even applies to information-only demands by the feds (which would mean § 1373 would be ok, regardless of whether the demands for access to persons in state and local detention would be). If courts conclude that statutes like § 1373 do not constitute commandeering and are permissible under Printz (for any of the reasons in the previous sentence) then the feds can require that states and cities comply with them, pure and simple, under the Article I powers (concerning immigration, naturalization and foreign affairs) mentioned earlier. An Argument for Authority Under the Spending Clause But if one concludes that something like § 1373 constitutes impermissible commandeering in violation of federalism principles laid out in Printz, then the federal government would try to overcome the cities’ Tenth Amendment objection by relying on a second, different basis for federal power—the power the feds enjoy to attach strings to federal funding under the so-called Spending Clause of Article I. The Spending Clause in some circumstances gives the federal government power to achieve what it cannot directly command by creating monetary incentives for state and local governments. The spending authority, as it has been interpreted by the Court, is limited, however, in that it requires that any conditions the feds impose on the funding: (1) be clearly communicated to the states/cities up front, so the recipients can knowingly decide whether to accept the deal; (2) be rationally related to the purposes of federal funding in the first place; and (3) not require the states to do something that violates any other part of the Constitution. In addition, the Court has recently held, the funding at issue cannot be something on which states/cities have come to rely to such a great extent in the past so that they really have no choice but to accept any new strings that are attached. If these four aspects are satisfied, then the funding conditions are valid requirements under Article I and do not violate the Tenth Amendment, whether or not the feds could mandate compliance with the conditions in the absence of the funding carrot. Misapplication or Misunderstanding by Lower Federal Courts All of this is chock full of doctrinal details to be sure, but is nonetheless relatively clear and straightforward, even with all the steps involved. Except that some lower courts don’t seem to understand it. For example, in a ruling last month by a district court in the City of Chicago’s challenge to Attorney General Sessions’ insistence that Chicago comply with § 1367, the court conceived of the inquiry into § 1373’s constitutionality as follows: [The AG’s insistence on] compliance [with § 1373] must be proper under the Spending Clause, and 1373 must pass constitutional muster [under the Printz analysis.] As the City has not argued that the compliance condition violates the Spending Clause, the Court now turns to the Section 1373 question [under the Printz line of cases]. The court ultimately concluded that § 1373 did not run afoul of the Printz anti-commandeering principle (for reasons similar to some that were mentioned above), so running the statute through the Printz analysis did not in the end cause the federal government any harm. But the key point is that once it is conceded that compliance with § 1373 to obtain federal money is a valid condition on funding under the Spending Clause doctrine, it is irrelevant whether 1373’s mandate—in the absence of a conditional funding scheme—would violate the Printz anti-commandeering rule. Passing muster under Spending Clause doctrine and passing muster under the Printz doctrine are alternative ways for the federal government to prevail. If it wins on either, it wins. It needn’t win on both, the way the district court erroneously thought. Put another way, if a federal condition on funding is permissible under Spending Clause doctrine, it cannot, by definition, be an impermissible commandeering, since (by hypothesis) states have an option of turning the deal down. Hence, there is no federal mandate that could be considered to be commandeering. The point may seem nit-picky, but it’s not. It goes to the fundamental ways in which different yet related doctrines (in this case Spending Clause doctrine and the anti-commandeering principle) involving federal-state relations fit together. If federal courts are going to be able to enforce the limits that federalism creates on the national government, while at the same time permit the feds to operate in their own proper sphere (and inspire confidence in the public as they accomplish both objectives), they (and their law clerks) need to understand not just nuanced technical details of various specific doctrines, but the overall federalism big picture as well. [https://justatic.com/v/20171005a/verdict/images/authors/thumbs/amar.jpg] Follow @prof_amar Vikram David Amar is the Iwan Foundation Professor of Law and the Dean at the University of Illinois College of Law. Previously, he served as the Associate Dean for Academic Affairs and Professor of Law at the University of California, Davis School of Law. He is a 1988 graduate of the Yale Law School and a former clerk to Justice Harry Blackmun. He is a co-author, along with William Cohen and Jonathan Varat, of a major constitutional law casebook, and a co-author of several volumes of the Wright & Miller treatise on federal practice and procedure. Before teaching, Professor Amar spent a few years at the firm of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher. RECENT ARTICLES The Troublingly Widening Gyre of Complicity Claims Cornell University law professor Michael C. Dorf describes a principle most famously articulated by Thomas Jefferson, under which there should be a right to avoid providing financial support for causes one strongly opposes. Dorf argues that the Jeffersonian principle has lately run amok. He points out that the government’s argument against allowing a seventeen-year-old undocumented immigrant in federal custody to obtain a privately funded abortion is but one example of the government’s too-broad definition of “facilitation” of acts with which it disagrees. Dorf argues that adoption of such a position would convert every objectionable private exercise of rights into government participation.... Read More Body Worn Cameras: The Dog That Won’t Bark Cornell University law professor Joe Margulies comments on the findings of a recent study of police body cameras that body-worn cameras made no statistically significant difference in how police go about their jobs. Margulies points out that the story is not in the absence of a difference, but in people’s surprise to the absence of a difference. Indeed, it is the routine, not the anomalous, that requires reform.... Read More What Needs to Happen Next for the #MeToo Campaign to Fulfill Its Potential Professor and resident senior fellow in the Fox Leadership Program at the University of Pennsylvania, Marci A. Hamilton praises the #MeToo campaign and explains what more needs to happen to meaningfully address the pervasive issues of sexual assault and abuse against children and adults. Hamilton points to the brave actions by Olympic gymnast McKayla Maroney and elaborates on what must change in our society to empower victims and hold those in power accountable.... Read More [Forward this email.] Have friends who like law? Forward this email. [Like Verdict on Facebook] Like Verdict for legal discussions on Facebook. [Follow @verdictjustia on Twitter] Follow @verdictjustia for news and updates on Twitter. [Justia] Contact Us | Privacy Policy [Facebook][Twitter][LinkedIn][Justia][GooglePlus] You received this email because you have subscribed to the Verdict News E-Mail Feed. . Justia | 1380 Pear Ave, Suite 2B, Mountain View, CA 94043 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Fri Nov 3 09:21:27 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2017 09:21:27 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] ICEman UI Yale Law Mafia Dean Amar Aligns with Trump/Sessions against Sanctuary Cities & 11 Million Undocumented Migrants In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: And ditto for every Undocumented Migrant who has lived in Champaign County since 1986. If it had been up to ICEman Dean Amar instead of me, Urbana would have never been a Sanctuary for them for the past 31 years. The College of Law is an intellectual and moral cesspool. QED. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Friday, November 03, 2017 4:07 AM To: David Green ; C. G. ESTABROOK ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay ; David Johnson ; Mildred O'brien ; Estabrook, Carl G ; David Swanson Subject: RE: ICEman UI Yale Law Mafia Dean Amar Aligns with Trump/Sessions against Sanctuary Cities & 11 Million Undocumented Migrants As I said last year in our Rally against Killer Koh, the College of Law is an intellectual and moral cesspool. We have about 10,000 Undocumented Migrants in Champaign County. If it had been up to “Dean” Amar instead of me, Urbana would have never become a Sanctuary for them. Ditto for 1986 when we had about 8000 Undocumented Migrants in Champaign County. QED. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2017 11:35 AM To: David Green >; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; Estabrook, Carl G >; David Swanson > Subject: RE: ICEman UI Yale Law Mafia Dean Amar Aligns with Trump/Sessions against Sanctuary Cities & 11 Million Undocumented Migrants Sorry, Correction that is 2016 on Urbana reaffirming itself as a Sanctuary City having been one since 1986. According to his biography ICEman UI Yale Law Mafia Dean Amar had just graduated from college in 1985 around when I originally argued the case for Urbana to become a Sanctuary City under a public death threat from the American Nazi Party if I did so. Back then going door to door against us in Urbana were the American Nazi Party, the Ku Klux Klan, Phyllis Schaffly’s Eagle Forum and the Republican Party of Champaign County. Birds of a Feather Flock Together. I don’t like Nazis and Klanners. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Thursday, November 2, 2017 10:58 AM To: David Green >; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; Estabrook, Carl G >; David Swanson > Subject: RE: ICEman UI Yale Law Mafia Dean Amar Aligns with Trump/Sessions against Sanctuary Cities & 11 Million Undocumented Migrants And for the record, back in the mid-1980s, I was also personally involved in turning San Francisco into a Sanctuary City and Evanston into a Sanctuary City—which they both still are three decades later. Amar can stick all that where the sun don’t shine! Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Thursday, November 2, 2017 10:49 AM To: David Green >; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; Estabrook, Carl G >; David Swanson > Subject: ICEman UI Yale Law Mafia Dean Amar Aligns with Trump/Sessions against Sanctuary Cities & 11 Million Undocumented Migrants Yeah well in 1986 I convinced Urbana to become a Sanctuary City which it continued to be for 30 years and then with all your help got that reaffirmed in 2006—according to USA Today the only Sanctuary City between Chicago and New Orleans until Governor Rauner—a Conservative Republican— signed legislation that turned the entire State of Illinois into a Sanctuary State. Amar can stuff that up his bucket. Maybe Amar is tired of being Dean at the No. 44 Law School in the country and is gunning for a slot in the Trump/Sessions Department of Injustice or ICE—become an ICEman? Fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Justia Verdict [mailto:verdictsupport at justia.com] Sent: Thursday, November 2, 2017 10:08 AM To: Boyle, Francis A > Subject: Vikram David Amar - The Need for Clearer Understanding of the Basic Federalism Doctrines Concerning Sanctuary Cities and Other Federal-State Flashpoin Illinois Law dean and professor Vikram David Amar explains the federalism doctrines implicated by Attorney General Sessions’ attempt to deny funding to sanctuary jurisdictions. Amar points to lower court decisions that reflect a misunderstanding of the doctrines and calls upon federal courts and their law clerks to better understand and apply not just the nuanced technical details of various specific doctrines, but the overall federalism big picture as well. Click here to view in your browser if you are having trouble viewing this email. [Verdict - Legal Analysis and commentary from Justia.] The Need for Clearer Understanding of the Basic Federalism Doctrines Concerning Sanctuary Cities and Other Federal-State Flashpoints Vikram David Amar Nov 2, 2017 [https://i2.wp.com/verdict.justia.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/shutterstock_579926992.jpg?quality=90&resize=426%2C350&strip=all&fit=1000%25&ssl=1] As many of the lawsuits against Trump administration policies brought by state and local entities move towards their resolution on the merits in both federal district and appellate courts, it is becoming clear that courts are confused about some basic ways that various aspects of the doctrine of federalism—that is, the proper relationship between the federal and state governments—relate to each other. Case in point: the dispute between various cities and the Trump Department of Justice (DOJ) concerning Attorney General Sessions’ attempts to deny federal funding to so-called “sanctuary cities.” The Trump administration believes that jurisdictions that hold themselves out as sanctuaries facilitate crime. (The trial that began last week of Jose Ines Garcia Zarate, an undocumented man accused of murdering San Francisco woman and American citizen Kate Stienle two years ago, is directing a lot of publicity to the administration’s stance here.) Based on his views, President Trump issued an executive order shortly after taking office in which he directed relevant cabinet officers to deprive “sanctuary jurisdictions” of federal funding and to “take [additional] appropriate enforcement action” against them. That is the framework within which Attorney General Sessions has been trying to deny funding to sanctuary jurisdictions who seek grants under the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program, which supports state and local law enforcement with money for equipment, training, and personnel. In particular, the federal DOJ is requiring all funding applicants to: (1) provide federal agents with advanced notice of the scheduled release from state custody of certain individuals suspected of immigration violations; (2) provide the feds physical access to non-citizens who are being housed in state and local detention facilities; and (3) certify compliance with 8 U.S.C. § 1373. Section 1373, in pertinent part, provides that “a . . . State, or local government entity or official may not prohibit, or in any way restrict, any government entity or official from [maintaining,] sending to, or receiving from, [federal immigration authorities] information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual.” Thus, the statute prevents a state or local government from having a policy or practice that forbids maintaining or giving to the feds information on the immigration status of individuals. Many cities have challenged one or more of these conditions, arguing that the federal government exceeds its powers under the Tenth Amendment by imposing such requirements on states and localities. There are two possible federal responses to this Tenth Amendment challenge. An Argument for Authority Under Article I to Regulate Immigration First, the feds can and do argue that they have authority to adopt these conditions pursuant to their power under Article I of the Constitution to regulate immigration, naturalization, and foreign affairs. As a general matter, this power is quite broad and may very well suffice to support the federal government’s requirements in this realm, but states and cities have a rejoinder here—a series of cases the Supreme Court decided in the 1990s that, collectively, create a rule known as the “anti-commandeering” doctrine. The basic idea is that, notwithstanding broad Article I powers of the federal government, the Tenth Amendment forbids the federal government coercing states and localities into providing affirmative enforcement assistance to federal authorities. In this setting, states and cities argue that the anti-commandeering principle prevents the feds from requiring state and local authorities to affirmatively provide information about or access to individuals who may have committed immigration law violations. Perhaps the most important Supreme Court case on this point is Printz v. United States (1997), in which the Supreme Court held that the federal government could not require state and local law enforcement officers to conduct background checks on gun purchasers as part of the implementation of a federal law (the Brady gun control law). “The Federal Government,” the Court said, “may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program.” According to many cities, this is precisely what Attorney General Sessions is trying to do. There are many questions about whether Printz would continue to command majority support at the Supreme Court today, whether there might be an “immigration exception” to the Printz doctrine, and whether Printz by its own terms even applies to information-only demands by the feds (which would mean § 1373 would be ok, regardless of whether the demands for access to persons in state and local detention would be). If courts conclude that statutes like § 1373 do not constitute commandeering and are permissible under Printz (for any of the reasons in the previous sentence) then the feds can require that states and cities comply with them, pure and simple, under the Article I powers (concerning immigration, naturalization and foreign affairs) mentioned earlier. An Argument for Authority Under the Spending Clause But if one concludes that something like § 1373 constitutes impermissible commandeering in violation of federalism principles laid out in Printz, then the federal government would try to overcome the cities’ Tenth Amendment objection by relying on a second, different basis for federal power—the power the feds enjoy to attach strings to federal funding under the so-called Spending Clause of Article I. The Spending Clause in some circumstances gives the federal government power to achieve what it cannot directly command by creating monetary incentives for state and local governments. The spending authority, as it has been interpreted by the Court, is limited, however, in that it requires that any conditions the feds impose on the funding: (1) be clearly communicated to the states/cities up front, so the recipients can knowingly decide whether to accept the deal; (2) be rationally related to the purposes of federal funding in the first place; and (3) not require the states to do something that violates any other part of the Constitution. In addition, the Court has recently held, the funding at issue cannot be something on which states/cities have come to rely to such a great extent in the past so that they really have no choice but to accept any new strings that are attached. If these four aspects are satisfied, then the funding conditions are valid requirements under Article I and do not violate the Tenth Amendment, whether or not the feds could mandate compliance with the conditions in the absence of the funding carrot. Misapplication or Misunderstanding by Lower Federal Courts All of this is chock full of doctrinal details to be sure, but is nonetheless relatively clear and straightforward, even with all the steps involved. Except that some lower courts don’t seem to understand it. For example, in a ruling last month by a district court in the City of Chicago’s challenge to Attorney General Sessions’ insistence that Chicago comply with § 1367, the court conceived of the inquiry into § 1373’s constitutionality as follows: [The AG’s insistence on] compliance [with § 1373] must be proper under the Spending Clause, and 1373 must pass constitutional muster [under the Printz analysis.] As the City has not argued that the compliance condition violates the Spending Clause, the Court now turns to the Section 1373 question [under the Printz line of cases]. The court ultimately concluded that § 1373 did not run afoul of the Printz anti-commandeering principle (for reasons similar to some that were mentioned above), so running the statute through the Printz analysis did not in the end cause the federal government any harm. But the key point is that once it is conceded that compliance with § 1373 to obtain federal money is a valid condition on funding under the Spending Clause doctrine, it is irrelevant whether 1373’s mandate—in the absence of a conditional funding scheme—would violate the Printz anti-commandeering rule. Passing muster under Spending Clause doctrine and passing muster under the Printz doctrine are alternative ways for the federal government to prevail. If it wins on either, it wins. It needn’t win on both, the way the district court erroneously thought. Put another way, if a federal condition on funding is permissible under Spending Clause doctrine, it cannot, by definition, be an impermissible commandeering, since (by hypothesis) states have an option of turning the deal down. Hence, there is no federal mandate that could be considered to be commandeering. The point may seem nit-picky, but it’s not. It goes to the fundamental ways in which different yet related doctrines (in this case Spending Clause doctrine and the anti-commandeering principle) involving federal-state relations fit together. If federal courts are going to be able to enforce the limits that federalism creates on the national government, while at the same time permit the feds to operate in their own proper sphere (and inspire confidence in the public as they accomplish both objectives), they (and their law clerks) need to understand not just nuanced technical details of various specific doctrines, but the overall federalism big picture as well. [https://justatic.com/v/20171005a/verdict/images/authors/thumbs/amar.jpg] Follow @prof_amar Vikram David Amar is the Iwan Foundation Professor of Law and the Dean at the University of Illinois College of Law. Previously, he served as the Associate Dean for Academic Affairs and Professor of Law at the University of California, Davis School of Law. He is a 1988 graduate of the Yale Law School and a former clerk to Justice Harry Blackmun. He is a co-author, along with William Cohen and Jonathan Varat, of a major constitutional law casebook, and a co-author of several volumes of the Wright & Miller treatise on federal practice and procedure. Before teaching, Professor Amar spent a few years at the firm of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher. RECENT ARTICLES The Troublingly Widening Gyre of Complicity Claims Cornell University law professor Michael C. Dorf describes a principle most famously articulated by Thomas Jefferson, under which there should be a right to avoid providing financial support for causes one strongly opposes. Dorf argues that the Jeffersonian principle has lately run amok. He points out that the government’s argument against allowing a seventeen-year-old undocumented immigrant in federal custody to obtain a privately funded abortion is but one example of the government’s too-broad definition of “facilitation” of acts with which it disagrees. Dorf argues that adoption of such a position would convert every objectionable private exercise of rights into government participation.... Read More Body Worn Cameras: The Dog That Won’t Bark Cornell University law professor Joe Margulies comments on the findings of a recent study of police body cameras that body-worn cameras made no statistically significant difference in how police go about their jobs. Margulies points out that the story is not in the absence of a difference, but in people’s surprise to the absence of a difference. Indeed, it is the routine, not the anomalous, that requires reform.... Read More What Needs to Happen Next for the #MeToo Campaign to Fulfill Its Potential Professor and resident senior fellow in the Fox Leadership Program at the University of Pennsylvania, Marci A. Hamilton praises the #MeToo campaign and explains what more needs to happen to meaningfully address the pervasive issues of sexual assault and abuse against children and adults. Hamilton points to the brave actions by Olympic gymnast McKayla Maroney and elaborates on what must change in our society to empower victims and hold those in power accountable.... Read More [Forward this email.] Have friends who like law? Forward this email. [Like Verdict on Facebook] Like Verdict for legal discussions on Facebook. [Follow @verdictjustia on Twitter] Follow @verdictjustia for news and updates on Twitter. [Justia] Contact Us | Privacy Policy [Facebook][Twitter][LinkedIn][Justia][GooglePlus] You received this email because you have subscribed to the Verdict News E-Mail Feed. . Justia | 1380 Pear Ave, Suite 2B, Mountain View, CA 94043 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Fri Nov 3 09:21:27 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2017 09:21:27 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] ICEman UI Yale Law Mafia Dean Amar Aligns with Trump/Sessions against Sanctuary Cities & 11 Million Undocumented Migrants In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: And ditto for every Undocumented Migrant who has lived in Champaign County since 1986. If it had been up to ICEman Dean Amar instead of me, Urbana would have never been a Sanctuary for them for the past 31 years. The College of Law is an intellectual and moral cesspool. QED. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Friday, November 03, 2017 4:07 AM To: David Green ; C. G. ESTABROOK ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay ; David Johnson ; Mildred O'brien ; Estabrook, Carl G ; David Swanson Subject: RE: ICEman UI Yale Law Mafia Dean Amar Aligns with Trump/Sessions against Sanctuary Cities & 11 Million Undocumented Migrants As I said last year in our Rally against Killer Koh, the College of Law is an intellectual and moral cesspool. We have about 10,000 Undocumented Migrants in Champaign County. If it had been up to “Dean” Amar instead of me, Urbana would have never become a Sanctuary for them. Ditto for 1986 when we had about 8000 Undocumented Migrants in Champaign County. QED. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2017 11:35 AM To: David Green >; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; Estabrook, Carl G >; David Swanson > Subject: RE: ICEman UI Yale Law Mafia Dean Amar Aligns with Trump/Sessions against Sanctuary Cities & 11 Million Undocumented Migrants Sorry, Correction that is 2016 on Urbana reaffirming itself as a Sanctuary City having been one since 1986. According to his biography ICEman UI Yale Law Mafia Dean Amar had just graduated from college in 1985 around when I originally argued the case for Urbana to become a Sanctuary City under a public death threat from the American Nazi Party if I did so. Back then going door to door against us in Urbana were the American Nazi Party, the Ku Klux Klan, Phyllis Schaffly’s Eagle Forum and the Republican Party of Champaign County. Birds of a Feather Flock Together. I don’t like Nazis and Klanners. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Thursday, November 2, 2017 10:58 AM To: David Green >; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; Estabrook, Carl G >; David Swanson > Subject: RE: ICEman UI Yale Law Mafia Dean Amar Aligns with Trump/Sessions against Sanctuary Cities & 11 Million Undocumented Migrants And for the record, back in the mid-1980s, I was also personally involved in turning San Francisco into a Sanctuary City and Evanston into a Sanctuary City—which they both still are three decades later. Amar can stick all that where the sun don’t shine! Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Thursday, November 2, 2017 10:49 AM To: David Green >; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; Estabrook, Carl G >; David Swanson > Subject: ICEman UI Yale Law Mafia Dean Amar Aligns with Trump/Sessions against Sanctuary Cities & 11 Million Undocumented Migrants Yeah well in 1986 I convinced Urbana to become a Sanctuary City which it continued to be for 30 years and then with all your help got that reaffirmed in 2006—according to USA Today the only Sanctuary City between Chicago and New Orleans until Governor Rauner—a Conservative Republican— signed legislation that turned the entire State of Illinois into a Sanctuary State. Amar can stuff that up his bucket. Maybe Amar is tired of being Dean at the No. 44 Law School in the country and is gunning for a slot in the Trump/Sessions Department of Injustice or ICE—become an ICEman? Fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Justia Verdict [mailto:verdictsupport at justia.com] Sent: Thursday, November 2, 2017 10:08 AM To: Boyle, Francis A > Subject: Vikram David Amar - The Need for Clearer Understanding of the Basic Federalism Doctrines Concerning Sanctuary Cities and Other Federal-State Flashpoin Illinois Law dean and professor Vikram David Amar explains the federalism doctrines implicated by Attorney General Sessions’ attempt to deny funding to sanctuary jurisdictions. Amar points to lower court decisions that reflect a misunderstanding of the doctrines and calls upon federal courts and their law clerks to better understand and apply not just the nuanced technical details of various specific doctrines, but the overall federalism big picture as well. Click here to view in your browser if you are having trouble viewing this email. [Verdict - Legal Analysis and commentary from Justia.] The Need for Clearer Understanding of the Basic Federalism Doctrines Concerning Sanctuary Cities and Other Federal-State Flashpoints Vikram David Amar Nov 2, 2017 [https://i2.wp.com/verdict.justia.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/shutterstock_579926992.jpg?quality=90&resize=426%2C350&strip=all&fit=1000%25&ssl=1] As many of the lawsuits against Trump administration policies brought by state and local entities move towards their resolution on the merits in both federal district and appellate courts, it is becoming clear that courts are confused about some basic ways that various aspects of the doctrine of federalism—that is, the proper relationship between the federal and state governments—relate to each other. Case in point: the dispute between various cities and the Trump Department of Justice (DOJ) concerning Attorney General Sessions’ attempts to deny federal funding to so-called “sanctuary cities.” The Trump administration believes that jurisdictions that hold themselves out as sanctuaries facilitate crime. (The trial that began last week of Jose Ines Garcia Zarate, an undocumented man accused of murdering San Francisco woman and American citizen Kate Stienle two years ago, is directing a lot of publicity to the administration’s stance here.) Based on his views, President Trump issued an executive order shortly after taking office in which he directed relevant cabinet officers to deprive “sanctuary jurisdictions” of federal funding and to “take [additional] appropriate enforcement action” against them. That is the framework within which Attorney General Sessions has been trying to deny funding to sanctuary jurisdictions who seek grants under the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program, which supports state and local law enforcement with money for equipment, training, and personnel. In particular, the federal DOJ is requiring all funding applicants to: (1) provide federal agents with advanced notice of the scheduled release from state custody of certain individuals suspected of immigration violations; (2) provide the feds physical access to non-citizens who are being housed in state and local detention facilities; and (3) certify compliance with 8 U.S.C. § 1373. Section 1373, in pertinent part, provides that “a . . . State, or local government entity or official may not prohibit, or in any way restrict, any government entity or official from [maintaining,] sending to, or receiving from, [federal immigration authorities] information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual.” Thus, the statute prevents a state or local government from having a policy or practice that forbids maintaining or giving to the feds information on the immigration status of individuals. Many cities have challenged one or more of these conditions, arguing that the federal government exceeds its powers under the Tenth Amendment by imposing such requirements on states and localities. There are two possible federal responses to this Tenth Amendment challenge. An Argument for Authority Under Article I to Regulate Immigration First, the feds can and do argue that they have authority to adopt these conditions pursuant to their power under Article I of the Constitution to regulate immigration, naturalization, and foreign affairs. As a general matter, this power is quite broad and may very well suffice to support the federal government’s requirements in this realm, but states and cities have a rejoinder here—a series of cases the Supreme Court decided in the 1990s that, collectively, create a rule known as the “anti-commandeering” doctrine. The basic idea is that, notwithstanding broad Article I powers of the federal government, the Tenth Amendment forbids the federal government coercing states and localities into providing affirmative enforcement assistance to federal authorities. In this setting, states and cities argue that the anti-commandeering principle prevents the feds from requiring state and local authorities to affirmatively provide information about or access to individuals who may have committed immigration law violations. Perhaps the most important Supreme Court case on this point is Printz v. United States (1997), in which the Supreme Court held that the federal government could not require state and local law enforcement officers to conduct background checks on gun purchasers as part of the implementation of a federal law (the Brady gun control law). “The Federal Government,” the Court said, “may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program.” According to many cities, this is precisely what Attorney General Sessions is trying to do. There are many questions about whether Printz would continue to command majority support at the Supreme Court today, whether there might be an “immigration exception” to the Printz doctrine, and whether Printz by its own terms even applies to information-only demands by the feds (which would mean § 1373 would be ok, regardless of whether the demands for access to persons in state and local detention would be). If courts conclude that statutes like § 1373 do not constitute commandeering and are permissible under Printz (for any of the reasons in the previous sentence) then the feds can require that states and cities comply with them, pure and simple, under the Article I powers (concerning immigration, naturalization and foreign affairs) mentioned earlier. An Argument for Authority Under the Spending Clause But if one concludes that something like § 1373 constitutes impermissible commandeering in violation of federalism principles laid out in Printz, then the federal government would try to overcome the cities’ Tenth Amendment objection by relying on a second, different basis for federal power—the power the feds enjoy to attach strings to federal funding under the so-called Spending Clause of Article I. The Spending Clause in some circumstances gives the federal government power to achieve what it cannot directly command by creating monetary incentives for state and local governments. The spending authority, as it has been interpreted by the Court, is limited, however, in that it requires that any conditions the feds impose on the funding: (1) be clearly communicated to the states/cities up front, so the recipients can knowingly decide whether to accept the deal; (2) be rationally related to the purposes of federal funding in the first place; and (3) not require the states to do something that violates any other part of the Constitution. In addition, the Court has recently held, the funding at issue cannot be something on which states/cities have come to rely to such a great extent in the past so that they really have no choice but to accept any new strings that are attached. If these four aspects are satisfied, then the funding conditions are valid requirements under Article I and do not violate the Tenth Amendment, whether or not the feds could mandate compliance with the conditions in the absence of the funding carrot. Misapplication or Misunderstanding by Lower Federal Courts All of this is chock full of doctrinal details to be sure, but is nonetheless relatively clear and straightforward, even with all the steps involved. Except that some lower courts don’t seem to understand it. For example, in a ruling last month by a district court in the City of Chicago’s challenge to Attorney General Sessions’ insistence that Chicago comply with § 1367, the court conceived of the inquiry into § 1373’s constitutionality as follows: [The AG’s insistence on] compliance [with § 1373] must be proper under the Spending Clause, and 1373 must pass constitutional muster [under the Printz analysis.] As the City has not argued that the compliance condition violates the Spending Clause, the Court now turns to the Section 1373 question [under the Printz line of cases]. The court ultimately concluded that § 1373 did not run afoul of the Printz anti-commandeering principle (for reasons similar to some that were mentioned above), so running the statute through the Printz analysis did not in the end cause the federal government any harm. But the key point is that once it is conceded that compliance with § 1373 to obtain federal money is a valid condition on funding under the Spending Clause doctrine, it is irrelevant whether 1373’s mandate—in the absence of a conditional funding scheme—would violate the Printz anti-commandeering rule. Passing muster under Spending Clause doctrine and passing muster under the Printz doctrine are alternative ways for the federal government to prevail. If it wins on either, it wins. It needn’t win on both, the way the district court erroneously thought. Put another way, if a federal condition on funding is permissible under Spending Clause doctrine, it cannot, by definition, be an impermissible commandeering, since (by hypothesis) states have an option of turning the deal down. Hence, there is no federal mandate that could be considered to be commandeering. The point may seem nit-picky, but it’s not. It goes to the fundamental ways in which different yet related doctrines (in this case Spending Clause doctrine and the anti-commandeering principle) involving federal-state relations fit together. If federal courts are going to be able to enforce the limits that federalism creates on the national government, while at the same time permit the feds to operate in their own proper sphere (and inspire confidence in the public as they accomplish both objectives), they (and their law clerks) need to understand not just nuanced technical details of various specific doctrines, but the overall federalism big picture as well. [https://justatic.com/v/20171005a/verdict/images/authors/thumbs/amar.jpg] Follow @prof_amar Vikram David Amar is the Iwan Foundation Professor of Law and the Dean at the University of Illinois College of Law. Previously, he served as the Associate Dean for Academic Affairs and Professor of Law at the University of California, Davis School of Law. He is a 1988 graduate of the Yale Law School and a former clerk to Justice Harry Blackmun. He is a co-author, along with William Cohen and Jonathan Varat, of a major constitutional law casebook, and a co-author of several volumes of the Wright & Miller treatise on federal practice and procedure. Before teaching, Professor Amar spent a few years at the firm of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher. RECENT ARTICLES The Troublingly Widening Gyre of Complicity Claims Cornell University law professor Michael C. Dorf describes a principle most famously articulated by Thomas Jefferson, under which there should be a right to avoid providing financial support for causes one strongly opposes. Dorf argues that the Jeffersonian principle has lately run amok. He points out that the government’s argument against allowing a seventeen-year-old undocumented immigrant in federal custody to obtain a privately funded abortion is but one example of the government’s too-broad definition of “facilitation” of acts with which it disagrees. Dorf argues that adoption of such a position would convert every objectionable private exercise of rights into government participation.... Read More Body Worn Cameras: The Dog That Won’t Bark Cornell University law professor Joe Margulies comments on the findings of a recent study of police body cameras that body-worn cameras made no statistically significant difference in how police go about their jobs. Margulies points out that the story is not in the absence of a difference, but in people’s surprise to the absence of a difference. Indeed, it is the routine, not the anomalous, that requires reform.... Read More What Needs to Happen Next for the #MeToo Campaign to Fulfill Its Potential Professor and resident senior fellow in the Fox Leadership Program at the University of Pennsylvania, Marci A. Hamilton praises the #MeToo campaign and explains what more needs to happen to meaningfully address the pervasive issues of sexual assault and abuse against children and adults. Hamilton points to the brave actions by Olympic gymnast McKayla Maroney and elaborates on what must change in our society to empower victims and hold those in power accountable.... Read More [Forward this email.] Have friends who like law? Forward this email. [Like Verdict on Facebook] Like Verdict for legal discussions on Facebook. [Follow @verdictjustia on Twitter] Follow @verdictjustia for news and updates on Twitter. [Justia] Contact Us | Privacy Policy [Facebook][Twitter][LinkedIn][Justia][GooglePlus] You received this email because you have subscribed to the Verdict News E-Mail Feed. . Justia | 1380 Pear Ave, Suite 2B, Mountain View, CA 94043 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Fri Nov 3 11:34:35 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2017 11:34:35 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] News Gazoo: Chancellor Jones' "Critical Conversation" on Chief Illiniwak Message-ID: Dear Chancellor Jones: After you are finished with your "Critical Conversation" and "dialogue" and "debate" over Chief Illiniwak, I would like to respectfully suggest that we next have a "Critical Conversation" and "dialogue" and "debate" over American Slavery. Then we can move on to a "Critical Conversation" and "dialogue" and "debate" over the Nazi Holocaust against the Jews. Yours very truly, Francis A. Boyle Professor of Law Board of Directors, Amnesty International USA (1988-1992) The Racist Mascot: Why You Should Still Boo Illinois The self-styled "Fighting Illini" of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign are on their way to the Jan. 1, 2008 Rose Bowl with their racist and genocidal mascot and symbol Chief Illiniwak still in tow. Although the NCAA forced the University of Illiniwaks to prevent this Little Red Sambo from desecrating at half-times everything American Indians hold dear and treasure, nevertheless Chief Illiniwak still remains the officially designated "honored symbol" of the University of Illiniwaks at Urbana-Champaign. Just recently the University of Illiniwaks resurrected Chief Illiniwak for their Fall 2007 Homecoming in order to better milk their Alumni/ae as part of their newly launched Capital Campaign, thus definitively proving their craven racism. In his Year 501: The Conquest Continues (1993) Noam Chomsky suggests an apt metaphor for such American Indian sports mascots and symbols that I will elaborate upon here in order to conform to our local and most peculiar rites on this campus: Suppose the Nazis had won the Second World War. Sixty years later, a prestigious German state university has a mascot for all of its sports teams and sports fans by the name of "The Rabbi." Basically what happens is that a student from the Hitler Youth League dresses up in an authentic costume for an Hasidic Rabbi, complete with the curl-locks and a beard. The University itself collectively call themselves "The Fighting Jews," and the school's band is called "The Marching Jews." The student newspaper is called "The Daily Jew." All the sports fans in town wear jackets and t-shirts with pictures of The Rabbi prominently displayed on them. And most cars have Rabbi stickers planted all over them. Three years ago the University's Board of Trustees ran out of town on a rail a courageous and principled Chancellor who had the temerity to publicly suggest that the time had now come to "retire" the Rabbi. So of course there was a heated campaign on among the students and alumni to "Save the Rabbi!" This German state university plays its soccer matches over at the Nuremberg Stadium in front of an audience of about 75,000 White Aryans, almost all of whom are wearing pro-Rabbi images and clothes. At half-time the Marching Jews take to the stadium floor and begin playing what they purport to be Jewish sounding music along the lines of Fiddler-on-the-Roof. Then all 75,000 White Aryans rise as one and shout in unison: "Rabbi! Rabbi! Rabbi! Rabbi!" gesticulating wildly and working themselves up into a feeding frenzy. One lone faculty member sits there in protest shouting "Racist Rabbi!" and everyone in the vicinity proceeds to throw garbage at him.1 Finally, the moment these ardent White Aryans have all waited for has arrived. The Rabbi runs out onto the arena floor from among the Marching Jews, proceeds to the center of the Nuremberg Stadium, and dances the Hava Nagila while the Marching Jews play on and march into an intricately choreographed maneuver that they all brag about and take special pride in that culminates with the band being organized into a Swastika. So the Rabbi continues to dance the Hava Nagila while the Marching Jews march themselves into a Swastika. By now all 75,000 White Aryans are hysterical, shouting, screaming, and yelling: "Rabbi! Rabbi! Rabbi!" This semi-religious spectacle that the Nazis are well known for staging, especially at the Nuremberg stadium, goes on for a good twenty minutes. It all concludes with everyone joining hands to sing "Deutschland, Deutschland, Uber Alles," with the Rabbi leading all 75,000 White Aryans in the song. Then the Rabbi proceeds to dance the Hava Nagila out of the stadium followed by the Marching Jews. Everyone goes wild, clapping and cheering. This Rabbi ceremony brings tears to the eyes of many drunken alumni and students who had started several hours beforehand getting inebriated on schnapps and good German beer at pre-game tailgate parties. When it is all over, a visiting law professor from another country asks his host at the soccer match what this spectacle was all about. Without missing a beat Dean Mengele of the Law School turns to his guest and says: "We are honoring the Jews." Whom the Nazis had just exterminated 60 years ago, so of course the memory of the Jews needs to be honored by this spectacle. The Illiniwek Indians were ethnically cleansed out of Illinois about a century before that. These are the real "Little Eichmans." Be sure to "Boo!" and root against the Illiniwaks. [cid:image002.jpg at 01D3546D.796D6FE0] Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) ________________________________ 1 Guess who? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 53161 bytes Desc: image002.jpg URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Fri Nov 3 11:34:35 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2017 11:34:35 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] News Gazoo: Chancellor Jones' "Critical Conversation" on Chief Illiniwak Message-ID: Dear Chancellor Jones: After you are finished with your "Critical Conversation" and "dialogue" and "debate" over Chief Illiniwak, I would like to respectfully suggest that we next have a "Critical Conversation" and "dialogue" and "debate" over American Slavery. Then we can move on to a "Critical Conversation" and "dialogue" and "debate" over the Nazi Holocaust against the Jews. Yours very truly, Francis A. Boyle Professor of Law Board of Directors, Amnesty International USA (1988-1992) The Racist Mascot: Why You Should Still Boo Illinois The self-styled "Fighting Illini" of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign are on their way to the Jan. 1, 2008 Rose Bowl with their racist and genocidal mascot and symbol Chief Illiniwak still in tow. Although the NCAA forced the University of Illiniwaks to prevent this Little Red Sambo from desecrating at half-times everything American Indians hold dear and treasure, nevertheless Chief Illiniwak still remains the officially designated "honored symbol" of the University of Illiniwaks at Urbana-Champaign. Just recently the University of Illiniwaks resurrected Chief Illiniwak for their Fall 2007 Homecoming in order to better milk their Alumni/ae as part of their newly launched Capital Campaign, thus definitively proving their craven racism. In his Year 501: The Conquest Continues (1993) Noam Chomsky suggests an apt metaphor for such American Indian sports mascots and symbols that I will elaborate upon here in order to conform to our local and most peculiar rites on this campus: Suppose the Nazis had won the Second World War. Sixty years later, a prestigious German state university has a mascot for all of its sports teams and sports fans by the name of "The Rabbi." Basically what happens is that a student from the Hitler Youth League dresses up in an authentic costume for an Hasidic Rabbi, complete with the curl-locks and a beard. The University itself collectively call themselves "The Fighting Jews," and the school's band is called "The Marching Jews." The student newspaper is called "The Daily Jew." All the sports fans in town wear jackets and t-shirts with pictures of The Rabbi prominently displayed on them. And most cars have Rabbi stickers planted all over them. Three years ago the University's Board of Trustees ran out of town on a rail a courageous and principled Chancellor who had the temerity to publicly suggest that the time had now come to "retire" the Rabbi. So of course there was a heated campaign on among the students and alumni to "Save the Rabbi!" This German state university plays its soccer matches over at the Nuremberg Stadium in front of an audience of about 75,000 White Aryans, almost all of whom are wearing pro-Rabbi images and clothes. At half-time the Marching Jews take to the stadium floor and begin playing what they purport to be Jewish sounding music along the lines of Fiddler-on-the-Roof. Then all 75,000 White Aryans rise as one and shout in unison: "Rabbi! Rabbi! Rabbi! Rabbi!" gesticulating wildly and working themselves up into a feeding frenzy. One lone faculty member sits there in protest shouting "Racist Rabbi!" and everyone in the vicinity proceeds to throw garbage at him.1 Finally, the moment these ardent White Aryans have all waited for has arrived. The Rabbi runs out onto the arena floor from among the Marching Jews, proceeds to the center of the Nuremberg Stadium, and dances the Hava Nagila while the Marching Jews play on and march into an intricately choreographed maneuver that they all brag about and take special pride in that culminates with the band being organized into a Swastika. So the Rabbi continues to dance the Hava Nagila while the Marching Jews march themselves into a Swastika. By now all 75,000 White Aryans are hysterical, shouting, screaming, and yelling: "Rabbi! Rabbi! Rabbi!" This semi-religious spectacle that the Nazis are well known for staging, especially at the Nuremberg stadium, goes on for a good twenty minutes. It all concludes with everyone joining hands to sing "Deutschland, Deutschland, Uber Alles," with the Rabbi leading all 75,000 White Aryans in the song. Then the Rabbi proceeds to dance the Hava Nagila out of the stadium followed by the Marching Jews. Everyone goes wild, clapping and cheering. This Rabbi ceremony brings tears to the eyes of many drunken alumni and students who had started several hours beforehand getting inebriated on schnapps and good German beer at pre-game tailgate parties. When it is all over, a visiting law professor from another country asks his host at the soccer match what this spectacle was all about. Without missing a beat Dean Mengele of the Law School turns to his guest and says: "We are honoring the Jews." Whom the Nazis had just exterminated 60 years ago, so of course the memory of the Jews needs to be honored by this spectacle. The Illiniwek Indians were ethnically cleansed out of Illinois about a century before that. These are the real "Little Eichmans." Be sure to "Boo!" and root against the Illiniwaks. [cid:image002.jpg at 01D3546D.796D6FE0] Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) ________________________________ 1 Guess who? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 53161 bytes Desc: image002.jpg URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Fri Nov 3 11:47:49 2017 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2017 06:47:49 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] AWARE ON THE AIR, October 31 Message-ID: <1C3E19FA-083B-4F4B-89DA-E63A132AB20E@gmail.com> US war with China. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXcrmtUXGBM -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Fri Nov 3 12:11:01 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2017 12:11:01 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] News Gazoo: Chancellor Jones' "Critical Conversation" on Chief Illiniwak Message-ID: I hereby nominate the current Fuhrer of the American Nazi Party to come in for these "Critical Conversations" and present the arguments in favor of Chief Illiniwak, American Slavery, and the Nazi Holocaust against the Jews. Where is George Lincoln Rockwell when the University of Illiniwaks need him? Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Friday, November 03, 2017 6:35 AM To: David Green ; C. G. ESTABROOK ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay ; David Johnson ; Mildred O'brien ; Estabrook, Carl G ; David Swanson Cc: Kaufman, Stephen J Subject: News Gazoo: Chancellor Jones' "Critical Conversation" on Chief Illiniwak Dear Chancellor Jones: After you are finished with your "Critical Conversation" and "dialogue" and "debate" over Chief Illiniwak, I would like to respectfully suggest that we next have a "Critical Conversation" and "dialogue" and "debate" over American Slavery. Then we can move on to a "Critical Conversation" and "dialogue" and "debate" over the Nazi Holocaust against the Jews. Yours very truly, Francis A. Boyle Professor of Law Board of Directors, Amnesty International USA (1988-1992) The Racist Mascot: Why You Should Still Boo Illinois The self-styled "Fighting Illini" of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign are on their way to the Jan. 1, 2008 Rose Bowl with their racist and genocidal mascot and symbol Chief Illiniwak still in tow. Although the NCAA forced the University of Illiniwaks to prevent this Little Red Sambo from desecrating at half-times everything American Indians hold dear and treasure, nevertheless Chief Illiniwak still remains the officially designated "honored symbol" of the University of Illiniwaks at Urbana-Champaign. Just recently the University of Illiniwaks resurrected Chief Illiniwak for their Fall 2007 Homecoming in order to better milk their Alumni/ae as part of their newly launched Capital Campaign, thus definitively proving their craven racism. In his Year 501: The Conquest Continues (1993) Noam Chomsky suggests an apt metaphor for such American Indian sports mascots and symbols that I will elaborate upon here in order to conform to our local and most peculiar rites on this campus: Suppose the Nazis had won the Second World War. Sixty years later, a prestigious German state university has a mascot for all of its sports teams and sports fans by the name of "The Rabbi." Basically what happens is that a student from the Hitler Youth League dresses up in an authentic costume for an Hasidic Rabbi, complete with the curl-locks and a beard. The University itself collectively call themselves "The Fighting Jews," and the school's band is called "The Marching Jews." The student newspaper is called "The Daily Jew." All the sports fans in town wear jackets and t-shirts with pictures of The Rabbi prominently displayed on them. And most cars have Rabbi stickers planted all over them. Three years ago the University's Board of Trustees ran out of town on a rail a courageous and principled Chancellor who had the temerity to publicly suggest that the time had now come to "retire" the Rabbi. So of course there was a heated campaign on among the students and alumni to "Save the Rabbi!" This German state university plays its soccer matches over at the Nuremberg Stadium in front of an audience of about 75,000 White Aryans, almost all of whom are wearing pro-Rabbi images and clothes. At half-time the Marching Jews take to the stadium floor and begin playing what they purport to be Jewish sounding music along the lines of Fiddler-on-the-Roof. Then all 75,000 White Aryans rise as one and shout in unison: "Rabbi! Rabbi! Rabbi! Rabbi!" gesticulating wildly and working themselves up into a feeding frenzy. One lone faculty member sits there in protest shouting "Racist Rabbi!" and everyone in the vicinity proceeds to throw garbage at him.1 Finally, the moment these ardent White Aryans have all waited for has arrived. The Rabbi runs out onto the arena floor from among the Marching Jews, proceeds to the center of the Nuremberg Stadium, and dances the Hava Nagila while the Marching Jews play on and march into an intricately choreographed maneuver that they all brag about and take special pride in that culminates with the band being organized into a Swastika. So the Rabbi continues to dance the Hava Nagila while the Marching Jews march themselves into a Swastika. By now all 75,000 White Aryans are hysterical, shouting, screaming, and yelling: "Rabbi! Rabbi! Rabbi!" This semi-religious spectacle that the Nazis are well known for staging, especially at the Nuremberg stadium, goes on for a good twenty minutes. It all concludes with everyone joining hands to sing "Deutschland, Deutschland, Uber Alles," with the Rabbi leading all 75,000 White Aryans in the song. Then the Rabbi proceeds to dance the Hava Nagila out of the stadium followed by the Marching Jews. Everyone goes wild, clapping and cheering. This Rabbi ceremony brings tears to the eyes of many drunken alumni and students who had started several hours beforehand getting inebriated on schnapps and good German beer at pre-game tailgate parties. When it is all over, a visiting law professor from another country asks his host at the soccer match what this spectacle was all about. Without missing a beat Dean Mengele of the Law School turns to his guest and says: "We are honoring the Jews." Whom the Nazis had just exterminated 60 years ago, so of course the memory of the Jews needs to be honored by this spectacle. The Illiniwek Indians were ethnically cleansed out of Illinois about a century before that. These are the real "Little Eichmans." Be sure to "Boo!" and root against the Illiniwaks. [cid:image002.jpg at 01D35472.E250FE00] Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) ________________________________ ________________________________ 1 Guess who? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 53166 bytes Desc: image002.jpg URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Fri Nov 3 12:11:01 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2017 12:11:01 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] News Gazoo: Chancellor Jones' "Critical Conversation" on Chief Illiniwak Message-ID: I hereby nominate the current Fuhrer of the American Nazi Party to come in for these "Critical Conversations" and present the arguments in favor of Chief Illiniwak, American Slavery, and the Nazi Holocaust against the Jews. Where is George Lincoln Rockwell when the University of Illiniwaks need him? Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Friday, November 03, 2017 6:35 AM To: David Green ; C. G. ESTABROOK ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay ; David Johnson ; Mildred O'brien ; Estabrook, Carl G ; David Swanson Cc: Kaufman, Stephen J Subject: News Gazoo: Chancellor Jones' "Critical Conversation" on Chief Illiniwak Dear Chancellor Jones: After you are finished with your "Critical Conversation" and "dialogue" and "debate" over Chief Illiniwak, I would like to respectfully suggest that we next have a "Critical Conversation" and "dialogue" and "debate" over American Slavery. Then we can move on to a "Critical Conversation" and "dialogue" and "debate" over the Nazi Holocaust against the Jews. Yours very truly, Francis A. Boyle Professor of Law Board of Directors, Amnesty International USA (1988-1992) The Racist Mascot: Why You Should Still Boo Illinois The self-styled "Fighting Illini" of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign are on their way to the Jan. 1, 2008 Rose Bowl with their racist and genocidal mascot and symbol Chief Illiniwak still in tow. Although the NCAA forced the University of Illiniwaks to prevent this Little Red Sambo from desecrating at half-times everything American Indians hold dear and treasure, nevertheless Chief Illiniwak still remains the officially designated "honored symbol" of the University of Illiniwaks at Urbana-Champaign. Just recently the University of Illiniwaks resurrected Chief Illiniwak for their Fall 2007 Homecoming in order to better milk their Alumni/ae as part of their newly launched Capital Campaign, thus definitively proving their craven racism. In his Year 501: The Conquest Continues (1993) Noam Chomsky suggests an apt metaphor for such American Indian sports mascots and symbols that I will elaborate upon here in order to conform to our local and most peculiar rites on this campus: Suppose the Nazis had won the Second World War. Sixty years later, a prestigious German state university has a mascot for all of its sports teams and sports fans by the name of "The Rabbi." Basically what happens is that a student from the Hitler Youth League dresses up in an authentic costume for an Hasidic Rabbi, complete with the curl-locks and a beard. The University itself collectively call themselves "The Fighting Jews," and the school's band is called "The Marching Jews." The student newspaper is called "The Daily Jew." All the sports fans in town wear jackets and t-shirts with pictures of The Rabbi prominently displayed on them. And most cars have Rabbi stickers planted all over them. Three years ago the University's Board of Trustees ran out of town on a rail a courageous and principled Chancellor who had the temerity to publicly suggest that the time had now come to "retire" the Rabbi. So of course there was a heated campaign on among the students and alumni to "Save the Rabbi!" This German state university plays its soccer matches over at the Nuremberg Stadium in front of an audience of about 75,000 White Aryans, almost all of whom are wearing pro-Rabbi images and clothes. At half-time the Marching Jews take to the stadium floor and begin playing what they purport to be Jewish sounding music along the lines of Fiddler-on-the-Roof. Then all 75,000 White Aryans rise as one and shout in unison: "Rabbi! Rabbi! Rabbi! Rabbi!" gesticulating wildly and working themselves up into a feeding frenzy. One lone faculty member sits there in protest shouting "Racist Rabbi!" and everyone in the vicinity proceeds to throw garbage at him.1 Finally, the moment these ardent White Aryans have all waited for has arrived. The Rabbi runs out onto the arena floor from among the Marching Jews, proceeds to the center of the Nuremberg Stadium, and dances the Hava Nagila while the Marching Jews play on and march into an intricately choreographed maneuver that they all brag about and take special pride in that culminates with the band being organized into a Swastika. So the Rabbi continues to dance the Hava Nagila while the Marching Jews march themselves into a Swastika. By now all 75,000 White Aryans are hysterical, shouting, screaming, and yelling: "Rabbi! Rabbi! Rabbi!" This semi-religious spectacle that the Nazis are well known for staging, especially at the Nuremberg stadium, goes on for a good twenty minutes. It all concludes with everyone joining hands to sing "Deutschland, Deutschland, Uber Alles," with the Rabbi leading all 75,000 White Aryans in the song. Then the Rabbi proceeds to dance the Hava Nagila out of the stadium followed by the Marching Jews. Everyone goes wild, clapping and cheering. This Rabbi ceremony brings tears to the eyes of many drunken alumni and students who had started several hours beforehand getting inebriated on schnapps and good German beer at pre-game tailgate parties. When it is all over, a visiting law professor from another country asks his host at the soccer match what this spectacle was all about. Without missing a beat Dean Mengele of the Law School turns to his guest and says: "We are honoring the Jews." Whom the Nazis had just exterminated 60 years ago, so of course the memory of the Jews needs to be honored by this spectacle. The Illiniwek Indians were ethnically cleansed out of Illinois about a century before that. These are the real "Little Eichmans." Be sure to "Boo!" and root against the Illiniwaks. [cid:image002.jpg at 01D35472.E250FE00] Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) ________________________________ ________________________________ 1 Guess who? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 53166 bytes Desc: image002.jpg URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Fri Nov 3 13:16:04 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2017 13:16:04 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Shocking revelations..... Message-ID: * bscribe to our Newsletter HOT TOPICS ▶ North Korea Target: Iran The Real Baltimore Reality Asserts Itself United Kingdom Donna Brazile Confesses that DNC Rigged Primaries Former DNC Interim Chair Donna Brazile confirms money laundering scheme between the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton campaign [Donna Brazile Confesses that DNC Rigged Primaries] By Michael Sainato November 2, 2017 On November 2, Donna Brazile published an excerpt from her upcoming book, “Hacks,” in Politico. In the passage, Brazile outlines how she first discovered the joint fundraising agreement between Hillary Clinton's campaign and the DNC that created the Hillary Victory Fund. The agreement is the most overt evidence that the DNC rigged the 2016 Democratic Primaries for Hillary Clinton. Essentially, Brazile claims that the fund was used to launder money to the Clinton Campaign, and in exchange the DNC received help in clearing out its debt. The catch was that former DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz and the entire apparatus of the DNC was at the control of the Clinton Campaign, serving as an extension of it under the false pretense of neutrality. "Individuals who had maxed out their $2,700 contribution limit to the campaign could write an additional check for $353,400 to the Hillary Victory Fund—that figure represented $10,000 to each of the thirty-two states’ parties who were part of the Victory Fund agreement—$320,000—and $33,400 to the DNC," Brazile writes. "The money would be deposited in the states first, and transferred to the DNC shortly after that. Money in the battleground states usually stayed in that state, but all the other states funneled that money directly to the DNC, which quickly transferred the money to Brooklyn." This news made it clear why Brazile had to have press releases approved by the Clinton Campaign in Brooklyn before they were sent out. Rather than place much too blame on the Clinton Campaign, Brazile explains that Debbie Wasserman Schultz ran the DNC into the ground, overpaying a large staff, vendors, and consultants while accomplishing little through fundraising. Brazile cites the existence of a document signed by the DNC, the Hillary Victory Fund, and Hillary For America that outlined the arrangement, signed by Attorney Marc Elias who has represented the DNC and Clinton Campaign. "In exchange for raising money and investing in the DNC, Hillary would control the party’s finances, strategy, and all the money raised," Brazile writes. "Her campaign had the right of refusal of who would be the party communications director, and it would make final decisions on all the other staff. The DNC also was required to consult with the campaign about all other staffing, budgeting, data, analytics, and mailings." This agreement was signed in August 2015, long before a single person voted in the primaries, but secured that Clinton would be the Democratic Presidential Nominee. Brazile, in an attempt to improve her own public image with Sanders Supporters in the wake of the Wikileaks revelations that she tipped off the Clinton Campaign to CNN debate questions, explained that she brought the agreement to the attention of Bernie Sanders personally after the primaries ended. Brazile wrote, "I told Bernie I had found Hillary’s Joint Fundraising Agreement. I explained that the cancer was that she had exerted this control of the party long before she became its nominee. Had I known this, I never would have accepted the interim chair position, but here we were with only weeks before the election." The passage doesn't explain the debate question debacle, nor mention that in interviews before the primaries, Brazile placed her loyalty to Clinton over neutrality. Brazile told the Washington Post in 2014: "Technically, I’m neutral, but neutrality is something that gets you in trouble because, you ever notice someone who stands on the white line in the middle of the road? They get run over. And I don’t want to get run over. So I’m not neutral. I have to tell people that I’m neutral, but I’m ready for Hillary.” Nevertheless, the revelation Brazile exposed in this excerpt provides further proof and vindication for Bernie Sanders supporters that the DNC was working on behalf of the Clinton Campaign. New DNC Chair Tom Perez, former DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz and the rest of the Democratic Party that was complacent in this coronation of Clinton will have to further reconcile and apologize for this agreement that disenfranchised millions of voters who supported Sanders. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Fri Nov 3 13:32:15 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2017 13:32:15 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Shocking revelations..... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Karen: With all due respect to you, I still remember when Dick Daley stole Illinois for JFK just a few miles from my home and everyone knew what was going on including me, a ten year old. Nothing about the Dems shocks me. fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Peace [mailto:peace-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Karen Aram via Peace Sent: Friday, November 3, 2017 8:16 AM To: Peace-discuss List Cc: peace Subject: [Peace] Shocking revelations..... · bscribe to our Newsletter HOT TOPICS ▶ North Korea Target: Iran The Real Baltimore Reality Asserts Itself United Kingdom Donna Brazile Confesses that DNC Rigged Primaries Former DNC Interim Chair Donna Brazile confirms money laundering scheme between the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton campaign [Donna Brazile Confesses that DNC Rigged Primaries] By Michael Sainato November 2, 2017 On November 2, Donna Brazile published an excerpt from her upcoming book, “Hacks,” in Politico. In the passage, Brazile outlines how she first discovered the joint fundraising agreement between Hillary Clinton's campaign and the DNC that created the Hillary Victory Fund. The agreement is the most overt evidence that the DNC rigged the 2016 Democratic Primaries for Hillary Clinton. Essentially, Brazile claims that the fund was used to launder money to the Clinton Campaign, and in exchange the DNC received help in clearing out its debt. The catch was that former DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz and the entire apparatus of the DNC was at the control of the Clinton Campaign, serving as an extension of it under the false pretense of neutrality. "Individuals who had maxed out their $2,700 contribution limit to the campaign could write an additional check for $353,400 to the Hillary Victory Fund—that figure represented $10,000 to each of the thirty-two states’ parties who were part of the Victory Fund agreement—$320,000—and $33,400 to the DNC," Brazile writes. "The money would be deposited in the states first, and transferred to the DNC shortly after that. Money in the battleground states usually stayed in that state, but all the other states funneled that money directly to the DNC, which quickly transferred the money to Brooklyn." This news made it clear why Brazile had to have press releases approved by the Clinton Campaign in Brooklyn before they were sent out. Rather than place much too blame on the Clinton Campaign, Brazile explains that Debbie Wasserman Schultz ran the DNC into the ground, overpaying a large staff, vendors, and consultants while accomplishing little through fundraising. Brazile cites the existence of a document signed by the DNC, the Hillary Victory Fund, and Hillary For America that outlined the arrangement, signed by Attorney Marc Elias who has represented the DNC and Clinton Campaign. "In exchange for raising money and investing in the DNC, Hillary would control the party’s finances, strategy, and all the money raised," Brazile writes. "Her campaign had the right of refusal of who would be the party communications director, and it would make final decisions on all the other staff. The DNC also was required to consult with the campaign about all other staffing, budgeting, data, analytics, and mailings." This agreement was signed in August 2015, long before a single person voted in the primaries, but secured that Clinton would be the Democratic Presidential Nominee. Brazile, in an attempt to improve her own public image with Sanders Supporters in the wake of the Wikileaks revelations that she tipped off the Clinton Campaign to CNN debate questions, explained that she brought the agreement to the attention of Bernie Sanders personally after the primaries ended. Brazile wrote, "I told Bernie I had found Hillary’s Joint Fundraising Agreement. I explained that the cancer was that she had exerted this control of the party long before she became its nominee. Had I known this, I never would have accepted the interim chair position, but here we were with only weeks before the election." The passage doesn't explain the debate question debacle, nor mention that in interviews before the primaries, Brazile placed her loyalty to Clinton over neutrality. Brazile told the Washington Post in 2014: "Technically, I’m neutral, but neutrality is something that gets you in trouble because, you ever notice someone who stands on the white line in the middle of the road? They get run over. And I don’t want to get run over. So I’m not neutral. I have to tell people that I’m neutral, but I’m ready for Hillary.” Nevertheless, the revelation Brazile exposed in this excerpt provides further proof and vindication for Bernie Sanders supporters that the DNC was working on behalf of the Clinton Campaign. New DNC Chair Tom Perez, former DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz and the rest of the Democratic Party that was complacent in this coronation of Clinton will have to further reconcile and apologize for this agreement that disenfranchised millions of voters who supported Sanders. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Fri Nov 3 14:13:35 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2017 14:13:35 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Shocking revelations..... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Understood. My “shocking revelations” was meant as sarcasm. It’s hardly shocking, though the media is presenting it as such, if at all. It is however, proof. On Nov 3, 2017, at 06:32, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: Dear Karen: With all due respect to you, I still remember when Dick Daley stole Illinois for JFK just a few miles from my home and everyone knew what was going on including me, a ten year old. Nothing about the Dems shocks me. fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Peace [mailto:peace-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Karen Aram via Peace Sent: Friday, November 3, 2017 8:16 AM To: Peace-discuss List > Cc: peace > Subject: [Peace] Shocking revelations..... • bscribe to our Newsletter HOT TOPICS ▶ North Korea Target: Iran The Real Baltimore Reality Asserts Itself United Kingdom Donna Brazile Confesses that DNC Rigged Primaries Former DNC Interim Chair Donna Brazile confirms money laundering scheme between the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton campaign [Donna Brazile Confesses that DNC Rigged Primaries] By Michael Sainato November 2, 2017 On November 2, Donna Brazile published an excerpt from her upcoming book, “Hacks,” in Politico. In the passage, Brazile outlines how she first discovered the joint fundraising agreement between Hillary Clinton's campaign and the DNC that created the Hillary Victory Fund. The agreement is the most overt evidence that the DNC rigged the 2016 Democratic Primaries for Hillary Clinton. Essentially, Brazile claims that the fund was used to launder money to the Clinton Campaign, and in exchange the DNC received help in clearing out its debt. The catch was that former DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz and the entire apparatus of the DNC was at the control of the Clinton Campaign, serving as an extension of it under the false pretense of neutrality. "Individuals who had maxed out their $2,700 contribution limit to the campaign could write an additional check for $353,400 to the Hillary Victory Fund—that figure represented $10,000 to each of the thirty-two states’ parties who were part of the Victory Fund agreement—$320,000—and $33,400 to the DNC," Brazile writes. "The money would be deposited in the states first, and transferred to the DNC shortly after that. Money in the battleground states usually stayed in that state, but all the other states funneled that money directly to the DNC, which quickly transferred the money to Brooklyn." This news made it clear why Brazile had to have press releases approved by the Clinton Campaign in Brooklyn before they were sent out. Rather than place much too blame on the Clinton Campaign, Brazile explains that Debbie Wasserman Schultz ran the DNC into the ground, overpaying a large staff, vendors, and consultants while accomplishing little through fundraising. Brazile cites the existence of a document signed by the DNC, the Hillary Victory Fund, and Hillary For America that outlined the arrangement, signed by Attorney Marc Elias who has represented the DNC and Clinton Campaign. "In exchange for raising money and investing in the DNC, Hillary would control the party’s finances, strategy, and all the money raised," Brazile writes. "Her campaign had the right of refusal of who would be the party communications director, and it would make final decisions on all the other staff. The DNC also was required to consult with the campaign about all other staffing, budgeting, data, analytics, and mailings." This agreement was signed in August 2015, long before a single person voted in the primaries, but secured that Clinton would be the Democratic Presidential Nominee. Brazile, in an attempt to improve her own public image with Sanders Supporters in the wake of the Wikileaks revelations that she tipped off the Clinton Campaign to CNN debate questions, explained that she brought the agreement to the attention of Bernie Sanders personally after the primaries ended. Brazile wrote, "I told Bernie I had found Hillary’s Joint Fundraising Agreement. I explained that the cancer was that she had exerted this control of the party long before she became its nominee. Had I known this, I never would have accepted the interim chair position, but here we were with only weeks before the election." The passage doesn't explain the debate question debacle, nor mention that in interviews before the primaries, Brazile placed her loyalty to Clinton over neutrality. Brazile told the Washington Post in 2014: "Technically, I’m neutral, but neutrality is something that gets you in trouble because, you ever notice someone who stands on the white line in the middle of the road? They get run over. And I don’t want to get run over. So I’m not neutral. I have to tell people that I’m neutral, but I’m ready for Hillary.” Nevertheless, the revelation Brazile exposed in this excerpt provides further proof and vindication for Bernie Sanders supporters that the DNC was working on behalf of the Clinton Campaign. New DNC Chair Tom Perez, former DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz and the rest of the Democratic Party that was complacent in this coronation of Clinton will have to further reconcile and apologize for this agreement that disenfranchised millions of voters who supported Sanders. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Fri Nov 3 14:35:06 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2017 14:35:06 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] News Gazoo: Chancellor Jones' "Critical Conversation" on Chief Illiniwak In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: "Just recently the University of Illiniwaks resurrected Chief Illiniwak for their Fall 2007 Homecoming in order to better milk their Alumni/ae as part of their newly launched Capital Campaign, thus definitively proving their craven racism." And just now again for their Fall 2017 Homecoming Parade in order to launch their new Capital Campaign, thus definitively proving once again their craven racism. Plus ca change at the University of Illiniwaks. fab. The Racist Mascot: Why You Should Still Boo Illinois The self-styled "Fighting Illini" of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign are on their way to the Jan. 1, 2008 Rose Bowl with their racist and genocidal mascot and symbol Chief Illiniwak still in tow. Although the NCAA forced the University of Illiniwaks to prevent this Little Red Sambo from desecrating at half-times everything American Indians hold dear and treasure, nevertheless Chief Illiniwak still remains the officially designated "honored symbol" of the University of Illiniwaks at Urbana-Champaign. Just recently the University of Illiniwaks resurrected Chief Illiniwak for their Fall 2007 Homecoming in order to better milk their Alumni/ae as part of their newly launched Capital Campaign, thus definitively proving their craven racism. In his Year 501: The Conquest Continues (1993) Noam Chomsky suggests an apt metaphor for such American Indian sports mascots and symbols that I will elaborate upon here in order to conform to our local and most peculiar rites on this campus: Suppose the Nazis had won the Second World War. Sixty years later, a prestigious German state university has a mascot for all of its sports teams and sports fans by the name of "The Rabbi." Basically what happens is that a student from the Hitler Youth League dresses up in an authentic costume for an Hasidic Rabbi, complete with the curl-locks and a beard. The University itself collectively call themselves "The Fighting Jews," and the school's band is called "The Marching Jews." The student newspaper is called "The Daily Jew." All the sports fans in town wear jackets and t-shirts with pictures of The Rabbi prominently displayed on them. And most cars have Rabbi stickers planted all over them. Three years ago the University's Board of Trustees ran out of town on a rail a courageous and principled Chancellor who had the temerity to publicly suggest that the time had now come to "retire" the Rabbi. So of course there was a heated campaign on among the students and alumni to "Save the Rabbi!" This German state university plays its soccer matches over at the Nuremberg Stadium in front of an audience of about 75,000 White Aryans, almost all of whom are wearing pro-Rabbi images and clothes. At half-time the Marching Jews take to the stadium floor and begin playing what they purport to be Jewish sounding music along the lines of Fiddler-on-the-Roof. Then all 75,000 White Aryans rise as one and shout in unison: "Rabbi! Rabbi! Rabbi! Rabbi!" gesticulating wildly and working themselves up into a feeding frenzy. One lone faculty member sits there in protest shouting "Racist Rabbi!" and everyone in the vicinity proceeds to throw garbage at him.1 Finally, the moment these ardent White Aryans have all waited for has arrived. The Rabbi runs out onto the arena floor from among the Marching Jews, proceeds to the center of the Nuremberg Stadium, and dances the Hava Nagila while the Marching Jews play on and march into an intricately choreographed maneuver that they all brag about and take special pride in that culminates with the band being organized into a Swastika. So the Rabbi continues to dance the Hava Nagila while the Marching Jews march themselves into a Swastika. By now all 75,000 White Aryans are hysterical, shouting, screaming, and yelling: "Rabbi! Rabbi! Rabbi!" This semi-religious spectacle that the Nazis are well known for staging, especially at the Nuremberg stadium, goes on for a good twenty minutes. It all concludes with everyone joining hands to sing "Deutschland, Deutschland, Uber Alles," with the Rabbi leading all 75,000 White Aryans in the song. Then the Rabbi proceeds to dance the Hava Nagila out of the stadium followed by the Marching Jews. Everyone goes wild, clapping and cheering. This Rabbi ceremony brings tears to the eyes of many drunken alumni and students who had started several hours beforehand getting inebriated on schnapps and good German beer at pre-game tailgate parties. When it is all over, a visiting law professor from another country asks his host at the soccer match what this spectacle was all about. Without missing a beat Dean Mengele of the Law School turns to his guest and says: "We are honoring the Jews." Whom the Nazis had just exterminated 60 years ago, so of course the memory of the Jews needs to be honored by this spectacle. The Illiniwek Indians were ethnically cleansed out of Illinois about a century before that. These are the real "Little Eichmans." Be sure to "Boo!" and root against the Illiniwaks. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Friday, November 3, 2017 6:35 AM To: David Green ; C. G. ESTABROOK ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay ; David Johnson ; Mildred O'brien ; Estabrook, Carl G ; David Swanson Cc: Kaufman, Stephen J Subject: News Gazoo: Chancellor Jones' "Critical Conversation" on Chief Illiniwak Dear Chancellor Jones: After you are finished with your "Critical Conversation" and "dialogue" and "debate" over Chief Illiniwak, I would like to respectfully suggest that we next have a "Critical Conversation" and "dialogue" and "debate" over American Slavery. Then we can move on to a "Critical Conversation" and "dialogue" and "debate" over the Nazi Holocaust against the Jews. Yours very truly, Francis A. Boyle Professor of Law Board of Directors, Amnesty International USA (1988-1992) The Racist Mascot: Why You Should Still Boo Illinois The self-styled "Fighting Illini" of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign are on their way to the Jan. 1, 2008 Rose Bowl with their racist and genocidal mascot and symbol Chief Illiniwak still in tow. Although the NCAA forced the University of Illiniwaks to prevent this Little Red Sambo from desecrating at half-times everything American Indians hold dear and treasure, nevertheless Chief Illiniwak still remains the officially designated "honored symbol" of the University of Illiniwaks at Urbana-Champaign. Just recently the University of Illiniwaks resurrected Chief Illiniwak for their Fall 2007 Homecoming in order to better milk their Alumni/ae as part of their newly launched Capital Campaign, thus definitively proving their craven racism. In his Year 501: The Conquest Continues (1993) Noam Chomsky suggests an apt metaphor for such American Indian sports mascots and symbols that I will elaborate upon here in order to conform to our local and most peculiar rites on this campus: Suppose the Nazis had won the Second World War. Sixty years later, a prestigious German state university has a mascot for all of its sports teams and sports fans by the name of "The Rabbi." Basically what happens is that a student from the Hitler Youth League dresses up in an authentic costume for an Hasidic Rabbi, complete with the curl-locks and a beard. The University itself collectively call themselves "The Fighting Jews," and the school's band is called "The Marching Jews." The student newspaper is called "The Daily Jew." All the sports fans in town wear jackets and t-shirts with pictures of The Rabbi prominently displayed on them. And most cars have Rabbi stickers planted all over them. Three years ago the University's Board of Trustees ran out of town on a rail a courageous and principled Chancellor who had the temerity to publicly suggest that the time had now come to "retire" the Rabbi. So of course there was a heated campaign on among the students and alumni to "Save the Rabbi!" This German state university plays its soccer matches over at the Nuremberg Stadium in front of an audience of about 75,000 White Aryans, almost all of whom are wearing pro-Rabbi images and clothes. At half-time the Marching Jews take to the stadium floor and begin playing what they purport to be Jewish sounding music along the lines of Fiddler-on-the-Roof. Then all 75,000 White Aryans rise as one and shout in unison: "Rabbi! Rabbi! Rabbi! Rabbi!" gesticulating wildly and working themselves up into a feeding frenzy. One lone faculty member sits there in protest shouting "Racist Rabbi!" and everyone in the vicinity proceeds to throw garbage at him.1 Finally, the moment these ardent White Aryans have all waited for has arrived. The Rabbi runs out onto the arena floor from among the Marching Jews, proceeds to the center of the Nuremberg Stadium, and dances the Hava Nagila while the Marching Jews play on and march into an intricately choreographed maneuver that they all brag about and take special pride in that culminates with the band being organized into a Swastika. So the Rabbi continues to dance the Hava Nagila while the Marching Jews march themselves into a Swastika. By now all 75,000 White Aryans are hysterical, shouting, screaming, and yelling: "Rabbi! Rabbi! Rabbi!" This semi-religious spectacle that the Nazis are well known for staging, especially at the Nuremberg stadium, goes on for a good twenty minutes. It all concludes with everyone joining hands to sing "Deutschland, Deutschland, Uber Alles," with the Rabbi leading all 75,000 White Aryans in the song. Then the Rabbi proceeds to dance the Hava Nagila out of the stadium followed by the Marching Jews. Everyone goes wild, clapping and cheering. This Rabbi ceremony brings tears to the eyes of many drunken alumni and students who had started several hours beforehand getting inebriated on schnapps and good German beer at pre-game tailgate parties. When it is all over, a visiting law professor from another country asks his host at the soccer match what this spectacle was all about. Without missing a beat Dean Mengele of the Law School turns to his guest and says: "We are honoring the Jews." Whom the Nazis had just exterminated 60 years ago, so of course the memory of the Jews needs to be honored by this spectacle. The Illiniwek Indians were ethnically cleansed out of Illinois about a century before that. These are the real "Little Eichmans." Be sure to "Boo!" and root against the Illiniwaks. [cid:image002.jpg at 01D35486.A82452E0] Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) ________________________________ ________________________________ 1 Guess who? 1 Guess who? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 53340 bytes Desc: image002.jpg URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Fri Nov 3 14:35:06 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2017 14:35:06 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] News Gazoo: Chancellor Jones' "Critical Conversation" on Chief Illiniwak In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: "Just recently the University of Illiniwaks resurrected Chief Illiniwak for their Fall 2007 Homecoming in order to better milk their Alumni/ae as part of their newly launched Capital Campaign, thus definitively proving their craven racism." And just now again for their Fall 2017 Homecoming Parade in order to launch their new Capital Campaign, thus definitively proving once again their craven racism. Plus ca change at the University of Illiniwaks. fab. The Racist Mascot: Why You Should Still Boo Illinois The self-styled "Fighting Illini" of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign are on their way to the Jan. 1, 2008 Rose Bowl with their racist and genocidal mascot and symbol Chief Illiniwak still in tow. Although the NCAA forced the University of Illiniwaks to prevent this Little Red Sambo from desecrating at half-times everything American Indians hold dear and treasure, nevertheless Chief Illiniwak still remains the officially designated "honored symbol" of the University of Illiniwaks at Urbana-Champaign. Just recently the University of Illiniwaks resurrected Chief Illiniwak for their Fall 2007 Homecoming in order to better milk their Alumni/ae as part of their newly launched Capital Campaign, thus definitively proving their craven racism. In his Year 501: The Conquest Continues (1993) Noam Chomsky suggests an apt metaphor for such American Indian sports mascots and symbols that I will elaborate upon here in order to conform to our local and most peculiar rites on this campus: Suppose the Nazis had won the Second World War. Sixty years later, a prestigious German state university has a mascot for all of its sports teams and sports fans by the name of "The Rabbi." Basically what happens is that a student from the Hitler Youth League dresses up in an authentic costume for an Hasidic Rabbi, complete with the curl-locks and a beard. The University itself collectively call themselves "The Fighting Jews," and the school's band is called "The Marching Jews." The student newspaper is called "The Daily Jew." All the sports fans in town wear jackets and t-shirts with pictures of The Rabbi prominently displayed on them. And most cars have Rabbi stickers planted all over them. Three years ago the University's Board of Trustees ran out of town on a rail a courageous and principled Chancellor who had the temerity to publicly suggest that the time had now come to "retire" the Rabbi. So of course there was a heated campaign on among the students and alumni to "Save the Rabbi!" This German state university plays its soccer matches over at the Nuremberg Stadium in front of an audience of about 75,000 White Aryans, almost all of whom are wearing pro-Rabbi images and clothes. At half-time the Marching Jews take to the stadium floor and begin playing what they purport to be Jewish sounding music along the lines of Fiddler-on-the-Roof. Then all 75,000 White Aryans rise as one and shout in unison: "Rabbi! Rabbi! Rabbi! Rabbi!" gesticulating wildly and working themselves up into a feeding frenzy. One lone faculty member sits there in protest shouting "Racist Rabbi!" and everyone in the vicinity proceeds to throw garbage at him.1 Finally, the moment these ardent White Aryans have all waited for has arrived. The Rabbi runs out onto the arena floor from among the Marching Jews, proceeds to the center of the Nuremberg Stadium, and dances the Hava Nagila while the Marching Jews play on and march into an intricately choreographed maneuver that they all brag about and take special pride in that culminates with the band being organized into a Swastika. So the Rabbi continues to dance the Hava Nagila while the Marching Jews march themselves into a Swastika. By now all 75,000 White Aryans are hysterical, shouting, screaming, and yelling: "Rabbi! Rabbi! Rabbi!" This semi-religious spectacle that the Nazis are well known for staging, especially at the Nuremberg stadium, goes on for a good twenty minutes. It all concludes with everyone joining hands to sing "Deutschland, Deutschland, Uber Alles," with the Rabbi leading all 75,000 White Aryans in the song. Then the Rabbi proceeds to dance the Hava Nagila out of the stadium followed by the Marching Jews. Everyone goes wild, clapping and cheering. This Rabbi ceremony brings tears to the eyes of many drunken alumni and students who had started several hours beforehand getting inebriated on schnapps and good German beer at pre-game tailgate parties. When it is all over, a visiting law professor from another country asks his host at the soccer match what this spectacle was all about. Without missing a beat Dean Mengele of the Law School turns to his guest and says: "We are honoring the Jews." Whom the Nazis had just exterminated 60 years ago, so of course the memory of the Jews needs to be honored by this spectacle. The Illiniwek Indians were ethnically cleansed out of Illinois about a century before that. These are the real "Little Eichmans." Be sure to "Boo!" and root against the Illiniwaks. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Friday, November 3, 2017 6:35 AM To: David Green ; C. G. ESTABROOK ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay ; David Johnson ; Mildred O'brien ; Estabrook, Carl G ; David Swanson Cc: Kaufman, Stephen J Subject: News Gazoo: Chancellor Jones' "Critical Conversation" on Chief Illiniwak Dear Chancellor Jones: After you are finished with your "Critical Conversation" and "dialogue" and "debate" over Chief Illiniwak, I would like to respectfully suggest that we next have a "Critical Conversation" and "dialogue" and "debate" over American Slavery. Then we can move on to a "Critical Conversation" and "dialogue" and "debate" over the Nazi Holocaust against the Jews. Yours very truly, Francis A. Boyle Professor of Law Board of Directors, Amnesty International USA (1988-1992) The Racist Mascot: Why You Should Still Boo Illinois The self-styled "Fighting Illini" of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign are on their way to the Jan. 1, 2008 Rose Bowl with their racist and genocidal mascot and symbol Chief Illiniwak still in tow. Although the NCAA forced the University of Illiniwaks to prevent this Little Red Sambo from desecrating at half-times everything American Indians hold dear and treasure, nevertheless Chief Illiniwak still remains the officially designated "honored symbol" of the University of Illiniwaks at Urbana-Champaign. Just recently the University of Illiniwaks resurrected Chief Illiniwak for their Fall 2007 Homecoming in order to better milk their Alumni/ae as part of their newly launched Capital Campaign, thus definitively proving their craven racism. In his Year 501: The Conquest Continues (1993) Noam Chomsky suggests an apt metaphor for such American Indian sports mascots and symbols that I will elaborate upon here in order to conform to our local and most peculiar rites on this campus: Suppose the Nazis had won the Second World War. Sixty years later, a prestigious German state university has a mascot for all of its sports teams and sports fans by the name of "The Rabbi." Basically what happens is that a student from the Hitler Youth League dresses up in an authentic costume for an Hasidic Rabbi, complete with the curl-locks and a beard. The University itself collectively call themselves "The Fighting Jews," and the school's band is called "The Marching Jews." The student newspaper is called "The Daily Jew." All the sports fans in town wear jackets and t-shirts with pictures of The Rabbi prominently displayed on them. And most cars have Rabbi stickers planted all over them. Three years ago the University's Board of Trustees ran out of town on a rail a courageous and principled Chancellor who had the temerity to publicly suggest that the time had now come to "retire" the Rabbi. So of course there was a heated campaign on among the students and alumni to "Save the Rabbi!" This German state university plays its soccer matches over at the Nuremberg Stadium in front of an audience of about 75,000 White Aryans, almost all of whom are wearing pro-Rabbi images and clothes. At half-time the Marching Jews take to the stadium floor and begin playing what they purport to be Jewish sounding music along the lines of Fiddler-on-the-Roof. Then all 75,000 White Aryans rise as one and shout in unison: "Rabbi! Rabbi! Rabbi! Rabbi!" gesticulating wildly and working themselves up into a feeding frenzy. One lone faculty member sits there in protest shouting "Racist Rabbi!" and everyone in the vicinity proceeds to throw garbage at him.1 Finally, the moment these ardent White Aryans have all waited for has arrived. The Rabbi runs out onto the arena floor from among the Marching Jews, proceeds to the center of the Nuremberg Stadium, and dances the Hava Nagila while the Marching Jews play on and march into an intricately choreographed maneuver that they all brag about and take special pride in that culminates with the band being organized into a Swastika. So the Rabbi continues to dance the Hava Nagila while the Marching Jews march themselves into a Swastika. By now all 75,000 White Aryans are hysterical, shouting, screaming, and yelling: "Rabbi! Rabbi! Rabbi!" This semi-religious spectacle that the Nazis are well known for staging, especially at the Nuremberg stadium, goes on for a good twenty minutes. It all concludes with everyone joining hands to sing "Deutschland, Deutschland, Uber Alles," with the Rabbi leading all 75,000 White Aryans in the song. Then the Rabbi proceeds to dance the Hava Nagila out of the stadium followed by the Marching Jews. Everyone goes wild, clapping and cheering. This Rabbi ceremony brings tears to the eyes of many drunken alumni and students who had started several hours beforehand getting inebriated on schnapps and good German beer at pre-game tailgate parties. When it is all over, a visiting law professor from another country asks his host at the soccer match what this spectacle was all about. Without missing a beat Dean Mengele of the Law School turns to his guest and says: "We are honoring the Jews." Whom the Nazis had just exterminated 60 years ago, so of course the memory of the Jews needs to be honored by this spectacle. The Illiniwek Indians were ethnically cleansed out of Illinois about a century before that. These are the real "Little Eichmans." Be sure to "Boo!" and root against the Illiniwaks. [cid:image002.jpg at 01D35486.A82452E0] Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) ________________________________ ________________________________ 1 Guess who? 1 Guess who? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 53340 bytes Desc: image002.jpg URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Fri Nov 3 14:44:13 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2017 14:44:13 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] News Gazoo: Chancellor Jones' "Critical Conversation" on Chief Illiniwak In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Actually I think it is pretty sad that Jones does not have a clue about Chief Illiniwak. The only Chancellor who did was Nancy Kantor-and the Illiniwaks drove her out of town on a rail. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Friday, November 3, 2017 9:35 AM To: 'David Green' ; 'C. G. ESTABROOK' ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; 'sherwoodross10 at gmail.com' ; 'peace-discuss at anti-war.net' ; 'a-fields at uiuc.edu' ; Hoffman, Valerie J ; 'Joe Lauria' ; 'Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net' ; 'peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net' ; Szoke, Ron ; 'Arlene Hickory' ; 'Karen Aram' ; 'abass10 at gmail.com' ; 'mickalideh at gmail.com' ; 'Lina Thorne' ; 'chicago at worldcantwait.net' ; 'Jay' ; 'David Johnson' ; 'Mildred O'brien' ; Estabrook, Carl G ; 'David Swanson' Cc: Kaufman, Stephen J Subject: RE: News Gazoo: Chancellor Jones' "Critical Conversation" on Chief Illiniwak "Just recently the University of Illiniwaks resurrected Chief Illiniwak for their Fall 2007 Homecoming in order to better milk their Alumni/ae as part of their newly launched Capital Campaign, thus definitively proving their craven racism." And just now again for their Fall 2017 Homecoming Parade in order to launch their new Capital Campaign, thus definitively proving once again their craven racism. Plus ca change at the University of Illiniwaks. fab. The Racist Mascot: Why You Should Still Boo Illinois The self-styled "Fighting Illini" of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign are on their way to the Jan. 1, 2008 Rose Bowl with their racist and genocidal mascot and symbol Chief Illiniwak still in tow. Although the NCAA forced the University of Illiniwaks to prevent this Little Red Sambo from desecrating at half-times everything American Indians hold dear and treasure, nevertheless Chief Illiniwak still remains the officially designated "honored symbol" of the University of Illiniwaks at Urbana-Champaign. Just recently the University of Illiniwaks resurrected Chief Illiniwak for their Fall 2007 Homecoming in order to better milk their Alumni/ae as part of their newly launched Capital Campaign, thus definitively proving their craven racism. In his Year 501: The Conquest Continues (1993) Noam Chomsky suggests an apt metaphor for such American Indian sports mascots and symbols that I will elaborate upon here in order to conform to our local and most peculiar rites on this campus: Suppose the Nazis had won the Second World War. Sixty years later, a prestigious German state university has a mascot for all of its sports teams and sports fans by the name of "The Rabbi." Basically what happens is that a student from the Hitler Youth League dresses up in an authentic costume for an Hasidic Rabbi, complete with the curl-locks and a beard. The University itself collectively call themselves "The Fighting Jews," and the school's band is called "The Marching Jews." The student newspaper is called "The Daily Jew." All the sports fans in town wear jackets and t-shirts with pictures of The Rabbi prominently displayed on them. And most cars have Rabbi stickers planted all over them. Three years ago the University's Board of Trustees ran out of town on a rail a courageous and principled Chancellor who had the temerity to publicly suggest that the time had now come to "retire" the Rabbi. So of course there was a heated campaign on among the students and alumni to "Save the Rabbi!" This German state university plays its soccer matches over at the Nuremberg Stadium in front of an audience of about 75,000 White Aryans, almost all of whom are wearing pro-Rabbi images and clothes. At half-time the Marching Jews take to the stadium floor and begin playing what they purport to be Jewish sounding music along the lines of Fiddler-on-the-Roof. Then all 75,000 White Aryans rise as one and shout in unison: "Rabbi! Rabbi! Rabbi! Rabbi!" gesticulating wildly and working themselves up into a feeding frenzy. One lone faculty member sits there in protest shouting "Racist Rabbi!" and everyone in the vicinity proceeds to throw garbage at him.1 Finally, the moment these ardent White Aryans have all waited for has arrived. The Rabbi runs out onto the arena floor from among the Marching Jews, proceeds to the center of the Nuremberg Stadium, and dances the Hava Nagila while the Marching Jews play on and march into an intricately choreographed maneuver that they all brag about and take special pride in that culminates with the band being organized into a Swastika. So the Rabbi continues to dance the Hava Nagila while the Marching Jews march themselves into a Swastika. By now all 75,000 White Aryans are hysterical, shouting, screaming, and yelling: "Rabbi! Rabbi! Rabbi!" This semi-religious spectacle that the Nazis are well known for staging, especially at the Nuremberg stadium, goes on for a good twenty minutes. It all concludes with everyone joining hands to sing "Deutschland, Deutschland, Uber Alles," with the Rabbi leading all 75,000 White Aryans in the song. Then the Rabbi proceeds to dance the Hava Nagila out of the stadium followed by the Marching Jews. Everyone goes wild, clapping and cheering. This Rabbi ceremony brings tears to the eyes of many drunken alumni and students who had started several hours beforehand getting inebriated on schnapps and good German beer at pre-game tailgate parties. When it is all over, a visiting law professor from another country asks his host at the soccer match what this spectacle was all about. Without missing a beat Dean Mengele of the Law School turns to his guest and says: "We are honoring the Jews." Whom the Nazis had just exterminated 60 years ago, so of course the memory of the Jews needs to be honored by this spectacle. The Illiniwek Indians were ethnically cleansed out of Illinois about a century before that. These are the real "Little Eichmans." Be sure to "Boo!" and root against the Illiniwaks. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Friday, November 3, 2017 6:35 AM To: David Green >; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; Estabrook, Carl G >; David Swanson > Cc: Kaufman, Stephen J > Subject: News Gazoo: Chancellor Jones' "Critical Conversation" on Chief Illiniwak Dear Chancellor Jones: After you are finished with your "Critical Conversation" and "dialogue" and "debate" over Chief Illiniwak, I would like to respectfully suggest that we next have a "Critical Conversation" and "dialogue" and "debate" over American Slavery. Then we can move on to a "Critical Conversation" and "dialogue" and "debate" over the Nazi Holocaust against the Jews. Yours very truly, Francis A. Boyle Professor of Law Board of Directors, Amnesty International USA (1988-1992) The Racist Mascot: Why You Should Still Boo Illinois The self-styled "Fighting Illini" of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign are on their way to the Jan. 1, 2008 Rose Bowl with their racist and genocidal mascot and symbol Chief Illiniwak still in tow. Although the NCAA forced the University of Illiniwaks to prevent this Little Red Sambo from desecrating at half-times everything American Indians hold dear and treasure, nevertheless Chief Illiniwak still remains the officially designated "honored symbol" of the University of Illiniwaks at Urbana-Champaign. Just recently the University of Illiniwaks resurrected Chief Illiniwak for their Fall 2007 Homecoming in order to better milk their Alumni/ae as part of their newly launched Capital Campaign, thus definitively proving their craven racism. In his Year 501: The Conquest Continues (1993) Noam Chomsky suggests an apt metaphor for such American Indian sports mascots and symbols that I will elaborate upon here in order to conform to our local and most peculiar rites on this campus: Suppose the Nazis had won the Second World War. Sixty years later, a prestigious German state university has a mascot for all of its sports teams and sports fans by the name of "The Rabbi." Basically what happens is that a student from the Hitler Youth League dresses up in an authentic costume for an Hasidic Rabbi, complete with the curl-locks and a beard. The University itself collectively call themselves "The Fighting Jews," and the school's band is called "The Marching Jews." The student newspaper is called "The Daily Jew." All the sports fans in town wear jackets and t-shirts with pictures of The Rabbi prominently displayed on them. And most cars have Rabbi stickers planted all over them. Three years ago the University's Board of Trustees ran out of town on a rail a courageous and principled Chancellor who had the temerity to publicly suggest that the time had now come to "retire" the Rabbi. So of course there was a heated campaign on among the students and alumni to "Save the Rabbi!" This German state university plays its soccer matches over at the Nuremberg Stadium in front of an audience of about 75,000 White Aryans, almost all of whom are wearing pro-Rabbi images and clothes. At half-time the Marching Jews take to the stadium floor and begin playing what they purport to be Jewish sounding music along the lines of Fiddler-on-the-Roof. Then all 75,000 White Aryans rise as one and shout in unison: "Rabbi! Rabbi! Rabbi! Rabbi!" gesticulating wildly and working themselves up into a feeding frenzy. One lone faculty member sits there in protest shouting "Racist Rabbi!" and everyone in the vicinity proceeds to throw garbage at him.1 Finally, the moment these ardent White Aryans have all waited for has arrived. The Rabbi runs out onto the arena floor from among the Marching Jews, proceeds to the center of the Nuremberg Stadium, and dances the Hava Nagila while the Marching Jews play on and march into an intricately choreographed maneuver that they all brag about and take special pride in that culminates with the band being organized into a Swastika. So the Rabbi continues to dance the Hava Nagila while the Marching Jews march themselves into a Swastika. By now all 75,000 White Aryans are hysterical, shouting, screaming, and yelling: "Rabbi! Rabbi! Rabbi!" This semi-religious spectacle that the Nazis are well known for staging, especially at the Nuremberg stadium, goes on for a good twenty minutes. It all concludes with everyone joining hands to sing "Deutschland, Deutschland, Uber Alles," with the Rabbi leading all 75,000 White Aryans in the song. Then the Rabbi proceeds to dance the Hava Nagila out of the stadium followed by the Marching Jews. Everyone goes wild, clapping and cheering. This Rabbi ceremony brings tears to the eyes of many drunken alumni and students who had started several hours beforehand getting inebriated on schnapps and good German beer at pre-game tailgate parties. When it is all over, a visiting law professor from another country asks his host at the soccer match what this spectacle was all about. Without missing a beat Dean Mengele of the Law School turns to his guest and says: "We are honoring the Jews." Whom the Nazis had just exterminated 60 years ago, so of course the memory of the Jews needs to be honored by this spectacle. The Illiniwek Indians were ethnically cleansed out of Illinois about a century before that. These are the real "Little Eichmans." Be sure to "Boo!" and root against the Illiniwaks. [cid:image002.jpg at 01D35488.360F63A0] Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) ________________________________ ________________________________ ________________________________ 1 Guess who? 1 Guess who? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 53343 bytes Desc: image002.jpg URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Fri Nov 3 14:44:13 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2017 14:44:13 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] News Gazoo: Chancellor Jones' "Critical Conversation" on Chief Illiniwak In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Actually I think it is pretty sad that Jones does not have a clue about Chief Illiniwak. The only Chancellor who did was Nancy Kantor-and the Illiniwaks drove her out of town on a rail. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Friday, November 3, 2017 9:35 AM To: 'David Green' ; 'C. G. ESTABROOK' ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; 'sherwoodross10 at gmail.com' ; 'peace-discuss at anti-war.net' ; 'a-fields at uiuc.edu' ; Hoffman, Valerie J ; 'Joe Lauria' ; 'Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net' ; 'peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net' ; Szoke, Ron ; 'Arlene Hickory' ; 'Karen Aram' ; 'abass10 at gmail.com' ; 'mickalideh at gmail.com' ; 'Lina Thorne' ; 'chicago at worldcantwait.net' ; 'Jay' ; 'David Johnson' ; 'Mildred O'brien' ; Estabrook, Carl G ; 'David Swanson' Cc: Kaufman, Stephen J Subject: RE: News Gazoo: Chancellor Jones' "Critical Conversation" on Chief Illiniwak "Just recently the University of Illiniwaks resurrected Chief Illiniwak for their Fall 2007 Homecoming in order to better milk their Alumni/ae as part of their newly launched Capital Campaign, thus definitively proving their craven racism." And just now again for their Fall 2017 Homecoming Parade in order to launch their new Capital Campaign, thus definitively proving once again their craven racism. Plus ca change at the University of Illiniwaks. fab. The Racist Mascot: Why You Should Still Boo Illinois The self-styled "Fighting Illini" of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign are on their way to the Jan. 1, 2008 Rose Bowl with their racist and genocidal mascot and symbol Chief Illiniwak still in tow. Although the NCAA forced the University of Illiniwaks to prevent this Little Red Sambo from desecrating at half-times everything American Indians hold dear and treasure, nevertheless Chief Illiniwak still remains the officially designated "honored symbol" of the University of Illiniwaks at Urbana-Champaign. Just recently the University of Illiniwaks resurrected Chief Illiniwak for their Fall 2007 Homecoming in order to better milk their Alumni/ae as part of their newly launched Capital Campaign, thus definitively proving their craven racism. In his Year 501: The Conquest Continues (1993) Noam Chomsky suggests an apt metaphor for such American Indian sports mascots and symbols that I will elaborate upon here in order to conform to our local and most peculiar rites on this campus: Suppose the Nazis had won the Second World War. Sixty years later, a prestigious German state university has a mascot for all of its sports teams and sports fans by the name of "The Rabbi." Basically what happens is that a student from the Hitler Youth League dresses up in an authentic costume for an Hasidic Rabbi, complete with the curl-locks and a beard. The University itself collectively call themselves "The Fighting Jews," and the school's band is called "The Marching Jews." The student newspaper is called "The Daily Jew." All the sports fans in town wear jackets and t-shirts with pictures of The Rabbi prominently displayed on them. And most cars have Rabbi stickers planted all over them. Three years ago the University's Board of Trustees ran out of town on a rail a courageous and principled Chancellor who had the temerity to publicly suggest that the time had now come to "retire" the Rabbi. So of course there was a heated campaign on among the students and alumni to "Save the Rabbi!" This German state university plays its soccer matches over at the Nuremberg Stadium in front of an audience of about 75,000 White Aryans, almost all of whom are wearing pro-Rabbi images and clothes. At half-time the Marching Jews take to the stadium floor and begin playing what they purport to be Jewish sounding music along the lines of Fiddler-on-the-Roof. Then all 75,000 White Aryans rise as one and shout in unison: "Rabbi! Rabbi! Rabbi! Rabbi!" gesticulating wildly and working themselves up into a feeding frenzy. One lone faculty member sits there in protest shouting "Racist Rabbi!" and everyone in the vicinity proceeds to throw garbage at him.1 Finally, the moment these ardent White Aryans have all waited for has arrived. The Rabbi runs out onto the arena floor from among the Marching Jews, proceeds to the center of the Nuremberg Stadium, and dances the Hava Nagila while the Marching Jews play on and march into an intricately choreographed maneuver that they all brag about and take special pride in that culminates with the band being organized into a Swastika. So the Rabbi continues to dance the Hava Nagila while the Marching Jews march themselves into a Swastika. By now all 75,000 White Aryans are hysterical, shouting, screaming, and yelling: "Rabbi! Rabbi! Rabbi!" This semi-religious spectacle that the Nazis are well known for staging, especially at the Nuremberg stadium, goes on for a good twenty minutes. It all concludes with everyone joining hands to sing "Deutschland, Deutschland, Uber Alles," with the Rabbi leading all 75,000 White Aryans in the song. Then the Rabbi proceeds to dance the Hava Nagila out of the stadium followed by the Marching Jews. Everyone goes wild, clapping and cheering. This Rabbi ceremony brings tears to the eyes of many drunken alumni and students who had started several hours beforehand getting inebriated on schnapps and good German beer at pre-game tailgate parties. When it is all over, a visiting law professor from another country asks his host at the soccer match what this spectacle was all about. Without missing a beat Dean Mengele of the Law School turns to his guest and says: "We are honoring the Jews." Whom the Nazis had just exterminated 60 years ago, so of course the memory of the Jews needs to be honored by this spectacle. The Illiniwek Indians were ethnically cleansed out of Illinois about a century before that. These are the real "Little Eichmans." Be sure to "Boo!" and root against the Illiniwaks. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Friday, November 3, 2017 6:35 AM To: David Green >; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; Estabrook, Carl G >; David Swanson > Cc: Kaufman, Stephen J > Subject: News Gazoo: Chancellor Jones' "Critical Conversation" on Chief Illiniwak Dear Chancellor Jones: After you are finished with your "Critical Conversation" and "dialogue" and "debate" over Chief Illiniwak, I would like to respectfully suggest that we next have a "Critical Conversation" and "dialogue" and "debate" over American Slavery. Then we can move on to a "Critical Conversation" and "dialogue" and "debate" over the Nazi Holocaust against the Jews. Yours very truly, Francis A. Boyle Professor of Law Board of Directors, Amnesty International USA (1988-1992) The Racist Mascot: Why You Should Still Boo Illinois The self-styled "Fighting Illini" of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign are on their way to the Jan. 1, 2008 Rose Bowl with their racist and genocidal mascot and symbol Chief Illiniwak still in tow. Although the NCAA forced the University of Illiniwaks to prevent this Little Red Sambo from desecrating at half-times everything American Indians hold dear and treasure, nevertheless Chief Illiniwak still remains the officially designated "honored symbol" of the University of Illiniwaks at Urbana-Champaign. Just recently the University of Illiniwaks resurrected Chief Illiniwak for their Fall 2007 Homecoming in order to better milk their Alumni/ae as part of their newly launched Capital Campaign, thus definitively proving their craven racism. In his Year 501: The Conquest Continues (1993) Noam Chomsky suggests an apt metaphor for such American Indian sports mascots and symbols that I will elaborate upon here in order to conform to our local and most peculiar rites on this campus: Suppose the Nazis had won the Second World War. Sixty years later, a prestigious German state university has a mascot for all of its sports teams and sports fans by the name of "The Rabbi." Basically what happens is that a student from the Hitler Youth League dresses up in an authentic costume for an Hasidic Rabbi, complete with the curl-locks and a beard. The University itself collectively call themselves "The Fighting Jews," and the school's band is called "The Marching Jews." The student newspaper is called "The Daily Jew." All the sports fans in town wear jackets and t-shirts with pictures of The Rabbi prominently displayed on them. And most cars have Rabbi stickers planted all over them. Three years ago the University's Board of Trustees ran out of town on a rail a courageous and principled Chancellor who had the temerity to publicly suggest that the time had now come to "retire" the Rabbi. So of course there was a heated campaign on among the students and alumni to "Save the Rabbi!" This German state university plays its soccer matches over at the Nuremberg Stadium in front of an audience of about 75,000 White Aryans, almost all of whom are wearing pro-Rabbi images and clothes. At half-time the Marching Jews take to the stadium floor and begin playing what they purport to be Jewish sounding music along the lines of Fiddler-on-the-Roof. Then all 75,000 White Aryans rise as one and shout in unison: "Rabbi! Rabbi! Rabbi! Rabbi!" gesticulating wildly and working themselves up into a feeding frenzy. One lone faculty member sits there in protest shouting "Racist Rabbi!" and everyone in the vicinity proceeds to throw garbage at him.1 Finally, the moment these ardent White Aryans have all waited for has arrived. The Rabbi runs out onto the arena floor from among the Marching Jews, proceeds to the center of the Nuremberg Stadium, and dances the Hava Nagila while the Marching Jews play on and march into an intricately choreographed maneuver that they all brag about and take special pride in that culminates with the band being organized into a Swastika. So the Rabbi continues to dance the Hava Nagila while the Marching Jews march themselves into a Swastika. By now all 75,000 White Aryans are hysterical, shouting, screaming, and yelling: "Rabbi! Rabbi! Rabbi!" This semi-religious spectacle that the Nazis are well known for staging, especially at the Nuremberg stadium, goes on for a good twenty minutes. It all concludes with everyone joining hands to sing "Deutschland, Deutschland, Uber Alles," with the Rabbi leading all 75,000 White Aryans in the song. Then the Rabbi proceeds to dance the Hava Nagila out of the stadium followed by the Marching Jews. Everyone goes wild, clapping and cheering. This Rabbi ceremony brings tears to the eyes of many drunken alumni and students who had started several hours beforehand getting inebriated on schnapps and good German beer at pre-game tailgate parties. When it is all over, a visiting law professor from another country asks his host at the soccer match what this spectacle was all about. Without missing a beat Dean Mengele of the Law School turns to his guest and says: "We are honoring the Jews." Whom the Nazis had just exterminated 60 years ago, so of course the memory of the Jews needs to be honored by this spectacle. The Illiniwek Indians were ethnically cleansed out of Illinois about a century before that. These are the real "Little Eichmans." Be sure to "Boo!" and root against the Illiniwaks. [cid:image002.jpg at 01D35488.360F63A0] Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) ________________________________ ________________________________ ________________________________ 1 Guess who? 1 Guess who? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 53343 bytes Desc: image002.jpg URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Fri Nov 3 14:56:35 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2017 14:56:35 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] ICEman UI Yale Law Mafia Dean Amar Aligns with Trump/Sessions against Sanctuary Cities & 11 Million Undocumented Migrants In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: ICEman Amar gratuitously trashed all the human rights work I have done for Undocumented Migrants since the mid-1980s when I served as Counsel to the Original Sanctuary Movement and he was in college. The College of Law is an intellectual and moral cesspool. QED. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Friday, November 3, 2017 4:21 AM To: David Green ; C. G. ESTABROOK ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay ; David Johnson ; Mildred O'brien ; Estabrook, Carl G ; David Swanson Subject: RE: ICEman UI Yale Law Mafia Dean Amar Aligns with Trump/Sessions against Sanctuary Cities & 11 Million Undocumented Migrants And ditto for every Undocumented Migrant who has lived in Champaign County since 1986. If it had been up to ICEman Dean Amar instead of me, Urbana would have never been a Sanctuary for them for the past 31 years. The College of Law is an intellectual and moral cesspool. QED. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Friday, November 03, 2017 4:07 AM To: David Green >; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; Estabrook, Carl G >; David Swanson > Subject: RE: ICEman UI Yale Law Mafia Dean Amar Aligns with Trump/Sessions against Sanctuary Cities & 11 Million Undocumented Migrants As I said last year in our Rally against Killer Koh, the College of Law is an intellectual and moral cesspool. We have about 10,000 Undocumented Migrants in Champaign County. If it had been up to “Dean” Amar instead of me, Urbana would have never become a Sanctuary for them. Ditto for 1986 when we had about 8000 Undocumented Migrants in Champaign County. QED. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2017 11:35 AM To: David Green >; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; Estabrook, Carl G >; David Swanson > Subject: RE: ICEman UI Yale Law Mafia Dean Amar Aligns with Trump/Sessions against Sanctuary Cities & 11 Million Undocumented Migrants Sorry, Correction that is 2016 on Urbana reaffirming itself as a Sanctuary City having been one since 1986. According to his biography ICEman UI Yale Law Mafia Dean Amar had just graduated from college in 1985 around when I originally argued the case for Urbana to become a Sanctuary City under a public death threat from the American Nazi Party if I did so. Back then going door to door against us in Urbana were the American Nazi Party, the Ku Klux Klan, Phyllis Schaffly’s Eagle Forum and the Republican Party of Champaign County. Birds of a Feather Flock Together. I don’t like Nazis and Klanners. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Thursday, November 2, 2017 10:58 AM To: David Green >; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; Estabrook, Carl G >; David Swanson > Subject: RE: ICEman UI Yale Law Mafia Dean Amar Aligns with Trump/Sessions against Sanctuary Cities & 11 Million Undocumented Migrants And for the record, back in the mid-1980s, I was also personally involved in turning San Francisco into a Sanctuary City and Evanston into a Sanctuary City—which they both still are three decades later. Amar can stick all that where the sun don’t shine! Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Thursday, November 2, 2017 10:49 AM To: David Green >; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; Estabrook, Carl G >; David Swanson > Subject: ICEman UI Yale Law Mafia Dean Amar Aligns with Trump/Sessions against Sanctuary Cities & 11 Million Undocumented Migrants Yeah well in 1986 I convinced Urbana to become a Sanctuary City which it continued to be for 30 years and then with all your help got that reaffirmed in 2006—according to USA Today the only Sanctuary City between Chicago and New Orleans until Governor Rauner—a Conservative Republican— signed legislation that turned the entire State of Illinois into a Sanctuary State. Amar can stuff that up his bucket. Maybe Amar is tired of being Dean at the No. 44 Law School in the country and is gunning for a slot in the Trump/Sessions Department of Injustice or ICE—become an ICEman? Fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Justia Verdict [mailto:verdictsupport at justia.com] Sent: Thursday, November 2, 2017 10:08 AM To: Boyle, Francis A > Subject: Vikram David Amar - The Need for Clearer Understanding of the Basic Federalism Doctrines Concerning Sanctuary Cities and Other Federal-State Flashpoin Illinois Law dean and professor Vikram David Amar explains the federalism doctrines implicated by Attorney General Sessions’ attempt to deny funding to sanctuary jurisdictions. Amar points to lower court decisions that reflect a misunderstanding of the doctrines and calls upon federal courts and their law clerks to better understand and apply not just the nuanced technical details of various specific doctrines, but the overall federalism big picture as well. Click here to view in your browser if you are having trouble viewing this email. [Verdict - Legal Analysis and commentary from Justia.] The Need for Clearer Understanding of the Basic Federalism Doctrines Concerning Sanctuary Cities and Other Federal-State Flashpoints Vikram David Amar Nov 2, 2017 [https://i2.wp.com/verdict.justia.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/shutterstock_579926992.jpg?quality=90&resize=426%2C350&strip=all&fit=1000%25&ssl=1] As many of the lawsuits against Trump administration policies brought by state and local entities move towards their resolution on the merits in both federal district and appellate courts, it is becoming clear that courts are confused about some basic ways that various aspects of the doctrine of federalism—that is, the proper relationship between the federal and state governments—relate to each other. Case in point: the dispute between various cities and the Trump Department of Justice (DOJ) concerning Attorney General Sessions’ attempts to deny federal funding to so-called “sanctuary cities.” The Trump administration believes that jurisdictions that hold themselves out as sanctuaries facilitate crime. (The trial that began last week of Jose Ines Garcia Zarate, an undocumented man accused of murdering San Francisco woman and American citizen Kate Stienle two years ago, is directing a lot of publicity to the administration’s stance here.) Based on his views, President Trump issued an executive order shortly after taking office in which he directed relevant cabinet officers to deprive “sanctuary jurisdictions” of federal funding and to “take [additional] appropriate enforcement action” against them. That is the framework within which Attorney General Sessions has been trying to deny funding to sanctuary jurisdictions who seek grants under the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program, which supports state and local law enforcement with money for equipment, training, and personnel. In particular, the federal DOJ is requiring all funding applicants to: (1) provide federal agents with advanced notice of the scheduled release from state custody of certain individuals suspected of immigration violations; (2) provide the feds physical access to non-citizens who are being housed in state and local detention facilities; and (3) certify compliance with 8 U.S.C. § 1373. Section 1373, in pertinent part, provides that “a . . . State, or local government entity or official may not prohibit, or in any way restrict, any government entity or official from [maintaining,] sending to, or receiving from, [federal immigration authorities] information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual.” Thus, the statute prevents a state or local government from having a policy or practice that forbids maintaining or giving to the feds information on the immigration status of individuals. Many cities have challenged one or more of these conditions, arguing that the federal government exceeds its powers under the Tenth Amendment by imposing such requirements on states and localities. There are two possible federal responses to this Tenth Amendment challenge. An Argument for Authority Under Article I to Regulate Immigration First, the feds can and do argue that they have authority to adopt these conditions pursuant to their power under Article I of the Constitution to regulate immigration, naturalization, and foreign affairs. As a general matter, this power is quite broad and may very well suffice to support the federal government’s requirements in this realm, but states and cities have a rejoinder here—a series of cases the Supreme Court decided in the 1990s that, collectively, create a rule known as the “anti-commandeering” doctrine. The basic idea is that, notwithstanding broad Article I powers of the federal government, the Tenth Amendment forbids the federal government coercing states and localities into providing affirmative enforcement assistance to federal authorities. In this setting, states and cities argue that the anti-commandeering principle prevents the feds from requiring state and local authorities to affirmatively provide information about or access to individuals who may have committed immigration law violations. Perhaps the most important Supreme Court case on this point is Printz v. United States (1997), in which the Supreme Court held that the federal government could not require state and local law enforcement officers to conduct background checks on gun purchasers as part of the implementation of a federal law (the Brady gun control law). “The Federal Government,” the Court said, “may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program.” According to many cities, this is precisely what Attorney General Sessions is trying to do. There are many questions about whether Printz would continue to command majority support at the Supreme Court today, whether there might be an “immigration exception” to the Printz doctrine, and whether Printz by its own terms even applies to information-only demands by the feds (which would mean § 1373 would be ok, regardless of whether the demands for access to persons in state and local detention would be). If courts conclude that statutes like § 1373 do not constitute commandeering and are permissible under Printz (for any of the reasons in the previous sentence) then the feds can require that states and cities comply with them, pure and simple, under the Article I powers (concerning immigration, naturalization and foreign affairs) mentioned earlier. An Argument for Authority Under the Spending Clause But if one concludes that something like § 1373 constitutes impermissible commandeering in violation of federalism principles laid out in Printz, then the federal government would try to overcome the cities’ Tenth Amendment objection by relying on a second, different basis for federal power—the power the feds enjoy to attach strings to federal funding under the so-called Spending Clause of Article I. The Spending Clause in some circumstances gives the federal government power to achieve what it cannot directly command by creating monetary incentives for state and local governments. The spending authority, as it has been interpreted by the Court, is limited, however, in that it requires that any conditions the feds impose on the funding: (1) be clearly communicated to the states/cities up front, so the recipients can knowingly decide whether to accept the deal; (2) be rationally related to the purposes of federal funding in the first place; and (3) not require the states to do something that violates any other part of the Constitution. In addition, the Court has recently held, the funding at issue cannot be something on which states/cities have come to rely to such a great extent in the past so that they really have no choice but to accept any new strings that are attached. If these four aspects are satisfied, then the funding conditions are valid requirements under Article I and do not violate the Tenth Amendment, whether or not the feds could mandate compliance with the conditions in the absence of the funding carrot. Misapplication or Misunderstanding by Lower Federal Courts All of this is chock full of doctrinal details to be sure, but is nonetheless relatively clear and straightforward, even with all the steps involved. Except that some lower courts don’t seem to understand it. For example, in a ruling last month by a district court in the City of Chicago’s challenge to Attorney General Sessions’ insistence that Chicago comply with § 1367, the court conceived of the inquiry into § 1373’s constitutionality as follows: [The AG’s insistence on] compliance [with § 1373] must be proper under the Spending Clause, and 1373 must pass constitutional muster [under the Printz analysis.] As the City has not argued that the compliance condition violates the Spending Clause, the Court now turns to the Section 1373 question [under the Printz line of cases]. The court ultimately concluded that § 1373 did not run afoul of the Printz anti-commandeering principle (for reasons similar to some that were mentioned above), so running the statute through the Printz analysis did not in the end cause the federal government any harm. But the key point is that once it is conceded that compliance with § 1373 to obtain federal money is a valid condition on funding under the Spending Clause doctrine, it is irrelevant whether 1373’s mandate—in the absence of a conditional funding scheme—would violate the Printz anti-commandeering rule. Passing muster under Spending Clause doctrine and passing muster under the Printz doctrine are alternative ways for the federal government to prevail. If it wins on either, it wins. It needn’t win on both, the way the district court erroneously thought. Put another way, if a federal condition on funding is permissible under Spending Clause doctrine, it cannot, by definition, be an impermissible commandeering, since (by hypothesis) states have an option of turning the deal down. Hence, there is no federal mandate that could be considered to be commandeering. The point may seem nit-picky, but it’s not. It goes to the fundamental ways in which different yet related doctrines (in this case Spending Clause doctrine and the anti-commandeering principle) involving federal-state relations fit together. If federal courts are going to be able to enforce the limits that federalism creates on the national government, while at the same time permit the feds to operate in their own proper sphere (and inspire confidence in the public as they accomplish both objectives), they (and their law clerks) need to understand not just nuanced technical details of various specific doctrines, but the overall federalism big picture as well. [https://justatic.com/v/20171005a/verdict/images/authors/thumbs/amar.jpg] Follow @prof_amar Vikram David Amar is the Iwan Foundation Professor of Law and the Dean at the University of Illinois College of Law. Previously, he served as the Associate Dean for Academic Affairs and Professor of Law at the University of California, Davis School of Law. He is a 1988 graduate of the Yale Law School and a former clerk to Justice Harry Blackmun. He is a co-author, along with William Cohen and Jonathan Varat, of a major constitutional law casebook, and a co-author of several volumes of the Wright & Miller treatise on federal practice and procedure. Before teaching, Professor Amar spent a few years at the firm of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher. RECENT ARTICLES The Troublingly Widening Gyre of Complicity Claims Cornell University law professor Michael C. Dorf describes a principle most famously articulated by Thomas Jefferson, under which there should be a right to avoid providing financial support for causes one strongly opposes. Dorf argues that the Jeffersonian principle has lately run amok. He points out that the government’s argument against allowing a seventeen-year-old undocumented immigrant in federal custody to obtain a privately funded abortion is but one example of the government’s too-broad definition of “facilitation” of acts with which it disagrees. Dorf argues that adoption of such a position would convert every objectionable private exercise of rights into government participation.... Read More Body Worn Cameras: The Dog That Won’t Bark Cornell University law professor Joe Margulies comments on the findings of a recent study of police body cameras that body-worn cameras made no statistically significant difference in how police go about their jobs. Margulies points out that the story is not in the absence of a difference, but in people’s surprise to the absence of a difference. Indeed, it is the routine, not the anomalous, that requires reform.... Read More What Needs to Happen Next for the #MeToo Campaign to Fulfill Its Potential Professor and resident senior fellow in the Fox Leadership Program at the University of Pennsylvania, Marci A. Hamilton praises the #MeToo campaign and explains what more needs to happen to meaningfully address the pervasive issues of sexual assault and abuse against children and adults. Hamilton points to the brave actions by Olympic gymnast McKayla Maroney and elaborates on what must change in our society to empower victims and hold those in power accountable.... Read More [Forward this email.] Have friends who like law? Forward this email. [Like Verdict on Facebook] Like Verdict for legal discussions on Facebook. [Follow @verdictjustia on Twitter] Follow @verdictjustia for news and updates on Twitter. [Justia] Contact Us | Privacy Policy [Facebook][Twitter][LinkedIn][Justia][GooglePlus] You received this email because you have subscribed to the Verdict News E-Mail Feed. . Justia | 1380 Pear Ave, Suite 2B, Mountain View, CA 94043 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Fri Nov 3 14:56:35 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2017 14:56:35 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] ICEman UI Yale Law Mafia Dean Amar Aligns with Trump/Sessions against Sanctuary Cities & 11 Million Undocumented Migrants In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: ICEman Amar gratuitously trashed all the human rights work I have done for Undocumented Migrants since the mid-1980s when I served as Counsel to the Original Sanctuary Movement and he was in college. The College of Law is an intellectual and moral cesspool. QED. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Friday, November 3, 2017 4:21 AM To: David Green ; C. G. ESTABROOK ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay ; David Johnson ; Mildred O'brien ; Estabrook, Carl G ; David Swanson Subject: RE: ICEman UI Yale Law Mafia Dean Amar Aligns with Trump/Sessions against Sanctuary Cities & 11 Million Undocumented Migrants And ditto for every Undocumented Migrant who has lived in Champaign County since 1986. If it had been up to ICEman Dean Amar instead of me, Urbana would have never been a Sanctuary for them for the past 31 years. The College of Law is an intellectual and moral cesspool. QED. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Friday, November 03, 2017 4:07 AM To: David Green >; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; Estabrook, Carl G >; David Swanson > Subject: RE: ICEman UI Yale Law Mafia Dean Amar Aligns with Trump/Sessions against Sanctuary Cities & 11 Million Undocumented Migrants As I said last year in our Rally against Killer Koh, the College of Law is an intellectual and moral cesspool. We have about 10,000 Undocumented Migrants in Champaign County. If it had been up to “Dean” Amar instead of me, Urbana would have never become a Sanctuary for them. Ditto for 1986 when we had about 8000 Undocumented Migrants in Champaign County. QED. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2017 11:35 AM To: David Green >; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; Estabrook, Carl G >; David Swanson > Subject: RE: ICEman UI Yale Law Mafia Dean Amar Aligns with Trump/Sessions against Sanctuary Cities & 11 Million Undocumented Migrants Sorry, Correction that is 2016 on Urbana reaffirming itself as a Sanctuary City having been one since 1986. According to his biography ICEman UI Yale Law Mafia Dean Amar had just graduated from college in 1985 around when I originally argued the case for Urbana to become a Sanctuary City under a public death threat from the American Nazi Party if I did so. Back then going door to door against us in Urbana were the American Nazi Party, the Ku Klux Klan, Phyllis Schaffly’s Eagle Forum and the Republican Party of Champaign County. Birds of a Feather Flock Together. I don’t like Nazis and Klanners. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Thursday, November 2, 2017 10:58 AM To: David Green >; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; Estabrook, Carl G >; David Swanson > Subject: RE: ICEman UI Yale Law Mafia Dean Amar Aligns with Trump/Sessions against Sanctuary Cities & 11 Million Undocumented Migrants And for the record, back in the mid-1980s, I was also personally involved in turning San Francisco into a Sanctuary City and Evanston into a Sanctuary City—which they both still are three decades later. Amar can stick all that where the sun don’t shine! Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Thursday, November 2, 2017 10:49 AM To: David Green >; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; Estabrook, Carl G >; David Swanson > Subject: ICEman UI Yale Law Mafia Dean Amar Aligns with Trump/Sessions against Sanctuary Cities & 11 Million Undocumented Migrants Yeah well in 1986 I convinced Urbana to become a Sanctuary City which it continued to be for 30 years and then with all your help got that reaffirmed in 2006—according to USA Today the only Sanctuary City between Chicago and New Orleans until Governor Rauner—a Conservative Republican— signed legislation that turned the entire State of Illinois into a Sanctuary State. Amar can stuff that up his bucket. Maybe Amar is tired of being Dean at the No. 44 Law School in the country and is gunning for a slot in the Trump/Sessions Department of Injustice or ICE—become an ICEman? Fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Justia Verdict [mailto:verdictsupport at justia.com] Sent: Thursday, November 2, 2017 10:08 AM To: Boyle, Francis A > Subject: Vikram David Amar - The Need for Clearer Understanding of the Basic Federalism Doctrines Concerning Sanctuary Cities and Other Federal-State Flashpoin Illinois Law dean and professor Vikram David Amar explains the federalism doctrines implicated by Attorney General Sessions’ attempt to deny funding to sanctuary jurisdictions. Amar points to lower court decisions that reflect a misunderstanding of the doctrines and calls upon federal courts and their law clerks to better understand and apply not just the nuanced technical details of various specific doctrines, but the overall federalism big picture as well. Click here to view in your browser if you are having trouble viewing this email. [Verdict - Legal Analysis and commentary from Justia.] The Need for Clearer Understanding of the Basic Federalism Doctrines Concerning Sanctuary Cities and Other Federal-State Flashpoints Vikram David Amar Nov 2, 2017 [https://i2.wp.com/verdict.justia.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/shutterstock_579926992.jpg?quality=90&resize=426%2C350&strip=all&fit=1000%25&ssl=1] As many of the lawsuits against Trump administration policies brought by state and local entities move towards their resolution on the merits in both federal district and appellate courts, it is becoming clear that courts are confused about some basic ways that various aspects of the doctrine of federalism—that is, the proper relationship between the federal and state governments—relate to each other. Case in point: the dispute between various cities and the Trump Department of Justice (DOJ) concerning Attorney General Sessions’ attempts to deny federal funding to so-called “sanctuary cities.” The Trump administration believes that jurisdictions that hold themselves out as sanctuaries facilitate crime. (The trial that began last week of Jose Ines Garcia Zarate, an undocumented man accused of murdering San Francisco woman and American citizen Kate Stienle two years ago, is directing a lot of publicity to the administration’s stance here.) Based on his views, President Trump issued an executive order shortly after taking office in which he directed relevant cabinet officers to deprive “sanctuary jurisdictions” of federal funding and to “take [additional] appropriate enforcement action” against them. That is the framework within which Attorney General Sessions has been trying to deny funding to sanctuary jurisdictions who seek grants under the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program, which supports state and local law enforcement with money for equipment, training, and personnel. In particular, the federal DOJ is requiring all funding applicants to: (1) provide federal agents with advanced notice of the scheduled release from state custody of certain individuals suspected of immigration violations; (2) provide the feds physical access to non-citizens who are being housed in state and local detention facilities; and (3) certify compliance with 8 U.S.C. § 1373. Section 1373, in pertinent part, provides that “a . . . State, or local government entity or official may not prohibit, or in any way restrict, any government entity or official from [maintaining,] sending to, or receiving from, [federal immigration authorities] information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual.” Thus, the statute prevents a state or local government from having a policy or practice that forbids maintaining or giving to the feds information on the immigration status of individuals. Many cities have challenged one or more of these conditions, arguing that the federal government exceeds its powers under the Tenth Amendment by imposing such requirements on states and localities. There are two possible federal responses to this Tenth Amendment challenge. An Argument for Authority Under Article I to Regulate Immigration First, the feds can and do argue that they have authority to adopt these conditions pursuant to their power under Article I of the Constitution to regulate immigration, naturalization, and foreign affairs. As a general matter, this power is quite broad and may very well suffice to support the federal government’s requirements in this realm, but states and cities have a rejoinder here—a series of cases the Supreme Court decided in the 1990s that, collectively, create a rule known as the “anti-commandeering” doctrine. The basic idea is that, notwithstanding broad Article I powers of the federal government, the Tenth Amendment forbids the federal government coercing states and localities into providing affirmative enforcement assistance to federal authorities. In this setting, states and cities argue that the anti-commandeering principle prevents the feds from requiring state and local authorities to affirmatively provide information about or access to individuals who may have committed immigration law violations. Perhaps the most important Supreme Court case on this point is Printz v. United States (1997), in which the Supreme Court held that the federal government could not require state and local law enforcement officers to conduct background checks on gun purchasers as part of the implementation of a federal law (the Brady gun control law). “The Federal Government,” the Court said, “may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program.” According to many cities, this is precisely what Attorney General Sessions is trying to do. There are many questions about whether Printz would continue to command majority support at the Supreme Court today, whether there might be an “immigration exception” to the Printz doctrine, and whether Printz by its own terms even applies to information-only demands by the feds (which would mean § 1373 would be ok, regardless of whether the demands for access to persons in state and local detention would be). If courts conclude that statutes like § 1373 do not constitute commandeering and are permissible under Printz (for any of the reasons in the previous sentence) then the feds can require that states and cities comply with them, pure and simple, under the Article I powers (concerning immigration, naturalization and foreign affairs) mentioned earlier. An Argument for Authority Under the Spending Clause But if one concludes that something like § 1373 constitutes impermissible commandeering in violation of federalism principles laid out in Printz, then the federal government would try to overcome the cities’ Tenth Amendment objection by relying on a second, different basis for federal power—the power the feds enjoy to attach strings to federal funding under the so-called Spending Clause of Article I. The Spending Clause in some circumstances gives the federal government power to achieve what it cannot directly command by creating monetary incentives for state and local governments. The spending authority, as it has been interpreted by the Court, is limited, however, in that it requires that any conditions the feds impose on the funding: (1) be clearly communicated to the states/cities up front, so the recipients can knowingly decide whether to accept the deal; (2) be rationally related to the purposes of federal funding in the first place; and (3) not require the states to do something that violates any other part of the Constitution. In addition, the Court has recently held, the funding at issue cannot be something on which states/cities have come to rely to such a great extent in the past so that they really have no choice but to accept any new strings that are attached. If these four aspects are satisfied, then the funding conditions are valid requirements under Article I and do not violate the Tenth Amendment, whether or not the feds could mandate compliance with the conditions in the absence of the funding carrot. Misapplication or Misunderstanding by Lower Federal Courts All of this is chock full of doctrinal details to be sure, but is nonetheless relatively clear and straightforward, even with all the steps involved. Except that some lower courts don’t seem to understand it. For example, in a ruling last month by a district court in the City of Chicago’s challenge to Attorney General Sessions’ insistence that Chicago comply with § 1367, the court conceived of the inquiry into § 1373’s constitutionality as follows: [The AG’s insistence on] compliance [with § 1373] must be proper under the Spending Clause, and 1373 must pass constitutional muster [under the Printz analysis.] As the City has not argued that the compliance condition violates the Spending Clause, the Court now turns to the Section 1373 question [under the Printz line of cases]. The court ultimately concluded that § 1373 did not run afoul of the Printz anti-commandeering principle (for reasons similar to some that were mentioned above), so running the statute through the Printz analysis did not in the end cause the federal government any harm. But the key point is that once it is conceded that compliance with § 1373 to obtain federal money is a valid condition on funding under the Spending Clause doctrine, it is irrelevant whether 1373’s mandate—in the absence of a conditional funding scheme—would violate the Printz anti-commandeering rule. Passing muster under Spending Clause doctrine and passing muster under the Printz doctrine are alternative ways for the federal government to prevail. If it wins on either, it wins. It needn’t win on both, the way the district court erroneously thought. Put another way, if a federal condition on funding is permissible under Spending Clause doctrine, it cannot, by definition, be an impermissible commandeering, since (by hypothesis) states have an option of turning the deal down. Hence, there is no federal mandate that could be considered to be commandeering. The point may seem nit-picky, but it’s not. It goes to the fundamental ways in which different yet related doctrines (in this case Spending Clause doctrine and the anti-commandeering principle) involving federal-state relations fit together. If federal courts are going to be able to enforce the limits that federalism creates on the national government, while at the same time permit the feds to operate in their own proper sphere (and inspire confidence in the public as they accomplish both objectives), they (and their law clerks) need to understand not just nuanced technical details of various specific doctrines, but the overall federalism big picture as well. [https://justatic.com/v/20171005a/verdict/images/authors/thumbs/amar.jpg] Follow @prof_amar Vikram David Amar is the Iwan Foundation Professor of Law and the Dean at the University of Illinois College of Law. Previously, he served as the Associate Dean for Academic Affairs and Professor of Law at the University of California, Davis School of Law. He is a 1988 graduate of the Yale Law School and a former clerk to Justice Harry Blackmun. He is a co-author, along with William Cohen and Jonathan Varat, of a major constitutional law casebook, and a co-author of several volumes of the Wright & Miller treatise on federal practice and procedure. Before teaching, Professor Amar spent a few years at the firm of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher. RECENT ARTICLES The Troublingly Widening Gyre of Complicity Claims Cornell University law professor Michael C. Dorf describes a principle most famously articulated by Thomas Jefferson, under which there should be a right to avoid providing financial support for causes one strongly opposes. Dorf argues that the Jeffersonian principle has lately run amok. He points out that the government’s argument against allowing a seventeen-year-old undocumented immigrant in federal custody to obtain a privately funded abortion is but one example of the government’s too-broad definition of “facilitation” of acts with which it disagrees. Dorf argues that adoption of such a position would convert every objectionable private exercise of rights into government participation.... Read More Body Worn Cameras: The Dog That Won’t Bark Cornell University law professor Joe Margulies comments on the findings of a recent study of police body cameras that body-worn cameras made no statistically significant difference in how police go about their jobs. Margulies points out that the story is not in the absence of a difference, but in people’s surprise to the absence of a difference. Indeed, it is the routine, not the anomalous, that requires reform.... Read More What Needs to Happen Next for the #MeToo Campaign to Fulfill Its Potential Professor and resident senior fellow in the Fox Leadership Program at the University of Pennsylvania, Marci A. Hamilton praises the #MeToo campaign and explains what more needs to happen to meaningfully address the pervasive issues of sexual assault and abuse against children and adults. Hamilton points to the brave actions by Olympic gymnast McKayla Maroney and elaborates on what must change in our society to empower victims and hold those in power accountable.... Read More [Forward this email.] Have friends who like law? Forward this email. [Like Verdict on Facebook] Like Verdict for legal discussions on Facebook. [Follow @verdictjustia on Twitter] Follow @verdictjustia for news and updates on Twitter. [Justia] Contact Us | Privacy Policy [Facebook][Twitter][LinkedIn][Justia][GooglePlus] You received this email because you have subscribed to the Verdict News E-Mail Feed. . Justia | 1380 Pear Ave, Suite 2B, Mountain View, CA 94043 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Fri Nov 3 15:39:19 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2017 15:39:19 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] ICEman UI Yale Law Mafia Dean Amar Aligns with Trump/Sessions against Sanctuary Cities & 11 Million Undocumented Migrants In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: And now we lawyers will have to protect the DACA Kids from threatened deportation by the Trumpsters. Way to go ICEMAN AMAR! Fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Friday, November 3, 2017 9:57 AM To: David Green ; C. G. ESTABROOK ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay ; David Johnson ; Mildred O'brien ; Estabrook, Carl G ; David Swanson Subject: RE: ICEman UI Yale Law Mafia Dean Amar Aligns with Trump/Sessions against Sanctuary Cities & 11 Million Undocumented Migrants ICEman Amar gratuitously trashed all the human rights work I have done for Undocumented Migrants since the mid-1980s when I served as Counsel to the Original Sanctuary Movement and he was in college. The College of Law is an intellectual and moral cesspool. QED. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Friday, November 3, 2017 4:21 AM To: David Green >; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; Estabrook, Carl G >; David Swanson > Subject: RE: ICEman UI Yale Law Mafia Dean Amar Aligns with Trump/Sessions against Sanctuary Cities & 11 Million Undocumented Migrants And ditto for every Undocumented Migrant who has lived in Champaign County since 1986. If it had been up to ICEman Dean Amar instead of me, Urbana would have never been a Sanctuary for them for the past 31 years. The College of Law is an intellectual and moral cesspool. QED. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Friday, November 03, 2017 4:07 AM To: David Green >; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; Estabrook, Carl G >; David Swanson > Subject: RE: ICEman UI Yale Law Mafia Dean Amar Aligns with Trump/Sessions against Sanctuary Cities & 11 Million Undocumented Migrants As I said last year in our Rally against Killer Koh, the College of Law is an intellectual and moral cesspool. We have about 10,000 Undocumented Migrants in Champaign County. If it had been up to “Dean” Amar instead of me, Urbana would have never become a Sanctuary for them. Ditto for 1986 when we had about 8000 Undocumented Migrants in Champaign County. QED. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2017 11:35 AM To: David Green >; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; Estabrook, Carl G >; David Swanson > Subject: RE: ICEman UI Yale Law Mafia Dean Amar Aligns with Trump/Sessions against Sanctuary Cities & 11 Million Undocumented Migrants Sorry, Correction that is 2016 on Urbana reaffirming itself as a Sanctuary City having been one since 1986. According to his biography ICEman UI Yale Law Mafia Dean Amar had just graduated from college in 1985 around when I originally argued the case for Urbana to become a Sanctuary City under a public death threat from the American Nazi Party if I did so. Back then going door to door against us in Urbana were the American Nazi Party, the Ku Klux Klan, Phyllis Schaffly’s Eagle Forum and the Republican Party of Champaign County. Birds of a Feather Flock Together. I don’t like Nazis and Klanners. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Thursday, November 2, 2017 10:58 AM To: David Green >; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; Estabrook, Carl G >; David Swanson > Subject: RE: ICEman UI Yale Law Mafia Dean Amar Aligns with Trump/Sessions against Sanctuary Cities & 11 Million Undocumented Migrants And for the record, back in the mid-1980s, I was also personally involved in turning San Francisco into a Sanctuary City and Evanston into a Sanctuary City—which they both still are three decades later. Amar can stick all that where the sun don’t shine! Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Thursday, November 2, 2017 10:49 AM To: David Green >; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; Estabrook, Carl G >; David Swanson > Subject: ICEman UI Yale Law Mafia Dean Amar Aligns with Trump/Sessions against Sanctuary Cities & 11 Million Undocumented Migrants Yeah well in 1986 I convinced Urbana to become a Sanctuary City which it continued to be for 30 years and then with all your help got that reaffirmed in 2006—according to USA Today the only Sanctuary City between Chicago and New Orleans until Governor Rauner—a Conservative Republican— signed legislation that turned the entire State of Illinois into a Sanctuary State. Amar can stuff that up his bucket. Maybe Amar is tired of being Dean at the No. 44 Law School in the country and is gunning for a slot in the Trump/Sessions Department of Injustice or ICE—become an ICEman? Fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Justia Verdict [mailto:verdictsupport at justia.com] Sent: Thursday, November 2, 2017 10:08 AM To: Boyle, Francis A > Subject: Vikram David Amar - The Need for Clearer Understanding of the Basic Federalism Doctrines Concerning Sanctuary Cities and Other Federal-State Flashpoin Illinois Law dean and professor Vikram David Amar explains the federalism doctrines implicated by Attorney General Sessions’ attempt to deny funding to sanctuary jurisdictions. Amar points to lower court decisions that reflect a misunderstanding of the doctrines and calls upon federal courts and their law clerks to better understand and apply not just the nuanced technical details of various specific doctrines, but the overall federalism big picture as well. Click here to view in your browser if you are having trouble viewing this email. [Verdict - Legal Analysis and commentary from Justia.] The Need for Clearer Understanding of the Basic Federalism Doctrines Concerning Sanctuary Cities and Other Federal-State Flashpoints Vikram David Amar Nov 2, 2017 [https://i2.wp.com/verdict.justia.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/shutterstock_579926992.jpg?quality=90&resize=426%2C350&strip=all&fit=1000%25&ssl=1] As many of the lawsuits against Trump administration policies brought by state and local entities move towards their resolution on the merits in both federal district and appellate courts, it is becoming clear that courts are confused about some basic ways that various aspects of the doctrine of federalism—that is, the proper relationship between the federal and state governments—relate to each other. Case in point: the dispute between various cities and the Trump Department of Justice (DOJ) concerning Attorney General Sessions’ attempts to deny federal funding to so-called “sanctuary cities.” The Trump administration believes that jurisdictions that hold themselves out as sanctuaries facilitate crime. (The trial that began last week of Jose Ines Garcia Zarate, an undocumented man accused of murdering San Francisco woman and American citizen Kate Stienle two years ago, is directing a lot of publicity to the administration’s stance here.) Based on his views, President Trump issued an executive order shortly after taking office in which he directed relevant cabinet officers to deprive “sanctuary jurisdictions” of federal funding and to “take [additional] appropriate enforcement action” against them. That is the framework within which Attorney General Sessions has been trying to deny funding to sanctuary jurisdictions who seek grants under the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program, which supports state and local law enforcement with money for equipment, training, and personnel. In particular, the federal DOJ is requiring all funding applicants to: (1) provide federal agents with advanced notice of the scheduled release from state custody of certain individuals suspected of immigration violations; (2) provide the feds physical access to non-citizens who are being housed in state and local detention facilities; and (3) certify compliance with 8 U.S.C. § 1373. Section 1373, in pertinent part, provides that “a . . . State, or local government entity or official may not prohibit, or in any way restrict, any government entity or official from [maintaining,] sending to, or receiving from, [federal immigration authorities] information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual.” Thus, the statute prevents a state or local government from having a policy or practice that forbids maintaining or giving to the feds information on the immigration status of individuals. Many cities have challenged one or more of these conditions, arguing that the federal government exceeds its powers under the Tenth Amendment by imposing such requirements on states and localities. There are two possible federal responses to this Tenth Amendment challenge. An Argument for Authority Under Article I to Regulate Immigration First, the feds can and do argue that they have authority to adopt these conditions pursuant to their power under Article I of the Constitution to regulate immigration, naturalization, and foreign affairs. As a general matter, this power is quite broad and may very well suffice to support the federal government’s requirements in this realm, but states and cities have a rejoinder here—a series of cases the Supreme Court decided in the 1990s that, collectively, create a rule known as the “anti-commandeering” doctrine. The basic idea is that, notwithstanding broad Article I powers of the federal government, the Tenth Amendment forbids the federal government coercing states and localities into providing affirmative enforcement assistance to federal authorities. In this setting, states and cities argue that the anti-commandeering principle prevents the feds from requiring state and local authorities to affirmatively provide information about or access to individuals who may have committed immigration law violations. Perhaps the most important Supreme Court case on this point is Printz v. United States (1997), in which the Supreme Court held that the federal government could not require state and local law enforcement officers to conduct background checks on gun purchasers as part of the implementation of a federal law (the Brady gun control law). “The Federal Government,” the Court said, “may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program.” According to many cities, this is precisely what Attorney General Sessions is trying to do. There are many questions about whether Printz would continue to command majority support at the Supreme Court today, whether there might be an “immigration exception” to the Printz doctrine, and whether Printz by its own terms even applies to information-only demands by the feds (which would mean § 1373 would be ok, regardless of whether the demands for access to persons in state and local detention would be). If courts conclude that statutes like § 1373 do not constitute commandeering and are permissible under Printz (for any of the reasons in the previous sentence) then the feds can require that states and cities comply with them, pure and simple, under the Article I powers (concerning immigration, naturalization and foreign affairs) mentioned earlier. An Argument for Authority Under the Spending Clause But if one concludes that something like § 1373 constitutes impermissible commandeering in violation of federalism principles laid out in Printz, then the federal government would try to overcome the cities’ Tenth Amendment objection by relying on a second, different basis for federal power—the power the feds enjoy to attach strings to federal funding under the so-called Spending Clause of Article I. The Spending Clause in some circumstances gives the federal government power to achieve what it cannot directly command by creating monetary incentives for state and local governments. The spending authority, as it has been interpreted by the Court, is limited, however, in that it requires that any conditions the feds impose on the funding: (1) be clearly communicated to the states/cities up front, so the recipients can knowingly decide whether to accept the deal; (2) be rationally related to the purposes of federal funding in the first place; and (3) not require the states to do something that violates any other part of the Constitution. In addition, the Court has recently held, the funding at issue cannot be something on which states/cities have come to rely to such a great extent in the past so that they really have no choice but to accept any new strings that are attached. If these four aspects are satisfied, then the funding conditions are valid requirements under Article I and do not violate the Tenth Amendment, whether or not the feds could mandate compliance with the conditions in the absence of the funding carrot. Misapplication or Misunderstanding by Lower Federal Courts All of this is chock full of doctrinal details to be sure, but is nonetheless relatively clear and straightforward, even with all the steps involved. Except that some lower courts don’t seem to understand it. For example, in a ruling last month by a district court in the City of Chicago’s challenge to Attorney General Sessions’ insistence that Chicago comply with § 1367, the court conceived of the inquiry into § 1373’s constitutionality as follows: [The AG’s insistence on] compliance [with § 1373] must be proper under the Spending Clause, and 1373 must pass constitutional muster [under the Printz analysis.] As the City has not argued that the compliance condition violates the Spending Clause, the Court now turns to the Section 1373 question [under the Printz line of cases]. The court ultimately concluded that § 1373 did not run afoul of the Printz anti-commandeering principle (for reasons similar to some that were mentioned above), so running the statute through the Printz analysis did not in the end cause the federal government any harm. But the key point is that once it is conceded that compliance with § 1373 to obtain federal money is a valid condition on funding under the Spending Clause doctrine, it is irrelevant whether 1373’s mandate—in the absence of a conditional funding scheme—would violate the Printz anti-commandeering rule. Passing muster under Spending Clause doctrine and passing muster under the Printz doctrine are alternative ways for the federal government to prevail. If it wins on either, it wins. It needn’t win on both, the way the district court erroneously thought. Put another way, if a federal condition on funding is permissible under Spending Clause doctrine, it cannot, by definition, be an impermissible commandeering, since (by hypothesis) states have an option of turning the deal down. Hence, there is no federal mandate that could be considered to be commandeering. The point may seem nit-picky, but it’s not. It goes to the fundamental ways in which different yet related doctrines (in this case Spending Clause doctrine and the anti-commandeering principle) involving federal-state relations fit together. If federal courts are going to be able to enforce the limits that federalism creates on the national government, while at the same time permit the feds to operate in their own proper sphere (and inspire confidence in the public as they accomplish both objectives), they (and their law clerks) need to understand not just nuanced technical details of various specific doctrines, but the overall federalism big picture as well. [https://justatic.com/v/20171005a/verdict/images/authors/thumbs/amar.jpg] Follow @prof_amar Vikram David Amar is the Iwan Foundation Professor of Law and the Dean at the University of Illinois College of Law. Previously, he served as the Associate Dean for Academic Affairs and Professor of Law at the University of California, Davis School of Law. He is a 1988 graduate of the Yale Law School and a former clerk to Justice Harry Blackmun. He is a co-author, along with William Cohen and Jonathan Varat, of a major constitutional law casebook, and a co-author of several volumes of the Wright & Miller treatise on federal practice and procedure. Before teaching, Professor Amar spent a few years at the firm of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher. RECENT ARTICLES The Troublingly Widening Gyre of Complicity Claims Cornell University law professor Michael C. Dorf describes a principle most famously articulated by Thomas Jefferson, under which there should be a right to avoid providing financial support for causes one strongly opposes. Dorf argues that the Jeffersonian principle has lately run amok. He points out that the government’s argument against allowing a seventeen-year-old undocumented immigrant in federal custody to obtain a privately funded abortion is but one example of the government’s too-broad definition of “facilitation” of acts with which it disagrees. Dorf argues that adoption of such a position would convert every objectionable private exercise of rights into government participation.... Read More Body Worn Cameras: The Dog That Won’t Bark Cornell University law professor Joe Margulies comments on the findings of a recent study of police body cameras that body-worn cameras made no statistically significant difference in how police go about their jobs. Margulies points out that the story is not in the absence of a difference, but in people’s surprise to the absence of a difference. Indeed, it is the routine, not the anomalous, that requires reform.... Read More What Needs to Happen Next for the #MeToo Campaign to Fulfill Its Potential Professor and resident senior fellow in the Fox Leadership Program at the University of Pennsylvania, Marci A. Hamilton praises the #MeToo campaign and explains what more needs to happen to meaningfully address the pervasive issues of sexual assault and abuse against children and adults. Hamilton points to the brave actions by Olympic gymnast McKayla Maroney and elaborates on what must change in our society to empower victims and hold those in power accountable.... Read More [Forward this email.] Have friends who like law? Forward this email. [Like Verdict on Facebook] Like Verdict for legal discussions on Facebook. [Follow @verdictjustia on Twitter] Follow @verdictjustia for news and updates on Twitter. [Justia] Contact Us | Privacy Policy [Facebook][Twitter][LinkedIn][Justia][GooglePlus] You received this email because you have subscribed to the Verdict News E-Mail Feed. . Justia | 1380 Pear Ave, Suite 2B, Mountain View, CA 94043 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Fri Nov 3 15:39:19 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2017 15:39:19 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] ICEman UI Yale Law Mafia Dean Amar Aligns with Trump/Sessions against Sanctuary Cities & 11 Million Undocumented Migrants In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: And now we lawyers will have to protect the DACA Kids from threatened deportation by the Trumpsters. Way to go ICEMAN AMAR! Fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Friday, November 3, 2017 9:57 AM To: David Green ; C. G. ESTABROOK ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay ; David Johnson ; Mildred O'brien ; Estabrook, Carl G ; David Swanson Subject: RE: ICEman UI Yale Law Mafia Dean Amar Aligns with Trump/Sessions against Sanctuary Cities & 11 Million Undocumented Migrants ICEman Amar gratuitously trashed all the human rights work I have done for Undocumented Migrants since the mid-1980s when I served as Counsel to the Original Sanctuary Movement and he was in college. The College of Law is an intellectual and moral cesspool. QED. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Friday, November 3, 2017 4:21 AM To: David Green >; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; Estabrook, Carl G >; David Swanson > Subject: RE: ICEman UI Yale Law Mafia Dean Amar Aligns with Trump/Sessions against Sanctuary Cities & 11 Million Undocumented Migrants And ditto for every Undocumented Migrant who has lived in Champaign County since 1986. If it had been up to ICEman Dean Amar instead of me, Urbana would have never been a Sanctuary for them for the past 31 years. The College of Law is an intellectual and moral cesspool. QED. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Friday, November 03, 2017 4:07 AM To: David Green >; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; Estabrook, Carl G >; David Swanson > Subject: RE: ICEman UI Yale Law Mafia Dean Amar Aligns with Trump/Sessions against Sanctuary Cities & 11 Million Undocumented Migrants As I said last year in our Rally against Killer Koh, the College of Law is an intellectual and moral cesspool. We have about 10,000 Undocumented Migrants in Champaign County. If it had been up to “Dean” Amar instead of me, Urbana would have never become a Sanctuary for them. Ditto for 1986 when we had about 8000 Undocumented Migrants in Champaign County. QED. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2017 11:35 AM To: David Green >; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; Estabrook, Carl G >; David Swanson > Subject: RE: ICEman UI Yale Law Mafia Dean Amar Aligns with Trump/Sessions against Sanctuary Cities & 11 Million Undocumented Migrants Sorry, Correction that is 2016 on Urbana reaffirming itself as a Sanctuary City having been one since 1986. According to his biography ICEman UI Yale Law Mafia Dean Amar had just graduated from college in 1985 around when I originally argued the case for Urbana to become a Sanctuary City under a public death threat from the American Nazi Party if I did so. Back then going door to door against us in Urbana were the American Nazi Party, the Ku Klux Klan, Phyllis Schaffly’s Eagle Forum and the Republican Party of Champaign County. Birds of a Feather Flock Together. I don’t like Nazis and Klanners. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Thursday, November 2, 2017 10:58 AM To: David Green >; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; Estabrook, Carl G >; David Swanson > Subject: RE: ICEman UI Yale Law Mafia Dean Amar Aligns with Trump/Sessions against Sanctuary Cities & 11 Million Undocumented Migrants And for the record, back in the mid-1980s, I was also personally involved in turning San Francisco into a Sanctuary City and Evanston into a Sanctuary City—which they both still are three decades later. Amar can stick all that where the sun don’t shine! Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Thursday, November 2, 2017 10:49 AM To: David Green >; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; Estabrook, Carl G >; David Swanson > Subject: ICEman UI Yale Law Mafia Dean Amar Aligns with Trump/Sessions against Sanctuary Cities & 11 Million Undocumented Migrants Yeah well in 1986 I convinced Urbana to become a Sanctuary City which it continued to be for 30 years and then with all your help got that reaffirmed in 2006—according to USA Today the only Sanctuary City between Chicago and New Orleans until Governor Rauner—a Conservative Republican— signed legislation that turned the entire State of Illinois into a Sanctuary State. Amar can stuff that up his bucket. Maybe Amar is tired of being Dean at the No. 44 Law School in the country and is gunning for a slot in the Trump/Sessions Department of Injustice or ICE—become an ICEman? Fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Justia Verdict [mailto:verdictsupport at justia.com] Sent: Thursday, November 2, 2017 10:08 AM To: Boyle, Francis A > Subject: Vikram David Amar - The Need for Clearer Understanding of the Basic Federalism Doctrines Concerning Sanctuary Cities and Other Federal-State Flashpoin Illinois Law dean and professor Vikram David Amar explains the federalism doctrines implicated by Attorney General Sessions’ attempt to deny funding to sanctuary jurisdictions. Amar points to lower court decisions that reflect a misunderstanding of the doctrines and calls upon federal courts and their law clerks to better understand and apply not just the nuanced technical details of various specific doctrines, but the overall federalism big picture as well. Click here to view in your browser if you are having trouble viewing this email. [Verdict - Legal Analysis and commentary from Justia.] The Need for Clearer Understanding of the Basic Federalism Doctrines Concerning Sanctuary Cities and Other Federal-State Flashpoints Vikram David Amar Nov 2, 2017 [https://i2.wp.com/verdict.justia.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/shutterstock_579926992.jpg?quality=90&resize=426%2C350&strip=all&fit=1000%25&ssl=1] As many of the lawsuits against Trump administration policies brought by state and local entities move towards their resolution on the merits in both federal district and appellate courts, it is becoming clear that courts are confused about some basic ways that various aspects of the doctrine of federalism—that is, the proper relationship between the federal and state governments—relate to each other. Case in point: the dispute between various cities and the Trump Department of Justice (DOJ) concerning Attorney General Sessions’ attempts to deny federal funding to so-called “sanctuary cities.” The Trump administration believes that jurisdictions that hold themselves out as sanctuaries facilitate crime. (The trial that began last week of Jose Ines Garcia Zarate, an undocumented man accused of murdering San Francisco woman and American citizen Kate Stienle two years ago, is directing a lot of publicity to the administration’s stance here.) Based on his views, President Trump issued an executive order shortly after taking office in which he directed relevant cabinet officers to deprive “sanctuary jurisdictions” of federal funding and to “take [additional] appropriate enforcement action” against them. That is the framework within which Attorney General Sessions has been trying to deny funding to sanctuary jurisdictions who seek grants under the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program, which supports state and local law enforcement with money for equipment, training, and personnel. In particular, the federal DOJ is requiring all funding applicants to: (1) provide federal agents with advanced notice of the scheduled release from state custody of certain individuals suspected of immigration violations; (2) provide the feds physical access to non-citizens who are being housed in state and local detention facilities; and (3) certify compliance with 8 U.S.C. § 1373. Section 1373, in pertinent part, provides that “a . . . State, or local government entity or official may not prohibit, or in any way restrict, any government entity or official from [maintaining,] sending to, or receiving from, [federal immigration authorities] information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual.” Thus, the statute prevents a state or local government from having a policy or practice that forbids maintaining or giving to the feds information on the immigration status of individuals. Many cities have challenged one or more of these conditions, arguing that the federal government exceeds its powers under the Tenth Amendment by imposing such requirements on states and localities. There are two possible federal responses to this Tenth Amendment challenge. An Argument for Authority Under Article I to Regulate Immigration First, the feds can and do argue that they have authority to adopt these conditions pursuant to their power under Article I of the Constitution to regulate immigration, naturalization, and foreign affairs. As a general matter, this power is quite broad and may very well suffice to support the federal government’s requirements in this realm, but states and cities have a rejoinder here—a series of cases the Supreme Court decided in the 1990s that, collectively, create a rule known as the “anti-commandeering” doctrine. The basic idea is that, notwithstanding broad Article I powers of the federal government, the Tenth Amendment forbids the federal government coercing states and localities into providing affirmative enforcement assistance to federal authorities. In this setting, states and cities argue that the anti-commandeering principle prevents the feds from requiring state and local authorities to affirmatively provide information about or access to individuals who may have committed immigration law violations. Perhaps the most important Supreme Court case on this point is Printz v. United States (1997), in which the Supreme Court held that the federal government could not require state and local law enforcement officers to conduct background checks on gun purchasers as part of the implementation of a federal law (the Brady gun control law). “The Federal Government,” the Court said, “may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program.” According to many cities, this is precisely what Attorney General Sessions is trying to do. There are many questions about whether Printz would continue to command majority support at the Supreme Court today, whether there might be an “immigration exception” to the Printz doctrine, and whether Printz by its own terms even applies to information-only demands by the feds (which would mean § 1373 would be ok, regardless of whether the demands for access to persons in state and local detention would be). If courts conclude that statutes like § 1373 do not constitute commandeering and are permissible under Printz (for any of the reasons in the previous sentence) then the feds can require that states and cities comply with them, pure and simple, under the Article I powers (concerning immigration, naturalization and foreign affairs) mentioned earlier. An Argument for Authority Under the Spending Clause But if one concludes that something like § 1373 constitutes impermissible commandeering in violation of federalism principles laid out in Printz, then the federal government would try to overcome the cities’ Tenth Amendment objection by relying on a second, different basis for federal power—the power the feds enjoy to attach strings to federal funding under the so-called Spending Clause of Article I. The Spending Clause in some circumstances gives the federal government power to achieve what it cannot directly command by creating monetary incentives for state and local governments. The spending authority, as it has been interpreted by the Court, is limited, however, in that it requires that any conditions the feds impose on the funding: (1) be clearly communicated to the states/cities up front, so the recipients can knowingly decide whether to accept the deal; (2) be rationally related to the purposes of federal funding in the first place; and (3) not require the states to do something that violates any other part of the Constitution. In addition, the Court has recently held, the funding at issue cannot be something on which states/cities have come to rely to such a great extent in the past so that they really have no choice but to accept any new strings that are attached. If these four aspects are satisfied, then the funding conditions are valid requirements under Article I and do not violate the Tenth Amendment, whether or not the feds could mandate compliance with the conditions in the absence of the funding carrot. Misapplication or Misunderstanding by Lower Federal Courts All of this is chock full of doctrinal details to be sure, but is nonetheless relatively clear and straightforward, even with all the steps involved. Except that some lower courts don’t seem to understand it. For example, in a ruling last month by a district court in the City of Chicago’s challenge to Attorney General Sessions’ insistence that Chicago comply with § 1367, the court conceived of the inquiry into § 1373’s constitutionality as follows: [The AG’s insistence on] compliance [with § 1373] must be proper under the Spending Clause, and 1373 must pass constitutional muster [under the Printz analysis.] As the City has not argued that the compliance condition violates the Spending Clause, the Court now turns to the Section 1373 question [under the Printz line of cases]. The court ultimately concluded that § 1373 did not run afoul of the Printz anti-commandeering principle (for reasons similar to some that were mentioned above), so running the statute through the Printz analysis did not in the end cause the federal government any harm. But the key point is that once it is conceded that compliance with § 1373 to obtain federal money is a valid condition on funding under the Spending Clause doctrine, it is irrelevant whether 1373’s mandate—in the absence of a conditional funding scheme—would violate the Printz anti-commandeering rule. Passing muster under Spending Clause doctrine and passing muster under the Printz doctrine are alternative ways for the federal government to prevail. If it wins on either, it wins. It needn’t win on both, the way the district court erroneously thought. Put another way, if a federal condition on funding is permissible under Spending Clause doctrine, it cannot, by definition, be an impermissible commandeering, since (by hypothesis) states have an option of turning the deal down. Hence, there is no federal mandate that could be considered to be commandeering. The point may seem nit-picky, but it’s not. It goes to the fundamental ways in which different yet related doctrines (in this case Spending Clause doctrine and the anti-commandeering principle) involving federal-state relations fit together. If federal courts are going to be able to enforce the limits that federalism creates on the national government, while at the same time permit the feds to operate in their own proper sphere (and inspire confidence in the public as they accomplish both objectives), they (and their law clerks) need to understand not just nuanced technical details of various specific doctrines, but the overall federalism big picture as well. [https://justatic.com/v/20171005a/verdict/images/authors/thumbs/amar.jpg] Follow @prof_amar Vikram David Amar is the Iwan Foundation Professor of Law and the Dean at the University of Illinois College of Law. Previously, he served as the Associate Dean for Academic Affairs and Professor of Law at the University of California, Davis School of Law. He is a 1988 graduate of the Yale Law School and a former clerk to Justice Harry Blackmun. He is a co-author, along with William Cohen and Jonathan Varat, of a major constitutional law casebook, and a co-author of several volumes of the Wright & Miller treatise on federal practice and procedure. Before teaching, Professor Amar spent a few years at the firm of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher. RECENT ARTICLES The Troublingly Widening Gyre of Complicity Claims Cornell University law professor Michael C. Dorf describes a principle most famously articulated by Thomas Jefferson, under which there should be a right to avoid providing financial support for causes one strongly opposes. Dorf argues that the Jeffersonian principle has lately run amok. He points out that the government’s argument against allowing a seventeen-year-old undocumented immigrant in federal custody to obtain a privately funded abortion is but one example of the government’s too-broad definition of “facilitation” of acts with which it disagrees. Dorf argues that adoption of such a position would convert every objectionable private exercise of rights into government participation.... Read More Body Worn Cameras: The Dog That Won’t Bark Cornell University law professor Joe Margulies comments on the findings of a recent study of police body cameras that body-worn cameras made no statistically significant difference in how police go about their jobs. Margulies points out that the story is not in the absence of a difference, but in people’s surprise to the absence of a difference. Indeed, it is the routine, not the anomalous, that requires reform.... Read More What Needs to Happen Next for the #MeToo Campaign to Fulfill Its Potential Professor and resident senior fellow in the Fox Leadership Program at the University of Pennsylvania, Marci A. Hamilton praises the #MeToo campaign and explains what more needs to happen to meaningfully address the pervasive issues of sexual assault and abuse against children and adults. Hamilton points to the brave actions by Olympic gymnast McKayla Maroney and elaborates on what must change in our society to empower victims and hold those in power accountable.... Read More [Forward this email.] Have friends who like law? Forward this email. [Like Verdict on Facebook] Like Verdict for legal discussions on Facebook. [Follow @verdictjustia on Twitter] Follow @verdictjustia for news and updates on Twitter. [Justia] Contact Us | Privacy Policy [Facebook][Twitter][LinkedIn][Justia][GooglePlus] You received this email because you have subscribed to the Verdict News E-Mail Feed. . Justia | 1380 Pear Ave, Suite 2B, Mountain View, CA 94043 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Fri Nov 3 17:54:07 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2017 17:54:07 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] ICEman UI Yale Law Mafia Dean Amar Aligns with Trump/Sessions against Sanctuary Cities & 11 Million Undocumented Migrants In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: As you can see from today’s newspapers, Congress just punted on protecting the DACA Kids. There are about 800,000 DACA Kids. We lawyers will have a very difficult time protecting these DACA Kids from deportation by the Trumpsters. ICEMAN UI Law Dean Ammar just aligned himself with the Trumpsters. This Law School is an intellectual and moral cesspool. Ditto for Killer Koh. QEDs. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Friday, November 3, 2017 10:39 AM To: David Green ; C. G. ESTABROOK ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay ; David Johnson ; Mildred O'brien ; Estabrook, Carl G ; David Swanson Subject: RE: ICEman UI Yale Law Mafia Dean Amar Aligns with Trump/Sessions against Sanctuary Cities & 11 Million Undocumented Migrants And now we lawyers will have to protect the DACA Kids from threatened deportation by the Trumpsters. Way to go ICEMAN AMAR! Fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Friday, November 3, 2017 9:57 AM To: David Green >; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; Estabrook, Carl G >; David Swanson > Subject: RE: ICEman UI Yale Law Mafia Dean Amar Aligns with Trump/Sessions against Sanctuary Cities & 11 Million Undocumented Migrants ICEman Amar gratuitously trashed all the human rights work I have done for Undocumented Migrants since the mid-1980s when I served as Counsel to the Original Sanctuary Movement and he was in college. The College of Law is an intellectual and moral cesspool. QED. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Friday, November 3, 2017 4:21 AM To: David Green >; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; Estabrook, Carl G >; David Swanson > Subject: RE: ICEman UI Yale Law Mafia Dean Amar Aligns with Trump/Sessions against Sanctuary Cities & 11 Million Undocumented Migrants And ditto for every Undocumented Migrant who has lived in Champaign County since 1986. If it had been up to ICEman Dean Amar instead of me, Urbana would have never been a Sanctuary for them for the past 31 years. The College of Law is an intellectual and moral cesspool. QED. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Friday, November 03, 2017 4:07 AM To: David Green >; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; Estabrook, Carl G >; David Swanson > Subject: RE: ICEman UI Yale Law Mafia Dean Amar Aligns with Trump/Sessions against Sanctuary Cities & 11 Million Undocumented Migrants As I said last year in our Rally against Killer Koh, the College of Law is an intellectual and moral cesspool. We have about 10,000 Undocumented Migrants in Champaign County. If it had been up to “Dean” Amar instead of me, Urbana would have never become a Sanctuary for them. Ditto for 1986 when we had about 8000 Undocumented Migrants in Champaign County. QED. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2017 11:35 AM To: David Green >; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; Estabrook, Carl G >; David Swanson > Subject: RE: ICEman UI Yale Law Mafia Dean Amar Aligns with Trump/Sessions against Sanctuary Cities & 11 Million Undocumented Migrants Sorry, Correction that is 2016 on Urbana reaffirming itself as a Sanctuary City having been one since 1986. According to his biography ICEman UI Yale Law Mafia Dean Amar had just graduated from college in 1985 around when I originally argued the case for Urbana to become a Sanctuary City under a public death threat from the American Nazi Party if I did so. Back then going door to door against us in Urbana were the American Nazi Party, the Ku Klux Klan, Phyllis Schaffly’s Eagle Forum and the Republican Party of Champaign County. Birds of a Feather Flock Together. I don’t like Nazis and Klanners. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Thursday, November 2, 2017 10:58 AM To: David Green >; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; Estabrook, Carl G >; David Swanson > Subject: RE: ICEman UI Yale Law Mafia Dean Amar Aligns with Trump/Sessions against Sanctuary Cities & 11 Million Undocumented Migrants And for the record, back in the mid-1980s, I was also personally involved in turning San Francisco into a Sanctuary City and Evanston into a Sanctuary City—which they both still are three decades later. Amar can stick all that where the sun don’t shine! Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Thursday, November 2, 2017 10:49 AM To: David Green >; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; Estabrook, Carl G >; David Swanson > Subject: ICEman UI Yale Law Mafia Dean Amar Aligns with Trump/Sessions against Sanctuary Cities & 11 Million Undocumented Migrants Yeah well in 1986 I convinced Urbana to become a Sanctuary City which it continued to be for 30 years and then with all your help got that reaffirmed in 2006—according to USA Today the only Sanctuary City between Chicago and New Orleans until Governor Rauner—a Conservative Republican— signed legislation that turned the entire State of Illinois into a Sanctuary State. Amar can stuff that up his bucket. Maybe Amar is tired of being Dean at the No. 44 Law School in the country and is gunning for a slot in the Trump/Sessions Department of Injustice or ICE—become an ICEman? Fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Justia Verdict [mailto:verdictsupport at justia.com] Sent: Thursday, November 2, 2017 10:08 AM To: Boyle, Francis A > Subject: Vikram David Amar - The Need for Clearer Understanding of the Basic Federalism Doctrines Concerning Sanctuary Cities and Other Federal-State Flashpoin Illinois Law dean and professor Vikram David Amar explains the federalism doctrines implicated by Attorney General Sessions’ attempt to deny funding to sanctuary jurisdictions. Amar points to lower court decisions that reflect a misunderstanding of the doctrines and calls upon federal courts and their law clerks to better understand and apply not just the nuanced technical details of various specific doctrines, but the overall federalism big picture as well. Click here to view in your browser if you are having trouble viewing this email. [Verdict - Legal Analysis and commentary from Justia.] The Need for Clearer Understanding of the Basic Federalism Doctrines Concerning Sanctuary Cities and Other Federal-State Flashpoints Vikram David Amar Nov 2, 2017 [https://i2.wp.com/verdict.justia.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/shutterstock_579926992.jpg?quality=90&resize=426%2C350&strip=all&fit=1000%25&ssl=1] As many of the lawsuits against Trump administration policies brought by state and local entities move towards their resolution on the merits in both federal district and appellate courts, it is becoming clear that courts are confused about some basic ways that various aspects of the doctrine of federalism—that is, the proper relationship between the federal and state governments—relate to each other. Case in point: the dispute between various cities and the Trump Department of Justice (DOJ) concerning Attorney General Sessions’ attempts to deny federal funding to so-called “sanctuary cities.” The Trump administration believes that jurisdictions that hold themselves out as sanctuaries facilitate crime. (The trial that began last week of Jose Ines Garcia Zarate, an undocumented man accused of murdering San Francisco woman and American citizen Kate Stienle two years ago, is directing a lot of publicity to the administration’s stance here.) Based on his views, President Trump issued an executive order shortly after taking office in which he directed relevant cabinet officers to deprive “sanctuary jurisdictions” of federal funding and to “take [additional] appropriate enforcement action” against them. That is the framework within which Attorney General Sessions has been trying to deny funding to sanctuary jurisdictions who seek grants under the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program, which supports state and local law enforcement with money for equipment, training, and personnel. In particular, the federal DOJ is requiring all funding applicants to: (1) provide federal agents with advanced notice of the scheduled release from state custody of certain individuals suspected of immigration violations; (2) provide the feds physical access to non-citizens who are being housed in state and local detention facilities; and (3) certify compliance with 8 U.S.C. § 1373. Section 1373, in pertinent part, provides that “a . . . State, or local government entity or official may not prohibit, or in any way restrict, any government entity or official from [maintaining,] sending to, or receiving from, [federal immigration authorities] information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual.” Thus, the statute prevents a state or local government from having a policy or practice that forbids maintaining or giving to the feds information on the immigration status of individuals. Many cities have challenged one or more of these conditions, arguing that the federal government exceeds its powers under the Tenth Amendment by imposing such requirements on states and localities. There are two possible federal responses to this Tenth Amendment challenge. An Argument for Authority Under Article I to Regulate Immigration First, the feds can and do argue that they have authority to adopt these conditions pursuant to their power under Article I of the Constitution to regulate immigration, naturalization, and foreign affairs. As a general matter, this power is quite broad and may very well suffice to support the federal government’s requirements in this realm, but states and cities have a rejoinder here—a series of cases the Supreme Court decided in the 1990s that, collectively, create a rule known as the “anti-commandeering” doctrine. The basic idea is that, notwithstanding broad Article I powers of the federal government, the Tenth Amendment forbids the federal government coercing states and localities into providing affirmative enforcement assistance to federal authorities. In this setting, states and cities argue that the anti-commandeering principle prevents the feds from requiring state and local authorities to affirmatively provide information about or access to individuals who may have committed immigration law violations. Perhaps the most important Supreme Court case on this point is Printz v. United States (1997), in which the Supreme Court held that the federal government could not require state and local law enforcement officers to conduct background checks on gun purchasers as part of the implementation of a federal law (the Brady gun control law). “The Federal Government,” the Court said, “may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program.” According to many cities, this is precisely what Attorney General Sessions is trying to do. There are many questions about whether Printz would continue to command majority support at the Supreme Court today, whether there might be an “immigration exception” to the Printz doctrine, and whether Printz by its own terms even applies to information-only demands by the feds (which would mean § 1373 would be ok, regardless of whether the demands for access to persons in state and local detention would be). If courts conclude that statutes like § 1373 do not constitute commandeering and are permissible under Printz (for any of the reasons in the previous sentence) then the feds can require that states and cities comply with them, pure and simple, under the Article I powers (concerning immigration, naturalization and foreign affairs) mentioned earlier. An Argument for Authority Under the Spending Clause But if one concludes that something like § 1373 constitutes impermissible commandeering in violation of federalism principles laid out in Printz, then the federal government would try to overcome the cities’ Tenth Amendment objection by relying on a second, different basis for federal power—the power the feds enjoy to attach strings to federal funding under the so-called Spending Clause of Article I. The Spending Clause in some circumstances gives the federal government power to achieve what it cannot directly command by creating monetary incentives for state and local governments. The spending authority, as it has been interpreted by the Court, is limited, however, in that it requires that any conditions the feds impose on the funding: (1) be clearly communicated to the states/cities up front, so the recipients can knowingly decide whether to accept the deal; (2) be rationally related to the purposes of federal funding in the first place; and (3) not require the states to do something that violates any other part of the Constitution. In addition, the Court has recently held, the funding at issue cannot be something on which states/cities have come to rely to such a great extent in the past so that they really have no choice but to accept any new strings that are attached. If these four aspects are satisfied, then the funding conditions are valid requirements under Article I and do not violate the Tenth Amendment, whether or not the feds could mandate compliance with the conditions in the absence of the funding carrot. Misapplication or Misunderstanding by Lower Federal Courts All of this is chock full of doctrinal details to be sure, but is nonetheless relatively clear and straightforward, even with all the steps involved. Except that some lower courts don’t seem to understand it. For example, in a ruling last month by a district court in the City of Chicago’s challenge to Attorney General Sessions’ insistence that Chicago comply with § 1367, the court conceived of the inquiry into § 1373’s constitutionality as follows: [The AG’s insistence on] compliance [with § 1373] must be proper under the Spending Clause, and 1373 must pass constitutional muster [under the Printz analysis.] As the City has not argued that the compliance condition violates the Spending Clause, the Court now turns to the Section 1373 question [under the Printz line of cases]. The court ultimately concluded that § 1373 did not run afoul of the Printz anti-commandeering principle (for reasons similar to some that were mentioned above), so running the statute through the Printz analysis did not in the end cause the federal government any harm. But the key point is that once it is conceded that compliance with § 1373 to obtain federal money is a valid condition on funding under the Spending Clause doctrine, it is irrelevant whether 1373’s mandate—in the absence of a conditional funding scheme—would violate the Printz anti-commandeering rule. Passing muster under Spending Clause doctrine and passing muster under the Printz doctrine are alternative ways for the federal government to prevail. If it wins on either, it wins. It needn’t win on both, the way the district court erroneously thought. Put another way, if a federal condition on funding is permissible under Spending Clause doctrine, it cannot, by definition, be an impermissible commandeering, since (by hypothesis) states have an option of turning the deal down. Hence, there is no federal mandate that could be considered to be commandeering. The point may seem nit-picky, but it’s not. It goes to the fundamental ways in which different yet related doctrines (in this case Spending Clause doctrine and the anti-commandeering principle) involving federal-state relations fit together. If federal courts are going to be able to enforce the limits that federalism creates on the national government, while at the same time permit the feds to operate in their own proper sphere (and inspire confidence in the public as they accomplish both objectives), they (and their law clerks) need to understand not just nuanced technical details of various specific doctrines, but the overall federalism big picture as well. [https://justatic.com/v/20171005a/verdict/images/authors/thumbs/amar.jpg] Follow @prof_amar Vikram David Amar is the Iwan Foundation Professor of Law and the Dean at the University of Illinois College of Law. Previously, he served as the Associate Dean for Academic Affairs and Professor of Law at the University of California, Davis School of Law. He is a 1988 graduate of the Yale Law School and a former clerk to Justice Harry Blackmun. He is a co-author, along with William Cohen and Jonathan Varat, of a major constitutional law casebook, and a co-author of several volumes of the Wright & Miller treatise on federal practice and procedure. Before teaching, Professor Amar spent a few years at the firm of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher. RECENT ARTICLES The Troublingly Widening Gyre of Complicity Claims Cornell University law professor Michael C. Dorf describes a principle most famously articulated by Thomas Jefferson, under which there should be a right to avoid providing financial support for causes one strongly opposes. Dorf argues that the Jeffersonian principle has lately run amok. He points out that the government’s argument against allowing a seventeen-year-old undocumented immigrant in federal custody to obtain a privately funded abortion is but one example of the government’s too-broad definition of “facilitation” of acts with which it disagrees. Dorf argues that adoption of such a position would convert every objectionable private exercise of rights into government participation.... Read More Body Worn Cameras: The Dog That Won’t Bark Cornell University law professor Joe Margulies comments on the findings of a recent study of police body cameras that body-worn cameras made no statistically significant difference in how police go about their jobs. Margulies points out that the story is not in the absence of a difference, but in people’s surprise to the absence of a difference. Indeed, it is the routine, not the anomalous, that requires reform.... Read More What Needs to Happen Next for the #MeToo Campaign to Fulfill Its Potential Professor and resident senior fellow in the Fox Leadership Program at the University of Pennsylvania, Marci A. Hamilton praises the #MeToo campaign and explains what more needs to happen to meaningfully address the pervasive issues of sexual assault and abuse against children and adults. Hamilton points to the brave actions by Olympic gymnast McKayla Maroney and elaborates on what must change in our society to empower victims and hold those in power accountable.... Read More [Forward this email.] Have friends who like law? Forward this email. [Like Verdict on Facebook] Like Verdict for legal discussions on Facebook. [Follow @verdictjustia on Twitter] Follow @verdictjustia for news and updates on Twitter. [Justia] Contact Us | Privacy Policy [Facebook][Twitter][LinkedIn][Justia][GooglePlus] You received this email because you have subscribed to the Verdict News E-Mail Feed. . Justia | 1380 Pear Ave, Suite 2B, Mountain View, CA 94043 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Fri Nov 3 17:54:07 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2017 17:54:07 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] ICEman UI Yale Law Mafia Dean Amar Aligns with Trump/Sessions against Sanctuary Cities & 11 Million Undocumented Migrants In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: As you can see from today’s newspapers, Congress just punted on protecting the DACA Kids. There are about 800,000 DACA Kids. We lawyers will have a very difficult time protecting these DACA Kids from deportation by the Trumpsters. ICEMAN UI Law Dean Ammar just aligned himself with the Trumpsters. This Law School is an intellectual and moral cesspool. Ditto for Killer Koh. QEDs. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Friday, November 3, 2017 10:39 AM To: David Green ; C. G. ESTABROOK ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay ; David Johnson ; Mildred O'brien ; Estabrook, Carl G ; David Swanson Subject: RE: ICEman UI Yale Law Mafia Dean Amar Aligns with Trump/Sessions against Sanctuary Cities & 11 Million Undocumented Migrants And now we lawyers will have to protect the DACA Kids from threatened deportation by the Trumpsters. Way to go ICEMAN AMAR! Fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Friday, November 3, 2017 9:57 AM To: David Green >; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; Estabrook, Carl G >; David Swanson > Subject: RE: ICEman UI Yale Law Mafia Dean Amar Aligns with Trump/Sessions against Sanctuary Cities & 11 Million Undocumented Migrants ICEman Amar gratuitously trashed all the human rights work I have done for Undocumented Migrants since the mid-1980s when I served as Counsel to the Original Sanctuary Movement and he was in college. The College of Law is an intellectual and moral cesspool. QED. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Friday, November 3, 2017 4:21 AM To: David Green >; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; Estabrook, Carl G >; David Swanson > Subject: RE: ICEman UI Yale Law Mafia Dean Amar Aligns with Trump/Sessions against Sanctuary Cities & 11 Million Undocumented Migrants And ditto for every Undocumented Migrant who has lived in Champaign County since 1986. If it had been up to ICEman Dean Amar instead of me, Urbana would have never been a Sanctuary for them for the past 31 years. The College of Law is an intellectual and moral cesspool. QED. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Friday, November 03, 2017 4:07 AM To: David Green >; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; Estabrook, Carl G >; David Swanson > Subject: RE: ICEman UI Yale Law Mafia Dean Amar Aligns with Trump/Sessions against Sanctuary Cities & 11 Million Undocumented Migrants As I said last year in our Rally against Killer Koh, the College of Law is an intellectual and moral cesspool. We have about 10,000 Undocumented Migrants in Champaign County. If it had been up to “Dean” Amar instead of me, Urbana would have never become a Sanctuary for them. Ditto for 1986 when we had about 8000 Undocumented Migrants in Champaign County. QED. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2017 11:35 AM To: David Green >; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; Estabrook, Carl G >; David Swanson > Subject: RE: ICEman UI Yale Law Mafia Dean Amar Aligns with Trump/Sessions against Sanctuary Cities & 11 Million Undocumented Migrants Sorry, Correction that is 2016 on Urbana reaffirming itself as a Sanctuary City having been one since 1986. According to his biography ICEman UI Yale Law Mafia Dean Amar had just graduated from college in 1985 around when I originally argued the case for Urbana to become a Sanctuary City under a public death threat from the American Nazi Party if I did so. Back then going door to door against us in Urbana were the American Nazi Party, the Ku Klux Klan, Phyllis Schaffly’s Eagle Forum and the Republican Party of Champaign County. Birds of a Feather Flock Together. I don’t like Nazis and Klanners. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Thursday, November 2, 2017 10:58 AM To: David Green >; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; Estabrook, Carl G >; David Swanson > Subject: RE: ICEman UI Yale Law Mafia Dean Amar Aligns with Trump/Sessions against Sanctuary Cities & 11 Million Undocumented Migrants And for the record, back in the mid-1980s, I was also personally involved in turning San Francisco into a Sanctuary City and Evanston into a Sanctuary City—which they both still are three decades later. Amar can stick all that where the sun don’t shine! Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Thursday, November 2, 2017 10:49 AM To: David Green >; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; Estabrook, Carl G >; David Swanson > Subject: ICEman UI Yale Law Mafia Dean Amar Aligns with Trump/Sessions against Sanctuary Cities & 11 Million Undocumented Migrants Yeah well in 1986 I convinced Urbana to become a Sanctuary City which it continued to be for 30 years and then with all your help got that reaffirmed in 2006—according to USA Today the only Sanctuary City between Chicago and New Orleans until Governor Rauner—a Conservative Republican— signed legislation that turned the entire State of Illinois into a Sanctuary State. Amar can stuff that up his bucket. Maybe Amar is tired of being Dean at the No. 44 Law School in the country and is gunning for a slot in the Trump/Sessions Department of Injustice or ICE—become an ICEman? Fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Justia Verdict [mailto:verdictsupport at justia.com] Sent: Thursday, November 2, 2017 10:08 AM To: Boyle, Francis A > Subject: Vikram David Amar - The Need for Clearer Understanding of the Basic Federalism Doctrines Concerning Sanctuary Cities and Other Federal-State Flashpoin Illinois Law dean and professor Vikram David Amar explains the federalism doctrines implicated by Attorney General Sessions’ attempt to deny funding to sanctuary jurisdictions. Amar points to lower court decisions that reflect a misunderstanding of the doctrines and calls upon federal courts and their law clerks to better understand and apply not just the nuanced technical details of various specific doctrines, but the overall federalism big picture as well. Click here to view in your browser if you are having trouble viewing this email. [Verdict - Legal Analysis and commentary from Justia.] The Need for Clearer Understanding of the Basic Federalism Doctrines Concerning Sanctuary Cities and Other Federal-State Flashpoints Vikram David Amar Nov 2, 2017 [https://i2.wp.com/verdict.justia.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/shutterstock_579926992.jpg?quality=90&resize=426%2C350&strip=all&fit=1000%25&ssl=1] As many of the lawsuits against Trump administration policies brought by state and local entities move towards their resolution on the merits in both federal district and appellate courts, it is becoming clear that courts are confused about some basic ways that various aspects of the doctrine of federalism—that is, the proper relationship between the federal and state governments—relate to each other. Case in point: the dispute between various cities and the Trump Department of Justice (DOJ) concerning Attorney General Sessions’ attempts to deny federal funding to so-called “sanctuary cities.” The Trump administration believes that jurisdictions that hold themselves out as sanctuaries facilitate crime. (The trial that began last week of Jose Ines Garcia Zarate, an undocumented man accused of murdering San Francisco woman and American citizen Kate Stienle two years ago, is directing a lot of publicity to the administration’s stance here.) Based on his views, President Trump issued an executive order shortly after taking office in which he directed relevant cabinet officers to deprive “sanctuary jurisdictions” of federal funding and to “take [additional] appropriate enforcement action” against them. That is the framework within which Attorney General Sessions has been trying to deny funding to sanctuary jurisdictions who seek grants under the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program, which supports state and local law enforcement with money for equipment, training, and personnel. In particular, the federal DOJ is requiring all funding applicants to: (1) provide federal agents with advanced notice of the scheduled release from state custody of certain individuals suspected of immigration violations; (2) provide the feds physical access to non-citizens who are being housed in state and local detention facilities; and (3) certify compliance with 8 U.S.C. § 1373. Section 1373, in pertinent part, provides that “a . . . State, or local government entity or official may not prohibit, or in any way restrict, any government entity or official from [maintaining,] sending to, or receiving from, [federal immigration authorities] information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual.” Thus, the statute prevents a state or local government from having a policy or practice that forbids maintaining or giving to the feds information on the immigration status of individuals. Many cities have challenged one or more of these conditions, arguing that the federal government exceeds its powers under the Tenth Amendment by imposing such requirements on states and localities. There are two possible federal responses to this Tenth Amendment challenge. An Argument for Authority Under Article I to Regulate Immigration First, the feds can and do argue that they have authority to adopt these conditions pursuant to their power under Article I of the Constitution to regulate immigration, naturalization, and foreign affairs. As a general matter, this power is quite broad and may very well suffice to support the federal government’s requirements in this realm, but states and cities have a rejoinder here—a series of cases the Supreme Court decided in the 1990s that, collectively, create a rule known as the “anti-commandeering” doctrine. The basic idea is that, notwithstanding broad Article I powers of the federal government, the Tenth Amendment forbids the federal government coercing states and localities into providing affirmative enforcement assistance to federal authorities. In this setting, states and cities argue that the anti-commandeering principle prevents the feds from requiring state and local authorities to affirmatively provide information about or access to individuals who may have committed immigration law violations. Perhaps the most important Supreme Court case on this point is Printz v. United States (1997), in which the Supreme Court held that the federal government could not require state and local law enforcement officers to conduct background checks on gun purchasers as part of the implementation of a federal law (the Brady gun control law). “The Federal Government,” the Court said, “may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program.” According to many cities, this is precisely what Attorney General Sessions is trying to do. There are many questions about whether Printz would continue to command majority support at the Supreme Court today, whether there might be an “immigration exception” to the Printz doctrine, and whether Printz by its own terms even applies to information-only demands by the feds (which would mean § 1373 would be ok, regardless of whether the demands for access to persons in state and local detention would be). If courts conclude that statutes like § 1373 do not constitute commandeering and are permissible under Printz (for any of the reasons in the previous sentence) then the feds can require that states and cities comply with them, pure and simple, under the Article I powers (concerning immigration, naturalization and foreign affairs) mentioned earlier. An Argument for Authority Under the Spending Clause But if one concludes that something like § 1373 constitutes impermissible commandeering in violation of federalism principles laid out in Printz, then the federal government would try to overcome the cities’ Tenth Amendment objection by relying on a second, different basis for federal power—the power the feds enjoy to attach strings to federal funding under the so-called Spending Clause of Article I. The Spending Clause in some circumstances gives the federal government power to achieve what it cannot directly command by creating monetary incentives for state and local governments. The spending authority, as it has been interpreted by the Court, is limited, however, in that it requires that any conditions the feds impose on the funding: (1) be clearly communicated to the states/cities up front, so the recipients can knowingly decide whether to accept the deal; (2) be rationally related to the purposes of federal funding in the first place; and (3) not require the states to do something that violates any other part of the Constitution. In addition, the Court has recently held, the funding at issue cannot be something on which states/cities have come to rely to such a great extent in the past so that they really have no choice but to accept any new strings that are attached. If these four aspects are satisfied, then the funding conditions are valid requirements under Article I and do not violate the Tenth Amendment, whether or not the feds could mandate compliance with the conditions in the absence of the funding carrot. Misapplication or Misunderstanding by Lower Federal Courts All of this is chock full of doctrinal details to be sure, but is nonetheless relatively clear and straightforward, even with all the steps involved. Except that some lower courts don’t seem to understand it. For example, in a ruling last month by a district court in the City of Chicago’s challenge to Attorney General Sessions’ insistence that Chicago comply with § 1367, the court conceived of the inquiry into § 1373’s constitutionality as follows: [The AG’s insistence on] compliance [with § 1373] must be proper under the Spending Clause, and 1373 must pass constitutional muster [under the Printz analysis.] As the City has not argued that the compliance condition violates the Spending Clause, the Court now turns to the Section 1373 question [under the Printz line of cases]. The court ultimately concluded that § 1373 did not run afoul of the Printz anti-commandeering principle (for reasons similar to some that were mentioned above), so running the statute through the Printz analysis did not in the end cause the federal government any harm. But the key point is that once it is conceded that compliance with § 1373 to obtain federal money is a valid condition on funding under the Spending Clause doctrine, it is irrelevant whether 1373’s mandate—in the absence of a conditional funding scheme—would violate the Printz anti-commandeering rule. Passing muster under Spending Clause doctrine and passing muster under the Printz doctrine are alternative ways for the federal government to prevail. If it wins on either, it wins. It needn’t win on both, the way the district court erroneously thought. Put another way, if a federal condition on funding is permissible under Spending Clause doctrine, it cannot, by definition, be an impermissible commandeering, since (by hypothesis) states have an option of turning the deal down. Hence, there is no federal mandate that could be considered to be commandeering. The point may seem nit-picky, but it’s not. It goes to the fundamental ways in which different yet related doctrines (in this case Spending Clause doctrine and the anti-commandeering principle) involving federal-state relations fit together. If federal courts are going to be able to enforce the limits that federalism creates on the national government, while at the same time permit the feds to operate in their own proper sphere (and inspire confidence in the public as they accomplish both objectives), they (and their law clerks) need to understand not just nuanced technical details of various specific doctrines, but the overall federalism big picture as well. [https://justatic.com/v/20171005a/verdict/images/authors/thumbs/amar.jpg] Follow @prof_amar Vikram David Amar is the Iwan Foundation Professor of Law and the Dean at the University of Illinois College of Law. Previously, he served as the Associate Dean for Academic Affairs and Professor of Law at the University of California, Davis School of Law. He is a 1988 graduate of the Yale Law School and a former clerk to Justice Harry Blackmun. He is a co-author, along with William Cohen and Jonathan Varat, of a major constitutional law casebook, and a co-author of several volumes of the Wright & Miller treatise on federal practice and procedure. Before teaching, Professor Amar spent a few years at the firm of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher. RECENT ARTICLES The Troublingly Widening Gyre of Complicity Claims Cornell University law professor Michael C. Dorf describes a principle most famously articulated by Thomas Jefferson, under which there should be a right to avoid providing financial support for causes one strongly opposes. Dorf argues that the Jeffersonian principle has lately run amok. He points out that the government’s argument against allowing a seventeen-year-old undocumented immigrant in federal custody to obtain a privately funded abortion is but one example of the government’s too-broad definition of “facilitation” of acts with which it disagrees. Dorf argues that adoption of such a position would convert every objectionable private exercise of rights into government participation.... Read More Body Worn Cameras: The Dog That Won’t Bark Cornell University law professor Joe Margulies comments on the findings of a recent study of police body cameras that body-worn cameras made no statistically significant difference in how police go about their jobs. Margulies points out that the story is not in the absence of a difference, but in people’s surprise to the absence of a difference. Indeed, it is the routine, not the anomalous, that requires reform.... Read More What Needs to Happen Next for the #MeToo Campaign to Fulfill Its Potential Professor and resident senior fellow in the Fox Leadership Program at the University of Pennsylvania, Marci A. Hamilton praises the #MeToo campaign and explains what more needs to happen to meaningfully address the pervasive issues of sexual assault and abuse against children and adults. Hamilton points to the brave actions by Olympic gymnast McKayla Maroney and elaborates on what must change in our society to empower victims and hold those in power accountable.... Read More [Forward this email.] Have friends who like law? Forward this email. [Like Verdict on Facebook] Like Verdict for legal discussions on Facebook. [Follow @verdictjustia on Twitter] Follow @verdictjustia for news and updates on Twitter. [Justia] Contact Us | Privacy Policy [Facebook][Twitter][LinkedIn][Justia][GooglePlus] You received this email because you have subscribed to the Verdict News E-Mail Feed. . Justia | 1380 Pear Ave, Suite 2B, Mountain View, CA 94043 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Fri Nov 3 18:27:19 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2017 18:27:19 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] News Gazoo: Chancellor Jones' "Critical Conversation" on Chief Illiniwak In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: From: NatNews at yahoogroups.com on behalf of Robert Schmidt Sent: Fri 2/23/2007 7:22 PM To: Native News Subject: [NativeNews] Boyle's letter to U of I president Dear President Whitey: You and the Board of Trustees must eradicate anything related to Indians from the sports program: "Fighting Illini", "Oskeewowow," the TomTom beats, the fake Indian Music from the 3 in 1 march and elsewhere in band performances , the war paint, the feathers, the tomahawks, the Illiniwak Logo, etc. In addition the University of Illinois must hold onto the Illiniwak Logo and not transfer it to the White Racists and Bigots on the so-called Council of Illiniwak Chiefs where they will continue to perpetrate this desecration of Indians forever . You must also indicate that you will vigorously prosecute anyone who violates your Trademark to Chief Illiniwak. You must terminate all licenses for Chief Illiniwak. And you must clear this racist Illiniwak garbage out of all University of Illinois Buildings. Little Red Sambo is finally gone--no thanks to you, the Board of Trustees, the Chancellor, the Provost and previous Board Members, Presidents, Chancellors and Provosts--except for Nancy Kantor whom you all summarily ran out of town on a rail for doing the right thing for American Indians. But now you and the Board of Trustees and the Chancellor and the Provost must concentrate on getting rid of all elements of Little Red Samboism from this campus. Based upon prior experience, I will not hold my breath. But we will keep coming after you all until you do the right thing for American Indians. Professor Francis A. Boyle Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Friday, November 3, 2017 9:44 AM To: 'David Green' ; 'C. G. ESTABROOK' ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; 'sherwoodross10 at gmail.com' ; 'peace-discuss at anti-war.net' ; 'a-fields at uiuc.edu' ; Hoffman, Valerie J ; 'Joe Lauria' ; 'Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net' ; 'peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net' ; Szoke, Ron ; 'Arlene Hickory' ; 'Karen Aram' ; 'abass10 at gmail.com' ; 'mickalideh at gmail.com' ; 'Lina Thorne' ; 'chicago at worldcantwait.net' ; 'Jay' ; 'David Johnson' ; 'Mildred O'brien' ; Estabrook, Carl G ; 'David Swanson' Cc: Kaufman, Stephen J Subject: RE: News Gazoo: Chancellor Jones' "Critical Conversation" on Chief Illiniwak Actually I think it is pretty sad that Jones does not have a clue about Chief Illiniwak. The only Chancellor who did was Nancy Kantor-and the Illiniwaks drove her out of town on a rail. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Friday, November 3, 2017 9:35 AM To: 'David Green' >; 'C. G. ESTABROOK' >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; 'sherwoodross10 at gmail.com' >; 'peace-discuss at anti-war.net' >; 'a-fields at uiuc.edu' >; Hoffman, Valerie J >; 'Joe Lauria' >; 'Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net' >; 'peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net' >; Szoke, Ron >; 'Arlene Hickory' >; 'Karen Aram' >; 'abass10 at gmail.com' >; 'mickalideh at gmail.com' >; 'Lina Thorne' >; 'chicago at worldcantwait.net' >; 'Jay' >; 'David Johnson' >; 'Mildred O'brien' >; Estabrook, Carl G >; 'David Swanson' > Cc: Kaufman, Stephen J > Subject: RE: News Gazoo: Chancellor Jones' "Critical Conversation" on Chief Illiniwak "Just recently the University of Illiniwaks resurrected Chief Illiniwak for their Fall 2007 Homecoming in order to better milk their Alumni/ae as part of their newly launched Capital Campaign, thus definitively proving their craven racism." And just now again for their Fall 2017 Homecoming Parade in order to launch their new Capital Campaign, thus definitively proving once again their craven racism. Plus ca change at the University of Illiniwaks. fab. The Racist Mascot: Why You Should Still Boo Illinois The self-styled "Fighting Illini" of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign are on their way to the Jan. 1, 2008 Rose Bowl with their racist and genocidal mascot and symbol Chief Illiniwak still in tow. Although the NCAA forced the University of Illiniwaks to prevent this Little Red Sambo from desecrating at half-times everything American Indians hold dear and treasure, nevertheless Chief Illiniwak still remains the officially designated "honored symbol" of the University of Illiniwaks at Urbana-Champaign. Just recently the University of Illiniwaks resurrected Chief Illiniwak for their Fall 2007 Homecoming in order to better milk their Alumni/ae as part of their newly launched Capital Campaign, thus definitively proving their craven racism. In his Year 501: The Conquest Continues (1993) Noam Chomsky suggests an apt metaphor for such American Indian sports mascots and symbols that I will elaborate upon here in order to conform to our local and most peculiar rites on this campus: Suppose the Nazis had won the Second World War. Sixty years later, a prestigious German state university has a mascot for all of its sports teams and sports fans by the name of "The Rabbi." Basically what happens is that a student from the Hitler Youth League dresses up in an authentic costume for an Hasidic Rabbi, complete with the curl-locks and a beard. The University itself collectively call themselves "The Fighting Jews," and the school's band is called "The Marching Jews." The student newspaper is called "The Daily Jew." All the sports fans in town wear jackets and t-shirts with pictures of The Rabbi prominently displayed on them. And most cars have Rabbi stickers planted all over them. Three years ago the University's Board of Trustees ran out of town on a rail a courageous and principled Chancellor who had the temerity to publicly suggest that the time had now come to "retire" the Rabbi. So of course there was a heated campaign on among the students and alumni to "Save the Rabbi!" This German state university plays its soccer matches over at the Nuremberg Stadium in front of an audience of about 75,000 White Aryans, almost all of whom are wearing pro-Rabbi images and clothes. At half-time the Marching Jews take to the stadium floor and begin playing what they purport to be Jewish sounding music along the lines of Fiddler-on-the-Roof. Then all 75,000 White Aryans rise as one and shout in unison: "Rabbi! Rabbi! Rabbi! Rabbi!" gesticulating wildly and working themselves up into a feeding frenzy. One lone faculty member sits there in protest shouting "Racist Rabbi!" and everyone in the vicinity proceeds to throw garbage at him.1 Finally, the moment these ardent White Aryans have all waited for has arrived. The Rabbi runs out onto the arena floor from among the Marching Jews, proceeds to the center of the Nuremberg Stadium, and dances the Hava Nagila while the Marching Jews play on and march into an intricately choreographed maneuver that they all brag about and take special pride in that culminates with the band being organized into a Swastika. So the Rabbi continues to dance the Hava Nagila while the Marching Jews march themselves into a Swastika. By now all 75,000 White Aryans are hysterical, shouting, screaming, and yelling: "Rabbi! Rabbi! Rabbi!" This semi-religious spectacle that the Nazis are well known for staging, especially at the Nuremberg stadium, goes on for a good twenty minutes. It all concludes with everyone joining hands to sing "Deutschland, Deutschland, Uber Alles," with the Rabbi leading all 75,000 White Aryans in the song. Then the Rabbi proceeds to dance the Hava Nagila out of the stadium followed by the Marching Jews. Everyone goes wild, clapping and cheering. This Rabbi ceremony brings tears to the eyes of many drunken alumni and students who had started several hours beforehand getting inebriated on schnapps and good German beer at pre-game tailgate parties. When it is all over, a visiting law professor from another country asks his host at the soccer match what this spectacle was all about. Without missing a beat Dean Mengele of the Law School turns to his guest and says: "We are honoring the Jews." Whom the Nazis had just exterminated 60 years ago, so of course the memory of the Jews needs to be honored by this spectacle. The Illiniwek Indians were ethnically cleansed out of Illinois about a century before that. These are the real "Little Eichmans." Be sure to "Boo!" and root against the Illiniwaks. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Friday, November 3, 2017 6:35 AM To: David Green >; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; Estabrook, Carl G >; David Swanson > Cc: Kaufman, Stephen J > Subject: News Gazoo: Chancellor Jones' "Critical Conversation" on Chief Illiniwak Dear Chancellor Jones: After you are finished with your "Critical Conversation" and "dialogue" and "debate" over Chief Illiniwak, I would like to respectfully suggest that we next have a "Critical Conversation" and "dialogue" and "debate" over American Slavery. Then we can move on to a "Critical Conversation" and "dialogue" and "debate" over the Nazi Holocaust against the Jews. Yours very truly, Francis A. Boyle Professor of Law Board of Directors, Amnesty International USA (1988-1992) The Racist Mascot: Why You Should Still Boo Illinois The self-styled "Fighting Illini" of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign are on their way to the Jan. 1, 2008 Rose Bowl with their racist and genocidal mascot and symbol Chief Illiniwak still in tow. Although the NCAA forced the University of Illiniwaks to prevent this Little Red Sambo from desecrating at half-times everything American Indians hold dear and treasure, nevertheless Chief Illiniwak still remains the officially designated "honored symbol" of the University of Illiniwaks at Urbana-Champaign. Just recently the University of Illiniwaks resurrected Chief Illiniwak for their Fall 2007 Homecoming in order to better milk their Alumni/ae as part of their newly launched Capital Campaign, thus definitively proving their craven racism. In his Year 501: The Conquest Continues (1993) Noam Chomsky suggests an apt metaphor for such American Indian sports mascots and symbols that I will elaborate upon here in order to conform to our local and most peculiar rites on this campus: Suppose the Nazis had won the Second World War. Sixty years later, a prestigious German state university has a mascot for all of its sports teams and sports fans by the name of "The Rabbi." Basically what happens is that a student from the Hitler Youth League dresses up in an authentic costume for an Hasidic Rabbi, complete with the curl-locks and a beard. The University itself collectively call themselves "The Fighting Jews," and the school's band is called "The Marching Jews." The student newspaper is called "The Daily Jew." All the sports fans in town wear jackets and t-shirts with pictures of The Rabbi prominently displayed on them. And most cars have Rabbi stickers planted all over them. Three years ago the University's Board of Trustees ran out of town on a rail a courageous and principled Chancellor who had the temerity to publicly suggest that the time had now come to "retire" the Rabbi. So of course there was a heated campaign on among the students and alumni to "Save the Rabbi!" This German state university plays its soccer matches over at the Nuremberg Stadium in front of an audience of about 75,000 White Aryans, almost all of whom are wearing pro-Rabbi images and clothes. At half-time the Marching Jews take to the stadium floor and begin playing what they purport to be Jewish sounding music along the lines of Fiddler-on-the-Roof. Then all 75,000 White Aryans rise as one and shout in unison: "Rabbi! Rabbi! Rabbi! Rabbi!" gesticulating wildly and working themselves up into a feeding frenzy. One lone faculty member sits there in protest shouting "Racist Rabbi!" and everyone in the vicinity proceeds to throw garbage at him.1 Finally, the moment these ardent White Aryans have all waited for has arrived. The Rabbi runs out onto the arena floor from among the Marching Jews, proceeds to the center of the Nuremberg Stadium, and dances the Hava Nagila while the Marching Jews play on and march into an intricately choreographed maneuver that they all brag about and take special pride in that culminates with the band being organized into a Swastika. So the Rabbi continues to dance the Hava Nagila while the Marching Jews march themselves into a Swastika. By now all 75,000 White Aryans are hysterical, shouting, screaming, and yelling: "Rabbi! Rabbi! Rabbi!" This semi-religious spectacle that the Nazis are well known for staging, especially at the Nuremberg stadium, goes on for a good twenty minutes. It all concludes with everyone joining hands to sing "Deutschland, Deutschland, Uber Alles," with the Rabbi leading all 75,000 White Aryans in the song. Then the Rabbi proceeds to dance the Hava Nagila out of the stadium followed by the Marching Jews. Everyone goes wild, clapping and cheering. This Rabbi ceremony brings tears to the eyes of many drunken alumni and students who had started several hours beforehand getting inebriated on schnapps and good German beer at pre-game tailgate parties. When it is all over, a visiting law professor from another country asks his host at the soccer match what this spectacle was all about. Without missing a beat Dean Mengele of the Law School turns to his guest and says: "We are honoring the Jews." Whom the Nazis had just exterminated 60 years ago, so of course the memory of the Jews needs to be honored by this spectacle. The Illiniwek Indians were ethnically cleansed out of Illinois about a century before that. These are the real "Little Eichmans." Be sure to "Boo!" and root against the Illiniwaks. [cid:image002.jpg at 01D354A7.75728F30] Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) ________________________________ ________________________________ ________________________________ ________________________________ 1 Guess who? 1 Guess who? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 53344 bytes Desc: image002.jpg URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Fri Nov 3 18:27:19 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2017 18:27:19 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] News Gazoo: Chancellor Jones' "Critical Conversation" on Chief Illiniwak In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: From: NatNews at yahoogroups.com on behalf of Robert Schmidt Sent: Fri 2/23/2007 7:22 PM To: Native News Subject: [NativeNews] Boyle's letter to U of I president Dear President Whitey: You and the Board of Trustees must eradicate anything related to Indians from the sports program: "Fighting Illini", "Oskeewowow," the TomTom beats, the fake Indian Music from the 3 in 1 march and elsewhere in band performances , the war paint, the feathers, the tomahawks, the Illiniwak Logo, etc. In addition the University of Illinois must hold onto the Illiniwak Logo and not transfer it to the White Racists and Bigots on the so-called Council of Illiniwak Chiefs where they will continue to perpetrate this desecration of Indians forever . You must also indicate that you will vigorously prosecute anyone who violates your Trademark to Chief Illiniwak. You must terminate all licenses for Chief Illiniwak. And you must clear this racist Illiniwak garbage out of all University of Illinois Buildings. Little Red Sambo is finally gone--no thanks to you, the Board of Trustees, the Chancellor, the Provost and previous Board Members, Presidents, Chancellors and Provosts--except for Nancy Kantor whom you all summarily ran out of town on a rail for doing the right thing for American Indians. But now you and the Board of Trustees and the Chancellor and the Provost must concentrate on getting rid of all elements of Little Red Samboism from this campus. Based upon prior experience, I will not hold my breath. But we will keep coming after you all until you do the right thing for American Indians. Professor Francis A. Boyle Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Friday, November 3, 2017 9:44 AM To: 'David Green' ; 'C. G. ESTABROOK' ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; 'sherwoodross10 at gmail.com' ; 'peace-discuss at anti-war.net' ; 'a-fields at uiuc.edu' ; Hoffman, Valerie J ; 'Joe Lauria' ; 'Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net' ; 'peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net' ; Szoke, Ron ; 'Arlene Hickory' ; 'Karen Aram' ; 'abass10 at gmail.com' ; 'mickalideh at gmail.com' ; 'Lina Thorne' ; 'chicago at worldcantwait.net' ; 'Jay' ; 'David Johnson' ; 'Mildred O'brien' ; Estabrook, Carl G ; 'David Swanson' Cc: Kaufman, Stephen J Subject: RE: News Gazoo: Chancellor Jones' "Critical Conversation" on Chief Illiniwak Actually I think it is pretty sad that Jones does not have a clue about Chief Illiniwak. The only Chancellor who did was Nancy Kantor-and the Illiniwaks drove her out of town on a rail. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Friday, November 3, 2017 9:35 AM To: 'David Green' >; 'C. G. ESTABROOK' >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; 'sherwoodross10 at gmail.com' >; 'peace-discuss at anti-war.net' >; 'a-fields at uiuc.edu' >; Hoffman, Valerie J >; 'Joe Lauria' >; 'Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net' >; 'peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net' >; Szoke, Ron >; 'Arlene Hickory' >; 'Karen Aram' >; 'abass10 at gmail.com' >; 'mickalideh at gmail.com' >; 'Lina Thorne' >; 'chicago at worldcantwait.net' >; 'Jay' >; 'David Johnson' >; 'Mildred O'brien' >; Estabrook, Carl G >; 'David Swanson' > Cc: Kaufman, Stephen J > Subject: RE: News Gazoo: Chancellor Jones' "Critical Conversation" on Chief Illiniwak "Just recently the University of Illiniwaks resurrected Chief Illiniwak for their Fall 2007 Homecoming in order to better milk their Alumni/ae as part of their newly launched Capital Campaign, thus definitively proving their craven racism." And just now again for their Fall 2017 Homecoming Parade in order to launch their new Capital Campaign, thus definitively proving once again their craven racism. Plus ca change at the University of Illiniwaks. fab. The Racist Mascot: Why You Should Still Boo Illinois The self-styled "Fighting Illini" of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign are on their way to the Jan. 1, 2008 Rose Bowl with their racist and genocidal mascot and symbol Chief Illiniwak still in tow. Although the NCAA forced the University of Illiniwaks to prevent this Little Red Sambo from desecrating at half-times everything American Indians hold dear and treasure, nevertheless Chief Illiniwak still remains the officially designated "honored symbol" of the University of Illiniwaks at Urbana-Champaign. Just recently the University of Illiniwaks resurrected Chief Illiniwak for their Fall 2007 Homecoming in order to better milk their Alumni/ae as part of their newly launched Capital Campaign, thus definitively proving their craven racism. In his Year 501: The Conquest Continues (1993) Noam Chomsky suggests an apt metaphor for such American Indian sports mascots and symbols that I will elaborate upon here in order to conform to our local and most peculiar rites on this campus: Suppose the Nazis had won the Second World War. Sixty years later, a prestigious German state university has a mascot for all of its sports teams and sports fans by the name of "The Rabbi." Basically what happens is that a student from the Hitler Youth League dresses up in an authentic costume for an Hasidic Rabbi, complete with the curl-locks and a beard. The University itself collectively call themselves "The Fighting Jews," and the school's band is called "The Marching Jews." The student newspaper is called "The Daily Jew." All the sports fans in town wear jackets and t-shirts with pictures of The Rabbi prominently displayed on them. And most cars have Rabbi stickers planted all over them. Three years ago the University's Board of Trustees ran out of town on a rail a courageous and principled Chancellor who had the temerity to publicly suggest that the time had now come to "retire" the Rabbi. So of course there was a heated campaign on among the students and alumni to "Save the Rabbi!" This German state university plays its soccer matches over at the Nuremberg Stadium in front of an audience of about 75,000 White Aryans, almost all of whom are wearing pro-Rabbi images and clothes. At half-time the Marching Jews take to the stadium floor and begin playing what they purport to be Jewish sounding music along the lines of Fiddler-on-the-Roof. Then all 75,000 White Aryans rise as one and shout in unison: "Rabbi! Rabbi! Rabbi! Rabbi!" gesticulating wildly and working themselves up into a feeding frenzy. One lone faculty member sits there in protest shouting "Racist Rabbi!" and everyone in the vicinity proceeds to throw garbage at him.1 Finally, the moment these ardent White Aryans have all waited for has arrived. The Rabbi runs out onto the arena floor from among the Marching Jews, proceeds to the center of the Nuremberg Stadium, and dances the Hava Nagila while the Marching Jews play on and march into an intricately choreographed maneuver that they all brag about and take special pride in that culminates with the band being organized into a Swastika. So the Rabbi continues to dance the Hava Nagila while the Marching Jews march themselves into a Swastika. By now all 75,000 White Aryans are hysterical, shouting, screaming, and yelling: "Rabbi! Rabbi! Rabbi!" This semi-religious spectacle that the Nazis are well known for staging, especially at the Nuremberg stadium, goes on for a good twenty minutes. It all concludes with everyone joining hands to sing "Deutschland, Deutschland, Uber Alles," with the Rabbi leading all 75,000 White Aryans in the song. Then the Rabbi proceeds to dance the Hava Nagila out of the stadium followed by the Marching Jews. Everyone goes wild, clapping and cheering. This Rabbi ceremony brings tears to the eyes of many drunken alumni and students who had started several hours beforehand getting inebriated on schnapps and good German beer at pre-game tailgate parties. When it is all over, a visiting law professor from another country asks his host at the soccer match what this spectacle was all about. Without missing a beat Dean Mengele of the Law School turns to his guest and says: "We are honoring the Jews." Whom the Nazis had just exterminated 60 years ago, so of course the memory of the Jews needs to be honored by this spectacle. The Illiniwek Indians were ethnically cleansed out of Illinois about a century before that. These are the real "Little Eichmans." Be sure to "Boo!" and root against the Illiniwaks. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Friday, November 3, 2017 6:35 AM To: David Green >; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; Estabrook, Carl G >; David Swanson > Cc: Kaufman, Stephen J > Subject: News Gazoo: Chancellor Jones' "Critical Conversation" on Chief Illiniwak Dear Chancellor Jones: After you are finished with your "Critical Conversation" and "dialogue" and "debate" over Chief Illiniwak, I would like to respectfully suggest that we next have a "Critical Conversation" and "dialogue" and "debate" over American Slavery. Then we can move on to a "Critical Conversation" and "dialogue" and "debate" over the Nazi Holocaust against the Jews. Yours very truly, Francis A. Boyle Professor of Law Board of Directors, Amnesty International USA (1988-1992) The Racist Mascot: Why You Should Still Boo Illinois The self-styled "Fighting Illini" of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign are on their way to the Jan. 1, 2008 Rose Bowl with their racist and genocidal mascot and symbol Chief Illiniwak still in tow. Although the NCAA forced the University of Illiniwaks to prevent this Little Red Sambo from desecrating at half-times everything American Indians hold dear and treasure, nevertheless Chief Illiniwak still remains the officially designated "honored symbol" of the University of Illiniwaks at Urbana-Champaign. Just recently the University of Illiniwaks resurrected Chief Illiniwak for their Fall 2007 Homecoming in order to better milk their Alumni/ae as part of their newly launched Capital Campaign, thus definitively proving their craven racism. In his Year 501: The Conquest Continues (1993) Noam Chomsky suggests an apt metaphor for such American Indian sports mascots and symbols that I will elaborate upon here in order to conform to our local and most peculiar rites on this campus: Suppose the Nazis had won the Second World War. Sixty years later, a prestigious German state university has a mascot for all of its sports teams and sports fans by the name of "The Rabbi." Basically what happens is that a student from the Hitler Youth League dresses up in an authentic costume for an Hasidic Rabbi, complete with the curl-locks and a beard. The University itself collectively call themselves "The Fighting Jews," and the school's band is called "The Marching Jews." The student newspaper is called "The Daily Jew." All the sports fans in town wear jackets and t-shirts with pictures of The Rabbi prominently displayed on them. And most cars have Rabbi stickers planted all over them. Three years ago the University's Board of Trustees ran out of town on a rail a courageous and principled Chancellor who had the temerity to publicly suggest that the time had now come to "retire" the Rabbi. So of course there was a heated campaign on among the students and alumni to "Save the Rabbi!" This German state university plays its soccer matches over at the Nuremberg Stadium in front of an audience of about 75,000 White Aryans, almost all of whom are wearing pro-Rabbi images and clothes. At half-time the Marching Jews take to the stadium floor and begin playing what they purport to be Jewish sounding music along the lines of Fiddler-on-the-Roof. Then all 75,000 White Aryans rise as one and shout in unison: "Rabbi! Rabbi! Rabbi! Rabbi!" gesticulating wildly and working themselves up into a feeding frenzy. One lone faculty member sits there in protest shouting "Racist Rabbi!" and everyone in the vicinity proceeds to throw garbage at him.1 Finally, the moment these ardent White Aryans have all waited for has arrived. The Rabbi runs out onto the arena floor from among the Marching Jews, proceeds to the center of the Nuremberg Stadium, and dances the Hava Nagila while the Marching Jews play on and march into an intricately choreographed maneuver that they all brag about and take special pride in that culminates with the band being organized into a Swastika. So the Rabbi continues to dance the Hava Nagila while the Marching Jews march themselves into a Swastika. By now all 75,000 White Aryans are hysterical, shouting, screaming, and yelling: "Rabbi! Rabbi! Rabbi!" This semi-religious spectacle that the Nazis are well known for staging, especially at the Nuremberg stadium, goes on for a good twenty minutes. It all concludes with everyone joining hands to sing "Deutschland, Deutschland, Uber Alles," with the Rabbi leading all 75,000 White Aryans in the song. Then the Rabbi proceeds to dance the Hava Nagila out of the stadium followed by the Marching Jews. Everyone goes wild, clapping and cheering. This Rabbi ceremony brings tears to the eyes of many drunken alumni and students who had started several hours beforehand getting inebriated on schnapps and good German beer at pre-game tailgate parties. When it is all over, a visiting law professor from another country asks his host at the soccer match what this spectacle was all about. Without missing a beat Dean Mengele of the Law School turns to his guest and says: "We are honoring the Jews." Whom the Nazis had just exterminated 60 years ago, so of course the memory of the Jews needs to be honored by this spectacle. The Illiniwek Indians were ethnically cleansed out of Illinois about a century before that. These are the real "Little Eichmans." Be sure to "Boo!" and root against the Illiniwaks. [cid:image002.jpg at 01D354A7.75728F30] Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) ________________________________ ________________________________ ________________________________ ________________________________ 1 Guess who? 1 Guess who? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 53344 bytes Desc: image002.jpg URL: From r-szoke at illinois.edu Fri Nov 3 18:50:28 2017 From: r-szoke at illinois.edu (Szoke, Ron) Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2017 18:50:28 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] The impasse we have reached . . . Message-ID: <49D9C2A3-3A7B-42E4-9E8B-51D14DD716B5@illinois.edu> concerning truth & reality, turning them into a matter of who do you TRUST? -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Epistemic crisis.rtfd.zip Type: application/zip Size: 521149 bytes Desc: Epistemic crisis.rtfd.zip URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Fri Nov 3 22:10:54 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2017 22:10:54 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] ICEman UI Yale Law Mafia Dean Amar Aligns with Trump/Sessions against Sanctuary Cities & 11 Million Undocumented Migrants In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Back in the mid-1980s around the time ICEMAN Amar had graduated from college at UCAL Berkeley, the City of San Francisco was considering their original Sanctuary Resolution. Supporters wanted to add refugees from the criminal apartheid regime in South Africa as well as refugees from Central America. Some people wanted a debate first. So they invited me out there to argue the case against the criminal apartheid regime in South Africa in order to add their refugees to the Original San Francisco Sanctuary Resolution. I was asked to debate some white racist law professor from Southern Methodist Law School in Dallas (Where else?) who had no problems with apartheid, at UCAL Hastings College of Law in San Francisco—across the Bridge from Berkeley. I went out there to debate this white racist law professor free of charge. It was one of the easiest debates I ever won in my career. Meanwhile it appears from his biography that ICEMAN Amar was a student at Yale Mafia Law School—Where else? Fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Friday, November 3, 2017 12:54 PM To: David Green ; C. G. ESTABROOK ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay ; David Johnson ; Mildred O'brien ; Estabrook, Carl G ; David Swanson Subject: RE: ICEman UI Yale Law Mafia Dean Amar Aligns with Trump/Sessions against Sanctuary Cities & 11 Million Undocumented Migrants As you can see from today’s newspapers, Congress just punted on protecting the DACA Kids. There are about 800,000 DACA Kids. We lawyers will have a very difficult time protecting these DACA Kids from deportation by the Trumpsters. ICEMAN UI Law Dean Ammar just aligned himself with the Trumpsters. This Law School is an intellectual and moral cesspool. Ditto for Killer Koh. QEDs. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Friday, November 3, 2017 10:39 AM To: David Green >; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; Estabrook, Carl G >; David Swanson > Subject: RE: ICEman UI Yale Law Mafia Dean Amar Aligns with Trump/Sessions against Sanctuary Cities & 11 Million Undocumented Migrants And now we lawyers will have to protect the DACA Kids from threatened deportation by the Trumpsters. Way to go ICEMAN AMAR! Fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Friday, November 3, 2017 9:57 AM To: David Green >; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; Estabrook, Carl G >; David Swanson > Subject: RE: ICEman UI Yale Law Mafia Dean Amar Aligns with Trump/Sessions against Sanctuary Cities & 11 Million Undocumented Migrants ICEman Amar gratuitously trashed all the human rights work I have done for Undocumented Migrants since the mid-1980s when I served as Counsel to the Original Sanctuary Movement and he was in college. The College of Law is an intellectual and moral cesspool. QED. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Friday, November 3, 2017 4:21 AM To: David Green >; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; Estabrook, Carl G >; David Swanson > Subject: RE: ICEman UI Yale Law Mafia Dean Amar Aligns with Trump/Sessions against Sanctuary Cities & 11 Million Undocumented Migrants And ditto for every Undocumented Migrant who has lived in Champaign County since 1986. If it had been up to ICEman Dean Amar instead of me, Urbana would have never been a Sanctuary for them for the past 31 years. The College of Law is an intellectual and moral cesspool. QED. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Friday, November 03, 2017 4:07 AM To: David Green >; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; Estabrook, Carl G >; David Swanson > Subject: RE: ICEman UI Yale Law Mafia Dean Amar Aligns with Trump/Sessions against Sanctuary Cities & 11 Million Undocumented Migrants As I said last year in our Rally against Killer Koh, the College of Law is an intellectual and moral cesspool. We have about 10,000 Undocumented Migrants in Champaign County. If it had been up to “Dean” Amar instead of me, Urbana would have never become a Sanctuary for them. Ditto for 1986 when we had about 8000 Undocumented Migrants in Champaign County. QED. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2017 11:35 AM To: David Green >; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; Estabrook, Carl G >; David Swanson > Subject: RE: ICEman UI Yale Law Mafia Dean Amar Aligns with Trump/Sessions against Sanctuary Cities & 11 Million Undocumented Migrants Sorry, Correction that is 2016 on Urbana reaffirming itself as a Sanctuary City having been one since 1986. According to his biography ICEman UI Yale Law Mafia Dean Amar had just graduated from college in 1985 around when I originally argued the case for Urbana to become a Sanctuary City under a public death threat from the American Nazi Party if I did so. Back then going door to door against us in Urbana were the American Nazi Party, the Ku Klux Klan, Phyllis Schaffly’s Eagle Forum and the Republican Party of Champaign County. Birds of a Feather Flock Together. I don’t like Nazis and Klanners. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Thursday, November 2, 2017 10:58 AM To: David Green >; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; Estabrook, Carl G >; David Swanson > Subject: RE: ICEman UI Yale Law Mafia Dean Amar Aligns with Trump/Sessions against Sanctuary Cities & 11 Million Undocumented Migrants And for the record, back in the mid-1980s, I was also personally involved in turning San Francisco into a Sanctuary City and Evanston into a Sanctuary City—which they both still are three decades later. Amar can stick all that where the sun don’t shine! Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Thursday, November 2, 2017 10:49 AM To: David Green >; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; Estabrook, Carl G >; David Swanson > Subject: ICEman UI Yale Law Mafia Dean Amar Aligns with Trump/Sessions against Sanctuary Cities & 11 Million Undocumented Migrants Yeah well in 1986 I convinced Urbana to become a Sanctuary City which it continued to be for 30 years and then with all your help got that reaffirmed in 2006—according to USA Today the only Sanctuary City between Chicago and New Orleans until Governor Rauner—a Conservative Republican— signed legislation that turned the entire State of Illinois into a Sanctuary State. Amar can stuff that up his bucket. Maybe Amar is tired of being Dean at the No. 44 Law School in the country and is gunning for a slot in the Trump/Sessions Department of Injustice or ICE—become an ICEman? Fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Justia Verdict [mailto:verdictsupport at justia.com] Sent: Thursday, November 2, 2017 10:08 AM To: Boyle, Francis A > Subject: Vikram David Amar - The Need for Clearer Understanding of the Basic Federalism Doctrines Concerning Sanctuary Cities and Other Federal-State Flashpoin Illinois Law dean and professor Vikram David Amar explains the federalism doctrines implicated by Attorney General Sessions’ attempt to deny funding to sanctuary jurisdictions. Amar points to lower court decisions that reflect a misunderstanding of the doctrines and calls upon federal courts and their law clerks to better understand and apply not just the nuanced technical details of various specific doctrines, but the overall federalism big picture as well. Click here to view in your browser if you are having trouble viewing this email. [Verdict - Legal Analysis and commentary from Justia.] The Need for Clearer Understanding of the Basic Federalism Doctrines Concerning Sanctuary Cities and Other Federal-State Flashpoints Vikram David Amar Nov 2, 2017 [https://i2.wp.com/verdict.justia.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/shutterstock_579926992.jpg?quality=90&resize=426%2C350&strip=all&fit=1000%25&ssl=1] As many of the lawsuits against Trump administration policies brought by state and local entities move towards their resolution on the merits in both federal district and appellate courts, it is becoming clear that courts are confused about some basic ways that various aspects of the doctrine of federalism—that is, the proper relationship between the federal and state governments—relate to each other. Case in point: the dispute between various cities and the Trump Department of Justice (DOJ) concerning Attorney General Sessions’ attempts to deny federal funding to so-called “sanctuary cities.” The Trump administration believes that jurisdictions that hold themselves out as sanctuaries facilitate crime. (The trial that began last week of Jose Ines Garcia Zarate, an undocumented man accused of murdering San Francisco woman and American citizen Kate Stienle two years ago, is directing a lot of publicity to the administration’s stance here.) Based on his views, President Trump issued an executive order shortly after taking office in which he directed relevant cabinet officers to deprive “sanctuary jurisdictions” of federal funding and to “take [additional] appropriate enforcement action” against them. That is the framework within which Attorney General Sessions has been trying to deny funding to sanctuary jurisdictions who seek grants under the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program, which supports state and local law enforcement with money for equipment, training, and personnel. In particular, the federal DOJ is requiring all funding applicants to: (1) provide federal agents with advanced notice of the scheduled release from state custody of certain individuals suspected of immigration violations; (2) provide the feds physical access to non-citizens who are being housed in state and local detention facilities; and (3) certify compliance with 8 U.S.C. § 1373. Section 1373, in pertinent part, provides that “a . . . State, or local government entity or official may not prohibit, or in any way restrict, any government entity or official from [maintaining,] sending to, or receiving from, [federal immigration authorities] information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual.” Thus, the statute prevents a state or local government from having a policy or practice that forbids maintaining or giving to the feds information on the immigration status of individuals. Many cities have challenged one or more of these conditions, arguing that the federal government exceeds its powers under the Tenth Amendment by imposing such requirements on states and localities. There are two possible federal responses to this Tenth Amendment challenge. An Argument for Authority Under Article I to Regulate Immigration First, the feds can and do argue that they have authority to adopt these conditions pursuant to their power under Article I of the Constitution to regulate immigration, naturalization, and foreign affairs. As a general matter, this power is quite broad and may very well suffice to support the federal government’s requirements in this realm, but states and cities have a rejoinder here—a series of cases the Supreme Court decided in the 1990s that, collectively, create a rule known as the “anti-commandeering” doctrine. The basic idea is that, notwithstanding broad Article I powers of the federal government, the Tenth Amendment forbids the federal government coercing states and localities into providing affirmative enforcement assistance to federal authorities. In this setting, states and cities argue that the anti-commandeering principle prevents the feds from requiring state and local authorities to affirmatively provide information about or access to individuals who may have committed immigration law violations. Perhaps the most important Supreme Court case on this point is Printz v. United States (1997), in which the Supreme Court held that the federal government could not require state and local law enforcement officers to conduct background checks on gun purchasers as part of the implementation of a federal law (the Brady gun control law). “The Federal Government,” the Court said, “may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program.” According to many cities, this is precisely what Attorney General Sessions is trying to do. There are many questions about whether Printz would continue to command majority support at the Supreme Court today, whether there might be an “immigration exception” to the Printz doctrine, and whether Printz by its own terms even applies to information-only demands by the feds (which would mean § 1373 would be ok, regardless of whether the demands for access to persons in state and local detention would be). If courts conclude that statutes like § 1373 do not constitute commandeering and are permissible under Printz (for any of the reasons in the previous sentence) then the feds can require that states and cities comply with them, pure and simple, under the Article I powers (concerning immigration, naturalization and foreign affairs) mentioned earlier. An Argument for Authority Under the Spending Clause But if one concludes that something like § 1373 constitutes impermissible commandeering in violation of federalism principles laid out in Printz, then the federal government would try to overcome the cities’ Tenth Amendment objection by relying on a second, different basis for federal power—the power the feds enjoy to attach strings to federal funding under the so-called Spending Clause of Article I. The Spending Clause in some circumstances gives the federal government power to achieve what it cannot directly command by creating monetary incentives for state and local governments. The spending authority, as it has been interpreted by the Court, is limited, however, in that it requires that any conditions the feds impose on the funding: (1) be clearly communicated to the states/cities up front, so the recipients can knowingly decide whether to accept the deal; (2) be rationally related to the purposes of federal funding in the first place; and (3) not require the states to do something that violates any other part of the Constitution. In addition, the Court has recently held, the funding at issue cannot be something on which states/cities have come to rely to such a great extent in the past so that they really have no choice but to accept any new strings that are attached. If these four aspects are satisfied, then the funding conditions are valid requirements under Article I and do not violate the Tenth Amendment, whether or not the feds could mandate compliance with the conditions in the absence of the funding carrot. Misapplication or Misunderstanding by Lower Federal Courts All of this is chock full of doctrinal details to be sure, but is nonetheless relatively clear and straightforward, even with all the steps involved. Except that some lower courts don’t seem to understand it. For example, in a ruling last month by a district court in the City of Chicago’s challenge to Attorney General Sessions’ insistence that Chicago comply with § 1367, the court conceived of the inquiry into § 1373’s constitutionality as follows: [The AG’s insistence on] compliance [with § 1373] must be proper under the Spending Clause, and 1373 must pass constitutional muster [under the Printz analysis.] As the City has not argued that the compliance condition violates the Spending Clause, the Court now turns to the Section 1373 question [under the Printz line of cases]. The court ultimately concluded that § 1373 did not run afoul of the Printz anti-commandeering principle (for reasons similar to some that were mentioned above), so running the statute through the Printz analysis did not in the end cause the federal government any harm. But the key point is that once it is conceded that compliance with § 1373 to obtain federal money is a valid condition on funding under the Spending Clause doctrine, it is irrelevant whether 1373’s mandate—in the absence of a conditional funding scheme—would violate the Printz anti-commandeering rule. Passing muster under Spending Clause doctrine and passing muster under the Printz doctrine are alternative ways for the federal government to prevail. If it wins on either, it wins. It needn’t win on both, the way the district court erroneously thought. Put another way, if a federal condition on funding is permissible under Spending Clause doctrine, it cannot, by definition, be an impermissible commandeering, since (by hypothesis) states have an option of turning the deal down. Hence, there is no federal mandate that could be considered to be commandeering. The point may seem nit-picky, but it’s not. It goes to the fundamental ways in which different yet related doctrines (in this case Spending Clause doctrine and the anti-commandeering principle) involving federal-state relations fit together. If federal courts are going to be able to enforce the limits that federalism creates on the national government, while at the same time permit the feds to operate in their own proper sphere (and inspire confidence in the public as they accomplish both objectives), they (and their law clerks) need to understand not just nuanced technical details of various specific doctrines, but the overall federalism big picture as well. [https://justatic.com/v/20171005a/verdict/images/authors/thumbs/amar.jpg] Follow @prof_amar Vikram David Amar is the Iwan Foundation Professor of Law and the Dean at the University of Illinois College of Law. Previously, he served as the Associate Dean for Academic Affairs and Professor of Law at the University of California, Davis School of Law. He is a 1988 graduate of the Yale Law School and a former clerk to Justice Harry Blackmun. He is a co-author, along with William Cohen and Jonathan Varat, of a major constitutional law casebook, and a co-author of several volumes of the Wright & Miller treatise on federal practice and procedure. Before teaching, Professor Amar spent a few years at the firm of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher. RECENT ARTICLES The Troublingly Widening Gyre of Complicity Claims Cornell University law professor Michael C. Dorf describes a principle most famously articulated by Thomas Jefferson, under which there should be a right to avoid providing financial support for causes one strongly opposes. Dorf argues that the Jeffersonian principle has lately run amok. He points out that the government’s argument against allowing a seventeen-year-old undocumented immigrant in federal custody to obtain a privately funded abortion is but one example of the government’s too-broad definition of “facilitation” of acts with which it disagrees. Dorf argues that adoption of such a position would convert every objectionable private exercise of rights into government participation.... Read More Body Worn Cameras: The Dog That Won’t Bark Cornell University law professor Joe Margulies comments on the findings of a recent study of police body cameras that body-worn cameras made no statistically significant difference in how police go about their jobs. Margulies points out that the story is not in the absence of a difference, but in people’s surprise to the absence of a difference. Indeed, it is the routine, not the anomalous, that requires reform.... Read More What Needs to Happen Next for the #MeToo Campaign to Fulfill Its Potential Professor and resident senior fellow in the Fox Leadership Program at the University of Pennsylvania, Marci A. Hamilton praises the #MeToo campaign and explains what more needs to happen to meaningfully address the pervasive issues of sexual assault and abuse against children and adults. Hamilton points to the brave actions by Olympic gymnast McKayla Maroney and elaborates on what must change in our society to empower victims and hold those in power accountable.... Read More [Forward this email.] Have friends who like law? Forward this email. [Like Verdict on Facebook] Like Verdict for legal discussions on Facebook. [Follow @verdictjustia on Twitter] Follow @verdictjustia for news and updates on Twitter. [Justia] Contact Us | Privacy Policy [Facebook][Twitter][LinkedIn][Justia][GooglePlus] You received this email because you have subscribed to the Verdict News E-Mail Feed. . Justia | 1380 Pear Ave, Suite 2B, Mountain View, CA 94043 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Fri Nov 3 22:10:54 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2017 22:10:54 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] ICEman UI Yale Law Mafia Dean Amar Aligns with Trump/Sessions against Sanctuary Cities & 11 Million Undocumented Migrants In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Back in the mid-1980s around the time ICEMAN Amar had graduated from college at UCAL Berkeley, the City of San Francisco was considering their original Sanctuary Resolution. Supporters wanted to add refugees from the criminal apartheid regime in South Africa as well as refugees from Central America. Some people wanted a debate first. So they invited me out there to argue the case against the criminal apartheid regime in South Africa in order to add their refugees to the Original San Francisco Sanctuary Resolution. I was asked to debate some white racist law professor from Southern Methodist Law School in Dallas (Where else?) who had no problems with apartheid, at UCAL Hastings College of Law in San Francisco—across the Bridge from Berkeley. I went out there to debate this white racist law professor free of charge. It was one of the easiest debates I ever won in my career. Meanwhile it appears from his biography that ICEMAN Amar was a student at Yale Mafia Law School—Where else? Fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Friday, November 3, 2017 12:54 PM To: David Green ; C. G. ESTABROOK ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay ; David Johnson ; Mildred O'brien ; Estabrook, Carl G ; David Swanson Subject: RE: ICEman UI Yale Law Mafia Dean Amar Aligns with Trump/Sessions against Sanctuary Cities & 11 Million Undocumented Migrants As you can see from today’s newspapers, Congress just punted on protecting the DACA Kids. There are about 800,000 DACA Kids. We lawyers will have a very difficult time protecting these DACA Kids from deportation by the Trumpsters. ICEMAN UI Law Dean Ammar just aligned himself with the Trumpsters. This Law School is an intellectual and moral cesspool. Ditto for Killer Koh. QEDs. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Friday, November 3, 2017 10:39 AM To: David Green >; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; Estabrook, Carl G >; David Swanson > Subject: RE: ICEman UI Yale Law Mafia Dean Amar Aligns with Trump/Sessions against Sanctuary Cities & 11 Million Undocumented Migrants And now we lawyers will have to protect the DACA Kids from threatened deportation by the Trumpsters. Way to go ICEMAN AMAR! Fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Friday, November 3, 2017 9:57 AM To: David Green >; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; Estabrook, Carl G >; David Swanson > Subject: RE: ICEman UI Yale Law Mafia Dean Amar Aligns with Trump/Sessions against Sanctuary Cities & 11 Million Undocumented Migrants ICEman Amar gratuitously trashed all the human rights work I have done for Undocumented Migrants since the mid-1980s when I served as Counsel to the Original Sanctuary Movement and he was in college. The College of Law is an intellectual and moral cesspool. QED. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Friday, November 3, 2017 4:21 AM To: David Green >; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; Estabrook, Carl G >; David Swanson > Subject: RE: ICEman UI Yale Law Mafia Dean Amar Aligns with Trump/Sessions against Sanctuary Cities & 11 Million Undocumented Migrants And ditto for every Undocumented Migrant who has lived in Champaign County since 1986. If it had been up to ICEman Dean Amar instead of me, Urbana would have never been a Sanctuary for them for the past 31 years. The College of Law is an intellectual and moral cesspool. QED. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Friday, November 03, 2017 4:07 AM To: David Green >; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; Estabrook, Carl G >; David Swanson > Subject: RE: ICEman UI Yale Law Mafia Dean Amar Aligns with Trump/Sessions against Sanctuary Cities & 11 Million Undocumented Migrants As I said last year in our Rally against Killer Koh, the College of Law is an intellectual and moral cesspool. We have about 10,000 Undocumented Migrants in Champaign County. If it had been up to “Dean” Amar instead of me, Urbana would have never become a Sanctuary for them. Ditto for 1986 when we had about 8000 Undocumented Migrants in Champaign County. QED. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2017 11:35 AM To: David Green >; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; Estabrook, Carl G >; David Swanson > Subject: RE: ICEman UI Yale Law Mafia Dean Amar Aligns with Trump/Sessions against Sanctuary Cities & 11 Million Undocumented Migrants Sorry, Correction that is 2016 on Urbana reaffirming itself as a Sanctuary City having been one since 1986. According to his biography ICEman UI Yale Law Mafia Dean Amar had just graduated from college in 1985 around when I originally argued the case for Urbana to become a Sanctuary City under a public death threat from the American Nazi Party if I did so. Back then going door to door against us in Urbana were the American Nazi Party, the Ku Klux Klan, Phyllis Schaffly’s Eagle Forum and the Republican Party of Champaign County. Birds of a Feather Flock Together. I don’t like Nazis and Klanners. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Thursday, November 2, 2017 10:58 AM To: David Green >; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; Estabrook, Carl G >; David Swanson > Subject: RE: ICEman UI Yale Law Mafia Dean Amar Aligns with Trump/Sessions against Sanctuary Cities & 11 Million Undocumented Migrants And for the record, back in the mid-1980s, I was also personally involved in turning San Francisco into a Sanctuary City and Evanston into a Sanctuary City—which they both still are three decades later. Amar can stick all that where the sun don’t shine! Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Thursday, November 2, 2017 10:49 AM To: David Green >; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; Estabrook, Carl G >; David Swanson > Subject: ICEman UI Yale Law Mafia Dean Amar Aligns with Trump/Sessions against Sanctuary Cities & 11 Million Undocumented Migrants Yeah well in 1986 I convinced Urbana to become a Sanctuary City which it continued to be for 30 years and then with all your help got that reaffirmed in 2006—according to USA Today the only Sanctuary City between Chicago and New Orleans until Governor Rauner—a Conservative Republican— signed legislation that turned the entire State of Illinois into a Sanctuary State. Amar can stuff that up his bucket. Maybe Amar is tired of being Dean at the No. 44 Law School in the country and is gunning for a slot in the Trump/Sessions Department of Injustice or ICE—become an ICEman? Fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Justia Verdict [mailto:verdictsupport at justia.com] Sent: Thursday, November 2, 2017 10:08 AM To: Boyle, Francis A > Subject: Vikram David Amar - The Need for Clearer Understanding of the Basic Federalism Doctrines Concerning Sanctuary Cities and Other Federal-State Flashpoin Illinois Law dean and professor Vikram David Amar explains the federalism doctrines implicated by Attorney General Sessions’ attempt to deny funding to sanctuary jurisdictions. Amar points to lower court decisions that reflect a misunderstanding of the doctrines and calls upon federal courts and their law clerks to better understand and apply not just the nuanced technical details of various specific doctrines, but the overall federalism big picture as well. Click here to view in your browser if you are having trouble viewing this email. [Verdict - Legal Analysis and commentary from Justia.] The Need for Clearer Understanding of the Basic Federalism Doctrines Concerning Sanctuary Cities and Other Federal-State Flashpoints Vikram David Amar Nov 2, 2017 [https://i2.wp.com/verdict.justia.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/shutterstock_579926992.jpg?quality=90&resize=426%2C350&strip=all&fit=1000%25&ssl=1] As many of the lawsuits against Trump administration policies brought by state and local entities move towards their resolution on the merits in both federal district and appellate courts, it is becoming clear that courts are confused about some basic ways that various aspects of the doctrine of federalism—that is, the proper relationship between the federal and state governments—relate to each other. Case in point: the dispute between various cities and the Trump Department of Justice (DOJ) concerning Attorney General Sessions’ attempts to deny federal funding to so-called “sanctuary cities.” The Trump administration believes that jurisdictions that hold themselves out as sanctuaries facilitate crime. (The trial that began last week of Jose Ines Garcia Zarate, an undocumented man accused of murdering San Francisco woman and American citizen Kate Stienle two years ago, is directing a lot of publicity to the administration’s stance here.) Based on his views, President Trump issued an executive order shortly after taking office in which he directed relevant cabinet officers to deprive “sanctuary jurisdictions” of federal funding and to “take [additional] appropriate enforcement action” against them. That is the framework within which Attorney General Sessions has been trying to deny funding to sanctuary jurisdictions who seek grants under the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program, which supports state and local law enforcement with money for equipment, training, and personnel. In particular, the federal DOJ is requiring all funding applicants to: (1) provide federal agents with advanced notice of the scheduled release from state custody of certain individuals suspected of immigration violations; (2) provide the feds physical access to non-citizens who are being housed in state and local detention facilities; and (3) certify compliance with 8 U.S.C. § 1373. Section 1373, in pertinent part, provides that “a . . . State, or local government entity or official may not prohibit, or in any way restrict, any government entity or official from [maintaining,] sending to, or receiving from, [federal immigration authorities] information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual.” Thus, the statute prevents a state or local government from having a policy or practice that forbids maintaining or giving to the feds information on the immigration status of individuals. Many cities have challenged one or more of these conditions, arguing that the federal government exceeds its powers under the Tenth Amendment by imposing such requirements on states and localities. There are two possible federal responses to this Tenth Amendment challenge. An Argument for Authority Under Article I to Regulate Immigration First, the feds can and do argue that they have authority to adopt these conditions pursuant to their power under Article I of the Constitution to regulate immigration, naturalization, and foreign affairs. As a general matter, this power is quite broad and may very well suffice to support the federal government’s requirements in this realm, but states and cities have a rejoinder here—a series of cases the Supreme Court decided in the 1990s that, collectively, create a rule known as the “anti-commandeering” doctrine. The basic idea is that, notwithstanding broad Article I powers of the federal government, the Tenth Amendment forbids the federal government coercing states and localities into providing affirmative enforcement assistance to federal authorities. In this setting, states and cities argue that the anti-commandeering principle prevents the feds from requiring state and local authorities to affirmatively provide information about or access to individuals who may have committed immigration law violations. Perhaps the most important Supreme Court case on this point is Printz v. United States (1997), in which the Supreme Court held that the federal government could not require state and local law enforcement officers to conduct background checks on gun purchasers as part of the implementation of a federal law (the Brady gun control law). “The Federal Government,” the Court said, “may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program.” According to many cities, this is precisely what Attorney General Sessions is trying to do. There are many questions about whether Printz would continue to command majority support at the Supreme Court today, whether there might be an “immigration exception” to the Printz doctrine, and whether Printz by its own terms even applies to information-only demands by the feds (which would mean § 1373 would be ok, regardless of whether the demands for access to persons in state and local detention would be). If courts conclude that statutes like § 1373 do not constitute commandeering and are permissible under Printz (for any of the reasons in the previous sentence) then the feds can require that states and cities comply with them, pure and simple, under the Article I powers (concerning immigration, naturalization and foreign affairs) mentioned earlier. An Argument for Authority Under the Spending Clause But if one concludes that something like § 1373 constitutes impermissible commandeering in violation of federalism principles laid out in Printz, then the federal government would try to overcome the cities’ Tenth Amendment objection by relying on a second, different basis for federal power—the power the feds enjoy to attach strings to federal funding under the so-called Spending Clause of Article I. The Spending Clause in some circumstances gives the federal government power to achieve what it cannot directly command by creating monetary incentives for state and local governments. The spending authority, as it has been interpreted by the Court, is limited, however, in that it requires that any conditions the feds impose on the funding: (1) be clearly communicated to the states/cities up front, so the recipients can knowingly decide whether to accept the deal; (2) be rationally related to the purposes of federal funding in the first place; and (3) not require the states to do something that violates any other part of the Constitution. In addition, the Court has recently held, the funding at issue cannot be something on which states/cities have come to rely to such a great extent in the past so that they really have no choice but to accept any new strings that are attached. If these four aspects are satisfied, then the funding conditions are valid requirements under Article I and do not violate the Tenth Amendment, whether or not the feds could mandate compliance with the conditions in the absence of the funding carrot. Misapplication or Misunderstanding by Lower Federal Courts All of this is chock full of doctrinal details to be sure, but is nonetheless relatively clear and straightforward, even with all the steps involved. Except that some lower courts don’t seem to understand it. For example, in a ruling last month by a district court in the City of Chicago’s challenge to Attorney General Sessions’ insistence that Chicago comply with § 1367, the court conceived of the inquiry into § 1373’s constitutionality as follows: [The AG’s insistence on] compliance [with § 1373] must be proper under the Spending Clause, and 1373 must pass constitutional muster [under the Printz analysis.] As the City has not argued that the compliance condition violates the Spending Clause, the Court now turns to the Section 1373 question [under the Printz line of cases]. The court ultimately concluded that § 1373 did not run afoul of the Printz anti-commandeering principle (for reasons similar to some that were mentioned above), so running the statute through the Printz analysis did not in the end cause the federal government any harm. But the key point is that once it is conceded that compliance with § 1373 to obtain federal money is a valid condition on funding under the Spending Clause doctrine, it is irrelevant whether 1373’s mandate—in the absence of a conditional funding scheme—would violate the Printz anti-commandeering rule. Passing muster under Spending Clause doctrine and passing muster under the Printz doctrine are alternative ways for the federal government to prevail. If it wins on either, it wins. It needn’t win on both, the way the district court erroneously thought. Put another way, if a federal condition on funding is permissible under Spending Clause doctrine, it cannot, by definition, be an impermissible commandeering, since (by hypothesis) states have an option of turning the deal down. Hence, there is no federal mandate that could be considered to be commandeering. The point may seem nit-picky, but it’s not. It goes to the fundamental ways in which different yet related doctrines (in this case Spending Clause doctrine and the anti-commandeering principle) involving federal-state relations fit together. If federal courts are going to be able to enforce the limits that federalism creates on the national government, while at the same time permit the feds to operate in their own proper sphere (and inspire confidence in the public as they accomplish both objectives), they (and their law clerks) need to understand not just nuanced technical details of various specific doctrines, but the overall federalism big picture as well. [https://justatic.com/v/20171005a/verdict/images/authors/thumbs/amar.jpg] Follow @prof_amar Vikram David Amar is the Iwan Foundation Professor of Law and the Dean at the University of Illinois College of Law. Previously, he served as the Associate Dean for Academic Affairs and Professor of Law at the University of California, Davis School of Law. He is a 1988 graduate of the Yale Law School and a former clerk to Justice Harry Blackmun. He is a co-author, along with William Cohen and Jonathan Varat, of a major constitutional law casebook, and a co-author of several volumes of the Wright & Miller treatise on federal practice and procedure. Before teaching, Professor Amar spent a few years at the firm of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher. RECENT ARTICLES The Troublingly Widening Gyre of Complicity Claims Cornell University law professor Michael C. Dorf describes a principle most famously articulated by Thomas Jefferson, under which there should be a right to avoid providing financial support for causes one strongly opposes. Dorf argues that the Jeffersonian principle has lately run amok. He points out that the government’s argument against allowing a seventeen-year-old undocumented immigrant in federal custody to obtain a privately funded abortion is but one example of the government’s too-broad definition of “facilitation” of acts with which it disagrees. Dorf argues that adoption of such a position would convert every objectionable private exercise of rights into government participation.... Read More Body Worn Cameras: The Dog That Won’t Bark Cornell University law professor Joe Margulies comments on the findings of a recent study of police body cameras that body-worn cameras made no statistically significant difference in how police go about their jobs. Margulies points out that the story is not in the absence of a difference, but in people’s surprise to the absence of a difference. Indeed, it is the routine, not the anomalous, that requires reform.... Read More What Needs to Happen Next for the #MeToo Campaign to Fulfill Its Potential Professor and resident senior fellow in the Fox Leadership Program at the University of Pennsylvania, Marci A. Hamilton praises the #MeToo campaign and explains what more needs to happen to meaningfully address the pervasive issues of sexual assault and abuse against children and adults. Hamilton points to the brave actions by Olympic gymnast McKayla Maroney and elaborates on what must change in our society to empower victims and hold those in power accountable.... Read More [Forward this email.] Have friends who like law? Forward this email. [Like Verdict on Facebook] Like Verdict for legal discussions on Facebook. [Follow @verdictjustia on Twitter] Follow @verdictjustia for news and updates on Twitter. [Justia] Contact Us | Privacy Policy [Facebook][Twitter][LinkedIn][Justia][GooglePlus] You received this email because you have subscribed to the Verdict News E-Mail Feed. . Justia | 1380 Pear Ave, Suite 2B, Mountain View, CA 94043 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Sat Nov 4 01:03:03 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2017 01:03:03 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] INS (ICE) Midwest Regional Director v. IICEMAN Yale Law Mafia Dean Amar. Message-ID: I had this public debate in Oak Park Illinois with the INS {now ICE} District Director for the Midwest Region of the country on January 31, 1987 over the Oak Park Sanctuary Resolution, when ICEMAN Amar was a student at Yale Mafia Law School. As you can see it is based upon an April 1985 essay I wrote in a professional journal on the Sanctuary Movement while I was serving as Counsel to the Original Sanctuary Movement and ICEMAN Amar was a college student at Berkeley. This essay was written in reaction to the US government's kangaroo court persecution of the Founders of the Sanctuary Movement, whose case I worked on pro bono publico to defend them. During the course of the Oak Park debate, the Midwest INS District Director for the country publicly agreed with my assertion that State and Local Governments have no obligation to assist the U.S. Federal Government in the enforcement of Federal Immigration Laws. Fab. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 0637_001.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 332491 bytes Desc: 0637_001.pdf URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Sat Nov 4 01:03:03 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2017 01:03:03 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] INS (ICE) Midwest Regional Director v. IICEMAN Yale Law Mafia Dean Amar. Message-ID: I had this public debate in Oak Park Illinois with the INS {now ICE} District Director for the Midwest Region of the country on January 31, 1987 over the Oak Park Sanctuary Resolution, when ICEMAN Amar was a student at Yale Mafia Law School. As you can see it is based upon an April 1985 essay I wrote in a professional journal on the Sanctuary Movement while I was serving as Counsel to the Original Sanctuary Movement and ICEMAN Amar was a college student at Berkeley. This essay was written in reaction to the US government's kangaroo court persecution of the Founders of the Sanctuary Movement, whose case I worked on pro bono publico to defend them. During the course of the Oak Park debate, the Midwest INS District Director for the country publicly agreed with my assertion that State and Local Governments have no obligation to assist the U.S. Federal Government in the enforcement of Federal Immigration Laws. Fab. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 0637_001.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 332491 bytes Desc: 0637_001.pdf URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Sat Nov 4 02:28:32 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2017 02:28:32 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: NYT: Goodman Colluded with Obama War Criminals and Warmongers Message-ID: And if I remember correctly, Goodman supported Killer Koh at NYU Law School against the NYU Law Students who had the courage, the integrity and the principles to say: Never again! Just like we did here at the Illinois Nazi Law School-an intellectual and moral cesspool. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Friday, November 03, 2017 9:22 PM To: sectns.aals at lists.aals.org Subject: NYT: Goodman Colluded with Obama War Criminals and Warmongers Yeah, Goodman took a leave of absence from NYU Law to go collude with all the war criminals and warmongers at Obama's Department of War. Birds of a feather flock together. Translated from Orwellian Newspeak Goodman is editor in chief of Unjust Insecurity. One of Goodman's featured contributors is Murdering Marty Lederman-RIP: Mr. Alwaki and his 16 year old son, both US citizens. Birds of a Feather certainly do flock together. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Sat Nov 4 02:28:32 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2017 02:28:32 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: NYT: Goodman Colluded with Obama War Criminals and Warmongers Message-ID: And if I remember correctly, Goodman supported Killer Koh at NYU Law School against the NYU Law Students who had the courage, the integrity and the principles to say: Never again! Just like we did here at the Illinois Nazi Law School-an intellectual and moral cesspool. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Friday, November 03, 2017 9:22 PM To: sectns.aals at lists.aals.org Subject: NYT: Goodman Colluded with Obama War Criminals and Warmongers Yeah, Goodman took a leave of absence from NYU Law to go collude with all the war criminals and warmongers at Obama's Department of War. Birds of a feather flock together. Translated from Orwellian Newspeak Goodman is editor in chief of Unjust Insecurity. One of Goodman's featured contributors is Murdering Marty Lederman-RIP: Mr. Alwaki and his 16 year old son, both US citizens. Birds of a Feather certainly do flock together. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Sat Nov 4 09:37:56 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2017 09:37:56 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] INS (ICE) Midwest Regional Director v. IICEMAN Yale Law Mafia Dean Amar. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The Original Sanctuary Movement was founded in reaction to the facts that Reagan had murdered 35,000 in Nicaragua, including Ben Linder; 75,000 in El Salvador; and about 250,000 in Guatemala, most of whom were Mayan Indians-outright genocide. At the time Killer Koh went to work for Reagan in 1983 to become Reagan's John Yoo, whom Killer Koh later taught at Yale Mafia Law School. I explained all this to ICEMAN Yale Law Mafia Dean Amar and the rest of this Nazi Law Faculty. They invited Killer Koh out here anyway. As they all saw it, Killer Koh's atrocities for Reagan against People of Color in Central America and then Killer Koh's atrocities for Obama/Clinton against Muslims/Arabs/Asians of Color in Central Asia, the Middle East and Africa qualified Killer Koh to give their special endowed lecture on being a role model for lawyers in government service. Do you see the pattern here? As far as ICEMAN Yale Law Mafia Dean Amar and the COL Faculty are concerned, if you are White Judeo-Christian or Asian American, you can murder, persecute and repress People of Color abroad and in this country all you want to and get honored for it. This COL Faculty including its Dean THE ICEMAN are an intellectual and moral cesspool. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Friday, November 03, 2017 8:03 PM To: David Green ; C. G. ESTABROOK ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay ; David Johnson ; Mildred O'brien ; Estabrook, Carl G ; David Swanson Subject: INS (ICE) Midwest Regional Director v. IICEMAN Yale Law Mafia Dean Amar. I had this public debate in Oak Park Illinois with the INS {now ICE} District Director for the Midwest Region of the country on January 31, 1987 over the Oak Park Sanctuary Resolution, when ICEMAN Amar was a student at Yale Mafia Law School. As you can see it is based upon an April 1985 essay I wrote in a professional journal on the Sanctuary Movement while I was serving as Counsel to the Original Sanctuary Movement and ICEMAN Amar was a college student at Berkeley. This essay was written in reaction to the US government's kangaroo court persecution of the Founders of the Sanctuary Movement, whose case I worked on pro bono publico to defend them. During the course of the Oak Park debate, the Midwest INS District Director for the country publicly agreed with my assertion that State and Local Governments have no obligation to assist the U.S. Federal Government in the enforcement of Federal Immigration Laws. Fab. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Sat Nov 4 09:37:56 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2017 09:37:56 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] INS (ICE) Midwest Regional Director v. IICEMAN Yale Law Mafia Dean Amar. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The Original Sanctuary Movement was founded in reaction to the facts that Reagan had murdered 35,000 in Nicaragua, including Ben Linder; 75,000 in El Salvador; and about 250,000 in Guatemala, most of whom were Mayan Indians-outright genocide. At the time Killer Koh went to work for Reagan in 1983 to become Reagan's John Yoo, whom Killer Koh later taught at Yale Mafia Law School. I explained all this to ICEMAN Yale Law Mafia Dean Amar and the rest of this Nazi Law Faculty. They invited Killer Koh out here anyway. As they all saw it, Killer Koh's atrocities for Reagan against People of Color in Central America and then Killer Koh's atrocities for Obama/Clinton against Muslims/Arabs/Asians of Color in Central Asia, the Middle East and Africa qualified Killer Koh to give their special endowed lecture on being a role model for lawyers in government service. Do you see the pattern here? As far as ICEMAN Yale Law Mafia Dean Amar and the COL Faculty are concerned, if you are White Judeo-Christian or Asian American, you can murder, persecute and repress People of Color abroad and in this country all you want to and get honored for it. This COL Faculty including its Dean THE ICEMAN are an intellectual and moral cesspool. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Friday, November 03, 2017 8:03 PM To: David Green ; C. G. ESTABROOK ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay ; David Johnson ; Mildred O'brien ; Estabrook, Carl G ; David Swanson Subject: INS (ICE) Midwest Regional Director v. IICEMAN Yale Law Mafia Dean Amar. I had this public debate in Oak Park Illinois with the INS {now ICE} District Director for the Midwest Region of the country on January 31, 1987 over the Oak Park Sanctuary Resolution, when ICEMAN Amar was a student at Yale Mafia Law School. As you can see it is based upon an April 1985 essay I wrote in a professional journal on the Sanctuary Movement while I was serving as Counsel to the Original Sanctuary Movement and ICEMAN Amar was a college student at Berkeley. This essay was written in reaction to the US government's kangaroo court persecution of the Founders of the Sanctuary Movement, whose case I worked on pro bono publico to defend them. During the course of the Oak Park debate, the Midwest INS District Director for the country publicly agreed with my assertion that State and Local Governments have no obligation to assist the U.S. Federal Government in the enforcement of Federal Immigration Laws. Fab. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Sat Nov 4 10:13:08 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2017 10:13:08 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] INS (ICE) Midwest Regional Director v. IICEMAN Yale Law Mafia Dean Amar. References: Message-ID: >From his biography it appears that ICEMAN Amar was in high school when Belden Fields and I were doing everything humanly possible to stop the Reagan/Killer Koh extermination Campaign against People of Color in Central America, and then to stop Reagan from deporting these People of Color back to the Reagan/KillerKoh Abattoir of Central America when they made it to this country as refugees-hence the founding of the Original Sanctuary Movement. That's what going to Yale Mafia Law School did for ICEMAN Ammar. Ditto for both Clintons. Ditto for John Yoo. And of course Killer Koh was Dean of Yale Mafia Law School, following in the footsteps of Gene Half-an-Eichmann Rostow who gave us the Vietnam War and genocided 3 million Vietnamese. Nothing ever changes at Yale Mafia Law School. Fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2017 4:38 AM To: David Green ; C. G. ESTABROOK ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay ; David Johnson ; Mildred O'brien ; Estabrook, Carl G ; David Swanson Subject: RE: INS (ICE) Midwest Regional Director v. IICEMAN Yale Law Mafia Dean Amar. The Original Sanctuary Movement was founded in reaction to the facts that Reagan had murdered 35,000 in Nicaragua, including Ben Linder; 75,000 in El Salvador; and about 250,000 in Guatemala, most of whom were Mayan Indians-outright genocide. At the time Killer Koh went to work for Reagan in 1983 to become Reagan's John Yoo, whom Killer Koh later taught at Yale Mafia Law School. I explained all this to ICEMAN Yale Law Mafia Dean Amar and the rest of this Nazi Law Faculty. They invited Killer Koh out here anyway. As they all saw it, Killer Koh's atrocities for Reagan against People of Color in Central America and then Killer Koh's atrocities for Obama/Clinton against Muslims/Arabs/Asians of Color in Central Asia, the Middle East and Africa qualified Killer Koh to give their special endowed lecture on being a role model for lawyers in government service. Do you see the pattern here? As far as ICEMAN Yale Law Mafia Dean Amar and the COL Faculty are concerned, if you are White Judeo-Christian or Asian American, you can murder, persecute and repress People of Color abroad and in this country all you want to and get honored for it. This COL Faculty including its Dean THE ICEMAN are an intellectual and moral cesspool. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Friday, November 03, 2017 8:03 PM To: David Green >; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; Estabrook, Carl G >; David Swanson > Subject: INS (ICE) Midwest Regional Director v. IICEMAN Yale Law Mafia Dean Amar. I had this public debate in Oak Park Illinois with the INS {now ICE} District Director for the Midwest Region of the country on January 31, 1987 over the Oak Park Sanctuary Resolution, when ICEMAN Amar was a student at Yale Mafia Law School. As you can see it is based upon an April 1985 essay I wrote in a professional journal on the Sanctuary Movement while I was serving as Counsel to the Original Sanctuary Movement and ICEMAN Amar was a college student at Berkeley. This essay was written in reaction to the US government's kangaroo court persecution of the Founders of the Sanctuary Movement, whose case I worked on pro bono publico to defend them. During the course of the Oak Park debate, the Midwest INS District Director for the country publicly agreed with my assertion that State and Local Governments have no obligation to assist the U.S. Federal Government in the enforcement of Federal Immigration Laws. Fab. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Sat Nov 4 10:13:08 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2017 10:13:08 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] INS (ICE) Midwest Regional Director v. IICEMAN Yale Law Mafia Dean Amar. References: Message-ID: >From his biography it appears that ICEMAN Amar was in high school when Belden Fields and I were doing everything humanly possible to stop the Reagan/Killer Koh extermination Campaign against People of Color in Central America, and then to stop Reagan from deporting these People of Color back to the Reagan/KillerKoh Abattoir of Central America when they made it to this country as refugees-hence the founding of the Original Sanctuary Movement. That's what going to Yale Mafia Law School did for ICEMAN Ammar. Ditto for both Clintons. Ditto for John Yoo. And of course Killer Koh was Dean of Yale Mafia Law School, following in the footsteps of Gene Half-an-Eichmann Rostow who gave us the Vietnam War and genocided 3 million Vietnamese. Nothing ever changes at Yale Mafia Law School. Fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2017 4:38 AM To: David Green ; C. G. ESTABROOK ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay ; David Johnson ; Mildred O'brien ; Estabrook, Carl G ; David Swanson Subject: RE: INS (ICE) Midwest Regional Director v. IICEMAN Yale Law Mafia Dean Amar. The Original Sanctuary Movement was founded in reaction to the facts that Reagan had murdered 35,000 in Nicaragua, including Ben Linder; 75,000 in El Salvador; and about 250,000 in Guatemala, most of whom were Mayan Indians-outright genocide. At the time Killer Koh went to work for Reagan in 1983 to become Reagan's John Yoo, whom Killer Koh later taught at Yale Mafia Law School. I explained all this to ICEMAN Yale Law Mafia Dean Amar and the rest of this Nazi Law Faculty. They invited Killer Koh out here anyway. As they all saw it, Killer Koh's atrocities for Reagan against People of Color in Central America and then Killer Koh's atrocities for Obama/Clinton against Muslims/Arabs/Asians of Color in Central Asia, the Middle East and Africa qualified Killer Koh to give their special endowed lecture on being a role model for lawyers in government service. Do you see the pattern here? As far as ICEMAN Yale Law Mafia Dean Amar and the COL Faculty are concerned, if you are White Judeo-Christian or Asian American, you can murder, persecute and repress People of Color abroad and in this country all you want to and get honored for it. This COL Faculty including its Dean THE ICEMAN are an intellectual and moral cesspool. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Friday, November 03, 2017 8:03 PM To: David Green >; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; Estabrook, Carl G >; David Swanson > Subject: INS (ICE) Midwest Regional Director v. IICEMAN Yale Law Mafia Dean Amar. I had this public debate in Oak Park Illinois with the INS {now ICE} District Director for the Midwest Region of the country on January 31, 1987 over the Oak Park Sanctuary Resolution, when ICEMAN Amar was a student at Yale Mafia Law School. As you can see it is based upon an April 1985 essay I wrote in a professional journal on the Sanctuary Movement while I was serving as Counsel to the Original Sanctuary Movement and ICEMAN Amar was a college student at Berkeley. This essay was written in reaction to the US government's kangaroo court persecution of the Founders of the Sanctuary Movement, whose case I worked on pro bono publico to defend them. During the course of the Oak Park debate, the Midwest INS District Director for the country publicly agreed with my assertion that State and Local Governments have no obligation to assist the U.S. Federal Government in the enforcement of Federal Immigration Laws. Fab. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Sat Nov 4 10:53:58 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2017 10:53:58 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] INS (ICE) Midwest Regional Director v. IICEMAN Yale Law Mafia Dean Amar. References: Message-ID: So it appears from his essay that our Yale Law Mafia Dean Iceman Amar will be teaching his law students here AGAINST the Sanctuary Movement. While I will be training my future lawyers how to protect the basic human rights of 11 million human beings and now 800,000 DACA Kids threatened with deportation by the Trumpsters in March. Sure am glad I started teaching my International Human Rights Law Course here when Iceman Amar was a college kid at Berkeley. Ditto and pari passu for Iceman Amar's support for Killer Koh coming here in order to teach our law students how to become murderers, war criminals and genocidaires. I train my future lawyers how to stop human rights atrocities-not how to promote human rights atrocities-at this intellectual and moral cesspool now under the "leadership" of our Yale Law Mafia Dean. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2017 5:13 AM To: 'David Green' ; 'C. G. ESTABROOK' ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; 'sherwoodross10 at gmail.com' ; 'peace-discuss at anti-war.net' ; 'a-fields at uiuc.edu' ; Hoffman, Valerie J ; 'Joe Lauria' ; 'Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net' ; 'peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net' ; Szoke, Ron ; 'Arlene Hickory' ; 'Karen Aram' ; 'abass10 at gmail.com' ; 'mickalideh at gmail.com' ; 'Lina Thorne' ; 'chicago at worldcantwait.net' ; 'Jay' ; 'David Johnson' ; 'Mildred O'brien' ; Estabrook, Carl G ; 'David Swanson' Subject: RE: INS (ICE) Midwest Regional Director v. IICEMAN Yale Law Mafia Dean Amar. >From his biography it appears that ICEMAN Amar was in high school when Belden Fields and I were doing everything humanly possible to stop the Reagan/Killer Koh extermination Campaign against People of Color in Central America, and then to stop Reagan from deporting these People of Color back to the Reagan/KillerKoh Abattoir of Central America when they made it to this country as refugees-hence the founding of the Original Sanctuary Movement. That's what going to Yale Mafia Law School did for ICEMAN Ammar. Ditto for both Clintons. Ditto for John Yoo. And of course Killer Koh was Dean of Yale Mafia Law School, following in the footsteps of Gene Half-an-Eichmann Rostow who gave us the Vietnam War and genocided 3 million Vietnamese. Nothing ever changes at Yale Mafia Law School. Fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2017 4:38 AM To: David Green >; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; Estabrook, Carl G >; David Swanson > Subject: RE: INS (ICE) Midwest Regional Director v. IICEMAN Yale Law Mafia Dean Amar. The Original Sanctuary Movement was founded in reaction to the facts that Reagan had murdered 35,000 in Nicaragua, including Ben Linder; 75,000 in El Salvador; and about 250,000 in Guatemala, most of whom were Mayan Indians-outright genocide. At the time Killer Koh went to work for Reagan in 1983 to become Reagan's John Yoo, whom Killer Koh later taught at Yale Mafia Law School. I explained all this to ICEMAN Yale Law Mafia Dean Amar and the rest of this Nazi Law Faculty. They invited Killer Koh out here anyway. As they all saw it, Killer Koh's atrocities for Reagan against People of Color in Central America and then Killer Koh's atrocities for Obama/Clinton against Muslims/Arabs/Asians of Color in Central Asia, the Middle East and Africa qualified Killer Koh to give their special endowed lecture on being a role model for lawyers in government service. Do you see the pattern here? As far as ICEMAN Yale Law Mafia Dean Amar and the COL Faculty are concerned, if you are White Judeo-Christian or Asian American, you can murder, persecute and repress People of Color abroad and in this country all you want to and get honored for it. This COL Faculty including its Dean THE ICEMAN are an intellectual and moral cesspool. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Friday, November 03, 2017 8:03 PM To: David Green >; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; Estabrook, Carl G >; David Swanson > Subject: INS (ICE) Midwest Regional Director v. IICEMAN Yale Law Mafia Dean Amar. I had this public debate in Oak Park Illinois with the INS {now ICE} District Director for the Midwest Region of the country on January 31, 1987 over the Oak Park Sanctuary Resolution, when ICEMAN Amar was a student at Yale Mafia Law School. As you can see it is based upon an April 1985 essay I wrote in a professional journal on the Sanctuary Movement while I was serving as Counsel to the Original Sanctuary Movement and ICEMAN Amar was a college student at Berkeley. This essay was written in reaction to the US government's kangaroo court persecution of the Founders of the Sanctuary Movement, whose case I worked on pro bono publico to defend them. During the course of the Oak Park debate, the Midwest INS District Director for the country publicly agreed with my assertion that State and Local Governments have no obligation to assist the U.S. Federal Government in the enforcement of Federal Immigration Laws. Fab. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Sat Nov 4 10:53:58 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2017 10:53:58 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] INS (ICE) Midwest Regional Director v. IICEMAN Yale Law Mafia Dean Amar. References: Message-ID: So it appears from his essay that our Yale Law Mafia Dean Iceman Amar will be teaching his law students here AGAINST the Sanctuary Movement. While I will be training my future lawyers how to protect the basic human rights of 11 million human beings and now 800,000 DACA Kids threatened with deportation by the Trumpsters in March. Sure am glad I started teaching my International Human Rights Law Course here when Iceman Amar was a college kid at Berkeley. Ditto and pari passu for Iceman Amar's support for Killer Koh coming here in order to teach our law students how to become murderers, war criminals and genocidaires. I train my future lawyers how to stop human rights atrocities-not how to promote human rights atrocities-at this intellectual and moral cesspool now under the "leadership" of our Yale Law Mafia Dean. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2017 5:13 AM To: 'David Green' ; 'C. G. ESTABROOK' ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; 'sherwoodross10 at gmail.com' ; 'peace-discuss at anti-war.net' ; 'a-fields at uiuc.edu' ; Hoffman, Valerie J ; 'Joe Lauria' ; 'Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net' ; 'peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net' ; Szoke, Ron ; 'Arlene Hickory' ; 'Karen Aram' ; 'abass10 at gmail.com' ; 'mickalideh at gmail.com' ; 'Lina Thorne' ; 'chicago at worldcantwait.net' ; 'Jay' ; 'David Johnson' ; 'Mildred O'brien' ; Estabrook, Carl G ; 'David Swanson' Subject: RE: INS (ICE) Midwest Regional Director v. IICEMAN Yale Law Mafia Dean Amar. >From his biography it appears that ICEMAN Amar was in high school when Belden Fields and I were doing everything humanly possible to stop the Reagan/Killer Koh extermination Campaign against People of Color in Central America, and then to stop Reagan from deporting these People of Color back to the Reagan/KillerKoh Abattoir of Central America when they made it to this country as refugees-hence the founding of the Original Sanctuary Movement. That's what going to Yale Mafia Law School did for ICEMAN Ammar. Ditto for both Clintons. Ditto for John Yoo. And of course Killer Koh was Dean of Yale Mafia Law School, following in the footsteps of Gene Half-an-Eichmann Rostow who gave us the Vietnam War and genocided 3 million Vietnamese. Nothing ever changes at Yale Mafia Law School. Fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2017 4:38 AM To: David Green >; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; Estabrook, Carl G >; David Swanson > Subject: RE: INS (ICE) Midwest Regional Director v. IICEMAN Yale Law Mafia Dean Amar. The Original Sanctuary Movement was founded in reaction to the facts that Reagan had murdered 35,000 in Nicaragua, including Ben Linder; 75,000 in El Salvador; and about 250,000 in Guatemala, most of whom were Mayan Indians-outright genocide. At the time Killer Koh went to work for Reagan in 1983 to become Reagan's John Yoo, whom Killer Koh later taught at Yale Mafia Law School. I explained all this to ICEMAN Yale Law Mafia Dean Amar and the rest of this Nazi Law Faculty. They invited Killer Koh out here anyway. As they all saw it, Killer Koh's atrocities for Reagan against People of Color in Central America and then Killer Koh's atrocities for Obama/Clinton against Muslims/Arabs/Asians of Color in Central Asia, the Middle East and Africa qualified Killer Koh to give their special endowed lecture on being a role model for lawyers in government service. Do you see the pattern here? As far as ICEMAN Yale Law Mafia Dean Amar and the COL Faculty are concerned, if you are White Judeo-Christian or Asian American, you can murder, persecute and repress People of Color abroad and in this country all you want to and get honored for it. This COL Faculty including its Dean THE ICEMAN are an intellectual and moral cesspool. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Friday, November 03, 2017 8:03 PM To: David Green >; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; Estabrook, Carl G >; David Swanson > Subject: INS (ICE) Midwest Regional Director v. IICEMAN Yale Law Mafia Dean Amar. I had this public debate in Oak Park Illinois with the INS {now ICE} District Director for the Midwest Region of the country on January 31, 1987 over the Oak Park Sanctuary Resolution, when ICEMAN Amar was a student at Yale Mafia Law School. As you can see it is based upon an April 1985 essay I wrote in a professional journal on the Sanctuary Movement while I was serving as Counsel to the Original Sanctuary Movement and ICEMAN Amar was a college student at Berkeley. This essay was written in reaction to the US government's kangaroo court persecution of the Founders of the Sanctuary Movement, whose case I worked on pro bono publico to defend them. During the course of the Oak Park debate, the Midwest INS District Director for the country publicly agreed with my assertion that State and Local Governments have no obligation to assist the U.S. Federal Government in the enforcement of Federal Immigration Laws. Fab. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Sat Nov 4 12:31:38 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2017 12:31:38 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] News Gazoo: Chancellor Jones' "Critical Conversation" on Chief Illiniwak In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Just recently the University of Illiniwaks resurrected Chief Illiniwak for their Fall 2007 Homecoming in order to better milk their Alumni/ae as part of their newly launched Capital Campaign, thus definitively proving their craven racism. Dear Friends: I hereby sincerely apologize to Chancellor Jones. He knows exactly what he is doing when it comes to Chief Illiniwak. As you can see from my essay quoted above, the last time they trotted out Chief Illiniwak for a Homecoming Parade was 2007 in conjunction with their newly launched Capital Campaign for that year. Well this year ten years later they are launching a new Capital Campaign and once again they are trotting out Chief Illiniwak at the 2017 Homecoming Parade for the benefit of all the Illiniwaks who will be contributing Big Bucks to the new Capital Campaign. This is no coincidence! They know exactly what they are doing when it comes to exploiting Chief Illiniwak to milk money from the Illiniwak Nation. So this "Critical Conversation" and "dialogue" and "debate" over Chief Illiniwak could be an attempt to resurrect Chief Illiniwak prancing at half-times. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Friday, November 03, 2017 9:44 AM To: 'David Green' ; 'C. G. ESTABROOK' ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; 'sherwoodross10 at gmail.com' ; 'peace-discuss at anti-war.net' ; 'a-fields at uiuc.edu' ; Hoffman, Valerie J ; 'Joe Lauria' ; 'Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net' ; 'peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net' ; Szoke, Ron ; 'Arlene Hickory' ; 'Karen Aram' ; 'abass10 at gmail.com' ; 'mickalideh at gmail.com' ; 'Lina Thorne' ; 'chicago at worldcantwait.net' ; 'Jay' ; 'David Johnson' ; 'Mildred O'brien' ; Estabrook, Carl G ; 'David Swanson' Cc: Kaufman, Stephen J Subject: RE: News Gazoo: Chancellor Jones' "Critical Conversation" on Chief Illiniwak Actually I think it is pretty sad that Jones does not have a clue about Chief Illiniwak. The only Chancellor who did was Nancy Kantor-and the Illiniwaks drove her out of town on a rail. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Friday, November 3, 2017 9:35 AM To: 'David Green' >; 'C. G. ESTABROOK' >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; 'sherwoodross10 at gmail.com' >; 'peace-discuss at anti-war.net' >; 'a-fields at uiuc.edu' >; Hoffman, Valerie J >; 'Joe Lauria' >; 'Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net' >; 'peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net' >; Szoke, Ron >; 'Arlene Hickory' >; 'Karen Aram' >; 'abass10 at gmail.com' >; 'mickalideh at gmail.com' >; 'Lina Thorne' >; 'chicago at worldcantwait.net' >; 'Jay' >; 'David Johnson' >; 'Mildred O'brien' >; Estabrook, Carl G >; 'David Swanson' > Cc: Kaufman, Stephen J > Subject: RE: News Gazoo: Chancellor Jones' "Critical Conversation" on Chief Illiniwak "Just recently the University of Illiniwaks resurrected Chief Illiniwak for their Fall 2007 Homecoming in order to better milk their Alumni/ae as part of their newly launched Capital Campaign, thus definitively proving their craven racism." And just now again for their Fall 2017 Homecoming Parade in order to launch their new Capital Campaign, thus definitively proving once again their craven racism. Plus ca change at the University of Illiniwaks. fab. The Racist Mascot: Why You Should Still Boo Illinois The self-styled "Fighting Illini" of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign are on their way to the Jan. 1, 2008 Rose Bowl with their racist and genocidal mascot and symbol Chief Illiniwak still in tow. Although the NCAA forced the University of Illiniwaks to prevent this Little Red Sambo from desecrating at half-times everything American Indians hold dear and treasure, nevertheless Chief Illiniwak still remains the officially designated "honored symbol" of the University of Illiniwaks at Urbana-Champaign. Just recently the University of Illiniwaks resurrected Chief Illiniwak for their Fall 2007 Homecoming in order to better milk their Alumni/ae as part of their newly launched Capital Campaign, thus definitively proving their craven racism. In his Year 501: The Conquest Continues (1993) Noam Chomsky suggests an apt metaphor for such American Indian sports mascots and symbols that I will elaborate upon here in order to conform to our local and most peculiar rites on this campus: Suppose the Nazis had won the Second World War. Sixty years later, a prestigious German state university has a mascot for all of its sports teams and sports fans by the name of "The Rabbi." Basically what happens is that a student from the Hitler Youth League dresses up in an authentic costume for an Hasidic Rabbi, complete with the curl-locks and a beard. The University itself collectively call themselves "The Fighting Jews," and the school's band is called "The Marching Jews." The student newspaper is called "The Daily Jew." All the sports fans in town wear jackets and t-shirts with pictures of The Rabbi prominently displayed on them. And most cars have Rabbi stickers planted all over them. Three years ago the University's Board of Trustees ran out of town on a rail a courageous and principled Chancellor who had the temerity to publicly suggest that the time had now come to "retire" the Rabbi. So of course there was a heated campaign on among the students and alumni to "Save the Rabbi!" This German state university plays its soccer matches over at the Nuremberg Stadium in front of an audience of about 75,000 White Aryans, almost all of whom are wearing pro-Rabbi images and clothes. At half-time the Marching Jews take to the stadium floor and begin playing what they purport to be Jewish sounding music along the lines of Fiddler-on-the-Roof. Then all 75,000 White Aryans rise as one and shout in unison: "Rabbi! Rabbi! Rabbi! Rabbi!" gesticulating wildly and working themselves up into a feeding frenzy. One lone faculty member sits there in protest shouting "Racist Rabbi!" and everyone in the vicinity proceeds to throw garbage at him.1 Finally, the moment these ardent White Aryans have all waited for has arrived. The Rabbi runs out onto the arena floor from among the Marching Jews, proceeds to the center of the Nuremberg Stadium, and dances the Hava Nagila while the Marching Jews play on and march into an intricately choreographed maneuver that they all brag about and take special pride in that culminates with the band being organized into a Swastika. So the Rabbi continues to dance the Hava Nagila while the Marching Jews march themselves into a Swastika. By now all 75,000 White Aryans are hysterical, shouting, screaming, and yelling: "Rabbi! Rabbi! Rabbi!" This semi-religious spectacle that the Nazis are well known for staging, especially at the Nuremberg stadium, goes on for a good twenty minutes. It all concludes with everyone joining hands to sing "Deutschland, Deutschland, Uber Alles," with the Rabbi leading all 75,000 White Aryans in the song. Then the Rabbi proceeds to dance the Hava Nagila out of the stadium followed by the Marching Jews. Everyone goes wild, clapping and cheering. This Rabbi ceremony brings tears to the eyes of many drunken alumni and students who had started several hours beforehand getting inebriated on schnapps and good German beer at pre-game tailgate parties. When it is all over, a visiting law professor from another country asks his host at the soccer match what this spectacle was all about. Without missing a beat Dean Mengele of the Law School turns to his guest and says: "We are honoring the Jews." Whom the Nazis had just exterminated 60 years ago, so of course the memory of the Jews needs to be honored by this spectacle. The Illiniwek Indians were ethnically cleansed out of Illinois about a century before that. These are the real "Little Eichmans." Be sure to "Boo!" and root against the Illiniwaks. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Friday, November 3, 2017 6:35 AM To: David Green >; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; Estabrook, Carl G >; David Swanson > Cc: Kaufman, Stephen J > Subject: News Gazoo: Chancellor Jones' "Critical Conversation" on Chief Illiniwak Dear Chancellor Jones: After you are finished with your "Critical Conversation" and "dialogue" and "debate" over Chief Illiniwak, I would like to respectfully suggest that we next have a "Critical Conversation" and "dialogue" and "debate" over American Slavery. Then we can move on to a "Critical Conversation" and "dialogue" and "debate" over the Nazi Holocaust against the Jews. Yours very truly, Francis A. Boyle Professor of Law Board of Directors, Amnesty International USA (1988-1992) The Racist Mascot: Why You Should Still Boo Illinois The self-styled "Fighting Illini" of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign are on their way to the Jan. 1, 2008 Rose Bowl with their racist and genocidal mascot and symbol Chief Illiniwak still in tow. Although the NCAA forced the University of Illiniwaks to prevent this Little Red Sambo from desecrating at half-times everything American Indians hold dear and treasure, nevertheless Chief Illiniwak still remains the officially designated "honored symbol" of the University of Illiniwaks at Urbana-Champaign. Just recently the University of Illiniwaks resurrected Chief Illiniwak for their Fall 2007 Homecoming in order to better milk their Alumni/ae as part of their newly launched Capital Campaign, thus definitively proving their craven racism. In his Year 501: The Conquest Continues (1993) Noam Chomsky suggests an apt metaphor for such American Indian sports mascots and symbols that I will elaborate upon here in order to conform to our local and most peculiar rites on this campus: Suppose the Nazis had won the Second World War. Sixty years later, a prestigious German state university has a mascot for all of its sports teams and sports fans by the name of "The Rabbi." Basically what happens is that a student from the Hitler Youth League dresses up in an authentic costume for an Hasidic Rabbi, complete with the curl-locks and a beard. The University itself collectively call themselves "The Fighting Jews," and the school's band is called "The Marching Jews." The student newspaper is called "The Daily Jew." All the sports fans in town wear jackets and t-shirts with pictures of The Rabbi prominently displayed on them. And most cars have Rabbi stickers planted all over them. Three years ago the University's Board of Trustees ran out of town on a rail a courageous and principled Chancellor who had the temerity to publicly suggest that the time had now come to "retire" the Rabbi. So of course there was a heated campaign on among the students and alumni to "Save the Rabbi!" This German state university plays its soccer matches over at the Nuremberg Stadium in front of an audience of about 75,000 White Aryans, almost all of whom are wearing pro-Rabbi images and clothes. At half-time the Marching Jews take to the stadium floor and begin playing what they purport to be Jewish sounding music along the lines of Fiddler-on-the-Roof. Then all 75,000 White Aryans rise as one and shout in unison: "Rabbi! Rabbi! Rabbi! Rabbi!" gesticulating wildly and working themselves up into a feeding frenzy. One lone faculty member sits there in protest shouting "Racist Rabbi!" and everyone in the vicinity proceeds to throw garbage at him.1 Finally, the moment these ardent White Aryans have all waited for has arrived. The Rabbi runs out onto the arena floor from among the Marching Jews, proceeds to the center of the Nuremberg Stadium, and dances the Hava Nagila while the Marching Jews play on and march into an intricately choreographed maneuver that they all brag about and take special pride in that culminates with the band being organized into a Swastika. So the Rabbi continues to dance the Hava Nagila while the Marching Jews march themselves into a Swastika. By now all 75,000 White Aryans are hysterical, shouting, screaming, and yelling: "Rabbi! Rabbi! Rabbi!" This semi-religious spectacle that the Nazis are well known for staging, especially at the Nuremberg stadium, goes on for a good twenty minutes. It all concludes with everyone joining hands to sing "Deutschland, Deutschland, Uber Alles," with the Rabbi leading all 75,000 White Aryans in the song. Then the Rabbi proceeds to dance the Hava Nagila out of the stadium followed by the Marching Jews. Everyone goes wild, clapping and cheering. This Rabbi ceremony brings tears to the eyes of many drunken alumni and students who had started several hours beforehand getting inebriated on schnapps and good German beer at pre-game tailgate parties. When it is all over, a visiting law professor from another country asks his host at the soccer match what this spectacle was all about. Without missing a beat Dean Mengele of the Law School turns to his guest and says: "We are honoring the Jews." Whom the Nazis had just exterminated 60 years ago, so of course the memory of the Jews needs to be honored by this spectacle. The Illiniwek Indians were ethnically cleansed out of Illinois about a century before that. These are the real "Little Eichmans." Be sure to "Boo!" and root against the Illiniwaks. [cid:image002.jpg at 01D3553E.E524E4D0] Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) ________________________________ ________________________________ ________________________________ ________________________________ 1 Guess who? 1 Guess who? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 53113 bytes Desc: image002.jpg URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Sat Nov 4 12:31:38 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2017 12:31:38 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] News Gazoo: Chancellor Jones' "Critical Conversation" on Chief Illiniwak In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Just recently the University of Illiniwaks resurrected Chief Illiniwak for their Fall 2007 Homecoming in order to better milk their Alumni/ae as part of their newly launched Capital Campaign, thus definitively proving their craven racism. Dear Friends: I hereby sincerely apologize to Chancellor Jones. He knows exactly what he is doing when it comes to Chief Illiniwak. As you can see from my essay quoted above, the last time they trotted out Chief Illiniwak for a Homecoming Parade was 2007 in conjunction with their newly launched Capital Campaign for that year. Well this year ten years later they are launching a new Capital Campaign and once again they are trotting out Chief Illiniwak at the 2017 Homecoming Parade for the benefit of all the Illiniwaks who will be contributing Big Bucks to the new Capital Campaign. This is no coincidence! They know exactly what they are doing when it comes to exploiting Chief Illiniwak to milk money from the Illiniwak Nation. So this "Critical Conversation" and "dialogue" and "debate" over Chief Illiniwak could be an attempt to resurrect Chief Illiniwak prancing at half-times. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Friday, November 03, 2017 9:44 AM To: 'David Green' ; 'C. G. ESTABROOK' ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; 'sherwoodross10 at gmail.com' ; 'peace-discuss at anti-war.net' ; 'a-fields at uiuc.edu' ; Hoffman, Valerie J ; 'Joe Lauria' ; 'Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net' ; 'peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net' ; Szoke, Ron ; 'Arlene Hickory' ; 'Karen Aram' ; 'abass10 at gmail.com' ; 'mickalideh at gmail.com' ; 'Lina Thorne' ; 'chicago at worldcantwait.net' ; 'Jay' ; 'David Johnson' ; 'Mildred O'brien' ; Estabrook, Carl G ; 'David Swanson' Cc: Kaufman, Stephen J Subject: RE: News Gazoo: Chancellor Jones' "Critical Conversation" on Chief Illiniwak Actually I think it is pretty sad that Jones does not have a clue about Chief Illiniwak. The only Chancellor who did was Nancy Kantor-and the Illiniwaks drove her out of town on a rail. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Friday, November 3, 2017 9:35 AM To: 'David Green' >; 'C. G. ESTABROOK' >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; 'sherwoodross10 at gmail.com' >; 'peace-discuss at anti-war.net' >; 'a-fields at uiuc.edu' >; Hoffman, Valerie J >; 'Joe Lauria' >; 'Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net' >; 'peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net' >; Szoke, Ron >; 'Arlene Hickory' >; 'Karen Aram' >; 'abass10 at gmail.com' >; 'mickalideh at gmail.com' >; 'Lina Thorne' >; 'chicago at worldcantwait.net' >; 'Jay' >; 'David Johnson' >; 'Mildred O'brien' >; Estabrook, Carl G >; 'David Swanson' > Cc: Kaufman, Stephen J > Subject: RE: News Gazoo: Chancellor Jones' "Critical Conversation" on Chief Illiniwak "Just recently the University of Illiniwaks resurrected Chief Illiniwak for their Fall 2007 Homecoming in order to better milk their Alumni/ae as part of their newly launched Capital Campaign, thus definitively proving their craven racism." And just now again for their Fall 2017 Homecoming Parade in order to launch their new Capital Campaign, thus definitively proving once again their craven racism. Plus ca change at the University of Illiniwaks. fab. The Racist Mascot: Why You Should Still Boo Illinois The self-styled "Fighting Illini" of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign are on their way to the Jan. 1, 2008 Rose Bowl with their racist and genocidal mascot and symbol Chief Illiniwak still in tow. Although the NCAA forced the University of Illiniwaks to prevent this Little Red Sambo from desecrating at half-times everything American Indians hold dear and treasure, nevertheless Chief Illiniwak still remains the officially designated "honored symbol" of the University of Illiniwaks at Urbana-Champaign. Just recently the University of Illiniwaks resurrected Chief Illiniwak for their Fall 2007 Homecoming in order to better milk their Alumni/ae as part of their newly launched Capital Campaign, thus definitively proving their craven racism. In his Year 501: The Conquest Continues (1993) Noam Chomsky suggests an apt metaphor for such American Indian sports mascots and symbols that I will elaborate upon here in order to conform to our local and most peculiar rites on this campus: Suppose the Nazis had won the Second World War. Sixty years later, a prestigious German state university has a mascot for all of its sports teams and sports fans by the name of "The Rabbi." Basically what happens is that a student from the Hitler Youth League dresses up in an authentic costume for an Hasidic Rabbi, complete with the curl-locks and a beard. The University itself collectively call themselves "The Fighting Jews," and the school's band is called "The Marching Jews." The student newspaper is called "The Daily Jew." All the sports fans in town wear jackets and t-shirts with pictures of The Rabbi prominently displayed on them. And most cars have Rabbi stickers planted all over them. Three years ago the University's Board of Trustees ran out of town on a rail a courageous and principled Chancellor who had the temerity to publicly suggest that the time had now come to "retire" the Rabbi. So of course there was a heated campaign on among the students and alumni to "Save the Rabbi!" This German state university plays its soccer matches over at the Nuremberg Stadium in front of an audience of about 75,000 White Aryans, almost all of whom are wearing pro-Rabbi images and clothes. At half-time the Marching Jews take to the stadium floor and begin playing what they purport to be Jewish sounding music along the lines of Fiddler-on-the-Roof. Then all 75,000 White Aryans rise as one and shout in unison: "Rabbi! Rabbi! Rabbi! Rabbi!" gesticulating wildly and working themselves up into a feeding frenzy. One lone faculty member sits there in protest shouting "Racist Rabbi!" and everyone in the vicinity proceeds to throw garbage at him.1 Finally, the moment these ardent White Aryans have all waited for has arrived. The Rabbi runs out onto the arena floor from among the Marching Jews, proceeds to the center of the Nuremberg Stadium, and dances the Hava Nagila while the Marching Jews play on and march into an intricately choreographed maneuver that they all brag about and take special pride in that culminates with the band being organized into a Swastika. So the Rabbi continues to dance the Hava Nagila while the Marching Jews march themselves into a Swastika. By now all 75,000 White Aryans are hysterical, shouting, screaming, and yelling: "Rabbi! Rabbi! Rabbi!" This semi-religious spectacle that the Nazis are well known for staging, especially at the Nuremberg stadium, goes on for a good twenty minutes. It all concludes with everyone joining hands to sing "Deutschland, Deutschland, Uber Alles," with the Rabbi leading all 75,000 White Aryans in the song. Then the Rabbi proceeds to dance the Hava Nagila out of the stadium followed by the Marching Jews. Everyone goes wild, clapping and cheering. This Rabbi ceremony brings tears to the eyes of many drunken alumni and students who had started several hours beforehand getting inebriated on schnapps and good German beer at pre-game tailgate parties. When it is all over, a visiting law professor from another country asks his host at the soccer match what this spectacle was all about. Without missing a beat Dean Mengele of the Law School turns to his guest and says: "We are honoring the Jews." Whom the Nazis had just exterminated 60 years ago, so of course the memory of the Jews needs to be honored by this spectacle. The Illiniwek Indians were ethnically cleansed out of Illinois about a century before that. These are the real "Little Eichmans." Be sure to "Boo!" and root against the Illiniwaks. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Friday, November 3, 2017 6:35 AM To: David Green >; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; Estabrook, Carl G >; David Swanson > Cc: Kaufman, Stephen J > Subject: News Gazoo: Chancellor Jones' "Critical Conversation" on Chief Illiniwak Dear Chancellor Jones: After you are finished with your "Critical Conversation" and "dialogue" and "debate" over Chief Illiniwak, I would like to respectfully suggest that we next have a "Critical Conversation" and "dialogue" and "debate" over American Slavery. Then we can move on to a "Critical Conversation" and "dialogue" and "debate" over the Nazi Holocaust against the Jews. Yours very truly, Francis A. Boyle Professor of Law Board of Directors, Amnesty International USA (1988-1992) The Racist Mascot: Why You Should Still Boo Illinois The self-styled "Fighting Illini" of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign are on their way to the Jan. 1, 2008 Rose Bowl with their racist and genocidal mascot and symbol Chief Illiniwak still in tow. Although the NCAA forced the University of Illiniwaks to prevent this Little Red Sambo from desecrating at half-times everything American Indians hold dear and treasure, nevertheless Chief Illiniwak still remains the officially designated "honored symbol" of the University of Illiniwaks at Urbana-Champaign. Just recently the University of Illiniwaks resurrected Chief Illiniwak for their Fall 2007 Homecoming in order to better milk their Alumni/ae as part of their newly launched Capital Campaign, thus definitively proving their craven racism. In his Year 501: The Conquest Continues (1993) Noam Chomsky suggests an apt metaphor for such American Indian sports mascots and symbols that I will elaborate upon here in order to conform to our local and most peculiar rites on this campus: Suppose the Nazis had won the Second World War. Sixty years later, a prestigious German state university has a mascot for all of its sports teams and sports fans by the name of "The Rabbi." Basically what happens is that a student from the Hitler Youth League dresses up in an authentic costume for an Hasidic Rabbi, complete with the curl-locks and a beard. The University itself collectively call themselves "The Fighting Jews," and the school's band is called "The Marching Jews." The student newspaper is called "The Daily Jew." All the sports fans in town wear jackets and t-shirts with pictures of The Rabbi prominently displayed on them. And most cars have Rabbi stickers planted all over them. Three years ago the University's Board of Trustees ran out of town on a rail a courageous and principled Chancellor who had the temerity to publicly suggest that the time had now come to "retire" the Rabbi. So of course there was a heated campaign on among the students and alumni to "Save the Rabbi!" This German state university plays its soccer matches over at the Nuremberg Stadium in front of an audience of about 75,000 White Aryans, almost all of whom are wearing pro-Rabbi images and clothes. At half-time the Marching Jews take to the stadium floor and begin playing what they purport to be Jewish sounding music along the lines of Fiddler-on-the-Roof. Then all 75,000 White Aryans rise as one and shout in unison: "Rabbi! Rabbi! Rabbi! Rabbi!" gesticulating wildly and working themselves up into a feeding frenzy. One lone faculty member sits there in protest shouting "Racist Rabbi!" and everyone in the vicinity proceeds to throw garbage at him.1 Finally, the moment these ardent White Aryans have all waited for has arrived. The Rabbi runs out onto the arena floor from among the Marching Jews, proceeds to the center of the Nuremberg Stadium, and dances the Hava Nagila while the Marching Jews play on and march into an intricately choreographed maneuver that they all brag about and take special pride in that culminates with the band being organized into a Swastika. So the Rabbi continues to dance the Hava Nagila while the Marching Jews march themselves into a Swastika. By now all 75,000 White Aryans are hysterical, shouting, screaming, and yelling: "Rabbi! Rabbi! Rabbi!" This semi-religious spectacle that the Nazis are well known for staging, especially at the Nuremberg stadium, goes on for a good twenty minutes. It all concludes with everyone joining hands to sing "Deutschland, Deutschland, Uber Alles," with the Rabbi leading all 75,000 White Aryans in the song. Then the Rabbi proceeds to dance the Hava Nagila out of the stadium followed by the Marching Jews. Everyone goes wild, clapping and cheering. This Rabbi ceremony brings tears to the eyes of many drunken alumni and students who had started several hours beforehand getting inebriated on schnapps and good German beer at pre-game tailgate parties. When it is all over, a visiting law professor from another country asks his host at the soccer match what this spectacle was all about. Without missing a beat Dean Mengele of the Law School turns to his guest and says: "We are honoring the Jews." Whom the Nazis had just exterminated 60 years ago, so of course the memory of the Jews needs to be honored by this spectacle. The Illiniwek Indians were ethnically cleansed out of Illinois about a century before that. These are the real "Little Eichmans." Be sure to "Boo!" and root against the Illiniwaks. [cid:image002.jpg at 01D3553E.E524E4D0] Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) ________________________________ ________________________________ ________________________________ ________________________________ 1 Guess who? 1 Guess who? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 53113 bytes Desc: image002.jpg URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Sat Nov 4 12:42:13 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2017 12:42:13 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] News Gazoo: Chancellor Jones' "Critical Conversation" on Chief Illiniwak In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: As you know the US Supreme Court recently ruled that you have a First Amendment Right to trademark a racially derogatory name.Therefore, the Administration strategy here could be that they are going to resurrect Chief Illiniwak prancing at half-times and then if the NCAA Sanctions them, sue the NCAA for violating their First Amendment Rights. And please don't tell me that the Illiniwak Lawyers have not figured this one out. I just did and I am an anti-Illiniwak Lawyer. Fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2017 7:32 AM To: 'David Green' ; 'C. G. ESTABROOK' ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; 'sherwoodross10 at gmail.com' ; 'peace-discuss at anti-war.net' ; 'a-fields at uiuc.edu' ; Hoffman, Valerie J ; 'Joe Lauria' ; 'Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net' ; 'peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net' ; Szoke, Ron ; 'Arlene Hickory' ; 'Karen Aram' ; 'abass10 at gmail.com' ; 'mickalideh at gmail.com' ; 'Lina Thorne' ; 'chicago at worldcantwait.net' ; 'Jay' ; 'David Johnson' ; 'Mildred O'brien' ; Estabrook, Carl G ; 'David Swanson' Cc: Kaufman, Stephen J Subject: RE: News Gazoo: Chancellor Jones' "Critical Conversation" on Chief Illiniwak Just recently the University of Illiniwaks resurrected Chief Illiniwak for their Fall 2007 Homecoming in order to better milk their Alumni/ae as part of their newly launched Capital Campaign, thus definitively proving their craven racism. Dear Friends: I hereby sincerely apologize to Chancellor Jones. He knows exactly what he is doing when it comes to Chief Illiniwak. As you can see from my essay quoted above, the last time they trotted out Chief Illiniwak for a Homecoming Parade was 2007 in conjunction with their newly launched Capital Campaign for that year. Well this year ten years later they are launching a new Capital Campaign and once again they are trotting out Chief Illiniwak at the 2017 Homecoming Parade for the benefit of all the Illiniwaks who will be contributing Big Bucks to the new Capital Campaign. This is no coincidence! They know exactly what they are doing when it comes to exploiting Chief Illiniwak to milk money from the Illiniwak Nation. So this "Critical Conversation" and "dialogue" and "debate" over Chief Illiniwak could be an attempt to resurrect Chief Illiniwak prancing at half-times. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Friday, November 03, 2017 9:44 AM To: 'David Green' >; 'C. G. ESTABROOK' >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; 'sherwoodross10 at gmail.com' >; 'peace-discuss at anti-war.net' >; 'a-fields at uiuc.edu' >; Hoffman, Valerie J >; 'Joe Lauria' >; 'Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net' >; 'peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net' >; Szoke, Ron >; 'Arlene Hickory' >; 'Karen Aram' >; 'abass10 at gmail.com' >; 'mickalideh at gmail.com' >; 'Lina Thorne' >; 'chicago at worldcantwait.net' >; 'Jay' >; 'David Johnson' >; 'Mildred O'brien' >; Estabrook, Carl G >; 'David Swanson' > Cc: Kaufman, Stephen J > Subject: RE: News Gazoo: Chancellor Jones' "Critical Conversation" on Chief Illiniwak Actually I think it is pretty sad that Jones does not have a clue about Chief Illiniwak. The only Chancellor who did was Nancy Kantor-and the Illiniwaks drove her out of town on a rail. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Friday, November 3, 2017 9:35 AM To: 'David Green' >; 'C. G. ESTABROOK' >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; 'sherwoodross10 at gmail.com' >; 'peace-discuss at anti-war.net' >; 'a-fields at uiuc.edu' >; Hoffman, Valerie J >; 'Joe Lauria' >; 'Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net' >; 'peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net' >; Szoke, Ron >; 'Arlene Hickory' >; 'Karen Aram' >; 'abass10 at gmail.com' >; 'mickalideh at gmail.com' >; 'Lina Thorne' >; 'chicago at worldcantwait.net' >; 'Jay' >; 'David Johnson' >; 'Mildred O'brien' >; Estabrook, Carl G >; 'David Swanson' > Cc: Kaufman, Stephen J > Subject: RE: News Gazoo: Chancellor Jones' "Critical Conversation" on Chief Illiniwak "Just recently the University of Illiniwaks resurrected Chief Illiniwak for their Fall 2007 Homecoming in order to better milk their Alumni/ae as part of their newly launched Capital Campaign, thus definitively proving their craven racism." And just now again for their Fall 2017 Homecoming Parade in order to launch their new Capital Campaign, thus definitively proving once again their craven racism. Plus ca change at the University of Illiniwaks. fab. The Racist Mascot: Why You Should Still Boo Illinois The self-styled "Fighting Illini" of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign are on their way to the Jan. 1, 2008 Rose Bowl with their racist and genocidal mascot and symbol Chief Illiniwak still in tow. Although the NCAA forced the University of Illiniwaks to prevent this Little Red Sambo from desecrating at half-times everything American Indians hold dear and treasure, nevertheless Chief Illiniwak still remains the officially designated "honored symbol" of the University of Illiniwaks at Urbana-Champaign. Just recently the University of Illiniwaks resurrected Chief Illiniwak for their Fall 2007 Homecoming in order to better milk their Alumni/ae as part of their newly launched Capital Campaign, thus definitively proving their craven racism. In his Year 501: The Conquest Continues (1993) Noam Chomsky suggests an apt metaphor for such American Indian sports mascots and symbols that I will elaborate upon here in order to conform to our local and most peculiar rites on this campus: Suppose the Nazis had won the Second World War. Sixty years later, a prestigious German state university has a mascot for all of its sports teams and sports fans by the name of "The Rabbi." Basically what happens is that a student from the Hitler Youth League dresses up in an authentic costume for an Hasidic Rabbi, complete with the curl-locks and a beard. The University itself collectively call themselves "The Fighting Jews," and the school's band is called "The Marching Jews." The student newspaper is called "The Daily Jew." All the sports fans in town wear jackets and t-shirts with pictures of The Rabbi prominently displayed on them. And most cars have Rabbi stickers planted all over them. Three years ago the University's Board of Trustees ran out of town on a rail a courageous and principled Chancellor who had the temerity to publicly suggest that the time had now come to "retire" the Rabbi. So of course there was a heated campaign on among the students and alumni to "Save the Rabbi!" This German state university plays its soccer matches over at the Nuremberg Stadium in front of an audience of about 75,000 White Aryans, almost all of whom are wearing pro-Rabbi images and clothes. At half-time the Marching Jews take to the stadium floor and begin playing what they purport to be Jewish sounding music along the lines of Fiddler-on-the-Roof. Then all 75,000 White Aryans rise as one and shout in unison: "Rabbi! Rabbi! Rabbi! Rabbi!" gesticulating wildly and working themselves up into a feeding frenzy. One lone faculty member sits there in protest shouting "Racist Rabbi!" and everyone in the vicinity proceeds to throw garbage at him.1 Finally, the moment these ardent White Aryans have all waited for has arrived. The Rabbi runs out onto the arena floor from among the Marching Jews, proceeds to the center of the Nuremberg Stadium, and dances the Hava Nagila while the Marching Jews play on and march into an intricately choreographed maneuver that they all brag about and take special pride in that culminates with the band being organized into a Swastika. So the Rabbi continues to dance the Hava Nagila while the Marching Jews march themselves into a Swastika. By now all 75,000 White Aryans are hysterical, shouting, screaming, and yelling: "Rabbi! Rabbi! Rabbi!" This semi-religious spectacle that the Nazis are well known for staging, especially at the Nuremberg stadium, goes on for a good twenty minutes. It all concludes with everyone joining hands to sing "Deutschland, Deutschland, Uber Alles," with the Rabbi leading all 75,000 White Aryans in the song. Then the Rabbi proceeds to dance the Hava Nagila out of the stadium followed by the Marching Jews. Everyone goes wild, clapping and cheering. This Rabbi ceremony brings tears to the eyes of many drunken alumni and students who had started several hours beforehand getting inebriated on schnapps and good German beer at pre-game tailgate parties. When it is all over, a visiting law professor from another country asks his host at the soccer match what this spectacle was all about. Without missing a beat Dean Mengele of the Law School turns to his guest and says: "We are honoring the Jews." Whom the Nazis had just exterminated 60 years ago, so of course the memory of the Jews needs to be honored by this spectacle. The Illiniwek Indians were ethnically cleansed out of Illinois about a century before that. These are the real "Little Eichmans." Be sure to "Boo!" and root against the Illiniwaks. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Friday, November 3, 2017 6:35 AM To: David Green >; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; Estabrook, Carl G >; David Swanson > Cc: Kaufman, Stephen J > Subject: News Gazoo: Chancellor Jones' "Critical Conversation" on Chief Illiniwak Dear Chancellor Jones: After you are finished with your "Critical Conversation" and "dialogue" and "debate" over Chief Illiniwak, I would like to respectfully suggest that we next have a "Critical Conversation" and "dialogue" and "debate" over American Slavery. Then we can move on to a "Critical Conversation" and "dialogue" and "debate" over the Nazi Holocaust against the Jews. Yours very truly, Francis A. Boyle Professor of Law Board of Directors, Amnesty International USA (1988-1992) The Racist Mascot: Why You Should Still Boo Illinois The self-styled "Fighting Illini" of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign are on their way to the Jan. 1, 2008 Rose Bowl with their racist and genocidal mascot and symbol Chief Illiniwak still in tow. Although the NCAA forced the University of Illiniwaks to prevent this Little Red Sambo from desecrating at half-times everything American Indians hold dear and treasure, nevertheless Chief Illiniwak still remains the officially designated "honored symbol" of the University of Illiniwaks at Urbana-Champaign. Just recently the University of Illiniwaks resurrected Chief Illiniwak for their Fall 2007 Homecoming in order to better milk their Alumni/ae as part of their newly launched Capital Campaign, thus definitively proving their craven racism. In his Year 501: The Conquest Continues (1993) Noam Chomsky suggests an apt metaphor for such American Indian sports mascots and symbols that I will elaborate upon here in order to conform to our local and most peculiar rites on this campus: Suppose the Nazis had won the Second World War. Sixty years later, a prestigious German state university has a mascot for all of its sports teams and sports fans by the name of "The Rabbi." Basically what happens is that a student from the Hitler Youth League dresses up in an authentic costume for an Hasidic Rabbi, complete with the curl-locks and a beard. The University itself collectively call themselves "The Fighting Jews," and the school's band is called "The Marching Jews." The student newspaper is called "The Daily Jew." All the sports fans in town wear jackets and t-shirts with pictures of The Rabbi prominently displayed on them. And most cars have Rabbi stickers planted all over them. Three years ago the University's Board of Trustees ran out of town on a rail a courageous and principled Chancellor who had the temerity to publicly suggest that the time had now come to "retire" the Rabbi. So of course there was a heated campaign on among the students and alumni to "Save the Rabbi!" This German state university plays its soccer matches over at the Nuremberg Stadium in front of an audience of about 75,000 White Aryans, almost all of whom are wearing pro-Rabbi images and clothes. At half-time the Marching Jews take to the stadium floor and begin playing what they purport to be Jewish sounding music along the lines of Fiddler-on-the-Roof. Then all 75,000 White Aryans rise as one and shout in unison: "Rabbi! Rabbi! Rabbi! Rabbi!" gesticulating wildly and working themselves up into a feeding frenzy. One lone faculty member sits there in protest shouting "Racist Rabbi!" and everyone in the vicinity proceeds to throw garbage at him.1 Finally, the moment these ardent White Aryans have all waited for has arrived. The Rabbi runs out onto the arena floor from among the Marching Jews, proceeds to the center of the Nuremberg Stadium, and dances the Hava Nagila while the Marching Jews play on and march into an intricately choreographed maneuver that they all brag about and take special pride in that culminates with the band being organized into a Swastika. So the Rabbi continues to dance the Hava Nagila while the Marching Jews march themselves into a Swastika. By now all 75,000 White Aryans are hysterical, shouting, screaming, and yelling: "Rabbi! Rabbi! Rabbi!" This semi-religious spectacle that the Nazis are well known for staging, especially at the Nuremberg stadium, goes on for a good twenty minutes. It all concludes with everyone joining hands to sing "Deutschland, Deutschland, Uber Alles," with the Rabbi leading all 75,000 White Aryans in the song. Then the Rabbi proceeds to dance the Hava Nagila out of the stadium followed by the Marching Jews. Everyone goes wild, clapping and cheering. This Rabbi ceremony brings tears to the eyes of many drunken alumni and students who had started several hours beforehand getting inebriated on schnapps and good German beer at pre-game tailgate parties. When it is all over, a visiting law professor from another country asks his host at the soccer match what this spectacle was all about. Without missing a beat Dean Mengele of the Law School turns to his guest and says: "We are honoring the Jews." Whom the Nazis had just exterminated 60 years ago, so of course the memory of the Jews needs to be honored by this spectacle. The Illiniwek Indians were ethnically cleansed out of Illinois about a century before that. These are the real "Little Eichmans." Be sure to "Boo!" and root against the Illiniwaks. [cid:image002.jpg at 01D35540.65B11B90] Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) ________________________________ ________________________________ ________________________________ ________________________________ ________________________________ 1 Guess who? 1 Guess who? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 53134 bytes Desc: image002.jpg URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Sat Nov 4 12:42:13 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2017 12:42:13 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] News Gazoo: Chancellor Jones' "Critical Conversation" on Chief Illiniwak In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: As you know the US Supreme Court recently ruled that you have a First Amendment Right to trademark a racially derogatory name.Therefore, the Administration strategy here could be that they are going to resurrect Chief Illiniwak prancing at half-times and then if the NCAA Sanctions them, sue the NCAA for violating their First Amendment Rights. And please don't tell me that the Illiniwak Lawyers have not figured this one out. I just did and I am an anti-Illiniwak Lawyer. Fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2017 7:32 AM To: 'David Green' ; 'C. G. ESTABROOK' ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; 'sherwoodross10 at gmail.com' ; 'peace-discuss at anti-war.net' ; 'a-fields at uiuc.edu' ; Hoffman, Valerie J ; 'Joe Lauria' ; 'Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net' ; 'peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net' ; Szoke, Ron ; 'Arlene Hickory' ; 'Karen Aram' ; 'abass10 at gmail.com' ; 'mickalideh at gmail.com' ; 'Lina Thorne' ; 'chicago at worldcantwait.net' ; 'Jay' ; 'David Johnson' ; 'Mildred O'brien' ; Estabrook, Carl G ; 'David Swanson' Cc: Kaufman, Stephen J Subject: RE: News Gazoo: Chancellor Jones' "Critical Conversation" on Chief Illiniwak Just recently the University of Illiniwaks resurrected Chief Illiniwak for their Fall 2007 Homecoming in order to better milk their Alumni/ae as part of their newly launched Capital Campaign, thus definitively proving their craven racism. Dear Friends: I hereby sincerely apologize to Chancellor Jones. He knows exactly what he is doing when it comes to Chief Illiniwak. As you can see from my essay quoted above, the last time they trotted out Chief Illiniwak for a Homecoming Parade was 2007 in conjunction with their newly launched Capital Campaign for that year. Well this year ten years later they are launching a new Capital Campaign and once again they are trotting out Chief Illiniwak at the 2017 Homecoming Parade for the benefit of all the Illiniwaks who will be contributing Big Bucks to the new Capital Campaign. This is no coincidence! They know exactly what they are doing when it comes to exploiting Chief Illiniwak to milk money from the Illiniwak Nation. So this "Critical Conversation" and "dialogue" and "debate" over Chief Illiniwak could be an attempt to resurrect Chief Illiniwak prancing at half-times. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Friday, November 03, 2017 9:44 AM To: 'David Green' >; 'C. G. ESTABROOK' >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; 'sherwoodross10 at gmail.com' >; 'peace-discuss at anti-war.net' >; 'a-fields at uiuc.edu' >; Hoffman, Valerie J >; 'Joe Lauria' >; 'Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net' >; 'peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net' >; Szoke, Ron >; 'Arlene Hickory' >; 'Karen Aram' >; 'abass10 at gmail.com' >; 'mickalideh at gmail.com' >; 'Lina Thorne' >; 'chicago at worldcantwait.net' >; 'Jay' >; 'David Johnson' >; 'Mildred O'brien' >; Estabrook, Carl G >; 'David Swanson' > Cc: Kaufman, Stephen J > Subject: RE: News Gazoo: Chancellor Jones' "Critical Conversation" on Chief Illiniwak Actually I think it is pretty sad that Jones does not have a clue about Chief Illiniwak. The only Chancellor who did was Nancy Kantor-and the Illiniwaks drove her out of town on a rail. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Friday, November 3, 2017 9:35 AM To: 'David Green' >; 'C. G. ESTABROOK' >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; 'sherwoodross10 at gmail.com' >; 'peace-discuss at anti-war.net' >; 'a-fields at uiuc.edu' >; Hoffman, Valerie J >; 'Joe Lauria' >; 'Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net' >; 'peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net' >; Szoke, Ron >; 'Arlene Hickory' >; 'Karen Aram' >; 'abass10 at gmail.com' >; 'mickalideh at gmail.com' >; 'Lina Thorne' >; 'chicago at worldcantwait.net' >; 'Jay' >; 'David Johnson' >; 'Mildred O'brien' >; Estabrook, Carl G >; 'David Swanson' > Cc: Kaufman, Stephen J > Subject: RE: News Gazoo: Chancellor Jones' "Critical Conversation" on Chief Illiniwak "Just recently the University of Illiniwaks resurrected Chief Illiniwak for their Fall 2007 Homecoming in order to better milk their Alumni/ae as part of their newly launched Capital Campaign, thus definitively proving their craven racism." And just now again for their Fall 2017 Homecoming Parade in order to launch their new Capital Campaign, thus definitively proving once again their craven racism. Plus ca change at the University of Illiniwaks. fab. The Racist Mascot: Why You Should Still Boo Illinois The self-styled "Fighting Illini" of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign are on their way to the Jan. 1, 2008 Rose Bowl with their racist and genocidal mascot and symbol Chief Illiniwak still in tow. Although the NCAA forced the University of Illiniwaks to prevent this Little Red Sambo from desecrating at half-times everything American Indians hold dear and treasure, nevertheless Chief Illiniwak still remains the officially designated "honored symbol" of the University of Illiniwaks at Urbana-Champaign. Just recently the University of Illiniwaks resurrected Chief Illiniwak for their Fall 2007 Homecoming in order to better milk their Alumni/ae as part of their newly launched Capital Campaign, thus definitively proving their craven racism. In his Year 501: The Conquest Continues (1993) Noam Chomsky suggests an apt metaphor for such American Indian sports mascots and symbols that I will elaborate upon here in order to conform to our local and most peculiar rites on this campus: Suppose the Nazis had won the Second World War. Sixty years later, a prestigious German state university has a mascot for all of its sports teams and sports fans by the name of "The Rabbi." Basically what happens is that a student from the Hitler Youth League dresses up in an authentic costume for an Hasidic Rabbi, complete with the curl-locks and a beard. The University itself collectively call themselves "The Fighting Jews," and the school's band is called "The Marching Jews." The student newspaper is called "The Daily Jew." All the sports fans in town wear jackets and t-shirts with pictures of The Rabbi prominently displayed on them. And most cars have Rabbi stickers planted all over them. Three years ago the University's Board of Trustees ran out of town on a rail a courageous and principled Chancellor who had the temerity to publicly suggest that the time had now come to "retire" the Rabbi. So of course there was a heated campaign on among the students and alumni to "Save the Rabbi!" This German state university plays its soccer matches over at the Nuremberg Stadium in front of an audience of about 75,000 White Aryans, almost all of whom are wearing pro-Rabbi images and clothes. At half-time the Marching Jews take to the stadium floor and begin playing what they purport to be Jewish sounding music along the lines of Fiddler-on-the-Roof. Then all 75,000 White Aryans rise as one and shout in unison: "Rabbi! Rabbi! Rabbi! Rabbi!" gesticulating wildly and working themselves up into a feeding frenzy. One lone faculty member sits there in protest shouting "Racist Rabbi!" and everyone in the vicinity proceeds to throw garbage at him.1 Finally, the moment these ardent White Aryans have all waited for has arrived. The Rabbi runs out onto the arena floor from among the Marching Jews, proceeds to the center of the Nuremberg Stadium, and dances the Hava Nagila while the Marching Jews play on and march into an intricately choreographed maneuver that they all brag about and take special pride in that culminates with the band being organized into a Swastika. So the Rabbi continues to dance the Hava Nagila while the Marching Jews march themselves into a Swastika. By now all 75,000 White Aryans are hysterical, shouting, screaming, and yelling: "Rabbi! Rabbi! Rabbi!" This semi-religious spectacle that the Nazis are well known for staging, especially at the Nuremberg stadium, goes on for a good twenty minutes. It all concludes with everyone joining hands to sing "Deutschland, Deutschland, Uber Alles," with the Rabbi leading all 75,000 White Aryans in the song. Then the Rabbi proceeds to dance the Hava Nagila out of the stadium followed by the Marching Jews. Everyone goes wild, clapping and cheering. This Rabbi ceremony brings tears to the eyes of many drunken alumni and students who had started several hours beforehand getting inebriated on schnapps and good German beer at pre-game tailgate parties. When it is all over, a visiting law professor from another country asks his host at the soccer match what this spectacle was all about. Without missing a beat Dean Mengele of the Law School turns to his guest and says: "We are honoring the Jews." Whom the Nazis had just exterminated 60 years ago, so of course the memory of the Jews needs to be honored by this spectacle. The Illiniwek Indians were ethnically cleansed out of Illinois about a century before that. These are the real "Little Eichmans." Be sure to "Boo!" and root against the Illiniwaks. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Friday, November 3, 2017 6:35 AM To: David Green >; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; Estabrook, Carl G >; David Swanson > Cc: Kaufman, Stephen J > Subject: News Gazoo: Chancellor Jones' "Critical Conversation" on Chief Illiniwak Dear Chancellor Jones: After you are finished with your "Critical Conversation" and "dialogue" and "debate" over Chief Illiniwak, I would like to respectfully suggest that we next have a "Critical Conversation" and "dialogue" and "debate" over American Slavery. Then we can move on to a "Critical Conversation" and "dialogue" and "debate" over the Nazi Holocaust against the Jews. Yours very truly, Francis A. Boyle Professor of Law Board of Directors, Amnesty International USA (1988-1992) The Racist Mascot: Why You Should Still Boo Illinois The self-styled "Fighting Illini" of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign are on their way to the Jan. 1, 2008 Rose Bowl with their racist and genocidal mascot and symbol Chief Illiniwak still in tow. Although the NCAA forced the University of Illiniwaks to prevent this Little Red Sambo from desecrating at half-times everything American Indians hold dear and treasure, nevertheless Chief Illiniwak still remains the officially designated "honored symbol" of the University of Illiniwaks at Urbana-Champaign. Just recently the University of Illiniwaks resurrected Chief Illiniwak for their Fall 2007 Homecoming in order to better milk their Alumni/ae as part of their newly launched Capital Campaign, thus definitively proving their craven racism. In his Year 501: The Conquest Continues (1993) Noam Chomsky suggests an apt metaphor for such American Indian sports mascots and symbols that I will elaborate upon here in order to conform to our local and most peculiar rites on this campus: Suppose the Nazis had won the Second World War. Sixty years later, a prestigious German state university has a mascot for all of its sports teams and sports fans by the name of "The Rabbi." Basically what happens is that a student from the Hitler Youth League dresses up in an authentic costume for an Hasidic Rabbi, complete with the curl-locks and a beard. The University itself collectively call themselves "The Fighting Jews," and the school's band is called "The Marching Jews." The student newspaper is called "The Daily Jew." All the sports fans in town wear jackets and t-shirts with pictures of The Rabbi prominently displayed on them. And most cars have Rabbi stickers planted all over them. Three years ago the University's Board of Trustees ran out of town on a rail a courageous and principled Chancellor who had the temerity to publicly suggest that the time had now come to "retire" the Rabbi. So of course there was a heated campaign on among the students and alumni to "Save the Rabbi!" This German state university plays its soccer matches over at the Nuremberg Stadium in front of an audience of about 75,000 White Aryans, almost all of whom are wearing pro-Rabbi images and clothes. At half-time the Marching Jews take to the stadium floor and begin playing what they purport to be Jewish sounding music along the lines of Fiddler-on-the-Roof. Then all 75,000 White Aryans rise as one and shout in unison: "Rabbi! Rabbi! Rabbi! Rabbi!" gesticulating wildly and working themselves up into a feeding frenzy. One lone faculty member sits there in protest shouting "Racist Rabbi!" and everyone in the vicinity proceeds to throw garbage at him.1 Finally, the moment these ardent White Aryans have all waited for has arrived. The Rabbi runs out onto the arena floor from among the Marching Jews, proceeds to the center of the Nuremberg Stadium, and dances the Hava Nagila while the Marching Jews play on and march into an intricately choreographed maneuver that they all brag about and take special pride in that culminates with the band being organized into a Swastika. So the Rabbi continues to dance the Hava Nagila while the Marching Jews march themselves into a Swastika. By now all 75,000 White Aryans are hysterical, shouting, screaming, and yelling: "Rabbi! Rabbi! Rabbi!" This semi-religious spectacle that the Nazis are well known for staging, especially at the Nuremberg stadium, goes on for a good twenty minutes. It all concludes with everyone joining hands to sing "Deutschland, Deutschland, Uber Alles," with the Rabbi leading all 75,000 White Aryans in the song. Then the Rabbi proceeds to dance the Hava Nagila out of the stadium followed by the Marching Jews. Everyone goes wild, clapping and cheering. This Rabbi ceremony brings tears to the eyes of many drunken alumni and students who had started several hours beforehand getting inebriated on schnapps and good German beer at pre-game tailgate parties. When it is all over, a visiting law professor from another country asks his host at the soccer match what this spectacle was all about. Without missing a beat Dean Mengele of the Law School turns to his guest and says: "We are honoring the Jews." Whom the Nazis had just exterminated 60 years ago, so of course the memory of the Jews needs to be honored by this spectacle. The Illiniwek Indians were ethnically cleansed out of Illinois about a century before that. These are the real "Little Eichmans." Be sure to "Boo!" and root against the Illiniwaks. [cid:image002.jpg at 01D35540.65B11B90] Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) ________________________________ ________________________________ ________________________________ ________________________________ ________________________________ 1 Guess who? 1 Guess who? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 53134 bytes Desc: image002.jpg URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Sat Nov 4 12:49:13 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2017 12:49:13 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] News Gazoo: Chancellor Jones' "Critical Conversation" on Chief Illiniwak References: Message-ID: The band {"The Slants"} is well known in legal circles due to their battle with the United States Trademark Office, which went before the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Matal v. Tam, and was decided in their favor.[7] Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2017 7:42 AM To: 'David Green' ; 'C. G. ESTABROOK' ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; 'sherwoodross10 at gmail.com' ; 'peace-discuss at anti-war.net' ; 'a-fields at uiuc.edu' ; Hoffman, Valerie J ; 'Joe Lauria' ; 'Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net' ; 'peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net' ; Szoke, Ron ; 'Arlene Hickory' ; 'Karen Aram' ; 'abass10 at gmail.com' ; 'mickalideh at gmail.com' ; 'Lina Thorne' ; 'chicago at worldcantwait.net' ; 'Jay' ; 'David Johnson' ; 'Mildred O'brien' ; Estabrook, Carl G ; 'David Swanson' Cc: Kaufman, Stephen J Subject: RE: News Gazoo: Chancellor Jones' "Critical Conversation" on Chief Illiniwak As you know the US Supreme Court recently ruled that you have a First Amendment Right to trademark a racially derogatory name.Therefore, the Administration strategy here could be that they are going to resurrect Chief Illiniwak prancing at half-times and then if the NCAA Sanctions them, sue the NCAA for violating their First Amendment Rights. And please don't tell me that the Illiniwak Lawyers have not figured this one out. I just did and I am an anti-Illiniwak Lawyer. Fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2017 7:32 AM To: 'David Green' >; 'C. G. ESTABROOK' >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; 'sherwoodross10 at gmail.com' >; 'peace-discuss at anti-war.net' >; 'a-fields at uiuc.edu' >; Hoffman, Valerie J >; 'Joe Lauria' >; 'Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net' >; 'peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net' >; Szoke, Ron >; 'Arlene Hickory' >; 'Karen Aram' >; 'abass10 at gmail.com' >; 'mickalideh at gmail.com' >; 'Lina Thorne' >; 'chicago at worldcantwait.net' >; 'Jay' >; 'David Johnson' >; 'Mildred O'brien' >; Estabrook, Carl G >; 'David Swanson' > Cc: Kaufman, Stephen J > Subject: RE: News Gazoo: Chancellor Jones' "Critical Conversation" on Chief Illiniwak Just recently the University of Illiniwaks resurrected Chief Illiniwak for their Fall 2007 Homecoming in order to better milk their Alumni/ae as part of their newly launched Capital Campaign, thus definitively proving their craven racism. Dear Friends: I hereby sincerely apologize to Chancellor Jones. He knows exactly what he is doing when it comes to Chief Illiniwak. As you can see from my essay quoted above, the last time they trotted out Chief Illiniwak for a Homecoming Parade was 2007 in conjunction with their newly launched Capital Campaign for that year. Well this year ten years later they are launching a new Capital Campaign and once again they are trotting out Chief Illiniwak at the 2017 Homecoming Parade for the benefit of all the Illiniwaks who will be contributing Big Bucks to the new Capital Campaign. This is no coincidence! They know exactly what they are doing when it comes to exploiting Chief Illiniwak to milk money from the Illiniwak Nation. So this "Critical Conversation" and "dialogue" and "debate" over Chief Illiniwak could be an attempt to resurrect Chief Illiniwak prancing at half-times. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Friday, November 03, 2017 9:44 AM To: 'David Green' >; 'C. G. ESTABROOK' >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; 'sherwoodross10 at gmail.com' >; 'peace-discuss at anti-war.net' >; 'a-fields at uiuc.edu' >; Hoffman, Valerie J >; 'Joe Lauria' >; 'Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net' >; 'peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net' >; Szoke, Ron >; 'Arlene Hickory' >; 'Karen Aram' >; 'abass10 at gmail.com' >; 'mickalideh at gmail.com' >; 'Lina Thorne' >; 'chicago at worldcantwait.net' >; 'Jay' >; 'David Johnson' >; 'Mildred O'brien' >; Estabrook, Carl G >; 'David Swanson' > Cc: Kaufman, Stephen J > Subject: RE: News Gazoo: Chancellor Jones' "Critical Conversation" on Chief Illiniwak Actually I think it is pretty sad that Jones does not have a clue about Chief Illiniwak. The only Chancellor who did was Nancy Kantor-and the Illiniwaks drove her out of town on a rail. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Friday, November 3, 2017 9:35 AM To: 'David Green' >; 'C. G. ESTABROOK' >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; 'sherwoodross10 at gmail.com' >; 'peace-discuss at anti-war.net' >; 'a-fields at uiuc.edu' >; Hoffman, Valerie J >; 'Joe Lauria' >; 'Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net' >; 'peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net' >; Szoke, Ron >; 'Arlene Hickory' >; 'Karen Aram' >; 'abass10 at gmail.com' >; 'mickalideh at gmail.com' >; 'Lina Thorne' >; 'chicago at worldcantwait.net' >; 'Jay' >; 'David Johnson' >; 'Mildred O'brien' >; Estabrook, Carl G >; 'David Swanson' > Cc: Kaufman, Stephen J > Subject: RE: News Gazoo: Chancellor Jones' "Critical Conversation" on Chief Illiniwak "Just recently the University of Illiniwaks resurrected Chief Illiniwak for their Fall 2007 Homecoming in order to better milk their Alumni/ae as part of their newly launched Capital Campaign, thus definitively proving their craven racism." And just now again for their Fall 2017 Homecoming Parade in order to launch their new Capital Campaign, thus definitively proving once again their craven racism. Plus ca change at the University of Illiniwaks. fab. The Racist Mascot: Why You Should Still Boo Illinois The self-styled "Fighting Illini" of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign are on their way to the Jan. 1, 2008 Rose Bowl with their racist and genocidal mascot and symbol Chief Illiniwak still in tow. Although the NCAA forced the University of Illiniwaks to prevent this Little Red Sambo from desecrating at half-times everything American Indians hold dear and treasure, nevertheless Chief Illiniwak still remains the officially designated "honored symbol" of the University of Illiniwaks at Urbana-Champaign. Just recently the University of Illiniwaks resurrected Chief Illiniwak for their Fall 2007 Homecoming in order to better milk their Alumni/ae as part of their newly launched Capital Campaign, thus definitively proving their craven racism. In his Year 501: The Conquest Continues (1993) Noam Chomsky suggests an apt metaphor for such American Indian sports mascots and symbols that I will elaborate upon here in order to conform to our local and most peculiar rites on this campus: Suppose the Nazis had won the Second World War. Sixty years later, a prestigious German state university has a mascot for all of its sports teams and sports fans by the name of "The Rabbi." Basically what happens is that a student from the Hitler Youth League dresses up in an authentic costume for an Hasidic Rabbi, complete with the curl-locks and a beard. The University itself collectively call themselves "The Fighting Jews," and the school's band is called "The Marching Jews." The student newspaper is called "The Daily Jew." All the sports fans in town wear jackets and t-shirts with pictures of The Rabbi prominently displayed on them. And most cars have Rabbi stickers planted all over them. Three years ago the University's Board of Trustees ran out of town on a rail a courageous and principled Chancellor who had the temerity to publicly suggest that the time had now come to "retire" the Rabbi. So of course there was a heated campaign on among the students and alumni to "Save the Rabbi!" This German state university plays its soccer matches over at the Nuremberg Stadium in front of an audience of about 75,000 White Aryans, almost all of whom are wearing pro-Rabbi images and clothes. At half-time the Marching Jews take to the stadium floor and begin playing what they purport to be Jewish sounding music along the lines of Fiddler-on-the-Roof. Then all 75,000 White Aryans rise as one and shout in unison: "Rabbi! Rabbi! Rabbi! Rabbi!" gesticulating wildly and working themselves up into a feeding frenzy. One lone faculty member sits there in protest shouting "Racist Rabbi!" and everyone in the vicinity proceeds to throw garbage at him.1 Finally, the moment these ardent White Aryans have all waited for has arrived. The Rabbi runs out onto the arena floor from among the Marching Jews, proceeds to the center of the Nuremberg Stadium, and dances the Hava Nagila while the Marching Jews play on and march into an intricately choreographed maneuver that they all brag about and take special pride in that culminates with the band being organized into a Swastika. So the Rabbi continues to dance the Hava Nagila while the Marching Jews march themselves into a Swastika. By now all 75,000 White Aryans are hysterical, shouting, screaming, and yelling: "Rabbi! Rabbi! Rabbi!" This semi-religious spectacle that the Nazis are well known for staging, especially at the Nuremberg stadium, goes on for a good twenty minutes. It all concludes with everyone joining hands to sing "Deutschland, Deutschland, Uber Alles," with the Rabbi leading all 75,000 White Aryans in the song. Then the Rabbi proceeds to dance the Hava Nagila out of the stadium followed by the Marching Jews. Everyone goes wild, clapping and cheering. This Rabbi ceremony brings tears to the eyes of many drunken alumni and students who had started several hours beforehand getting inebriated on schnapps and good German beer at pre-game tailgate parties. When it is all over, a visiting law professor from another country asks his host at the soccer match what this spectacle was all about. Without missing a beat Dean Mengele of the Law School turns to his guest and says: "We are honoring the Jews." Whom the Nazis had just exterminated 60 years ago, so of course the memory of the Jews needs to be honored by this spectacle. The Illiniwek Indians were ethnically cleansed out of Illinois about a century before that. These are the real "Little Eichmans." Be sure to "Boo!" and root against the Illiniwaks. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Friday, November 3, 2017 6:35 AM To: David Green >; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; Estabrook, Carl G >; David Swanson > Cc: Kaufman, Stephen J > Subject: News Gazoo: Chancellor Jones' "Critical Conversation" on Chief Illiniwak Dear Chancellor Jones: After you are finished with your "Critical Conversation" and "dialogue" and "debate" over Chief Illiniwak, I would like to respectfully suggest that we next have a "Critical Conversation" and "dialogue" and "debate" over American Slavery. Then we can move on to a "Critical Conversation" and "dialogue" and "debate" over the Nazi Holocaust against the Jews. Yours very truly, Francis A. Boyle Professor of Law Board of Directors, Amnesty International USA (1988-1992) The Racist Mascot: Why You Should Still Boo Illinois The self-styled "Fighting Illini" of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign are on their way to the Jan. 1, 2008 Rose Bowl with their racist and genocidal mascot and symbol Chief Illiniwak still in tow. Although the NCAA forced the University of Illiniwaks to prevent this Little Red Sambo from desecrating at half-times everything American Indians hold dear and treasure, nevertheless Chief Illiniwak still remains the officially designated "honored symbol" of the University of Illiniwaks at Urbana-Champaign. Just recently the University of Illiniwaks resurrected Chief Illiniwak for their Fall 2007 Homecoming in order to better milk their Alumni/ae as part of their newly launched Capital Campaign, thus definitively proving their craven racism. In his Year 501: The Conquest Continues (1993) Noam Chomsky suggests an apt metaphor for such American Indian sports mascots and symbols that I will elaborate upon here in order to conform to our local and most peculiar rites on this campus: Suppose the Nazis had won the Second World War. Sixty years later, a prestigious German state university has a mascot for all of its sports teams and sports fans by the name of "The Rabbi." Basically what happens is that a student from the Hitler Youth League dresses up in an authentic costume for an Hasidic Rabbi, complete with the curl-locks and a beard. The University itself collectively call themselves "The Fighting Jews," and the school's band is called "The Marching Jews." The student newspaper is called "The Daily Jew." All the sports fans in town wear jackets and t-shirts with pictures of The Rabbi prominently displayed on them. And most cars have Rabbi stickers planted all over them. Three years ago the University's Board of Trustees ran out of town on a rail a courageous and principled Chancellor who had the temerity to publicly suggest that the time had now come to "retire" the Rabbi. So of course there was a heated campaign on among the students and alumni to "Save the Rabbi!" This German state university plays its soccer matches over at the Nuremberg Stadium in front of an audience of about 75,000 White Aryans, almost all of whom are wearing pro-Rabbi images and clothes. At half-time the Marching Jews take to the stadium floor and begin playing what they purport to be Jewish sounding music along the lines of Fiddler-on-the-Roof. Then all 75,000 White Aryans rise as one and shout in unison: "Rabbi! Rabbi! Rabbi! Rabbi!" gesticulating wildly and working themselves up into a feeding frenzy. One lone faculty member sits there in protest shouting "Racist Rabbi!" and everyone in the vicinity proceeds to throw garbage at him.1 Finally, the moment these ardent White Aryans have all waited for has arrived. The Rabbi runs out onto the arena floor from among the Marching Jews, proceeds to the center of the Nuremberg Stadium, and dances the Hava Nagila while the Marching Jews play on and march into an intricately choreographed maneuver that they all brag about and take special pride in that culminates with the band being organized into a Swastika. So the Rabbi continues to dance the Hava Nagila while the Marching Jews march themselves into a Swastika. By now all 75,000 White Aryans are hysterical, shouting, screaming, and yelling: "Rabbi! Rabbi! Rabbi!" This semi-religious spectacle that the Nazis are well known for staging, especially at the Nuremberg stadium, goes on for a good twenty minutes. It all concludes with everyone joining hands to sing "Deutschland, Deutschland, Uber Alles," with the Rabbi leading all 75,000 White Aryans in the song. Then the Rabbi proceeds to dance the Hava Nagila out of the stadium followed by the Marching Jews. Everyone goes wild, clapping and cheering. This Rabbi ceremony brings tears to the eyes of many drunken alumni and students who had started several hours beforehand getting inebriated on schnapps and good German beer at pre-game tailgate parties. When it is all over, a visiting law professor from another country asks his host at the soccer match what this spectacle was all about. Without missing a beat Dean Mengele of the Law School turns to his guest and says: "We are honoring the Jews." Whom the Nazis had just exterminated 60 years ago, so of course the memory of the Jews needs to be honored by this spectacle. The Illiniwek Indians were ethnically cleansed out of Illinois about a century before that. These are the real "Little Eichmans." Be sure to "Boo!" and root against the Illiniwaks. [cid:image002.jpg at 01D35541.645B5A20] Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) ________________________________ ________________________________ ________________________________ ________________________________ ________________________________ ________________________________ 1 Guess who? 1 Guess who? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 53112 bytes Desc: image002.jpg URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Sat Nov 4 12:49:13 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2017 12:49:13 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] News Gazoo: Chancellor Jones' "Critical Conversation" on Chief Illiniwak References: Message-ID: The band {"The Slants"} is well known in legal circles due to their battle with the United States Trademark Office, which went before the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Matal v. Tam, and was decided in their favor.[7] Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2017 7:42 AM To: 'David Green' ; 'C. G. ESTABROOK' ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; 'sherwoodross10 at gmail.com' ; 'peace-discuss at anti-war.net' ; 'a-fields at uiuc.edu' ; Hoffman, Valerie J ; 'Joe Lauria' ; 'Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net' ; 'peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net' ; Szoke, Ron ; 'Arlene Hickory' ; 'Karen Aram' ; 'abass10 at gmail.com' ; 'mickalideh at gmail.com' ; 'Lina Thorne' ; 'chicago at worldcantwait.net' ; 'Jay' ; 'David Johnson' ; 'Mildred O'brien' ; Estabrook, Carl G ; 'David Swanson' Cc: Kaufman, Stephen J Subject: RE: News Gazoo: Chancellor Jones' "Critical Conversation" on Chief Illiniwak As you know the US Supreme Court recently ruled that you have a First Amendment Right to trademark a racially derogatory name.Therefore, the Administration strategy here could be that they are going to resurrect Chief Illiniwak prancing at half-times and then if the NCAA Sanctions them, sue the NCAA for violating their First Amendment Rights. And please don't tell me that the Illiniwak Lawyers have not figured this one out. I just did and I am an anti-Illiniwak Lawyer. Fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2017 7:32 AM To: 'David Green' >; 'C. G. ESTABROOK' >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; 'sherwoodross10 at gmail.com' >; 'peace-discuss at anti-war.net' >; 'a-fields at uiuc.edu' >; Hoffman, Valerie J >; 'Joe Lauria' >; 'Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net' >; 'peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net' >; Szoke, Ron >; 'Arlene Hickory' >; 'Karen Aram' >; 'abass10 at gmail.com' >; 'mickalideh at gmail.com' >; 'Lina Thorne' >; 'chicago at worldcantwait.net' >; 'Jay' >; 'David Johnson' >; 'Mildred O'brien' >; Estabrook, Carl G >; 'David Swanson' > Cc: Kaufman, Stephen J > Subject: RE: News Gazoo: Chancellor Jones' "Critical Conversation" on Chief Illiniwak Just recently the University of Illiniwaks resurrected Chief Illiniwak for their Fall 2007 Homecoming in order to better milk their Alumni/ae as part of their newly launched Capital Campaign, thus definitively proving their craven racism. Dear Friends: I hereby sincerely apologize to Chancellor Jones. He knows exactly what he is doing when it comes to Chief Illiniwak. As you can see from my essay quoted above, the last time they trotted out Chief Illiniwak for a Homecoming Parade was 2007 in conjunction with their newly launched Capital Campaign for that year. Well this year ten years later they are launching a new Capital Campaign and once again they are trotting out Chief Illiniwak at the 2017 Homecoming Parade for the benefit of all the Illiniwaks who will be contributing Big Bucks to the new Capital Campaign. This is no coincidence! They know exactly what they are doing when it comes to exploiting Chief Illiniwak to milk money from the Illiniwak Nation. So this "Critical Conversation" and "dialogue" and "debate" over Chief Illiniwak could be an attempt to resurrect Chief Illiniwak prancing at half-times. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Friday, November 03, 2017 9:44 AM To: 'David Green' >; 'C. G. ESTABROOK' >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; 'sherwoodross10 at gmail.com' >; 'peace-discuss at anti-war.net' >; 'a-fields at uiuc.edu' >; Hoffman, Valerie J >; 'Joe Lauria' >; 'Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net' >; 'peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net' >; Szoke, Ron >; 'Arlene Hickory' >; 'Karen Aram' >; 'abass10 at gmail.com' >; 'mickalideh at gmail.com' >; 'Lina Thorne' >; 'chicago at worldcantwait.net' >; 'Jay' >; 'David Johnson' >; 'Mildred O'brien' >; Estabrook, Carl G >; 'David Swanson' > Cc: Kaufman, Stephen J > Subject: RE: News Gazoo: Chancellor Jones' "Critical Conversation" on Chief Illiniwak Actually I think it is pretty sad that Jones does not have a clue about Chief Illiniwak. The only Chancellor who did was Nancy Kantor-and the Illiniwaks drove her out of town on a rail. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Friday, November 3, 2017 9:35 AM To: 'David Green' >; 'C. G. ESTABROOK' >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; 'sherwoodross10 at gmail.com' >; 'peace-discuss at anti-war.net' >; 'a-fields at uiuc.edu' >; Hoffman, Valerie J >; 'Joe Lauria' >; 'Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net' >; 'peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net' >; Szoke, Ron >; 'Arlene Hickory' >; 'Karen Aram' >; 'abass10 at gmail.com' >; 'mickalideh at gmail.com' >; 'Lina Thorne' >; 'chicago at worldcantwait.net' >; 'Jay' >; 'David Johnson' >; 'Mildred O'brien' >; Estabrook, Carl G >; 'David Swanson' > Cc: Kaufman, Stephen J > Subject: RE: News Gazoo: Chancellor Jones' "Critical Conversation" on Chief Illiniwak "Just recently the University of Illiniwaks resurrected Chief Illiniwak for their Fall 2007 Homecoming in order to better milk their Alumni/ae as part of their newly launched Capital Campaign, thus definitively proving their craven racism." And just now again for their Fall 2017 Homecoming Parade in order to launch their new Capital Campaign, thus definitively proving once again their craven racism. Plus ca change at the University of Illiniwaks. fab. The Racist Mascot: Why You Should Still Boo Illinois The self-styled "Fighting Illini" of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign are on their way to the Jan. 1, 2008 Rose Bowl with their racist and genocidal mascot and symbol Chief Illiniwak still in tow. Although the NCAA forced the University of Illiniwaks to prevent this Little Red Sambo from desecrating at half-times everything American Indians hold dear and treasure, nevertheless Chief Illiniwak still remains the officially designated "honored symbol" of the University of Illiniwaks at Urbana-Champaign. Just recently the University of Illiniwaks resurrected Chief Illiniwak for their Fall 2007 Homecoming in order to better milk their Alumni/ae as part of their newly launched Capital Campaign, thus definitively proving their craven racism. In his Year 501: The Conquest Continues (1993) Noam Chomsky suggests an apt metaphor for such American Indian sports mascots and symbols that I will elaborate upon here in order to conform to our local and most peculiar rites on this campus: Suppose the Nazis had won the Second World War. Sixty years later, a prestigious German state university has a mascot for all of its sports teams and sports fans by the name of "The Rabbi." Basically what happens is that a student from the Hitler Youth League dresses up in an authentic costume for an Hasidic Rabbi, complete with the curl-locks and a beard. The University itself collectively call themselves "The Fighting Jews," and the school's band is called "The Marching Jews." The student newspaper is called "The Daily Jew." All the sports fans in town wear jackets and t-shirts with pictures of The Rabbi prominently displayed on them. And most cars have Rabbi stickers planted all over them. Three years ago the University's Board of Trustees ran out of town on a rail a courageous and principled Chancellor who had the temerity to publicly suggest that the time had now come to "retire" the Rabbi. So of course there was a heated campaign on among the students and alumni to "Save the Rabbi!" This German state university plays its soccer matches over at the Nuremberg Stadium in front of an audience of about 75,000 White Aryans, almost all of whom are wearing pro-Rabbi images and clothes. At half-time the Marching Jews take to the stadium floor and begin playing what they purport to be Jewish sounding music along the lines of Fiddler-on-the-Roof. Then all 75,000 White Aryans rise as one and shout in unison: "Rabbi! Rabbi! Rabbi! Rabbi!" gesticulating wildly and working themselves up into a feeding frenzy. One lone faculty member sits there in protest shouting "Racist Rabbi!" and everyone in the vicinity proceeds to throw garbage at him.1 Finally, the moment these ardent White Aryans have all waited for has arrived. The Rabbi runs out onto the arena floor from among the Marching Jews, proceeds to the center of the Nuremberg Stadium, and dances the Hava Nagila while the Marching Jews play on and march into an intricately choreographed maneuver that they all brag about and take special pride in that culminates with the band being organized into a Swastika. So the Rabbi continues to dance the Hava Nagila while the Marching Jews march themselves into a Swastika. By now all 75,000 White Aryans are hysterical, shouting, screaming, and yelling: "Rabbi! Rabbi! Rabbi!" This semi-religious spectacle that the Nazis are well known for staging, especially at the Nuremberg stadium, goes on for a good twenty minutes. It all concludes with everyone joining hands to sing "Deutschland, Deutschland, Uber Alles," with the Rabbi leading all 75,000 White Aryans in the song. Then the Rabbi proceeds to dance the Hava Nagila out of the stadium followed by the Marching Jews. Everyone goes wild, clapping and cheering. This Rabbi ceremony brings tears to the eyes of many drunken alumni and students who had started several hours beforehand getting inebriated on schnapps and good German beer at pre-game tailgate parties. When it is all over, a visiting law professor from another country asks his host at the soccer match what this spectacle was all about. Without missing a beat Dean Mengele of the Law School turns to his guest and says: "We are honoring the Jews." Whom the Nazis had just exterminated 60 years ago, so of course the memory of the Jews needs to be honored by this spectacle. The Illiniwek Indians were ethnically cleansed out of Illinois about a century before that. These are the real "Little Eichmans." Be sure to "Boo!" and root against the Illiniwaks. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Friday, November 3, 2017 6:35 AM To: David Green >; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; Estabrook, Carl G >; David Swanson > Cc: Kaufman, Stephen J > Subject: News Gazoo: Chancellor Jones' "Critical Conversation" on Chief Illiniwak Dear Chancellor Jones: After you are finished with your "Critical Conversation" and "dialogue" and "debate" over Chief Illiniwak, I would like to respectfully suggest that we next have a "Critical Conversation" and "dialogue" and "debate" over American Slavery. Then we can move on to a "Critical Conversation" and "dialogue" and "debate" over the Nazi Holocaust against the Jews. Yours very truly, Francis A. Boyle Professor of Law Board of Directors, Amnesty International USA (1988-1992) The Racist Mascot: Why You Should Still Boo Illinois The self-styled "Fighting Illini" of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign are on their way to the Jan. 1, 2008 Rose Bowl with their racist and genocidal mascot and symbol Chief Illiniwak still in tow. Although the NCAA forced the University of Illiniwaks to prevent this Little Red Sambo from desecrating at half-times everything American Indians hold dear and treasure, nevertheless Chief Illiniwak still remains the officially designated "honored symbol" of the University of Illiniwaks at Urbana-Champaign. Just recently the University of Illiniwaks resurrected Chief Illiniwak for their Fall 2007 Homecoming in order to better milk their Alumni/ae as part of their newly launched Capital Campaign, thus definitively proving their craven racism. In his Year 501: The Conquest Continues (1993) Noam Chomsky suggests an apt metaphor for such American Indian sports mascots and symbols that I will elaborate upon here in order to conform to our local and most peculiar rites on this campus: Suppose the Nazis had won the Second World War. Sixty years later, a prestigious German state university has a mascot for all of its sports teams and sports fans by the name of "The Rabbi." Basically what happens is that a student from the Hitler Youth League dresses up in an authentic costume for an Hasidic Rabbi, complete with the curl-locks and a beard. The University itself collectively call themselves "The Fighting Jews," and the school's band is called "The Marching Jews." The student newspaper is called "The Daily Jew." All the sports fans in town wear jackets and t-shirts with pictures of The Rabbi prominently displayed on them. And most cars have Rabbi stickers planted all over them. Three years ago the University's Board of Trustees ran out of town on a rail a courageous and principled Chancellor who had the temerity to publicly suggest that the time had now come to "retire" the Rabbi. So of course there was a heated campaign on among the students and alumni to "Save the Rabbi!" This German state university plays its soccer matches over at the Nuremberg Stadium in front of an audience of about 75,000 White Aryans, almost all of whom are wearing pro-Rabbi images and clothes. At half-time the Marching Jews take to the stadium floor and begin playing what they purport to be Jewish sounding music along the lines of Fiddler-on-the-Roof. Then all 75,000 White Aryans rise as one and shout in unison: "Rabbi! Rabbi! Rabbi! Rabbi!" gesticulating wildly and working themselves up into a feeding frenzy. One lone faculty member sits there in protest shouting "Racist Rabbi!" and everyone in the vicinity proceeds to throw garbage at him.1 Finally, the moment these ardent White Aryans have all waited for has arrived. The Rabbi runs out onto the arena floor from among the Marching Jews, proceeds to the center of the Nuremberg Stadium, and dances the Hava Nagila while the Marching Jews play on and march into an intricately choreographed maneuver that they all brag about and take special pride in that culminates with the band being organized into a Swastika. So the Rabbi continues to dance the Hava Nagila while the Marching Jews march themselves into a Swastika. By now all 75,000 White Aryans are hysterical, shouting, screaming, and yelling: "Rabbi! Rabbi! Rabbi!" This semi-religious spectacle that the Nazis are well known for staging, especially at the Nuremberg stadium, goes on for a good twenty minutes. It all concludes with everyone joining hands to sing "Deutschland, Deutschland, Uber Alles," with the Rabbi leading all 75,000 White Aryans in the song. Then the Rabbi proceeds to dance the Hava Nagila out of the stadium followed by the Marching Jews. Everyone goes wild, clapping and cheering. This Rabbi ceremony brings tears to the eyes of many drunken alumni and students who had started several hours beforehand getting inebriated on schnapps and good German beer at pre-game tailgate parties. When it is all over, a visiting law professor from another country asks his host at the soccer match what this spectacle was all about. Without missing a beat Dean Mengele of the Law School turns to his guest and says: "We are honoring the Jews." Whom the Nazis had just exterminated 60 years ago, so of course the memory of the Jews needs to be honored by this spectacle. The Illiniwek Indians were ethnically cleansed out of Illinois about a century before that. These are the real "Little Eichmans." Be sure to "Boo!" and root against the Illiniwaks. [cid:image002.jpg at 01D35541.645B5A20] Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) ________________________________ ________________________________ ________________________________ ________________________________ ________________________________ ________________________________ 1 Guess who? 1 Guess who? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 53112 bytes Desc: image002.jpg URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Sat Nov 4 12:53:25 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2017 12:53:25 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] News Gazoo: Chancellor Jones' "Critical Conversation" on Chief Illiniwak In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: So the Illiniwaks now have a US Supreme Court Precedent for resurrecting Chief Illiniwak and suing the NCAA if it sanctions the Illiniwaks for so doing. So it seems to me that this "Critical Conversation" and "dialogue" and "debate" and "facilitator" over Chief Illiniwak could be part of a strategy by the Illiniwak Nation to resurrect Chief Illiniwak. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2017 7:49 AM To: 'David Green' ; 'C. G. ESTABROOK' ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; 'sherwoodross10 at gmail.com' ; 'peace-discuss at anti-war.net' ; 'a-fields at uiuc.edu' ; Hoffman, Valerie J ; 'Joe Lauria' ; 'Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net' ; 'peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net' ; Szoke, Ron ; 'Arlene Hickory' ; 'Karen Aram' ; 'abass10 at gmail.com' ; 'mickalideh at gmail.com' ; 'Lina Thorne' ; 'chicago at worldcantwait.net' ; 'Jay' ; 'David Johnson' ; 'Mildred O'brien' ; Estabrook, Carl G ; 'David Swanson' Cc: Kaufman, Stephen J Subject: RE: News Gazoo: Chancellor Jones' "Critical Conversation" on Chief Illiniwak The band {"The Slants"} is well known in legal circles due to their battle with the United States Trademark Office, which went before the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Matal v. Tam, and was decided in their favor.[7] Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2017 7:42 AM To: 'David Green' >; 'C. G. ESTABROOK' >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; 'sherwoodross10 at gmail.com' >; 'peace-discuss at anti-war.net' >; 'a-fields at uiuc.edu' >; Hoffman, Valerie J >; 'Joe Lauria' >; 'Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net' >; 'peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net' >; Szoke, Ron >; 'Arlene Hickory' >; 'Karen Aram' >; 'abass10 at gmail.com' >; 'mickalideh at gmail.com' >; 'Lina Thorne' >; 'chicago at worldcantwait.net' >; 'Jay' >; 'David Johnson' >; 'Mildred O'brien' >; Estabrook, Carl G >; 'David Swanson' > Cc: Kaufman, Stephen J > Subject: RE: News Gazoo: Chancellor Jones' "Critical Conversation" on Chief Illiniwak As you know the US Supreme Court recently ruled that you have a First Amendment Right to trademark a racially derogatory name.Therefore, the Administration strategy here could be that they are going to resurrect Chief Illiniwak prancing at half-times and then if the NCAA Sanctions them, sue the NCAA for violating their First Amendment Rights. And please don't tell me that the Illiniwak Lawyers have not figured this one out. I just did and I am an anti-Illiniwak Lawyer. Fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2017 7:32 AM To: 'David Green' >; 'C. G. ESTABROOK' >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; 'sherwoodross10 at gmail.com' >; 'peace-discuss at anti-war.net' >; 'a-fields at uiuc.edu' >; Hoffman, Valerie J >; 'Joe Lauria' >; 'Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net' >; 'peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net' >; Szoke, Ron >; 'Arlene Hickory' >; 'Karen Aram' >; 'abass10 at gmail.com' >; 'mickalideh at gmail.com' >; 'Lina Thorne' >; 'chicago at worldcantwait.net' >; 'Jay' >; 'David Johnson' >; 'Mildred O'brien' >; Estabrook, Carl G >; 'David Swanson' > Cc: Kaufman, Stephen J > Subject: RE: News Gazoo: Chancellor Jones' "Critical Conversation" on Chief Illiniwak Just recently the University of Illiniwaks resurrected Chief Illiniwak for their Fall 2007 Homecoming in order to better milk their Alumni/ae as part of their newly launched Capital Campaign, thus definitively proving their craven racism. Dear Friends: I hereby sincerely apologize to Chancellor Jones. He knows exactly what he is doing when it comes to Chief Illiniwak. As you can see from my essay quoted above, the last time they trotted out Chief Illiniwak for a Homecoming Parade was 2007 in conjunction with their newly launched Capital Campaign for that year. Well this year ten years later they are launching a new Capital Campaign and once again they are trotting out Chief Illiniwak at the 2017 Homecoming Parade for the benefit of all the Illiniwaks who will be contributing Big Bucks to the new Capital Campaign. This is no coincidence! They know exactly what they are doing when it comes to exploiting Chief Illiniwak to milk money from the Illiniwak Nation. So this "Critical Conversation" and "dialogue" and "debate" over Chief Illiniwak could be an attempt to resurrect Chief Illiniwak prancing at half-times. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Friday, November 03, 2017 9:44 AM To: 'David Green' >; 'C. G. ESTABROOK' >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; 'sherwoodross10 at gmail.com' >; 'peace-discuss at anti-war.net' >; 'a-fields at uiuc.edu' >; Hoffman, Valerie J >; 'Joe Lauria' >; 'Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net' >; 'peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net' >; Szoke, Ron >; 'Arlene Hickory' >; 'Karen Aram' >; 'abass10 at gmail.com' >; 'mickalideh at gmail.com' >; 'Lina Thorne' >; 'chicago at worldcantwait.net' >; 'Jay' >; 'David Johnson' >; 'Mildred O'brien' >; Estabrook, Carl G >; 'David Swanson' > Cc: Kaufman, Stephen J > Subject: RE: News Gazoo: Chancellor Jones' "Critical Conversation" on Chief Illiniwak Actually I think it is pretty sad that Jones does not have a clue about Chief Illiniwak. The only Chancellor who did was Nancy Kantor-and the Illiniwaks drove her out of town on a rail. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Friday, November 3, 2017 9:35 AM To: 'David Green' >; 'C. G. ESTABROOK' >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; 'sherwoodross10 at gmail.com' >; 'peace-discuss at anti-war.net' >; 'a-fields at uiuc.edu' >; Hoffman, Valerie J >; 'Joe Lauria' >; 'Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net' >; 'peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net' >; Szoke, Ron >; 'Arlene Hickory' >; 'Karen Aram' >; 'abass10 at gmail.com' >; 'mickalideh at gmail.com' >; 'Lina Thorne' >; 'chicago at worldcantwait.net' >; 'Jay' >; 'David Johnson' >; 'Mildred O'brien' >; Estabrook, Carl G >; 'David Swanson' > Cc: Kaufman, Stephen J > Subject: RE: News Gazoo: Chancellor Jones' "Critical Conversation" on Chief Illiniwak "Just recently the University of Illiniwaks resurrected Chief Illiniwak for their Fall 2007 Homecoming in order to better milk their Alumni/ae as part of their newly launched Capital Campaign, thus definitively proving their craven racism." And just now again for their Fall 2017 Homecoming Parade in order to launch their new Capital Campaign, thus definitively proving once again their craven racism. Plus ca change at the University of Illiniwaks. fab. The Racist Mascot: Why You Should Still Boo Illinois The self-styled "Fighting Illini" of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign are on their way to the Jan. 1, 2008 Rose Bowl with their racist and genocidal mascot and symbol Chief Illiniwak still in tow. Although the NCAA forced the University of Illiniwaks to prevent this Little Red Sambo from desecrating at half-times everything American Indians hold dear and treasure, nevertheless Chief Illiniwak still remains the officially designated "honored symbol" of the University of Illiniwaks at Urbana-Champaign. Just recently the University of Illiniwaks resurrected Chief Illiniwak for their Fall 2007 Homecoming in order to better milk their Alumni/ae as part of their newly launched Capital Campaign, thus definitively proving their craven racism. In his Year 501: The Conquest Continues (1993) Noam Chomsky suggests an apt metaphor for such American Indian sports mascots and symbols that I will elaborate upon here in order to conform to our local and most peculiar rites on this campus: Suppose the Nazis had won the Second World War. Sixty years later, a prestigious German state university has a mascot for all of its sports teams and sports fans by the name of "The Rabbi." Basically what happens is that a student from the Hitler Youth League dresses up in an authentic costume for an Hasidic Rabbi, complete with the curl-locks and a beard. The University itself collectively call themselves "The Fighting Jews," and the school's band is called "The Marching Jews." The student newspaper is called "The Daily Jew." All the sports fans in town wear jackets and t-shirts with pictures of The Rabbi prominently displayed on them. And most cars have Rabbi stickers planted all over them. Three years ago the University's Board of Trustees ran out of town on a rail a courageous and principled Chancellor who had the temerity to publicly suggest that the time had now come to "retire" the Rabbi. So of course there was a heated campaign on among the students and alumni to "Save the Rabbi!" This German state university plays its soccer matches over at the Nuremberg Stadium in front of an audience of about 75,000 White Aryans, almost all of whom are wearing pro-Rabbi images and clothes. At half-time the Marching Jews take to the stadium floor and begin playing what they purport to be Jewish sounding music along the lines of Fiddler-on-the-Roof. Then all 75,000 White Aryans rise as one and shout in unison: "Rabbi! Rabbi! Rabbi! Rabbi!" gesticulating wildly and working themselves up into a feeding frenzy. One lone faculty member sits there in protest shouting "Racist Rabbi!" and everyone in the vicinity proceeds to throw garbage at him.1 Finally, the moment these ardent White Aryans have all waited for has arrived. The Rabbi runs out onto the arena floor from among the Marching Jews, proceeds to the center of the Nuremberg Stadium, and dances the Hava Nagila while the Marching Jews play on and march into an intricately choreographed maneuver that they all brag about and take special pride in that culminates with the band being organized into a Swastika. So the Rabbi continues to dance the Hava Nagila while the Marching Jews march themselves into a Swastika. By now all 75,000 White Aryans are hysterical, shouting, screaming, and yelling: "Rabbi! Rabbi! Rabbi!" This semi-religious spectacle that the Nazis are well known for staging, especially at the Nuremberg stadium, goes on for a good twenty minutes. It all concludes with everyone joining hands to sing "Deutschland, Deutschland, Uber Alles," with the Rabbi leading all 75,000 White Aryans in the song. Then the Rabbi proceeds to dance the Hava Nagila out of the stadium followed by the Marching Jews. Everyone goes wild, clapping and cheering. This Rabbi ceremony brings tears to the eyes of many drunken alumni and students who had started several hours beforehand getting inebriated on schnapps and good German beer at pre-game tailgate parties. When it is all over, a visiting law professor from another country asks his host at the soccer match what this spectacle was all about. Without missing a beat Dean Mengele of the Law School turns to his guest and says: "We are honoring the Jews." Whom the Nazis had just exterminated 60 years ago, so of course the memory of the Jews needs to be honored by this spectacle. The Illiniwek Indians were ethnically cleansed out of Illinois about a century before that. These are the real "Little Eichmans." Be sure to "Boo!" and root against the Illiniwaks. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Friday, November 3, 2017 6:35 AM To: David Green >; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; Estabrook, Carl G >; David Swanson > Cc: Kaufman, Stephen J > Subject: News Gazoo: Chancellor Jones' "Critical Conversation" on Chief Illiniwak Dear Chancellor Jones: After you are finished with your "Critical Conversation" and "dialogue" and "debate" over Chief Illiniwak, I would like to respectfully suggest that we next have a "Critical Conversation" and "dialogue" and "debate" over American Slavery. Then we can move on to a "Critical Conversation" and "dialogue" and "debate" over the Nazi Holocaust against the Jews. Yours very truly, Francis A. Boyle Professor of Law Board of Directors, Amnesty International USA (1988-1992) The Racist Mascot: Why You Should Still Boo Illinois The self-styled "Fighting Illini" of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign are on their way to the Jan. 1, 2008 Rose Bowl with their racist and genocidal mascot and symbol Chief Illiniwak still in tow. Although the NCAA forced the University of Illiniwaks to prevent this Little Red Sambo from desecrating at half-times everything American Indians hold dear and treasure, nevertheless Chief Illiniwak still remains the officially designated "honored symbol" of the University of Illiniwaks at Urbana-Champaign. Just recently the University of Illiniwaks resurrected Chief Illiniwak for their Fall 2007 Homecoming in order to better milk their Alumni/ae as part of their newly launched Capital Campaign, thus definitively proving their craven racism. In his Year 501: The Conquest Continues (1993) Noam Chomsky suggests an apt metaphor for such American Indian sports mascots and symbols that I will elaborate upon here in order to conform to our local and most peculiar rites on this campus: Suppose the Nazis had won the Second World War. Sixty years later, a prestigious German state university has a mascot for all of its sports teams and sports fans by the name of "The Rabbi." Basically what happens is that a student from the Hitler Youth League dresses up in an authentic costume for an Hasidic Rabbi, complete with the curl-locks and a beard. The University itself collectively call themselves "The Fighting Jews," and the school's band is called "The Marching Jews." The student newspaper is called "The Daily Jew." All the sports fans in town wear jackets and t-shirts with pictures of The Rabbi prominently displayed on them. And most cars have Rabbi stickers planted all over them. Three years ago the University's Board of Trustees ran out of town on a rail a courageous and principled Chancellor who had the temerity to publicly suggest that the time had now come to "retire" the Rabbi. So of course there was a heated campaign on among the students and alumni to "Save the Rabbi!" This German state university plays its soccer matches over at the Nuremberg Stadium in front of an audience of about 75,000 White Aryans, almost all of whom are wearing pro-Rabbi images and clothes. At half-time the Marching Jews take to the stadium floor and begin playing what they purport to be Jewish sounding music along the lines of Fiddler-on-the-Roof. Then all 75,000 White Aryans rise as one and shout in unison: "Rabbi! Rabbi! Rabbi! Rabbi!" gesticulating wildly and working themselves up into a feeding frenzy. One lone faculty member sits there in protest shouting "Racist Rabbi!" and everyone in the vicinity proceeds to throw garbage at him.1 Finally, the moment these ardent White Aryans have all waited for has arrived. The Rabbi runs out onto the arena floor from among the Marching Jews, proceeds to the center of the Nuremberg Stadium, and dances the Hava Nagila while the Marching Jews play on and march into an intricately choreographed maneuver that they all brag about and take special pride in that culminates with the band being organized into a Swastika. So the Rabbi continues to dance the Hava Nagila while the Marching Jews march themselves into a Swastika. By now all 75,000 White Aryans are hysterical, shouting, screaming, and yelling: "Rabbi! Rabbi! Rabbi!" This semi-religious spectacle that the Nazis are well known for staging, especially at the Nuremberg stadium, goes on for a good twenty minutes. It all concludes with everyone joining hands to sing "Deutschland, Deutschland, Uber Alles," with the Rabbi leading all 75,000 White Aryans in the song. Then the Rabbi proceeds to dance the Hava Nagila out of the stadium followed by the Marching Jews. Everyone goes wild, clapping and cheering. This Rabbi ceremony brings tears to the eyes of many drunken alumni and students who had started several hours beforehand getting inebriated on schnapps and good German beer at pre-game tailgate parties. When it is all over, a visiting law professor from another country asks his host at the soccer match what this spectacle was all about. Without missing a beat Dean Mengele of the Law School turns to his guest and says: "We are honoring the Jews." Whom the Nazis had just exterminated 60 years ago, so of course the memory of the Jews needs to be honored by this spectacle. The Illiniwek Indians were ethnically cleansed out of Illinois about a century before that. These are the real "Little Eichmans." Be sure to "Boo!" and root against the Illiniwaks. [cid:image002.jpg at 01D35541.F70F3300] Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) ________________________________ ________________________________ ________________________________ ________________________________ ________________________________ ________________________________ ________________________________ 1 Guess who? 1 Guess who? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 53121 bytes Desc: image002.jpg URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Sat Nov 4 12:53:25 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2017 12:53:25 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] News Gazoo: Chancellor Jones' "Critical Conversation" on Chief Illiniwak In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: So the Illiniwaks now have a US Supreme Court Precedent for resurrecting Chief Illiniwak and suing the NCAA if it sanctions the Illiniwaks for so doing. So it seems to me that this "Critical Conversation" and "dialogue" and "debate" and "facilitator" over Chief Illiniwak could be part of a strategy by the Illiniwak Nation to resurrect Chief Illiniwak. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2017 7:49 AM To: 'David Green' ; 'C. G. ESTABROOK' ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; 'sherwoodross10 at gmail.com' ; 'peace-discuss at anti-war.net' ; 'a-fields at uiuc.edu' ; Hoffman, Valerie J ; 'Joe Lauria' ; 'Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net' ; 'peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net' ; Szoke, Ron ; 'Arlene Hickory' ; 'Karen Aram' ; 'abass10 at gmail.com' ; 'mickalideh at gmail.com' ; 'Lina Thorne' ; 'chicago at worldcantwait.net' ; 'Jay' ; 'David Johnson' ; 'Mildred O'brien' ; Estabrook, Carl G ; 'David Swanson' Cc: Kaufman, Stephen J Subject: RE: News Gazoo: Chancellor Jones' "Critical Conversation" on Chief Illiniwak The band {"The Slants"} is well known in legal circles due to their battle with the United States Trademark Office, which went before the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Matal v. Tam, and was decided in their favor.[7] Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2017 7:42 AM To: 'David Green' >; 'C. G. ESTABROOK' >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; 'sherwoodross10 at gmail.com' >; 'peace-discuss at anti-war.net' >; 'a-fields at uiuc.edu' >; Hoffman, Valerie J >; 'Joe Lauria' >; 'Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net' >; 'peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net' >; Szoke, Ron >; 'Arlene Hickory' >; 'Karen Aram' >; 'abass10 at gmail.com' >; 'mickalideh at gmail.com' >; 'Lina Thorne' >; 'chicago at worldcantwait.net' >; 'Jay' >; 'David Johnson' >; 'Mildred O'brien' >; Estabrook, Carl G >; 'David Swanson' > Cc: Kaufman, Stephen J > Subject: RE: News Gazoo: Chancellor Jones' "Critical Conversation" on Chief Illiniwak As you know the US Supreme Court recently ruled that you have a First Amendment Right to trademark a racially derogatory name.Therefore, the Administration strategy here could be that they are going to resurrect Chief Illiniwak prancing at half-times and then if the NCAA Sanctions them, sue the NCAA for violating their First Amendment Rights. And please don't tell me that the Illiniwak Lawyers have not figured this one out. I just did and I am an anti-Illiniwak Lawyer. Fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2017 7:32 AM To: 'David Green' >; 'C. G. ESTABROOK' >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; 'sherwoodross10 at gmail.com' >; 'peace-discuss at anti-war.net' >; 'a-fields at uiuc.edu' >; Hoffman, Valerie J >; 'Joe Lauria' >; 'Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net' >; 'peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net' >; Szoke, Ron >; 'Arlene Hickory' >; 'Karen Aram' >; 'abass10 at gmail.com' >; 'mickalideh at gmail.com' >; 'Lina Thorne' >; 'chicago at worldcantwait.net' >; 'Jay' >; 'David Johnson' >; 'Mildred O'brien' >; Estabrook, Carl G >; 'David Swanson' > Cc: Kaufman, Stephen J > Subject: RE: News Gazoo: Chancellor Jones' "Critical Conversation" on Chief Illiniwak Just recently the University of Illiniwaks resurrected Chief Illiniwak for their Fall 2007 Homecoming in order to better milk their Alumni/ae as part of their newly launched Capital Campaign, thus definitively proving their craven racism. Dear Friends: I hereby sincerely apologize to Chancellor Jones. He knows exactly what he is doing when it comes to Chief Illiniwak. As you can see from my essay quoted above, the last time they trotted out Chief Illiniwak for a Homecoming Parade was 2007 in conjunction with their newly launched Capital Campaign for that year. Well this year ten years later they are launching a new Capital Campaign and once again they are trotting out Chief Illiniwak at the 2017 Homecoming Parade for the benefit of all the Illiniwaks who will be contributing Big Bucks to the new Capital Campaign. This is no coincidence! They know exactly what they are doing when it comes to exploiting Chief Illiniwak to milk money from the Illiniwak Nation. So this "Critical Conversation" and "dialogue" and "debate" over Chief Illiniwak could be an attempt to resurrect Chief Illiniwak prancing at half-times. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Friday, November 03, 2017 9:44 AM To: 'David Green' >; 'C. G. ESTABROOK' >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; 'sherwoodross10 at gmail.com' >; 'peace-discuss at anti-war.net' >; 'a-fields at uiuc.edu' >; Hoffman, Valerie J >; 'Joe Lauria' >; 'Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net' >; 'peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net' >; Szoke, Ron >; 'Arlene Hickory' >; 'Karen Aram' >; 'abass10 at gmail.com' >; 'mickalideh at gmail.com' >; 'Lina Thorne' >; 'chicago at worldcantwait.net' >; 'Jay' >; 'David Johnson' >; 'Mildred O'brien' >; Estabrook, Carl G >; 'David Swanson' > Cc: Kaufman, Stephen J > Subject: RE: News Gazoo: Chancellor Jones' "Critical Conversation" on Chief Illiniwak Actually I think it is pretty sad that Jones does not have a clue about Chief Illiniwak. The only Chancellor who did was Nancy Kantor-and the Illiniwaks drove her out of town on a rail. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Friday, November 3, 2017 9:35 AM To: 'David Green' >; 'C. G. ESTABROOK' >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; 'sherwoodross10 at gmail.com' >; 'peace-discuss at anti-war.net' >; 'a-fields at uiuc.edu' >; Hoffman, Valerie J >; 'Joe Lauria' >; 'Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net' >; 'peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net' >; Szoke, Ron >; 'Arlene Hickory' >; 'Karen Aram' >; 'abass10 at gmail.com' >; 'mickalideh at gmail.com' >; 'Lina Thorne' >; 'chicago at worldcantwait.net' >; 'Jay' >; 'David Johnson' >; 'Mildred O'brien' >; Estabrook, Carl G >; 'David Swanson' > Cc: Kaufman, Stephen J > Subject: RE: News Gazoo: Chancellor Jones' "Critical Conversation" on Chief Illiniwak "Just recently the University of Illiniwaks resurrected Chief Illiniwak for their Fall 2007 Homecoming in order to better milk their Alumni/ae as part of their newly launched Capital Campaign, thus definitively proving their craven racism." And just now again for their Fall 2017 Homecoming Parade in order to launch their new Capital Campaign, thus definitively proving once again their craven racism. Plus ca change at the University of Illiniwaks. fab. The Racist Mascot: Why You Should Still Boo Illinois The self-styled "Fighting Illini" of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign are on their way to the Jan. 1, 2008 Rose Bowl with their racist and genocidal mascot and symbol Chief Illiniwak still in tow. Although the NCAA forced the University of Illiniwaks to prevent this Little Red Sambo from desecrating at half-times everything American Indians hold dear and treasure, nevertheless Chief Illiniwak still remains the officially designated "honored symbol" of the University of Illiniwaks at Urbana-Champaign. Just recently the University of Illiniwaks resurrected Chief Illiniwak for their Fall 2007 Homecoming in order to better milk their Alumni/ae as part of their newly launched Capital Campaign, thus definitively proving their craven racism. In his Year 501: The Conquest Continues (1993) Noam Chomsky suggests an apt metaphor for such American Indian sports mascots and symbols that I will elaborate upon here in order to conform to our local and most peculiar rites on this campus: Suppose the Nazis had won the Second World War. Sixty years later, a prestigious German state university has a mascot for all of its sports teams and sports fans by the name of "The Rabbi." Basically what happens is that a student from the Hitler Youth League dresses up in an authentic costume for an Hasidic Rabbi, complete with the curl-locks and a beard. The University itself collectively call themselves "The Fighting Jews," and the school's band is called "The Marching Jews." The student newspaper is called "The Daily Jew." All the sports fans in town wear jackets and t-shirts with pictures of The Rabbi prominently displayed on them. And most cars have Rabbi stickers planted all over them. Three years ago the University's Board of Trustees ran out of town on a rail a courageous and principled Chancellor who had the temerity to publicly suggest that the time had now come to "retire" the Rabbi. So of course there was a heated campaign on among the students and alumni to "Save the Rabbi!" This German state university plays its soccer matches over at the Nuremberg Stadium in front of an audience of about 75,000 White Aryans, almost all of whom are wearing pro-Rabbi images and clothes. At half-time the Marching Jews take to the stadium floor and begin playing what they purport to be Jewish sounding music along the lines of Fiddler-on-the-Roof. Then all 75,000 White Aryans rise as one and shout in unison: "Rabbi! Rabbi! Rabbi! Rabbi!" gesticulating wildly and working themselves up into a feeding frenzy. One lone faculty member sits there in protest shouting "Racist Rabbi!" and everyone in the vicinity proceeds to throw garbage at him.1 Finally, the moment these ardent White Aryans have all waited for has arrived. The Rabbi runs out onto the arena floor from among the Marching Jews, proceeds to the center of the Nuremberg Stadium, and dances the Hava Nagila while the Marching Jews play on and march into an intricately choreographed maneuver that they all brag about and take special pride in that culminates with the band being organized into a Swastika. So the Rabbi continues to dance the Hava Nagila while the Marching Jews march themselves into a Swastika. By now all 75,000 White Aryans are hysterical, shouting, screaming, and yelling: "Rabbi! Rabbi! Rabbi!" This semi-religious spectacle that the Nazis are well known for staging, especially at the Nuremberg stadium, goes on for a good twenty minutes. It all concludes with everyone joining hands to sing "Deutschland, Deutschland, Uber Alles," with the Rabbi leading all 75,000 White Aryans in the song. Then the Rabbi proceeds to dance the Hava Nagila out of the stadium followed by the Marching Jews. Everyone goes wild, clapping and cheering. This Rabbi ceremony brings tears to the eyes of many drunken alumni and students who had started several hours beforehand getting inebriated on schnapps and good German beer at pre-game tailgate parties. When it is all over, a visiting law professor from another country asks his host at the soccer match what this spectacle was all about. Without missing a beat Dean Mengele of the Law School turns to his guest and says: "We are honoring the Jews." Whom the Nazis had just exterminated 60 years ago, so of course the memory of the Jews needs to be honored by this spectacle. The Illiniwek Indians were ethnically cleansed out of Illinois about a century before that. These are the real "Little Eichmans." Be sure to "Boo!" and root against the Illiniwaks. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Friday, November 3, 2017 6:35 AM To: David Green >; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; Estabrook, Carl G >; David Swanson > Cc: Kaufman, Stephen J > Subject: News Gazoo: Chancellor Jones' "Critical Conversation" on Chief Illiniwak Dear Chancellor Jones: After you are finished with your "Critical Conversation" and "dialogue" and "debate" over Chief Illiniwak, I would like to respectfully suggest that we next have a "Critical Conversation" and "dialogue" and "debate" over American Slavery. Then we can move on to a "Critical Conversation" and "dialogue" and "debate" over the Nazi Holocaust against the Jews. Yours very truly, Francis A. Boyle Professor of Law Board of Directors, Amnesty International USA (1988-1992) The Racist Mascot: Why You Should Still Boo Illinois The self-styled "Fighting Illini" of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign are on their way to the Jan. 1, 2008 Rose Bowl with their racist and genocidal mascot and symbol Chief Illiniwak still in tow. Although the NCAA forced the University of Illiniwaks to prevent this Little Red Sambo from desecrating at half-times everything American Indians hold dear and treasure, nevertheless Chief Illiniwak still remains the officially designated "honored symbol" of the University of Illiniwaks at Urbana-Champaign. Just recently the University of Illiniwaks resurrected Chief Illiniwak for their Fall 2007 Homecoming in order to better milk their Alumni/ae as part of their newly launched Capital Campaign, thus definitively proving their craven racism. In his Year 501: The Conquest Continues (1993) Noam Chomsky suggests an apt metaphor for such American Indian sports mascots and symbols that I will elaborate upon here in order to conform to our local and most peculiar rites on this campus: Suppose the Nazis had won the Second World War. Sixty years later, a prestigious German state university has a mascot for all of its sports teams and sports fans by the name of "The Rabbi." Basically what happens is that a student from the Hitler Youth League dresses up in an authentic costume for an Hasidic Rabbi, complete with the curl-locks and a beard. The University itself collectively call themselves "The Fighting Jews," and the school's band is called "The Marching Jews." The student newspaper is called "The Daily Jew." All the sports fans in town wear jackets and t-shirts with pictures of The Rabbi prominently displayed on them. And most cars have Rabbi stickers planted all over them. Three years ago the University's Board of Trustees ran out of town on a rail a courageous and principled Chancellor who had the temerity to publicly suggest that the time had now come to "retire" the Rabbi. So of course there was a heated campaign on among the students and alumni to "Save the Rabbi!" This German state university plays its soccer matches over at the Nuremberg Stadium in front of an audience of about 75,000 White Aryans, almost all of whom are wearing pro-Rabbi images and clothes. At half-time the Marching Jews take to the stadium floor and begin playing what they purport to be Jewish sounding music along the lines of Fiddler-on-the-Roof. Then all 75,000 White Aryans rise as one and shout in unison: "Rabbi! Rabbi! Rabbi! Rabbi!" gesticulating wildly and working themselves up into a feeding frenzy. One lone faculty member sits there in protest shouting "Racist Rabbi!" and everyone in the vicinity proceeds to throw garbage at him.1 Finally, the moment these ardent White Aryans have all waited for has arrived. The Rabbi runs out onto the arena floor from among the Marching Jews, proceeds to the center of the Nuremberg Stadium, and dances the Hava Nagila while the Marching Jews play on and march into an intricately choreographed maneuver that they all brag about and take special pride in that culminates with the band being organized into a Swastika. So the Rabbi continues to dance the Hava Nagila while the Marching Jews march themselves into a Swastika. By now all 75,000 White Aryans are hysterical, shouting, screaming, and yelling: "Rabbi! Rabbi! Rabbi!" This semi-religious spectacle that the Nazis are well known for staging, especially at the Nuremberg stadium, goes on for a good twenty minutes. It all concludes with everyone joining hands to sing "Deutschland, Deutschland, Uber Alles," with the Rabbi leading all 75,000 White Aryans in the song. Then the Rabbi proceeds to dance the Hava Nagila out of the stadium followed by the Marching Jews. Everyone goes wild, clapping and cheering. This Rabbi ceremony brings tears to the eyes of many drunken alumni and students who had started several hours beforehand getting inebriated on schnapps and good German beer at pre-game tailgate parties. When it is all over, a visiting law professor from another country asks his host at the soccer match what this spectacle was all about. Without missing a beat Dean Mengele of the Law School turns to his guest and says: "We are honoring the Jews." Whom the Nazis had just exterminated 60 years ago, so of course the memory of the Jews needs to be honored by this spectacle. The Illiniwek Indians were ethnically cleansed out of Illinois about a century before that. These are the real "Little Eichmans." Be sure to "Boo!" and root against the Illiniwaks. [cid:image002.jpg at 01D35541.F70F3300] Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) ________________________________ ________________________________ ________________________________ ________________________________ ________________________________ ________________________________ ________________________________ 1 Guess who? 1 Guess who? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 53121 bytes Desc: image002.jpg URL: From rwhelbig at gmail.com Sat Nov 4 13:11:42 2017 From: rwhelbig at gmail.com (Roger Helbig) Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2017 06:11:42 -0700 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG In-Reply-To: References: <9D3D5E59-5EFC-47DF-838D-C6508214E176@illinois.edu> Message-ID: You do know that Christopher Bollyn is NOT a reporter but is a Neo Nazi operative of long standing and that the American Free Press is not a news organization, but a Neo Nazi front - look up Willis Carto - he was Bollyn's boss and founded the American Free Press - this website that has reports of conference for American Free Press and The Barnes Review used to have a prominent picture of a Nazi flag behind the blogger Alex Hassinger - Douglas Lind Rokke of Urbana spoke at this event and Dave von Kleist the producer of Rokke's first anti-US propaganda video "Beyond Treason" was the master of ceremonies - http://www.chairmanofnordwave.blogspot.com Carto died in 2015 - there are a number of good sources on Carto in a simple Google search - Learn about Neo Nazis - read this book - "Blood and Politics" - it mentions Bollyn and extensively discusses Carto - pg 382, which I can e-mail to all who request - has Carto's establishment of The Barnes Review, a Holocaust Denial publication - The American Free Press replaced Carto's The Spotlight after Carto lost a legal battle - Bollyn is also mentioned in connection with a Pat Buchanan campaign apparatus On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 4:57 AM, Boyle, Francis A wrote: > *I also want to make it clear for the record that before the invasions of > Saipan, Tinian and Okinawa my Father, a Marine, was ordered by his Captain > not to take prisoners of war on the grounds of reciprocity that the > Japanese did not take Prisoners of War of our Men. My Father disobeyed > these clearly illegal orders and took Japanese Prisoners of War. I cite the > example of my Father to my law students to refute the objection that you > cannot expect soldiers to obey the laws of war during combat. If my Father > could obey the laws of war at Saipan, Tinian, and Okinawa, any other > soldier should be able to do the same. Meanwhile,while I am teaching this > to my students, the Illinois Nazis Law Faculty aid, abet, and promote and > facilitate war crimes and crimes against humanity from the safety of their > offices. My Father later became a Lawyer. RIP. The Illinois Nazis Law > Faculty are despicable! Fab.* > > > > *Francis A. Boyle* > > *Law Building* > > *504 E. Pennsylvania Ave.* > > *Champaign IL 61820 USA* > > *217-333-7954 <(217)%20333-7954> (phone)* > > *217-244-1478 <(217)%20244-1478> (fax)* > > *(personal comments only*) > > > > *From:* Boyle, Francis A > *Sent:* Sunday, January 22, 2017 8:38 PM > *To:* Roger Helbig > *Cc:* Karen Aram ; Estabrook, Carl G < > galliher at illinois.edu>; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK < > carl at newsfromneptune.com>; Jay Becker ; > a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria > ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; > Szoke, Ron ; Dave Trippel ; > Arlene Hickory ; David Swanson ; > peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; > abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne < > lina at worldcantwait.net>; chicago at worldcantwait.net > *Subject:* RE: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG > > > > *Mad Dog Mattis the Nuremberg War Criminal. Fab.* > > *CONTROLLED PRESS IGNORES * > > *CRIMINAL OBLITERATION OF FALLUJAH* > > > > By Christopher Bollyn > > *American Free Press* > > > > *The controlled press has scrupulously avoided discussing the devastation > and prima facie evidence of war crimes committed during the U.S. siege and > assault of Fallujah.* > > > > As Americans prepared for Thanksgiving, an estimated 100,000 residents of > the besieged Iraqi city of Fallujah, trapped in their homes, struggled to > survive without fresh food, water or electricity, reportedly cut off by > U.S. forces on November 8. > > > > Meanwhile, on the streets of Fallujah, a city of more than 350,000, dogs > gnawed on bloated and rotting corpses that remained unburied for weeks. > > > > Thousands of families in Fallujah were reported to be in a critical > humanitarian situation after U.S. forces prevented the delivery of relief > supplies. An Iraq Red Crescent Society (IRCS) humanitarian aid convoy, > reportedly blocked by U.S. troops for more than two weeks, was allowed to > deliver aid to residents in the heart of the city on November 25. > > > > On Thanksgiving, U.S. forces permitted the IRCS convoy carrying thousands > of food parcels, blankets, tents and medical supplies to enter the city and > allowed one of the clinics to be converted into a temporary hospital to > treat the injured. Rana Sidani of the International Committee of the Red > Cross (ICRC) in Geneva, Switzerland however, told *American Free Press* > on Nov. 30 that "many civilians" were still prevented from receiving aid or > medical care. > > > > At the beginning of the U.S. operation in Fallujah on Nov. 5, a hospital > in the central Nazzal district of Fallujah was "reduced to rubble" as a > result of U.S. air and artillery bombardment. "Only its façade, with a > sign reading Nazzal Emergency Hospital, remained intact," Reuters > reported. > > > > "A nearby compound used by the main Falluja Hospital to store medical > supplies was also destroyed," witnesses told Reuters. Fallujah's main > hospital was occupied by U.S. forces when the ground offensive began. > These actions are apparent violations of international humanitarian law. > > > > "Bodies can be seen everywhere and people were crying when receiving the > food parcels," Muhammad al-Nuri, a spokesman for the IRCS in Baghdad, said. > "It is very sad. It is a human disaster." > > > > Al-Nuri said that it is difficult to move in the city due to the large > number of dead bodies in the streets. The ICRS estimates there are more > than 6,000 dead in Fallujah, al-Nuri said. > > > > AFP asked Major Jay Antonelli at the Coalition Press Information Center > (CPIC) in Baghdad if the ICRS estimate of 6,000 dead in Fallujah was > credible. "We do not keep a count of dead Iraqis," Antonelli said. Asked > the same question, the ICRC's Sidani said, "We don't know." > > > > Antonelli said, "U.S. forces never blocked aid convoys from reaching the > wounded. We only recommended to the aid convoys that they should not enter > the city because the MNF [Multi-National Forces] could not guarantee their > security or safety." > > > > "The ICRC is very worried about the humanitarian situation in Falluja," > Sidani said. Asked what the ICRC was doing to alleviate the suffering in > Fallujah, Sidani said: "We are reminding the parties of their > responsibilities under international humanitarian law." > > > > It should be noted that the U.S.A. and Britain, the belligerent occupying > powers in Iraq, are the two largest contributors to the ICRC, providing > more than 42 percent of its budget for field operations. > > > > A second convoy from Baghdad, headed by Dr. Said Ismael Haki, the IRCS > president, delivered aid to Fallujah on Nov. 26. "There are no houses left > in Fallujah, only destroyed places." Haki said. "I really don't know how > the people will return to the city. No one will find their homes." > > > > As U.S. troops in Fallujah engaged in what has been described as the most > intense urban combat since Vietnam, the controlled press scrupulously > avoided discussion or footage of the devastation of the rebellious Sunni > city. For example, during the second week of the attack, rather than > discuss the widespread devastation of Fallujah, U.S. television news > programs focused largely on a brawl between basketball players and fans in > Detroit. > > > > Lt. Col. Brandl, commander of the 1st Battalion, 8th Marine Regiment, was > filmed giving a "pep talk" to his marines: "The enemy has got a face – he's > called Satan," Brandl said. "He's in Fallujah, and we're going to destroy > him." > > > > At least 136 U.S. soldiers were killed during November in Iraq, and more > than 800 were wounded, most of them in Fallujah, making it the most costly > month, and operation, in terms of U.S. lives lost since the invasion of > Iraq began in March 2003. > > > > FOR WHAT CAUSE? > > > > Michael Ware, Baghdad bureau chief for *Time* magazine, who has been in > Fallujah during the fighting, said U.S. actions in Fallujah are "creating > the nightmare that we are seeking to prevent." > > > > "I stood there as I saw American boys die," Ware told Chris Matthews of > MSNBC on Nov. 24, "I mean, a man shot at close range, blown apart by a > rocket propelled grenade. He dies there in front of you and I can't help > but think why? For what cause? > > > > "I see us creating the very thing that the president said we went there to > prevent," Ware said, "…subsequent to this invasion and the occupation and > the guerrilla war that is currently underway, we are the midwives of the > next generation of al Qaida and Islamic terrorist." > > > > Ware, who has interviewed senior insurgent leaders, said they study the > writings of the Vietnamese general Vo Nguyen Giap, Che Guevara, and Mao > Zedong. "They're bringing it straight from the Vietnam, and the broader > insurgency playbook," Ware said. > > > > "The name of the game is deny the population to the insurgents," Ware > said. "That's what we're trying to do, win hearts and minds. But we're not > winning them." > > > > The U.S. struggle to win Iraqi hearts and minds suffered a further set > back when NBC TV broadcast footage of a U.S. marine executing a wounded and > unarmed Iraqi in a Fallujah mosque. The much-publicized shooting, > apparently part of a massacre of a group of wounded resistance fighters, > "was a rare crack in the façade that Washington, with the complicity of > most of the corporate media, has tried to present to the world of its > brutal assault on the rebel Iraqi city," Rohan Pearce wrote in *The > Greenleft Weekly Australia *on Nov. 24. > > > > *The New York Times* has reported actions taken by U.S. forces in > Fallujah, which appear to be prima facie evidence of war crimes, without > mentioning that the actions constitute clear violations of the Laws of Land > War found in the U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10. > > > > For example, a Nov. 20 *Times* article by Edward Wong, with two > correspondents in Fallujah, reports that U.S. marines had transformed a > mosque into a fortress with snipers and machine gunners perched on the roof. > > > > Then, using the passive form, Wong goes on to say that "no neutral group > has been able to enter the city," without mentioning that U.S. forces > blocked humanitarian aid convoys. Likewise, Wong wrote, "Electricity and > water had been cut off." > > > > The *Times*, whose motto is "All the news that's fit to print," > apparently didn't think that it's readers needed to know the U.S. forces > had cut off the water and power to a city of 340,000 people. > > > > Asked if U.S. forces had cut power and water to Fallujah, Maj. Jay > Antonelli of CPIC wrote: "MNF did, with approval of the Interim Iraqi > Government, cut off electricity to the city of Fallujah as Operation > Al-Fajr began. Water was not cut off intentionally, however the water > system did sustain some kinetic damage during strikes." > > > > *American Free Press* asked the Pentagon's Lt. Col. Joe Yoswa if it is > true that U.S. forces were using mosques as fortresses. "It's not > possible," Yoswa said. "Under no circumstances. We would not set up > snipers in a mosque in an offensive position." > > > > CPIC's Antonelli said: "MNF would not use a mosque as a 'fortress.' MNF > and Iraqi security forces would only fire from a mosque if they were being > fired upon and were firing back in self-defense." > > > > Abu Sabah, a refugee from Fallujah, reported seeing phosphorus bombs: > "They used these weird bombs that put up smoke like a mushroom cloud. Then > small pieces fell from the air with long tails of smoke trailing behind > them. These exploded on the ground with large fires that burnt for half > and hour," Abu Sabah said. "When anyone touched these fires their bodies > burnt for hours." > > > > Eyewitnesses from Fallujah also reported seeing "melted" bodies. > > > > "THROW-AWAY SOLDIERS" > > > > Having seen what appeared to be a depleted uranium (DU) missile fired at a > building in Fallujah on CNN during the first week of the fighting, AFP > asked the Pentagon if DU weapons are being used in Fallujah. "Yes," Yoswa > said, "DU is a standard round on the M-1 Abrams tank." > > > > Because U.S. marines in Fallujah are very close to the poison gas produced > by exploded DU shells, AFP asked Yoswa if anything was being done to > protect the troops from DU poisoning. Yoswa seemed unaware of the dangers > posed by the use of DU. > > > > Marion Fulk, a retired nuclear scientist from Livermore National Lab told > AFP that U.S. troops in DU contaminated battlefields are considered > "throw-away soldiers." The Marines exposed to DU in Fallujah, and > elsewhere, face greatly increased risks of cancer, deformed children, and > other health problems in the future. > > > > OBLITERATION OF FALLUJAH > > > > The "obliteration of Fallujah" is a serious war crime, according to > Francis A. Boyle, a professor of international law at the University of > Illinois. "The obliteration of Fallujah continues apace," Boyle wrote in > his Nov. 15 article, A War Crime in Real Time: Obliterating Fallujah. > "Article 6(b) of the 1945 Nuremberg Charter defines a Nuremberg War Crime > in relevant part as the 'wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages.' > According to this definitive definition, the Bush administration's > destruction of Fallujah constitutes a war crime for which Nazis were tried > and executed." > > > > *Finis* > > -30- > > 1629 words > ------------------------------ > > Do you Yahoo!? > The all-new My Yahoo! – What will yours do? > > > > > > *Francis A. Boyle* > > *Law Building* > > *504 E. Pennsylvania Ave.* > > *Champaign IL 61820 USA* > > *217-333-7954 <(217)%20333-7954> (phone)* > > *217-244-1478 <(217)%20244-1478> (fax)* > > *(personal comments only*) > > > > *From:* Boyle, Francis A > *Sent:* Sunday, January 22, 2017 8:13 PM > *To:* 'Roger Helbig' > *Cc:* 'Karen Aram' ; Estabrook, Carl G < > galliher at illinois.edu>; 'peace-discuss at anti-war.net' < > peace-discuss at anti-war.net>; 'C. G. ESTABROOK' ; > 'Jay Becker' ; 'a-fields at uiuc.edu' < > a-fields at uiuc.edu>; Hoffman, Valerie J ; 'Joe > Lauria' ; Miller, Joseph Thomas < > jtmiller at illinois.edu>; Szoke, Ron ; 'Dave Trippel' > ; 'Arlene Hickory' ; 'David > Swanson' ; 'peace-discuss-request at lists. > chambana.net' ; ' > sherwoodross10 at gmail.com' ; 'abass10 at gmail.com' > ; 'mickalideh at gmail.com' ; 'Lina > Thorne' ; 'chicago at worldcantwait.net' < > chicago at worldcantwait.net> > *Subject:* RE: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG > > > > Mattis expected his troops to be peacekeepers. They brought soccer balls > with them when they deployed. > > LOL! Marines don’t play soccer or teach kids to play soccer.. My Dad was a > Marine. He invaded Saipan, Tinian and Okinawa before he became a Lawyer. > Marines destroy anyone and anything that is in front of them as they are > trained to do and did at Fallujah under Mattis—A Real Mad Dog War Criminal. > Fab. > > > > > > > > *Francis A. Boyle* > > *Law Building* > > *504 E. Pennsylvania Ave.* > > *Champaign IL 61820 USA* > > *217-333-7954 <(217)%20333-7954> (phone)* > > *217-244-1478 <(217)%20244-1478> (fax)* > > *(personal comments only*) > > > > *From:* Boyle, Francis A > *Sent:* Sunday, January 22, 2017 7:52 PM > *To:* 'Roger Helbig' > *Cc:* Karen Aram ; Estabrook, Carl G < > galliher at illinois.edu>; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK < > carl at newsfromneptune.com>; Jay Becker ; > a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria > ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; > Szoke, Ron ; Dave Trippel ; > Arlene Hickory ; David Swanson ; > peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; > abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne < > lina at worldcantwait.net>; chicago at worldcantwait.net > *Subject:* RE: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG > > > > -----Original Message----- > *From:* Karim A G [mailto:coffee at euro-comm.co.uk ] > > *Sent:* Tuesday, November 16, 2004 5:00 PM > *To:* Karim A G > *Subject:* A War Crime in Real Time > > *http://www.counterpunch.org/boyle11152004.html > * > > > > *November 15, 2004* > > *A War Crime in Real Time* > > *Obliterating Fallujah* > > By FRANCIS A. BOYLE > > T*he obliteration of Fallujah continues apace. Article 6(b) of the 1945 > Nuremberg Charter defines a Nuremberg War Crime in relevant part as the ". > . . wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages. . ." According to this > definitive definition, the Bush Jr. administration's destruction of > Fallujah constitutes a war crime for which Nazis were tried and executed. > There is nothing surprising about that.* > > *Since the Bush Jr. administration's installation in power by the United > States Supreme Court in January of 2001, the peoples of the world have > witnessed a government in the United States of America that has > demonstrated little if any respect for fundamental considerations of > international law, international organizations, and human rights, let alone > appreciation of the requirements for maintaining international peace and > security. What the world has watched instead is a comprehensive and > malicious assault upon the integrity of the international legal order by a > group of men and women who are thoroughly Machiavellian in their perception > of international relations and in their conduct of both foreign policy and > domestic affairs. This is not simply a question of giving or withholding > the benefit of the doubt when it comes to complicated matters of foreign > affairs and defense policies to a U.S. government charged with the security > of both its own citizens and those of its allies in Europe, the Western > Hemisphere, and the Pacific. Rather, the Bush Jr. administration's foreign > policy constitutes ongoing criminal activity under well-recognized > principles of both international law and U.S. domestic law, in particular > the Nuremberg Charter, the Nuremberg Judgment, and the Nuremberg > Principles. So their obliteration of Fallujah was to be expected.* > > *One generation ago the peoples of the world asked themselves: Where were > the "good" Germans? Well, there were some good Germans. The Lutheran > theologian and pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer was the foremost exemplar of > someone who led a life of principled opposition to the Nazi-terror state > even unto death.* > > *Today the peoples of the world are likewise asking themselves: Where are > the "good" Americans? Well, there are some good Americans. Like three > Catholic Nuns in Denver, they are getting arrested and going to jail for > protesting against United States weapons of mass destruction (WMD) whose > power for human extermination far exceeds even the wildest fantasies of > Hitler and the Nazis. Or else for protesting against illegal U.S.. military > interventions around the world. Just recently the Nuclear Resister > estimated that since the Fall of 2002, there have been more than 9,500 > anti-war related arrests in the United States alone. Many more will be > coming.* > > *In international legal terms, the Bush Jr. administration itself should > now be viewed as constituting an ongoing criminal conspiracy under > international criminal law in violation of the Nuremberg Charter, the > Nuremberg Judgment, and the Nuremberg Principles, due to its formulation > and undertaking of aggressive war policies that are legally akin to those > perpetrated by the Nazi regime. As a consequence, American citizens possess > the basic right under international law and the United States domestic law, > including the U.S. Constitution, to engage in acts of non-violent civil > resistance in order to prevent, impede, thwart, or terminate ongoing > criminal activities perpetrated by U.S. government officials in their > conduct of foreign affairs policies and military operations purported to > relate to defense and counter-terrorism.* > > *This same right of civil resistance extends pari passu to all citizens of > the world community of states. Everyone around the world has both the right > and the duty under international law to resist ongoing criminal activities > perpetrated by the Bush Jr. administration and its nefarious foreign > accomplices such as Blair, Berlusconi, Howard, Koizumi, Kwasniewski, etc. > by all non-violent means possible. If it is not so restrained, the Bush Jr. > administration could very well precipitate a Third World War.* > > *The time for preventive action is now. Civil resistance is the way to go. > People power can overcome power politics. Popular movements have succeeded > in toppling tyrannical, dictatorial and authoritarian regimes throughout > former Communist countries in Eastern Europe, as well as in Asia, and most > recently in Latin America. It is time once again to exercise People Power > here in the United States of America: "When in the Course of human Events. > . . We hold these Truths to be self-evident. . . . we mutually pledge to > each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and sacred Honor."* > > *Despite the best efforts by the Bush Jr. Leaguers to the contrary, we > American Citizens still have our First Amendment Rights: Freedom of Speech, > Freedom of Association, Freedom of Assembly, Freedom to Petition our > Government for the Redress of these massive Grievances, Civil Resistance, > etc. We are going to have to start vigorously exercising all of our First > Amendment Rights right now. We must use them or else, as the saying goes, > we will lose them. We must act not only for the good of the Peoples of > Southwest Asia, but for our future, that of our children, that of our > nation as a democratic society committed to the Rule of Law and the U.S. > Constitution. The Nazis had their "homeland" too* > > Francis A. Boyle*, Professor of Law, University of Illinois, is author of > *Foundations of World Order > *, > Duke University Press, *The Criminality of Nuclear Deterrence > *, > and *Palestine, Palestinians and International Law > *, by > Clarity Press. He can be reached at: *FBOYLE at LAW.UIUC.EDU > > --- > Subscribed as: fboyle at law.uiuc.edu; to unsubscribe send to > al-awda-universalist-request at umich.edu > with UNSUBSCRIBE as the SUBJECT. > URL: awda-universalist > > > > *Francis A. Boyle* > > *Law Building* > > *504 E. Pennsylvania Ave.* > > *Champaign IL 61820 USA* > > *217-333-7954 <(217)%20333-7954> (phone)* > > *217-244-1478 <(217)%20244-1478> (fax)* > > *(personal comments only*) > > > > *From:* Roger Helbig [mailto:rwhelbig at gmail.com ] > *Sent:* Sunday, January 22, 2017 6:43 PM > *To:* Boyle, Francis A > *Cc:* Karen Aram ; Estabrook, Carl G < > galliher at illinois.edu>; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK < > carl at newsfromneptune.com>; Jay Becker ; > a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria > ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; > Szoke, Ron ; Dave Trippel ; > Arlene Hickory ; David Swanson ; > peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; > abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne < > lina at worldcantwait.net>; chicago at worldcantwait.net > *Subject:* Re: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG > > > > There was no massacre at Fallujah. This is nonsense. Mattis expected > his troops to be peacekeepers. They brought soccer balls with them when > they deployed. > > > > I would love to see your "so called" war crime indictment. Wonder how > much of it is from your fertile Hate America imagination and how much from > the fertile Arab anti-American propaganda organs. Doubt a single paragraph > is actually based on fact. > > > > On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 8:22 AM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > > *Trump’s Secretary of War Mad Dog Mattis was responsible for the Massacre > at Fallujah, which I pointed out on Counterpunch was a Nuremberg War Crime > along the lines of the Nazis—the wanton devastation of a city-- in revenge > for them killing our mercenaries. Fab.* > > > > *Francis A. Boyle* > > *Law Building* > > *504 E. Pennsylvania Ave.* > > *Champaign IL 61820 USA* > > *217-333-7954 <(217)%20333-7954> (phone)* > > *217-244-1478 <(217)%20244-1478> (fax)* > > *(personal comments only*) > > > > *From:* Karen Aram [mailto:karenaram at hotmail.com] > *Sent:* Sunday, January 22, 2017 10:04 AM > *To:* Estabrook, Carl G > *Cc:* Boyle, Francis A ; Jay Becker < > futureup2us at gmail.com>; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK < > carl at newsfromneptune.com>; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J < > vhoffman at illinois.edu>; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; > Szoke, Ron ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; Arlene > Hickory ; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; > David Swanson ; Dave Trippel < > davetrippel at ameritech.net>; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina > Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Mildred > O'brien ; David Johnson ; > Joe Lauria ; David Green > *Subject:* Re: Guest Commentary by Carl in NG > > > > I’m sorry Carl, I don’t agree with that title either. It assumes that all > in the anti-war movement welcome the Trump administration. Not all of us > trust he will do some of that which he promised in respect to “defunding > Nato,” “making friends with Russia,” or killing TPP. Even if he does those > three things, his further provocations of China, are every bit as dangerous > as those with Russia, it’s a mere tactic to drive a wedge between Russia > and China, while chipping away at Iran. > > > > His Cabinet appointments are frightening to say the least in respect to > Healthcare, Energy, Education, Housing, etc, etc. > > > > Further expansion of war in the Middle East, and North Africa, as well as > expansion of capitalist corporate control is on the agenda no matter which > of the two Party’s are in power. > > > > Obama paved the way, for all of which I have just referred, but it’s not > over. Our only hope is that “the people” are now awake, and perhaps will > focus on that which is most serious to survival. > > > > > > On Jan 22, 2017, at 07:44, Carl G. Estabrook > wrote: > > > > My original title was, “Why the anti-war movement welcomes the new > administration.” > > > > For more on that theme, see columnists/201701191049765550-how-trump-presidency-will-play-out/ > > >. > > > > —CGE > > > > > > On Jan 22, 2017, at 9:29 AM, Karen Aram wrote: > > > > An excellent letter, which I posted on FB. I deliberately deleted the > title that I assumed the NG created, because it gives the false impression > that those of us in the anti-war movement, all support Trump. We don’t, we > just didn’t support Hillary. Anyone in the anti-war movement supporting > Hillary was supporting more of the same that Obama provided. > > > > > > On Jan 22, 2017, at 07:16, Boyle, Francis A wrote: > > > > He {Obama} attacked eight countries (two more than George Bush), and > conducted what one leading political commentator called "the most extreme > terrorist campaign of modern times — his drone assassinations." He killed > thousands of civilians with drones, including U.S. citizens and hundreds of > children. > > A good letter by Carl today in NG. (Remember NG writes their own titles to > letters.) We must now hold Trump’s feet to the fire across the board! I > think Carl’s quote comes from Chomsky? In any event the Illinois Nazis Law > Faculty fully supported and promoted and held out for emulation by lawyers > and this Campus and our Good Community: > > "the most extreme terrorist campaign of modern times — his drone > assassinations." > > > > The Illinois Nazis Law Faculty are just a GANG OF SICK PUPPIES! > > Fab > > Ed Norton Professor of Law > > Carl Schmitt College of Law: > > “Mein Fuhrer, I can walk!” > > > > > > *Francis A. Boyle* > > *Law Building* > > *504 E. Pennsylvania Ave.* > > *Champaign IL 61820 USA* > > *217-333-7954 <(217)%20333-7954> (phone)* > > *217-244-1478 <(217)%20244-1478> (fax)* > > *(personal comments only*) > > > > *Feed:* News-Gazette.com > > *Posted on:* Sunday, January 22, 2017 7:00 AM > *Author:* digital.media > *Subject:* Guest Commentary: Why anti-war movement welcomes Trump > > > > *By C.G. ESTABROOK* > > The European anti-war group "No War No NATO" writes as follows: > > "Demonstrating in Europe on 21 January, against the newly elected US > President Donald Trump is tantamount to lending support to the Obama > administration, which has transformed Europe into NATO's first line of > attack, nuclear matters inclusive, against Russia. > > read more > > > > View article... > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Sat Nov 4 13:37:05 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2017 13:37:05 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG In-Reply-To: References: <9D3D5E59-5EFC-47DF-838D-C6508214E176@illinois.edu> Message-ID: Once again, Roger crawls out of his hole as a Mole for US “Military Intelligence”—an oxymoron to be sure. Fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Roger Helbig [mailto:rwhelbig at gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2017 8:12 AM To: Boyle, Francis A Cc: Karen Aram ; Estabrook, Carl G ; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; Jay Becker ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; Szoke, Ron ; Dave Trippel ; Arlene Hickory ; David Swanson ; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG You do know that Christopher Bollyn is NOT a reporter but is a Neo Nazi operative of long standing and that the American Free Press is not a news organization, but a Neo Nazi front - look up Willis Carto - he was Bollyn's boss and founded the American Free Press - this website that has reports of conference for American Free Press and The Barnes Review used to have a prominent picture of a Nazi flag behind the blogger Alex Hassinger - Douglas Lind Rokke of Urbana spoke at this event and Dave von Kleist the producer of Rokke's first anti-US propaganda video "Beyond Treason" was the master of ceremonies - http://www.chairmanofnordwave.blogspot.com Carto died in 2015 - there are a number of good sources on Carto in a simple Google search - Learn about Neo Nazis - read this book - "Blood and Politics" - it mentions Bollyn and extensively discusses Carto - pg 382, which I can e-mail to all who request - has Carto's establishment of The Barnes Review, a Holocaust Denial publication - The American Free Press replaced Carto's The Spotlight after Carto lost a legal battle - Bollyn is also mentioned in connection with a Pat Buchanan campaign apparatus On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 4:57 AM, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: I also want to make it clear for the record that before the invasions of Saipan, Tinian and Okinawa my Father, a Marine, was ordered by his Captain not to take prisoners of war on the grounds of reciprocity that the Japanese did not take Prisoners of War of our Men. My Father disobeyed these clearly illegal orders and took Japanese Prisoners of War. I cite the example of my Father to my law students to refute the objection that you cannot expect soldiers to obey the laws of war during combat. If my Father could obey the laws of war at Saipan, Tinian, and Okinawa, any other soldier should be able to do the same. Meanwhile,while I am teaching this to my students, the Illinois Nazis Law Faculty aid, abet, and promote and facilitate war crimes and crimes against humanity from the safety of their offices. My Father later became a Lawyer. RIP. The Illinois Nazis Law Faculty are despicable! Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2017 8:38 PM To: Roger Helbig > Cc: Karen Aram >; Estabrook, Carl G >; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Jay Becker >; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; Szoke, Ron >; Dave Trippel >; Arlene Hickory >; David Swanson >; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG Mad Dog Mattis the Nuremberg War Criminal. Fab. CONTROLLED PRESS IGNORES CRIMINAL OBLITERATION OF FALLUJAH By Christopher Bollyn American Free Press The controlled press has scrupulously avoided discussing the devastation and prima facie evidence of war crimes committed during the U.S. siege and assault of Fallujah. As Americans prepared for Thanksgiving, an estimated 100,000 residents of the besieged Iraqi city of Fallujah, trapped in their homes, struggled to survive without fresh food, water or electricity, reportedly cut off by U.S. forces on November 8. Meanwhile, on the streets of Fallujah, a city of more than 350,000, dogs gnawed on bloated and rotting corpses that remained unburied for weeks. Thousands of families in Fallujah were reported to be in a critical humanitarian situation after U.S. forces prevented the delivery of relief supplies. An Iraq Red Crescent Society (IRCS) humanitarian aid convoy, reportedly blocked by U.S. troops for more than two weeks, was allowed to deliver aid to residents in the heart of the city on November 25. On Thanksgiving, U.S. forces permitted the IRCS convoy carrying thousands of food parcels, blankets, tents and medical supplies to enter the city and allowed one of the clinics to be converted into a temporary hospital to treat the injured. Rana Sidani of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) in Geneva, Switzerland however, told American Free Press on Nov. 30 that "many civilians" were still prevented from receiving aid or medical care. At the beginning of the U.S. operation in Fallujah on Nov. 5, a hospital in the central Nazzal district of Fallujah was "reduced to rubble" as a result of U.S. air and artillery bombardment. "Only its façade, with a sign reading Nazzal Emergency Hospital, remained intact," Reuters reported. "A nearby compound used by the main Falluja Hospital to store medical supplies was also destroyed," witnesses told Reuters. Fallujah's main hospital was occupied by U.S. forces when the ground offensive began. These actions are apparent violations of international humanitarian law. "Bodies can be seen everywhere and people were crying when receiving the food parcels," Muhammad al-Nuri, a spokesman for the IRCS in Baghdad, said. "It is very sad. It is a human disaster." Al-Nuri said that it is difficult to move in the city due to the large number of dead bodies in the streets. The ICRS estimates there are more than 6,000 dead in Fallujah, al-Nuri said. AFP asked Major Jay Antonelli at the Coalition Press Information Center (CPIC) in Baghdad if the ICRS estimate of 6,000 dead in Fallujah was credible. "We do not keep a count of dead Iraqis," Antonelli said. Asked the same question, the ICRC's Sidani said, "We don't know." Antonelli said, "U.S. forces never blocked aid convoys from reaching the wounded. We only recommended to the aid convoys that they should not enter the city because the MNF [Multi-National Forces] could not guarantee their security or safety." "The ICRC is very worried about the humanitarian situation in Falluja," Sidani said. Asked what the ICRC was doing to alleviate the suffering in Fallujah, Sidani said: "We are reminding the parties of their responsibilities under international humanitarian law." It should be noted that the U.S.A. and Britain, the belligerent occupying powers in Iraq, are the two largest contributors to the ICRC, providing more than 42 percent of its budget for field operations. A second convoy from Baghdad, headed by Dr. Said Ismael Haki, the IRCS president, delivered aid to Fallujah on Nov. 26. "There are no houses left in Fallujah, only destroyed places." Haki said. "I really don't know how the people will return to the city. No one will find their homes." As U.S. troops in Fallujah engaged in what has been described as the most intense urban combat since Vietnam, the controlled press scrupulously avoided discussion or footage of the devastation of the rebellious Sunni city. For example, during the second week of the attack, rather than discuss the widespread devastation of Fallujah, U.S. television news programs focused largely on a brawl between basketball players and fans in Detroit. Lt. Col. Brandl, commander of the 1st Battalion, 8th Marine Regiment, was filmed giving a "pep talk" to his marines: "The enemy has got a face – he's called Satan," Brandl said. "He's in Fallujah, and we're going to destroy him." At least 136 U.S. soldiers were killed during November in Iraq, and more than 800 were wounded, most of them in Fallujah, making it the most costly month, and operation, in terms of U.S. lives lost since the invasion of Iraq began in March 2003. FOR WHAT CAUSE? Michael Ware, Baghdad bureau chief for Time magazine, who has been in Fallujah during the fighting, said U.S. actions in Fallujah are "creating the nightmare that we are seeking to prevent." "I stood there as I saw American boys die," Ware told Chris Matthews of MSNBC on Nov. 24, "I mean, a man shot at close range, blown apart by a rocket propelled grenade. He dies there in front of you and I can't help but think why? For what cause? "I see us creating the very thing that the president said we went there to prevent," Ware said, "…subsequent to this invasion and the occupation and the guerrilla war that is currently underway, we are the midwives of the next generation of al Qaida and Islamic terrorist." Ware, who has interviewed senior insurgent leaders, said they study the writings of the Vietnamese general Vo Nguyen Giap, Che Guevara, and Mao Zedong. "They're bringing it straight from the Vietnam, and the broader insurgency playbook," Ware said. "The name of the game is deny the population to the insurgents," Ware said. "That's what we're trying to do, win hearts and minds. But we're not winning them." The U.S. struggle to win Iraqi hearts and minds suffered a further set back when NBC TV broadcast footage of a U.S. marine executing a wounded and unarmed Iraqi in a Fallujah mosque. The much-publicized shooting, apparently part of a massacre of a group of wounded resistance fighters, "was a rare crack in the façade that Washington, with the complicity of most of the corporate media, has tried to present to the world of its brutal assault on the rebel Iraqi city," Rohan Pearce wrote in The Greenleft Weekly Australia on Nov. 24. The New York Times has reported actions taken by U.S. forces in Fallujah, which appear to be prima facie evidence of war crimes, without mentioning that the actions constitute clear violations of the Laws of Land War found in the U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10. For example, a Nov. 20 Times article by Edward Wong, with two correspondents in Fallujah, reports that U.S. marines had transformed a mosque into a fortress with snipers and machine gunners perched on the roof. Then, using the passive form, Wong goes on to say that "no neutral group has been able to enter the city," without mentioning that U.S. forces blocked humanitarian aid convoys. Likewise, Wong wrote, "Electricity and water had been cut off." The Times, whose motto is "All the news that's fit to print," apparently didn't think that it's readers needed to know the U.S. forces had cut off the water and power to a city of 340,000 people. Asked if U.S. forces had cut power and water to Fallujah, Maj. Jay Antonelli of CPIC wrote: "MNF did, with approval of the Interim Iraqi Government, cut off electricity to the city of Fallujah as Operation Al-Fajr began. Water was not cut off intentionally, however the water system did sustain some kinetic damage during strikes." American Free Press asked the Pentagon's Lt. Col. Joe Yoswa if it is true that U.S. forces were using mosques as fortresses. "It's not possible," Yoswa said. "Under no circumstances. We would not set up snipers in a mosque in an offensive position." CPIC's Antonelli said: "MNF would not use a mosque as a 'fortress.' MNF and Iraqi security forces would only fire from a mosque if they were being fired upon and were firing back in self-defense." Abu Sabah, a refugee from Fallujah, reported seeing phosphorus bombs: "They used these weird bombs that put up smoke like a mushroom cloud. Then small pieces fell from the air with long tails of smoke trailing behind them. These exploded on the ground with large fires that burnt for half and hour," Abu Sabah said. "When anyone touched these fires their bodies burnt for hours." Eyewitnesses from Fallujah also reported seeing "melted" bodies. "THROW-AWAY SOLDIERS" Having seen what appeared to be a depleted uranium (DU) missile fired at a building in Fallujah on CNN during the first week of the fighting, AFP asked the Pentagon if DU weapons are being used in Fallujah. "Yes," Yoswa said, "DU is a standard round on the M-1 Abrams tank." Because U.S. marines in Fallujah are very close to the poison gas produced by exploded DU shells, AFP asked Yoswa if anything was being done to protect the troops from DU poisoning. Yoswa seemed unaware of the dangers posed by the use of DU. Marion Fulk, a retired nuclear scientist from Livermore National Lab told AFP that U.S. troops in DU contaminated battlefields are considered "throw-away soldiers." The Marines exposed to DU in Fallujah, and elsewhere, face greatly increased risks of cancer, deformed children, and other health problems in the future. OBLITERATION OF FALLUJAH The "obliteration of Fallujah" is a serious war crime, according to Francis A. Boyle, a professor of international law at the University of Illinois. "The obliteration of Fallujah continues apace," Boyle wrote in his Nov. 15 article, A War Crime in Real Time: Obliterating Fallujah. "Article 6(b) of the 1945 Nuremberg Charter defines a Nuremberg War Crime in relevant part as the 'wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages.' According to this definitive definition, the Bush administration's destruction of Fallujah constitutes a war crime for which Nazis were tried and executed." Finis -30- 1629 words ________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The all-new My Yahoo! – What will yours do? Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2017 8:13 PM To: 'Roger Helbig' > Cc: 'Karen Aram' >; Estabrook, Carl G >; 'peace-discuss at anti-war.net' >; 'C. G. ESTABROOK' >; 'Jay Becker' >; 'a-fields at uiuc.edu' >; Hoffman, Valerie J >; 'Joe Lauria' >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; Szoke, Ron >; 'Dave Trippel' >; 'Arlene Hickory' >; 'David Swanson' >; 'peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net' >; 'sherwoodross10 at gmail.com' >; 'abass10 at gmail.com' >; 'mickalideh at gmail.com' >; 'Lina Thorne' >; 'chicago at worldcantwait.net' > Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG Mattis expected his troops to be peacekeepers. They brought soccer balls with them when they deployed. LOL! Marines don’t play soccer or teach kids to play soccer.. My Dad was a Marine. He invaded Saipan, Tinian and Okinawa before he became a Lawyer. Marines destroy anyone and anything that is in front of them as they are trained to do and did at Fallujah under Mattis—A Real Mad Dog War Criminal. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2017 7:52 PM To: 'Roger Helbig' > Cc: Karen Aram >; Estabrook, Carl G >; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Jay Becker >; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; Szoke, Ron >; Dave Trippel >; Arlene Hickory >; David Swanson >; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG -----Original Message----- From: Karim A G [mailto:coffee at euro-comm.co.uk] Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2004 5:00 PM To: Karim A G Subject: A War Crime in Real Time http://www.counterpunch.org/boyle11152004.html November 15, 2004 A War Crime in Real Time Obliterating Fallujah By FRANCIS A. BOYLE The obliteration of Fallujah continues apace. Article 6(b) of the 1945 Nuremberg Charter defines a Nuremberg War Crime in relevant part as the ". . . wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages. . ." According to this definitive definition, the Bush Jr. administration's destruction of Fallujah constitutes a war crime for which Nazis were tried and executed. There is nothing surprising about that. Since the Bush Jr. administration's installation in power by the United States Supreme Court in January of 2001, the peoples of the world have witnessed a government in the United States of America that has demonstrated little if any respect for fundamental considerations of international law, international organizations, and human rights, let alone appreciation of the requirements for maintaining international peace and security. What the world has watched instead is a comprehensive and malicious assault upon the integrity of the international legal order by a group of men and women who are thoroughly Machiavellian in their perception of international relations and in their conduct of both foreign policy and domestic affairs. This is not simply a question of giving or withholding the benefit of the doubt when it comes to complicated matters of foreign affairs and defense policies to a U.S. government charged with the security of both its own citizens and those of its allies in Europe, the Western Hemisphere, and the Pacific. Rather, the Bush Jr. administration's foreign policy constitutes ongoing criminal activity under well-recognized principles of both international law and U.S. domestic law, in particular the Nuremberg Charter, the Nuremberg Judgment, and the Nuremberg Principles. So their obliteration of Fallujah was to be expected. One generation ago the peoples of the world asked themselves: Where were the "good" Germans? Well, there were some good Germans. The Lutheran theologian and pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer was the foremost exemplar of someone who led a life of principled opposition to the Nazi-terror state even unto death. Today the peoples of the world are likewise asking themselves: Where are the "good" Americans? Well, there are some good Americans. Like three Catholic Nuns in Denver, they are getting arrested and going to jail for protesting against United States weapons of mass destruction (WMD) whose power for human extermination far exceeds even the wildest fantasies of Hitler and the Nazis. Or else for protesting against illegal U.S.. military interventions around the world. Just recently the Nuclear Resister estimated that since the Fall of 2002, there have been more than 9,500 anti-war related arrests in the United States alone. Many more will be coming. In international legal terms, the Bush Jr. administration itself should now be viewed as constituting an ongoing criminal conspiracy under international criminal law in violation of the Nuremberg Charter, the Nuremberg Judgment, and the Nuremberg Principles, due to its formulation and undertaking of aggressive war policies that are legally akin to those perpetrated by the Nazi regime. As a consequence, American citizens possess the basic right under international law and the United States domestic law, including the U.S. Constitution, to engage in acts of non-violent civil resistance in order to prevent, impede, thwart, or terminate ongoing criminal activities perpetrated by U.S. government officials in their conduct of foreign affairs policies and military operations purported to relate to defense and counter-terrorism. This same right of civil resistance extends pari passu to all citizens of the world community of states. Everyone around the world has both the right and the duty under international law to resist ongoing criminal activities perpetrated by the Bush Jr. administration and its nefarious foreign accomplices such as Blair, Berlusconi, Howard, Koizumi, Kwasniewski, etc. by all non-violent means possible. If it is not so restrained, the Bush Jr. administration could very well precipitate a Third World War. The time for preventive action is now. Civil resistance is the way to go. People power can overcome power politics. Popular movements have succeeded in toppling tyrannical, dictatorial and authoritarian regimes throughout former Communist countries in Eastern Europe, as well as in Asia, and most recently in Latin America. It is time once again to exercise People Power here in the United States of America: "When in the Course of human Events. . . We hold these Truths to be self-evident. . . . we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and sacred Honor." Despite the best efforts by the Bush Jr. Leaguers to the contrary, we American Citizens still have our First Amendment Rights: Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Association, Freedom of Assembly, Freedom to Petition our Government for the Redress of these massive Grievances, Civil Resistance, etc. We are going to have to start vigorously exercising all of our First Amendment Rights right now. We must use them or else, as the saying goes, we will lose them. We must act not only for the good of the Peoples of Southwest Asia, but for our future, that of our children, that of our nation as a democratic society committed to the Rule of Law and the U.S. Constitution. The Nazis had their "homeland" too Francis A. Boyle, Professor of Law, University of Illinois, is author of Foundations of World Order, Duke University Press, The Criminality of Nuclear Deterrence, and Palestine, Palestinians and International Law, by Clarity Press. He can be reached at: FBOYLE at LAW.UIUC.EDU --- Subscribed as: fboyle at law.uiuc.edu; to unsubscribe send to al-awda-universalist-request at umich.edu with UNSUBSCRIBE as the SUBJECT. URL: (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Roger Helbig [mailto:rwhelbig at gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2017 6:43 PM To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: Karen Aram >; Estabrook, Carl G >; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Jay Becker >; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; Szoke, Ron >; Dave Trippel >; Arlene Hickory >; David Swanson >; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG There was no massacre at Fallujah. This is nonsense. Mattis expected his troops to be peacekeepers. They brought soccer balls with them when they deployed. I would love to see your "so called" war crime indictment. Wonder how much of it is from your fertile Hate America imagination and how much from the fertile Arab anti-American propaganda organs. Doubt a single paragraph is actually based on fact. On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 8:22 AM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss > wrote: Trump’s Secretary of War Mad Dog Mattis was responsible for the Massacre at Fallujah, which I pointed out on Counterpunch was a Nuremberg War Crime along the lines of the Nazis—the wanton devastation of a city-- in revenge for them killing our mercenaries. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Karen Aram [mailto:karenaram at hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2017 10:04 AM To: Estabrook, Carl G > Cc: Boyle, Francis A >; Jay Becker >; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; Szoke, Ron >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; Arlene Hickory >; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; David Swanson >; Dave Trippel >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Mildred O'brien >; David Johnson >; Joe Lauria >; David Green > Subject: Re: Guest Commentary by Carl in NG I’m sorry Carl, I don’t agree with that title either. It assumes that all in the anti-war movement welcome the Trump administration. Not all of us trust he will do some of that which he promised in respect to “defunding Nato,” “making friends with Russia,” or killing TPP. Even if he does those three things, his further provocations of China, are every bit as dangerous as those with Russia, it’s a mere tactic to drive a wedge between Russia and China, while chipping away at Iran. His Cabinet appointments are frightening to say the least in respect to Healthcare, Energy, Education, Housing, etc, etc. Further expansion of war in the Middle East, and North Africa, as well as expansion of capitalist corporate control is on the agenda no matter which of the two Party’s are in power. Obama paved the way, for all of which I have just referred, but it’s not over. Our only hope is that “the people” are now awake, and perhaps will focus on that which is most serious to survival. On Jan 22, 2017, at 07:44, Carl G. Estabrook > wrote: My original title was, “Why the anti-war movement welcomes the new administration.” For more on that theme, see >. —CGE On Jan 22, 2017, at 9:29 AM, Karen Aram > wrote: An excellent letter, which I posted on FB. I deliberately deleted the title that I assumed the NG created, because it gives the false impression that those of us in the anti-war movement, all support Trump. We don’t, we just didn’t support Hillary. Anyone in the anti-war movement supporting Hillary was supporting more of the same that Obama provided. On Jan 22, 2017, at 07:16, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: He {Obama} attacked eight countries (two more than George Bush), and conducted what one leading political commentator called "the most extreme terrorist campaign of modern times — his drone assassinations." He killed thousands of civilians with drones, including U.S. citizens and hundreds of children. A good letter by Carl today in NG. (Remember NG writes their own titles to letters.) We must now hold Trump’s feet to the fire across the board! I think Carl’s quote comes from Chomsky? In any event the Illinois Nazis Law Faculty fully supported and promoted and held out for emulation by lawyers and this Campus and our Good Community: "the most extreme terrorist campaign of modern times — his drone assassinations." The Illinois Nazis Law Faculty are just a GANG OF SICK PUPPIES! Fab Ed Norton Professor of Law Carl Schmitt College of Law: “Mein Fuhrer, I can walk!” Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) Feed: News-Gazette.com Posted on: Sunday, January 22, 2017 7:00 AM Author: digital.media Subject: Guest Commentary: Why anti-war movement welcomes Trump By C.G. ESTABROOK The European anti-war group "No War No NATO" writes as follows: "Demonstrating in Europe on 21 January, against the newly elected US President Donald Trump is tantamount to lending support to the Obama administration, which has transformed Europe into NATO's first line of attack, nuclear matters inclusive, against Russia. read more View article... _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Sat Nov 4 13:42:21 2017 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2017 08:42:21 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG In-Reply-To: References: <9D3D5E59-5EFC-47DF-838D-C6508214E176@illinois.edu> Message-ID: Of course the US committed war crimes in Iraq. The US invasion of that country is the greatest international crime of the century - so far. On ‘American Free Press,’ see . > On Nov 4, 2017, at 8:11 AM, Roger Helbig wrote: > > You do know that Christopher Bollyn is NOT a reporter but is a Neo Nazi operative of long standing and that the American Free Press is not a news organization, but a Neo Nazi front - look up Willis Carto - he was Bollyn's boss and founded the American Free Press - this website that has reports of conference for American Free Press and The Barnes Review used to have a prominent picture of a Nazi flag behind the blogger Alex Hassinger - Douglas Lind Rokke of Urbana spoke at this event and Dave von Kleist the producer of Rokke's first anti-US propaganda video "Beyond Treason" was the master of ceremonies - http://www.chairmanofnordwave.blogspot.com > > Carto died in 2015 - there are a number of good sources on Carto in a simple Google search - > > Learn about Neo Nazis - read this book - "Blood and Politics" - it mentions Bollyn and extensively discusses Carto - pg 382, which I can e-mail to all who request - has Carto's establishment of The Barnes Review, a Holocaust Denial publication - The American Free Press replaced Carto's The Spotlight after Carto lost a legal battle - Bollyn is also mentioned in connection with a Pat Buchanan campaign apparatus > > On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 4:57 AM, Boyle, Francis A wrote: > I also want to make it clear for the record that before the invasions of Saipan, Tinian and Okinawa my Father, a Marine, was ordered by his Captain not to take prisoners of war on the grounds of reciprocity that the Japanese did not take Prisoners of War of our Men. My Father disobeyed these clearly illegal orders and took Japanese Prisoners of War. I cite the example of my Father to my law students to refute the objection that you cannot expect soldiers to obey the laws of war during combat. If my Father could obey the laws of war at Saipan, Tinian, and Okinawa, any other soldier should be able to do the same. Meanwhile,while I am teaching this to my students, the Illinois Nazis Law Faculty aid, abet, and promote and facilitate war crimes and crimes against humanity from the safety of their offices. My Father later became a Lawyer. RIP. The Illinois Nazis Law Faculty are despicable! Fab. > > > > Francis A. Boyle > > Law Building > > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > > Champaign IL 61820 USA > > 217-333-7954 (phone) > > 217-244-1478 (fax) > > (personal comments only) > > > > From: Boyle, Francis A > Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2017 8:38 PM > To: Roger Helbig > Cc: Karen Aram ; Estabrook, Carl G ; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; Jay Becker ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; Szoke, Ron ; Dave Trippel ; Arlene Hickory ; David Swanson ; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net > Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG > > > > Mad Dog Mattis the Nuremberg War Criminal. Fab. > > CONTROLLED PRESS IGNORES > > CRIMINAL OBLITERATION OF FALLUJAH > > > > By Christopher Bollyn > > American Free Press > > > > The controlled press has scrupulously avoided discussing the devastation and prima facie evidence of war crimes committed during the U.S. siege and assault of Fallujah. > > > > As Americans prepared for Thanksgiving, an estimated 100,000 residents of the besieged Iraqi city of Fallujah, trapped in their homes, struggled to survive without fresh food, water or electricity, reportedly cut off by U.S. forces on November 8. > > > > Meanwhile, on the streets of Fallujah, a city of more than 350,000, dogs gnawed on bloated and rotting corpses that remained unburied for weeks. > > > > Thousands of families in Fallujah were reported to be in a critical humanitarian situation after U.S. forces prevented the delivery of relief supplies. An Iraq Red Crescent Society (IRCS) humanitarian aid convoy, reportedly blocked by U.S. troops for more than two weeks, was allowed to deliver aid to residents in the heart of the city on November 25. > > > > On Thanksgiving, U.S. forces permitted the IRCS convoy carrying thousands of food parcels, blankets, tents and medical supplies to enter the city and allowed one of the clinics to be converted into a temporary hospital to treat the injured. Rana Sidani of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) in Geneva, Switzerland however, told American Free Press on Nov. 30 that "many civilians" were still prevented from receiving aid or medical care. > > > > At the beginning of the U.S. operation in Fallujah on Nov. 5, a hospital in the central Nazzal district of Fallujah was "reduced to rubble" as a result of U.S. air and artillery bombardment. "Only its façade, with a sign reading Nazzal Emergency Hospital, remained intact," Reuters reported. > > > > "A nearby compound used by the main Falluja Hospital to store medical supplies was also destroyed," witnesses told Reuters. Fallujah's main hospital was occupied by U.S. forces when the ground offensive began. These actions are apparent violations of international humanitarian law. > > > > "Bodies can be seen everywhere and people were crying when receiving the food parcels," Muhammad al-Nuri, a spokesman for the IRCS in Baghdad, said. "It is very sad. It is a human disaster." > > > > Al-Nuri said that it is difficult to move in the city due to the large number of dead bodies in the streets. The ICRS estimates there are more than 6,000 dead in Fallujah, al-Nuri said. > > > > AFP asked Major Jay Antonelli at the Coalition Press Information Center (CPIC) in Baghdad if the ICRS estimate of 6,000 dead in Fallujah was credible. "We do not keep a count of dead Iraqis," Antonelli said. Asked the same question, the ICRC's Sidani said, "We don't know." > > > > Antonelli said, "U.S. forces never blocked aid convoys from reaching the wounded. We only recommended to the aid convoys that they should not enter the city because the MNF [Multi-National Forces] could not guarantee their security or safety." > > > > "The ICRC is very worried about the humanitarian situation in Falluja," Sidani said. Asked what the ICRC was doing to alleviate the suffering in Fallujah, Sidani said: "We are reminding the parties of their responsibilities under international humanitarian law." > > > > It should be noted that the U.S.A. and Britain, the belligerent occupying powers in Iraq, are the two largest contributors to the ICRC, providing more than 42 percent of its budget for field operations. > > > > A second convoy from Baghdad, headed by Dr. Said Ismael Haki, the IRCS president, delivered aid to Fallujah on Nov. 26. "There are no houses left in Fallujah, only destroyed places." Haki said. "I really don't know how the people will return to the city. No one will find their homes." > > > > As U.S. troops in Fallujah engaged in what has been described as the most intense urban combat since Vietnam, the controlled press scrupulously avoided discussion or footage of the devastation of the rebellious Sunni city. For example, during the second week of the attack, rather than discuss the widespread devastation of Fallujah, U.S. television news programs focused largely on a brawl between basketball players and fans in Detroit. > > > > Lt. Col. Brandl, commander of the 1st Battalion, 8th Marine Regiment, was filmed giving a "pep talk" to his marines: "The enemy has got a face – he's called Satan," Brandl said. "He's in Fallujah, and we're going to destroy him." > > > > At least 136 U.S. soldiers were killed during November in Iraq, and more than 800 were wounded, most of them in Fallujah, making it the most costly month, and operation, in terms of U.S. lives lost since the invasion of Iraq began in March 2003. > > > > FOR WHAT CAUSE? > > > > Michael Ware, Baghdad bureau chief for Time magazine, who has been in Fallujah during the fighting, said U.S. actions in Fallujah are "creating the nightmare that we are seeking to prevent." > > > > "I stood there as I saw American boys die," Ware told Chris Matthews of MSNBC on Nov. 24, "I mean, a man shot at close range, blown apart by a rocket propelled grenade. He dies there in front of you and I can't help but think why? For what cause? > > > > "I see us creating the very thing that the president said we went there to prevent," Ware said, "…subsequent to this invasion and the occupation and the guerrilla war that is currently underway, we are the midwives of the next generation of al Qaida and Islamic terrorist." > > > > Ware, who has interviewed senior insurgent leaders, said they study the writings of the Vietnamese general Vo Nguyen Giap, Che Guevara, and Mao Zedong. "They're bringing it straight from the Vietnam, and the broader insurgency playbook," Ware said. > > > > "The name of the game is deny the population to the insurgents," Ware said. "That's what we're trying to do, win hearts and minds. But we're not winning them." > > > > The U.S. struggle to win Iraqi hearts and minds suffered a further set back when NBC TV broadcast footage of a U.S. marine executing a wounded and unarmed Iraqi in a Fallujah mosque. The much-publicized shooting, apparently part of a massacre of a group of wounded resistance fighters, "was a rare crack in the façade that Washington, with the complicity of most of the corporate media, has tried to present to the world of its brutal assault on the rebel Iraqi city," Rohan Pearce wrote in The Greenleft Weekly Australia on Nov. 24. > > > > The New York Times has reported actions taken by U.S. forces in Fallujah, which appear to be prima facie evidence of war crimes, without mentioning that the actions constitute clear violations of the Laws of Land War found in the U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10. > > > > For example, a Nov. 20 Times article by Edward Wong, with two correspondents in Fallujah, reports that U.S. marines had transformed a mosque into a fortress with snipers and machine gunners perched on the roof. > > > > Then, using the passive form, Wong goes on to say that "no neutral group has been able to enter the city," without mentioning that U.S. forces blocked humanitarian aid convoys. Likewise, Wong wrote, "Electricity and water had been cut off." > > > > The Times, whose motto is "All the news that's fit to print," apparently didn't think that it's readers needed to know the U.S. forces had cut off the water and power to a city of 340,000 people. > > > > Asked if U.S. forces had cut power and water to Fallujah, Maj. Jay Antonelli of CPIC wrote: "MNF did, with approval of the Interim Iraqi Government, cut off electricity to the city of Fallujah as Operation Al-Fajr began. Water was not cut off intentionally, however the water system did sustain some kinetic damage during strikes." > > > > American Free Press asked the Pentagon's Lt. Col. Joe Yoswa if it is true that U.S. forces were using mosques as fortresses. "It's not possible," Yoswa said. "Under no circumstances. We would not set up snipers in a mosque in an offensive position." > > > > CPIC's Antonelli said: "MNF would not use a mosque as a 'fortress.' MNF and Iraqi security forces would only fire from a mosque if they were being fired upon and were firing back in self-defense." > > > > Abu Sabah, a refugee from Fallujah, reported seeing phosphorus bombs: "They used these weird bombs that put up smoke like a mushroom cloud. Then small pieces fell from the air with long tails of smoke trailing behind them. These exploded on the ground with large fires that burnt for half and hour," Abu Sabah said. "When anyone touched these fires their bodies burnt for hours." > > > > Eyewitnesses from Fallujah also reported seeing "melted" bodies. > > > > "THROW-AWAY SOLDIERS" > > > > Having seen what appeared to be a depleted uranium (DU) missile fired at a building in Fallujah on CNN during the first week of the fighting, AFP asked the Pentagon if DU weapons are being used in Fallujah. "Yes," Yoswa said, "DU is a standard round on the M-1 Abrams tank." > > > > Because U.S. marines in Fallujah are very close to the poison gas produced by exploded DU shells, AFP asked Yoswa if anything was being done to protect the troops from DU poisoning. Yoswa seemed unaware of the dangers posed by the use of DU. > > > > Marion Fulk, a retired nuclear scientist from Livermore National Lab told AFP that U.S. troops in DU contaminated battlefields are considered "throw-away soldiers." The Marines exposed to DU in Fallujah, and elsewhere, face greatly increased risks of cancer, deformed children, and other health problems in the future. > > > > OBLITERATION OF FALLUJAH > > > > The "obliteration of Fallujah" is a serious war crime, according to Francis A. Boyle, a professor of international law at the University of Illinois. "The obliteration of Fallujah continues apace," Boyle wrote in his Nov. 15 article, A War Crime in Real Time: Obliterating Fallujah. "Article 6(b) of the 1945 Nuremberg Charter defines a Nuremberg War Crime in relevant part as the 'wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages.' According to this definitive definition, the Bush administration's destruction of Fallujah constitutes a war crime for which Nazis were tried and executed." > > > > Finis > > -30- > > 1629 words > > Do you Yahoo!? > The all-new My Yahoo! – What will yours do? > > > > > > Francis A. Boyle > > Law Building > > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > > Champaign IL 61820 USA > > 217-333-7954 (phone) > > 217-244-1478 (fax) > > (personal comments only) > > > > From: Boyle, Francis A > Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2017 8:13 PM > To: 'Roger Helbig' > Cc: 'Karen Aram' ; Estabrook, Carl G ; 'peace-discuss at anti-war.net' ; 'C. G. ESTABROOK' ; 'Jay Becker' ; 'a-fields at uiuc.edu' ; Hoffman, Valerie J ; 'Joe Lauria' ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; Szoke, Ron ; 'Dave Trippel' ; 'Arlene Hickory' ; 'David Swanson' ; 'peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net' ; 'sherwoodross10 at gmail.com' ; 'abass10 at gmail.com' ; 'mickalideh at gmail.com' ; 'Lina Thorne' ; 'chicago at worldcantwait.net' > Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG > > > > Mattis expected his troops to be peacekeepers. They brought soccer balls with them when they deployed. > > LOL! Marines don’t play soccer or teach kids to play soccer.. My Dad was a Marine. He invaded Saipan, Tinian and Okinawa before he became a Lawyer. Marines destroy anyone and anything that is in front of them as they are trained to do and did at Fallujah under Mattis—A Real Mad Dog War Criminal. Fab. > > > > > > > > Francis A. Boyle > > Law Building > > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > > Champaign IL 61820 USA > > 217-333-7954 (phone) > > 217-244-1478 (fax) > > (personal comments only) > > > > From: Boyle, Francis A > Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2017 7:52 PM > To: 'Roger Helbig' > Cc: Karen Aram ; Estabrook, Carl G ; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; Jay Becker ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; Szoke, Ron ; Dave Trippel ; Arlene Hickory ; David Swanson ; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net > Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Karim A G [mailto:coffee at euro-comm.co.uk] > Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2004 5:00 PM > To: Karim A G > Subject: A War Crime in Real Time > > http://www.counterpunch.org/boyle11152004.html > > > > November 15, 2004 > > A War Crime in Real Time > > Obliterating Fallujah > > By FRANCIS A. BOYLE > > The obliteration of Fallujah continues apace. Article 6(b) of the 1945 Nuremberg Charter defines a Nuremberg War Crime in relevant part as the ". . . wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages. . ." According to this definitive definition, the Bush Jr. administration's destruction of Fallujah constitutes a war crime for which Nazis were tried and executed. There is nothing surprising about that. > > Since the Bush Jr. administration's installation in power by the United States Supreme Court in January of 2001, the peoples of the world have witnessed a government in the United States of America that has demonstrated little if any respect for fundamental considerations of international law, international organizations, and human rights, let alone appreciation of the requirements for maintaining international peace and security. What the world has watched instead is a comprehensive and malicious assault upon the integrity of the international legal order by a group of men and women who are thoroughly Machiavellian in their perception of international relations and in their conduct of both foreign policy and domestic affairs. This is not simply a question of giving or withholding the benefit of the doubt when it comes to complicated matters of foreign affairs and defense policies to a U.S. government charged with the security of both its own citizens and those of its allies in Europe, the Western Hemisphere, and the Pacific. Rather, the Bush Jr. administration's foreign policy constitutes ongoing criminal activity under well-recognized principles of both international law and U.S. domestic law, in particular the Nuremberg Charter, the Nuremberg Judgment, and the Nuremberg Principles. So their obliteration of Fallujah was to be expected. > > One generation ago the peoples of the world asked themselves: Where were the "good" Germans? Well, there were some good Germans. The Lutheran theologian and pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer was the foremost exemplar of someone who led a life of principled opposition to the Nazi-terror state even unto death. > > Today the peoples of the world are likewise asking themselves: Where are the "good" Americans? Well, there are some good Americans. Like three Catholic Nuns in Denver, they are getting arrested and going to jail for protesting against United States weapons of mass destruction (WMD) whose power for human extermination far exceeds even the wildest fantasies of Hitler and the Nazis. Or else for protesting against illegal U.S.. military interventions around the world. Just recently the Nuclear Resister estimated that since the Fall of 2002, there have been more than 9,500 anti-war related arrests in the United States alone. Many more will be coming. > > In international legal terms, the Bush Jr. administration itself should now be viewed as constituting an ongoing criminal conspiracy under international criminal law in violation of the Nuremberg Charter, the Nuremberg Judgment, and the Nuremberg Principles, due to its formulation and undertaking of aggressive war policies that are legally akin to those perpetrated by the Nazi regime. As a consequence, American citizens possess the basic right under international law and the United States domestic law, including the U.S. Constitution, to engage in acts of non-violent civil resistance in order to prevent, impede, thwart, or terminate ongoing criminal activities perpetrated by U.S. government officials in their conduct of foreign affairs policies and military operations purported to relate to defense and counter-terrorism. > > This same right of civil resistance extends pari passu to all citizens of the world community of states. Everyone around the world has both the right and the duty under international law to resist ongoing criminal activities perpetrated by the Bush Jr. administration and its nefarious foreign accomplices such as Blair, Berlusconi, Howard, Koizumi, Kwasniewski, etc. by all non-violent means possible. If it is not so restrained, the Bush Jr. administration could very well precipitate a Third World War. > > The time for preventive action is now. Civil resistance is the way to go. People power can overcome power politics. Popular movements have succeeded in toppling tyrannical, dictatorial and authoritarian regimes throughout former Communist countries in Eastern Europe, as well as in Asia, and most recently in Latin America. It is time once again to exercise People Power here in the United States of America: "When in the Course of human Events. . . We hold these Truths to be self-evident. . . . we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and sacred Honor." > > Despite the best efforts by the Bush Jr. Leaguers to the contrary, we American Citizens still have our First Amendment Rights: Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Association, Freedom of Assembly, Freedom to Petition our Government for the Redress of these massive Grievances, Civil Resistance, etc. We are going to have to start vigorously exercising all of our First Amendment Rights right now. We must use them or else, as the saying goes, we will lose them. We must act not only for the good of the Peoples of Southwest Asia, but for our future, that of our children, that of our nation as a democratic society committed to the Rule of Law and the U.S. Constitution. The Nazis had their "homeland" too > > Francis A. Boyle, Professor of Law, University of Illinois, is author of Foundations of World Order, Duke University Press, The Criminality of Nuclear Deterrence, and Palestine, Palestinians and International Law, by Clarity Press. He can be reached at: FBOYLE at LAW.UIUC.EDU > > --- > Subscribed as: fboyle at law.uiuc.edu; to unsubscribe send to al-awda-universalist-request at umich.edu > with UNSUBSCRIBE as the SUBJECT. > URL: > > > Francis A. Boyle > > Law Building > > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > > Champaign IL 61820 USA > > 217-333-7954 (phone) > > 217-244-1478 (fax) > > (personal comments only) > > > > From: Roger Helbig [mailto:rwhelbig at gmail.com] > Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2017 6:43 PM > To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: Karen Aram ; Estabrook, Carl G ; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; Jay Becker ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; Szoke, Ron ; Dave Trippel ; Arlene Hickory ; David Swanson ; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG > > > > There was no massacre at Fallujah. This is nonsense. Mattis expected his troops to be peacekeepers. They brought soccer balls with them when they deployed. > > > > I would love to see your "so called" war crime indictment. Wonder how much of it is from your fertile Hate America imagination and how much from the fertile Arab anti-American propaganda organs. Doubt a single paragraph is actually based on fact. > > > > On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 8:22 AM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: > > Trump’s Secretary of War Mad Dog Mattis was responsible for the Massacre at Fallujah, which I pointed out on Counterpunch was a Nuremberg War Crime along the lines of the Nazis—the wanton devastation of a city-- in revenge for them killing our mercenaries. Fab. > > > > Francis A. Boyle > > Law Building > > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > > Champaign IL 61820 USA > > 217-333-7954 (phone) > > 217-244-1478 (fax) > > (personal comments only) > > > > From: Karen Aram [mailto:karenaram at hotmail.com] > Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2017 10:04 AM > To: Estabrook, Carl G > Cc: Boyle, Francis A ; Jay Becker ; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; Szoke, Ron ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; Arlene Hickory ; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; David Swanson ; Dave Trippel ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Mildred O'brien ; David Johnson ; Joe Lauria ; David Green > Subject: Re: Guest Commentary by Carl in NG > > > > I’m sorry Carl, I don’t agree with that title either. It assumes that all in the anti-war movement welcome the Trump administration. Not all of us trust he will do some of that which he promised in respect to “defunding Nato,” “making friends with Russia,” or killing TPP. Even if he does those three things, his further provocations of China, are every bit as dangerous as those with Russia, it’s a mere tactic to drive a wedge between Russia and China, while chipping away at Iran. > > > > His Cabinet appointments are frightening to say the least in respect to Healthcare, Energy, Education, Housing, etc, etc. > > > > Further expansion of war in the Middle East, and North Africa, as well as expansion of capitalist corporate control is on the agenda no matter which of the two Party’s are in power. > > > > Obama paved the way, for all of which I have just referred, but it’s not over. Our only hope is that “the people” are now awake, and perhaps will focus on that which is most serious to survival. > > > > > > On Jan 22, 2017, at 07:44, Carl G. Estabrook wrote: > > > > My original title was, “Why the anti-war movement welcomes the new administration.” > > > > For more on that theme, see . > > > > —CGE > > > > > > On Jan 22, 2017, at 9:29 AM, Karen Aram wrote: > > > > An excellent letter, which I posted on FB. I deliberately deleted the title that I assumed the NG created, because it gives the false impression that those of us in the anti-war movement, all support Trump. We don’t, we just didn’t support Hillary. Anyone in the anti-war movement supporting Hillary was supporting more of the same that Obama provided. > > > > > > On Jan 22, 2017, at 07:16, Boyle, Francis A wrote: > > > > He {Obama} attacked eight countries (two more than George Bush), and conducted what one leading political commentator called "the most extreme terrorist campaign of modern times — his drone assassinations." He killed thousands of civilians with drones, including U.S. citizens and hundreds of children. > > A good letter by Carl today in NG. (Remember NG writes their own titles to letters.) We must now hold Trump’s feet to the fire across the board! I think Carl’s quote comes from Chomsky? In any event the Illinois Nazis Law Faculty fully supported and promoted and held out for emulation by lawyers and this Campus and our Good Community: > > "the most extreme terrorist campaign of modern times — his drone assassinations." > > > > The Illinois Nazis Law Faculty are just a GANG OF SICK PUPPIES! > > Fab > > Ed Norton Professor of Law > > Carl Schmitt College of Law: > > “Mein Fuhrer, I can walk!” > > > > > > Francis A. Boyle > > Law Building > > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > > Champaign IL 61820 USA > > 217-333-7954 (phone) > > 217-244-1478 (fax) > > (personal comments only) > > > > Feed: News-Gazette.com > Posted on: Sunday, January 22, 2017 7:00 AM > Author: digital.media > Subject: Guest Commentary: Why anti-war movement welcomes Trump > > > > By C.G. ESTABROOK > > The European anti-war group "No War No NATO" writes as follows: > > "Demonstrating in Europe on 21 January, against the newly elected US President Donald Trump is tantamount to lending support to the Obama administration, which has transformed Europe into NATO's first line of attack, nuclear matters inclusive, against Russia. > > read more > > > View article... > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > > > > From fboyle at illinois.edu Sat Nov 4 13:48:22 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2017 13:48:22 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG In-Reply-To: References: <9D3D5E59-5EFC-47DF-838D-C6508214E176@illinois.edu> Message-ID: Right Carl. About 1.5 million dead and counting under Obama and now Trump. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -----Original Message----- From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2017 8:42 AM To: Roger Helbig Cc: Boyle, Francis A ; Karen Aram ; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; Jay Becker ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; Szoke, Ron ; Dave Trippel ; Arlene Hickory ; David Swanson ; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG Of course the US committed war crimes in Iraq. The US invasion of that country is the greatest international crime of the century - so far. On ‘American Free Press,’ see . > On Nov 4, 2017, at 8:11 AM, Roger Helbig wrote: > > You do know that Christopher Bollyn is NOT a reporter but is a Neo Nazi operative of long standing and that the American Free Press is not a news organization, but a Neo Nazi front - look up Willis Carto - he was Bollyn's boss and founded the American Free Press - this website that has reports of conference for American Free Press and The Barnes Review used to have a prominent picture of a Nazi flag behind the blogger Alex Hassinger - Douglas Lind Rokke of Urbana spoke at this event and Dave von Kleist the producer of Rokke's first anti-US propaganda video "Beyond Treason" was the master of ceremonies - http://www.chairmanofnordwave.blogspot.com > > Carto died in 2015 - there are a number of good sources on Carto in a simple Google search - > > Learn about Neo Nazis - read this book - "Blood and Politics" - it mentions Bollyn and extensively discusses Carto - pg 382, which I can e-mail to all who request - has Carto's establishment of The Barnes Review, a Holocaust Denial publication - The American Free Press replaced Carto's The Spotlight after Carto lost a legal battle - Bollyn is also mentioned in connection with a Pat Buchanan campaign apparatus > > On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 4:57 AM, Boyle, Francis A wrote: > I also want to make it clear for the record that before the invasions of Saipan, Tinian and Okinawa my Father, a Marine, was ordered by his Captain not to take prisoners of war on the grounds of reciprocity that the Japanese did not take Prisoners of War of our Men. My Father disobeyed these clearly illegal orders and took Japanese Prisoners of War. I cite the example of my Father to my law students to refute the objection that you cannot expect soldiers to obey the laws of war during combat. If my Father could obey the laws of war at Saipan, Tinian, and Okinawa, any other soldier should be able to do the same. Meanwhile,while I am teaching this to my students, the Illinois Nazis Law Faculty aid, abet, and promote and facilitate war crimes and crimes against humanity from the safety of their offices. My Father later became a Lawyer. RIP. The Illinois Nazis Law Faculty are despicable! Fab. > > > > Francis A. Boyle > > Law Building > > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > > Champaign IL 61820 USA > > 217-333-7954 (phone) > > 217-244-1478 (fax) > > (personal comments only) > > > > From: Boyle, Francis A > Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2017 8:38 PM > To: Roger Helbig > Cc: Karen Aram ; Estabrook, Carl G ; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; Jay Becker ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; Szoke, Ron ; Dave Trippel ; Arlene Hickory ; David Swanson ; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net > Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG > > > > Mad Dog Mattis the Nuremberg War Criminal. Fab. > > CONTROLLED PRESS IGNORES > > CRIMINAL OBLITERATION OF FALLUJAH > > > > By Christopher Bollyn > > American Free Press > > > > The controlled press has scrupulously avoided discussing the devastation and prima facie evidence of war crimes committed during the U.S. siege and assault of Fallujah. > > > > As Americans prepared for Thanksgiving, an estimated 100,000 residents of the besieged Iraqi city of Fallujah, trapped in their homes, struggled to survive without fresh food, water or electricity, reportedly cut off by U.S. forces on November 8. > > > > Meanwhile, on the streets of Fallujah, a city of more than 350,000, dogs gnawed on bloated and rotting corpses that remained unburied for weeks. > > > > Thousands of families in Fallujah were reported to be in a critical humanitarian situation after U.S. forces prevented the delivery of relief supplies. An Iraq Red Crescent Society (IRCS) humanitarian aid convoy, reportedly blocked by U.S. troops for more than two weeks, was allowed to deliver aid to residents in the heart of the city on November 25. > > > > On Thanksgiving, U.S. forces permitted the IRCS convoy carrying thousands of food parcels, blankets, tents and medical supplies to enter the city and allowed one of the clinics to be converted into a temporary hospital to treat the injured. Rana Sidani of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) in Geneva, Switzerland however, told American Free Press on Nov. 30 that "many civilians" were still prevented from receiving aid or medical care. > > > > At the beginning of the U.S. operation in Fallujah on Nov. 5, a hospital in the central Nazzal district of Fallujah was "reduced to rubble" as a result of U.S. air and artillery bombardment. "Only its façade, with a sign reading Nazzal Emergency Hospital, remained intact," Reuters reported. > > > > "A nearby compound used by the main Falluja Hospital to store medical supplies was also destroyed," witnesses told Reuters. Fallujah's main hospital was occupied by U.S. forces when the ground offensive began. These actions are apparent violations of international humanitarian law. > > > > "Bodies can be seen everywhere and people were crying when receiving the food parcels," Muhammad al-Nuri, a spokesman for the IRCS in Baghdad, said. "It is very sad. It is a human disaster." > > > > Al-Nuri said that it is difficult to move in the city due to the large number of dead bodies in the streets. The ICRS estimates there are more than 6,000 dead in Fallujah, al-Nuri said. > > > > AFP asked Major Jay Antonelli at the Coalition Press Information Center (CPIC) in Baghdad if the ICRS estimate of 6,000 dead in Fallujah was credible. "We do not keep a count of dead Iraqis," Antonelli said. Asked the same question, the ICRC's Sidani said, "We don't know." > > > > Antonelli said, "U.S. forces never blocked aid convoys from reaching the wounded. We only recommended to the aid convoys that they should not enter the city because the MNF [Multi-National Forces] could not guarantee their security or safety." > > > > "The ICRC is very worried about the humanitarian situation in Falluja," Sidani said. Asked what the ICRC was doing to alleviate the suffering in Fallujah, Sidani said: "We are reminding the parties of their responsibilities under international humanitarian law." > > > > It should be noted that the U.S.A. and Britain, the belligerent occupying powers in Iraq, are the two largest contributors to the ICRC, providing more than 42 percent of its budget for field operations. > > > > A second convoy from Baghdad, headed by Dr. Said Ismael Haki, the IRCS president, delivered aid to Fallujah on Nov. 26. "There are no houses left in Fallujah, only destroyed places." Haki said. "I really don't know how the people will return to the city. No one will find their homes." > > > > As U.S. troops in Fallujah engaged in what has been described as the most intense urban combat since Vietnam, the controlled press scrupulously avoided discussion or footage of the devastation of the rebellious Sunni city. For example, during the second week of the attack, rather than discuss the widespread devastation of Fallujah, U.S. television news programs focused largely on a brawl between basketball players and fans in Detroit. > > > > Lt. Col. Brandl, commander of the 1st Battalion, 8th Marine Regiment, was filmed giving a "pep talk" to his marines: "The enemy has got a face – he's called Satan," Brandl said. "He's in Fallujah, and we're going to destroy him." > > > > At least 136 U.S. soldiers were killed during November in Iraq, and more than 800 were wounded, most of them in Fallujah, making it the most costly month, and operation, in terms of U.S. lives lost since the invasion of Iraq began in March 2003. > > > > FOR WHAT CAUSE? > > > > Michael Ware, Baghdad bureau chief for Time magazine, who has been in Fallujah during the fighting, said U.S. actions in Fallujah are "creating the nightmare that we are seeking to prevent." > > > > "I stood there as I saw American boys die," Ware told Chris Matthews of MSNBC on Nov. 24, "I mean, a man shot at close range, blown apart by a rocket propelled grenade. He dies there in front of you and I can't help but think why? For what cause? > > > > "I see us creating the very thing that the president said we went there to prevent," Ware said, "…subsequent to this invasion and the occupation and the guerrilla war that is currently underway, we are the midwives of the next generation of al Qaida and Islamic terrorist." > > > > Ware, who has interviewed senior insurgent leaders, said they study the writings of the Vietnamese general Vo Nguyen Giap, Che Guevara, and Mao Zedong. "They're bringing it straight from the Vietnam, and the broader insurgency playbook," Ware said. > > > > "The name of the game is deny the population to the insurgents," Ware said. "That's what we're trying to do, win hearts and minds. But we're not winning them." > > > > The U.S. struggle to win Iraqi hearts and minds suffered a further set back when NBC TV broadcast footage of a U.S. marine executing a wounded and unarmed Iraqi in a Fallujah mosque. The much-publicized shooting, apparently part of a massacre of a group of wounded resistance fighters, "was a rare crack in the façade that Washington, with the complicity of most of the corporate media, has tried to present to the world of its brutal assault on the rebel Iraqi city," Rohan Pearce wrote in The Greenleft Weekly Australia on Nov. 24. > > > > The New York Times has reported actions taken by U.S. forces in Fallujah, which appear to be prima facie evidence of war crimes, without mentioning that the actions constitute clear violations of the Laws of Land War found in the U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10. > > > > For example, a Nov. 20 Times article by Edward Wong, with two correspondents in Fallujah, reports that U.S. marines had transformed a mosque into a fortress with snipers and machine gunners perched on the roof. > > > > Then, using the passive form, Wong goes on to say that "no neutral group has been able to enter the city," without mentioning that U.S. forces blocked humanitarian aid convoys. Likewise, Wong wrote, "Electricity and water had been cut off." > > > > The Times, whose motto is "All the news that's fit to print," apparently didn't think that it's readers needed to know the U.S. forces had cut off the water and power to a city of 340,000 people. > > > > Asked if U.S. forces had cut power and water to Fallujah, Maj. Jay Antonelli of CPIC wrote: "MNF did, with approval of the Interim Iraqi Government, cut off electricity to the city of Fallujah as Operation Al-Fajr began. Water was not cut off intentionally, however the water system did sustain some kinetic damage during strikes." > > > > American Free Press asked the Pentagon's Lt. Col. Joe Yoswa if it is true that U.S. forces were using mosques as fortresses. "It's not possible," Yoswa said. "Under no circumstances. We would not set up snipers in a mosque in an offensive position." > > > > CPIC's Antonelli said: "MNF would not use a mosque as a 'fortress.' MNF and Iraqi security forces would only fire from a mosque if they were being fired upon and were firing back in self-defense." > > > > Abu Sabah, a refugee from Fallujah, reported seeing phosphorus bombs: "They used these weird bombs that put up smoke like a mushroom cloud. Then small pieces fell from the air with long tails of smoke trailing behind them. These exploded on the ground with large fires that burnt for half and hour," Abu Sabah said. "When anyone touched these fires their bodies burnt for hours." > > > > Eyewitnesses from Fallujah also reported seeing "melted" bodies. > > > > "THROW-AWAY SOLDIERS" > > > > Having seen what appeared to be a depleted uranium (DU) missile fired at a building in Fallujah on CNN during the first week of the fighting, AFP asked the Pentagon if DU weapons are being used in Fallujah. "Yes," Yoswa said, "DU is a standard round on the M-1 Abrams tank." > > > > Because U.S. marines in Fallujah are very close to the poison gas produced by exploded DU shells, AFP asked Yoswa if anything was being done to protect the troops from DU poisoning. Yoswa seemed unaware of the dangers posed by the use of DU. > > > > Marion Fulk, a retired nuclear scientist from Livermore National Lab told AFP that U.S. troops in DU contaminated battlefields are considered "throw-away soldiers." The Marines exposed to DU in Fallujah, and elsewhere, face greatly increased risks of cancer, deformed children, and other health problems in the future. > > > > OBLITERATION OF FALLUJAH > > > > The "obliteration of Fallujah" is a serious war crime, according to Francis A. Boyle, a professor of international law at the University of Illinois. "The obliteration of Fallujah continues apace," Boyle wrote in his Nov. 15 article, A War Crime in Real Time: Obliterating Fallujah. "Article 6(b) of the 1945 Nuremberg Charter defines a Nuremberg War Crime in relevant part as the 'wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages.' According to this definitive definition, the Bush administration's destruction of Fallujah constitutes a war crime for which Nazis were tried and executed." > > > > Finis > > -30- > > 1629 words > > Do you Yahoo!? > The all-new My Yahoo! – What will yours do? > > > > > > Francis A. Boyle > > Law Building > > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > > Champaign IL 61820 USA > > 217-333-7954 (phone) > > 217-244-1478 (fax) > > (personal comments only) > > > > From: Boyle, Francis A > Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2017 8:13 PM > To: 'Roger Helbig' > Cc: 'Karen Aram' ; Estabrook, Carl G ; 'peace-discuss at anti-war.net' ; 'C. G. ESTABROOK' ; 'Jay Becker' ; 'a-fields at uiuc.edu' ; Hoffman, Valerie J ; 'Joe Lauria' ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; Szoke, Ron ; 'Dave Trippel' ; 'Arlene Hickory' ; 'David Swanson' ; 'peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net' ; 'sherwoodross10 at gmail.com' ; 'abass10 at gmail.com' ; 'mickalideh at gmail.com' ; 'Lina Thorne' ; 'chicago at worldcantwait.net' > Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG > > > > Mattis expected his troops to be peacekeepers. They brought soccer balls with them when they deployed. > > LOL! Marines don’t play soccer or teach kids to play soccer.. My Dad was a Marine. He invaded Saipan, Tinian and Okinawa before he became a Lawyer. Marines destroy anyone and anything that is in front of them as they are trained to do and did at Fallujah under Mattis—A Real Mad Dog War Criminal. Fab. > > > > > > > > Francis A. Boyle > > Law Building > > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > > Champaign IL 61820 USA > > 217-333-7954 (phone) > > 217-244-1478 (fax) > > (personal comments only) > > > > From: Boyle, Francis A > Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2017 7:52 PM > To: 'Roger Helbig' > Cc: Karen Aram ; Estabrook, Carl G ; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; Jay Becker ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; Szoke, Ron ; Dave Trippel ; Arlene Hickory ; David Swanson ; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net > Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Karim A G [mailto:coffee at euro-comm.co.uk] > Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2004 5:00 PM > To: Karim A G > Subject: A War Crime in Real Time > > http://www.counterpunch.org/boyle11152004.html > > > > November 15, 2004 > > A War Crime in Real Time > > Obliterating Fallujah > > By FRANCIS A. BOYLE > > The obliteration of Fallujah continues apace. Article 6(b) of the 1945 Nuremberg Charter defines a Nuremberg War Crime in relevant part as the ". . . wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages. . ." According to this definitive definition, the Bush Jr. administration's destruction of Fallujah constitutes a war crime for which Nazis were tried and executed. There is nothing surprising about that. > > Since the Bush Jr. administration's installation in power by the United States Supreme Court in January of 2001, the peoples of the world have witnessed a government in the United States of America that has demonstrated little if any respect for fundamental considerations of international law, international organizations, and human rights, let alone appreciation of the requirements for maintaining international peace and security. What the world has watched instead is a comprehensive and malicious assault upon the integrity of the international legal order by a group of men and women who are thoroughly Machiavellian in their perception of international relations and in their conduct of both foreign policy and domestic affairs. This is not simply a question of giving or withholding the benefit of the doubt when it comes to complicated matters of foreign affairs and defense policies to a U.S. government charged with the security of both its own citizens and those of its allies in Europe, the Western Hemisphere, and the Pacific. Rather, the Bush Jr. administration's foreign policy constitutes ongoing criminal activity under well-recognized principles of both international law and U.S. domestic law, in particular the Nuremberg Charter, the Nuremberg Judgment, and the Nuremberg Principles. So their obliteration of Fallujah was to be expected. > > One generation ago the peoples of the world asked themselves: Where were the "good" Germans? Well, there were some good Germans. The Lutheran theologian and pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer was the foremost exemplar of someone who led a life of principled opposition to the Nazi-terror state even unto death. > > Today the peoples of the world are likewise asking themselves: Where are the "good" Americans? Well, there are some good Americans. Like three Catholic Nuns in Denver, they are getting arrested and going to jail for protesting against United States weapons of mass destruction (WMD) whose power for human extermination far exceeds even the wildest fantasies of Hitler and the Nazis. Or else for protesting against illegal U.S.. military interventions around the world. Just recently the Nuclear Resister estimated that since the Fall of 2002, there have been more than 9,500 anti-war related arrests in the United States alone. Many more will be coming. > > In international legal terms, the Bush Jr. administration itself should now be viewed as constituting an ongoing criminal conspiracy under international criminal law in violation of the Nuremberg Charter, the Nuremberg Judgment, and the Nuremberg Principles, due to its formulation and undertaking of aggressive war policies that are legally akin to those perpetrated by the Nazi regime. As a consequence, American citizens possess the basic right under international law and the United States domestic law, including the U.S. Constitution, to engage in acts of non-violent civil resistance in order to prevent, impede, thwart, or terminate ongoing criminal activities perpetrated by U.S. government officials in their conduct of foreign affairs policies and military operations purported to relate to defense and counter-terrorism. > > This same right of civil resistance extends pari passu to all citizens of the world community of states. Everyone around the world has both the right and the duty under international law to resist ongoing criminal activities perpetrated by the Bush Jr. administration and its nefarious foreign accomplices such as Blair, Berlusconi, Howard, Koizumi, Kwasniewski, etc. by all non-violent means possible. If it is not so restrained, the Bush Jr. administration could very well precipitate a Third World War. > > The time for preventive action is now. Civil resistance is the way to go. People power can overcome power politics. Popular movements have succeeded in toppling tyrannical, dictatorial and authoritarian regimes throughout former Communist countries in Eastern Europe, as well as in Asia, and most recently in Latin America. It is time once again to exercise People Power here in the United States of America: "When in the Course of human Events. . . We hold these Truths to be self-evident. . . . we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and sacred Honor." > > Despite the best efforts by the Bush Jr. Leaguers to the contrary, we American Citizens still have our First Amendment Rights: Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Association, Freedom of Assembly, Freedom to Petition our Government for the Redress of these massive Grievances, Civil Resistance, etc. We are going to have to start vigorously exercising all of our First Amendment Rights right now. We must use them or else, as the saying goes, we will lose them. We must act not only for the good of the Peoples of Southwest Asia, but for our future, that of our children, that of our nation as a democratic society committed to the Rule of Law and the U.S. Constitution. The Nazis had their "homeland" too > > Francis A. Boyle, Professor of Law, University of Illinois, is author of Foundations of World Order, Duke University Press, The Criminality of Nuclear Deterrence, and Palestine, Palestinians and International Law, by Clarity Press. He can be reached at: FBOYLE at LAW.UIUC.EDU > > --- > Subscribed as: fboyle at law.uiuc.edu; to unsubscribe send to al-awda-universalist-request at umich.edu > with UNSUBSCRIBE as the SUBJECT. > URL: > > > Francis A. Boyle > > Law Building > > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > > Champaign IL 61820 USA > > 217-333-7954 (phone) > > 217-244-1478 (fax) > > (personal comments only) > > > > From: Roger Helbig [mailto:rwhelbig at gmail.com] > Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2017 6:43 PM > To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: Karen Aram ; Estabrook, Carl G ; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; Jay Becker ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; Szoke, Ron ; Dave Trippel ; Arlene Hickory ; David Swanson ; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG > > > > There was no massacre at Fallujah. This is nonsense. Mattis expected his troops to be peacekeepers. They brought soccer balls with them when they deployed. > > > > I would love to see your "so called" war crime indictment. Wonder how much of it is from your fertile Hate America imagination and how much from the fertile Arab anti-American propaganda organs. Doubt a single paragraph is actually based on fact. > > > > On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 8:22 AM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: > > Trump’s Secretary of War Mad Dog Mattis was responsible for the Massacre at Fallujah, which I pointed out on Counterpunch was a Nuremberg War Crime along the lines of the Nazis—the wanton devastation of a city-- in revenge for them killing our mercenaries. Fab. > > > > Francis A. Boyle > > Law Building > > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > > Champaign IL 61820 USA > > 217-333-7954 (phone) > > 217-244-1478 (fax) > > (personal comments only) > > > > From: Karen Aram [mailto:karenaram at hotmail.com] > Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2017 10:04 AM > To: Estabrook, Carl G > Cc: Boyle, Francis A ; Jay Becker ; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; Szoke, Ron ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; Arlene Hickory ; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; David Swanson ; Dave Trippel ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Mildred O'brien ; David Johnson ; Joe Lauria ; David Green > Subject: Re: Guest Commentary by Carl in NG > > > > I’m sorry Carl, I don’t agree with that title either. It assumes that all in the anti-war movement welcome the Trump administration. Not all of us trust he will do some of that which he promised in respect to “defunding Nato,” “making friends with Russia,” or killing TPP. Even if he does those three things, his further provocations of China, are every bit as dangerous as those with Russia, it’s a mere tactic to drive a wedge between Russia and China, while chipping away at Iran. > > > > His Cabinet appointments are frightening to say the least in respect to Healthcare, Energy, Education, Housing, etc, etc. > > > > Further expansion of war in the Middle East, and North Africa, as well as expansion of capitalist corporate control is on the agenda no matter which of the two Party’s are in power. > > > > Obama paved the way, for all of which I have just referred, but it’s not over. Our only hope is that “the people” are now awake, and perhaps will focus on that which is most serious to survival. > > > > > > On Jan 22, 2017, at 07:44, Carl G. Estabrook wrote: > > > > My original title was, “Why the anti-war movement welcomes the new administration.” > > > > For more on that theme, see . > > > > —CGE > > > > > > On Jan 22, 2017, at 9:29 AM, Karen Aram wrote: > > > > An excellent letter, which I posted on FB. I deliberately deleted the title that I assumed the NG created, because it gives the false impression that those of us in the anti-war movement, all support Trump. We don’t, we just didn’t support Hillary. Anyone in the anti-war movement supporting Hillary was supporting more of the same that Obama provided. > > > > > > On Jan 22, 2017, at 07:16, Boyle, Francis A wrote: > > > > He {Obama} attacked eight countries (two more than George Bush), and conducted what one leading political commentator called "the most extreme terrorist campaign of modern times — his drone assassinations." He killed thousands of civilians with drones, including U.S. citizens and hundreds of children. > > A good letter by Carl today in NG. (Remember NG writes their own titles to letters.) We must now hold Trump’s feet to the fire across the board! I think Carl’s quote comes from Chomsky? In any event the Illinois Nazis Law Faculty fully supported and promoted and held out for emulation by lawyers and this Campus and our Good Community: > > "the most extreme terrorist campaign of modern times — his drone assassinations." > > > > The Illinois Nazis Law Faculty are just a GANG OF SICK PUPPIES! > > Fab > > Ed Norton Professor of Law > > Carl Schmitt College of Law: > > “Mein Fuhrer, I can walk!” > > > > > > Francis A. Boyle > > Law Building > > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > > Champaign IL 61820 USA > > 217-333-7954 (phone) > > 217-244-1478 (fax) > > (personal comments only) > > > > Feed: News-Gazette.com > Posted on: Sunday, January 22, 2017 7:00 AM > Author: digital.media > Subject: Guest Commentary: Why anti-war movement welcomes Trump > > > > By C.G. ESTABROOK > > The European anti-war group "No War No NATO" writes as follows: > > "Demonstrating in Europe on 21 January, against the newly elected US President Donald Trump is tantamount to lending support to the Obama administration, which has transformed Europe into NATO's first line of attack, nuclear matters inclusive, against Russia. > > read more > > > View article... > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > > > > From fboyle at illinois.edu Sat Nov 4 13:54:33 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2017 13:54:33 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG In-Reply-To: References: <9D3D5E59-5EFC-47DF-838D-C6508214E176@illinois.edu> Message-ID: Of course the Illinois Nazi Faculty of Law and its Yale Mafia Law Dean Iceman Amar are more than happy to exterminate Muslims/Arabs/Asians of Color. Fab. Legal Protection Of Children In Armed Conflict: The Iraqi Children Genocide By Francis A. Boyle 04 December, 2012 Countercurrents.org This is the text version of a speech delivered by Francis A. Boyle at The International Conference on War-affected Children Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, November 22, 2012 During the summer of 1991 I was contacted on behalf of several Mothers in Iraq whose children were dying at astounding rates because of the genocidal economic sanctions that had been imposed upon them by the Security Council in August of 1990 at the behest of the Bush Senior administration. They requested that I do something in order to save these innocent children from perishing in agony in front of their mothers’ very own eyes. Using the format of the Writ for World Habeas Corpus that had been previously provided to me by my friend and colleague, the late Luis Kutner, Esq. of Chicago, Illinois, I filed a class-action Complaint on behalf of the 4.5 million children of Iraq against President George Bush Senior and the United States of America with the United Nations Organization that was dated 18 September 1991.[1] I submitted the Complaint to the Secretary General of the U.N., member states of the General Assembly, the Economic and Social Council, the Commission on Human Rights, the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, UNESCO, and UNICEF. A copy of my Indictment, Complaint and Petition for Relief from Genocide on behalf of the 4.5 million children of Iraq is reprinted below. This Complaint accused the United States and President Bush Senior (1) of committing the international crime of genocide against the 4.5 Million Children of Iraq in violation of the International Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide of 1948 and in violation of the municipal legal systems of all civilized nations in the world; (2) of a gross and consistent pattern of violations of the most fundamental human rights of the 4.5 Million Children of Iraq as recognized and guaranteed to them by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948; (3) of the complete negation and denial of all the rights guaranteed to the 4.5 Million Children of Iraq by the 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child; and (4) of the systematic violation of the special protections of international humanitarian law guaranteed to the 4.5 Million Children of Iraq by the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 and Additional Protocol I thereto of 1977. My Complaint demanded (1) the termination of all forms of multilateral and bilateral economic sanctions against Iraq; (2) the massive provision of international humanitarian relief supplies to Iraq by all organs of the United Nations System; (3) that monetary compensation be paid to the children of Iraq and their families for deaths as well as for all physical and mental injury by the United States; and (4) that criminal proceedings for genocide be instituted against President George Bush Senior by the appropriate organs of the United Nations System as well as by all municipal legal systems in the world, including by the United States government. My Complaint estimated that since sanctions were first imposed against Iraq in August of 1990, Iraqi children were dying as a direct result thereof at the rate of about 500 per day. Despite my best professional efforts working on behalf of my Clients pro bono publico, the grossly hypocritical United Nations Organization adamantly refused to act to terminate these genocidal sanctions and thus to save the dying children of Iraq. In 1995 the United Nations’ own Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) Report estimated that these genocidal economic sanctions against Iraq had by then killed about 560,000 Iraqi children since when they were first imposed in 1990.[2] In specific regard to these murdered Iraqi children, then U.S. Secretary of State Madeline Albright, was interviewed on the CBS Television Network on 12 May 1996 by correspondent Leslie Stahl. The transcript of this interview provided by CBS News itself reads as follows:[3] Stahl: (Voiceover) If the Iraqi people place any blame on Saddam Hussein, they’re afraid to say so. And there is no longer much hope that the sanctions will inspire the people to rise up and topple the government. Now people are just trying to get by because one of the side effects of the sanctions has been inflation, which has jumped as high as 3,000 percent. To make ends meet, Iraqis are selling everything they can. Flea markets have sprung up on the streets, where families can sell their furniture, clothes, anything they can to make a few extra dinars. Most Iraqis are suffering We have heard that a half a million children have died. I mean, that’s more children than died when-wh-in-in Hiroshima. And-and, you know, is the price worth it? Ambassador Albright: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price – we think the price is worth it. This shocking and revolting statement made by the U.S. Secretary of State provided proof positive of the genocidal intent by the United States Government against Iraq and its children and its people as defined by and in violation of Genocide Convention Article II: “In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group, as such. . . .” Certainly a half-million dead Iraqi children that the U.S. Secretary of State specifically intended to destroy as such, and did indeed destroy as such, constituted a very important “part” of the Iraqi people. These half-million dead children were the very future of the people and state of Iraq. This Albright statement is what criminal lawyers call a classic “Admission Against Interest.” This Statement by the then sitting U.S. Secretary of State, acting within the scope of her official duties and speaking in the name of the United States government, could be taken to the International Court of Justice in The Hague and filed to prove that the United States of America possessed the required mens rea (criminal intent) necessary to commit the international crime of genocide. Under both international law and U.S. domestic law, to be guilty of a crime a person or a state must possess the requisite mens rea at the same time that he or she or it commits the criminal act (actus reus). With respect to these genocidal economic sanctions against Iraq, the actus reus for the U.S. government and its officials committing the international crime of genocide is set forth in Genocide Convention Article II (c): “Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.” The 500,000 dead Iraqi children, as conceded and approved by U.S. Secretary of State Albright, constituted a “substantial part” of the people of Iraq, which is the threshold numerical test for genocide recognized by the International Court of Justice itself that I had successfully argued there for Bosnia and Herzegovina against Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) in 1993. Albright incriminated both herself and the United States of America at the same time, apparently without thought or concern as to any future international legal determination of their culpability. Such is the arrogance of the powerful—which is usually the source of their downfall. The United States and the United Kingdom obstinately insisted that the genocidal economic sanctions imposed against Iraq remain in place until after the conclusion of the internationally illegal Gulf War II of aggression perpetrated by the Bush Junior administration and the Tony Blair government against Iraq in March of 2003. Then, on 22 May 2003 the United States and the United Kingdom procured U.N. Security Council Resolution 1483 lifting these genocidal economic sanctions; yet not with a view to easing the over decade-long suffering of the Iraqi people and children. But rather so as to better facilitate the U.S./U.K. unsupervised looting and plundering of the Iraqi economy and oil fields in violation of the international laws of war as well as to the grave detriment of the Iraqi people and their children. Once I had gotten this class-action Complaint filed with the United Nations Organization and had worked out the basic legal theory for U.S. genocide against the children of Iraq, starting in the Fall of 1991 I did everything humanly possible to convince the then President of Iraq to give me the legal authority to sue the United States and the United Kingdom at the International Court of Justice in The Hague on the basis of the 1948 Genocide Convention: First, in order to break the genocidal economic embargo against the people of Iraq, and especially their children. And second, in order to prevent what I perceived to be further impending military attacks by the United States and Britain upon Iraq that would culminate someday in stealing all their oil. I most strenuously pursued these efforts systematically and continuously until the very eve of the war of aggression against Iraq by the Bush Junior administration and the Tony Blair government in mid-March of 2003. These efforts also included two meetings with the then Foreign Minister of Iraq and their top international lawyer to review, consider, and discuss papers I had drafted to be filed by Iraq in the World Court against the United States and the United Kingdom in order to accomplish these objectives.[4] In addition, at the very last minute available I also attempted to convince the Deputy Prime Minister of Iraq to give me the legal authority to file these World Court lawsuits against the U.S. and the U.K. literally right up until the outbreak of hostilities in mid-March of 2003. All to no avail. Despite my best efforts, I failed. This shall always be one of the great disappointments of my life. Approximately 1.7 million Iraqis died as a direct result of these genocidal economic sanctions, including within that number about 750,000 Iraqi children. In addition, another 1.4 million Iraqis died as a result of the Bush Junior/Tony Blair genocidal war of aggression against Iraq. To this appalling genocidal death toll must be added the 200,000 Iraqis President Bush Senior slaughtered in his 1991 Gulf War I. In other words, approximately 3.3 million Iraqis were exterminated by the United States and the United Kingdom from August of 1990 until the end of 2011 when President Obama had ordered the purported “final” withdrawal of U.S. military forces from Iraq. And these are very conservative figures that I believe could be proven to the satisfaction of the International Court of Justice. These World Court papers that I drew up for Iraq to sue the United States and the United Kingdom at the International Court of Justice on the basis of the 1948 Genocide Convention that were twice considered and reviewed by the Foreign Minister of Iraq and their top international lawyer still sit in my office today. They could be revised and updated by the current government of Iraq in order to sue the United States and the United Kingdom at the International Court of Justice for genocide today. Of course this is for the current government of Iraq to decide. Towards facilitating that objective, I will be more than happy to make these World Court papers available to the current government of Iraq free of charge if they so desire. For Iraq to file my proposed World Court lawsuits for genocide against the United States and the United Kingdom would produce some small degree of justice for the 750,000 murdered children of Iraq and at least 3.3 million exterminated Iraqis. Thank you. [1] See Edward Pearce, Death and Indecency in a Time of Cholera, The Guardian, Oct. 25, 1991. [2] See Ramsey Clark, FAO Report, and Others, The Children Are Dying (World View Forum, Inc.: 1996). [3] See 5/12/96 60 Minutes, 1996 Westlaw 8064912. [4] Iraq to Go to World Court, South News, Jan. 28, 1998: “U.S. Professor of International Law Francis Boyle has publicly offered to charge U.S. leaders for genocide against the Iraqi people.” Professor Francis A. Boyle is an international law expert and served as Legal Advisor to the Palestine Liberation Organization and Yasser Arafat on the 1988 Palestinian Declaration of Independence, as well as to the Palestinian Delegation to the Middle East Peace Negotiations from 1991 to 1993, where he drafted the Palestinian counter-offer to the now defunct Oslo Agreement. His books include “ Palestine, Palestinians and International Law” (2003), and “ The Palestinian Right of Return under International Law” (2010). © Copyright 2012 by Francis A. Boyle. All rights reserved. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -----Original Message----- From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2017 8:42 AM To: Roger Helbig Cc: Boyle, Francis A ; Karen Aram ; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; Jay Becker ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; Szoke, Ron ; Dave Trippel ; Arlene Hickory ; David Swanson ; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG Of course the US committed war crimes in Iraq. The US invasion of that country is the greatest international crime of the century - so far. On ‘American Free Press,’ see . > On Nov 4, 2017, at 8:11 AM, Roger Helbig wrote: > > You do know that Christopher Bollyn is NOT a reporter but is a Neo Nazi operative of long standing and that the American Free Press is not a news organization, but a Neo Nazi front - look up Willis Carto - he was Bollyn's boss and founded the American Free Press - this website that has reports of conference for American Free Press and The Barnes Review used to have a prominent picture of a Nazi flag behind the blogger Alex Hassinger - Douglas Lind Rokke of Urbana spoke at this event and Dave von Kleist the producer of Rokke's first anti-US propaganda video "Beyond Treason" was the master of ceremonies - http://www.chairmanofnordwave.blogspot.com > > Carto died in 2015 - there are a number of good sources on Carto in a simple Google search - > > Learn about Neo Nazis - read this book - "Blood and Politics" - it mentions Bollyn and extensively discusses Carto - pg 382, which I can e-mail to all who request - has Carto's establishment of The Barnes Review, a Holocaust Denial publication - The American Free Press replaced Carto's The Spotlight after Carto lost a legal battle - Bollyn is also mentioned in connection with a Pat Buchanan campaign apparatus > > On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 4:57 AM, Boyle, Francis A wrote: > I also want to make it clear for the record that before the invasions of Saipan, Tinian and Okinawa my Father, a Marine, was ordered by his Captain not to take prisoners of war on the grounds of reciprocity that the Japanese did not take Prisoners of War of our Men. My Father disobeyed these clearly illegal orders and took Japanese Prisoners of War. I cite the example of my Father to my law students to refute the objection that you cannot expect soldiers to obey the laws of war during combat. If my Father could obey the laws of war at Saipan, Tinian, and Okinawa, any other soldier should be able to do the same. Meanwhile,while I am teaching this to my students, the Illinois Nazis Law Faculty aid, abet, and promote and facilitate war crimes and crimes against humanity from the safety of their offices. My Father later became a Lawyer. RIP. The Illinois Nazis Law Faculty are despicable! Fab. > > > > Francis A. Boyle > > Law Building > > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > > Champaign IL 61820 USA > > 217-333-7954 (phone) > > 217-244-1478 (fax) > > (personal comments only) > > > > From: Boyle, Francis A > Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2017 8:38 PM > To: Roger Helbig > Cc: Karen Aram ; Estabrook, Carl G ; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; Jay Becker ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; Szoke, Ron ; Dave Trippel ; Arlene Hickory ; David Swanson ; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net > Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG > > > > Mad Dog Mattis the Nuremberg War Criminal. Fab. > > CONTROLLED PRESS IGNORES > > CRIMINAL OBLITERATION OF FALLUJAH > > > > By Christopher Bollyn > > American Free Press > > > > The controlled press has scrupulously avoided discussing the devastation and prima facie evidence of war crimes committed during the U.S. siege and assault of Fallujah. > > > > As Americans prepared for Thanksgiving, an estimated 100,000 residents of the besieged Iraqi city of Fallujah, trapped in their homes, struggled to survive without fresh food, water or electricity, reportedly cut off by U.S. forces on November 8. > > > > Meanwhile, on the streets of Fallujah, a city of more than 350,000, dogs gnawed on bloated and rotting corpses that remained unburied for weeks. > > > > Thousands of families in Fallujah were reported to be in a critical humanitarian situation after U.S. forces prevented the delivery of relief supplies. An Iraq Red Crescent Society (IRCS) humanitarian aid convoy, reportedly blocked by U.S. troops for more than two weeks, was allowed to deliver aid to residents in the heart of the city on November 25. > > > > On Thanksgiving, U.S. forces permitted the IRCS convoy carrying thousands of food parcels, blankets, tents and medical supplies to enter the city and allowed one of the clinics to be converted into a temporary hospital to treat the injured. Rana Sidani of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) in Geneva, Switzerland however, told American Free Press on Nov. 30 that "many civilians" were still prevented from receiving aid or medical care. > > > > At the beginning of the U.S. operation in Fallujah on Nov. 5, a hospital in the central Nazzal district of Fallujah was "reduced to rubble" as a result of U.S. air and artillery bombardment. "Only its façade, with a sign reading Nazzal Emergency Hospital, remained intact," Reuters reported. > > > > "A nearby compound used by the main Falluja Hospital to store medical supplies was also destroyed," witnesses told Reuters. Fallujah's main hospital was occupied by U.S. forces when the ground offensive began. These actions are apparent violations of international humanitarian law. > > > > "Bodies can be seen everywhere and people were crying when receiving the food parcels," Muhammad al-Nuri, a spokesman for the IRCS in Baghdad, said. "It is very sad. It is a human disaster." > > > > Al-Nuri said that it is difficult to move in the city due to the large number of dead bodies in the streets. The ICRS estimates there are more than 6,000 dead in Fallujah, al-Nuri said. > > > > AFP asked Major Jay Antonelli at the Coalition Press Information Center (CPIC) in Baghdad if the ICRS estimate of 6,000 dead in Fallujah was credible. "We do not keep a count of dead Iraqis," Antonelli said. Asked the same question, the ICRC's Sidani said, "We don't know." > > > > Antonelli said, "U.S. forces never blocked aid convoys from reaching the wounded. We only recommended to the aid convoys that they should not enter the city because the MNF [Multi-National Forces] could not guarantee their security or safety." > > > > "The ICRC is very worried about the humanitarian situation in Falluja," Sidani said. Asked what the ICRC was doing to alleviate the suffering in Fallujah, Sidani said: "We are reminding the parties of their responsibilities under international humanitarian law." > > > > It should be noted that the U.S.A. and Britain, the belligerent occupying powers in Iraq, are the two largest contributors to the ICRC, providing more than 42 percent of its budget for field operations. > > > > A second convoy from Baghdad, headed by Dr. Said Ismael Haki, the IRCS president, delivered aid to Fallujah on Nov. 26. "There are no houses left in Fallujah, only destroyed places." Haki said. "I really don't know how the people will return to the city. No one will find their homes." > > > > As U.S. troops in Fallujah engaged in what has been described as the most intense urban combat since Vietnam, the controlled press scrupulously avoided discussion or footage of the devastation of the rebellious Sunni city. For example, during the second week of the attack, rather than discuss the widespread devastation of Fallujah, U.S. television news programs focused largely on a brawl between basketball players and fans in Detroit. > > > > Lt. Col. Brandl, commander of the 1st Battalion, 8th Marine Regiment, was filmed giving a "pep talk" to his marines: "The enemy has got a face – he's called Satan," Brandl said. "He's in Fallujah, and we're going to destroy him." > > > > At least 136 U.S. soldiers were killed during November in Iraq, and more than 800 were wounded, most of them in Fallujah, making it the most costly month, and operation, in terms of U.S. lives lost since the invasion of Iraq began in March 2003. > > > > FOR WHAT CAUSE? > > > > Michael Ware, Baghdad bureau chief for Time magazine, who has been in Fallujah during the fighting, said U.S. actions in Fallujah are "creating the nightmare that we are seeking to prevent." > > > > "I stood there as I saw American boys die," Ware told Chris Matthews of MSNBC on Nov. 24, "I mean, a man shot at close range, blown apart by a rocket propelled grenade. He dies there in front of you and I can't help but think why? For what cause? > > > > "I see us creating the very thing that the president said we went there to prevent," Ware said, "…subsequent to this invasion and the occupation and the guerrilla war that is currently underway, we are the midwives of the next generation of al Qaida and Islamic terrorist." > > > > Ware, who has interviewed senior insurgent leaders, said they study the writings of the Vietnamese general Vo Nguyen Giap, Che Guevara, and Mao Zedong. "They're bringing it straight from the Vietnam, and the broader insurgency playbook," Ware said. > > > > "The name of the game is deny the population to the insurgents," Ware said. "That's what we're trying to do, win hearts and minds. But we're not winning them." > > > > The U.S. struggle to win Iraqi hearts and minds suffered a further set back when NBC TV broadcast footage of a U.S. marine executing a wounded and unarmed Iraqi in a Fallujah mosque. The much-publicized shooting, apparently part of a massacre of a group of wounded resistance fighters, "was a rare crack in the façade that Washington, with the complicity of most of the corporate media, has tried to present to the world of its brutal assault on the rebel Iraqi city," Rohan Pearce wrote in The Greenleft Weekly Australia on Nov. 24. > > > > The New York Times has reported actions taken by U.S. forces in Fallujah, which appear to be prima facie evidence of war crimes, without mentioning that the actions constitute clear violations of the Laws of Land War found in the U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10. > > > > For example, a Nov. 20 Times article by Edward Wong, with two correspondents in Fallujah, reports that U.S. marines had transformed a mosque into a fortress with snipers and machine gunners perched on the roof. > > > > Then, using the passive form, Wong goes on to say that "no neutral group has been able to enter the city," without mentioning that U.S. forces blocked humanitarian aid convoys. Likewise, Wong wrote, "Electricity and water had been cut off." > > > > The Times, whose motto is "All the news that's fit to print," apparently didn't think that it's readers needed to know the U.S. forces had cut off the water and power to a city of 340,000 people. > > > > Asked if U.S. forces had cut power and water to Fallujah, Maj. Jay Antonelli of CPIC wrote: "MNF did, with approval of the Interim Iraqi Government, cut off electricity to the city of Fallujah as Operation Al-Fajr began. Water was not cut off intentionally, however the water system did sustain some kinetic damage during strikes." > > > > American Free Press asked the Pentagon's Lt. Col. Joe Yoswa if it is true that U.S. forces were using mosques as fortresses. "It's not possible," Yoswa said. "Under no circumstances. We would not set up snipers in a mosque in an offensive position." > > > > CPIC's Antonelli said: "MNF would not use a mosque as a 'fortress.' MNF and Iraqi security forces would only fire from a mosque if they were being fired upon and were firing back in self-defense." > > > > Abu Sabah, a refugee from Fallujah, reported seeing phosphorus bombs: "They used these weird bombs that put up smoke like a mushroom cloud. Then small pieces fell from the air with long tails of smoke trailing behind them. These exploded on the ground with large fires that burnt for half and hour," Abu Sabah said. "When anyone touched these fires their bodies burnt for hours." > > > > Eyewitnesses from Fallujah also reported seeing "melted" bodies. > > > > "THROW-AWAY SOLDIERS" > > > > Having seen what appeared to be a depleted uranium (DU) missile fired at a building in Fallujah on CNN during the first week of the fighting, AFP asked the Pentagon if DU weapons are being used in Fallujah. "Yes," Yoswa said, "DU is a standard round on the M-1 Abrams tank." > > > > Because U.S. marines in Fallujah are very close to the poison gas produced by exploded DU shells, AFP asked Yoswa if anything was being done to protect the troops from DU poisoning. Yoswa seemed unaware of the dangers posed by the use of DU. > > > > Marion Fulk, a retired nuclear scientist from Livermore National Lab told AFP that U.S. troops in DU contaminated battlefields are considered "throw-away soldiers." The Marines exposed to DU in Fallujah, and elsewhere, face greatly increased risks of cancer, deformed children, and other health problems in the future. > > > > OBLITERATION OF FALLUJAH > > > > The "obliteration of Fallujah" is a serious war crime, according to Francis A. Boyle, a professor of international law at the University of Illinois. "The obliteration of Fallujah continues apace," Boyle wrote in his Nov. 15 article, A War Crime in Real Time: Obliterating Fallujah. "Article 6(b) of the 1945 Nuremberg Charter defines a Nuremberg War Crime in relevant part as the 'wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages.' According to this definitive definition, the Bush administration's destruction of Fallujah constitutes a war crime for which Nazis were tried and executed." > > > > Finis > > -30- > > 1629 words > > Do you Yahoo!? > The all-new My Yahoo! – What will yours do? > > > > > > Francis A. Boyle > > Law Building > > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > > Champaign IL 61820 USA > > 217-333-7954 (phone) > > 217-244-1478 (fax) > > (personal comments only) > > > > From: Boyle, Francis A > Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2017 8:13 PM > To: 'Roger Helbig' > Cc: 'Karen Aram' ; Estabrook, Carl G ; 'peace-discuss at anti-war.net' ; 'C. G. ESTABROOK' ; 'Jay Becker' ; 'a-fields at uiuc.edu' ; Hoffman, Valerie J ; 'Joe Lauria' ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; Szoke, Ron ; 'Dave Trippel' ; 'Arlene Hickory' ; 'David Swanson' ; 'peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net' ; 'sherwoodross10 at gmail.com' ; 'abass10 at gmail.com' ; 'mickalideh at gmail.com' ; 'Lina Thorne' ; 'chicago at worldcantwait.net' > Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG > > > > Mattis expected his troops to be peacekeepers. They brought soccer balls with them when they deployed. > > LOL! Marines don’t play soccer or teach kids to play soccer.. My Dad was a Marine. He invaded Saipan, Tinian and Okinawa before he became a Lawyer. Marines destroy anyone and anything that is in front of them as they are trained to do and did at Fallujah under Mattis—A Real Mad Dog War Criminal. Fab. > > > > > > > > Francis A. Boyle > > Law Building > > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > > Champaign IL 61820 USA > > 217-333-7954 (phone) > > 217-244-1478 (fax) > > (personal comments only) > > > > From: Boyle, Francis A > Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2017 7:52 PM > To: 'Roger Helbig' > Cc: Karen Aram ; Estabrook, Carl G ; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; Jay Becker ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; Szoke, Ron ; Dave Trippel ; Arlene Hickory ; David Swanson ; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net > Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Karim A G [mailto:coffee at euro-comm.co.uk] > Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2004 5:00 PM > To: Karim A G > Subject: A War Crime in Real Time > > http://www.counterpunch.org/boyle11152004.html > > > > November 15, 2004 > > A War Crime in Real Time > > Obliterating Fallujah > > By FRANCIS A. BOYLE > > The obliteration of Fallujah continues apace. Article 6(b) of the 1945 Nuremberg Charter defines a Nuremberg War Crime in relevant part as the ". . . wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages. . ." According to this definitive definition, the Bush Jr. administration's destruction of Fallujah constitutes a war crime for which Nazis were tried and executed. There is nothing surprising about that. > > Since the Bush Jr. administration's installation in power by the United States Supreme Court in January of 2001, the peoples of the world have witnessed a government in the United States of America that has demonstrated little if any respect for fundamental considerations of international law, international organizations, and human rights, let alone appreciation of the requirements for maintaining international peace and security. What the world has watched instead is a comprehensive and malicious assault upon the integrity of the international legal order by a group of men and women who are thoroughly Machiavellian in their perception of international relations and in their conduct of both foreign policy and domestic affairs. This is not simply a question of giving or withholding the benefit of the doubt when it comes to complicated matters of foreign affairs and defense policies to a U.S. government charged with the security of both its own citizens and those of its allies in Europe, the Western Hemisphere, and the Pacific. Rather, the Bush Jr. administration's foreign policy constitutes ongoing criminal activity under well-recognized principles of both international law and U.S. domestic law, in particular the Nuremberg Charter, the Nuremberg Judgment, and the Nuremberg Principles. So their obliteration of Fallujah was to be expected. > > One generation ago the peoples of the world asked themselves: Where were the "good" Germans? Well, there were some good Germans. The Lutheran theologian and pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer was the foremost exemplar of someone who led a life of principled opposition to the Nazi-terror state even unto death. > > Today the peoples of the world are likewise asking themselves: Where are the "good" Americans? Well, there are some good Americans. Like three Catholic Nuns in Denver, they are getting arrested and going to jail for protesting against United States weapons of mass destruction (WMD) whose power for human extermination far exceeds even the wildest fantasies of Hitler and the Nazis. Or else for protesting against illegal U.S.. military interventions around the world. Just recently the Nuclear Resister estimated that since the Fall of 2002, there have been more than 9,500 anti-war related arrests in the United States alone. Many more will be coming. > > In international legal terms, the Bush Jr. administration itself should now be viewed as constituting an ongoing criminal conspiracy under international criminal law in violation of the Nuremberg Charter, the Nuremberg Judgment, and the Nuremberg Principles, due to its formulation and undertaking of aggressive war policies that are legally akin to those perpetrated by the Nazi regime. As a consequence, American citizens possess the basic right under international law and the United States domestic law, including the U.S. Constitution, to engage in acts of non-violent civil resistance in order to prevent, impede, thwart, or terminate ongoing criminal activities perpetrated by U.S. government officials in their conduct of foreign affairs policies and military operations purported to relate to defense and counter-terrorism. > > This same right of civil resistance extends pari passu to all citizens of the world community of states. Everyone around the world has both the right and the duty under international law to resist ongoing criminal activities perpetrated by the Bush Jr. administration and its nefarious foreign accomplices such as Blair, Berlusconi, Howard, Koizumi, Kwasniewski, etc. by all non-violent means possible. If it is not so restrained, the Bush Jr. administration could very well precipitate a Third World War. > > The time for preventive action is now. Civil resistance is the way to go. People power can overcome power politics. Popular movements have succeeded in toppling tyrannical, dictatorial and authoritarian regimes throughout former Communist countries in Eastern Europe, as well as in Asia, and most recently in Latin America. It is time once again to exercise People Power here in the United States of America: "When in the Course of human Events. . . We hold these Truths to be self-evident. . . . we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and sacred Honor." > > Despite the best efforts by the Bush Jr. Leaguers to the contrary, we American Citizens still have our First Amendment Rights: Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Association, Freedom of Assembly, Freedom to Petition our Government for the Redress of these massive Grievances, Civil Resistance, etc. We are going to have to start vigorously exercising all of our First Amendment Rights right now. We must use them or else, as the saying goes, we will lose them. We must act not only for the good of the Peoples of Southwest Asia, but for our future, that of our children, that of our nation as a democratic society committed to the Rule of Law and the U.S. Constitution. The Nazis had their "homeland" too > > Francis A. Boyle, Professor of Law, University of Illinois, is author of Foundations of World Order, Duke University Press, The Criminality of Nuclear Deterrence, and Palestine, Palestinians and International Law, by Clarity Press. He can be reached at: FBOYLE at LAW.UIUC.EDU > > --- > Subscribed as: fboyle at law.uiuc.edu; to unsubscribe send to al-awda-universalist-request at umich.edu > with UNSUBSCRIBE as the SUBJECT. > URL: > > > Francis A. Boyle > > Law Building > > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > > Champaign IL 61820 USA > > 217-333-7954 (phone) > > 217-244-1478 (fax) > > (personal comments only) > > > > From: Roger Helbig [mailto:rwhelbig at gmail.com] > Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2017 6:43 PM > To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: Karen Aram ; Estabrook, Carl G ; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; Jay Becker ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; Szoke, Ron ; Dave Trippel ; Arlene Hickory ; David Swanson ; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG > > > > There was no massacre at Fallujah. This is nonsense. Mattis expected his troops to be peacekeepers. They brought soccer balls with them when they deployed. > > > > I would love to see your "so called" war crime indictment. Wonder how much of it is from your fertile Hate America imagination and how much from the fertile Arab anti-American propaganda organs. Doubt a single paragraph is actually based on fact. > > > > On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 8:22 AM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: > > Trump’s Secretary of War Mad Dog Mattis was responsible for the Massacre at Fallujah, which I pointed out on Counterpunch was a Nuremberg War Crime along the lines of the Nazis—the wanton devastation of a city-- in revenge for them killing our mercenaries. Fab. > > > > Francis A. Boyle > > Law Building > > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > > Champaign IL 61820 USA > > 217-333-7954 (phone) > > 217-244-1478 (fax) > > (personal comments only) > > > > From: Karen Aram [mailto:karenaram at hotmail.com] > Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2017 10:04 AM > To: Estabrook, Carl G > Cc: Boyle, Francis A ; Jay Becker ; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; Szoke, Ron ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; Arlene Hickory ; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; David Swanson ; Dave Trippel ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Mildred O'brien ; David Johnson ; Joe Lauria ; David Green > Subject: Re: Guest Commentary by Carl in NG > > > > I’m sorry Carl, I don’t agree with that title either. It assumes that all in the anti-war movement welcome the Trump administration. Not all of us trust he will do some of that which he promised in respect to “defunding Nato,” “making friends with Russia,” or killing TPP. Even if he does those three things, his further provocations of China, are every bit as dangerous as those with Russia, it’s a mere tactic to drive a wedge between Russia and China, while chipping away at Iran. > > > > His Cabinet appointments are frightening to say the least in respect to Healthcare, Energy, Education, Housing, etc, etc. > > > > Further expansion of war in the Middle East, and North Africa, as well as expansion of capitalist corporate control is on the agenda no matter which of the two Party’s are in power. > > > > Obama paved the way, for all of which I have just referred, but it’s not over. Our only hope is that “the people” are now awake, and perhaps will focus on that which is most serious to survival. > > > > > > On Jan 22, 2017, at 07:44, Carl G. Estabrook wrote: > > > > My original title was, “Why the anti-war movement welcomes the new administration.” > > > > For more on that theme, see . > > > > —CGE > > > > > > On Jan 22, 2017, at 9:29 AM, Karen Aram wrote: > > > > An excellent letter, which I posted on FB. I deliberately deleted the title that I assumed the NG created, because it gives the false impression that those of us in the anti-war movement, all support Trump. We don’t, we just didn’t support Hillary. Anyone in the anti-war movement supporting Hillary was supporting more of the same that Obama provided. > > > > > > On Jan 22, 2017, at 07:16, Boyle, Francis A wrote: > > > > He {Obama} attacked eight countries (two more than George Bush), and conducted what one leading political commentator called "the most extreme terrorist campaign of modern times — his drone assassinations." He killed thousands of civilians with drones, including U.S. citizens and hundreds of children. > > A good letter by Carl today in NG. (Remember NG writes their own titles to letters.) We must now hold Trump’s feet to the fire across the board! I think Carl’s quote comes from Chomsky? In any event the Illinois Nazis Law Faculty fully supported and promoted and held out for emulation by lawyers and this Campus and our Good Community: > > "the most extreme terrorist campaign of modern times — his drone assassinations." > > > > The Illinois Nazis Law Faculty are just a GANG OF SICK PUPPIES! > > Fab > > Ed Norton Professor of Law > > Carl Schmitt College of Law: > > “Mein Fuhrer, I can walk!” > > > > > > Francis A. Boyle > > Law Building > > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > > Champaign IL 61820 USA > > 217-333-7954 (phone) > > 217-244-1478 (fax) > > (personal comments only) > > > > Feed: News-Gazette.com > Posted on: Sunday, January 22, 2017 7:00 AM > Author: digital.media > Subject: Guest Commentary: Why anti-war movement welcomes Trump > > > > By C.G. ESTABROOK > > The European anti-war group "No War No NATO" writes as follows: > > "Demonstrating in Europe on 21 January, against the newly elected US President Donald Trump is tantamount to lending support to the Obama administration, which has transformed Europe into NATO's first line of attack, nuclear matters inclusive, against Russia. > > read more > > > View article... > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > > > > From fboyle at illinois.edu Sat Nov 4 13:57:26 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2017 13:57:26 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG In-Reply-To: References: <9D3D5E59-5EFC-47DF-838D-C6508214E176@illinois.edu> Message-ID: In other words, approximately 3.3 million Iraqis were exterminated by the United States and the United Kingdom from August of 1990 until the end of 2011 when President Obama had ordered the purported “final” withdrawal of U.S. military forces from Iraq. And these are very conservative figures that I believe could be proven to the satisfaction of the International Court of Justice. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -----Original Message----- From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2017 8:55 AM To: C G Estabrook ; Roger Helbig Cc: Karen Aram ; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; Jay Becker ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; Szoke, Ron ; Dave Trippel ; Arlene Hickory ; David Swanson ; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG Of course the Illinois Nazi Faculty of Law and its Yale Mafia Law Dean Iceman Amar are more than happy to exterminate Muslims/Arabs/Asians of Color. Fab. Legal Protection Of Children In Armed Conflict: The Iraqi Children Genocide By Francis A. Boyle 04 December, 2012 Countercurrents.org This is the text version of a speech delivered by Francis A. Boyle at The International Conference on War-affected Children Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, November 22, 2012 During the summer of 1991 I was contacted on behalf of several Mothers in Iraq whose children were dying at astounding rates because of the genocidal economic sanctions that had been imposed upon them by the Security Council in August of 1990 at the behest of the Bush Senior administration. They requested that I do something in order to save these innocent children from perishing in agony in front of their mothers’ very own eyes. Using the format of the Writ for World Habeas Corpus that had been previously provided to me by my friend and colleague, the late Luis Kutner, Esq. of Chicago, Illinois, I filed a class-action Complaint on behalf of the 4.5 million children of Iraq against President George Bush Senior and the United States of America with the United Nations Organization that was dated 18 September 1991.[1] I submitted the Complaint to the Secretary General of the U.N., member states of the General Assembly, the Economic and Social Council, the Commission on Human Rights, the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, UNESCO, and UNICEF. A copy of my Indictment, Complaint and Petition for Relief from Genocide on behalf of the 4.5 million children of Iraq is reprinted below. This Complaint accused the United States and President Bush Senior (1) of committing the international crime of genocide against the 4.5 Million Children of Iraq in violation of the International Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide of 1948 and in violation of the municipal legal systems of all civilized nations in the world; (2) of a gross and consistent pattern of violations of the most fundamental human rights of the 4.5 Million Children of Iraq as recognized and guaranteed to them by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948; (3) of the complete negation and denial of all the rights guaranteed to the 4.5 Million Children of Iraq by the 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child; and (4) of the systematic violation of the special protections of international humanitarian law guaranteed to the 4.5 Million Children of Iraq by the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 and Additional Protocol I thereto of 1977. My Complaint demanded (1) the termination of all forms of multilateral and bilateral economic sanctions against Iraq; (2) the massive provision of international humanitarian relief supplies to Iraq by all organs of the United Nations System; (3) that monetary compensation be paid to the children of Iraq and their families for deaths as well as for all physical and mental injury by the United States; and (4) that criminal proceedings for genocide be instituted against President George Bush Senior by the appropriate organs of the United Nations System as well as by all municipal legal systems in the world, including by the United States government. My Complaint estimated that since sanctions were first imposed against Iraq in August of 1990, Iraqi children were dying as a direct result thereof at the rate of about 500 per day. Despite my best professional efforts working on behalf of my Clients pro bono publico, the grossly hypocritical United Nations Organization adamantly refused to act to terminate these genocidal sanctions and thus to save the dying children of Iraq. In 1995 the United Nations’ own Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) Report estimated that these genocidal economic sanctions against Iraq had by then killed about 560,000 Iraqi children since when they were first imposed in 1990.[2] In specific regard to these murdered Iraqi children, then U.S. Secretary of State Madeline Albright, was interviewed on the CBS Television Network on 12 May 1996 by correspondent Leslie Stahl. The transcript of this interview provided by CBS News itself reads as follows:[3] Stahl: (Voiceover) If the Iraqi people place any blame on Saddam Hussein, they’re afraid to say so. And there is no longer much hope that the sanctions will inspire the people to rise up and topple the government. Now people are just trying to get by because one of the side effects of the sanctions has been inflation, which has jumped as high as 3,000 percent. To make ends meet, Iraqis are selling everything they can. Flea markets have sprung up on the streets, where families can sell their furniture, clothes, anything they can to make a few extra dinars. Most Iraqis are suffering We have heard that a half a million children have died. I mean, that’s more children than died when-wh-in-in Hiroshima. And-and, you know, is the price worth it? Ambassador Albright: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price – we think the price is worth it. This shocking and revolting statement made by the U.S. Secretary of State provided proof positive of the genocidal intent by the United States Government against Iraq and its children and its people as defined by and in violation of Genocide Convention Article II: “In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group, as such. . . .” Certainly a half-million dead Iraqi children that the U.S. Secretary of State specifically intended to destroy as such, and did indeed destroy as such, constituted a very important “part” of the Iraqi people. These half-million dead children were the very future of the people and state of Iraq. This Albright statement is what criminal lawyers call a classic “Admission Against Interest.” This Statement by the then sitting U.S. Secretary of State, acting within the scope of her official duties and speaking in the name of the United States government, could be taken to the International Court of Justice in The Hague and filed to prove that the United States of America possessed the required mens rea (criminal intent) necessary to commit the international crime of genocide. Under both international law and U.S. domestic law, to be guilty of a crime a person or a state must possess the requisite mens rea at the same time that he or she or it commits the criminal act (actus reus). With respect to these genocidal economic sanctions against Iraq, the actus reus for the U.S. government and its officials committing the international crime of genocide is set forth in Genocide Convention Article II (c): “Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.” The 500,000 dead Iraqi children, as conceded and approved by U.S. Secretary of State Albright, constituted a “substantial part” of the people of Iraq, which is the threshold numerical test for genocide recognized by the International Court of Justice itself that I had successfully argued there for Bosnia and Herzegovina against Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) in 1993. Albright incriminated both herself and the United States of America at the same time, apparently without thought or concern as to any future international legal determination of their culpability. Such is the arrogance of the powerful—which is usually the source of their downfall. The United States and the United Kingdom obstinately insisted that the genocidal economic sanctions imposed against Iraq remain in place until after the conclusion of the internationally illegal Gulf War II of aggression perpetrated by the Bush Junior administration and the Tony Blair government against Iraq in March of 2003. Then, on 22 May 2003 the United States and the United Kingdom procured U.N. Security Council Resolution 1483 lifting these genocidal economic sanctions; yet not with a view to easing the over decade-long suffering of the Iraqi people and children. But rather so as to better facilitate the U.S./U.K. unsupervised looting and plundering of the Iraqi economy and oil fields in violation of the international laws of war as well as to the grave detriment of the Iraqi people and their children. Once I had gotten this class-action Complaint filed with the United Nations Organization and had worked out the basic legal theory for U.S. genocide against the children of Iraq, starting in the Fall of 1991 I did everything humanly possible to convince the then President of Iraq to give me the legal authority to sue the United States and the United Kingdom at the International Court of Justice in The Hague on the basis of the 1948 Genocide Convention: First, in order to break the genocidal economic embargo against the people of Iraq, and especially their children. And second, in order to prevent what I perceived to be further impending military attacks by the United States and Britain upon Iraq that would culminate someday in stealing all their oil. I most strenuously pursued these efforts systematically and continuously until the very eve of the war of aggression against Iraq by the Bush Junior administration and the Tony Blair government in mid-March of 2003. These efforts also included two meetings with the then Foreign Minister of Iraq and their top international lawyer to review, consider, and discuss papers I had drafted to be filed by Iraq in the World Court against the United States and the United Kingdom in order to accomplish these objectives.[4] In addition, at the very last minute available I also attempted to convince the Deputy Prime Minister of Iraq to give me the legal authority to file these World Court lawsuits against the U.S. and the U.K. literally right up until the outbreak of hostilities in mid-March of 2003. All to no avail. Despite my best efforts, I failed. This shall always be one of the great disappointments of my life. Approximately 1.7 million Iraqis died as a direct result of these genocidal economic sanctions, including within that number about 750,000 Iraqi children. In addition, another 1.4 million Iraqis died as a result of the Bush Junior/Tony Blair genocidal war of aggression against Iraq. To this appalling genocidal death toll must be added the 200,000 Iraqis President Bush Senior slaughtered in his 1991 Gulf War I. In other words, approximately 3.3 million Iraqis were exterminated by the United States and the United Kingdom from August of 1990 until the end of 2011 when President Obama had ordered the purported “final” withdrawal of U.S. military forces from Iraq. And these are very conservative figures that I believe could be proven to the satisfaction of the International Court of Justice. These World Court papers that I drew up for Iraq to sue the United States and the United Kingdom at the International Court of Justice on the basis of the 1948 Genocide Convention that were twice considered and reviewed by the Foreign Minister of Iraq and their top international lawyer still sit in my office today. They could be revised and updated by the current government of Iraq in order to sue the United States and the United Kingdom at the International Court of Justice for genocide today. Of course this is for the current government of Iraq to decide. Towards facilitating that objective, I will be more than happy to make these World Court papers available to the current government of Iraq free of charge if they so desire. For Iraq to file my proposed World Court lawsuits for genocide against the United States and the United Kingdom would produce some small degree of justice for the 750,000 murdered children of Iraq and at least 3.3 million exterminated Iraqis. Thank you. [1] See Edward Pearce, Death and Indecency in a Time of Cholera, The Guardian, Oct. 25, 1991. [2] See Ramsey Clark, FAO Report, and Others, The Children Are Dying (World View Forum, Inc.: 1996). [3] See 5/12/96 60 Minutes, 1996 Westlaw 8064912. [4] Iraq to Go to World Court, South News, Jan. 28, 1998: “U.S. Professor of International Law Francis Boyle has publicly offered to charge U.S. leaders for genocide against the Iraqi people.” Professor Francis A. Boyle is an international law expert and served as Legal Advisor to the Palestine Liberation Organization and Yasser Arafat on the 1988 Palestinian Declaration of Independence, as well as to the Palestinian Delegation to the Middle East Peace Negotiations from 1991 to 1993, where he drafted the Palestinian counter-offer to the now defunct Oslo Agreement. His books include “ Palestine, Palestinians and International Law” (2003), and “ The Palestinian Right of Return under International Law” (2010). © Copyright 2012 by Francis A. Boyle. All rights reserved. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -----Original Message----- From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2017 8:42 AM To: Roger Helbig Cc: Boyle, Francis A ; Karen Aram ; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; Jay Becker ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; Szoke, Ron ; Dave Trippel ; Arlene Hickory ; David Swanson ; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG Of course the US committed war crimes in Iraq. The US invasion of that country is the greatest international crime of the century - so far. On ‘American Free Press,’ see . > On Nov 4, 2017, at 8:11 AM, Roger Helbig wrote: > > You do know that Christopher Bollyn is NOT a reporter but is a Neo Nazi operative of long standing and that the American Free Press is not a news organization, but a Neo Nazi front - look up Willis Carto - he was Bollyn's boss and founded the American Free Press - this website that has reports of conference for American Free Press and The Barnes Review used to have a prominent picture of a Nazi flag behind the blogger Alex Hassinger - Douglas Lind Rokke of Urbana spoke at this event and Dave von Kleist the producer of Rokke's first anti-US propaganda video "Beyond Treason" was the master of ceremonies - http://www.chairmanofnordwave.blogspot.com > > Carto died in 2015 - there are a number of good sources on Carto in a simple Google search - > > Learn about Neo Nazis - read this book - "Blood and Politics" - it mentions Bollyn and extensively discusses Carto - pg 382, which I can e-mail to all who request - has Carto's establishment of The Barnes Review, a Holocaust Denial publication - The American Free Press replaced Carto's The Spotlight after Carto lost a legal battle - Bollyn is also mentioned in connection with a Pat Buchanan campaign apparatus > > On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 4:57 AM, Boyle, Francis A wrote: > I also want to make it clear for the record that before the invasions of Saipan, Tinian and Okinawa my Father, a Marine, was ordered by his Captain not to take prisoners of war on the grounds of reciprocity that the Japanese did not take Prisoners of War of our Men. My Father disobeyed these clearly illegal orders and took Japanese Prisoners of War. I cite the example of my Father to my law students to refute the objection that you cannot expect soldiers to obey the laws of war during combat. If my Father could obey the laws of war at Saipan, Tinian, and Okinawa, any other soldier should be able to do the same. Meanwhile,while I am teaching this to my students, the Illinois Nazis Law Faculty aid, abet, and promote and facilitate war crimes and crimes against humanity from the safety of their offices. My Father later became a Lawyer. RIP. The Illinois Nazis Law Faculty are despicable! Fab. > > > > Francis A. Boyle > > Law Building > > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > > Champaign IL 61820 USA > > 217-333-7954 (phone) > > 217-244-1478 (fax) > > (personal comments only) > > > > From: Boyle, Francis A > Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2017 8:38 PM > To: Roger Helbig > Cc: Karen Aram ; Estabrook, Carl G ; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; Jay Becker ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; Szoke, Ron ; Dave Trippel ; Arlene Hickory ; David Swanson ; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net > Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG > > > > Mad Dog Mattis the Nuremberg War Criminal. Fab. > > CONTROLLED PRESS IGNORES > > CRIMINAL OBLITERATION OF FALLUJAH > > > > By Christopher Bollyn > > American Free Press > > > > The controlled press has scrupulously avoided discussing the devastation and prima facie evidence of war crimes committed during the U.S. siege and assault of Fallujah. > > > > As Americans prepared for Thanksgiving, an estimated 100,000 residents of the besieged Iraqi city of Fallujah, trapped in their homes, struggled to survive without fresh food, water or electricity, reportedly cut off by U.S. forces on November 8. > > > > Meanwhile, on the streets of Fallujah, a city of more than 350,000, dogs gnawed on bloated and rotting corpses that remained unburied for weeks. > > > > Thousands of families in Fallujah were reported to be in a critical humanitarian situation after U.S. forces prevented the delivery of relief supplies. An Iraq Red Crescent Society (IRCS) humanitarian aid convoy, reportedly blocked by U.S. troops for more than two weeks, was allowed to deliver aid to residents in the heart of the city on November 25. > > > > On Thanksgiving, U.S. forces permitted the IRCS convoy carrying thousands of food parcels, blankets, tents and medical supplies to enter the city and allowed one of the clinics to be converted into a temporary hospital to treat the injured. Rana Sidani of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) in Geneva, Switzerland however, told American Free Press on Nov. 30 that "many civilians" were still prevented from receiving aid or medical care. > > > > At the beginning of the U.S. operation in Fallujah on Nov. 5, a hospital in the central Nazzal district of Fallujah was "reduced to rubble" as a result of U.S. air and artillery bombardment. "Only its façade, with a sign reading Nazzal Emergency Hospital, remained intact," Reuters reported. > > > > "A nearby compound used by the main Falluja Hospital to store medical supplies was also destroyed," witnesses told Reuters. Fallujah's main hospital was occupied by U.S. forces when the ground offensive began. These actions are apparent violations of international humanitarian law. > > > > "Bodies can be seen everywhere and people were crying when receiving the food parcels," Muhammad al-Nuri, a spokesman for the IRCS in Baghdad, said. "It is very sad. It is a human disaster." > > > > Al-Nuri said that it is difficult to move in the city due to the large number of dead bodies in the streets. The ICRS estimates there are more than 6,000 dead in Fallujah, al-Nuri said. > > > > AFP asked Major Jay Antonelli at the Coalition Press Information Center (CPIC) in Baghdad if the ICRS estimate of 6,000 dead in Fallujah was credible. "We do not keep a count of dead Iraqis," Antonelli said. Asked the same question, the ICRC's Sidani said, "We don't know." > > > > Antonelli said, "U.S. forces never blocked aid convoys from reaching the wounded. We only recommended to the aid convoys that they should not enter the city because the MNF [Multi-National Forces] could not guarantee their security or safety." > > > > "The ICRC is very worried about the humanitarian situation in Falluja," Sidani said. Asked what the ICRC was doing to alleviate the suffering in Fallujah, Sidani said: "We are reminding the parties of their responsibilities under international humanitarian law." > > > > It should be noted that the U.S.A. and Britain, the belligerent occupying powers in Iraq, are the two largest contributors to the ICRC, providing more than 42 percent of its budget for field operations. > > > > A second convoy from Baghdad, headed by Dr. Said Ismael Haki, the IRCS president, delivered aid to Fallujah on Nov. 26. "There are no houses left in Fallujah, only destroyed places." Haki said. "I really don't know how the people will return to the city. No one will find their homes." > > > > As U.S. troops in Fallujah engaged in what has been described as the most intense urban combat since Vietnam, the controlled press scrupulously avoided discussion or footage of the devastation of the rebellious Sunni city. For example, during the second week of the attack, rather than discuss the widespread devastation of Fallujah, U.S. television news programs focused largely on a brawl between basketball players and fans in Detroit. > > > > Lt. Col. Brandl, commander of the 1st Battalion, 8th Marine Regiment, was filmed giving a "pep talk" to his marines: "The enemy has got a face – he's called Satan," Brandl said. "He's in Fallujah, and we're going to destroy him." > > > > At least 136 U.S. soldiers were killed during November in Iraq, and more than 800 were wounded, most of them in Fallujah, making it the most costly month, and operation, in terms of U.S. lives lost since the invasion of Iraq began in March 2003. > > > > FOR WHAT CAUSE? > > > > Michael Ware, Baghdad bureau chief for Time magazine, who has been in Fallujah during the fighting, said U.S. actions in Fallujah are "creating the nightmare that we are seeking to prevent." > > > > "I stood there as I saw American boys die," Ware told Chris Matthews of MSNBC on Nov. 24, "I mean, a man shot at close range, blown apart by a rocket propelled grenade. He dies there in front of you and I can't help but think why? For what cause? > > > > "I see us creating the very thing that the president said we went there to prevent," Ware said, "…subsequent to this invasion and the occupation and the guerrilla war that is currently underway, we are the midwives of the next generation of al Qaida and Islamic terrorist." > > > > Ware, who has interviewed senior insurgent leaders, said they study the writings of the Vietnamese general Vo Nguyen Giap, Che Guevara, and Mao Zedong. "They're bringing it straight from the Vietnam, and the broader insurgency playbook," Ware said. > > > > "The name of the game is deny the population to the insurgents," Ware said. "That's what we're trying to do, win hearts and minds. But we're not winning them." > > > > The U.S. struggle to win Iraqi hearts and minds suffered a further set back when NBC TV broadcast footage of a U.S. marine executing a wounded and unarmed Iraqi in a Fallujah mosque. The much-publicized shooting, apparently part of a massacre of a group of wounded resistance fighters, "was a rare crack in the façade that Washington, with the complicity of most of the corporate media, has tried to present to the world of its brutal assault on the rebel Iraqi city," Rohan Pearce wrote in The Greenleft Weekly Australia on Nov. 24. > > > > The New York Times has reported actions taken by U.S. forces in Fallujah, which appear to be prima facie evidence of war crimes, without mentioning that the actions constitute clear violations of the Laws of Land War found in the U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10. > > > > For example, a Nov. 20 Times article by Edward Wong, with two correspondents in Fallujah, reports that U.S. marines had transformed a mosque into a fortress with snipers and machine gunners perched on the roof. > > > > Then, using the passive form, Wong goes on to say that "no neutral group has been able to enter the city," without mentioning that U.S. forces blocked humanitarian aid convoys. Likewise, Wong wrote, "Electricity and water had been cut off." > > > > The Times, whose motto is "All the news that's fit to print," apparently didn't think that it's readers needed to know the U.S. forces had cut off the water and power to a city of 340,000 people. > > > > Asked if U.S. forces had cut power and water to Fallujah, Maj. Jay Antonelli of CPIC wrote: "MNF did, with approval of the Interim Iraqi Government, cut off electricity to the city of Fallujah as Operation Al-Fajr began. Water was not cut off intentionally, however the water system did sustain some kinetic damage during strikes." > > > > American Free Press asked the Pentagon's Lt. Col. Joe Yoswa if it is true that U.S. forces were using mosques as fortresses. "It's not possible," Yoswa said. "Under no circumstances. We would not set up snipers in a mosque in an offensive position." > > > > CPIC's Antonelli said: "MNF would not use a mosque as a 'fortress.' MNF and Iraqi security forces would only fire from a mosque if they were being fired upon and were firing back in self-defense." > > > > Abu Sabah, a refugee from Fallujah, reported seeing phosphorus bombs: "They used these weird bombs that put up smoke like a mushroom cloud. Then small pieces fell from the air with long tails of smoke trailing behind them. These exploded on the ground with large fires that burnt for half and hour," Abu Sabah said. "When anyone touched these fires their bodies burnt for hours." > > > > Eyewitnesses from Fallujah also reported seeing "melted" bodies. > > > > "THROW-AWAY SOLDIERS" > > > > Having seen what appeared to be a depleted uranium (DU) missile fired at a building in Fallujah on CNN during the first week of the fighting, AFP asked the Pentagon if DU weapons are being used in Fallujah. "Yes," Yoswa said, "DU is a standard round on the M-1 Abrams tank." > > > > Because U.S. marines in Fallujah are very close to the poison gas produced by exploded DU shells, AFP asked Yoswa if anything was being done to protect the troops from DU poisoning. Yoswa seemed unaware of the dangers posed by the use of DU. > > > > Marion Fulk, a retired nuclear scientist from Livermore National Lab told AFP that U.S. troops in DU contaminated battlefields are considered "throw-away soldiers." The Marines exposed to DU in Fallujah, and elsewhere, face greatly increased risks of cancer, deformed children, and other health problems in the future. > > > > OBLITERATION OF FALLUJAH > > > > The "obliteration of Fallujah" is a serious war crime, according to Francis A. Boyle, a professor of international law at the University of Illinois. "The obliteration of Fallujah continues apace," Boyle wrote in his Nov. 15 article, A War Crime in Real Time: Obliterating Fallujah. "Article 6(b) of the 1945 Nuremberg Charter defines a Nuremberg War Crime in relevant part as the 'wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages.' According to this definitive definition, the Bush administration's destruction of Fallujah constitutes a war crime for which Nazis were tried and executed." > > > > Finis > > -30- > > 1629 words > > Do you Yahoo!? > The all-new My Yahoo! – What will yours do? > > > > > > Francis A. Boyle > > Law Building > > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > > Champaign IL 61820 USA > > 217-333-7954 (phone) > > 217-244-1478 (fax) > > (personal comments only) > > > > From: Boyle, Francis A > Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2017 8:13 PM > To: 'Roger Helbig' > Cc: 'Karen Aram' ; Estabrook, Carl G ; 'peace-discuss at anti-war.net' ; 'C. G. ESTABROOK' ; 'Jay Becker' ; 'a-fields at uiuc.edu' ; Hoffman, Valerie J ; 'Joe Lauria' ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; Szoke, Ron ; 'Dave Trippel' ; 'Arlene Hickory' ; 'David Swanson' ; 'peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net' ; 'sherwoodross10 at gmail.com' ; 'abass10 at gmail.com' ; 'mickalideh at gmail.com' ; 'Lina Thorne' ; 'chicago at worldcantwait.net' > Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG > > > > Mattis expected his troops to be peacekeepers. They brought soccer balls with them when they deployed. > > LOL! Marines don’t play soccer or teach kids to play soccer.. My Dad was a Marine. He invaded Saipan, Tinian and Okinawa before he became a Lawyer. Marines destroy anyone and anything that is in front of them as they are trained to do and did at Fallujah under Mattis—A Real Mad Dog War Criminal. Fab. > > > > > > > > Francis A. Boyle > > Law Building > > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > > Champaign IL 61820 USA > > 217-333-7954 (phone) > > 217-244-1478 (fax) > > (personal comments only) > > > > From: Boyle, Francis A > Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2017 7:52 PM > To: 'Roger Helbig' > Cc: Karen Aram ; Estabrook, Carl G ; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; Jay Becker ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; Szoke, Ron ; Dave Trippel ; Arlene Hickory ; David Swanson ; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net > Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Karim A G [mailto:coffee at euro-comm.co.uk] > Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2004 5:00 PM > To: Karim A G > Subject: A War Crime in Real Time > > http://www.counterpunch.org/boyle11152004.html > > > > November 15, 2004 > > A War Crime in Real Time > > Obliterating Fallujah > > By FRANCIS A. BOYLE > > The obliteration of Fallujah continues apace. Article 6(b) of the 1945 Nuremberg Charter defines a Nuremberg War Crime in relevant part as the ". . . wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages. . ." According to this definitive definition, the Bush Jr. administration's destruction of Fallujah constitutes a war crime for which Nazis were tried and executed. There is nothing surprising about that. > > Since the Bush Jr. administration's installation in power by the United States Supreme Court in January of 2001, the peoples of the world have witnessed a government in the United States of America that has demonstrated little if any respect for fundamental considerations of international law, international organizations, and human rights, let alone appreciation of the requirements for maintaining international peace and security. What the world has watched instead is a comprehensive and malicious assault upon the integrity of the international legal order by a group of men and women who are thoroughly Machiavellian in their perception of international relations and in their conduct of both foreign policy and domestic affairs. This is not simply a question of giving or withholding the benefit of the doubt when it comes to complicated matters of foreign affairs and defense policies to a U.S. government charged with the security of both its own citizens and those of its allies in Europe, the Western Hemisphere, and the Pacific. Rather, the Bush Jr. administration's foreign policy constitutes ongoing criminal activity under well-recognized principles of both international law and U.S. domestic law, in particular the Nuremberg Charter, the Nuremberg Judgment, and the Nuremberg Principles. So their obliteration of Fallujah was to be expected. > > One generation ago the peoples of the world asked themselves: Where were the "good" Germans? Well, there were some good Germans. The Lutheran theologian and pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer was the foremost exemplar of someone who led a life of principled opposition to the Nazi-terror state even unto death. > > Today the peoples of the world are likewise asking themselves: Where are the "good" Americans? Well, there are some good Americans. Like three Catholic Nuns in Denver, they are getting arrested and going to jail for protesting against United States weapons of mass destruction (WMD) whose power for human extermination far exceeds even the wildest fantasies of Hitler and the Nazis. Or else for protesting against illegal U.S.. military interventions around the world. Just recently the Nuclear Resister estimated that since the Fall of 2002, there have been more than 9,500 anti-war related arrests in the United States alone. Many more will be coming. > > In international legal terms, the Bush Jr. administration itself should now be viewed as constituting an ongoing criminal conspiracy under international criminal law in violation of the Nuremberg Charter, the Nuremberg Judgment, and the Nuremberg Principles, due to its formulation and undertaking of aggressive war policies that are legally akin to those perpetrated by the Nazi regime. As a consequence, American citizens possess the basic right under international law and the United States domestic law, including the U.S. Constitution, to engage in acts of non-violent civil resistance in order to prevent, impede, thwart, or terminate ongoing criminal activities perpetrated by U.S. government officials in their conduct of foreign affairs policies and military operations purported to relate to defense and counter-terrorism. > > This same right of civil resistance extends pari passu to all citizens of the world community of states. Everyone around the world has both the right and the duty under international law to resist ongoing criminal activities perpetrated by the Bush Jr. administration and its nefarious foreign accomplices such as Blair, Berlusconi, Howard, Koizumi, Kwasniewski, etc. by all non-violent means possible. If it is not so restrained, the Bush Jr. administration could very well precipitate a Third World War. > > The time for preventive action is now. Civil resistance is the way to go. People power can overcome power politics. Popular movements have succeeded in toppling tyrannical, dictatorial and authoritarian regimes throughout former Communist countries in Eastern Europe, as well as in Asia, and most recently in Latin America. It is time once again to exercise People Power here in the United States of America: "When in the Course of human Events. . . We hold these Truths to be self-evident. . . . we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and sacred Honor." > > Despite the best efforts by the Bush Jr. Leaguers to the contrary, we American Citizens still have our First Amendment Rights: Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Association, Freedom of Assembly, Freedom to Petition our Government for the Redress of these massive Grievances, Civil Resistance, etc. We are going to have to start vigorously exercising all of our First Amendment Rights right now. We must use them or else, as the saying goes, we will lose them. We must act not only for the good of the Peoples of Southwest Asia, but for our future, that of our children, that of our nation as a democratic society committed to the Rule of Law and the U.S. Constitution. The Nazis had their "homeland" too > > Francis A. Boyle, Professor of Law, University of Illinois, is author of Foundations of World Order, Duke University Press, The Criminality of Nuclear Deterrence, and Palestine, Palestinians and International Law, by Clarity Press. He can be reached at: FBOYLE at LAW.UIUC.EDU > > --- > Subscribed as: fboyle at law.uiuc.edu; to unsubscribe send to al-awda-universalist-request at umich.edu > with UNSUBSCRIBE as the SUBJECT. > URL: > > > Francis A. Boyle > > Law Building > > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > > Champaign IL 61820 USA > > 217-333-7954 (phone) > > 217-244-1478 (fax) > > (personal comments only) > > > > From: Roger Helbig [mailto:rwhelbig at gmail.com] > Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2017 6:43 PM > To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: Karen Aram ; Estabrook, Carl G ; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; Jay Becker ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; Szoke, Ron ; Dave Trippel ; Arlene Hickory ; David Swanson ; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG > > > > There was no massacre at Fallujah. This is nonsense. Mattis expected his troops to be peacekeepers. They brought soccer balls with them when they deployed. > > > > I would love to see your "so called" war crime indictment. Wonder how much of it is from your fertile Hate America imagination and how much from the fertile Arab anti-American propaganda organs. Doubt a single paragraph is actually based on fact. > > > > On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 8:22 AM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: > > Trump’s Secretary of War Mad Dog Mattis was responsible for the Massacre at Fallujah, which I pointed out on Counterpunch was a Nuremberg War Crime along the lines of the Nazis—the wanton devastation of a city-- in revenge for them killing our mercenaries. Fab. > > > > Francis A. Boyle > > Law Building > > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > > Champaign IL 61820 USA > > 217-333-7954 (phone) > > 217-244-1478 (fax) > > (personal comments only) > > > > From: Karen Aram [mailto:karenaram at hotmail.com] > Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2017 10:04 AM > To: Estabrook, Carl G > Cc: Boyle, Francis A ; Jay Becker ; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; Szoke, Ron ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; Arlene Hickory ; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; David Swanson ; Dave Trippel ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Mildred O'brien ; David Johnson ; Joe Lauria ; David Green > Subject: Re: Guest Commentary by Carl in NG > > > > I’m sorry Carl, I don’t agree with that title either. It assumes that all in the anti-war movement welcome the Trump administration. Not all of us trust he will do some of that which he promised in respect to “defunding Nato,” “making friends with Russia,” or killing TPP. Even if he does those three things, his further provocations of China, are every bit as dangerous as those with Russia, it’s a mere tactic to drive a wedge between Russia and China, while chipping away at Iran. > > > > His Cabinet appointments are frightening to say the least in respect to Healthcare, Energy, Education, Housing, etc, etc. > > > > Further expansion of war in the Middle East, and North Africa, as well as expansion of capitalist corporate control is on the agenda no matter which of the two Party’s are in power. > > > > Obama paved the way, for all of which I have just referred, but it’s not over. Our only hope is that “the people” are now awake, and perhaps will focus on that which is most serious to survival. > > > > > > On Jan 22, 2017, at 07:44, Carl G. Estabrook wrote: > > > > My original title was, “Why the anti-war movement welcomes the new administration.” > > > > For more on that theme, see . > > > > —CGE > > > > > > On Jan 22, 2017, at 9:29 AM, Karen Aram wrote: > > > > An excellent letter, which I posted on FB. I deliberately deleted the title that I assumed the NG created, because it gives the false impression that those of us in the anti-war movement, all support Trump. We don’t, we just didn’t support Hillary. Anyone in the anti-war movement supporting Hillary was supporting more of the same that Obama provided. > > > > > > On Jan 22, 2017, at 07:16, Boyle, Francis A wrote: > > > > He {Obama} attacked eight countries (two more than George Bush), and conducted what one leading political commentator called "the most extreme terrorist campaign of modern times — his drone assassinations." He killed thousands of civilians with drones, including U.S. citizens and hundreds of children. > > A good letter by Carl today in NG. (Remember NG writes their own titles to letters.) We must now hold Trump’s feet to the fire across the board! I think Carl’s quote comes from Chomsky? In any event the Illinois Nazis Law Faculty fully supported and promoted and held out for emulation by lawyers and this Campus and our Good Community: > > "the most extreme terrorist campaign of modern times — his drone assassinations." > > > > The Illinois Nazis Law Faculty are just a GANG OF SICK PUPPIES! > > Fab > > Ed Norton Professor of Law > > Carl Schmitt College of Law: > > “Mein Fuhrer, I can walk!” > > > > > > Francis A. Boyle > > Law Building > > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > > Champaign IL 61820 USA > > 217-333-7954 (phone) > > 217-244-1478 (fax) > > (personal comments only) > > > > Feed: News-Gazette.com > Posted on: Sunday, January 22, 2017 7:00 AM > Author: digital.media > Subject: Guest Commentary: Why anti-war movement welcomes Trump > > > > By C.G. ESTABROOK > > The European anti-war group "No War No NATO" writes as follows: > > "Demonstrating in Europe on 21 January, against the newly elected US President Donald Trump is tantamount to lending support to the Obama administration, which has transformed Europe into NATO's first line of attack, nuclear matters inclusive, against Russia. > > read more > > > View article... > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > > > > From davidcnswanson at gmail.com Sat Nov 4 14:07:55 2017 From: davidcnswanson at gmail.com (David Swanson) Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2017 10:07:55 -0400 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG In-Reply-To: References: <9D3D5E59-5EFC-47DF-838D-C6508214E176@illinois.edu> Message-ID: really sorry, but can i either get a single daily digest of this as a listserve, or can i regrettfully unsubscribe please? Thanks. On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 9:57 AM, Boyle, Francis A wrote: > In other words, approximately 3.3 million Iraqis were exterminated by the > United States and the United Kingdom from August of 1990 until the end of > 2011 when President Obama had ordered the purported “final” withdrawal of > U.S. military forces from Iraq. And these are very conservative figures > that I believe could be proven to the satisfaction of the International > Court of Justice. > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Boyle, Francis A > Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2017 8:55 AM > To: C G Estabrook ; Roger Helbig < > rwhelbig at gmail.com> > Cc: Karen Aram ; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. > ESTABROOK ; Jay Becker ; > a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria > ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; > Szoke, Ron ; Dave Trippel ; > Arlene Hickory ; David Swanson ; > peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; > abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne < > lina at worldcantwait.net>; chicago at worldcantwait.net > Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG > > Of course the Illinois Nazi Faculty of Law and its Yale Mafia Law Dean > Iceman Amar are more than happy to exterminate Muslims/Arabs/Asians of > Color. Fab. > Legal Protection Of Children In Armed Conflict: The Iraqi Children Genocide > > By Francis A. Boyle > > 04 December, 2012 > Countercurrents.org > > This is the text version of a speech delivered by Francis A. Boyle at The > International Conference on War-affected Children Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, > November 22, 2012 > > During the summer of 1991 I was contacted on behalf of several Mothers in > Iraq whose children were dying at astounding rates because of the genocidal > economic sanctions that had been imposed upon them by the Security Council > in August of 1990 at the behest of the Bush Senior administration. They > requested that I do something in order to save these innocent children from > perishing in agony in front of their mothers’ very own eyes. Using the > format of the Writ for World Habeas Corpus that had been previously > provided to me by my friend and colleague, the late Luis Kutner, Esq. of > Chicago, Illinois, I filed a class-action Complaint on behalf of the 4.5 > million children of Iraq against President George Bush Senior and the > United States of America with the United Nations Organization that was > dated 18 September 1991.[1] I submitted the Complaint to the Secretary > General of the U.N., member states of the General Assembly, the Economic > and Social Council, the Commission on Human Rights, the Sub-Commission on > Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, UNESCO, and > UNICEF. A copy of my Indictment, Complaint and Petition for Relief from > Genocide on behalf of the 4.5 million children of Iraq is reprinted below. > > This Complaint accused the United States and President Bush Senior (1) of > committing the international crime of genocide against the 4.5 Million > Children of Iraq in violation of the International Convention on the > Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide of 1948 and in violation > of the municipal legal systems of all civilized nations in the world; (2) > of a gross and consistent pattern of violations of the most fundamental > human rights of the 4.5 Million Children of Iraq as recognized and > guaranteed to them by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948; > (3) of the complete negation and denial of all the rights guaranteed to the > 4.5 Million Children of Iraq by the 1989 Convention on the Rights of the > Child; and (4) of the systematic violation of the special protections of > international humanitarian law guaranteed to the 4.5 Million Children of > Iraq by the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 and Additional Protocol I > thereto of 1977. > > My Complaint demanded (1) the termination of all forms of multilateral and > bilateral economic sanctions against Iraq; (2) the massive provision of > international humanitarian relief supplies to Iraq by all organs of the > United Nations System; (3) that monetary compensation be paid to the > children of Iraq and their families for deaths as well as for all physical > and mental injury by the United States; and (4) that criminal proceedings > for genocide be instituted against President George Bush Senior by the > appropriate organs of the United Nations System as well as by all municipal > legal systems in the world, including by the United States government. My > Complaint estimated that since sanctions were first imposed against Iraq in > August of 1990, Iraqi children were dying as a direct result thereof at the > rate of about 500 per day. > > Despite my best professional efforts working on behalf of my Clients pro > bono publico, the grossly hypocritical United Nations Organization > adamantly refused to act to terminate these genocidal sanctions and thus to > save the dying children of Iraq. In 1995 the United Nations’ own Food and > Agricultural Organization (FAO) Report estimated that these genocidal > economic sanctions against Iraq had by then killed about 560,000 Iraqi > children since when they were first imposed in 1990.[2] In specific regard > to these murdered Iraqi children, then U.S. Secretary of State Madeline > Albright, was interviewed on the CBS Television Network on 12 May 1996 by > correspondent Leslie Stahl. The transcript of this interview provided by > CBS News itself reads as follows:[3] > > Stahl: (Voiceover) If the Iraqi people place any blame on Saddam Hussein, > they’re afraid to say so. And there is no longer much hope that the > sanctions will inspire the people to rise up and topple the government. Now > people are just trying to get by because one of the side effects of the > sanctions has been inflation, which has jumped as high as 3,000 percent. To > make ends meet, Iraqis are selling everything they can. Flea markets have > sprung up on the streets, where families can sell their furniture, clothes, > anything they can to make a few extra dinars. Most Iraqis are suffering > > We have heard that a half a million children have died. I mean, that’s > more children than died when-wh-in-in Hiroshima. And-and, you know, is the > price worth it? > > Ambassador Albright: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price – > we think the price is worth it. > > This shocking and revolting statement made by the U.S. Secretary of State > provided proof positive of the genocidal intent by the United States > Government against Iraq and its children and its people as defined by and > in violation of Genocide Convention Article II: “In the present Convention, > genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, > in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group, as > such. . . .” Certainly a half-million dead Iraqi children that the U.S. > Secretary of State specifically intended to destroy as such, and did indeed > destroy as such, constituted a very important “part” of the Iraqi people. > These half-million dead children were the very future of the people and > state of Iraq. > > This Albright statement is what criminal lawyers call a classic “Admission > Against Interest.” This Statement by the then sitting U.S. Secretary of > State, acting within the scope of her official duties and speaking in the > name of the United States government, could be taken to the International > Court of Justice in The Hague and filed to prove that the United States of > America possessed the required mens rea (criminal intent) necessary to > commit the international crime of genocide. Under both international law > and U.S. domestic law, to be guilty of a crime a person or a state must > possess the requisite mens rea at the same time that he or she or it > commits the criminal act (actus reus). > > With respect to these genocidal economic sanctions against Iraq, the actus > reus for the U.S. government and its officials committing the international > crime of genocide is set forth in Genocide Convention Article II (c): > “Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to > bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.” The 500,000 dead > Iraqi children, as conceded and approved by U.S. Secretary of State > Albright, constituted a “substantial part” of the people of Iraq, which is > the threshold numerical test for genocide recognized by the International > Court of Justice itself that I had successfully argued there for Bosnia and > Herzegovina against Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) in 1993. Albright > incriminated both herself and the United States of America at the same > time, apparently without thought or concern as to any future international > legal determination of their culpability. Such is the arrogance of the > powerful—which is usually the source of their downfall. > > The United States and the United Kingdom obstinately insisted that the > genocidal economic sanctions imposed against Iraq remain in place until > after the conclusion of the internationally illegal Gulf War II of > aggression perpetrated by the Bush Junior administration and the Tony Blair > government against Iraq in March of 2003. Then, on 22 May 2003 the United > States and the United Kingdom procured U.N. Security Council Resolution > 1483 lifting these genocidal economic sanctions; yet not with a view to > easing the over decade-long suffering of the Iraqi people and children. But > rather so as to better facilitate the U.S./U.K. unsupervised looting and > plundering of the Iraqi economy and oil fields in violation of the > international laws of war as well as to the grave detriment of the Iraqi > people and their children. > > Once I had gotten this class-action Complaint filed with the United > Nations Organization and had worked out the basic legal theory for U.S. > genocide against the children of Iraq, starting in the Fall of 1991 I did > everything humanly possible to convince the then President of Iraq to give > me the legal authority to sue the United States and the United Kingdom at > the International Court of Justice in The Hague on the basis of the 1948 > Genocide Convention: First, in order to break the genocidal economic > embargo against the people of Iraq, and especially their children. And > second, in order to prevent what I perceived to be further impending > military attacks by the United States and Britain upon Iraq that would > culminate someday in stealing all their oil. I most strenuously pursued > these efforts systematically and continuously until the very eve of the war > of aggression against Iraq by the Bush Junior administration and the Tony > Blair government in mid-March of 2003. These efforts also included two > meetings with the then Foreign Minister of Iraq and their top international > lawyer to review, consider, and discuss papers I had drafted to be filed by > Iraq in the World Court against the United States and the United Kingdom in > order to accomplish these objectives.[4] In addition, at the very last > minute available I also attempted to convince the Deputy Prime Minister of > Iraq to give me the legal authority to file these World Court lawsuits > against the U.S. and the U.K. literally right up until the outbreak of > hostilities in mid-March of 2003. All to no avail. > > Despite my best efforts, I failed. This shall always be one of the great > disappointments of my life. Approximately 1.7 million Iraqis died as a > direct result of these genocidal economic sanctions, including within that > number about 750,000 Iraqi children. In addition, another 1.4 million > Iraqis died as a result of the Bush Junior/Tony Blair genocidal war of > aggression against Iraq. To this appalling genocidal death toll must be > added the 200,000 Iraqis President Bush Senior slaughtered in his 1991 Gulf > War I. In other words, approximately 3.3 million Iraqis were exterminated > by the United States and the United Kingdom from August of 1990 until the > end of 2011 when President Obama had ordered the purported “final” > withdrawal of U.S. military forces from Iraq. And these are very > conservative figures that I believe could be proven to the satisfaction of > the International Court of Justice. > > These World Court papers that I drew up for Iraq to sue the United States > and the United Kingdom at the International Court of Justice on the basis > of the 1948 Genocide Convention that were twice considered and reviewed by > the Foreign Minister of Iraq and their top international lawyer still sit > in my office today. They could be revised and updated by the current > government of Iraq in order to sue the United States and the United Kingdom > at the International Court of Justice for genocide today. Of course this is > for the current government of Iraq to decide. Towards facilitating that > objective, I will be more than happy to make these World Court papers > available to the current government of Iraq free of charge if they so > desire. For Iraq to file my proposed World Court lawsuits for genocide > against the United States and the United Kingdom would produce some small > degree of justice for the 750,000 murdered children of Iraq and at least > 3.3 million exterminated Iraqis. Thank you. > > [1] See Edward Pearce, Death and Indecency in a Time of Cholera, The > Guardian, Oct. 25, 1991. > > [2] See Ramsey Clark, FAO Report, and Others, The Children Are Dying > (World View Forum, Inc.: 1996). > > [3] See 5/12/96 60 Minutes, 1996 Westlaw 8064912. > > [4] Iraq to Go to World Court, South News, Jan. 28, 1998: “U.S. Professor > of International Law Francis Boyle has publicly offered to charge U.S. > leaders for genocide against the Iraqi people.” > > Professor Francis A. Boyle is an international law expert and served as > Legal Advisor to the Palestine Liberation Organization and Yasser Arafat on > the 1988 Palestinian Declaration of Independence, as well as to the > Palestinian Delegation to the Middle East Peace Negotiations from 1991 to > 1993, where he drafted the Palestinian counter-offer to the now defunct > Oslo Agreement. His books include “ Palestine, Palestinians and > International Law” (2003), and “ The Palestinian Right of Return under > International Law” (2010). > > © Copyright 2012 by Francis A. Boyle. All rights reserved. > > > > > > > > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) > > > -----Original Message----- > From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] > Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2017 8:42 AM > To: Roger Helbig > Cc: Boyle, Francis A ; Karen Aram < > karenaram at hotmail.com>; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK < > carl at newsfromneptune.com>; Jay Becker ; > a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria > ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; > Szoke, Ron ; Dave Trippel ; > Arlene Hickory ; David Swanson ; > peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; > abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne < > lina at worldcantwait.net>; chicago at worldcantwait.net > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG > > Of course the US committed war crimes in Iraq. The US invasion of that > country is the greatest international crime of the century - so far. > > On ‘American Free Press,’ see wiki/American_Free_Press>. > > > > On Nov 4, 2017, at 8:11 AM, Roger Helbig wrote: > > > > You do know that Christopher Bollyn is NOT a reporter but is a Neo Nazi > operative of long standing and that the American Free Press is not a news > organization, but a Neo Nazi front - look up Willis Carto - he was Bollyn's > boss and founded the American Free Press - this website that has reports of > conference for American Free Press and The Barnes Review used to have a > prominent picture of a Nazi flag behind the blogger Alex Hassinger - > Douglas Lind Rokke of Urbana spoke at this event and Dave von Kleist the > producer of Rokke's first anti-US propaganda video "Beyond Treason" was > the master of ceremonies - http://www.chairmanofnordwave.blogspot.com > > > > Carto died in 2015 - there are a number of good sources on Carto in a > simple Google search - > > > > Learn about Neo Nazis - read this book - "Blood and Politics" - it > mentions Bollyn and extensively discusses Carto - pg 382, which I can > e-mail to all who request - has Carto's establishment of The Barnes Review, > a Holocaust Denial publication - The American Free Press replaced Carto's > The Spotlight after Carto lost a legal battle - Bollyn is also mentioned in > connection with a Pat Buchanan campaign apparatus > > > > On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 4:57 AM, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: > > I also want to make it clear for the record that before the invasions of > Saipan, Tinian and Okinawa my Father, a Marine, was ordered by his Captain > not to take prisoners of war on the grounds of reciprocity that the > Japanese did not take Prisoners of War of our Men. My Father disobeyed > these clearly illegal orders and took Japanese Prisoners of War. I cite the > example of my Father to my law students to refute the objection that you > cannot expect soldiers to obey the laws of war during combat. If my Father > could obey the laws of war at Saipan, Tinian, and Okinawa, any other > soldier should be able to do the same. Meanwhile,while I am teaching this > to my students, the Illinois Nazis Law Faculty aid, abet, and promote and > facilitate war crimes and crimes against humanity from the safety of their > offices. My Father later became a Lawyer. RIP. The Illinois Nazis Law > Faculty are despicable! Fab. > > > > > > > > Francis A. Boyle > > > > Law Building > > > > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > > > > Champaign IL 61820 USA > > > > 217-333-7954 (phone) > > > > 217-244-1478 (fax) > > > > (personal comments only) > > > > > > > > From: Boyle, Francis A > > Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2017 8:38 PM > > To: Roger Helbig > > Cc: Karen Aram ; Estabrook, Carl G < > galliher at illinois.edu>; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK < > carl at newsfromneptune.com>; Jay Becker ; > a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria > ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; > Szoke, Ron ; Dave Trippel ; > Arlene Hickory ; David Swanson ; > peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; > abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne < > lina at worldcantwait.net>; chicago at worldcantwait.net > > Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG > > > > > > > > Mad Dog Mattis the Nuremberg War Criminal. Fab. > > > > CONTROLLED PRESS IGNORES > > > > CRIMINAL OBLITERATION OF FALLUJAH > > > > > > > > By Christopher Bollyn > > > > American Free Press > > > > > > > > The controlled press has scrupulously avoided discussing the devastation > and prima facie evidence of war crimes committed during the U.S. siege and > assault of Fallujah. > > > > > > > > As Americans prepared for Thanksgiving, an estimated 100,000 residents > of the besieged Iraqi city of Fallujah, trapped in their homes, struggled > to survive without fresh food, water or electricity, reportedly cut off by > U.S. forces on November 8. > > > > > > > > Meanwhile, on the streets of Fallujah, a city of more than 350,000, dogs > gnawed on bloated and rotting corpses that remained unburied for weeks. > > > > > > > > Thousands of families in Fallujah were reported to be in a critical > humanitarian situation after U.S. forces prevented the delivery of relief > supplies. An Iraq Red Crescent Society (IRCS) humanitarian aid convoy, > reportedly blocked by U.S. troops for more than two weeks, was allowed to > deliver aid to residents in the heart of the city on November 25. > > > > > > > > On Thanksgiving, U.S. forces permitted the IRCS convoy carrying > thousands of food parcels, blankets, tents and medical supplies to enter > the city and allowed one of the clinics to be converted into a temporary > hospital to treat the injured. Rana Sidani of the International Committee > of the Red Cross (ICRC) in Geneva, Switzerland however, told American Free > Press on Nov. 30 that "many civilians" were still prevented from receiving > aid or medical care. > > > > > > > > At the beginning of the U.S. operation in Fallujah on Nov. 5, a hospital > in the central Nazzal district of Fallujah was "reduced to rubble" as a > result of U.S. air and artillery bombardment. "Only its façade, with a > sign reading Nazzal Emergency Hospital, remained intact," Reuters reported. > > > > > > > > "A nearby compound used by the main Falluja Hospital to store medical > supplies was also destroyed," witnesses told Reuters. Fallujah's main > hospital was occupied by U.S. forces when the ground offensive began. > These actions are apparent violations of international humanitarian law. > > > > > > > > "Bodies can be seen everywhere and people were crying when receiving the > food parcels," Muhammad al-Nuri, a spokesman for the IRCS in Baghdad, said. > "It is very sad. It is a human disaster." > > > > > > > > Al-Nuri said that it is difficult to move in the city due to the large > number of dead bodies in the streets. The ICRS estimates there are more > than 6,000 dead in Fallujah, al-Nuri said. > > > > > > > > AFP asked Major Jay Antonelli at the Coalition Press Information Center > (CPIC) in Baghdad if the ICRS estimate of 6,000 dead in Fallujah was > credible. "We do not keep a count of dead Iraqis," Antonelli said. Asked > the same question, the ICRC's Sidani said, "We don't know." > > > > > > > > Antonelli said, "U.S. forces never blocked aid convoys from reaching the > wounded. We only recommended to the aid convoys that they should not enter > the city because the MNF [Multi-National Forces] could not guarantee their > security or safety." > > > > > > > > "The ICRC is very worried about the humanitarian situation in Falluja," > Sidani said. Asked what the ICRC was doing to alleviate the suffering in > Fallujah, Sidani said: "We are reminding the parties of their > responsibilities under international humanitarian law." > > > > > > > > It should be noted that the U.S.A. and Britain, the belligerent > occupying powers in Iraq, are the two largest contributors to the ICRC, > providing more than 42 percent of its budget for field operations. > > > > > > > > A second convoy from Baghdad, headed by Dr. Said Ismael Haki, the IRCS > president, delivered aid to Fallujah on Nov. 26. "There are no houses left > in Fallujah, only destroyed places." Haki said. "I really don't know how > the people will return to the city. No one will find their homes." > > > > > > > > As U.S. troops in Fallujah engaged in what has been described as the > most intense urban combat since Vietnam, the controlled press scrupulously > avoided discussion or footage of the devastation of the rebellious Sunni > city. For example, during the second week of the attack, rather than > discuss the widespread devastation of Fallujah, U.S. television news > programs focused largely on a brawl between basketball players and fans in > Detroit. > > > > > > > > Lt. Col. Brandl, commander of the 1st Battalion, 8th Marine Regiment, > was filmed giving a "pep talk" to his marines: "The enemy has got a face – > he's called Satan," Brandl said. "He's in Fallujah, and we're going to > destroy him." > > > > > > > > At least 136 U.S. soldiers were killed during November in Iraq, and more > than 800 were wounded, most of them in Fallujah, making it the most costly > month, and operation, in terms of U.S. lives lost since the invasion of > Iraq began in March 2003. > > > > > > > > FOR WHAT CAUSE? > > > > > > > > Michael Ware, Baghdad bureau chief for Time magazine, who has been in > Fallujah during the fighting, said U.S. actions in Fallujah are "creating > the nightmare that we are seeking to prevent." > > > > > > > > "I stood there as I saw American boys die," Ware told Chris Matthews of > MSNBC on Nov. 24, "I mean, a man shot at close range, blown apart by a > rocket propelled grenade. He dies there in front of you and I can't help > but think why? For what cause? > > > > > > > > "I see us creating the very thing that the president said we went there > to prevent," Ware said, "…subsequent to this invasion and the occupation > and the guerrilla war that is currently underway, we are the midwives of > the next generation of al Qaida and Islamic terrorist." > > > > > > > > Ware, who has interviewed senior insurgent leaders, said they study the > writings of the Vietnamese general Vo Nguyen Giap, Che Guevara, and Mao > Zedong. "They're bringing it straight from the Vietnam, and the broader > insurgency playbook," Ware said. > > > > > > > > "The name of the game is deny the population to the insurgents," Ware > said. "That's what we're trying to do, win hearts and minds. But we're not > winning them." > > > > > > > > The U.S. struggle to win Iraqi hearts and minds suffered a further set > back when NBC TV broadcast footage of a U.S. marine executing a wounded and > unarmed Iraqi in a Fallujah mosque. The much-publicized shooting, > apparently part of a massacre of a group of wounded resistance fighters, > "was a rare crack in the façade that Washington, with the complicity of > most of the corporate media, has tried to present to the world of its > brutal assault on the rebel Iraqi city," Rohan Pearce wrote in The > Greenleft Weekly Australia on Nov. 24. > > > > > > > > The New York Times has reported actions taken by U.S. forces in > Fallujah, which appear to be prima facie evidence of war crimes, without > mentioning that the actions constitute clear violations of the Laws of Land > War found in the U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10. > > > > > > > > For example, a Nov. 20 Times article by Edward Wong, with two > correspondents in Fallujah, reports that U.S. marines had transformed a > mosque into a fortress with snipers and machine gunners perched on the roof. > > > > > > > > Then, using the passive form, Wong goes on to say that "no neutral group > has been able to enter the city," without mentioning that U.S. forces > blocked humanitarian aid convoys. Likewise, Wong wrote, "Electricity and > water had been cut off." > > > > > > > > The Times, whose motto is "All the news that's fit to print," apparently > didn't think that it's readers needed to know the U.S. forces had cut off > the water and power to a city of 340,000 people. > > > > > > > > Asked if U.S. forces had cut power and water to Fallujah, Maj. Jay > Antonelli of CPIC wrote: "MNF did, with approval of the Interim Iraqi > Government, cut off electricity to the city of Fallujah as Operation > Al-Fajr began. Water was not cut off intentionally, however the water > system did sustain some kinetic damage during strikes." > > > > > > > > American Free Press asked the Pentagon's Lt. Col. Joe Yoswa if it is > true that U.S. forces were using mosques as fortresses. "It's not > possible," Yoswa said. "Under no circumstances. We would not set up > snipers in a mosque in an offensive position." > > > > > > > > CPIC's Antonelli said: "MNF would not use a mosque as a 'fortress.' MNF > and Iraqi security forces would only fire from a mosque if they were being > fired upon and were firing back in self-defense." > > > > > > > > Abu Sabah, a refugee from Fallujah, reported seeing phosphorus bombs: > "They used these weird bombs that put up smoke like a mushroom cloud. Then > small pieces fell from the air with long tails of smoke trailing behind > them. These exploded on the ground with large fires that burnt for half > and hour," Abu Sabah said. "When anyone touched these fires their bodies > burnt for hours." > > > > > > > > Eyewitnesses from Fallujah also reported seeing "melted" bodies. > > > > > > > > "THROW-AWAY SOLDIERS" > > > > > > > > Having seen what appeared to be a depleted uranium (DU) missile fired at > a building in Fallujah on CNN during the first week of the fighting, AFP > asked the Pentagon if DU weapons are being used in Fallujah. "Yes," Yoswa > said, "DU is a standard round on the M-1 Abrams tank." > > > > > > > > Because U.S. marines in Fallujah are very close to the poison gas > produced by exploded DU shells, AFP asked Yoswa if anything was being done > to protect the troops from DU poisoning. Yoswa seemed unaware of the > dangers posed by the use of DU. > > > > > > > > Marion Fulk, a retired nuclear scientist from Livermore National Lab > told AFP that U.S. troops in DU contaminated battlefields are considered > "throw-away soldiers." The Marines exposed to DU in Fallujah, and > elsewhere, face greatly increased risks of cancer, deformed children, and > other health problems in the future. > > > > > > > > OBLITERATION OF FALLUJAH > > > > > > > > The "obliteration of Fallujah" is a serious war crime, according to > Francis A. Boyle, a professor of international law at the University of > Illinois. "The obliteration of Fallujah continues apace," Boyle wrote in > his Nov. 15 article, A War Crime in Real Time: Obliterating Fallujah. > "Article 6(b) of the 1945 Nuremberg Charter defines a Nuremberg War Crime > in relevant part as the 'wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages.' > According to this definitive definition, the Bush administration's > destruction of Fallujah constitutes a war crime for which Nazis were tried > and executed." > > > > > > > > Finis > > > > -30- > > > > 1629 words > > > > Do you Yahoo!? > > The all-new My Yahoo! – What will yours do? > > > > > > > > > > > > Francis A. Boyle > > > > Law Building > > > > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > > > > Champaign IL 61820 USA > > > > 217-333-7954 (phone) > > > > 217-244-1478 (fax) > > > > (personal comments only) > > > > > > > > From: Boyle, Francis A > > Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2017 8:13 PM > > To: 'Roger Helbig' > > Cc: 'Karen Aram' ; Estabrook, Carl G < > galliher at illinois.edu>; 'peace-discuss at anti-war.net' < > peace-discuss at anti-war.net>; 'C. G. ESTABROOK' ; > 'Jay Becker' ; 'a-fields at uiuc.edu' < > a-fields at uiuc.edu>; Hoffman, Valerie J ; 'Joe > Lauria' ; Miller, Joseph Thomas < > jtmiller at illinois.edu>; Szoke, Ron ; 'Dave Trippel' > ; 'Arlene Hickory' ; 'David > Swanson' ; 'peace-discuss-request at lists. > chambana.net' ; ' > sherwoodross10 at gmail.com' ; 'abass10 at gmail.com' > ; 'mickalideh at gmail.com' ; 'Lina > Thorne' ; 'chicago at worldcantwait.net' < > chicago at worldcantwait.net> > > Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG > > > > > > > > Mattis expected his troops to be peacekeepers. They brought soccer > balls with them when they deployed. > > > > LOL! Marines don’t play soccer or teach kids to play soccer.. My Dad was > a Marine. He invaded Saipan, Tinian and Okinawa before he became a Lawyer. > Marines destroy anyone and anything that is in front of them as they are > trained to do and did at Fallujah under Mattis—A Real Mad Dog War Criminal. > Fab. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Francis A. Boyle > > > > Law Building > > > > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > > > > Champaign IL 61820 USA > > > > 217-333-7954 (phone) > > > > 217-244-1478 (fax) > > > > (personal comments only) > > > > > > > > From: Boyle, Francis A > > Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2017 7:52 PM > > To: 'Roger Helbig' > > Cc: Karen Aram ; Estabrook, Carl G < > galliher at illinois.edu>; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK < > carl at newsfromneptune.com>; Jay Becker ; > a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria > ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; > Szoke, Ron ; Dave Trippel ; > Arlene Hickory ; David Swanson ; > peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; > abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne < > lina at worldcantwait.net>; chicago at worldcantwait.net > > Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Karim A G [mailto:coffee at euro-comm.co.uk] > > Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2004 5:00 PM > > To: Karim A G > > Subject: A War Crime in Real Time > > > > http://www.counterpunch.org/boyle11152004.html > > > > > > > > November 15, 2004 > > > > A War Crime in Real Time > > > > Obliterating Fallujah > > > > By FRANCIS A. BOYLE > > > > The obliteration of Fallujah continues apace. Article 6(b) of the 1945 > Nuremberg Charter defines a Nuremberg War Crime in relevant part as the ". > . . wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages. . ." According to this > definitive definition, the Bush Jr. administration's destruction of > Fallujah constitutes a war crime for which Nazis were tried and executed. > There is nothing surprising about that. > > > > Since the Bush Jr. administration's installation in power by the United > States Supreme Court in January of 2001, the peoples of the world have > witnessed a government in the United States of America that has > demonstrated little if any respect for fundamental considerations of > international law, international organizations, and human rights, let alone > appreciation of the requirements for maintaining international peace and > security. What the world has watched instead is a comprehensive and > malicious assault upon the integrity of the international legal order by a > group of men and women who are thoroughly Machiavellian in their perception > of international relations and in their conduct of both foreign policy and > domestic affairs. This is not simply a question of giving or withholding > the benefit of the doubt when it comes to complicated matters of foreign > affairs and defense policies to a U.S. government charged with the security > of both its own citizens and those of its allies in Europe, the Western > Hemisphere, and the Pacific. Rather, the Bush Jr. administration's foreign > policy constitutes ongoing criminal activity under well-recognized > principles of both international law and U.S. domestic law, in particular > the Nuremberg Charter, the Nuremberg Judgment, and the Nuremberg > Principles. So their obliteration of Fallujah was to be expected. > > > > One generation ago the peoples of the world asked themselves: Where were > the "good" Germans? Well, there were some good Germans. The Lutheran > theologian and pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer was the foremost exemplar of > someone who led a life of principled opposition to the Nazi-terror state > even unto death. > > > > Today the peoples of the world are likewise asking themselves: Where are > the "good" Americans? Well, there are some good Americans. Like three > Catholic Nuns in Denver, they are getting arrested and going to jail for > protesting against United States weapons of mass destruction (WMD) whose > power for human extermination far exceeds even the wildest fantasies of > Hitler and the Nazis. Or else for protesting against illegal U.S.. military > interventions around the world. Just recently the Nuclear Resister > estimated that since the Fall of 2002, there have been more than 9,500 > anti-war related arrests in the United States alone. Many more will be > coming. > > > > In international legal terms, the Bush Jr. administration itself should > now be viewed as constituting an ongoing criminal conspiracy under > international criminal law in violation of the Nuremberg Charter, the > Nuremberg Judgment, and the Nuremberg Principles, due to its formulation > and undertaking of aggressive war policies that are legally akin to those > perpetrated by the Nazi regime. As a consequence, American citizens possess > the basic right under international law and the United States domestic law, > including the U.S. Constitution, to engage in acts of non-violent civil > resistance in order to prevent, impede, thwart, or terminate ongoing > criminal activities perpetrated by U.S. government officials in their > conduct of foreign affairs policies and military operations purported to > relate to defense and counter-terrorism. > > > > This same right of civil resistance extends pari passu to all citizens > of the world community of states. Everyone around the world has both the > right and the duty under international law to resist ongoing criminal > activities perpetrated by the Bush Jr. administration and its nefarious > foreign accomplices such as Blair, Berlusconi, Howard, Koizumi, > Kwasniewski, etc. by all non-violent means possible. If it is not so > restrained, the Bush Jr. administration could very well precipitate a Third > World War. > > > > The time for preventive action is now. Civil resistance is the way to > go. People power can overcome power politics. Popular movements have > succeeded in toppling tyrannical, dictatorial and authoritarian regimes > throughout former Communist countries in Eastern Europe, as well as in > Asia, and most recently in Latin America. It is time once again to exercise > People Power here in the United States of America: "When in the Course of > human Events. . . We hold these Truths to be self-evident. . . . we > mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and sacred Honor." > > > > Despite the best efforts by the Bush Jr. Leaguers to the contrary, we > American Citizens still have our First Amendment Rights: Freedom of Speech, > Freedom of Association, Freedom of Assembly, Freedom to Petition our > Government for the Redress of these massive Grievances, Civil Resistance, > etc. We are going to have to start vigorously exercising all of our First > Amendment Rights right now. We must use them or else, as the saying goes, > we will lose them. We must act not only for the good of the Peoples of > Southwest Asia, but for our future, that of our children, that of our > nation as a democratic society committed to the Rule of Law and the U.S. > Constitution. The Nazis had their "homeland" too > > > > Francis A. Boyle, Professor of Law, University of Illinois, is author of > Foundations of World Order, Duke University Press, The Criminality of > Nuclear Deterrence, and Palestine, Palestinians and International Law, by > Clarity Press. He can be reached at: FBOYLE at LAW.UIUC.EDU > > > > --- > > Subscribed as: fboyle at law.uiuc.edu; to unsubscribe send to > al-awda-universalist-request at umich.edu > > with UNSUBSCRIBE as the SUBJECT. > > URL: awda-universalist > > > > > > > > Francis A. Boyle > > > > Law Building > > > > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > > > > Champaign IL 61820 USA > > > > 217-333-7954 (phone) > > > > 217-244-1478 (fax) > > > > (personal comments only) > > > > > > > > From: Roger Helbig [mailto:rwhelbig at gmail.com] > > Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2017 6:43 PM > > To: Boyle, Francis A > > Cc: Karen Aram ; Estabrook, Carl G < > galliher at illinois.edu>; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK < > carl at newsfromneptune.com>; Jay Becker ; > a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria > ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; > Szoke, Ron ; Dave Trippel ; > Arlene Hickory ; David Swanson ; > peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; > abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne < > lina at worldcantwait.net>; chicago at worldcantwait.net > > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG > > > > > > > > There was no massacre at Fallujah. This is nonsense. Mattis expected > his troops to be peacekeepers. They brought soccer balls with them when > they deployed. > > > > > > > > I would love to see your "so called" war crime indictment. Wonder how > much of it is from your fertile Hate America imagination and how much from > the fertile Arab anti-American propaganda organs. Doubt a single paragraph > is actually based on fact. > > > > > > > > On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 8:22 AM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > > > > Trump’s Secretary of War Mad Dog Mattis was responsible for the > Massacre at Fallujah, which I pointed out on Counterpunch was a Nuremberg > War Crime along the lines of the Nazis—the wanton devastation of a city-- > in revenge for them killing our mercenaries. Fab. > > > > > > > > Francis A. Boyle > > > > Law Building > > > > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > > > > Champaign IL 61820 USA > > > > 217-333-7954 (phone) > > > > 217-244-1478 (fax) > > > > (personal comments only) > > > > > > > > From: Karen Aram [mailto:karenaram at hotmail.com] > > Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2017 10:04 AM > > To: Estabrook, Carl G > > Cc: Boyle, Francis A ; Jay Becker < > futureup2us at gmail.com>; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK < > carl at newsfromneptune.com>; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J < > vhoffman at illinois.edu>; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; > Szoke, Ron ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; Arlene > Hickory ; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; > David Swanson ; Dave Trippel < > davetrippel at ameritech.net>; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina > Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Mildred > O'brien ; David Johnson ; > Joe Lauria ; David Green > > Subject: Re: Guest Commentary by Carl in NG > > > > > > > > I’m sorry Carl, I don’t agree with that title either. It assumes that > all in the anti-war movement welcome the Trump administration. Not all of > us trust he will do some of that which he promised in respect to “defunding > Nato,” “making friends with Russia,” or killing TPP. Even if he does those > three things, his further provocations of China, are every bit as dangerous > as those with Russia, it’s a mere tactic to drive a wedge between Russia > and China, while chipping away at Iran. > > > > > > > > His Cabinet appointments are frightening to say the least in respect to > Healthcare, Energy, Education, Housing, etc, etc. > > > > > > > > Further expansion of war in the Middle East, and North Africa, as well > as expansion of capitalist corporate control is on the agenda no matter > which of the two Party’s are in power. > > > > > > > > Obama paved the way, for all of which I have just referred, but it’s not > over. Our only hope is that “the people” are now awake, and perhaps will > focus on that which is most serious to survival. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jan 22, 2017, at 07:44, Carl G. Estabrook > wrote: > > > > > > > > My original title was, “Why the anti-war movement welcomes the new > administration.” > > > > > > > > For more on that theme, see columnists/201701191049765550-how-trump-presidency-will-play-out/>. > > > > > > > > —CGE > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jan 22, 2017, at 9:29 AM, Karen Aram wrote: > > > > > > > > An excellent letter, which I posted on FB. I deliberately deleted the > title that I assumed the NG created, because it gives the false impression > that those of us in the anti-war movement, all support Trump. We don’t, we > just didn’t support Hillary. Anyone in the anti-war movement supporting > Hillary was supporting more of the same that Obama provided. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jan 22, 2017, at 07:16, Boyle, Francis A wrote: > > > > > > > > He {Obama} attacked eight countries (two more than George Bush), and > conducted what one leading political commentator called "the most extreme > terrorist campaign of modern times — his drone assassinations." He killed > thousands of civilians with drones, including U.S. citizens and hundreds of > children. > > > > A good letter by Carl today in NG. (Remember NG writes their own titles > to letters.) We must now hold Trump’s feet to the fire across the board! I > think Carl’s quote comes from Chomsky? In any event the Illinois Nazis Law > Faculty fully supported and promoted and held out for emulation by lawyers > and this Campus and our Good Community: > > > > "the most extreme terrorist campaign of modern times — his drone > assassinations." > > > > > > > > The Illinois Nazis Law Faculty are just a GANG OF SICK PUPPIES! > > > > Fab > > > > Ed Norton Professor of Law > > > > Carl Schmitt College of Law: > > > > “Mein Fuhrer, I can walk!” > > > > > > > > > > > > Francis A. Boyle > > > > Law Building > > > > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > > > > Champaign IL 61820 USA > > > > 217-333-7954 (phone) > > > > 217-244-1478 (fax) > > > > (personal comments only) > > > > > > > > Feed: News-Gazette.com > > Posted on: Sunday, January 22, 2017 7:00 AM > > Author: digital.media > > Subject: Guest Commentary: Why anti-war movement welcomes Trump > > > > > > > > By C.G. ESTABROOK > > > > The European anti-war group "No War No NATO" writes as follows: > > > > "Demonstrating in Europe on 21 January, against the newly elected US > President Donald Trump is tantamount to lending support to the Obama > administration, which has transformed Europe into NATO's first line of > attack, nuclear matters inclusive, against Russia. > > > > read more > > > > > > View article... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Peace-discuss mailing list > > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > > > > > > > > > > -- *David Swanson *is an author, activist, journalist, and radio host. He is director of WorldBeyondWar.org and campaign coordinator for RootsAction.org. Swanson's books include *War Is A Lie *. He blogs at DavidSwanson.org and WarIsACrime.org . He hosts Talk Nation Radio . He is a 2015, 2016, 2017 Nobel Peace Prize Nominee. Longer bio and photos and videos here . Follow him on Twitter: @davidcnswanson and FaceBook , and sign up for: Activist alerts . Articles . David Swanson news . World Beyond War news . Charlottesville news . -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Sat Nov 4 14:08:42 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2017 14:08:42 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG In-Reply-To: References: <9D3D5E59-5EFC-47DF-838D-C6508214E176@illinois.edu> Message-ID: http://www.counterpunch.org/boyle11152004.html November 15, 2004 A War Crime in Real Time Obliterating Fallujah By FRANCIS A. BOYLE The obliteration of Fallujah continues apace. Article 6(b) of the 1945 Nuremberg Charter defines a Nuremberg War Crime in relevant part as the ". . . wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages. . ." According to this definitive definition, the Bush Jr. administration's destruction of Fallujah constitutes a war crime for which Nazis were tried and executed. There is nothing surprising about that. Since the Bush Jr. administration's installation in power by the United States Supreme Court in January of 2001, the peoples of the world have witnessed a government in the United States of America that has demonstrated little if any respect for fundamental considerations of international law, international organizations, and human rights, let alone appreciation of the requirements for maintaining international peace and security. What the world has watched instead is a comprehensive and malicious assault upon the integrity of the international legal order by a group of men and women who are thoroughly Machiavellian in their perception of international relations and in their conduct of both foreign policy and domestic affairs. This is not simply a question of giving or withholding the benefit of the doubt when it comes to complicated matters of foreign affairs and defense policies to a U.S. government charged with the security of both its own citizens and those of its allies in Europe, the Western Hemisphere, and the Pacific. Rather, the Bush Jr. administration's foreign policy constitutes ongoing criminal activity under well-recognized principles of both international law and U.S. domestic law, in particular the Nuremberg Charter, the Nuremberg Judgment, and the Nuremberg Principles. So their obliteration of Fallujah was to be expected. One generation ago the peoples of the world asked themselves: Where were the "good" Germans? Well, there were some good Germans. The Lutheran theologian and pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer was the foremost exemplar of someone who led a life of principled opposition to the Nazi-terror state even unto death. Today the peoples of the world are likewise asking themselves: Where are the "good" Americans? Well, there are some good Americans. Like three Catholic Nuns in Denver, they are getting arrested and going to jail for protesting against United States weapons of mass destruction (WMD) whose power for human extermination far exceeds even the wildest fantasies of Hitler and the Nazis. Or else for protesting against illegal U.S.. military interventions around the world. Just recently the Nuclear Resister estimated that since the Fall of 2002, there have been more than 9,500 anti-war related arrests in the United States alone. Many more will be coming. In international legal terms, the Bush Jr. administration itself should now be viewed as constituting an ongoing criminal conspiracy under international criminal law in violation of the Nuremberg Charter, the Nuremberg Judgment, and the Nuremberg Principles, due to its formulation and undertaking of aggressive war policies that are legally akin to those perpetrated by the Nazi regime. As a consequence, American citizens possess the basic right under international law and the United States domestic law, including the U.S. Constitution, to engage in acts of non-violent civil resistance in order to prevent, impede, thwart, or terminate ongoing criminal activities perpetrated by U.S. government officials in their conduct of foreign affairs policies and military operations purported to relate to defense and counter-terrorism. This same right of civil resistance extends pari passu to all citizens of the world community of states. Everyone around the world has both the right and the duty under international law to resist ongoing criminal activities perpetrated by the Bush Jr. administration and its nefarious foreign accomplices such as Blair, Berlusconi, Howard, Koizumi, Kwasniewski, etc. by all non-violent means possible. If it is not so restrained, the Bush Jr. administration could very well precipitate a Third World War. The time for preventive action is now. Civil resistance is the way to go. People power can overcome power politics. Popular movements have succeeded in toppling tyrannical, dictatorial and authoritarian regimes throughout former Communist countries in Eastern Europe, as well as in Asia, and most recently in Latin America. It is time once again to exercise People Power here in the United States of America: "When in the Course of human Events. . . We hold these Truths to be self-evident. . . . we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and sacred Honor." Despite the best efforts by the Bush Jr. Leaguers to the contrary, we American Citizens still have our First Amendment Rights: Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Association, Freedom of Assembly, Freedom to Petition our Government for the Redress of these massive Grievances, Civil Resistance, etc. We are going to have to start vigorously exercising all of our First Amendment Rights right now. We must use them or else, as the saying goes, we will lose them. We must act not only for the good of the Peoples of Southwest Asia, but for our future, that of our children, that of our nation as a democratic society committed to the Rule of Law and the U.S. Constitution. The Nazis had their "homeland" too Francis A. Boyle, Professor of Law, University of Illinois, is author of Foundations of World Order, Duke University Press, The Criminality of Nuclear Deterrence, and Palestine, Palestinians and International Law, by Clarity Press. He can be reached at: FBOYLE at LAW.UIUC.EDU Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -----Original Message----- From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2017 8:57 AM To: C G Estabrook ; Roger Helbig Cc: Karen Aram ; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; Jay Becker ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; Szoke, Ron ; Dave Trippel ; Arlene Hickory ; David Swanson ; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG In other words, approximately 3.3 million Iraqis were exterminated by the United States and the United Kingdom from August of 1990 until the end of 2011 when President Obama had ordered the purported “final” withdrawal of U.S. military forces from Iraq. And these are very conservative figures that I believe could be proven to the satisfaction of the International Court of Justice. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -----Original Message----- From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2017 8:55 AM To: C G Estabrook ; Roger Helbig Cc: Karen Aram ; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; Jay Becker ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; Szoke, Ron ; Dave Trippel ; Arlene Hickory ; David Swanson ; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG Of course the Illinois Nazi Faculty of Law and its Yale Mafia Law Dean Iceman Amar are more than happy to exterminate Muslims/Arabs/Asians of Color. Fab. Legal Protection Of Children In Armed Conflict: The Iraqi Children Genocide By Francis A. Boyle 04 December, 2012 Countercurrents.org This is the text version of a speech delivered by Francis A. Boyle at The International Conference on War-affected Children Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, November 22, 2012 During the summer of 1991 I was contacted on behalf of several Mothers in Iraq whose children were dying at astounding rates because of the genocidal economic sanctions that had been imposed upon them by the Security Council in August of 1990 at the behest of the Bush Senior administration. They requested that I do something in order to save these innocent children from perishing in agony in front of their mothers’ very own eyes. Using the format of the Writ for World Habeas Corpus that had been previously provided to me by my friend and colleague, the late Luis Kutner, Esq. of Chicago, Illinois, I filed a class-action Complaint on behalf of the 4.5 million children of Iraq against President George Bush Senior and the United States of America with the United Nations Organization that was dated 18 September 1991.[1] I submitted the Complaint to the Secretary General of the U.N., member states of the General Assembly, the Economic and Social Council, the Commission on Human Rights, the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, UNESCO, and UNICEF. A copy of my Indictment, Complaint and Petition for Relief from Genocide on behalf of the 4.5 million children of Iraq is reprinted below. This Complaint accused the United States and President Bush Senior (1) of committing the international crime of genocide against the 4.5 Million Children of Iraq in violation of the International Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide of 1948 and in violation of the municipal legal systems of all civilized nations in the world; (2) of a gross and consistent pattern of violations of the most fundamental human rights of the 4.5 Million Children of Iraq as recognized and guaranteed to them by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948; (3) of the complete negation and denial of all the rights guaranteed to the 4.5 Million Children of Iraq by the 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child; and (4) of the systematic violation of the special protections of international humanitarian law guaranteed to the 4.5 Million Children of Iraq by the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 and Additional Protocol I thereto of 1977. My Complaint demanded (1) the termination of all forms of multilateral and bilateral economic sanctions against Iraq; (2) the massive provision of international humanitarian relief supplies to Iraq by all organs of the United Nations System; (3) that monetary compensation be paid to the children of Iraq and their families for deaths as well as for all physical and mental injury by the United States; and (4) that criminal proceedings for genocide be instituted against President George Bush Senior by the appropriate organs of the United Nations System as well as by all municipal legal systems in the world, including by the United States government. My Complaint estimated that since sanctions were first imposed against Iraq in August of 1990, Iraqi children were dying as a direct result thereof at the rate of about 500 per day. Despite my best professional efforts working on behalf of my Clients pro bono publico, the grossly hypocritical United Nations Organization adamantly refused to act to terminate these genocidal sanctions and thus to save the dying children of Iraq. In 1995 the United Nations’ own Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) Report estimated that these genocidal economic sanctions against Iraq had by then killed about 560,000 Iraqi children since when they were first imposed in 1990.[2] In specific regard to these murdered Iraqi children, then U.S. Secretary of State Madeline Albright, was interviewed on the CBS Television Network on 12 May 1996 by correspondent Leslie Stahl. The transcript of this interview provided by CBS News itself reads as follows:[3] Stahl: (Voiceover) If the Iraqi people place any blame on Saddam Hussein, they’re afraid to say so. And there is no longer much hope that the sanctions will inspire the people to rise up and topple the government. Now people are just trying to get by because one of the side effects of the sanctions has been inflation, which has jumped as high as 3,000 percent. To make ends meet, Iraqis are selling everything they can. Flea markets have sprung up on the streets, where families can sell their furniture, clothes, anything they can to make a few extra dinars. Most Iraqis are suffering We have heard that a half a million children have died. I mean, that’s more children than died when-wh-in-in Hiroshima. And-and, you know, is the price worth it? Ambassador Albright: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price – we think the price is worth it. This shocking and revolting statement made by the U.S. Secretary of State provided proof positive of the genocidal intent by the United States Government against Iraq and its children and its people as defined by and in violation of Genocide Convention Article II: “In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group, as such. . . .” Certainly a half-million dead Iraqi children that the U.S. Secretary of State specifically intended to destroy as such, and did indeed destroy as such, constituted a very important “part” of the Iraqi people. These half-million dead children were the very future of the people and state of Iraq. This Albright statement is what criminal lawyers call a classic “Admission Against Interest.” This Statement by the then sitting U.S. Secretary of State, acting within the scope of her official duties and speaking in the name of the United States government, could be taken to the International Court of Justice in The Hague and filed to prove that the United States of America possessed the required mens rea (criminal intent) necessary to commit the international crime of genocide. Under both international law and U.S. domestic law, to be guilty of a crime a person or a state must possess the requisite mens rea at the same time that he or she or it commits the criminal act (actus reus). With respect to these genocidal economic sanctions against Iraq, the actus reus for the U.S. government and its officials committing the international crime of genocide is set forth in Genocide Convention Article II (c): “Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.” The 500,000 dead Iraqi children, as conceded and approved by U.S. Secretary of State Albright, constituted a “substantial part” of the people of Iraq, which is the threshold numerical test for genocide recognized by the International Court of Justice itself that I had successfully argued there for Bosnia and Herzegovina against Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) in 1993. Albright incriminated both herself and the United States of America at the same time, apparently without thought or concern as to any future international legal determination of their culpability. Such is the arrogance of the powerful—which is usually the source of their downfall. The United States and the United Kingdom obstinately insisted that the genocidal economic sanctions imposed against Iraq remain in place until after the conclusion of the internationally illegal Gulf War II of aggression perpetrated by the Bush Junior administration and the Tony Blair government against Iraq in March of 2003. Then, on 22 May 2003 the United States and the United Kingdom procured U.N. Security Council Resolution 1483 lifting these genocidal economic sanctions; yet not with a view to easing the over decade-long suffering of the Iraqi people and children. But rather so as to better facilitate the U.S./U.K. unsupervised looting and plundering of the Iraqi economy and oil fields in violation of the international laws of war as well as to the grave detriment of the Iraqi people and their children. Once I had gotten this class-action Complaint filed with the United Nations Organization and had worked out the basic legal theory for U.S. genocide against the children of Iraq, starting in the Fall of 1991 I did everything humanly possible to convince the then President of Iraq to give me the legal authority to sue the United States and the United Kingdom at the International Court of Justice in The Hague on the basis of the 1948 Genocide Convention: First, in order to break the genocidal economic embargo against the people of Iraq, and especially their children. And second, in order to prevent what I perceived to be further impending military attacks by the United States and Britain upon Iraq that would culminate someday in stealing all their oil. I most strenuously pursued these efforts systematically and continuously until the very eve of the war of aggression against Iraq by the Bush Junior administration and the Tony Blair government in mid-March of 2003. These efforts also included two meetings with the then Foreign Minister of Iraq and their top international lawyer to review, consider, and discuss papers I had drafted to be filed by Iraq in the World Court against the United States and the United Kingdom in order to accomplish these objectives.[4] In addition, at the very last minute available I also attempted to convince the Deputy Prime Minister of Iraq to give me the legal authority to file these World Court lawsuits against the U.S. and the U.K. literally right up until the outbreak of hostilities in mid-March of 2003. All to no avail. Despite my best efforts, I failed. This shall always be one of the great disappointments of my life. Approximately 1.7 million Iraqis died as a direct result of these genocidal economic sanctions, including within that number about 750,000 Iraqi children. In addition, another 1.4 million Iraqis died as a result of the Bush Junior/Tony Blair genocidal war of aggression against Iraq. To this appalling genocidal death toll must be added the 200,000 Iraqis President Bush Senior slaughtered in his 1991 Gulf War I. In other words, approximately 3.3 million Iraqis were exterminated by the United States and the United Kingdom from August of 1990 until the end of 2011 when President Obama had ordered the purported “final” withdrawal of U.S. military forces from Iraq. And these are very conservative figures that I believe could be proven to the satisfaction of the International Court of Justice. These World Court papers that I drew up for Iraq to sue the United States and the United Kingdom at the International Court of Justice on the basis of the 1948 Genocide Convention that were twice considered and reviewed by the Foreign Minister of Iraq and their top international lawyer still sit in my office today. They could be revised and updated by the current government of Iraq in order to sue the United States and the United Kingdom at the International Court of Justice for genocide today. Of course this is for the current government of Iraq to decide. Towards facilitating that objective, I will be more than happy to make these World Court papers available to the current government of Iraq free of charge if they so desire. For Iraq to file my proposed World Court lawsuits for genocide against the United States and the United Kingdom would produce some small degree of justice for the 750,000 murdered children of Iraq and at least 3.3 million exterminated Iraqis. Thank you. [1] See Edward Pearce, Death and Indecency in a Time of Cholera, The Guardian, Oct. 25, 1991. [2] See Ramsey Clark, FAO Report, and Others, The Children Are Dying (World View Forum, Inc.: 1996). [3] See 5/12/96 60 Minutes, 1996 Westlaw 8064912. [4] Iraq to Go to World Court, South News, Jan. 28, 1998: “U.S. Professor of International Law Francis Boyle has publicly offered to charge U.S. leaders for genocide against the Iraqi people.” Professor Francis A. Boyle is an international law expert and served as Legal Advisor to the Palestine Liberation Organization and Yasser Arafat on the 1988 Palestinian Declaration of Independence, as well as to the Palestinian Delegation to the Middle East Peace Negotiations from 1991 to 1993, where he drafted the Palestinian counter-offer to the now defunct Oslo Agreement. His books include “ Palestine, Palestinians and International Law” (2003), and “ The Palestinian Right of Return under International Law” (2010). © Copyright 2012 by Francis A. Boyle. All rights reserved. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -----Original Message----- From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2017 8:42 AM To: Roger Helbig Cc: Boyle, Francis A ; Karen Aram ; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; Jay Becker ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; Szoke, Ron ; Dave Trippel ; Arlene Hickory ; David Swanson ; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG Of course the US committed war crimes in Iraq. The US invasion of that country is the greatest international crime of the century - so far. On ‘American Free Press,’ see . > On Nov 4, 2017, at 8:11 AM, Roger Helbig wrote: > > You do know that Christopher Bollyn is NOT a reporter but is a Neo Nazi operative of long standing and that the American Free Press is not a news organization, but a Neo Nazi front - look up Willis Carto - he was Bollyn's boss and founded the American Free Press - this website that has reports of conference for American Free Press and The Barnes Review used to have a prominent picture of a Nazi flag behind the blogger Alex Hassinger - Douglas Lind Rokke of Urbana spoke at this event and Dave von Kleist the producer of Rokke's first anti-US propaganda video "Beyond Treason" was the master of ceremonies - http://www.chairmanofnordwave.blogspot.com > > Carto died in 2015 - there are a number of good sources on Carto in a simple Google search - > > Learn about Neo Nazis - read this book - "Blood and Politics" - it mentions Bollyn and extensively discusses Carto - pg 382, which I can e-mail to all who request - has Carto's establishment of The Barnes Review, a Holocaust Denial publication - The American Free Press replaced Carto's The Spotlight after Carto lost a legal battle - Bollyn is also mentioned in connection with a Pat Buchanan campaign apparatus > > On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 4:57 AM, Boyle, Francis A wrote: > I also want to make it clear for the record that before the invasions of Saipan, Tinian and Okinawa my Father, a Marine, was ordered by his Captain not to take prisoners of war on the grounds of reciprocity that the Japanese did not take Prisoners of War of our Men. My Father disobeyed these clearly illegal orders and took Japanese Prisoners of War. I cite the example of my Father to my law students to refute the objection that you cannot expect soldiers to obey the laws of war during combat. If my Father could obey the laws of war at Saipan, Tinian, and Okinawa, any other soldier should be able to do the same. Meanwhile,while I am teaching this to my students, the Illinois Nazis Law Faculty aid, abet, and promote and facilitate war crimes and crimes against humanity from the safety of their offices. My Father later became a Lawyer. RIP. The Illinois Nazis Law Faculty are despicable! Fab. > > > > Francis A. Boyle > > Law Building > > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > > Champaign IL 61820 USA > > 217-333-7954 (phone) > > 217-244-1478 (fax) > > (personal comments only) > > > > From: Boyle, Francis A > Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2017 8:38 PM > To: Roger Helbig > Cc: Karen Aram ; Estabrook, Carl G ; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; Jay Becker ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; Szoke, Ron ; Dave Trippel ; Arlene Hickory ; David Swanson ; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net > Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG > > > > Mad Dog Mattis the Nuremberg War Criminal. Fab. > > CONTROLLED PRESS IGNORES > > CRIMINAL OBLITERATION OF FALLUJAH > > > > By Christopher Bollyn > > American Free Press > > > > The controlled press has scrupulously avoided discussing the devastation and prima facie evidence of war crimes committed during the U.S. siege and assault of Fallujah. > > > > As Americans prepared for Thanksgiving, an estimated 100,000 residents of the besieged Iraqi city of Fallujah, trapped in their homes, struggled to survive without fresh food, water or electricity, reportedly cut off by U.S. forces on November 8. > > > > Meanwhile, on the streets of Fallujah, a city of more than 350,000, dogs gnawed on bloated and rotting corpses that remained unburied for weeks. > > > > Thousands of families in Fallujah were reported to be in a critical humanitarian situation after U.S. forces prevented the delivery of relief supplies. An Iraq Red Crescent Society (IRCS) humanitarian aid convoy, reportedly blocked by U.S. troops for more than two weeks, was allowed to deliver aid to residents in the heart of the city on November 25. > > > > On Thanksgiving, U.S. forces permitted the IRCS convoy carrying thousands of food parcels, blankets, tents and medical supplies to enter the city and allowed one of the clinics to be converted into a temporary hospital to treat the injured. Rana Sidani of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) in Geneva, Switzerland however, told American Free Press on Nov. 30 that "many civilians" were still prevented from receiving aid or medical care. > > > > At the beginning of the U.S. operation in Fallujah on Nov. 5, a hospital in the central Nazzal district of Fallujah was "reduced to rubble" as a result of U.S. air and artillery bombardment. "Only its façade, with a sign reading Nazzal Emergency Hospital, remained intact," Reuters reported. > > > > "A nearby compound used by the main Falluja Hospital to store medical supplies was also destroyed," witnesses told Reuters. Fallujah's main hospital was occupied by U.S. forces when the ground offensive began. These actions are apparent violations of international humanitarian law. > > > > "Bodies can be seen everywhere and people were crying when receiving the food parcels," Muhammad al-Nuri, a spokesman for the IRCS in Baghdad, said. "It is very sad. It is a human disaster." > > > > Al-Nuri said that it is difficult to move in the city due to the large number of dead bodies in the streets. The ICRS estimates there are more than 6,000 dead in Fallujah, al-Nuri said. > > > > AFP asked Major Jay Antonelli at the Coalition Press Information Center (CPIC) in Baghdad if the ICRS estimate of 6,000 dead in Fallujah was credible. "We do not keep a count of dead Iraqis," Antonelli said. Asked the same question, the ICRC's Sidani said, "We don't know." > > > > Antonelli said, "U.S. forces never blocked aid convoys from reaching the wounded. We only recommended to the aid convoys that they should not enter the city because the MNF [Multi-National Forces] could not guarantee their security or safety." > > > > "The ICRC is very worried about the humanitarian situation in Falluja," Sidani said. Asked what the ICRC was doing to alleviate the suffering in Fallujah, Sidani said: "We are reminding the parties of their responsibilities under international humanitarian law." > > > > It should be noted that the U.S.A. and Britain, the belligerent occupying powers in Iraq, are the two largest contributors to the ICRC, providing more than 42 percent of its budget for field operations. > > > > A second convoy from Baghdad, headed by Dr. Said Ismael Haki, the IRCS president, delivered aid to Fallujah on Nov. 26. "There are no houses left in Fallujah, only destroyed places." Haki said. "I really don't know how the people will return to the city. No one will find their homes." > > > > As U.S. troops in Fallujah engaged in what has been described as the most intense urban combat since Vietnam, the controlled press scrupulously avoided discussion or footage of the devastation of the rebellious Sunni city. For example, during the second week of the attack, rather than discuss the widespread devastation of Fallujah, U.S. television news programs focused largely on a brawl between basketball players and fans in Detroit. > > > > Lt. Col. Brandl, commander of the 1st Battalion, 8th Marine Regiment, was filmed giving a "pep talk" to his marines: "The enemy has got a face – he's called Satan," Brandl said. "He's in Fallujah, and we're going to destroy him." > > > > At least 136 U.S. soldiers were killed during November in Iraq, and more than 800 were wounded, most of them in Fallujah, making it the most costly month, and operation, in terms of U.S. lives lost since the invasion of Iraq began in March 2003. > > > > FOR WHAT CAUSE? > > > > Michael Ware, Baghdad bureau chief for Time magazine, who has been in Fallujah during the fighting, said U.S. actions in Fallujah are "creating the nightmare that we are seeking to prevent." > > > > "I stood there as I saw American boys die," Ware told Chris Matthews of MSNBC on Nov. 24, "I mean, a man shot at close range, blown apart by a rocket propelled grenade. He dies there in front of you and I can't help but think why? For what cause? > > > > "I see us creating the very thing that the president said we went there to prevent," Ware said, "…subsequent to this invasion and the occupation and the guerrilla war that is currently underway, we are the midwives of the next generation of al Qaida and Islamic terrorist." > > > > Ware, who has interviewed senior insurgent leaders, said they study the writings of the Vietnamese general Vo Nguyen Giap, Che Guevara, and Mao Zedong. "They're bringing it straight from the Vietnam, and the broader insurgency playbook," Ware said. > > > > "The name of the game is deny the population to the insurgents," Ware said. "That's what we're trying to do, win hearts and minds. But we're not winning them." > > > > The U.S. struggle to win Iraqi hearts and minds suffered a further set back when NBC TV broadcast footage of a U.S. marine executing a wounded and unarmed Iraqi in a Fallujah mosque. The much-publicized shooting, apparently part of a massacre of a group of wounded resistance fighters, "was a rare crack in the façade that Washington, with the complicity of most of the corporate media, has tried to present to the world of its brutal assault on the rebel Iraqi city," Rohan Pearce wrote in The Greenleft Weekly Australia on Nov. 24. > > > > The New York Times has reported actions taken by U.S. forces in Fallujah, which appear to be prima facie evidence of war crimes, without mentioning that the actions constitute clear violations of the Laws of Land War found in the U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10. > > > > For example, a Nov. 20 Times article by Edward Wong, with two correspondents in Fallujah, reports that U.S. marines had transformed a mosque into a fortress with snipers and machine gunners perched on the roof. > > > > Then, using the passive form, Wong goes on to say that "no neutral group has been able to enter the city," without mentioning that U.S. forces blocked humanitarian aid convoys. Likewise, Wong wrote, "Electricity and water had been cut off." > > > > The Times, whose motto is "All the news that's fit to print," apparently didn't think that it's readers needed to know the U.S. forces had cut off the water and power to a city of 340,000 people. > > > > Asked if U.S. forces had cut power and water to Fallujah, Maj. Jay Antonelli of CPIC wrote: "MNF did, with approval of the Interim Iraqi Government, cut off electricity to the city of Fallujah as Operation Al-Fajr began. Water was not cut off intentionally, however the water system did sustain some kinetic damage during strikes." > > > > American Free Press asked the Pentagon's Lt. Col. Joe Yoswa if it is true that U.S. forces were using mosques as fortresses. "It's not possible," Yoswa said. "Under no circumstances. We would not set up snipers in a mosque in an offensive position." > > > > CPIC's Antonelli said: "MNF would not use a mosque as a 'fortress.' MNF and Iraqi security forces would only fire from a mosque if they were being fired upon and were firing back in self-defense." > > > > Abu Sabah, a refugee from Fallujah, reported seeing phosphorus bombs: "They used these weird bombs that put up smoke like a mushroom cloud. Then small pieces fell from the air with long tails of smoke trailing behind them. These exploded on the ground with large fires that burnt for half and hour," Abu Sabah said. "When anyone touched these fires their bodies burnt for hours." > > > > Eyewitnesses from Fallujah also reported seeing "melted" bodies. > > > > "THROW-AWAY SOLDIERS" > > > > Having seen what appeared to be a depleted uranium (DU) missile fired at a building in Fallujah on CNN during the first week of the fighting, AFP asked the Pentagon if DU weapons are being used in Fallujah. "Yes," Yoswa said, "DU is a standard round on the M-1 Abrams tank." > > > > Because U.S. marines in Fallujah are very close to the poison gas produced by exploded DU shells, AFP asked Yoswa if anything was being done to protect the troops from DU poisoning. Yoswa seemed unaware of the dangers posed by the use of DU. > > > > Marion Fulk, a retired nuclear scientist from Livermore National Lab told AFP that U.S. troops in DU contaminated battlefields are considered "throw-away soldiers." The Marines exposed to DU in Fallujah, and elsewhere, face greatly increased risks of cancer, deformed children, and other health problems in the future. > > > > OBLITERATION OF FALLUJAH > > > > The "obliteration of Fallujah" is a serious war crime, according to Francis A. Boyle, a professor of international law at the University of Illinois. "The obliteration of Fallujah continues apace," Boyle wrote in his Nov. 15 article, A War Crime in Real Time: Obliterating Fallujah. "Article 6(b) of the 1945 Nuremberg Charter defines a Nuremberg War Crime in relevant part as the 'wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages.' According to this definitive definition, the Bush administration's destruction of Fallujah constitutes a war crime for which Nazis were tried and executed." > > > > Finis > > -30- > > 1629 words > > Do you Yahoo!? > The all-new My Yahoo! – What will yours do? > > > > > > Francis A. Boyle > > Law Building > > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > > Champaign IL 61820 USA > > 217-333-7954 (phone) > > 217-244-1478 (fax) > > (personal comments only) > > > > From: Boyle, Francis A > Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2017 8:13 PM > To: 'Roger Helbig' > Cc: 'Karen Aram' ; Estabrook, Carl G ; 'peace-discuss at anti-war.net' ; 'C. G. ESTABROOK' ; 'Jay Becker' ; 'a-fields at uiuc.edu' ; Hoffman, Valerie J ; 'Joe Lauria' ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; Szoke, Ron ; 'Dave Trippel' ; 'Arlene Hickory' ; 'David Swanson' ; 'peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net' ; 'sherwoodross10 at gmail.com' ; 'abass10 at gmail.com' ; 'mickalideh at gmail.com' ; 'Lina Thorne' ; 'chicago at worldcantwait.net' > Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG > > > > Mattis expected his troops to be peacekeepers. They brought soccer balls with them when they deployed. > > LOL! Marines don’t play soccer or teach kids to play soccer.. My Dad was a Marine. He invaded Saipan, Tinian and Okinawa before he became a Lawyer. Marines destroy anyone and anything that is in front of them as they are trained to do and did at Fallujah under Mattis—A Real Mad Dog War Criminal. Fab. > > > > > > > > Francis A. Boyle > > Law Building > > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > > Champaign IL 61820 USA > > 217-333-7954 (phone) > > 217-244-1478 (fax) > > (personal comments only) > > > > From: Boyle, Francis A > Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2017 7:52 PM > To: 'Roger Helbig' > Cc: Karen Aram ; Estabrook, Carl G ; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; Jay Becker ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; Szoke, Ron ; Dave Trippel ; Arlene Hickory ; David Swanson ; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net > Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Karim A G [mailto:coffee at euro-comm.co.uk] > Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2004 5:00 PM > To: Karim A G > Subject: A War Crime in Real Time > > http://www.counterpunch.org/boyle11152004.html > > > > November 15, 2004 > > A War Crime in Real Time > > Obliterating Fallujah > > By FRANCIS A. BOYLE > > The obliteration of Fallujah continues apace. Article 6(b) of the 1945 Nuremberg Charter defines a Nuremberg War Crime in relevant part as the ". . . wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages. . ." According to this definitive definition, the Bush Jr. administration's destruction of Fallujah constitutes a war crime for which Nazis were tried and executed. There is nothing surprising about that. > > Since the Bush Jr. administration's installation in power by the United States Supreme Court in January of 2001, the peoples of the world have witnessed a government in the United States of America that has demonstrated little if any respect for fundamental considerations of international law, international organizations, and human rights, let alone appreciation of the requirements for maintaining international peace and security. What the world has watched instead is a comprehensive and malicious assault upon the integrity of the international legal order by a group of men and women who are thoroughly Machiavellian in their perception of international relations and in their conduct of both foreign policy and domestic affairs. This is not simply a question of giving or withholding the benefit of the doubt when it comes to complicated matters of foreign affairs and defense policies to a U.S. government charged with the security of both its own citizens and those of its allies in Europe, the Western Hemisphere, and the Pacific. Rather, the Bush Jr. administration's foreign policy constitutes ongoing criminal activity under well-recognized principles of both international law and U.S. domestic law, in particular the Nuremberg Charter, the Nuremberg Judgment, and the Nuremberg Principles. So their obliteration of Fallujah was to be expected. > > One generation ago the peoples of the world asked themselves: Where were the "good" Germans? Well, there were some good Germans. The Lutheran theologian and pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer was the foremost exemplar of someone who led a life of principled opposition to the Nazi-terror state even unto death. > > Today the peoples of the world are likewise asking themselves: Where are the "good" Americans? Well, there are some good Americans. Like three Catholic Nuns in Denver, they are getting arrested and going to jail for protesting against United States weapons of mass destruction (WMD) whose power for human extermination far exceeds even the wildest fantasies of Hitler and the Nazis. Or else for protesting against illegal U.S.. military interventions around the world. Just recently the Nuclear Resister estimated that since the Fall of 2002, there have been more than 9,500 anti-war related arrests in the United States alone. Many more will be coming. > > In international legal terms, the Bush Jr. administration itself should now be viewed as constituting an ongoing criminal conspiracy under international criminal law in violation of the Nuremberg Charter, the Nuremberg Judgment, and the Nuremberg Principles, due to its formulation and undertaking of aggressive war policies that are legally akin to those perpetrated by the Nazi regime. As a consequence, American citizens possess the basic right under international law and the United States domestic law, including the U.S. Constitution, to engage in acts of non-violent civil resistance in order to prevent, impede, thwart, or terminate ongoing criminal activities perpetrated by U.S. government officials in their conduct of foreign affairs policies and military operations purported to relate to defense and counter-terrorism. > > This same right of civil resistance extends pari passu to all citizens of the world community of states. Everyone around the world has both the right and the duty under international law to resist ongoing criminal activities perpetrated by the Bush Jr. administration and its nefarious foreign accomplices such as Blair, Berlusconi, Howard, Koizumi, Kwasniewski, etc. by all non-violent means possible. If it is not so restrained, the Bush Jr. administration could very well precipitate a Third World War. > > The time for preventive action is now. Civil resistance is the way to go. People power can overcome power politics. Popular movements have succeeded in toppling tyrannical, dictatorial and authoritarian regimes throughout former Communist countries in Eastern Europe, as well as in Asia, and most recently in Latin America. It is time once again to exercise People Power here in the United States of America: "When in the Course of human Events. . . We hold these Truths to be self-evident. . . . we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and sacred Honor." > > Despite the best efforts by the Bush Jr. Leaguers to the contrary, we American Citizens still have our First Amendment Rights: Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Association, Freedom of Assembly, Freedom to Petition our Government for the Redress of these massive Grievances, Civil Resistance, etc. We are going to have to start vigorously exercising all of our First Amendment Rights right now. We must use them or else, as the saying goes, we will lose them. We must act not only for the good of the Peoples of Southwest Asia, but for our future, that of our children, that of our nation as a democratic society committed to the Rule of Law and the U.S. Constitution. The Nazis had their "homeland" too > > Francis A. Boyle, Professor of Law, University of Illinois, is author of Foundations of World Order, Duke University Press, The Criminality of Nuclear Deterrence, and Palestine, Palestinians and International Law, by Clarity Press. He can be reached at: FBOYLE at LAW.UIUC.EDU > > --- > Subscribed as: fboyle at law.uiuc.edu; to unsubscribe send to al-awda-universalist-request at umich.edu > with UNSUBSCRIBE as the SUBJECT. > URL: > > > Francis A. Boyle > > Law Building > > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > > Champaign IL 61820 USA > > 217-333-7954 (phone) > > 217-244-1478 (fax) > > (personal comments only) > > > > From: Roger Helbig [mailto:rwhelbig at gmail.com] > Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2017 6:43 PM > To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: Karen Aram ; Estabrook, Carl G ; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; Jay Becker ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; Szoke, Ron ; Dave Trippel ; Arlene Hickory ; David Swanson ; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG > > > > There was no massacre at Fallujah. This is nonsense. Mattis expected his troops to be peacekeepers. They brought soccer balls with them when they deployed. > > > > I would love to see your "so called" war crime indictment. Wonder how much of it is from your fertile Hate America imagination and how much from the fertile Arab anti-American propaganda organs. Doubt a single paragraph is actually based on fact. > > > > On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 8:22 AM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: > > Trump’s Secretary of War Mad Dog Mattis was responsible for the Massacre at Fallujah, which I pointed out on Counterpunch was a Nuremberg War Crime along the lines of the Nazis—the wanton devastation of a city-- in revenge for them killing our mercenaries. Fab. > > > > Francis A. Boyle > > Law Building > > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > > Champaign IL 61820 USA > > 217-333-7954 (phone) > > 217-244-1478 (fax) > > (personal comments only) > > > > From: Karen Aram [mailto:karenaram at hotmail.com] > Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2017 10:04 AM > To: Estabrook, Carl G > Cc: Boyle, Francis A ; Jay Becker ; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; Szoke, Ron ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; Arlene Hickory ; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; David Swanson ; Dave Trippel ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Mildred O'brien ; David Johnson ; Joe Lauria ; David Green > Subject: Re: Guest Commentary by Carl in NG > > > > I’m sorry Carl, I don’t agree with that title either. It assumes that all in the anti-war movement welcome the Trump administration. Not all of us trust he will do some of that which he promised in respect to “defunding Nato,” “making friends with Russia,” or killing TPP. Even if he does those three things, his further provocations of China, are every bit as dangerous as those with Russia, it’s a mere tactic to drive a wedge between Russia and China, while chipping away at Iran. > > > > His Cabinet appointments are frightening to say the least in respect to Healthcare, Energy, Education, Housing, etc, etc. > > > > Further expansion of war in the Middle East, and North Africa, as well as expansion of capitalist corporate control is on the agenda no matter which of the two Party’s are in power. > > > > Obama paved the way, for all of which I have just referred, but it’s not over. Our only hope is that “the people” are now awake, and perhaps will focus on that which is most serious to survival. > > > > > > On Jan 22, 2017, at 07:44, Carl G. Estabrook wrote: > > > > My original title was, “Why the anti-war movement welcomes the new administration.” > > > > For more on that theme, see . > > > > —CGE > > > > > > On Jan 22, 2017, at 9:29 AM, Karen Aram wrote: > > > > An excellent letter, which I posted on FB. I deliberately deleted the title that I assumed the NG created, because it gives the false impression that those of us in the anti-war movement, all support Trump. We don’t, we just didn’t support Hillary. Anyone in the anti-war movement supporting Hillary was supporting more of the same that Obama provided. > > > > > > On Jan 22, 2017, at 07:16, Boyle, Francis A wrote: > > > > He {Obama} attacked eight countries (two more than George Bush), and conducted what one leading political commentator called "the most extreme terrorist campaign of modern times — his drone assassinations." He killed thousands of civilians with drones, including U.S. citizens and hundreds of children. > > A good letter by Carl today in NG. (Remember NG writes their own titles to letters.) We must now hold Trump’s feet to the fire across the board! I think Carl’s quote comes from Chomsky? In any event the Illinois Nazis Law Faculty fully supported and promoted and held out for emulation by lawyers and this Campus and our Good Community: > > "the most extreme terrorist campaign of modern times — his drone assassinations." > > > > The Illinois Nazis Law Faculty are just a GANG OF SICK PUPPIES! > > Fab > > Ed Norton Professor of Law > > Carl Schmitt College of Law: > > “Mein Fuhrer, I can walk!” > > > > > > Francis A. Boyle > > Law Building > > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > > Champaign IL 61820 USA > > 217-333-7954 (phone) > > 217-244-1478 (fax) > > (personal comments only) > > > > Feed: News-Gazette.com > Posted on: Sunday, January 22, 2017 7:00 AM > Author: digital.media > Subject: Guest Commentary: Why anti-war movement welcomes Trump > > > > By C.G. ESTABROOK > > The European anti-war group "No War No NATO" writes as follows: > > "Demonstrating in Europe on 21 January, against the newly elected US President Donald Trump is tantamount to lending support to the Obama administration, which has transformed Europe into NATO's first line of attack, nuclear matters inclusive, against Russia. > > read more > > > View article... > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > > > > From fboyle at illinois.edu Sat Nov 4 14:11:15 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2017 14:11:15 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG In-Reply-To: References: <9D3D5E59-5EFC-47DF-838D-C6508214E176@illinois.edu> Message-ID: Ok. Well this is my own list to friends. I will try to remember to remove you in the future. If I forget please excuse me and remind me again. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: David Swanson [mailto:davidcnswanson at gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2017 9:08 AM To: Boyle, Francis A Cc: C G Estabrook ; Roger Helbig ; Karen Aram ; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; Jay Becker ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; Szoke, Ron ; Dave Trippel ; Arlene Hickory ; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG really sorry, but can i either get a single daily digest of this as a listserve, or can i regrettfully unsubscribe please? Thanks. On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 9:57 AM, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: In other words, approximately 3.3 million Iraqis were exterminated by the United States and the United Kingdom from August of 1990 until the end of 2011 when President Obama had ordered the purported “final” withdrawal of U.S. military forces from Iraq. And these are very conservative figures that I believe could be proven to the satisfaction of the International Court of Justice. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -----Original Message----- From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2017 8:55 AM To: C G Estabrook >; Roger Helbig > Cc: Karen Aram >; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Jay Becker >; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; Szoke, Ron >; Dave Trippel >; Arlene Hickory >; David Swanson >; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG Of course the Illinois Nazi Faculty of Law and its Yale Mafia Law Dean Iceman Amar are more than happy to exterminate Muslims/Arabs/Asians of Color. Fab. Legal Protection Of Children In Armed Conflict: The Iraqi Children Genocide By Francis A. Boyle 04 December, 2012 Countercurrents.org This is the text version of a speech delivered by Francis A. Boyle at The International Conference on War-affected Children Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, November 22, 2012 During the summer of 1991 I was contacted on behalf of several Mothers in Iraq whose children were dying at astounding rates because of the genocidal economic sanctions that had been imposed upon them by the Security Council in August of 1990 at the behest of the Bush Senior administration. They requested that I do something in order to save these innocent children from perishing in agony in front of their mothers’ very own eyes. Using the format of the Writ for World Habeas Corpus that had been previously provided to me by my friend and colleague, the late Luis Kutner, Esq. of Chicago, Illinois, I filed a class-action Complaint on behalf of the 4.5 million children of Iraq against President George Bush Senior and the United States of America with the United Nations Organization that was dated 18 September 1991.[1] I submitted the Complaint to the Secretary General of the U.N., member states of the General Assembly, the Economic and Social Council, the Commission on Human Rights, the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, UNESCO, and UNICEF. A copy of my Indictment, Complaint and Petition for Relief from Genocide on behalf of the 4.5 million children of Iraq is reprinted below. This Complaint accused the United States and President Bush Senior (1) of committing the international crime of genocide against the 4.5 Million Children of Iraq in violation of the International Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide of 1948 and in violation of the municipal legal systems of all civilized nations in the world; (2) of a gross and consistent pattern of violations of the most fundamental human rights of the 4.5 Million Children of Iraq as recognized and guaranteed to them by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948; (3) of the complete negation and denial of all the rights guaranteed to the 4.5 Million Children of Iraq by the 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child; and (4) of the systematic violation of the special protections of international humanitarian law guaranteed to the 4.5 Million Children of Iraq by the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 and Additional Protocol I thereto of 1977. My Complaint demanded (1) the termination of all forms of multilateral and bilateral economic sanctions against Iraq; (2) the massive provision of international humanitarian relief supplies to Iraq by all organs of the United Nations System; (3) that monetary compensation be paid to the children of Iraq and their families for deaths as well as for all physical and mental injury by the United States; and (4) that criminal proceedings for genocide be instituted against President George Bush Senior by the appropriate organs of the United Nations System as well as by all municipal legal systems in the world, including by the United States government. My Complaint estimated that since sanctions were first imposed against Iraq in August of 1990, Iraqi children were dying as a direct result thereof at the rate of about 500 per day. Despite my best professional efforts working on behalf of my Clients pro bono publico, the grossly hypocritical United Nations Organization adamantly refused to act to terminate these genocidal sanctions and thus to save the dying children of Iraq. In 1995 the United Nations’ own Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) Report estimated that these genocidal economic sanctions against Iraq had by then killed about 560,000 Iraqi children since when they were first imposed in 1990.[2] In specific regard to these murdered Iraqi children, then U.S. Secretary of State Madeline Albright, was interviewed on the CBS Television Network on 12 May 1996 by correspondent Leslie Stahl. The transcript of this interview provided by CBS News itself reads as follows:[3] Stahl: (Voiceover) If the Iraqi people place any blame on Saddam Hussein, they’re afraid to say so. And there is no longer much hope that the sanctions will inspire the people to rise up and topple the government. Now people are just trying to get by because one of the side effects of the sanctions has been inflation, which has jumped as high as 3,000 percent. To make ends meet, Iraqis are selling everything they can. Flea markets have sprung up on the streets, where families can sell their furniture, clothes, anything they can to make a few extra dinars. Most Iraqis are suffering We have heard that a half a million children have died. I mean, that’s more children than died when-wh-in-in Hiroshima. And-and, you know, is the price worth it? Ambassador Albright: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price – we think the price is worth it. This shocking and revolting statement made by the U.S. Secretary of State provided proof positive of the genocidal intent by the United States Government against Iraq and its children and its people as defined by and in violation of Genocide Convention Article II: “In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group, as such. . . .” Certainly a half-million dead Iraqi children that the U.S. Secretary of State specifically intended to destroy as such, and did indeed destroy as such, constituted a very important “part” of the Iraqi people. These half-million dead children were the very future of the people and state of Iraq. This Albright statement is what criminal lawyers call a classic “Admission Against Interest.” This Statement by the then sitting U.S. Secretary of State, acting within the scope of her official duties and speaking in the name of the United States government, could be taken to the International Court of Justice in The Hague and filed to prove that the United States of America possessed the required mens rea (criminal intent) necessary to commit the international crime of genocide. Under both international law and U.S. domestic law, to be guilty of a crime a person or a state must possess the requisite mens rea at the same time that he or she or it commits the criminal act (actus reus). With respect to these genocidal economic sanctions against Iraq, the actus reus for the U.S. government and its officials committing the international crime of genocide is set forth in Genocide Convention Article II (c): “Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.” The 500,000 dead Iraqi children, as conceded and approved by U.S. Secretary of State Albright, constituted a “substantial part” of the people of Iraq, which is the threshold numerical test for genocide recognized by the International Court of Justice itself that I had successfully argued there for Bosnia and Herzegovina against Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) in 1993. Albright incriminated both herself and the United States of America at the same time, apparently without thought or concern as to any future international legal determination of their culpability. Such is the arrogance of the powerful—which is usually the source of their downfall. The United States and the United Kingdom obstinately insisted that the genocidal economic sanctions imposed against Iraq remain in place until after the conclusion of the internationally illegal Gulf War II of aggression perpetrated by the Bush Junior administration and the Tony Blair government against Iraq in March of 2003. Then, on 22 May 2003 the United States and the United Kingdom procured U.N. Security Council Resolution 1483 lifting these genocidal economic sanctions; yet not with a view to easing the over decade-long suffering of the Iraqi people and children. But rather so as to better facilitate the U.S./U.K. unsupervised looting and plundering of the Iraqi economy and oil fields in violation of the international laws of war as well as to the grave detriment of the Iraqi people and their children. Once I had gotten this class-action Complaint filed with the United Nations Organization and had worked out the basic legal theory for U.S. genocide against the children of Iraq, starting in the Fall of 1991 I did everything humanly possible to convince the then President of Iraq to give me the legal authority to sue the United States and the United Kingdom at the International Court of Justice in The Hague on the basis of the 1948 Genocide Convention: First, in order to break the genocidal economic embargo against the people of Iraq, and especially their children. And second, in order to prevent what I perceived to be further impending military attacks by the United States and Britain upon Iraq that would culminate someday in stealing all their oil. I most strenuously pursued these efforts systematically and continuously until the very eve of the war of aggression against Iraq by the Bush Junior administration and the Tony Blair government in mid-March of 2003. These efforts also included two meetings with the then Foreign Minister of Iraq and their top international lawyer to review, consider, and discuss papers I had drafted to be filed by Iraq in the World Court against the United States and the United Kingdom in order to accomplish these objectives.[4] In addition, at the very last minute available I also attempted to convince the Deputy Prime Minister of Iraq to give me the legal authority to file these World Court lawsuits against the U.S. and the U.K. literally right up until the outbreak of hostilities in mid-March of 2003. All to no avail. Despite my best efforts, I failed. This shall always be one of the great disappointments of my life. Approximately 1.7 million Iraqis died as a direct result of these genocidal economic sanctions, including within that number about 750,000 Iraqi children. In addition, another 1.4 million Iraqis died as a result of the Bush Junior/Tony Blair genocidal war of aggression against Iraq. To this appalling genocidal death toll must be added the 200,000 Iraqis President Bush Senior slaughtered in his 1991 Gulf War I. In other words, approximately 3.3 million Iraqis were exterminated by the United States and the United Kingdom from August of 1990 until the end of 2011 when President Obama had ordered the purported “final” withdrawal of U.S. military forces from Iraq. And these are very conservative figures that I believe could be proven to the satisfaction of the International Court of Justice. These World Court papers that I drew up for Iraq to sue the United States and the United Kingdom at the International Court of Justice on the basis of the 1948 Genocide Convention that were twice considered and reviewed by the Foreign Minister of Iraq and their top international lawyer still sit in my office today. They could be revised and updated by the current government of Iraq in order to sue the United States and the United Kingdom at the International Court of Justice for genocide today. Of course this is for the current government of Iraq to decide. Towards facilitating that objective, I will be more than happy to make these World Court papers available to the current government of Iraq free of charge if they so desire. For Iraq to file my proposed World Court lawsuits for genocide against the United States and the United Kingdom would produce some small degree of justice for the 750,000 murdered children of Iraq and at least 3.3 million exterminated Iraqis. Thank you. [1] See Edward Pearce, Death and Indecency in a Time of Cholera, The Guardian, Oct. 25, 1991. [2] See Ramsey Clark, FAO Report, and Others, The Children Are Dying (World View Forum, Inc.: 1996). [3] See 5/12/96 60 Minutes, 1996 Westlaw 8064912. [4] Iraq to Go to World Court, South News, Jan. 28, 1998: “U.S. Professor of International Law Francis Boyle has publicly offered to charge U.S. leaders for genocide against the Iraqi people.” Professor Francis A. Boyle is an international law expert and served as Legal Advisor to the Palestine Liberation Organization and Yasser Arafat on the 1988 Palestinian Declaration of Independence, as well as to the Palestinian Delegation to the Middle East Peace Negotiations from 1991 to 1993, where he drafted the Palestinian counter-offer to the now defunct Oslo Agreement. His books include “ Palestine, Palestinians and International Law” (2003), and “ The Palestinian Right of Return under International Law” (2010). © Copyright 2012 by Francis A. Boyle. All rights reserved. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -----Original Message----- From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2017 8:42 AM To: Roger Helbig > Cc: Boyle, Francis A >; Karen Aram >; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Jay Becker >; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; Szoke, Ron >; Dave Trippel >; Arlene Hickory >; David Swanson >; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG Of course the US committed war crimes in Iraq. The US invasion of that country is the greatest international crime of the century - so far. On ‘American Free Press,’ see . > On Nov 4, 2017, at 8:11 AM, Roger Helbig > wrote: > > You do know that Christopher Bollyn is NOT a reporter but is a Neo Nazi operative of long standing and that the American Free Press is not a news organization, but a Neo Nazi front - look up Willis Carto - he was Bollyn's boss and founded the American Free Press - this website that has reports of conference for American Free Press and The Barnes Review used to have a prominent picture of a Nazi flag behind the blogger Alex Hassinger - Douglas Lind Rokke of Urbana spoke at this event and Dave von Kleist the producer of Rokke's first anti-US propaganda video "Beyond Treason" was the master of ceremonies - http://www.chairmanofnordwave.blogspot.com > > Carto died in 2015 - there are a number of good sources on Carto in a simple Google search - > > Learn about Neo Nazis - read this book - "Blood and Politics" - it mentions Bollyn and extensively discusses Carto - pg 382, which I can e-mail to all who request - has Carto's establishment of The Barnes Review, a Holocaust Denial publication - The American Free Press replaced Carto's The Spotlight after Carto lost a legal battle - Bollyn is also mentioned in connection with a Pat Buchanan campaign apparatus > > On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 4:57 AM, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: > I also want to make it clear for the record that before the invasions of Saipan, Tinian and Okinawa my Father, a Marine, was ordered by his Captain not to take prisoners of war on the grounds of reciprocity that the Japanese did not take Prisoners of War of our Men. My Father disobeyed these clearly illegal orders and took Japanese Prisoners of War. I cite the example of my Father to my law students to refute the objection that you cannot expect soldiers to obey the laws of war during combat. If my Father could obey the laws of war at Saipan, Tinian, and Okinawa, any other soldier should be able to do the same. Meanwhile,while I am teaching this to my students, the Illinois Nazis Law Faculty aid, abet, and promote and facilitate war crimes and crimes against humanity from the safety of their offices. My Father later became a Lawyer. RIP. The Illinois Nazis Law Faculty are despicable! Fab. > > > > Francis A. Boyle > > Law Building > > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > > Champaign IL 61820 USA > > 217-333-7954 (phone) > > 217-244-1478 (fax) > > (personal comments only) > > > > From: Boyle, Francis A > Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2017 8:38 PM > To: Roger Helbig > > Cc: Karen Aram >; Estabrook, Carl G >; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Jay Becker >; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; Szoke, Ron >; Dave Trippel >; Arlene Hickory >; David Swanson >; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net > Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG > > > > Mad Dog Mattis the Nuremberg War Criminal. Fab. > > CONTROLLED PRESS IGNORES > > CRIMINAL OBLITERATION OF FALLUJAH > > > > By Christopher Bollyn > > American Free Press > > > > The controlled press has scrupulously avoided discussing the devastation and prima facie evidence of war crimes committed during the U.S. siege and assault of Fallujah. > > > > As Americans prepared for Thanksgiving, an estimated 100,000 residents of the besieged Iraqi city of Fallujah, trapped in their homes, struggled to survive without fresh food, water or electricity, reportedly cut off by U.S. forces on November 8. > > > > Meanwhile, on the streets of Fallujah, a city of more than 350,000, dogs gnawed on bloated and rotting corpses that remained unburied for weeks. > > > > Thousands of families in Fallujah were reported to be in a critical humanitarian situation after U.S. forces prevented the delivery of relief supplies. An Iraq Red Crescent Society (IRCS) humanitarian aid convoy, reportedly blocked by U.S. troops for more than two weeks, was allowed to deliver aid to residents in the heart of the city on November 25. > > > > On Thanksgiving, U.S. forces permitted the IRCS convoy carrying thousands of food parcels, blankets, tents and medical supplies to enter the city and allowed one of the clinics to be converted into a temporary hospital to treat the injured. Rana Sidani of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) in Geneva, Switzerland however, told American Free Press on Nov. 30 that "many civilians" were still prevented from receiving aid or medical care. > > > > At the beginning of the U.S. operation in Fallujah on Nov. 5, a hospital in the central Nazzal district of Fallujah was "reduced to rubble" as a result of U.S. air and artillery bombardment. "Only its façade, with a sign reading Nazzal Emergency Hospital, remained intact," Reuters reported. > > > > "A nearby compound used by the main Falluja Hospital to store medical supplies was also destroyed," witnesses told Reuters. Fallujah's main hospital was occupied by U.S. forces when the ground offensive began. These actions are apparent violations of international humanitarian law. > > > > "Bodies can be seen everywhere and people were crying when receiving the food parcels," Muhammad al-Nuri, a spokesman for the IRCS in Baghdad, said. "It is very sad. It is a human disaster." > > > > Al-Nuri said that it is difficult to move in the city due to the large number of dead bodies in the streets. The ICRS estimates there are more than 6,000 dead in Fallujah, al-Nuri said. > > > > AFP asked Major Jay Antonelli at the Coalition Press Information Center (CPIC) in Baghdad if the ICRS estimate of 6,000 dead in Fallujah was credible. "We do not keep a count of dead Iraqis," Antonelli said. Asked the same question, the ICRC's Sidani said, "We don't know." > > > > Antonelli said, "U.S. forces never blocked aid convoys from reaching the wounded. We only recommended to the aid convoys that they should not enter the city because the MNF [Multi-National Forces] could not guarantee their security or safety." > > > > "The ICRC is very worried about the humanitarian situation in Falluja," Sidani said. Asked what the ICRC was doing to alleviate the suffering in Fallujah, Sidani said: "We are reminding the parties of their responsibilities under international humanitarian law." > > > > It should be noted that the U.S.A. and Britain, the belligerent occupying powers in Iraq, are the two largest contributors to the ICRC, providing more than 42 percent of its budget for field operations. > > > > A second convoy from Baghdad, headed by Dr. Said Ismael Haki, the IRCS president, delivered aid to Fallujah on Nov. 26. "There are no houses left in Fallujah, only destroyed places." Haki said. "I really don't know how the people will return to the city. No one will find their homes." > > > > As U.S. troops in Fallujah engaged in what has been described as the most intense urban combat since Vietnam, the controlled press scrupulously avoided discussion or footage of the devastation of the rebellious Sunni city. For example, during the second week of the attack, rather than discuss the widespread devastation of Fallujah, U.S. television news programs focused largely on a brawl between basketball players and fans in Detroit. > > > > Lt. Col. Brandl, commander of the 1st Battalion, 8th Marine Regiment, was filmed giving a "pep talk" to his marines: "The enemy has got a face – he's called Satan," Brandl said. "He's in Fallujah, and we're going to destroy him." > > > > At least 136 U.S. soldiers were killed during November in Iraq, and more than 800 were wounded, most of them in Fallujah, making it the most costly month, and operation, in terms of U.S. lives lost since the invasion of Iraq began in March 2003. > > > > FOR WHAT CAUSE? > > > > Michael Ware, Baghdad bureau chief for Time magazine, who has been in Fallujah during the fighting, said U.S. actions in Fallujah are "creating the nightmare that we are seeking to prevent." > > > > "I stood there as I saw American boys die," Ware told Chris Matthews of MSNBC on Nov. 24, "I mean, a man shot at close range, blown apart by a rocket propelled grenade. He dies there in front of you and I can't help but think why? For what cause? > > > > "I see us creating the very thing that the president said we went there to prevent," Ware said, "…subsequent to this invasion and the occupation and the guerrilla war that is currently underway, we are the midwives of the next generation of al Qaida and Islamic terrorist." > > > > Ware, who has interviewed senior insurgent leaders, said they study the writings of the Vietnamese general Vo Nguyen Giap, Che Guevara, and Mao Zedong. "They're bringing it straight from the Vietnam, and the broader insurgency playbook," Ware said. > > > > "The name of the game is deny the population to the insurgents," Ware said. "That's what we're trying to do, win hearts and minds. But we're not winning them." > > > > The U.S. struggle to win Iraqi hearts and minds suffered a further set back when NBC TV broadcast footage of a U.S. marine executing a wounded and unarmed Iraqi in a Fallujah mosque. The much-publicized shooting, apparently part of a massacre of a group of wounded resistance fighters, "was a rare crack in the façade that Washington, with the complicity of most of the corporate media, has tried to present to the world of its brutal assault on the rebel Iraqi city," Rohan Pearce wrote in The Greenleft Weekly Australia on Nov. 24. > > > > The New York Times has reported actions taken by U.S. forces in Fallujah, which appear to be prima facie evidence of war crimes, without mentioning that the actions constitute clear violations of the Laws of Land War found in the U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10. > > > > For example, a Nov. 20 Times article by Edward Wong, with two correspondents in Fallujah, reports that U.S. marines had transformed a mosque into a fortress with snipers and machine gunners perched on the roof. > > > > Then, using the passive form, Wong goes on to say that "no neutral group has been able to enter the city," without mentioning that U.S. forces blocked humanitarian aid convoys. Likewise, Wong wrote, "Electricity and water had been cut off." > > > > The Times, whose motto is "All the news that's fit to print," apparently didn't think that it's readers needed to know the U.S. forces had cut off the water and power to a city of 340,000 people. > > > > Asked if U.S. forces had cut power and water to Fallujah, Maj. Jay Antonelli of CPIC wrote: "MNF did, with approval of the Interim Iraqi Government, cut off electricity to the city of Fallujah as Operation Al-Fajr began. Water was not cut off intentionally, however the water system did sustain some kinetic damage during strikes." > > > > American Free Press asked the Pentagon's Lt. Col. Joe Yoswa if it is true that U.S. forces were using mosques as fortresses. "It's not possible," Yoswa said. "Under no circumstances. We would not set up snipers in a mosque in an offensive position." > > > > CPIC's Antonelli said: "MNF would not use a mosque as a 'fortress.' MNF and Iraqi security forces would only fire from a mosque if they were being fired upon and were firing back in self-defense." > > > > Abu Sabah, a refugee from Fallujah, reported seeing phosphorus bombs: "They used these weird bombs that put up smoke like a mushroom cloud. Then small pieces fell from the air with long tails of smoke trailing behind them. These exploded on the ground with large fires that burnt for half and hour," Abu Sabah said. "When anyone touched these fires their bodies burnt for hours." > > > > Eyewitnesses from Fallujah also reported seeing "melted" bodies. > > > > "THROW-AWAY SOLDIERS" > > > > Having seen what appeared to be a depleted uranium (DU) missile fired at a building in Fallujah on CNN during the first week of the fighting, AFP asked the Pentagon if DU weapons are being used in Fallujah. "Yes," Yoswa said, "DU is a standard round on the M-1 Abrams tank." > > > > Because U.S. marines in Fallujah are very close to the poison gas produced by exploded DU shells, AFP asked Yoswa if anything was being done to protect the troops from DU poisoning. Yoswa seemed unaware of the dangers posed by the use of DU. > > > > Marion Fulk, a retired nuclear scientist from Livermore National Lab told AFP that U.S. troops in DU contaminated battlefields are considered "throw-away soldiers." The Marines exposed to DU in Fallujah, and elsewhere, face greatly increased risks of cancer, deformed children, and other health problems in the future. > > > > OBLITERATION OF FALLUJAH > > > > The "obliteration of Fallujah" is a serious war crime, according to Francis A. Boyle, a professor of international law at the University of Illinois. "The obliteration of Fallujah continues apace," Boyle wrote in his Nov. 15 article, A War Crime in Real Time: Obliterating Fallujah. "Article 6(b) of the 1945 Nuremberg Charter defines a Nuremberg War Crime in relevant part as the 'wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages.' According to this definitive definition, the Bush administration's destruction of Fallujah constitutes a war crime for which Nazis were tried and executed." > > > > Finis > > -30- > > 1629 words > > Do you Yahoo!? > The all-new My Yahoo! – What will yours do? > > > > > > Francis A. Boyle > > Law Building > > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > > Champaign IL 61820 USA > > 217-333-7954 (phone) > > 217-244-1478 (fax) > > (personal comments only) > > > > From: Boyle, Francis A > Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2017 8:13 PM > To: 'Roger Helbig' > > Cc: 'Karen Aram' >; Estabrook, Carl G >; 'peace-discuss at anti-war.net' >; 'C. G. ESTABROOK' >; 'Jay Becker' >; 'a-fields at uiuc.edu' >; Hoffman, Valerie J >; 'Joe Lauria' >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; Szoke, Ron >; 'Dave Trippel' >; 'Arlene Hickory' >; 'David Swanson' >; 'peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net' >; 'sherwoodross10 at gmail.com' >; 'abass10 at gmail.com' >; 'mickalideh at gmail.com' >; 'Lina Thorne' >; 'chicago at worldcantwait.net' > > Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG > > > > Mattis expected his troops to be peacekeepers. They brought soccer balls with them when they deployed. > > LOL! Marines don’t play soccer or teach kids to play soccer.. My Dad was a Marine. He invaded Saipan, Tinian and Okinawa before he became a Lawyer. Marines destroy anyone and anything that is in front of them as they are trained to do and did at Fallujah under Mattis—A Real Mad Dog War Criminal. Fab. > > > > > > > > Francis A. Boyle > > Law Building > > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > > Champaign IL 61820 USA > > 217-333-7954 (phone) > > 217-244-1478 (fax) > > (personal comments only) > > > > From: Boyle, Francis A > Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2017 7:52 PM > To: 'Roger Helbig' > > Cc: Karen Aram >; Estabrook, Carl G >; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Jay Becker >; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; Szoke, Ron >; Dave Trippel >; Arlene Hickory >; David Swanson >; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net > Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Karim A G [mailto:coffee at euro-comm.co.uk] > Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2004 5:00 PM > To: Karim A G > Subject: A War Crime in Real Time > > http://www.counterpunch.org/boyle11152004.html > > > > November 15, 2004 > > A War Crime in Real Time > > Obliterating Fallujah > > By FRANCIS A. BOYLE > > The obliteration of Fallujah continues apace. Article 6(b) of the 1945 Nuremberg Charter defines a Nuremberg War Crime in relevant part as the ". . . wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages. . ." According to this definitive definition, the Bush Jr. administration's destruction of Fallujah constitutes a war crime for which Nazis were tried and executed. There is nothing surprising about that. > > Since the Bush Jr. administration's installation in power by the United States Supreme Court in January of 2001, the peoples of the world have witnessed a government in the United States of America that has demonstrated little if any respect for fundamental considerations of international law, international organizations, and human rights, let alone appreciation of the requirements for maintaining international peace and security. What the world has watched instead is a comprehensive and malicious assault upon the integrity of the international legal order by a group of men and women who are thoroughly Machiavellian in their perception of international relations and in their conduct of both foreign policy and domestic affairs. This is not simply a question of giving or withholding the benefit of the doubt when it comes to complicated matters of foreign affairs and defense policies to a U.S. government charged with the security of both its own citizens and those of its allies in Europe, the Western Hemisphere, and the Pacific. Rather, the Bush Jr. administration's foreign policy constitutes ongoing criminal activity under well-recognized principles of both international law and U.S. domestic law, in particular the Nuremberg Charter, the Nuremberg Judgment, and the Nuremberg Principles. So their obliteration of Fallujah was to be expected. > > One generation ago the peoples of the world asked themselves: Where were the "good" Germans? Well, there were some good Germans. The Lutheran theologian and pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer was the foremost exemplar of someone who led a life of principled opposition to the Nazi-terror state even unto death. > > Today the peoples of the world are likewise asking themselves: Where are the "good" Americans? Well, there are some good Americans. Like three Catholic Nuns in Denver, they are getting arrested and going to jail for protesting against United States weapons of mass destruction (WMD) whose power for human extermination far exceeds even the wildest fantasies of Hitler and the Nazis. Or else for protesting against illegal U.S.. military interventions around the world. Just recently the Nuclear Resister estimated that since the Fall of 2002, there have been more than 9,500 anti-war related arrests in the United States alone. Many more will be coming. > > In international legal terms, the Bush Jr. administration itself should now be viewed as constituting an ongoing criminal conspiracy under international criminal law in violation of the Nuremberg Charter, the Nuremberg Judgment, and the Nuremberg Principles, due to its formulation and undertaking of aggressive war policies that are legally akin to those perpetrated by the Nazi regime. As a consequence, American citizens possess the basic right under international law and the United States domestic law, including the U.S. Constitution, to engage in acts of non-violent civil resistance in order to prevent, impede, thwart, or terminate ongoing criminal activities perpetrated by U.S. government officials in their conduct of foreign affairs policies and military operations purported to relate to defense and counter-terrorism. > > This same right of civil resistance extends pari passu to all citizens of the world community of states. Everyone around the world has both the right and the duty under international law to resist ongoing criminal activities perpetrated by the Bush Jr. administration and its nefarious foreign accomplices such as Blair, Berlusconi, Howard, Koizumi, Kwasniewski, etc. by all non-violent means possible. If it is not so restrained, the Bush Jr. administration could very well precipitate a Third World War. > > The time for preventive action is now. Civil resistance is the way to go. People power can overcome power politics. Popular movements have succeeded in toppling tyrannical, dictatorial and authoritarian regimes throughout former Communist countries in Eastern Europe, as well as in Asia, and most recently in Latin America. It is time once again to exercise People Power here in the United States of America: "When in the Course of human Events. . . We hold these Truths to be self-evident. . . . we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and sacred Honor." > > Despite the best efforts by the Bush Jr. Leaguers to the contrary, we American Citizens still have our First Amendment Rights: Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Association, Freedom of Assembly, Freedom to Petition our Government for the Redress of these massive Grievances, Civil Resistance, etc. We are going to have to start vigorously exercising all of our First Amendment Rights right now. We must use them or else, as the saying goes, we will lose them. We must act not only for the good of the Peoples of Southwest Asia, but for our future, that of our children, that of our nation as a democratic society committed to the Rule of Law and the U.S. Constitution. The Nazis had their "homeland" too > > Francis A. Boyle, Professor of Law, University of Illinois, is author of Foundations of World Order, Duke University Press, The Criminality of Nuclear Deterrence, and Palestine, Palestinians and International Law, by Clarity Press. He can be reached at: FBOYLE at LAW.UIUC.EDU > > --- > Subscribed as: fboyle at law.uiuc.edu; to unsubscribe send to al-awda-universalist-request at umich.edu > with UNSUBSCRIBE as the SUBJECT. > URL: > > > Francis A. Boyle > > Law Building > > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > > Champaign IL 61820 USA > > 217-333-7954 (phone) > > 217-244-1478 (fax) > > (personal comments only) > > > > From: Roger Helbig [mailto:rwhelbig at gmail.com] > Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2017 6:43 PM > To: Boyle, Francis A > > Cc: Karen Aram >; Estabrook, Carl G >; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Jay Becker >; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; Szoke, Ron >; Dave Trippel >; Arlene Hickory >; David Swanson >; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG > > > > There was no massacre at Fallujah. This is nonsense. Mattis expected his troops to be peacekeepers. They brought soccer balls with them when they deployed. > > > > I would love to see your "so called" war crime indictment. Wonder how much of it is from your fertile Hate America imagination and how much from the fertile Arab anti-American propaganda organs. Doubt a single paragraph is actually based on fact. > > > > On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 8:22 AM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss > wrote: > > Trump’s Secretary of War Mad Dog Mattis was responsible for the Massacre at Fallujah, which I pointed out on Counterpunch was a Nuremberg War Crime along the lines of the Nazis—the wanton devastation of a city-- in revenge for them killing our mercenaries. Fab. > > > > Francis A. Boyle > > Law Building > > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > > Champaign IL 61820 USA > > 217-333-7954 (phone) > > 217-244-1478 (fax) > > (personal comments only) > > > > From: Karen Aram [mailto:karenaram at hotmail.com] > Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2017 10:04 AM > To: Estabrook, Carl G > > Cc: Boyle, Francis A >; Jay Becker >; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; Szoke, Ron >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; Arlene Hickory >; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; David Swanson >; Dave Trippel >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Mildred O'brien >; David Johnson >; Joe Lauria >; David Green > > Subject: Re: Guest Commentary by Carl in NG > > > > I’m sorry Carl, I don’t agree with that title either. It assumes that all in the anti-war movement welcome the Trump administration. Not all of us trust he will do some of that which he promised in respect to “defunding Nato,” “making friends with Russia,” or killing TPP. Even if he does those three things, his further provocations of China, are every bit as dangerous as those with Russia, it’s a mere tactic to drive a wedge between Russia and China, while chipping away at Iran. > > > > His Cabinet appointments are frightening to say the least in respect to Healthcare, Energy, Education, Housing, etc, etc. > > > > Further expansion of war in the Middle East, and North Africa, as well as expansion of capitalist corporate control is on the agenda no matter which of the two Party’s are in power. > > > > Obama paved the way, for all of which I have just referred, but it’s not over. Our only hope is that “the people” are now awake, and perhaps will focus on that which is most serious to survival. > > > > > > On Jan 22, 2017, at 07:44, Carl G. Estabrook > wrote: > > > > My original title was, “Why the anti-war movement welcomes the new administration.” > > > > For more on that theme, see . > > > > —CGE > > > > > > On Jan 22, 2017, at 9:29 AM, Karen Aram > wrote: > > > > An excellent letter, which I posted on FB. I deliberately deleted the title that I assumed the NG created, because it gives the false impression that those of us in the anti-war movement, all support Trump. We don’t, we just didn’t support Hillary. Anyone in the anti-war movement supporting Hillary was supporting more of the same that Obama provided. > > > > > > On Jan 22, 2017, at 07:16, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: > > > > He {Obama} attacked eight countries (two more than George Bush), and conducted what one leading political commentator called "the most extreme terrorist campaign of modern times — his drone assassinations." He killed thousands of civilians with drones, including U.S. citizens and hundreds of children. > > A good letter by Carl today in NG. (Remember NG writes their own titles to letters.) We must now hold Trump’s feet to the fire across the board! I think Carl’s quote comes from Chomsky? In any event the Illinois Nazis Law Faculty fully supported and promoted and held out for emulation by lawyers and this Campus and our Good Community: > > "the most extreme terrorist campaign of modern times — his drone assassinations." > > > > The Illinois Nazis Law Faculty are just a GANG OF SICK PUPPIES! > > Fab > > Ed Norton Professor of Law > > Carl Schmitt College of Law: > > “Mein Fuhrer, I can walk!” > > > > > > Francis A. Boyle > > Law Building > > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > > Champaign IL 61820 USA > > 217-333-7954 (phone) > > 217-244-1478 (fax) > > (personal comments only) > > > > Feed: News-Gazette.com > Posted on: Sunday, January 22, 2017 7:00 AM > Author: digital.media > Subject: Guest Commentary: Why anti-war movement welcomes Trump > > > > By C.G. ESTABROOK > > The European anti-war group "No War No NATO" writes as follows: > > "Demonstrating in Europe on 21 January, against the newly elected US President Donald Trump is tantamount to lending support to the Obama administration, which has transformed Europe into NATO's first line of attack, nuclear matters inclusive, against Russia. > > read more > > > View article... > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > > > > -- David Swanson is an author, activist, journalist, and radio host. He is director of WorldBeyondWar.org and campaign coordinator for RootsAction.org. Swanson's books include War Is A Lie. He blogs at DavidSwanson.org and WarIsACrime.org. He hosts Talk Nation Radio. He is a 2015, 2016, 2017 Nobel Peace Prize Nominee. Longer bio and photos and videos here. Follow him on Twitter: @davidcnswanson and FaceBook, and sign up for: Activist alerts. Articles. David Swanson news. World Beyond War news. Charlottesville news. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rwhelbig at gmail.com Sat Nov 4 14:14:59 2017 From: rwhelbig at gmail.com (Roger Helbig) Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2017 07:14:59 -0700 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG In-Reply-To: References: <9D3D5E59-5EFC-47DF-838D-C6508214E176@illinois.edu> Message-ID: and you spread lies - I never worked for military intelligence - they would not let me because I am partially color blind and to be an Air Force intelligence officer, you needed to be able to interpret false colors on air photos - I wanted to be because I like to work through problems and took Russian as an elective my senior year as part of my know your enemy program - Now, you have not refuted that The American Free Press was established by Willis Carto - that Carto was a Neo Nazi or that Bollyn worked for Carto and Buchanan - you more than likely have not read Blood and Politics - maybe some of the others were. I don't seem to have scan of page where the American Free Press was established to replace The Spotlight, but attached is the one where it discusses the establishment of The Barnes Review and the conference discussed on the blog is for both of these publications. On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 6:37 AM, Boyle, Francis A wrote: > *Once again, Roger crawls out of his hole as a Mole for US “Military > Intelligence”—an oxymoron to be sure.* > > *Fab* > > > > > > *Francis A. Boyle* > > *Law Building* > > *504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > * > > *Champaign IL 61820 USA > * > > *217-333-7954 <(217)%20333-7954> (phone)* > > *217-244-1478 <(217)%20244-1478> (fax)* > > *(personal comments only*) > > > > *From:* Roger Helbig [mailto:rwhelbig at gmail.com] > *Sent:* Saturday, November 04, 2017 8:12 AM > *To:* Boyle, Francis A > *Cc:* Karen Aram ; Estabrook, Carl G < > galliher at illinois.edu>; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK < > carl at newsfromneptune.com>; Jay Becker ; > a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria > ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; > Szoke, Ron ; Dave Trippel ; > Arlene Hickory ; David Swanson ; > peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; > abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne < > lina at worldcantwait.net>; chicago at worldcantwait.net > *Subject:* Re: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG > > > > You do know that Christopher Bollyn is NOT a reporter but is a Neo Nazi > operative of long standing and that the American Free Press is not a news > organization, but a Neo Nazi front - look up Willis Carto - he was Bollyn's > boss and founded the American Free Press - this website that has reports of > conference for American Free Press and The Barnes Review used to have a > prominent picture of a Nazi flag behind the blogger Alex Hassinger - > Douglas Lind Rokke of Urbana spoke at this event and Dave von Kleist the > producer of Rokke's first anti-US propaganda video "Beyond Treason" was > the master of ceremonies - http://www.chairmanofnordwave.blogspot.com > > > > Carto died in 2015 - there are a number of good sources on Carto in a > simple Google search - > > > > Learn about Neo Nazis - read this book - "Blood and Politics" - it > mentions Bollyn and extensively discusses Carto - pg 382, which I can > e-mail to all who request - has Carto's establishment of The Barnes Review, > a Holocaust Denial publication - The American Free Press replaced Carto's > The Spotlight after Carto lost a legal battle - Bollyn is also mentioned in > connection with a Pat Buchanan campaign apparatus > > > > On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 4:57 AM, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: > > *I also want to make it clear for the record that before the invasions of > Saipan, Tinian and Okinawa my Father, a Marine, was ordered by his Captain > not to take prisoners of war on the grounds of reciprocity that the > Japanese did not take Prisoners of War of our Men. My Father disobeyed > these clearly illegal orders and took Japanese Prisoners of War. I cite the > example of my Father to my law students to refute the objection that you > cannot expect soldiers to obey the laws of war during combat. If my Father > could obey the laws of war at Saipan, Tinian, and Okinawa, any other > soldier should be able to do the same. Meanwhile,while I am teaching this > to my students, the Illinois Nazis Law Faculty aid, abet, and promote and > facilitate war crimes and crimes against humanity from the safety of their > offices. My Father later became a Lawyer. RIP. The Illinois Nazis Law > Faculty are despicable! Fab.* > > > > *Francis A. Boyle* > > *Law Building* > > *504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > * > > *Champaign IL 61820 USA > * > > *217-333-7954 <(217)%20333-7954> (phone)* > > *217-244-1478 <(217)%20244-1478> (fax)* > > *(personal comments only*) > > > > *From:* Boyle, Francis A > *Sent:* Sunday, January 22, 2017 8:38 PM > *To:* Roger Helbig > *Cc:* Karen Aram ; Estabrook, Carl G < > galliher at illinois.edu>; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK < > carl at newsfromneptune.com>; Jay Becker ; > a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria > ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; > Szoke, Ron ; Dave Trippel ; > Arlene Hickory ; David Swanson ; > peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; > abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne < > lina at worldcantwait.net>; chicago at worldcantwait.net > *Subject:* RE: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG > > > > *Mad Dog Mattis the Nuremberg War Criminal. Fab.* > > *CONTROLLED PRESS IGNORES * > > *CRIMINAL OBLITERATION OF FALLUJAH* > > > > By Christopher Bollyn > > *American Free Press* > > > > *The controlled press has scrupulously avoided discussing the devastation > and prima facie evidence of war crimes committed during the U.S. siege and > assault of Fallujah.* > > > > As Americans prepared for Thanksgiving, an estimated 100,000 residents of > the besieged Iraqi city of Fallujah, trapped in their homes, struggled to > survive without fresh food, water or electricity, reportedly cut off by > U.S. forces on November 8. > > > > Meanwhile, on the streets of Fallujah, a city of more than 350,000, dogs > gnawed on bloated and rotting corpses that remained unburied for weeks. > > > > Thousands of families in Fallujah were reported to be in a critical > humanitarian situation after U.S. forces prevented the delivery of relief > supplies. An Iraq Red Crescent Society (IRCS) humanitarian aid convoy, > reportedly blocked by U.S. troops for more than two weeks, was allowed to > deliver aid to residents in the heart of the city on November 25. > > > > On Thanksgiving, U.S. forces permitted the IRCS convoy carrying thousands > of food parcels, blankets, tents and medical supplies to enter the city and > allowed one of the clinics to be converted into a temporary hospital to > treat the injured. Rana Sidani of the International Committee of the Red > Cross (ICRC) in Geneva, Switzerland however, told *American Free Press* > on Nov. 30 that "many civilians" were still prevented from receiving aid or > medical care. > > > > At the beginning of the U.S. operation in Fallujah on Nov. 5, a hospital > in the central Nazzal district of Fallujah was "reduced to rubble" as a > result of U.S. air and artillery bombardment. "Only its façade, with a > sign reading Nazzal Emergency Hospital, remained intact," Reuters > reported. > > > > "A nearby compound used by the main Falluja Hospital to store medical > supplies was also destroyed," witnesses told Reuters. Fallujah's main > hospital was occupied by U.S. forces when the ground offensive began. > These actions are apparent violations of international humanitarian law. > > > > "Bodies can be seen everywhere and people were crying when receiving the > food parcels," Muhammad al-Nuri, a spokesman for the IRCS in Baghdad, said. > "It is very sad. It is a human disaster." > > > > Al-Nuri said that it is difficult to move in the city due to the large > number of dead bodies in the streets. The ICRS estimates there are more > than 6,000 dead in Fallujah, al-Nuri said. > > > > AFP asked Major Jay Antonelli at the Coalition Press Information Center > (CPIC) in Baghdad if the ICRS estimate of 6,000 dead in Fallujah was > credible. "We do not keep a count of dead Iraqis," Antonelli said. Asked > the same question, the ICRC's Sidani said, "We don't know." > > > > Antonelli said, "U.S. forces never blocked aid convoys from reaching the > wounded. We only recommended to the aid convoys that they should not enter > the city because the MNF [Multi-National Forces] could not guarantee their > security or safety." > > > > "The ICRC is very worried about the humanitarian situation in Falluja," > Sidani said. Asked what the ICRC was doing to alleviate the suffering in > Fallujah, Sidani said: "We are reminding the parties of their > responsibilities under international humanitarian law." > > > > It should be noted that the U.S.A. and Britain, the belligerent occupying > powers in Iraq, are the two largest contributors to the ICRC, providing > more than 42 percent of its budget for field operations. > > > > A second convoy from Baghdad, headed by Dr. Said Ismael Haki, the IRCS > president, delivered aid to Fallujah on Nov. 26. "There are no houses left > in Fallujah, only destroyed places." Haki said. "I really don't know how > the people will return to the city. No one will find their homes." > > > > As U.S. troops in Fallujah engaged in what has been described as the most > intense urban combat since Vietnam, the controlled press scrupulously > avoided discussion or footage of the devastation of the rebellious Sunni > city. For example, during the second week of the attack, rather than > discuss the widespread devastation of Fallujah, U.S. television news > programs focused largely on a brawl between basketball players and fans in > Detroit. > > > > Lt. Col. Brandl, commander of the 1st Battalion, 8th Marine Regiment, was > filmed giving a "pep talk" to his marines: "The enemy has got a face – he's > called Satan," Brandl said. "He's in Fallujah, and we're going to destroy > him." > > > > At least 136 U.S. soldiers were killed during November in Iraq, and more > than 800 were wounded, most of them in Fallujah, making it the most costly > month, and operation, in terms of U.S. lives lost since the invasion of > Iraq began in March 2003. > > > > FOR WHAT CAUSE? > > > > Michael Ware, Baghdad bureau chief for *Time* magazine, who has been in > Fallujah during the fighting, said U.S. actions in Fallujah are "creating > the nightmare that we are seeking to prevent." > > > > "I stood there as I saw American boys die," Ware told Chris Matthews of > MSNBC on Nov. 24, "I mean, a man shot at close range, blown apart by a > rocket propelled grenade. He dies there in front of you and I can't help > but think why? For what cause? > > > > "I see us creating the very thing that the president said we went there to > prevent," Ware said, "…subsequent to this invasion and the occupation and > the guerrilla war that is currently underway, we are the midwives of the > next generation of al Qaida and Islamic terrorist." > > > > Ware, who has interviewed senior insurgent leaders, said they study the > writings of the Vietnamese general Vo Nguyen Giap, Che Guevara, and Mao > Zedong. "They're bringing it straight from the Vietnam, and the broader > insurgency playbook," Ware said. > > > > "The name of the game is deny the population to the insurgents," Ware > said. "That's what we're trying to do, win hearts and minds. But we're not > winning them." > > > > The U.S. struggle to win Iraqi hearts and minds suffered a further set > back when NBC TV broadcast footage of a U.S. marine executing a wounded and > unarmed Iraqi in a Fallujah mosque. The much-publicized shooting, > apparently part of a massacre of a group of wounded resistance fighters, > "was a rare crack in the façade that Washington, with the complicity of > most of the corporate media, has tried to present to the world of its > brutal assault on the rebel Iraqi city," Rohan Pearce wrote in *The > Greenleft Weekly Australia *on Nov. 24. > > > > *The New York Times* has reported actions taken by U.S. forces in > Fallujah, which appear to be prima facie evidence of war crimes, without > mentioning that the actions constitute clear violations of the Laws of Land > War found in the U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10. > > > > For example, a Nov. 20 *Times* article by Edward Wong, with two > correspondents in Fallujah, reports that U.S. marines had transformed a > mosque into a fortress with snipers and machine gunners perched on the roof. > > > > Then, using the passive form, Wong goes on to say that "no neutral group > has been able to enter the city," without mentioning that U.S. forces > blocked humanitarian aid convoys. Likewise, Wong wrote, "Electricity and > water had been cut off." > > > > The *Times*, whose motto is "All the news that's fit to print," > apparently didn't think that it's readers needed to know the U.S. forces > had cut off the water and power to a city of 340,000 people. > > > > Asked if U.S. forces had cut power and water to Fallujah, Maj. Jay > Antonelli of CPIC wrote: "MNF did, with approval of the Interim Iraqi > Government, cut off electricity to the city of Fallujah as Operation > Al-Fajr began. Water was not cut off intentionally, however the water > system did sustain some kinetic damage during strikes." > > > > *American Free Press* asked the Pentagon's Lt. Col. Joe Yoswa if it is > true that U.S. forces were using mosques as fortresses. "It's not > possible," Yoswa said. "Under no circumstances. We would not set up > snipers in a mosque in an offensive position." > > > > CPIC's Antonelli said: "MNF would not use a mosque as a 'fortress.' MNF > and Iraqi security forces would only fire from a mosque if they were being > fired upon and were firing back in self-defense." > > > > Abu Sabah, a refugee from Fallujah, reported seeing phosphorus bombs: > "They used these weird bombs that put up smoke like a mushroom cloud. Then > small pieces fell from the air with long tails of smoke trailing behind > them. These exploded on the ground with large fires that burnt for half > and hour," Abu Sabah said. "When anyone touched these fires their bodies > burnt for hours." > > > > Eyewitnesses from Fallujah also reported seeing "melted" bodies. > > > > "THROW-AWAY SOLDIERS" > > > > Having seen what appeared to be a depleted uranium (DU) missile fired at a > building in Fallujah on CNN during the first week of the fighting, AFP > asked the Pentagon if DU weapons are being used in Fallujah. "Yes," Yoswa > said, "DU is a standard round on the M-1 Abrams tank." > > > > Because U.S. marines in Fallujah are very close to the poison gas produced > by exploded DU shells, AFP asked Yoswa if anything was being done to > protect the troops from DU poisoning. Yoswa seemed unaware of the dangers > posed by the use of DU. > > > > Marion Fulk, a retired nuclear scientist from Livermore National Lab told > AFP that U.S. troops in DU contaminated battlefields are considered > "throw-away soldiers." The Marines exposed to DU in Fallujah, and > elsewhere, face greatly increased risks of cancer, deformed children, and > other health problems in the future. > > > > OBLITERATION OF FALLUJAH > > > > The "obliteration of Fallujah" is a serious war crime, according to > Francis A. Boyle, a professor of international law at the University of > Illinois. "The obliteration of Fallujah continues apace," Boyle wrote in > his Nov. 15 article, A War Crime in Real Time: Obliterating Fallujah. > "Article 6(b) of the 1945 Nuremberg Charter defines a Nuremberg War Crime > in relevant part as the 'wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages.' > According to this definitive definition, the Bush administration's > destruction of Fallujah constitutes a war crime for which Nazis were tried > and executed." > > > > *Finis* > > -30- > > 1629 words > ------------------------------ > > Do you Yahoo!? > The all-new My Yahoo! – What will yours do? > > > > > > *Francis A. Boyle* > > *Law Building* > > *504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > * > > *Champaign IL 61820 USA > * > > *217-333-7954 <(217)%20333-7954> (phone)* > > *217-244-1478 <(217)%20244-1478> (fax)* > > *(personal comments only*) > > > > *From:* Boyle, Francis A > *Sent:* Sunday, January 22, 2017 8:13 PM > *To:* 'Roger Helbig' > *Cc:* 'Karen Aram' ; Estabrook, Carl G < > galliher at illinois.edu>; 'peace-discuss at anti-war.net' < > peace-discuss at anti-war.net>; 'C. G. ESTABROOK' ; > 'Jay Becker' ; 'a-fields at uiuc.edu' < > a-fields at uiuc.edu>; Hoffman, Valerie J ; 'Joe > Lauria' ; Miller, Joseph Thomas < > jtmiller at illinois.edu>; Szoke, Ron ; 'Dave Trippel' > ; 'Arlene Hickory' ; 'David > Swanson' ; 'peace-discuss-request at lists. > chambana.net' ; ' > sherwoodross10 at gmail.com' ; 'abass10 at gmail.com' > ; 'mickalideh at gmail.com' ; 'Lina > Thorne' ; 'chicago at worldcantwait.net' < > chicago at worldcantwait.net> > *Subject:* RE: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG > > > > Mattis expected his troops to be peacekeepers. They brought soccer balls > with them when they deployed. > > LOL! Marines don’t play soccer or teach kids to play soccer.. My Dad was a > Marine. He invaded Saipan, Tinian and Okinawa before he became a Lawyer. > Marines destroy anyone and anything that is in front of them as they are > trained to do and did at Fallujah under Mattis—A Real Mad Dog War Criminal. > Fab. > > > > > > > > *Francis A. Boyle* > > *Law Building* > > *504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > * > > *Champaign IL 61820 USA > * > > *217-333-7954 <(217)%20333-7954> (phone)* > > *217-244-1478 <(217)%20244-1478> (fax)* > > *(personal comments only*) > > > > *From:* Boyle, Francis A > *Sent:* Sunday, January 22, 2017 7:52 PM > *To:* 'Roger Helbig' > *Cc:* Karen Aram ; Estabrook, Carl G < > galliher at illinois.edu>; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK < > carl at newsfromneptune.com>; Jay Becker ; > a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria > ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; > Szoke, Ron ; Dave Trippel ; > Arlene Hickory ; David Swanson ; > peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; > abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne < > lina at worldcantwait.net>; chicago at worldcantwait.net > *Subject:* RE: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG > > > > -----Original Message----- > *From:* Karim A G [mailto:coffee at euro-comm.co.uk ] > > *Sent:* Tuesday, November 16, 2004 5:00 PM > *To:* Karim A G > *Subject:* A War Crime in Real Time > > *http://www.counterpunch.org/boyle11152004.html > * > > > > *November 15, 2004* > > *A War Crime in Real Time* > > *Obliterating Fallujah* > > By FRANCIS A. BOYLE > > T*he obliteration of Fallujah continues apace. Article 6(b) of the 1945 > Nuremberg Charter defines a Nuremberg War Crime in relevant part as the ". > . . wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages. . ." According to this > definitive definition, the Bush Jr. administration's destruction of > Fallujah constitutes a war crime for which Nazis were tried and executed. > There is nothing surprising about that.* > > *Since the Bush Jr. administration's installation in power by the United > States Supreme Court in January of 2001, the peoples of the world have > witnessed a government in the United States of America that has > demonstrated little if any respect for fundamental considerations of > international law, international organizations, and human rights, let alone > appreciation of the requirements for maintaining international peace and > security. What the world has watched instead is a comprehensive and > malicious assault upon the integrity of the international legal order by a > group of men and women who are thoroughly Machiavellian in their perception > of international relations and in their conduct of both foreign policy and > domestic affairs. This is not simply a question of giving or withholding > the benefit of the doubt when it comes to complicated matters of foreign > affairs and defense policies to a U.S. government charged with the security > of both its own citizens and those of its allies in Europe, the Western > Hemisphere, and the Pacific. Rather, the Bush Jr. administration's foreign > policy constitutes ongoing criminal activity under well-recognized > principles of both international law and U.S. domestic law, in particular > the Nuremberg Charter, the Nuremberg Judgment, and the Nuremberg > Principles. So their obliteration of Fallujah was to be expected.* > > *One generation ago the peoples of the world asked themselves: Where were > the "good" Germans? Well, there were some good Germans. The Lutheran > theologian and pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer was the foremost exemplar of > someone who led a life of principled opposition to the Nazi-terror state > even unto death.* > > *Today the peoples of the world are likewise asking themselves: Where are > the "good" Americans? Well, there are some good Americans. Like three > Catholic Nuns in Denver, they are getting arrested and going to jail for > protesting against United States weapons of mass destruction (WMD) whose > power for human extermination far exceeds even the wildest fantasies of > Hitler and the Nazis. Or else for protesting against illegal U.S.. military > interventions around the world. Just recently the Nuclear Resister > estimated that since the Fall of 2002, there have been more than 9,500 > anti-war related arrests in the United States alone. Many more will be > coming.* > > *In international legal terms, the Bush Jr. administration itself should > now be viewed as constituting an ongoing criminal conspiracy under > international criminal law in violation of the Nuremberg Charter, the > Nuremberg Judgment, and the Nuremberg Principles, due to its formulation > and undertaking of aggressive war policies that are legally akin to those > perpetrated by the Nazi regime. As a consequence, American citizens possess > the basic right under international law and the United States domestic law, > including the U.S. Constitution, to engage in acts of non-violent civil > resistance in order to prevent, impede, thwart, or terminate ongoing > criminal activities perpetrated by U.S. government officials in their > conduct of foreign affairs policies and military operations purported to > relate to defense and counter-terrorism.* > > *This same right of civil resistance extends pari passu to all citizens of > the world community of states. Everyone around the world has both the right > and the duty under international law to resist ongoing criminal activities > perpetrated by the Bush Jr. administration and its nefarious foreign > accomplices such as Blair, Berlusconi, Howard, Koizumi, Kwasniewski, etc. > by all non-violent means possible. If it is not so restrained, the Bush Jr. > administration could very well precipitate a Third World War.* > > *The time for preventive action is now. Civil resistance is the way to go. > People power can overcome power politics. Popular movements have succeeded > in toppling tyrannical, dictatorial and authoritarian regimes throughout > former Communist countries in Eastern Europe, as well as in Asia, and most > recently in Latin America. It is time once again to exercise People Power > here in the United States of America: "When in the Course of human Events. > . . We hold these Truths to be self-evident. . . . we mutually pledge to > each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and sacred Honor."* > > *Despite the best efforts by the Bush Jr. Leaguers to the contrary, we > American Citizens still have our First Amendment Rights: Freedom of Speech, > Freedom of Association, Freedom of Assembly, Freedom to Petition our > Government for the Redress of these massive Grievances, Civil Resistance, > etc. We are going to have to start vigorously exercising all of our First > Amendment Rights right now. We must use them or else, as the saying goes, > we will lose them. We must act not only for the good of the Peoples of > Southwest Asia, but for our future, that of our children, that of our > nation as a democratic society committed to the Rule of Law and the U.S. > Constitution. The Nazis had their "homeland" too* > > Francis A. Boyle*, Professor of Law, University of Illinois, is author of > *Foundations of World Order > *, > Duke University Press, *The Criminality of Nuclear Deterrence > *, > and *Palestine, Palestinians and International Law > *, by > Clarity Press. He can be reached at: *FBOYLE at LAW.UIUC.EDU > > --- > Subscribed as: fboyle at law.uiuc.edu; to unsubscribe send to > al-awda-universalist-request at umich.edu > with UNSUBSCRIBE as the SUBJECT. > URL: awda-universalist > > > > *Francis A. Boyle* > > *Law Building* > > *504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > * > > *Champaign IL 61820 USA > * > > *217-333-7954 <(217)%20333-7954> (phone)* > > *217-244-1478 <(217)%20244-1478> (fax)* > > *(personal comments only*) > > > > *From:* Roger Helbig [mailto:rwhelbig at gmail.com ] > *Sent:* Sunday, January 22, 2017 6:43 PM > *To:* Boyle, Francis A > *Cc:* Karen Aram ; Estabrook, Carl G < > galliher at illinois.edu>; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK < > carl at newsfromneptune.com>; Jay Becker ; > a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria > ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; > Szoke, Ron ; Dave Trippel ; > Arlene Hickory ; David Swanson ; > peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; > abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne < > lina at worldcantwait.net>; chicago at worldcantwait.net > *Subject:* Re: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG > > > > There was no massacre at Fallujah. This is nonsense. Mattis expected > his troops to be peacekeepers. They brought soccer balls with them when > they deployed. > > > > I would love to see your "so called" war crime indictment. Wonder how > much of it is from your fertile Hate America imagination and how much from > the fertile Arab anti-American propaganda organs. Doubt a single paragraph > is actually based on fact. > > > > On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 8:22 AM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > > *Trump’s Secretary of War Mad Dog Mattis was responsible for the Massacre > at Fallujah, which I pointed out on Counterpunch was a Nuremberg War Crime > along the lines of the Nazis—the wanton devastation of a city-- in revenge > for them killing our mercenaries. Fab.* > > > > *Francis A. Boyle* > > *Law Building* > > *504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > * > > *Champaign IL 61820 USA > * > > *217-333-7954 <(217)%20333-7954> (phone)* > > *217-244-1478 <(217)%20244-1478> (fax)* > > *(personal comments only*) > > > > *From:* Karen Aram [mailto:karenaram at hotmail.com] > *Sent:* Sunday, January 22, 2017 10:04 AM > *To:* Estabrook, Carl G > *Cc:* Boyle, Francis A ; Jay Becker < > futureup2us at gmail.com>; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK < > carl at newsfromneptune.com>; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J < > vhoffman at illinois.edu>; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; > Szoke, Ron ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; Arlene > Hickory ; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; > David Swanson ; Dave Trippel < > davetrippel at ameritech.net>; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina > Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Mildred > O'brien ; David Johnson ; > Joe Lauria ; David Green > *Subject:* Re: Guest Commentary by Carl in NG > > > > I’m sorry Carl, I don’t agree with that title either. It assumes that all > in the anti-war movement welcome the Trump administration. Not all of us > trust he will do some of that which he promised in respect to “defunding > Nato,” “making friends with Russia,” or killing TPP. Even if he does those > three things, his further provocations of China, are every bit as dangerous > as those with Russia, it’s a mere tactic to drive a wedge between Russia > and China, while chipping away at Iran. > > > > His Cabinet appointments are frightening to say the least in respect to > Healthcare, Energy, Education, Housing, etc, etc. > > > > Further expansion of war in the Middle East, and North Africa, as well as > expansion of capitalist corporate control is on the agenda no matter which > of the two Party’s are in power. > > > > Obama paved the way, for all of which I have just referred, but it’s not > over. Our only hope is that “the people” are now awake, and perhaps will > focus on that which is most serious to survival. > > > > > > On Jan 22, 2017, at 07:44, Carl G. Estabrook > wrote: > > > > My original title was, “Why the anti-war movement welcomes the new > administration.” > > > > For more on that theme, see columnists/201701191049765550-how-trump-presidency-will-play-out/ > > >. > > > > —CGE > > > > > > On Jan 22, 2017, at 9:29 AM, Karen Aram wrote: > > > > An excellent letter, which I posted on FB. I deliberately deleted the > title that I assumed the NG created, because it gives the false impression > that those of us in the anti-war movement, all support Trump. We don’t, we > just didn’t support Hillary. Anyone in the anti-war movement supporting > Hillary was supporting more of the same that Obama provided. > > > > > > On Jan 22, 2017, at 07:16, Boyle, Francis A wrote: > > > > He {Obama} attacked eight countries (two more than George Bush), and > conducted what one leading political commentator called "the most extreme > terrorist campaign of modern times — his drone assassinations." He killed > thousands of civilians with drones, including U.S. citizens and hundreds of > children. > > A good letter by Carl today in NG. (Remember NG writes their own titles to > letters.) We must now hold Trump’s feet to the fire across the board! I > think Carl’s quote comes from Chomsky? In any event the Illinois Nazis Law > Faculty fully supported and promoted and held out for emulation by lawyers > and this Campus and our Good Community: > > "the most extreme terrorist campaign of modern times — his drone > assassinations." > > > > The Illinois Nazis Law Faculty are just a GANG OF SICK PUPPIES! > > Fab > > Ed Norton Professor of Law > > Carl Schmitt College of Law: > > “Mein Fuhrer, I can walk!” > > > > > > *Francis A. Boyle* > > *Law Building* > > *504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > * > > *Champaign IL 61820 USA > * > > *217-333-7954 <(217)%20333-7954> (phone)* > > *217-244-1478 <(217)%20244-1478> (fax)* > > *(personal comments only*) > > > > *Feed:* News-Gazette.com > > *Posted on:* Sunday, January 22, 2017 7:00 AM > *Author:* digital.media > *Subject:* Guest Commentary: Why anti-war movement welcomes Trump > > > > *By C.G. ESTABROOK* > > The European anti-war group "No War No NATO" writes as follows: > > "Demonstrating in Europe on 21 January, against the newly elected US > President Donald Trump is tantamount to lending support to the Obama > administration, which has transformed Europe into NATO's first line of > attack, nuclear matters inclusive, against Russia. > > read more > > > > View article... > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: B&P 382-383 est Barnes Review.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 423250 bytes Desc: not available URL: From rwhelbig at gmail.com Sat Nov 4 14:17:05 2017 From: rwhelbig at gmail.com (Roger Helbig) Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2017 07:17:05 -0700 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG In-Reply-To: References: <9D3D5E59-5EFC-47DF-838D-C6508214E176@illinois.edu> Message-ID: The claims regarding Fallujah are what I am addressing not the invasion of Iraq in 2003 - and most of the deaths were not caused by Americans, but by Iraqis and foreign fighters - On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 6:42 AM, C G Estabrook wrote: > Of course the US committed war crimes in Iraq. The US invasion of that > country is the greatest international crime of the century - so far. > > On ‘American Free Press,’ see wiki/American_Free_Press>. > > > > On Nov 4, 2017, at 8:11 AM, Roger Helbig wrote: > > > > You do know that Christopher Bollyn is NOT a reporter but is a Neo Nazi > operative of long standing and that the American Free Press is not a news > organization, but a Neo Nazi front - look up Willis Carto - he was Bollyn's > boss and founded the American Free Press - this website that has reports of > conference for American Free Press and The Barnes Review used to have a > prominent picture of a Nazi flag behind the blogger Alex Hassinger - > Douglas Lind Rokke of Urbana spoke at this event and Dave von Kleist the > producer of Rokke's first anti-US propaganda video "Beyond Treason" was > the master of ceremonies - http://www.chairmanofnordwave.blogspot.com > > > > Carto died in 2015 - there are a number of good sources on Carto in a > simple Google search - > > > > Learn about Neo Nazis - read this book - "Blood and Politics" - it > mentions Bollyn and extensively discusses Carto - pg 382, which I can > e-mail to all who request - has Carto's establishment of The Barnes Review, > a Holocaust Denial publication - The American Free Press replaced Carto's > The Spotlight after Carto lost a legal battle - Bollyn is also mentioned in > connection with a Pat Buchanan campaign apparatus > > > > On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 4:57 AM, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: > > I also want to make it clear for the record that before the invasions of > Saipan, Tinian and Okinawa my Father, a Marine, was ordered by his Captain > not to take prisoners of war on the grounds of reciprocity that the > Japanese did not take Prisoners of War of our Men. My Father disobeyed > these clearly illegal orders and took Japanese Prisoners of War. I cite the > example of my Father to my law students to refute the objection that you > cannot expect soldiers to obey the laws of war during combat. If my Father > could obey the laws of war at Saipan, Tinian, and Okinawa, any other > soldier should be able to do the same. Meanwhile,while I am teaching this > to my students, the Illinois Nazis Law Faculty aid, abet, and promote and > facilitate war crimes and crimes against humanity from the safety of their > offices. My Father later became a Lawyer. RIP. The Illinois Nazis Law > Faculty are despicable! Fab. > > > > > > > > Francis A. Boyle > > > > Law Building > > > > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > > > > Champaign IL 61820 USA > > > > 217-333-7954 (phone) > > > > 217-244-1478 (fax) > > > > (personal comments only) > > > > > > > > From: Boyle, Francis A > > Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2017 8:38 PM > > To: Roger Helbig > > Cc: Karen Aram ; Estabrook, Carl G < > galliher at illinois.edu>; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK < > carl at newsfromneptune.com>; Jay Becker ; > a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria > ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; > Szoke, Ron ; Dave Trippel ; > Arlene Hickory ; David Swanson ; > peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; > abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne < > lina at worldcantwait.net>; chicago at worldcantwait.net > > Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG > > > > > > > > Mad Dog Mattis the Nuremberg War Criminal. Fab. > > > > CONTROLLED PRESS IGNORES > > > > CRIMINAL OBLITERATION OF FALLUJAH > > > > > > > > By Christopher Bollyn > > > > American Free Press > > > > > > > > The controlled press has scrupulously avoided discussing the devastation > and prima facie evidence of war crimes committed during the U.S. siege and > assault of Fallujah. > > > > > > > > As Americans prepared for Thanksgiving, an estimated 100,000 residents > of the besieged Iraqi city of Fallujah, trapped in their homes, struggled > to survive without fresh food, water or electricity, reportedly cut off by > U.S. forces on November 8. > > > > > > > > Meanwhile, on the streets of Fallujah, a city of more than 350,000, dogs > gnawed on bloated and rotting corpses that remained unburied for weeks. > > > > > > > > Thousands of families in Fallujah were reported to be in a critical > humanitarian situation after U.S. forces prevented the delivery of relief > supplies. An Iraq Red Crescent Society (IRCS) humanitarian aid convoy, > reportedly blocked by U.S. troops for more than two weeks, was allowed to > deliver aid to residents in the heart of the city on November 25. > > > > > > > > On Thanksgiving, U.S. forces permitted the IRCS convoy carrying > thousands of food parcels, blankets, tents and medical supplies to enter > the city and allowed one of the clinics to be converted into a temporary > hospital to treat the injured. Rana Sidani of the International Committee > of the Red Cross (ICRC) in Geneva, Switzerland however, told American Free > Press on Nov. 30 that "many civilians" were still prevented from receiving > aid or medical care. > > > > > > > > At the beginning of the U.S. operation in Fallujah on Nov. 5, a hospital > in the central Nazzal district of Fallujah was "reduced to rubble" as a > result of U.S. air and artillery bombardment. "Only its façade, with a > sign reading Nazzal Emergency Hospital, remained intact," Reuters reported. > > > > > > > > "A nearby compound used by the main Falluja Hospital to store medical > supplies was also destroyed," witnesses told Reuters. Fallujah's main > hospital was occupied by U.S. forces when the ground offensive began. > These actions are apparent violations of international humanitarian law. > > > > > > > > "Bodies can be seen everywhere and people were crying when receiving the > food parcels," Muhammad al-Nuri, a spokesman for the IRCS in Baghdad, said. > "It is very sad. It is a human disaster." > > > > > > > > Al-Nuri said that it is difficult to move in the city due to the large > number of dead bodies in the streets. The ICRS estimates there are more > than 6,000 dead in Fallujah, al-Nuri said. > > > > > > > > AFP asked Major Jay Antonelli at the Coalition Press Information Center > (CPIC) in Baghdad if the ICRS estimate of 6,000 dead in Fallujah was > credible. "We do not keep a count of dead Iraqis," Antonelli said. Asked > the same question, the ICRC's Sidani said, "We don't know." > > > > > > > > Antonelli said, "U.S. forces never blocked aid convoys from reaching the > wounded. We only recommended to the aid convoys that they should not enter > the city because the MNF [Multi-National Forces] could not guarantee their > security or safety." > > > > > > > > "The ICRC is very worried about the humanitarian situation in Falluja," > Sidani said. Asked what the ICRC was doing to alleviate the suffering in > Fallujah, Sidani said: "We are reminding the parties of their > responsibilities under international humanitarian law." > > > > > > > > It should be noted that the U.S.A. and Britain, the belligerent > occupying powers in Iraq, are the two largest contributors to the ICRC, > providing more than 42 percent of its budget for field operations. > > > > > > > > A second convoy from Baghdad, headed by Dr. Said Ismael Haki, the IRCS > president, delivered aid to Fallujah on Nov. 26. "There are no houses left > in Fallujah, only destroyed places." Haki said. "I really don't know how > the people will return to the city. No one will find their homes." > > > > > > > > As U.S. troops in Fallujah engaged in what has been described as the > most intense urban combat since Vietnam, the controlled press scrupulously > avoided discussion or footage of the devastation of the rebellious Sunni > city. For example, during the second week of the attack, rather than > discuss the widespread devastation of Fallujah, U.S. television news > programs focused largely on a brawl between basketball players and fans in > Detroit. > > > > > > > > Lt. Col. Brandl, commander of the 1st Battalion, 8th Marine Regiment, > was filmed giving a "pep talk" to his marines: "The enemy has got a face – > he's called Satan," Brandl said. "He's in Fallujah, and we're going to > destroy him." > > > > > > > > At least 136 U.S. soldiers were killed during November in Iraq, and more > than 800 were wounded, most of them in Fallujah, making it the most costly > month, and operation, in terms of U.S. lives lost since the invasion of > Iraq began in March 2003. > > > > > > > > FOR WHAT CAUSE? > > > > > > > > Michael Ware, Baghdad bureau chief for Time magazine, who has been in > Fallujah during the fighting, said U.S. actions in Fallujah are "creating > the nightmare that we are seeking to prevent." > > > > > > > > "I stood there as I saw American boys die," Ware told Chris Matthews of > MSNBC on Nov. 24, "I mean, a man shot at close range, blown apart by a > rocket propelled grenade. He dies there in front of you and I can't help > but think why? For what cause? > > > > > > > > "I see us creating the very thing that the president said we went there > to prevent," Ware said, "…subsequent to this invasion and the occupation > and the guerrilla war that is currently underway, we are the midwives of > the next generation of al Qaida and Islamic terrorist." > > > > > > > > Ware, who has interviewed senior insurgent leaders, said they study the > writings of the Vietnamese general Vo Nguyen Giap, Che Guevara, and Mao > Zedong. "They're bringing it straight from the Vietnam, and the broader > insurgency playbook," Ware said. > > > > > > > > "The name of the game is deny the population to the insurgents," Ware > said. "That's what we're trying to do, win hearts and minds. But we're not > winning them." > > > > > > > > The U.S. struggle to win Iraqi hearts and minds suffered a further set > back when NBC TV broadcast footage of a U.S. marine executing a wounded and > unarmed Iraqi in a Fallujah mosque. The much-publicized shooting, > apparently part of a massacre of a group of wounded resistance fighters, > "was a rare crack in the façade that Washington, with the complicity of > most of the corporate media, has tried to present to the world of its > brutal assault on the rebel Iraqi city," Rohan Pearce wrote in The > Greenleft Weekly Australia on Nov. 24. > > > > > > > > The New York Times has reported actions taken by U.S. forces in > Fallujah, which appear to be prima facie evidence of war crimes, without > mentioning that the actions constitute clear violations of the Laws of Land > War found in the U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10. > > > > > > > > For example, a Nov. 20 Times article by Edward Wong, with two > correspondents in Fallujah, reports that U.S. marines had transformed a > mosque into a fortress with snipers and machine gunners perched on the roof. > > > > > > > > Then, using the passive form, Wong goes on to say that "no neutral group > has been able to enter the city," without mentioning that U.S. forces > blocked humanitarian aid convoys. Likewise, Wong wrote, "Electricity and > water had been cut off." > > > > > > > > The Times, whose motto is "All the news that's fit to print," apparently > didn't think that it's readers needed to know the U.S. forces had cut off > the water and power to a city of 340,000 people. > > > > > > > > Asked if U.S. forces had cut power and water to Fallujah, Maj. Jay > Antonelli of CPIC wrote: "MNF did, with approval of the Interim Iraqi > Government, cut off electricity to the city of Fallujah as Operation > Al-Fajr began. Water was not cut off intentionally, however the water > system did sustain some kinetic damage during strikes." > > > > > > > > American Free Press asked the Pentagon's Lt. Col. Joe Yoswa if it is > true that U.S. forces were using mosques as fortresses. "It's not > possible," Yoswa said. "Under no circumstances. We would not set up > snipers in a mosque in an offensive position." > > > > > > > > CPIC's Antonelli said: "MNF would not use a mosque as a 'fortress.' MNF > and Iraqi security forces would only fire from a mosque if they were being > fired upon and were firing back in self-defense." > > > > > > > > Abu Sabah, a refugee from Fallujah, reported seeing phosphorus bombs: > "They used these weird bombs that put up smoke like a mushroom cloud. Then > small pieces fell from the air with long tails of smoke trailing behind > them. These exploded on the ground with large fires that burnt for half > and hour," Abu Sabah said. "When anyone touched these fires their bodies > burnt for hours." > > > > > > > > Eyewitnesses from Fallujah also reported seeing "melted" bodies. > > > > > > > > "THROW-AWAY SOLDIERS" > > > > > > > > Having seen what appeared to be a depleted uranium (DU) missile fired at > a building in Fallujah on CNN during the first week of the fighting, AFP > asked the Pentagon if DU weapons are being used in Fallujah. "Yes," Yoswa > said, "DU is a standard round on the M-1 Abrams tank." > > > > > > > > Because U.S. marines in Fallujah are very close to the poison gas > produced by exploded DU shells, AFP asked Yoswa if anything was being done > to protect the troops from DU poisoning. Yoswa seemed unaware of the > dangers posed by the use of DU. > > > > > > > > Marion Fulk, a retired nuclear scientist from Livermore National Lab > told AFP that U.S. troops in DU contaminated battlefields are considered > "throw-away soldiers." The Marines exposed to DU in Fallujah, and > elsewhere, face greatly increased risks of cancer, deformed children, and > other health problems in the future. > > > > > > > > OBLITERATION OF FALLUJAH > > > > > > > > The "obliteration of Fallujah" is a serious war crime, according to > Francis A. Boyle, a professor of international law at the University of > Illinois. "The obliteration of Fallujah continues apace," Boyle wrote in > his Nov. 15 article, A War Crime in Real Time: Obliterating Fallujah. > "Article 6(b) of the 1945 Nuremberg Charter defines a Nuremberg War Crime > in relevant part as the 'wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages.' > According to this definitive definition, the Bush administration's > destruction of Fallujah constitutes a war crime for which Nazis were tried > and executed." > > > > > > > > Finis > > > > -30- > > > > 1629 words > > > > Do you Yahoo!? > > The all-new My Yahoo! – What will yours do? > > > > > > > > > > > > Francis A. Boyle > > > > Law Building > > > > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > > > > Champaign IL 61820 USA > > > > 217-333-7954 (phone) > > > > 217-244-1478 (fax) > > > > (personal comments only) > > > > > > > > From: Boyle, Francis A > > Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2017 8:13 PM > > To: 'Roger Helbig' > > Cc: 'Karen Aram' ; Estabrook, Carl G < > galliher at illinois.edu>; 'peace-discuss at anti-war.net' < > peace-discuss at anti-war.net>; 'C. G. ESTABROOK' ; > 'Jay Becker' ; 'a-fields at uiuc.edu' < > a-fields at uiuc.edu>; Hoffman, Valerie J ; 'Joe > Lauria' ; Miller, Joseph Thomas < > jtmiller at illinois.edu>; Szoke, Ron ; 'Dave Trippel' > ; 'Arlene Hickory' ; 'David > Swanson' ; 'peace-discuss-request at lists. > chambana.net' ; ' > sherwoodross10 at gmail.com' ; 'abass10 at gmail.com' > ; 'mickalideh at gmail.com' ; 'Lina > Thorne' ; 'chicago at worldcantwait.net' < > chicago at worldcantwait.net> > > Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG > > > > > > > > Mattis expected his troops to be peacekeepers. They brought soccer > balls with them when they deployed. > > > > LOL! Marines don’t play soccer or teach kids to play soccer.. My Dad was > a Marine. He invaded Saipan, Tinian and Okinawa before he became a Lawyer. > Marines destroy anyone and anything that is in front of them as they are > trained to do and did at Fallujah under Mattis—A Real Mad Dog War Criminal. > Fab. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Francis A. Boyle > > > > Law Building > > > > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > > > > Champaign IL 61820 USA > > > > 217-333-7954 (phone) > > > > 217-244-1478 (fax) > > > > (personal comments only) > > > > > > > > From: Boyle, Francis A > > Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2017 7:52 PM > > To: 'Roger Helbig' > > Cc: Karen Aram ; Estabrook, Carl G < > galliher at illinois.edu>; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK < > carl at newsfromneptune.com>; Jay Becker ; > a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria > ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; > Szoke, Ron ; Dave Trippel ; > Arlene Hickory ; David Swanson ; > peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; > abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne < > lina at worldcantwait.net>; chicago at worldcantwait.net > > Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Karim A G [mailto:coffee at euro-comm.co.uk] > > Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2004 5:00 PM > > To: Karim A G > > Subject: A War Crime in Real Time > > > > http://www.counterpunch.org/boyle11152004.html > > > > > > > > November 15, 2004 > > > > A War Crime in Real Time > > > > Obliterating Fallujah > > > > By FRANCIS A. BOYLE > > > > The obliteration of Fallujah continues apace. Article 6(b) of the 1945 > Nuremberg Charter defines a Nuremberg War Crime in relevant part as the ". > . . wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages. . ." According to this > definitive definition, the Bush Jr. administration's destruction of > Fallujah constitutes a war crime for which Nazis were tried and executed. > There is nothing surprising about that. > > > > Since the Bush Jr. administration's installation in power by the United > States Supreme Court in January of 2001, the peoples of the world have > witnessed a government in the United States of America that has > demonstrated little if any respect for fundamental considerations of > international law, international organizations, and human rights, let alone > appreciation of the requirements for maintaining international peace and > security. What the world has watched instead is a comprehensive and > malicious assault upon the integrity of the international legal order by a > group of men and women who are thoroughly Machiavellian in their perception > of international relations and in their conduct of both foreign policy and > domestic affairs. This is not simply a question of giving or withholding > the benefit of the doubt when it comes to complicated matters of foreign > affairs and defense policies to a U.S. government charged with the security > of both its own citizens and those of its allies in Europe, the Western > Hemisphere, and the Pacific. Rather, the Bush Jr. administration's foreign > policy constitutes ongoing criminal activity under well-recognized > principles of both international law and U.S. domestic law, in particular > the Nuremberg Charter, the Nuremberg Judgment, and the Nuremberg > Principles. So their obliteration of Fallujah was to be expected. > > > > One generation ago the peoples of the world asked themselves: Where were > the "good" Germans? Well, there were some good Germans. The Lutheran > theologian and pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer was the foremost exemplar of > someone who led a life of principled opposition to the Nazi-terror state > even unto death. > > > > Today the peoples of the world are likewise asking themselves: Where are > the "good" Americans? Well, there are some good Americans. Like three > Catholic Nuns in Denver, they are getting arrested and going to jail for > protesting against United States weapons of mass destruction (WMD) whose > power for human extermination far exceeds even the wildest fantasies of > Hitler and the Nazis. Or else for protesting against illegal U.S.. military > interventions around the world. Just recently the Nuclear Resister > estimated that since the Fall of 2002, there have been more than 9,500 > anti-war related arrests in the United States alone. Many more will be > coming. > > > > In international legal terms, the Bush Jr. administration itself should > now be viewed as constituting an ongoing criminal conspiracy under > international criminal law in violation of the Nuremberg Charter, the > Nuremberg Judgment, and the Nuremberg Principles, due to its formulation > and undertaking of aggressive war policies that are legally akin to those > perpetrated by the Nazi regime. As a consequence, American citizens possess > the basic right under international law and the United States domestic law, > including the U.S. Constitution, to engage in acts of non-violent civil > resistance in order to prevent, impede, thwart, or terminate ongoing > criminal activities perpetrated by U.S. government officials in their > conduct of foreign affairs policies and military operations purported to > relate to defense and counter-terrorism. > > > > This same right of civil resistance extends pari passu to all citizens > of the world community of states. Everyone around the world has both the > right and the duty under international law to resist ongoing criminal > activities perpetrated by the Bush Jr. administration and its nefarious > foreign accomplices such as Blair, Berlusconi, Howard, Koizumi, > Kwasniewski, etc. by all non-violent means possible. If it is not so > restrained, the Bush Jr. administration could very well precipitate a Third > World War. > > > > The time for preventive action is now. Civil resistance is the way to > go. People power can overcome power politics. Popular movements have > succeeded in toppling tyrannical, dictatorial and authoritarian regimes > throughout former Communist countries in Eastern Europe, as well as in > Asia, and most recently in Latin America. It is time once again to exercise > People Power here in the United States of America: "When in the Course of > human Events. . . We hold these Truths to be self-evident. . . . we > mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and sacred Honor." > > > > Despite the best efforts by the Bush Jr. Leaguers to the contrary, we > American Citizens still have our First Amendment Rights: Freedom of Speech, > Freedom of Association, Freedom of Assembly, Freedom to Petition our > Government for the Redress of these massive Grievances, Civil Resistance, > etc. We are going to have to start vigorously exercising all of our First > Amendment Rights right now. We must use them or else, as the saying goes, > we will lose them. We must act not only for the good of the Peoples of > Southwest Asia, but for our future, that of our children, that of our > nation as a democratic society committed to the Rule of Law and the U.S. > Constitution. The Nazis had their "homeland" too > > > > Francis A. Boyle, Professor of Law, University of Illinois, is author of > Foundations of World Order, Duke University Press, The Criminality of > Nuclear Deterrence, and Palestine, Palestinians and International Law, by > Clarity Press. He can be reached at: FBOYLE at LAW.UIUC.EDU > > > > --- > > Subscribed as: fboyle at law.uiuc.edu; to unsubscribe send to > al-awda-universalist-request at umich.edu > > with UNSUBSCRIBE as the SUBJECT. > > URL: awda-universalist > > > > > > > > Francis A. Boyle > > > > Law Building > > > > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > > > > Champaign IL 61820 USA > > > > 217-333-7954 (phone) > > > > 217-244-1478 (fax) > > > > (personal comments only) > > > > > > > > From: Roger Helbig [mailto:rwhelbig at gmail.com] > > Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2017 6:43 PM > > To: Boyle, Francis A > > Cc: Karen Aram ; Estabrook, Carl G < > galliher at illinois.edu>; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK < > carl at newsfromneptune.com>; Jay Becker ; > a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria > ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; > Szoke, Ron ; Dave Trippel ; > Arlene Hickory ; David Swanson ; > peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; > abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne < > lina at worldcantwait.net>; chicago at worldcantwait.net > > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG > > > > > > > > There was no massacre at Fallujah. This is nonsense. Mattis expected > his troops to be peacekeepers. They brought soccer balls with them when > they deployed. > > > > > > > > I would love to see your "so called" war crime indictment. Wonder how > much of it is from your fertile Hate America imagination and how much from > the fertile Arab anti-American propaganda organs. Doubt a single paragraph > is actually based on fact. > > > > > > > > On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 8:22 AM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > > > > Trump’s Secretary of War Mad Dog Mattis was responsible for the > Massacre at Fallujah, which I pointed out on Counterpunch was a Nuremberg > War Crime along the lines of the Nazis—the wanton devastation of a city-- > in revenge for them killing our mercenaries. Fab. > > > > > > > > Francis A. Boyle > > > > Law Building > > > > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > > > > Champaign IL 61820 USA > > > > 217-333-7954 (phone) > > > > 217-244-1478 (fax) > > > > (personal comments only) > > > > > > > > From: Karen Aram [mailto:karenaram at hotmail.com] > > Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2017 10:04 AM > > To: Estabrook, Carl G > > Cc: Boyle, Francis A ; Jay Becker < > futureup2us at gmail.com>; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK < > carl at newsfromneptune.com>; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J < > vhoffman at illinois.edu>; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; > Szoke, Ron ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; Arlene > Hickory ; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; > David Swanson ; Dave Trippel < > davetrippel at ameritech.net>; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina > Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Mildred > O'brien ; David Johnson ; > Joe Lauria ; David Green > > Subject: Re: Guest Commentary by Carl in NG > > > > > > > > I’m sorry Carl, I don’t agree with that title either. It assumes that > all in the anti-war movement welcome the Trump administration. Not all of > us trust he will do some of that which he promised in respect to “defunding > Nato,” “making friends with Russia,” or killing TPP. Even if he does those > three things, his further provocations of China, are every bit as dangerous > as those with Russia, it’s a mere tactic to drive a wedge between Russia > and China, while chipping away at Iran. > > > > > > > > His Cabinet appointments are frightening to say the least in respect to > Healthcare, Energy, Education, Housing, etc, etc. > > > > > > > > Further expansion of war in the Middle East, and North Africa, as well > as expansion of capitalist corporate control is on the agenda no matter > which of the two Party’s are in power. > > > > > > > > Obama paved the way, for all of which I have just referred, but it’s not > over. Our only hope is that “the people” are now awake, and perhaps will > focus on that which is most serious to survival. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jan 22, 2017, at 07:44, Carl G. Estabrook > wrote: > > > > > > > > My original title was, “Why the anti-war movement welcomes the new > administration.” > > > > > > > > For more on that theme, see columnists/201701191049765550-how-trump-presidency-will-play-out/>. > > > > > > > > —CGE > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jan 22, 2017, at 9:29 AM, Karen Aram wrote: > > > > > > > > An excellent letter, which I posted on FB. I deliberately deleted the > title that I assumed the NG created, because it gives the false impression > that those of us in the anti-war movement, all support Trump. We don’t, we > just didn’t support Hillary. Anyone in the anti-war movement supporting > Hillary was supporting more of the same that Obama provided. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jan 22, 2017, at 07:16, Boyle, Francis A wrote: > > > > > > > > He {Obama} attacked eight countries (two more than George Bush), and > conducted what one leading political commentator called "the most extreme > terrorist campaign of modern times — his drone assassinations." He killed > thousands of civilians with drones, including U.S. citizens and hundreds of > children. > > > > A good letter by Carl today in NG. (Remember NG writes their own titles > to letters.) We must now hold Trump’s feet to the fire across the board! I > think Carl’s quote comes from Chomsky? In any event the Illinois Nazis Law > Faculty fully supported and promoted and held out for emulation by lawyers > and this Campus and our Good Community: > > > > "the most extreme terrorist campaign of modern times — his drone > assassinations." > > > > > > > > The Illinois Nazis Law Faculty are just a GANG OF SICK PUPPIES! > > > > Fab > > > > Ed Norton Professor of Law > > > > Carl Schmitt College of Law: > > > > “Mein Fuhrer, I can walk!” > > > > > > > > > > > > Francis A. Boyle > > > > Law Building > > > > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > > > > Champaign IL 61820 USA > > > > 217-333-7954 (phone) > > > > 217-244-1478 (fax) > > > > (personal comments only) > > > > > > > > Feed: News-Gazette.com > > Posted on: Sunday, January 22, 2017 7:00 AM > > Author: digital.media > > Subject: Guest Commentary: Why anti-war movement welcomes Trump > > > > > > > > By C.G. ESTABROOK > > > > The European anti-war group "No War No NATO" writes as follows: > > > > "Demonstrating in Europe on 21 January, against the newly elected US > President Donald Trump is tantamount to lending support to the Obama > administration, which has transformed Europe into NATO's first line of > attack, nuclear matters inclusive, against Russia. > > > > read more > > > > > > View article... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Peace-discuss mailing list > > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > > > > > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Sat Nov 4 14:19:27 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2017 14:19:27 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG In-Reply-To: References: <9D3D5E59-5EFC-47DF-838D-C6508214E176@illinois.edu> Message-ID: “I wanted to be”—Military Intelligence. A Typical Nixonian Limited Hang-out. fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Roger Helbig [mailto:rwhelbig at gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2017 9:15 AM To: Boyle, Francis A ; Peace-discuss Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG and you spread lies - I never worked for military intelligence - they would not let me because I am partially color blind and to be an Air Force intelligence officer, you needed to be able to interpret false colors on air photos - I wanted to be because I like to work through problems and took Russian as an elective my senior year as part of my know your enemy program - Now, you have not refuted that The American Free Press was established by Willis Carto - that Carto was a Neo Nazi or that Bollyn worked for Carto and Buchanan - you more than likely have not read Blood and Politics - maybe some of the others were. I don't seem to have scan of page where the American Free Press was established to replace The Spotlight, but attached is the one where it discusses the establishment of The Barnes Review and the conference discussed on the blog is for both of these publications. On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 6:37 AM, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: Once again, Roger crawls out of his hole as a Mole for US “Military Intelligence”—an oxymoron to be sure. Fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Roger Helbig [mailto:rwhelbig at gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2017 8:12 AM To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: Karen Aram >; Estabrook, Carl G >; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Jay Becker >; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; Szoke, Ron >; Dave Trippel >; Arlene Hickory >; David Swanson >; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG You do know that Christopher Bollyn is NOT a reporter but is a Neo Nazi operative of long standing and that the American Free Press is not a news organization, but a Neo Nazi front - look up Willis Carto - he was Bollyn's boss and founded the American Free Press - this website that has reports of conference for American Free Press and The Barnes Review used to have a prominent picture of a Nazi flag behind the blogger Alex Hassinger - Douglas Lind Rokke of Urbana spoke at this event and Dave von Kleist the producer of Rokke's first anti-US propaganda video "Beyond Treason" was the master of ceremonies - http://www.chairmanofnordwave.blogspot.com Carto died in 2015 - there are a number of good sources on Carto in a simple Google search - Learn about Neo Nazis - read this book - "Blood and Politics" - it mentions Bollyn and extensively discusses Carto - pg 382, which I can e-mail to all who request - has Carto's establishment of The Barnes Review, a Holocaust Denial publication - The American Free Press replaced Carto's The Spotlight after Carto lost a legal battle - Bollyn is also mentioned in connection with a Pat Buchanan campaign apparatus On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 4:57 AM, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: I also want to make it clear for the record that before the invasions of Saipan, Tinian and Okinawa my Father, a Marine, was ordered by his Captain not to take prisoners of war on the grounds of reciprocity that the Japanese did not take Prisoners of War of our Men. My Father disobeyed these clearly illegal orders and took Japanese Prisoners of War. I cite the example of my Father to my law students to refute the objection that you cannot expect soldiers to obey the laws of war during combat. If my Father could obey the laws of war at Saipan, Tinian, and Okinawa, any other soldier should be able to do the same. Meanwhile,while I am teaching this to my students, the Illinois Nazis Law Faculty aid, abet, and promote and facilitate war crimes and crimes against humanity from the safety of their offices. My Father later became a Lawyer. RIP. The Illinois Nazis Law Faculty are despicable! Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2017 8:38 PM To: Roger Helbig > Cc: Karen Aram >; Estabrook, Carl G >; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Jay Becker >; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; Szoke, Ron >; Dave Trippel >; Arlene Hickory >; David Swanson >; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG Mad Dog Mattis the Nuremberg War Criminal. Fab. CONTROLLED PRESS IGNORES CRIMINAL OBLITERATION OF FALLUJAH By Christopher Bollyn American Free Press The controlled press has scrupulously avoided discussing the devastation and prima facie evidence of war crimes committed during the U.S. siege and assault of Fallujah. As Americans prepared for Thanksgiving, an estimated 100,000 residents of the besieged Iraqi city of Fallujah, trapped in their homes, struggled to survive without fresh food, water or electricity, reportedly cut off by U.S. forces on November 8. Meanwhile, on the streets of Fallujah, a city of more than 350,000, dogs gnawed on bloated and rotting corpses that remained unburied for weeks. Thousands of families in Fallujah were reported to be in a critical humanitarian situation after U.S. forces prevented the delivery of relief supplies. An Iraq Red Crescent Society (IRCS) humanitarian aid convoy, reportedly blocked by U.S. troops for more than two weeks, was allowed to deliver aid to residents in the heart of the city on November 25. On Thanksgiving, U.S. forces permitted the IRCS convoy carrying thousands of food parcels, blankets, tents and medical supplies to enter the city and allowed one of the clinics to be converted into a temporary hospital to treat the injured. Rana Sidani of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) in Geneva, Switzerland however, told American Free Press on Nov. 30 that "many civilians" were still prevented from receiving aid or medical care. At the beginning of the U.S. operation in Fallujah on Nov. 5, a hospital in the central Nazzal district of Fallujah was "reduced to rubble" as a result of U.S. air and artillery bombardment. "Only its façade, with a sign reading Nazzal Emergency Hospital, remained intact," Reuters reported. "A nearby compound used by the main Falluja Hospital to store medical supplies was also destroyed," witnesses told Reuters. Fallujah's main hospital was occupied by U.S. forces when the ground offensive began. These actions are apparent violations of international humanitarian law. "Bodies can be seen everywhere and people were crying when receiving the food parcels," Muhammad al-Nuri, a spokesman for the IRCS in Baghdad, said. "It is very sad. It is a human disaster." Al-Nuri said that it is difficult to move in the city due to the large number of dead bodies in the streets. The ICRS estimates there are more than 6,000 dead in Fallujah, al-Nuri said. AFP asked Major Jay Antonelli at the Coalition Press Information Center (CPIC) in Baghdad if the ICRS estimate of 6,000 dead in Fallujah was credible. "We do not keep a count of dead Iraqis," Antonelli said. Asked the same question, the ICRC's Sidani said, "We don't know." Antonelli said, "U.S. forces never blocked aid convoys from reaching the wounded. We only recommended to the aid convoys that they should not enter the city because the MNF [Multi-National Forces] could not guarantee their security or safety." "The ICRC is very worried about the humanitarian situation in Falluja," Sidani said. Asked what the ICRC was doing to alleviate the suffering in Fallujah, Sidani said: "We are reminding the parties of their responsibilities under international humanitarian law." It should be noted that the U.S.A. and Britain, the belligerent occupying powers in Iraq, are the two largest contributors to the ICRC, providing more than 42 percent of its budget for field operations. A second convoy from Baghdad, headed by Dr. Said Ismael Haki, the IRCS president, delivered aid to Fallujah on Nov. 26. "There are no houses left in Fallujah, only destroyed places." Haki said. "I really don't know how the people will return to the city. No one will find their homes." As U.S. troops in Fallujah engaged in what has been described as the most intense urban combat since Vietnam, the controlled press scrupulously avoided discussion or footage of the devastation of the rebellious Sunni city. For example, during the second week of the attack, rather than discuss the widespread devastation of Fallujah, U.S. television news programs focused largely on a brawl between basketball players and fans in Detroit. Lt. Col. Brandl, commander of the 1st Battalion, 8th Marine Regiment, was filmed giving a "pep talk" to his marines: "The enemy has got a face – he's called Satan," Brandl said. "He's in Fallujah, and we're going to destroy him." At least 136 U.S. soldiers were killed during November in Iraq, and more than 800 were wounded, most of them in Fallujah, making it the most costly month, and operation, in terms of U.S. lives lost since the invasion of Iraq began in March 2003. FOR WHAT CAUSE? Michael Ware, Baghdad bureau chief for Time magazine, who has been in Fallujah during the fighting, said U.S. actions in Fallujah are "creating the nightmare that we are seeking to prevent." "I stood there as I saw American boys die," Ware told Chris Matthews of MSNBC on Nov. 24, "I mean, a man shot at close range, blown apart by a rocket propelled grenade. He dies there in front of you and I can't help but think why? For what cause? "I see us creating the very thing that the president said we went there to prevent," Ware said, "…subsequent to this invasion and the occupation and the guerrilla war that is currently underway, we are the midwives of the next generation of al Qaida and Islamic terrorist." Ware, who has interviewed senior insurgent leaders, said they study the writings of the Vietnamese general Vo Nguyen Giap, Che Guevara, and Mao Zedong. "They're bringing it straight from the Vietnam, and the broader insurgency playbook," Ware said. "The name of the game is deny the population to the insurgents," Ware said. "That's what we're trying to do, win hearts and minds. But we're not winning them." The U.S. struggle to win Iraqi hearts and minds suffered a further set back when NBC TV broadcast footage of a U.S. marine executing a wounded and unarmed Iraqi in a Fallujah mosque. The much-publicized shooting, apparently part of a massacre of a group of wounded resistance fighters, "was a rare crack in the façade that Washington, with the complicity of most of the corporate media, has tried to present to the world of its brutal assault on the rebel Iraqi city," Rohan Pearce wrote in The Greenleft Weekly Australia on Nov. 24. The New York Times has reported actions taken by U.S. forces in Fallujah, which appear to be prima facie evidence of war crimes, without mentioning that the actions constitute clear violations of the Laws of Land War found in the U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10. For example, a Nov. 20 Times article by Edward Wong, with two correspondents in Fallujah, reports that U.S. marines had transformed a mosque into a fortress with snipers and machine gunners perched on the roof. Then, using the passive form, Wong goes on to say that "no neutral group has been able to enter the city," without mentioning that U.S. forces blocked humanitarian aid convoys. Likewise, Wong wrote, "Electricity and water had been cut off." The Times, whose motto is "All the news that's fit to print," apparently didn't think that it's readers needed to know the U.S. forces had cut off the water and power to a city of 340,000 people. Asked if U.S. forces had cut power and water to Fallujah, Maj. Jay Antonelli of CPIC wrote: "MNF did, with approval of the Interim Iraqi Government, cut off electricity to the city of Fallujah as Operation Al-Fajr began. Water was not cut off intentionally, however the water system did sustain some kinetic damage during strikes." American Free Press asked the Pentagon's Lt. Col. Joe Yoswa if it is true that U.S. forces were using mosques as fortresses. "It's not possible," Yoswa said. "Under no circumstances. We would not set up snipers in a mosque in an offensive position." CPIC's Antonelli said: "MNF would not use a mosque as a 'fortress.' MNF and Iraqi security forces would only fire from a mosque if they were being fired upon and were firing back in self-defense." Abu Sabah, a refugee from Fallujah, reported seeing phosphorus bombs: "They used these weird bombs that put up smoke like a mushroom cloud. Then small pieces fell from the air with long tails of smoke trailing behind them. These exploded on the ground with large fires that burnt for half and hour," Abu Sabah said. "When anyone touched these fires their bodies burnt for hours." Eyewitnesses from Fallujah also reported seeing "melted" bodies. "THROW-AWAY SOLDIERS" Having seen what appeared to be a depleted uranium (DU) missile fired at a building in Fallujah on CNN during the first week of the fighting, AFP asked the Pentagon if DU weapons are being used in Fallujah. "Yes," Yoswa said, "DU is a standard round on the M-1 Abrams tank." Because U.S. marines in Fallujah are very close to the poison gas produced by exploded DU shells, AFP asked Yoswa if anything was being done to protect the troops from DU poisoning. Yoswa seemed unaware of the dangers posed by the use of DU. Marion Fulk, a retired nuclear scientist from Livermore National Lab told AFP that U.S. troops in DU contaminated battlefields are considered "throw-away soldiers." The Marines exposed to DU in Fallujah, and elsewhere, face greatly increased risks of cancer, deformed children, and other health problems in the future. OBLITERATION OF FALLUJAH The "obliteration of Fallujah" is a serious war crime, according to Francis A. Boyle, a professor of international law at the University of Illinois. "The obliteration of Fallujah continues apace," Boyle wrote in his Nov. 15 article, A War Crime in Real Time: Obliterating Fallujah. "Article 6(b) of the 1945 Nuremberg Charter defines a Nuremberg War Crime in relevant part as the 'wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages.' According to this definitive definition, the Bush administration's destruction of Fallujah constitutes a war crime for which Nazis were tried and executed." Finis -30- 1629 words ________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The all-new My Yahoo! – What will yours do? Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2017 8:13 PM To: 'Roger Helbig' > Cc: 'Karen Aram' >; Estabrook, Carl G >; 'peace-discuss at anti-war.net' >; 'C. G. ESTABROOK' >; 'Jay Becker' >; 'a-fields at uiuc.edu' >; Hoffman, Valerie J >; 'Joe Lauria' >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; Szoke, Ron >; 'Dave Trippel' >; 'Arlene Hickory' >; 'David Swanson' >; 'peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net' >; 'sherwoodross10 at gmail.com' >; 'abass10 at gmail.com' >; 'mickalideh at gmail.com' >; 'Lina Thorne' >; 'chicago at worldcantwait.net' > Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG Mattis expected his troops to be peacekeepers. They brought soccer balls with them when they deployed. LOL! Marines don’t play soccer or teach kids to play soccer.. My Dad was a Marine. He invaded Saipan, Tinian and Okinawa before he became a Lawyer. Marines destroy anyone and anything that is in front of them as they are trained to do and did at Fallujah under Mattis—A Real Mad Dog War Criminal. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2017 7:52 PM To: 'Roger Helbig' > Cc: Karen Aram >; Estabrook, Carl G >; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Jay Becker >; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; Szoke, Ron >; Dave Trippel >; Arlene Hickory >; David Swanson >; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG -----Original Message----- From: Karim A G [mailto:coffee at euro-comm.co.uk] Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2004 5:00 PM To: Karim A G Subject: A War Crime in Real Time http://www.counterpunch.org/boyle11152004.html November 15, 2004 A War Crime in Real Time Obliterating Fallujah By FRANCIS A. BOYLE The obliteration of Fallujah continues apace. Article 6(b) of the 1945 Nuremberg Charter defines a Nuremberg War Crime in relevant part as the ". . . wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages. . ." According to this definitive definition, the Bush Jr. administration's destruction of Fallujah constitutes a war crime for which Nazis were tried and executed. There is nothing surprising about that. Since the Bush Jr. administration's installation in power by the United States Supreme Court in January of 2001, the peoples of the world have witnessed a government in the United States of America that has demonstrated little if any respect for fundamental considerations of international law, international organizations, and human rights, let alone appreciation of the requirements for maintaining international peace and security. What the world has watched instead is a comprehensive and malicious assault upon the integrity of the international legal order by a group of men and women who are thoroughly Machiavellian in their perception of international relations and in their conduct of both foreign policy and domestic affairs. This is not simply a question of giving or withholding the benefit of the doubt when it comes to complicated matters of foreign affairs and defense policies to a U.S. government charged with the security of both its own citizens and those of its allies in Europe, the Western Hemisphere, and the Pacific. Rather, the Bush Jr. administration's foreign policy constitutes ongoing criminal activity under well-recognized principles of both international law and U.S. domestic law, in particular the Nuremberg Charter, the Nuremberg Judgment, and the Nuremberg Principles. So their obliteration of Fallujah was to be expected. One generation ago the peoples of the world asked themselves: Where were the "good" Germans? Well, there were some good Germans. The Lutheran theologian and pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer was the foremost exemplar of someone who led a life of principled opposition to the Nazi-terror state even unto death. Today the peoples of the world are likewise asking themselves: Where are the "good" Americans? Well, there are some good Americans. Like three Catholic Nuns in Denver, they are getting arrested and going to jail for protesting against United States weapons of mass destruction (WMD) whose power for human extermination far exceeds even the wildest fantasies of Hitler and the Nazis. Or else for protesting against illegal U.S.. military interventions around the world. Just recently the Nuclear Resister estimated that since the Fall of 2002, there have been more than 9,500 anti-war related arrests in the United States alone. Many more will be coming. In international legal terms, the Bush Jr. administration itself should now be viewed as constituting an ongoing criminal conspiracy under international criminal law in violation of the Nuremberg Charter, the Nuremberg Judgment, and the Nuremberg Principles, due to its formulation and undertaking of aggressive war policies that are legally akin to those perpetrated by the Nazi regime. As a consequence, American citizens possess the basic right under international law and the United States domestic law, including the U.S. Constitution, to engage in acts of non-violent civil resistance in order to prevent, impede, thwart, or terminate ongoing criminal activities perpetrated by U.S. government officials in their conduct of foreign affairs policies and military operations purported to relate to defense and counter-terrorism. This same right of civil resistance extends pari passu to all citizens of the world community of states. Everyone around the world has both the right and the duty under international law to resist ongoing criminal activities perpetrated by the Bush Jr. administration and its nefarious foreign accomplices such as Blair, Berlusconi, Howard, Koizumi, Kwasniewski, etc. by all non-violent means possible. If it is not so restrained, the Bush Jr. administration could very well precipitate a Third World War. The time for preventive action is now. Civil resistance is the way to go. People power can overcome power politics. Popular movements have succeeded in toppling tyrannical, dictatorial and authoritarian regimes throughout former Communist countries in Eastern Europe, as well as in Asia, and most recently in Latin America. It is time once again to exercise People Power here in the United States of America: "When in the Course of human Events. . . We hold these Truths to be self-evident. . . . we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and sacred Honor." Despite the best efforts by the Bush Jr. Leaguers to the contrary, we American Citizens still have our First Amendment Rights: Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Association, Freedom of Assembly, Freedom to Petition our Government for the Redress of these massive Grievances, Civil Resistance, etc. We are going to have to start vigorously exercising all of our First Amendment Rights right now. We must use them or else, as the saying goes, we will lose them. We must act not only for the good of the Peoples of Southwest Asia, but for our future, that of our children, that of our nation as a democratic society committed to the Rule of Law and the U.S. Constitution. The Nazis had their "homeland" too Francis A. Boyle, Professor of Law, University of Illinois, is author of Foundations of World Order, Duke University Press, The Criminality of Nuclear Deterrence, and Palestine, Palestinians and International Law, by Clarity Press. He can be reached at: FBOYLE at LAW.UIUC.EDU --- Subscribed as: fboyle at law.uiuc.edu; to unsubscribe send to al-awda-universalist-request at umich.edu with UNSUBSCRIBE as the SUBJECT. URL: Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Roger Helbig [mailto:rwhelbig at gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2017 6:43 PM To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: Karen Aram >; Estabrook, Carl G >; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Jay Becker >; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; Szoke, Ron >; Dave Trippel >; Arlene Hickory >; David Swanson >; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG There was no massacre at Fallujah. This is nonsense. Mattis expected his troops to be peacekeepers. They brought soccer balls with them when they deployed. I would love to see your "so called" war crime indictment. Wonder how much of it is from your fertile Hate America imagination and how much from the fertile Arab anti-American propaganda organs. Doubt a single paragraph is actually based on fact. On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 8:22 AM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss > wrote: Trump’s Secretary of War Mad Dog Mattis was responsible for the Massacre at Fallujah, which I pointed out on Counterpunch was a Nuremberg War Crime along the lines of the Nazis—the wanton devastation of a city-- in revenge for them killing our mercenaries. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Karen Aram [mailto:karenaram at hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2017 10:04 AM To: Estabrook, Carl G > Cc: Boyle, Francis A >; Jay Becker >; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; Szoke, Ron >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; Arlene Hickory >; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; David Swanson >; Dave Trippel >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Mildred O'brien >; David Johnson >; Joe Lauria >; David Green > Subject: Re: Guest Commentary by Carl in NG I’m sorry Carl, I don’t agree with that title either. It assumes that all in the anti-war movement welcome the Trump administration. Not all of us trust he will do some of that which he promised in respect to “defunding Nato,” “making friends with Russia,” or killing TPP. Even if he does those three things, his further provocations of China, are every bit as dangerous as those with Russia, it’s a mere tactic to drive a wedge between Russia and China, while chipping away at Iran. His Cabinet appointments are frightening to say the least in respect to Healthcare, Energy, Education, Housing, etc, etc. Further expansion of war in the Middle East, and North Africa, as well as expansion of capitalist corporate control is on the agenda no matter which of the two Party’s are in power. Obama paved the way, for all of which I have just referred, but it’s not over. Our only hope is that “the people” are now awake, and perhaps will focus on that which is most serious to survival. On Jan 22, 2017, at 07:44, Carl G. Estabrook > wrote: My original title was, “Why the anti-war movement welcomes the new administration.” For more on that theme, see >. —CGE On Jan 22, 2017, at 9:29 AM, Karen Aram > wrote: An excellent letter, which I posted on FB. I deliberately deleted the title that I assumed the NG created, because it gives the false impression that those of us in the anti-war movement, all support Trump. We don’t, we just didn’t support Hillary. Anyone in the anti-war movement supporting Hillary was supporting more of the same that Obama provided. On Jan 22, 2017, at 07:16, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: He {Obama} attacked eight countries (two more than George Bush), and conducted what one leading political commentator called "the most extreme terrorist campaign of modern times — his drone assassinations." He killed thousands of civilians with drones, including U.S. citizens and hundreds of children. A good letter by Carl today in NG. (Remember NG writes their own titles to letters.) We must now hold Trump’s feet to the fire across the board! I think Carl’s quote comes from Chomsky? In any event the Illinois Nazis Law Faculty fully supported and promoted and held out for emulation by lawyers and this Campus and our Good Community: "the most extreme terrorist campaign of modern times — his drone assassinations." The Illinois Nazis Law Faculty are just a GANG OF SICK PUPPIES! Fab Ed Norton Professor of Law Carl Schmitt College of Law: “Mein Fuhrer, I can walk!” Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) Feed: News-Gazette.com Posted on: Sunday, January 22, 2017 7:00 AM Author: digital.media Subject: Guest Commentary: Why anti-war movement welcomes Trump By C.G. ESTABROOK The European anti-war group "No War No NATO" writes as follows: "Demonstrating in Europe on 21 January, against the newly elected US President Donald Trump is tantamount to lending support to the Obama administration, which has transformed Europe into NATO's first line of attack, nuclear matters inclusive, against Russia. read more View article... _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rwhelbig at gmail.com Sat Nov 4 14:23:50 2017 From: rwhelbig at gmail.com (Roger Helbig) Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2017 07:23:50 -0700 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG In-Reply-To: References: <9D3D5E59-5EFC-47DF-838D-C6508214E176@illinois.edu> Message-ID: Oh wow, a Counter Punch article - they don't fact check anything and really are more propaganda than news - Fallujah was not obliterated - but the liars and their buddies like FAB want people to think so - I have probably read more about the two Battles of Fallujah and corresponded with people who were there than FAB ever has - On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 7:08 AM, Boyle, Francis A wrote: > http://www.counterpunch.org/boyle11152004.html > > November 15, 2004 > A War Crime in Real Time > Obliterating Fallujah > By FRANCIS A. BOYLE > The obliteration of Fallujah continues apace. Article 6(b) of the 1945 > Nuremberg Charter defines a Nuremberg War Crime in relevant part as the ". > . . wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages. . ." According to this > definitive definition, the Bush Jr. administration's destruction of > Fallujah constitutes a war crime for which Nazis were tried and executed. > There is nothing surprising about that. > Since the Bush Jr. administration's installation in power by the United > States Supreme Court in January of 2001, the peoples of the world have > witnessed a government in the United States of America that has > demonstrated little if any respect for fundamental considerations of > international law, international organizations, and human rights, let alone > appreciation of the requirements for maintaining international peace and > security. What the world has watched instead is a comprehensive and > malicious assault upon the integrity of the international legal order by a > group of men and women who are thoroughly Machiavellian in their perception > of international relations and in their conduct of both foreign policy and > domestic affairs. This is not simply a question of giving or withholding > the benefit of the doubt when it comes to complicated matters of foreign > affairs and defense policies to a U.S. government charged with the security > of both its own citizens and those of its allies in Europe, the Western > Hemisphere, and the Pacific. Rather, the Bush Jr. administration's foreign > policy constitutes ongoing criminal activity under well-recognized > principles of both international law and U.S. domestic law, in particular > the Nuremberg Charter, the Nuremberg Judgment, and the Nuremberg > Principles. So their obliteration of Fallujah was to be expected. > One generation ago the peoples of the world asked themselves: Where were > the "good" Germans? Well, there were some good Germans. The Lutheran > theologian and pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer was the foremost exemplar of > someone who led a life of principled opposition to the Nazi-terror state > even unto death. > Today the peoples of the world are likewise asking themselves: Where are > the "good" Americans? Well, there are some good Americans. Like three > Catholic Nuns in Denver, they are getting arrested and going to jail for > protesting against United States weapons of mass destruction (WMD) whose > power for human extermination far exceeds even the wildest fantasies of > Hitler and the Nazis. Or else for protesting against illegal U.S.. military > interventions around the world. Just recently the Nuclear Resister > estimated that since the Fall of 2002, there have been more than 9,500 > anti-war related arrests in the United States alone. Many more will be > coming. > In international legal terms, the Bush Jr. administration itself should > now be viewed as constituting an ongoing criminal conspiracy under > international criminal law in violation of the Nuremberg Charter, the > Nuremberg Judgment, and the Nuremberg Principles, due to its formulation > and undertaking of aggressive war policies that are legally akin to those > perpetrated by the Nazi regime. As a consequence, American citizens possess > the basic right under international law and the United States domestic law, > including the U.S. Constitution, to engage in acts of non-violent civil > resistance in order to prevent, impede, thwart, or terminate ongoing > criminal activities perpetrated by U.S. government officials in their > conduct of foreign affairs policies and military operations purported to > relate to defense and counter-terrorism. > This same right of civil resistance extends pari passu to all citizens of > the world community of states. Everyone around the world has both the right > and the duty under international law to resist ongoing criminal activities > perpetrated by the Bush Jr. administration and its nefarious foreign > accomplices such as Blair, Berlusconi, Howard, Koizumi, Kwasniewski, etc. > by all non-violent means possible. If it is not so restrained, the Bush Jr. > administration could very well precipitate a Third World War. > The time for preventive action is now. Civil resistance is the way to go. > People power can overcome power politics. Popular movements have succeeded > in toppling tyrannical, dictatorial and authoritarian regimes throughout > former Communist countries in Eastern Europe, as well as in Asia, and most > recently in Latin America. It is time once again to exercise People Power > here in the United States of America: "When in the Course of human Events. > . . We hold these Truths to be self-evident. . . . we mutually pledge to > each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and sacred Honor." > Despite the best efforts by the Bush Jr. Leaguers to the contrary, we > American Citizens still have our First Amendment Rights: Freedom of Speech, > Freedom of Association, Freedom of Assembly, Freedom to Petition our > Government for the Redress of these massive Grievances, Civil Resistance, > etc. We are going to have to start vigorously exercising all of our First > Amendment Rights right now. We must use them or else, as the saying goes, > we will lose them. We must act not only for the good of the Peoples of > Southwest Asia, but for our future, that of our children, that of our > nation as a democratic society committed to the Rule of Law and the U.S. > Constitution. The Nazis had their "homeland" too > Francis A. Boyle, Professor of Law, University of Illinois, is author of > Foundations of World Order, Duke University Press, The Criminality of > Nuclear Deterrence, and Palestine, Palestinians and International Law, by > Clarity Press. He can be reached at: FBOYLE at LAW.UIUC.EDU > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Boyle, Francis A > Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2017 8:57 AM > To: C G Estabrook ; Roger Helbig < > rwhelbig at gmail.com> > Cc: Karen Aram ; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. > ESTABROOK ; Jay Becker ; > a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria > ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; > Szoke, Ron ; Dave Trippel ; > Arlene Hickory ; David Swanson ; > peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; > abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne < > lina at worldcantwait.net>; chicago at worldcantwait.net > Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG > > In other words, approximately 3.3 million Iraqis were exterminated by the > United States and the United Kingdom from August of 1990 until the end of > 2011 when President Obama had ordered the purported “final” withdrawal of > U.S. military forces from Iraq. And these are very conservative figures > that I believe could be proven to the satisfaction of the International > Court of Justice. > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Boyle, Francis A > Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2017 8:55 AM > To: C G Estabrook ; Roger Helbig < > rwhelbig at gmail.com> > Cc: Karen Aram ; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. > ESTABROOK ; Jay Becker ; > a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria > ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; > Szoke, Ron ; Dave Trippel ; > Arlene Hickory ; David Swanson ; > peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; > abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne < > lina at worldcantwait.net>; chicago at worldcantwait.net > Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG > > Of course the Illinois Nazi Faculty of Law and its Yale Mafia Law Dean > Iceman Amar are more than happy to exterminate Muslims/Arabs/Asians of > Color. Fab. > Legal Protection Of Children In Armed Conflict: The Iraqi Children Genocide > > By Francis A. Boyle > > 04 December, 2012 > Countercurrents.org > > This is the text version of a speech delivered by Francis A. Boyle at The > International Conference on War-affected Children Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, > November 22, 2012 > > During the summer of 1991 I was contacted on behalf of several Mothers in > Iraq whose children were dying at astounding rates because of the genocidal > economic sanctions that had been imposed upon them by the Security Council > in August of 1990 at the behest of the Bush Senior administration. They > requested that I do something in order to save these innocent children from > perishing in agony in front of their mothers’ very own eyes. Using the > format of the Writ for World Habeas Corpus that had been previously > provided to me by my friend and colleague, the late Luis Kutner, Esq. of > Chicago, Illinois, I filed a class-action Complaint on behalf of the 4.5 > million children of Iraq against President George Bush Senior and the > United States of America with the United Nations Organization that was > dated 18 September 1991.[1] I submitted the Complaint to the Secretary > General of the U.N., member states of the General Assembly, the Economic > and Social Council, the Commission on Human Rights, the Sub-Commission on > Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, UNESCO, and > UNICEF. A copy of my Indictment, Complaint and Petition for Relief from > Genocide on behalf of the 4.5 million children of Iraq is reprinted below. > > This Complaint accused the United States and President Bush Senior (1) of > committing the international crime of genocide against the 4.5 Million > Children of Iraq in violation of the International Convention on the > Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide of 1948 and in violation > of the municipal legal systems of all civilized nations in the world; (2) > of a gross and consistent pattern of violations of the most fundamental > human rights of the 4.5 Million Children of Iraq as recognized and > guaranteed to them by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948; > (3) of the complete negation and denial of all the rights guaranteed to the > 4.5 Million Children of Iraq by the 1989 Convention on the Rights of the > Child; and (4) of the systematic violation of the special protections of > international humanitarian law guaranteed to the 4.5 Million Children of > Iraq by the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 and Additional Protocol I > thereto of 1977. > > My Complaint demanded (1) the termination of all forms of multilateral and > bilateral economic sanctions against Iraq; (2) the massive provision of > international humanitarian relief supplies to Iraq by all organs of the > United Nations System; (3) that monetary compensation be paid to the > children of Iraq and their families for deaths as well as for all physical > and mental injury by the United States; and (4) that criminal proceedings > for genocide be instituted against President George Bush Senior by the > appropriate organs of the United Nations System as well as by all municipal > legal systems in the world, including by the United States government. My > Complaint estimated that since sanctions were first imposed against Iraq in > August of 1990, Iraqi children were dying as a direct result thereof at the > rate of about 500 per day. > > Despite my best professional efforts working on behalf of my Clients pro > bono publico, the grossly hypocritical United Nations Organization > adamantly refused to act to terminate these genocidal sanctions and thus to > save the dying children of Iraq. In 1995 the United Nations’ own Food and > Agricultural Organization (FAO) Report estimated that these genocidal > economic sanctions against Iraq had by then killed about 560,000 Iraqi > children since when they were first imposed in 1990.[2] In specific regard > to these murdered Iraqi children, then U.S. Secretary of State Madeline > Albright, was interviewed on the CBS Television Network on 12 May 1996 by > correspondent Leslie Stahl. The transcript of this interview provided by > CBS News itself reads as follows:[3] > > Stahl: (Voiceover) If the Iraqi people place any blame on Saddam Hussein, > they’re afraid to say so. And there is no longer much hope that the > sanctions will inspire the people to rise up and topple the government. Now > people are just trying to get by because one of the side effects of the > sanctions has been inflation, which has jumped as high as 3,000 percent. To > make ends meet, Iraqis are selling everything they can. Flea markets have > sprung up on the streets, where families can sell their furniture, clothes, > anything they can to make a few extra dinars. Most Iraqis are suffering > > We have heard that a half a million children have died. I mean, that’s > more children than died when-wh-in-in Hiroshima. And-and, you know, is the > price worth it? > > Ambassador Albright: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price – > we think the price is worth it. > > This shocking and revolting statement made by the U.S. Secretary of State > provided proof positive of the genocidal intent by the United States > Government against Iraq and its children and its people as defined by and > in violation of Genocide Convention Article II: “In the present Convention, > genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, > in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group, as > such. . . .” Certainly a half-million dead Iraqi children that the U.S. > Secretary of State specifically intended to destroy as such, and did indeed > destroy as such, constituted a very important “part” of the Iraqi people. > These half-million dead children were the very future of the people and > state of Iraq. > > This Albright statement is what criminal lawyers call a classic “Admission > Against Interest.” This Statement by the then sitting U.S. Secretary of > State, acting within the scope of her official duties and speaking in the > name of the United States government, could be taken to the International > Court of Justice in The Hague and filed to prove that the United States of > America possessed the required mens rea (criminal intent) necessary to > commit the international crime of genocide. Under both international law > and U.S. domestic law, to be guilty of a crime a person or a state must > possess the requisite mens rea at the same time that he or she or it > commits the criminal act (actus reus). > > With respect to these genocidal economic sanctions against Iraq, the actus > reus for the U.S. government and its officials committing the international > crime of genocide is set forth in Genocide Convention Article II (c): > “Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to > bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.” The 500,000 dead > Iraqi children, as conceded and approved by U.S. Secretary of State > Albright, constituted a “substantial part” of the people of Iraq, which is > the threshold numerical test for genocide recognized by the International > Court of Justice itself that I had successfully argued there for Bosnia and > Herzegovina against Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) in 1993. Albright > incriminated both herself and the United States of America at the same > time, apparently without thought or concern as to any future international > legal determination of their culpability. Such is the arrogance of the > powerful—which is usually the source of their downfall. > > The United States and the United Kingdom obstinately insisted that the > genocidal economic sanctions imposed against Iraq remain in place until > after the conclusion of the internationally illegal Gulf War II of > aggression perpetrated by the Bush Junior administration and the Tony Blair > government against Iraq in March of 2003. Then, on 22 May 2003 the United > States and the United Kingdom procured U.N. Security Council Resolution > 1483 lifting these genocidal economic sanctions; yet not with a view to > easing the over decade-long suffering of the Iraqi people and children. But > rather so as to better facilitate the U.S./U.K. unsupervised looting and > plundering of the Iraqi economy and oil fields in violation of the > international laws of war as well as to the grave detriment of the Iraqi > people and their children. > > Once I had gotten this class-action Complaint filed with the United > Nations Organization and had worked out the basic legal theory for U.S. > genocide against the children of Iraq, starting in the Fall of 1991 I did > everything humanly possible to convince the then President of Iraq to give > me the legal authority to sue the United States and the United Kingdom at > the International Court of Justice in The Hague on the basis of the 1948 > Genocide Convention: First, in order to break the genocidal economic > embargo against the people of Iraq, and especially their children. And > second, in order to prevent what I perceived to be further impending > military attacks by the United States and Britain upon Iraq that would > culminate someday in stealing all their oil. I most strenuously pursued > these efforts systematically and continuously until the very eve of the war > of aggression against Iraq by the Bush Junior administration and the Tony > Blair government in mid-March of 2003. These efforts also included two > meetings with the then Foreign Minister of Iraq and their top international > lawyer to review, consider, and discuss papers I had drafted to be filed by > Iraq in the World Court against the United States and the United Kingdom in > order to accomplish these objectives.[4] In addition, at the very last > minute available I also attempted to convince the Deputy Prime Minister of > Iraq to give me the legal authority to file these World Court lawsuits > against the U.S. and the U.K. literally right up until the outbreak of > hostilities in mid-March of 2003. All to no avail. > > Despite my best efforts, I failed. This shall always be one of the great > disappointments of my life. Approximately 1.7 million Iraqis died as a > direct result of these genocidal economic sanctions, including within that > number about 750,000 Iraqi children. In addition, another 1.4 million > Iraqis died as a result of the Bush Junior/Tony Blair genocidal war of > aggression against Iraq. To this appalling genocidal death toll must be > added the 200,000 Iraqis President Bush Senior slaughtered in his 1991 Gulf > War I. In other words, approximately 3.3 million Iraqis were exterminated > by the United States and the United Kingdom from August of 1990 until the > end of 2011 when President Obama had ordered the purported “final” > withdrawal of U.S. military forces from Iraq. And these are very > conservative figures that I believe could be proven to the satisfaction of > the International Court of Justice. > > These World Court papers that I drew up for Iraq to sue the United States > and the United Kingdom at the International Court of Justice on the basis > of the 1948 Genocide Convention that were twice considered and reviewed by > the Foreign Minister of Iraq and their top international lawyer still sit > in my office today. They could be revised and updated by the current > government of Iraq in order to sue the United States and the United Kingdom > at the International Court of Justice for genocide today. Of course this is > for the current government of Iraq to decide. Towards facilitating that > objective, I will be more than happy to make these World Court papers > available to the current government of Iraq free of charge if they so > desire. For Iraq to file my proposed World Court lawsuits for genocide > against the United States and the United Kingdom would produce some small > degree of justice for the 750,000 murdered children of Iraq and at least > 3.3 million exterminated Iraqis. Thank you. > > [1] See Edward Pearce, Death and Indecency in a Time of Cholera, The > Guardian, Oct. 25, 1991. > > [2] See Ramsey Clark, FAO Report, and Others, The Children Are Dying > (World View Forum, Inc.: 1996). > > [3] See 5/12/96 60 Minutes, 1996 Westlaw 8064912. > > [4] Iraq to Go to World Court, South News, Jan. 28, 1998: “U.S. Professor > of International Law Francis Boyle has publicly offered to charge U.S. > leaders for genocide against the Iraqi people.” > > Professor Francis A. Boyle is an international law expert and served as > Legal Advisor to the Palestine Liberation Organization and Yasser Arafat on > the 1988 Palestinian Declaration of Independence, as well as to the > Palestinian Delegation to the Middle East Peace Negotiations from 1991 to > 1993, where he drafted the Palestinian counter-offer to the now defunct > Oslo Agreement. His books include “ Palestine, Palestinians and > International Law” (2003), and “ The Palestinian Right of Return under > International Law” (2010). > > © Copyright 2012 by Francis A. Boyle. All rights reserved. > > > > > > > > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) > > > -----Original Message----- > From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] > Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2017 8:42 AM > To: Roger Helbig > Cc: Boyle, Francis A ; Karen Aram < > karenaram at hotmail.com>; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK < > carl at newsfromneptune.com>; Jay Becker ; > a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria > ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; > Szoke, Ron ; Dave Trippel ; > Arlene Hickory ; David Swanson ; > peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; > abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne < > lina at worldcantwait.net>; chicago at worldcantwait.net > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG > > Of course the US committed war crimes in Iraq. The US invasion of that > country is the greatest international crime of the century - so far. > > On ‘American Free Press,’ see wiki/American_Free_Press>. > > > > On Nov 4, 2017, at 8:11 AM, Roger Helbig wrote: > > > > You do know that Christopher Bollyn is NOT a reporter but is a Neo Nazi > operative of long standing and that the American Free Press is not a news > organization, but a Neo Nazi front - look up Willis Carto - he was Bollyn's > boss and founded the American Free Press - this website that has reports of > conference for American Free Press and The Barnes Review used to have a > prominent picture of a Nazi flag behind the blogger Alex Hassinger - > Douglas Lind Rokke of Urbana spoke at this event and Dave von Kleist the > producer of Rokke's first anti-US propaganda video "Beyond Treason" was > the master of ceremonies - http://www.chairmanofnordwave.blogspot.com > > > > Carto died in 2015 - there are a number of good sources on Carto in a > simple Google search - > > > > Learn about Neo Nazis - read this book - "Blood and Politics" - it > mentions Bollyn and extensively discusses Carto - pg 382, which I can > e-mail to all who request - has Carto's establishment of The Barnes Review, > a Holocaust Denial publication - The American Free Press replaced Carto's > The Spotlight after Carto lost a legal battle - Bollyn is also mentioned in > connection with a Pat Buchanan campaign apparatus > > > > On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 4:57 AM, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: > > I also want to make it clear for the record that before the invasions of > Saipan, Tinian and Okinawa my Father, a Marine, was ordered by his Captain > not to take prisoners of war on the grounds of reciprocity that the > Japanese did not take Prisoners of War of our Men. My Father disobeyed > these clearly illegal orders and took Japanese Prisoners of War. I cite the > example of my Father to my law students to refute the objection that you > cannot expect soldiers to obey the laws of war during combat. If my Father > could obey the laws of war at Saipan, Tinian, and Okinawa, any other > soldier should be able to do the same. Meanwhile,while I am teaching this > to my students, the Illinois Nazis Law Faculty aid, abet, and promote and > facilitate war crimes and crimes against humanity from the safety of their > offices. My Father later became a Lawyer. RIP. The Illinois Nazis Law > Faculty are despicable! Fab. > > > > > > > > Francis A. Boyle > > > > Law Building > > > > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > > > > Champaign IL 61820 USA > > > > 217-333-7954 (phone) > > > > 217-244-1478 (fax) > > > > (personal comments only) > > > > > > > > From: Boyle, Francis A > > Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2017 8:38 PM > > To: Roger Helbig > > Cc: Karen Aram ; Estabrook, Carl G < > galliher at illinois.edu>; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK < > carl at newsfromneptune.com>; Jay Becker ; > a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria > ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; > Szoke, Ron ; Dave Trippel ; > Arlene Hickory ; David Swanson ; > peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; > abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne < > lina at worldcantwait.net>; chicago at worldcantwait.net > > Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG > > > > > > > > Mad Dog Mattis the Nuremberg War Criminal. Fab. > > > > CONTROLLED PRESS IGNORES > > > > CRIMINAL OBLITERATION OF FALLUJAH > > > > > > > > By Christopher Bollyn > > > > American Free Press > > > > > > > > The controlled press has scrupulously avoided discussing the devastation > and prima facie evidence of war crimes committed during the U.S. siege and > assault of Fallujah. > > > > > > > > As Americans prepared for Thanksgiving, an estimated 100,000 residents > of the besieged Iraqi city of Fallujah, trapped in their homes, struggled > to survive without fresh food, water or electricity, reportedly cut off by > U.S. forces on November 8. > > > > > > > > Meanwhile, on the streets of Fallujah, a city of more than 350,000, dogs > gnawed on bloated and rotting corpses that remained unburied for weeks. > > > > > > > > Thousands of families in Fallujah were reported to be in a critical > humanitarian situation after U.S. forces prevented the delivery of relief > supplies. An Iraq Red Crescent Society (IRCS) humanitarian aid convoy, > reportedly blocked by U.S. troops for more than two weeks, was allowed to > deliver aid to residents in the heart of the city on November 25. > > > > > > > > On Thanksgiving, U.S. forces permitted the IRCS convoy carrying > thousands of food parcels, blankets, tents and medical supplies to enter > the city and allowed one of the clinics to be converted into a temporary > hospital to treat the injured. Rana Sidani of the International Committee > of the Red Cross (ICRC) in Geneva, Switzerland however, told American Free > Press on Nov. 30 that "many civilians" were still prevented from receiving > aid or medical care. > > > > > > > > At the beginning of the U.S. operation in Fallujah on Nov. 5, a hospital > in the central Nazzal district of Fallujah was "reduced to rubble" as a > result of U.S. air and artillery bombardment. "Only its façade, with a > sign reading Nazzal Emergency Hospital, remained intact," Reuters reported. > > > > > > > > "A nearby compound used by the main Falluja Hospital to store medical > supplies was also destroyed," witnesses told Reuters. Fallujah's main > hospital was occupied by U.S. forces when the ground offensive began. > These actions are apparent violations of international humanitarian law. > > > > > > > > "Bodies can be seen everywhere and people were crying when receiving the > food parcels," Muhammad al-Nuri, a spokesman for the IRCS in Baghdad, said. > "It is very sad. It is a human disaster." > > > > > > > > Al-Nuri said that it is difficult to move in the city due to the large > number of dead bodies in the streets. The ICRS estimates there are more > than 6,000 dead in Fallujah, al-Nuri said. > > > > > > > > AFP asked Major Jay Antonelli at the Coalition Press Information Center > (CPIC) in Baghdad if the ICRS estimate of 6,000 dead in Fallujah was > credible. "We do not keep a count of dead Iraqis," Antonelli said. Asked > the same question, the ICRC's Sidani said, "We don't know." > > > > > > > > Antonelli said, "U.S. forces never blocked aid convoys from reaching the > wounded. We only recommended to the aid convoys that they should not enter > the city because the MNF [Multi-National Forces] could not guarantee their > security or safety." > > > > > > > > "The ICRC is very worried about the humanitarian situation in Falluja," > Sidani said. Asked what the ICRC was doing to alleviate the suffering in > Fallujah, Sidani said: "We are reminding the parties of their > responsibilities under international humanitarian law." > > > > > > > > It should be noted that the U.S.A. and Britain, the belligerent > occupying powers in Iraq, are the two largest contributors to the ICRC, > providing more than 42 percent of its budget for field operations. > > > > > > > > A second convoy from Baghdad, headed by Dr. Said Ismael Haki, the IRCS > president, delivered aid to Fallujah on Nov. 26. "There are no houses left > in Fallujah, only destroyed places." Haki said. "I really don't know how > the people will return to the city. No one will find their homes." > > > > > > > > As U.S. troops in Fallujah engaged in what has been described as the > most intense urban combat since Vietnam, the controlled press scrupulously > avoided discussion or footage of the devastation of the rebellious Sunni > city. For example, during the second week of the attack, rather than > discuss the widespread devastation of Fallujah, U.S. television news > programs focused largely on a brawl between basketball players and fans in > Detroit. > > > > > > > > Lt. Col. Brandl, commander of the 1st Battalion, 8th Marine Regiment, > was filmed giving a "pep talk" to his marines: "The enemy has got a face – > he's called Satan," Brandl said. "He's in Fallujah, and we're going to > destroy him." > > > > > > > > At least 136 U.S. soldiers were killed during November in Iraq, and more > than 800 were wounded, most of them in Fallujah, making it the most costly > month, and operation, in terms of U.S. lives lost since the invasion of > Iraq began in March 2003. > > > > > > > > FOR WHAT CAUSE? > > > > > > > > Michael Ware, Baghdad bureau chief for Time magazine, who has been in > Fallujah during the fighting, said U.S. actions in Fallujah are "creating > the nightmare that we are seeking to prevent." > > > > > > > > "I stood there as I saw American boys die," Ware told Chris Matthews of > MSNBC on Nov. 24, "I mean, a man shot at close range, blown apart by a > rocket propelled grenade. He dies there in front of you and I can't help > but think why? For what cause? > > > > > > > > "I see us creating the very thing that the president said we went there > to prevent," Ware said, "…subsequent to this invasion and the occupation > and the guerrilla war that is currently underway, we are the midwives of > the next generation of al Qaida and Islamic terrorist." > > > > > > > > Ware, who has interviewed senior insurgent leaders, said they study the > writings of the Vietnamese general Vo Nguyen Giap, Che Guevara, and Mao > Zedong. "They're bringing it straight from the Vietnam, and the broader > insurgency playbook," Ware said. > > > > > > > > "The name of the game is deny the population to the insurgents," Ware > said. "That's what we're trying to do, win hearts and minds. But we're not > winning them." > > > > > > > > The U.S. struggle to win Iraqi hearts and minds suffered a further set > back when NBC TV broadcast footage of a U.S. marine executing a wounded and > unarmed Iraqi in a Fallujah mosque. The much-publicized shooting, > apparently part of a massacre of a group of wounded resistance fighters, > "was a rare crack in the façade that Washington, with the complicity of > most of the corporate media, has tried to present to the world of its > brutal assault on the rebel Iraqi city," Rohan Pearce wrote in The > Greenleft Weekly Australia on Nov. 24. > > > > > > > > The New York Times has reported actions taken by U.S. forces in > Fallujah, which appear to be prima facie evidence of war crimes, without > mentioning that the actions constitute clear violations of the Laws of Land > War found in the U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10. > > > > > > > > For example, a Nov. 20 Times article by Edward Wong, with two > correspondents in Fallujah, reports that U.S. marines had transformed a > mosque into a fortress with snipers and machine gunners perched on the roof. > > > > > > > > Then, using the passive form, Wong goes on to say that "no neutral group > has been able to enter the city," without mentioning that U.S. forces > blocked humanitarian aid convoys. Likewise, Wong wrote, "Electricity and > water had been cut off." > > > > > > > > The Times, whose motto is "All the news that's fit to print," apparently > didn't think that it's readers needed to know the U.S. forces had cut off > the water and power to a city of 340,000 people. > > > > > > > > Asked if U.S. forces had cut power and water to Fallujah, Maj. Jay > Antonelli of CPIC wrote: "MNF did, with approval of the Interim Iraqi > Government, cut off electricity to the city of Fallujah as Operation > Al-Fajr began. Water was not cut off intentionally, however the water > system did sustain some kinetic damage during strikes." > > > > > > > > American Free Press asked the Pentagon's Lt. Col. Joe Yoswa if it is > true that U.S. forces were using mosques as fortresses. "It's not > possible," Yoswa said. "Under no circumstances. We would not set up > snipers in a mosque in an offensive position." > > > > > > > > CPIC's Antonelli said: "MNF would not use a mosque as a 'fortress.' MNF > and Iraqi security forces would only fire from a mosque if they were being > fired upon and were firing back in self-defense." > > > > > > > > Abu Sabah, a refugee from Fallujah, reported seeing phosphorus bombs: > "They used these weird bombs that put up smoke like a mushroom cloud. Then > small pieces fell from the air with long tails of smoke trailing behind > them. These exploded on the ground with large fires that burnt for half > and hour," Abu Sabah said. "When anyone touched these fires their bodies > burnt for hours." > > > > > > > > Eyewitnesses from Fallujah also reported seeing "melted" bodies. > > > > > > > > "THROW-AWAY SOLDIERS" > > > > > > > > Having seen what appeared to be a depleted uranium (DU) missile fired at > a building in Fallujah on CNN during the first week of the fighting, AFP > asked the Pentagon if DU weapons are being used in Fallujah. "Yes," Yoswa > said, "DU is a standard round on the M-1 Abrams tank." > > > > > > > > Because U.S. marines in Fallujah are very close to the poison gas > produced by exploded DU shells, AFP asked Yoswa if anything was being done > to protect the troops from DU poisoning. Yoswa seemed unaware of the > dangers posed by the use of DU. > > > > > > > > Marion Fulk, a retired nuclear scientist from Livermore National Lab > told AFP that U.S. troops in DU contaminated battlefields are considered > "throw-away soldiers." The Marines exposed to DU in Fallujah, and > elsewhere, face greatly increased risks of cancer, deformed children, and > other health problems in the future. > > > > > > > > OBLITERATION OF FALLUJAH > > > > > > > > The "obliteration of Fallujah" is a serious war crime, according to > Francis A. Boyle, a professor of international law at the University of > Illinois. "The obliteration of Fallujah continues apace," Boyle wrote in > his Nov. 15 article, A War Crime in Real Time: Obliterating Fallujah. > "Article 6(b) of the 1945 Nuremberg Charter defines a Nuremberg War Crime > in relevant part as the 'wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages.' > According to this definitive definition, the Bush administration's > destruction of Fallujah constitutes a war crime for which Nazis were tried > and executed." > > > > > > > > Finis > > > > -30- > > > > 1629 words > > > > Do you Yahoo!? > > The all-new My Yahoo! – What will yours do? > > > > > > > > > > > > Francis A. Boyle > > > > Law Building > > > > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > > > > Champaign IL 61820 USA > > > > 217-333-7954 (phone) > > > > 217-244-1478 (fax) > > > > (personal comments only) > > > > > > > > From: Boyle, Francis A > > Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2017 8:13 PM > > To: 'Roger Helbig' > > Cc: 'Karen Aram' ; Estabrook, Carl G < > galliher at illinois.edu>; 'peace-discuss at anti-war.net' < > peace-discuss at anti-war.net>; 'C. G. ESTABROOK' ; > 'Jay Becker' ; 'a-fields at uiuc.edu' < > a-fields at uiuc.edu>; Hoffman, Valerie J ; 'Joe > Lauria' ; Miller, Joseph Thomas < > jtmiller at illinois.edu>; Szoke, Ron ; 'Dave Trippel' > ; 'Arlene Hickory' ; 'David > Swanson' ; 'peace-discuss-request at lists. > chambana.net' ; ' > sherwoodross10 at gmail.com' ; 'abass10 at gmail.com' > ; 'mickalideh at gmail.com' ; 'Lina > Thorne' ; 'chicago at worldcantwait.net' < > chicago at worldcantwait.net> > > Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG > > > > > > > > Mattis expected his troops to be peacekeepers. They brought soccer > balls with them when they deployed. > > > > LOL! Marines don’t play soccer or teach kids to play soccer.. My Dad was > a Marine. He invaded Saipan, Tinian and Okinawa before he became a Lawyer. > Marines destroy anyone and anything that is in front of them as they are > trained to do and did at Fallujah under Mattis—A Real Mad Dog War Criminal. > Fab. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Francis A. Boyle > > > > Law Building > > > > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > > > > Champaign IL 61820 USA > > > > 217-333-7954 (phone) > > > > 217-244-1478 (fax) > > > > (personal comments only) > > > > > > > > From: Boyle, Francis A > > Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2017 7:52 PM > > To: 'Roger Helbig' > > Cc: Karen Aram ; Estabrook, Carl G < > galliher at illinois.edu>; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK < > carl at newsfromneptune.com>; Jay Becker ; > a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria > ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; > Szoke, Ron ; Dave Trippel ; > Arlene Hickory ; David Swanson ; > peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; > abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne < > lina at worldcantwait.net>; chicago at worldcantwait.net > > Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Karim A G [mailto:coffee at euro-comm.co.uk] > > Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2004 5:00 PM > > To: Karim A G > > Subject: A War Crime in Real Time > > > > http://www.counterpunch.org/boyle11152004.html > > > > > > > > November 15, 2004 > > > > A War Crime in Real Time > > > > Obliterating Fallujah > > > > By FRANCIS A. BOYLE > > > > The obliteration of Fallujah continues apace. Article 6(b) of the 1945 > Nuremberg Charter defines a Nuremberg War Crime in relevant part as the ". > . . wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages. . ." According to this > definitive definition, the Bush Jr. administration's destruction of > Fallujah constitutes a war crime for which Nazis were tried and executed. > There is nothing surprising about that. > > > > Since the Bush Jr. administration's installation in power by the United > States Supreme Court in January of 2001, the peoples of the world have > witnessed a government in the United States of America that has > demonstrated little if any respect for fundamental considerations of > international law, international organizations, and human rights, let alone > appreciation of the requirements for maintaining international peace and > security. What the world has watched instead is a comprehensive and > malicious assault upon the integrity of the international legal order by a > group of men and women who are thoroughly Machiavellian in their perception > of international relations and in their conduct of both foreign policy and > domestic affairs. This is not simply a question of giving or withholding > the benefit of the doubt when it comes to complicated matters of foreign > affairs and defense policies to a U.S. government charged with the security > of both its own citizens and those of its allies in Europe, the Western > Hemisphere, and the Pacific. Rather, the Bush Jr. administration's foreign > policy constitutes ongoing criminal activity under well-recognized > principles of both international law and U.S. domestic law, in particular > the Nuremberg Charter, the Nuremberg Judgment, and the Nuremberg > Principles. So their obliteration of Fallujah was to be expected. > > > > One generation ago the peoples of the world asked themselves: Where were > the "good" Germans? Well, there were some good Germans. The Lutheran > theologian and pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer was the foremost exemplar of > someone who led a life of principled opposition to the Nazi-terror state > even unto death. > > > > Today the peoples of the world are likewise asking themselves: Where are > the "good" Americans? Well, there are some good Americans. Like three > Catholic Nuns in Denver, they are getting arrested and going to jail for > protesting against United States weapons of mass destruction (WMD) whose > power for human extermination far exceeds even the wildest fantasies of > Hitler and the Nazis. Or else for protesting against illegal U.S.. military > interventions around the world. Just recently the Nuclear Resister > estimated that since the Fall of 2002, there have been more than 9,500 > anti-war related arrests in the United States alone. Many more will be > coming. > > > > In international legal terms, the Bush Jr. administration itself should > now be viewed as constituting an ongoing criminal conspiracy under > international criminal law in violation of the Nuremberg Charter, the > Nuremberg Judgment, and the Nuremberg Principles, due to its formulation > and undertaking of aggressive war policies that are legally akin to those > perpetrated by the Nazi regime. As a consequence, American citizens possess > the basic right under international law and the United States domestic law, > including the U.S. Constitution, to engage in acts of non-violent civil > resistance in order to prevent, impede, thwart, or terminate ongoing > criminal activities perpetrated by U.S. government officials in their > conduct of foreign affairs policies and military operations purported to > relate to defense and counter-terrorism. > > > > This same right of civil resistance extends pari passu to all citizens > of the world community of states. Everyone around the world has both the > right and the duty under international law to resist ongoing criminal > activities perpetrated by the Bush Jr. administration and its nefarious > foreign accomplices such as Blair, Berlusconi, Howard, Koizumi, > Kwasniewski, etc. by all non-violent means possible. If it is not so > restrained, the Bush Jr. administration could very well precipitate a Third > World War. > > > > The time for preventive action is now. Civil resistance is the way to > go. People power can overcome power politics. Popular movements have > succeeded in toppling tyrannical, dictatorial and authoritarian regimes > throughout former Communist countries in Eastern Europe, as well as in > Asia, and most recently in Latin America. It is time once again to exercise > People Power here in the United States of America: "When in the Course of > human Events. . . We hold these Truths to be self-evident. . . . we > mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and sacred Honor." > > > > Despite the best efforts by the Bush Jr. Leaguers to the contrary, we > American Citizens still have our First Amendment Rights: Freedom of Speech, > Freedom of Association, Freedom of Assembly, Freedom to Petition our > Government for the Redress of these massive Grievances, Civil Resistance, > etc. We are going to have to start vigorously exercising all of our First > Amendment Rights right now. We must use them or else, as the saying goes, > we will lose them. We must act not only for the good of the Peoples of > Southwest Asia, but for our future, that of our children, that of our > nation as a democratic society committed to the Rule of Law and the U.S. > Constitution. The Nazis had their "homeland" too > > > > Francis A. Boyle, Professor of Law, University of Illinois, is author of > Foundations of World Order, Duke University Press, The Criminality of > Nuclear Deterrence, and Palestine, Palestinians and International Law, by > Clarity Press. He can be reached at: FBOYLE at LAW.UIUC.EDU > > > > --- > > Subscribed as: fboyle at law.uiuc.edu; to unsubscribe send to > al-awda-universalist-request at umich.edu > > with UNSUBSCRIBE as the SUBJECT. > > URL: awda-universalist > > > > > > > > Francis A. Boyle > > > > Law Building > > > > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > > > > Champaign IL 61820 USA > > > > 217-333-7954 (phone) > > > > 217-244-1478 (fax) > > > > (personal comments only) > > > > > > > > From: Roger Helbig [mailto:rwhelbig at gmail.com] > > Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2017 6:43 PM > > To: Boyle, Francis A > > Cc: Karen Aram ; Estabrook, Carl G < > galliher at illinois.edu>; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK < > carl at newsfromneptune.com>; Jay Becker ; > a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria > ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; > Szoke, Ron ; Dave Trippel ; > Arlene Hickory ; David Swanson ; > peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; > abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne < > lina at worldcantwait.net>; chicago at worldcantwait.net > > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG > > > > > > > > There was no massacre at Fallujah. This is nonsense. Mattis expected > his troops to be peacekeepers. They brought soccer balls with them when > they deployed. > > > > > > > > I would love to see your "so called" war crime indictment. Wonder how > much of it is from your fertile Hate America imagination and how much from > the fertile Arab anti-American propaganda organs. Doubt a single paragraph > is actually based on fact. > > > > > > > > On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 8:22 AM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > > > > Trump’s Secretary of War Mad Dog Mattis was responsible for the > Massacre at Fallujah, which I pointed out on Counterpunch was a Nuremberg > War Crime along the lines of the Nazis—the wanton devastation of a city-- > in revenge for them killing our mercenaries. Fab. > > > > > > > > Francis A. Boyle > > > > Law Building > > > > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > > > > Champaign IL 61820 USA > > > > 217-333-7954 (phone) > > > > 217-244-1478 (fax) > > > > (personal comments only) > > > > > > > > From: Karen Aram [mailto:karenaram at hotmail.com] > > Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2017 10:04 AM > > To: Estabrook, Carl G > > Cc: Boyle, Francis A ; Jay Becker < > futureup2us at gmail.com>; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK < > carl at newsfromneptune.com>; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J < > vhoffman at illinois.edu>; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; > Szoke, Ron ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; Arlene > Hickory ; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; > David Swanson ; Dave Trippel < > davetrippel at ameritech.net>; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina > Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Mildred > O'brien ; David Johnson ; > Joe Lauria ; David Green > > Subject: Re: Guest Commentary by Carl in NG > > > > > > > > I’m sorry Carl, I don’t agree with that title either. It assumes that > all in the anti-war movement welcome the Trump administration. Not all of > us trust he will do some of that which he promised in respect to “defunding > Nato,” “making friends with Russia,” or killing TPP. Even if he does those > three things, his further provocations of China, are every bit as dangerous > as those with Russia, it’s a mere tactic to drive a wedge between Russia > and China, while chipping away at Iran. > > > > > > > > His Cabinet appointments are frightening to say the least in respect to > Healthcare, Energy, Education, Housing, etc, etc. > > > > > > > > Further expansion of war in the Middle East, and North Africa, as well > as expansion of capitalist corporate control is on the agenda no matter > which of the two Party’s are in power. > > > > > > > > Obama paved the way, for all of which I have just referred, but it’s not > over. Our only hope is that “the people” are now awake, and perhaps will > focus on that which is most serious to survival. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jan 22, 2017, at 07:44, Carl G. Estabrook > wrote: > > > > > > > > My original title was, “Why the anti-war movement welcomes the new > administration.” > > > > > > > > For more on that theme, see columnists/201701191049765550-how-trump-presidency-will-play-out/>. > > > > > > > > —CGE > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jan 22, 2017, at 9:29 AM, Karen Aram wrote: > > > > > > > > An excellent letter, which I posted on FB. I deliberately deleted the > title that I assumed the NG created, because it gives the false impression > that those of us in the anti-war movement, all support Trump. We don’t, we > just didn’t support Hillary. Anyone in the anti-war movement supporting > Hillary was supporting more of the same that Obama provided. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jan 22, 2017, at 07:16, Boyle, Francis A wrote: > > > > > > > > He {Obama} attacked eight countries (two more than George Bush), and > conducted what one leading political commentator called "the most extreme > terrorist campaign of modern times — his drone assassinations." He killed > thousands of civilians with drones, including U.S. citizens and hundreds of > children. > > > > A good letter by Carl today in NG. (Remember NG writes their own titles > to letters.) We must now hold Trump’s feet to the fire across the board! I > think Carl’s quote comes from Chomsky? In any event the Illinois Nazis Law > Faculty fully supported and promoted and held out for emulation by lawyers > and this Campus and our Good Community: > > > > "the most extreme terrorist campaign of modern times — his drone > assassinations." > > > > > > > > The Illinois Nazis Law Faculty are just a GANG OF SICK PUPPIES! > > > > Fab > > > > Ed Norton Professor of Law > > > > Carl Schmitt College of Law: > > > > “Mein Fuhrer, I can walk!” > > > > > > > > > > > > Francis A. Boyle > > > > Law Building > > > > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > > > > Champaign IL 61820 USA > > > > 217-333-7954 (phone) > > > > 217-244-1478 (fax) > > > > (personal comments only) > > > > > > > > Feed: News-Gazette.com > > Posted on: Sunday, January 22, 2017 7:00 AM > > Author: digital.media > > Subject: Guest Commentary: Why anti-war movement welcomes Trump > > > > > > > > By C.G. ESTABROOK > > > > The European anti-war group "No War No NATO" writes as follows: > > > > "Demonstrating in Europe on 21 January, against the newly elected US > President Donald Trump is tantamount to lending support to the Obama > administration, which has transformed Europe into NATO's first line of > attack, nuclear matters inclusive, against Russia. > > > > read more > > > > > > View article... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Peace-discuss mailing list > > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > > > > > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Sat Nov 4 14:26:23 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2017 14:26:23 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG In-Reply-To: References: <9D3D5E59-5EFC-47DF-838D-C6508214E176@illinois.edu> Message-ID: Roger:“I wanted to be”—Military Intelligence. A Typical Nixonian Limited Hang-out. -------------------- Yes Roger I am sure in your capacity as a Military Intelligence Mole you have corresponded with all sorts of MI Colleagues. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Roger Helbig [mailto:rwhelbig at gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2017 9:24 AM To: Boyle, Francis A ; Peace-discuss Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG Oh wow, a Counter Punch article - they don't fact check anything and really are more propaganda than news - Fallujah was not obliterated - but the liars and their buddies like FAB want people to think so - I have probably read more about the two Battles of Fallujah and corresponded with people who were there than FAB ever has - On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 7:08 AM, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: http://www.counterpunch.org/boyle11152004.html November 15, 2004 A War Crime in Real Time Obliterating Fallujah By FRANCIS A. BOYLE The obliteration of Fallujah continues apace. Article 6(b) of the 1945 Nuremberg Charter defines a Nuremberg War Crime in relevant part as the ". . . wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages. . ." According to this definitive definition, the Bush Jr. administration's destruction of Fallujah constitutes a war crime for which Nazis were tried and executed. There is nothing surprising about that. Since the Bush Jr. administration's installation in power by the United States Supreme Court in January of 2001, the peoples of the world have witnessed a government in the United States of America that has demonstrated little if any respect for fundamental considerations of international law, international organizations, and human rights, let alone appreciation of the requirements for maintaining international peace and security. What the world has watched instead is a comprehensive and malicious assault upon the integrity of the international legal order by a group of men and women who are thoroughly Machiavellian in their perception of international relations and in their conduct of both foreign policy and domestic affairs. This is not simply a question of giving or withholding the benefit of the doubt when it comes to complicated matters of foreign affairs and defense policies to a U.S. government charged with the security of both its own citizens and those of its allies in Europe, the Western Hemisphere, and the Pacific. Rather, the Bush Jr. administration's foreign policy constitutes ongoing criminal activity under well-recognized principles of both international law and U.S. domestic law, in particular the Nuremberg Charter, the Nuremberg Judgment, and the Nuremberg Principles. So their obliteration of Fallujah was to be expected. One generation ago the peoples of the world asked themselves: Where were the "good" Germans? Well, there were some good Germans. The Lutheran theologian and pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer was the foremost exemplar of someone who led a life of principled opposition to the Nazi-terror state even unto death. Today the peoples of the world are likewise asking themselves: Where are the "good" Americans? Well, there are some good Americans. Like three Catholic Nuns in Denver, they are getting arrested and going to jail for protesting against United States weapons of mass destruction (WMD) whose power for human extermination far exceeds even the wildest fantasies of Hitler and the Nazis. Or else for protesting against illegal U.S.. military interventions around the world. Just recently the Nuclear Resister estimated that since the Fall of 2002, there have been more than 9,500 anti-war related arrests in the United States alone. Many more will be coming. In international legal terms, the Bush Jr. administration itself should now be viewed as constituting an ongoing criminal conspiracy under international criminal law in violation of the Nuremberg Charter, the Nuremberg Judgment, and the Nuremberg Principles, due to its formulation and undertaking of aggressive war policies that are legally akin to those perpetrated by the Nazi regime. As a consequence, American citizens possess the basic right under international law and the United States domestic law, including the U.S. Constitution, to engage in acts of non-violent civil resistance in order to prevent, impede, thwart, or terminate ongoing criminal activities perpetrated by U.S. government officials in their conduct of foreign affairs policies and military operations purported to relate to defense and counter-terrorism. This same right of civil resistance extends pari passu to all citizens of the world community of states. Everyone around the world has both the right and the duty under international law to resist ongoing criminal activities perpetrated by the Bush Jr. administration and its nefarious foreign accomplices such as Blair, Berlusconi, Howard, Koizumi, Kwasniewski, etc. by all non-violent means possible. If it is not so restrained, the Bush Jr. administration could very well precipitate a Third World War. The time for preventive action is now. Civil resistance is the way to go. People power can overcome power politics. Popular movements have succeeded in toppling tyrannical, dictatorial and authoritarian regimes throughout former Communist countries in Eastern Europe, as well as in Asia, and most recently in Latin America. It is time once again to exercise People Power here in the United States of America: "When in the Course of human Events. . . We hold these Truths to be self-evident. . . . we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and sacred Honor." Despite the best efforts by the Bush Jr. Leaguers to the contrary, we American Citizens still have our First Amendment Rights: Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Association, Freedom of Assembly, Freedom to Petition our Government for the Redress of these massive Grievances, Civil Resistance, etc. We are going to have to start vigorously exercising all of our First Amendment Rights right now. We must use them or else, as the saying goes, we will lose them. We must act not only for the good of the Peoples of Southwest Asia, but for our future, that of our children, that of our nation as a democratic society committed to the Rule of Law and the U.S. Constitution. The Nazis had their "homeland" too Francis A. Boyle, Professor of Law, University of Illinois, is author of Foundations of World Order, Duke University Press, The Criminality of Nuclear Deterrence, and Palestine, Palestinians and International Law, by Clarity Press. He can be reached at: FBOYLE at LAW.UIUC.EDU Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -----Original Message----- From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2017 8:57 AM To: C G Estabrook >; Roger Helbig > Cc: Karen Aram >; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Jay Becker >; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; Szoke, Ron >; Dave Trippel >; Arlene Hickory >; David Swanson >; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG In other words, approximately 3.3 million Iraqis were exterminated by the United States and the United Kingdom from August of 1990 until the end of 2011 when President Obama had ordered the purported “final” withdrawal of U.S. military forces from Iraq. And these are very conservative figures that I believe could be proven to the satisfaction of the International Court of Justice. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -----Original Message----- From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2017 8:55 AM To: C G Estabrook >; Roger Helbig > Cc: Karen Aram >; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Jay Becker >; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; Szoke, Ron >; Dave Trippel >; Arlene Hickory >; David Swanson >; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG Of course the Illinois Nazi Faculty of Law and its Yale Mafia Law Dean Iceman Amar are more than happy to exterminate Muslims/Arabs/Asians of Color. Fab. Legal Protection Of Children In Armed Conflict: The Iraqi Children Genocide By Francis A. Boyle 04 December, 2012 Countercurrents.org This is the text version of a speech delivered by Francis A. Boyle at The International Conference on War-affected Children Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, November 22, 2012 During the summer of 1991 I was contacted on behalf of several Mothers in Iraq whose children were dying at astounding rates because of the genocidal economic sanctions that had been imposed upon them by the Security Council in August of 1990 at the behest of the Bush Senior administration. They requested that I do something in order to save these innocent children from perishing in agony in front of their mothers’ very own eyes. Using the format of the Writ for World Habeas Corpus that had been previously provided to me by my friend and colleague, the late Luis Kutner, Esq. of Chicago, Illinois, I filed a class-action Complaint on behalf of the 4.5 million children of Iraq against President George Bush Senior and the United States of America with the United Nations Organization that was dated 18 September 1991.[1] I submitted the Complaint to the Secretary General of the U.N., member states of the General Assembly, the Economic and Social Council, the Commission on Human Rights, the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, UNESCO, and UNICEF. A copy of my Indictment, Complaint and Petition for Relief from Genocide on behalf of the 4.5 million children of Iraq is reprinted below. This Complaint accused the United States and President Bush Senior (1) of committing the international crime of genocide against the 4.5 Million Children of Iraq in violation of the International Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide of 1948 and in violation of the municipal legal systems of all civilized nations in the world; (2) of a gross and consistent pattern of violations of the most fundamental human rights of the 4.5 Million Children of Iraq as recognized and guaranteed to them by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948; (3) of the complete negation and denial of all the rights guaranteed to the 4.5 Million Children of Iraq by the 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child; and (4) of the systematic violation of the special protections of international humanitarian law guaranteed to the 4.5 Million Children of Iraq by the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 and Additional Protocol I thereto of 1977. My Complaint demanded (1) the termination of all forms of multilateral and bilateral economic sanctions against Iraq; (2) the massive provision of international humanitarian relief supplies to Iraq by all organs of the United Nations System; (3) that monetary compensation be paid to the children of Iraq and their families for deaths as well as for all physical and mental injury by the United States; and (4) that criminal proceedings for genocide be instituted against President George Bush Senior by the appropriate organs of the United Nations System as well as by all municipal legal systems in the world, including by the United States government. My Complaint estimated that since sanctions were first imposed against Iraq in August of 1990, Iraqi children were dying as a direct result thereof at the rate of about 500 per day. Despite my best professional efforts working on behalf of my Clients pro bono publico, the grossly hypocritical United Nations Organization adamantly refused to act to terminate these genocidal sanctions and thus to save the dying children of Iraq. In 1995 the United Nations’ own Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) Report estimated that these genocidal economic sanctions against Iraq had by then killed about 560,000 Iraqi children since when they were first imposed in 1990.[2] In specific regard to these murdered Iraqi children, then U.S. Secretary of State Madeline Albright, was interviewed on the CBS Television Network on 12 May 1996 by correspondent Leslie Stahl. The transcript of this interview provided by CBS News itself reads as follows:[3] Stahl: (Voiceover) If the Iraqi people place any blame on Saddam Hussein, they’re afraid to say so. And there is no longer much hope that the sanctions will inspire the people to rise up and topple the government. Now people are just trying to get by because one of the side effects of the sanctions has been inflation, which has jumped as high as 3,000 percent. To make ends meet, Iraqis are selling everything they can. Flea markets have sprung up on the streets, where families can sell their furniture, clothes, anything they can to make a few extra dinars. Most Iraqis are suffering We have heard that a half a million children have died. I mean, that’s more children than died when-wh-in-in Hiroshima. And-and, you know, is the price worth it? Ambassador Albright: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price – we think the price is worth it. This shocking and revolting statement made by the U.S. Secretary of State provided proof positive of the genocidal intent by the United States Government against Iraq and its children and its people as defined by and in violation of Genocide Convention Article II: “In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group, as such. . . .” Certainly a half-million dead Iraqi children that the U.S. Secretary of State specifically intended to destroy as such, and did indeed destroy as such, constituted a very important “part” of the Iraqi people. These half-million dead children were the very future of the people and state of Iraq. This Albright statement is what criminal lawyers call a classic “Admission Against Interest.” This Statement by the then sitting U.S. Secretary of State, acting within the scope of her official duties and speaking in the name of the United States government, could be taken to the International Court of Justice in The Hague and filed to prove that the United States of America possessed the required mens rea (criminal intent) necessary to commit the international crime of genocide. Under both international law and U.S. domestic law, to be guilty of a crime a person or a state must possess the requisite mens rea at the same time that he or she or it commits the criminal act (actus reus). With respect to these genocidal economic sanctions against Iraq, the actus reus for the U.S. government and its officials committing the international crime of genocide is set forth in Genocide Convention Article II (c): “Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.” The 500,000 dead Iraqi children, as conceded and approved by U.S. Secretary of State Albright, constituted a “substantial part” of the people of Iraq, which is the threshold numerical test for genocide recognized by the International Court of Justice itself that I had successfully argued there for Bosnia and Herzegovina against Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) in 1993. Albright incriminated both herself and the United States of America at the same time, apparently without thought or concern as to any future international legal determination of their culpability. Such is the arrogance of the powerful—which is usually the source of their downfall. The United States and the United Kingdom obstinately insisted that the genocidal economic sanctions imposed against Iraq remain in place until after the conclusion of the internationally illegal Gulf War II of aggression perpetrated by the Bush Junior administration and the Tony Blair government against Iraq in March of 2003. Then, on 22 May 2003 the United States and the United Kingdom procured U.N. Security Council Resolution 1483 lifting these genocidal economic sanctions; yet not with a view to easing the over decade-long suffering of the Iraqi people and children. But rather so as to better facilitate the U.S./U.K. unsupervised looting and plundering of the Iraqi economy and oil fields in violation of the international laws of war as well as to the grave detriment of the Iraqi people and their children. Once I had gotten this class-action Complaint filed with the United Nations Organization and had worked out the basic legal theory for U.S. genocide against the children of Iraq, starting in the Fall of 1991 I did everything humanly possible to convince the then President of Iraq to give me the legal authority to sue the United States and the United Kingdom at the International Court of Justice in The Hague on the basis of the 1948 Genocide Convention: First, in order to break the genocidal economic embargo against the people of Iraq, and especially their children. And second, in order to prevent what I perceived to be further impending military attacks by the United States and Britain upon Iraq that would culminate someday in stealing all their oil. I most strenuously pursued these efforts systematically and continuously until the very eve of the war of aggression against Iraq by the Bush Junior administration and the Tony Blair government in mid-March of 2003. These efforts also included two meetings with the then Foreign Minister of Iraq and their top international lawyer to review, consider, and discuss papers I had drafted to be filed by Iraq in the World Court against the United States and the United Kingdom in order to accomplish these objectives.[4] In addition, at the very last minute available I also attempted to convince the Deputy Prime Minister of Iraq to give me the legal authority to file these World Court lawsuits against the U.S. and the U.K. literally right up until the outbreak of hostilities in mid-March of 2003. All to no avail. Despite my best efforts, I failed. This shall always be one of the great disappointments of my life. Approximately 1.7 million Iraqis died as a direct result of these genocidal economic sanctions, including within that number about 750,000 Iraqi children. In addition, another 1.4 million Iraqis died as a result of the Bush Junior/Tony Blair genocidal war of aggression against Iraq. To this appalling genocidal death toll must be added the 200,000 Iraqis President Bush Senior slaughtered in his 1991 Gulf War I. In other words, approximately 3.3 million Iraqis were exterminated by the United States and the United Kingdom from August of 1990 until the end of 2011 when President Obama had ordered the purported “final” withdrawal of U.S. military forces from Iraq. And these are very conservative figures that I believe could be proven to the satisfaction of the International Court of Justice. These World Court papers that I drew up for Iraq to sue the United States and the United Kingdom at the International Court of Justice on the basis of the 1948 Genocide Convention that were twice considered and reviewed by the Foreign Minister of Iraq and their top international lawyer still sit in my office today. They could be revised and updated by the current government of Iraq in order to sue the United States and the United Kingdom at the International Court of Justice for genocide today. Of course this is for the current government of Iraq to decide. Towards facilitating that objective, I will be more than happy to make these World Court papers available to the current government of Iraq free of charge if they so desire. For Iraq to file my proposed World Court lawsuits for genocide against the United States and the United Kingdom would produce some small degree of justice for the 750,000 murdered children of Iraq and at least 3.3 million exterminated Iraqis. Thank you. [1] See Edward Pearce, Death and Indecency in a Time of Cholera, The Guardian, Oct. 25, 1991. [2] See Ramsey Clark, FAO Report, and Others, The Children Are Dying (World View Forum, Inc.: 1996). [3] See 5/12/96 60 Minutes, 1996 Westlaw 8064912. [4] Iraq to Go to World Court, South News, Jan. 28, 1998: “U.S. Professor of International Law Francis Boyle has publicly offered to charge U.S. leaders for genocide against the Iraqi people.” Professor Francis A. Boyle is an international law expert and served as Legal Advisor to the Palestine Liberation Organization and Yasser Arafat on the 1988 Palestinian Declaration of Independence, as well as to the Palestinian Delegation to the Middle East Peace Negotiations from 1991 to 1993, where he drafted the Palestinian counter-offer to the now defunct Oslo Agreement. His books include “ Palestine, Palestinians and International Law” (2003), and “ The Palestinian Right of Return under International Law” (2010). © Copyright 2012 by Francis A. Boyle. All rights reserved. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -----Original Message----- From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2017 8:42 AM To: Roger Helbig > Cc: Boyle, Francis A >; Karen Aram >; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Jay Becker >; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; Szoke, Ron >; Dave Trippel >; Arlene Hickory >; David Swanson >; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG Of course the US committed war crimes in Iraq. The US invasion of that country is the greatest international crime of the century - so far. On ‘American Free Press,’ see . > On Nov 4, 2017, at 8:11 AM, Roger Helbig > wrote: > > You do know that Christopher Bollyn is NOT a reporter but is a Neo Nazi operative of long standing and that the American Free Press is not a news organization, but a Neo Nazi front - look up Willis Carto - he was Bollyn's boss and founded the American Free Press - this website that has reports of conference for American Free Press and The Barnes Review used to have a prominent picture of a Nazi flag behind the blogger Alex Hassinger - Douglas Lind Rokke of Urbana spoke at this event and Dave von Kleist the producer of Rokke's first anti-US propaganda video "Beyond Treason" was the master of ceremonies - http://www.chairmanofnordwave.blogspot.com > > Carto died in 2015 - there are a number of good sources on Carto in a simple Google search - > > Learn about Neo Nazis - read this book - "Blood and Politics" - it mentions Bollyn and extensively discusses Carto - pg 382, which I can e-mail to all who request - has Carto's establishment of The Barnes Review, a Holocaust Denial publication - The American Free Press replaced Carto's The Spotlight after Carto lost a legal battle - Bollyn is also mentioned in connection with a Pat Buchanan campaign apparatus > > On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 4:57 AM, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: > I also want to make it clear for the record that before the invasions of Saipan, Tinian and Okinawa my Father, a Marine, was ordered by his Captain not to take prisoners of war on the grounds of reciprocity that the Japanese did not take Prisoners of War of our Men. My Father disobeyed these clearly illegal orders and took Japanese Prisoners of War. I cite the example of my Father to my law students to refute the objection that you cannot expect soldiers to obey the laws of war during combat. If my Father could obey the laws of war at Saipan, Tinian, and Okinawa, any other soldier should be able to do the same. Meanwhile,while I am teaching this to my students, the Illinois Nazis Law Faculty aid, abet, and promote and facilitate war crimes and crimes against humanity from the safety of their offices. My Father later became a Lawyer. RIP. The Illinois Nazis Law Faculty are despicable! Fab. > > > > Francis A. Boyle > > Law Building > > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > > Champaign IL 61820 USA > > 217-333-7954 (phone) > > 217-244-1478 (fax) > > (personal comments only) > > > > From: Boyle, Francis A > Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2017 8:38 PM > To: Roger Helbig > > Cc: Karen Aram >; Estabrook, Carl G >; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Jay Becker >; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; Szoke, Ron >; Dave Trippel >; Arlene Hickory >; David Swanson >; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net > Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG > > > > Mad Dog Mattis the Nuremberg War Criminal. Fab. > > CONTROLLED PRESS IGNORES > > CRIMINAL OBLITERATION OF FALLUJAH > > > > By Christopher Bollyn > > American Free Press > > > > The controlled press has scrupulously avoided discussing the devastation and prima facie evidence of war crimes committed during the U.S. siege and assault of Fallujah. > > > > As Americans prepared for Thanksgiving, an estimated 100,000 residents of the besieged Iraqi city of Fallujah, trapped in their homes, struggled to survive without fresh food, water or electricity, reportedly cut off by U.S. forces on November 8. > > > > Meanwhile, on the streets of Fallujah, a city of more than 350,000, dogs gnawed on bloated and rotting corpses that remained unburied for weeks. > > > > Thousands of families in Fallujah were reported to be in a critical humanitarian situation after U.S. forces prevented the delivery of relief supplies. An Iraq Red Crescent Society (IRCS) humanitarian aid convoy, reportedly blocked by U.S. troops for more than two weeks, was allowed to deliver aid to residents in the heart of the city on November 25. > > > > On Thanksgiving, U.S. forces permitted the IRCS convoy carrying thousands of food parcels, blankets, tents and medical supplies to enter the city and allowed one of the clinics to be converted into a temporary hospital to treat the injured. Rana Sidani of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) in Geneva, Switzerland however, told American Free Press on Nov. 30 that "many civilians" were still prevented from receiving aid or medical care. > > > > At the beginning of the U.S. operation in Fallujah on Nov. 5, a hospital in the central Nazzal district of Fallujah was "reduced to rubble" as a result of U.S. air and artillery bombardment. "Only its façade, with a sign reading Nazzal Emergency Hospital, remained intact," Reuters reported. > > > > "A nearby compound used by the main Falluja Hospital to store medical supplies was also destroyed," witnesses told Reuters. Fallujah's main hospital was occupied by U.S. forces when the ground offensive began. These actions are apparent violations of international humanitarian law. > > > > "Bodies can be seen everywhere and people were crying when receiving the food parcels," Muhammad al-Nuri, a spokesman for the IRCS in Baghdad, said. "It is very sad. It is a human disaster." > > > > Al-Nuri said that it is difficult to move in the city due to the large number of dead bodies in the streets. The ICRS estimates there are more than 6,000 dead in Fallujah, al-Nuri said. > > > > AFP asked Major Jay Antonelli at the Coalition Press Information Center (CPIC) in Baghdad if the ICRS estimate of 6,000 dead in Fallujah was credible. "We do not keep a count of dead Iraqis," Antonelli said. Asked the same question, the ICRC's Sidani said, "We don't know." > > > > Antonelli said, "U.S. forces never blocked aid convoys from reaching the wounded. We only recommended to the aid convoys that they should not enter the city because the MNF [Multi-National Forces] could not guarantee their security or safety." > > > > "The ICRC is very worried about the humanitarian situation in Falluja," Sidani said. Asked what the ICRC was doing to alleviate the suffering in Fallujah, Sidani said: "We are reminding the parties of their responsibilities under international humanitarian law." > > > > It should be noted that the U.S.A. and Britain, the belligerent occupying powers in Iraq, are the two largest contributors to the ICRC, providing more than 42 percent of its budget for field operations. > > > > A second convoy from Baghdad, headed by Dr. Said Ismael Haki, the IRCS president, delivered aid to Fallujah on Nov. 26. "There are no houses left in Fallujah, only destroyed places." Haki said. "I really don't know how the people will return to the city. No one will find their homes." > > > > As U.S. troops in Fallujah engaged in what has been described as the most intense urban combat since Vietnam, the controlled press scrupulously avoided discussion or footage of the devastation of the rebellious Sunni city. For example, during the second week of the attack, rather than discuss the widespread devastation of Fallujah, U.S. television news programs focused largely on a brawl between basketball players and fans in Detroit. > > > > Lt. Col. Brandl, commander of the 1st Battalion, 8th Marine Regiment, was filmed giving a "pep talk" to his marines: "The enemy has got a face – he's called Satan," Brandl said. "He's in Fallujah, and we're going to destroy him." > > > > At least 136 U.S. soldiers were killed during November in Iraq, and more than 800 were wounded, most of them in Fallujah, making it the most costly month, and operation, in terms of U.S. lives lost since the invasion of Iraq began in March 2003. > > > > FOR WHAT CAUSE? > > > > Michael Ware, Baghdad bureau chief for Time magazine, who has been in Fallujah during the fighting, said U.S. actions in Fallujah are "creating the nightmare that we are seeking to prevent." > > > > "I stood there as I saw American boys die," Ware told Chris Matthews of MSNBC on Nov. 24, "I mean, a man shot at close range, blown apart by a rocket propelled grenade. He dies there in front of you and I can't help but think why? For what cause? > > > > "I see us creating the very thing that the president said we went there to prevent," Ware said, "…subsequent to this invasion and the occupation and the guerrilla war that is currently underway, we are the midwives of the next generation of al Qaida and Islamic terrorist." > > > > Ware, who has interviewed senior insurgent leaders, said they study the writings of the Vietnamese general Vo Nguyen Giap, Che Guevara, and Mao Zedong. "They're bringing it straight from the Vietnam, and the broader insurgency playbook," Ware said. > > > > "The name of the game is deny the population to the insurgents," Ware said. "That's what we're trying to do, win hearts and minds. But we're not winning them." > > > > The U.S. struggle to win Iraqi hearts and minds suffered a further set back when NBC TV broadcast footage of a U.S. marine executing a wounded and unarmed Iraqi in a Fallujah mosque. The much-publicized shooting, apparently part of a massacre of a group of wounded resistance fighters, "was a rare crack in the façade that Washington, with the complicity of most of the corporate media, has tried to present to the world of its brutal assault on the rebel Iraqi city," Rohan Pearce wrote in The Greenleft Weekly Australia on Nov. 24. > > > > The New York Times has reported actions taken by U.S. forces in Fallujah, which appear to be prima facie evidence of war crimes, without mentioning that the actions constitute clear violations of the Laws of Land War found in the U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10. > > > > For example, a Nov. 20 Times article by Edward Wong, with two correspondents in Fallujah, reports that U.S. marines had transformed a mosque into a fortress with snipers and machine gunners perched on the roof. > > > > Then, using the passive form, Wong goes on to say that "no neutral group has been able to enter the city," without mentioning that U.S. forces blocked humanitarian aid convoys. Likewise, Wong wrote, "Electricity and water had been cut off." > > > > The Times, whose motto is "All the news that's fit to print," apparently didn't think that it's readers needed to know the U.S. forces had cut off the water and power to a city of 340,000 people. > > > > Asked if U.S. forces had cut power and water to Fallujah, Maj. Jay Antonelli of CPIC wrote: "MNF did, with approval of the Interim Iraqi Government, cut off electricity to the city of Fallujah as Operation Al-Fajr began. Water was not cut off intentionally, however the water system did sustain some kinetic damage during strikes." > > > > American Free Press asked the Pentagon's Lt. Col. Joe Yoswa if it is true that U.S. forces were using mosques as fortresses. "It's not possible," Yoswa said. "Under no circumstances. We would not set up snipers in a mosque in an offensive position." > > > > CPIC's Antonelli said: "MNF would not use a mosque as a 'fortress.' MNF and Iraqi security forces would only fire from a mosque if they were being fired upon and were firing back in self-defense." > > > > Abu Sabah, a refugee from Fallujah, reported seeing phosphorus bombs: "They used these weird bombs that put up smoke like a mushroom cloud. Then small pieces fell from the air with long tails of smoke trailing behind them. These exploded on the ground with large fires that burnt for half and hour," Abu Sabah said. "When anyone touched these fires their bodies burnt for hours." > > > > Eyewitnesses from Fallujah also reported seeing "melted" bodies. > > > > "THROW-AWAY SOLDIERS" > > > > Having seen what appeared to be a depleted uranium (DU) missile fired at a building in Fallujah on CNN during the first week of the fighting, AFP asked the Pentagon if DU weapons are being used in Fallujah. "Yes," Yoswa said, "DU is a standard round on the M-1 Abrams tank." > > > > Because U.S. marines in Fallujah are very close to the poison gas produced by exploded DU shells, AFP asked Yoswa if anything was being done to protect the troops from DU poisoning. Yoswa seemed unaware of the dangers posed by the use of DU. > > > > Marion Fulk, a retired nuclear scientist from Livermore National Lab told AFP that U.S. troops in DU contaminated battlefields are considered "throw-away soldiers." The Marines exposed to DU in Fallujah, and elsewhere, face greatly increased risks of cancer, deformed children, and other health problems in the future. > > > > OBLITERATION OF FALLUJAH > > > > The "obliteration of Fallujah" is a serious war crime, according to Francis A. Boyle, a professor of international law at the University of Illinois. "The obliteration of Fallujah continues apace," Boyle wrote in his Nov. 15 article, A War Crime in Real Time: Obliterating Fallujah. "Article 6(b) of the 1945 Nuremberg Charter defines a Nuremberg War Crime in relevant part as the 'wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages.' According to this definitive definition, the Bush administration's destruction of Fallujah constitutes a war crime for which Nazis were tried and executed." > > > > Finis > > -30- > > 1629 words > > Do you Yahoo!? > The all-new My Yahoo! – What will yours do? > > > > > > Francis A. Boyle > > Law Building > > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > > Champaign IL 61820 USA > > 217-333-7954 (phone) > > 217-244-1478 (fax) > > (personal comments only) > > > > From: Boyle, Francis A > Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2017 8:13 PM > To: 'Roger Helbig' > > Cc: 'Karen Aram' >; Estabrook, Carl G >; 'peace-discuss at anti-war.net' >; 'C. G. ESTABROOK' >; 'Jay Becker' >; 'a-fields at uiuc.edu' >; Hoffman, Valerie J >; 'Joe Lauria' >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; Szoke, Ron >; 'Dave Trippel' >; 'Arlene Hickory' >; 'David Swanson' >; 'peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net' >; 'sherwoodross10 at gmail.com' >; 'abass10 at gmail.com' >; 'mickalideh at gmail.com' >; 'Lina Thorne' >; 'chicago at worldcantwait.net' > > Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG > > > > Mattis expected his troops to be peacekeepers. They brought soccer balls with them when they deployed. > > LOL! Marines don’t play soccer or teach kids to play soccer.. My Dad was a Marine. He invaded Saipan, Tinian and Okinawa before he became a Lawyer. Marines destroy anyone and anything that is in front of them as they are trained to do and did at Fallujah under Mattis—A Real Mad Dog War Criminal. Fab. > > > > > > > > Francis A. Boyle > > Law Building > > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > > Champaign IL 61820 USA > > 217-333-7954 (phone) > > 217-244-1478 (fax) > > (personal comments only) > > > > From: Boyle, Francis A > Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2017 7:52 PM > To: 'Roger Helbig' > > Cc: Karen Aram >; Estabrook, Carl G >; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Jay Becker >; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; Szoke, Ron >; Dave Trippel >; Arlene Hickory >; David Swanson >; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net > Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Karim A G [mailto:coffee at euro-comm.co.uk] > Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2004 5:00 PM > To: Karim A G > Subject: A War Crime in Real Time > > http://www.counterpunch.org/boyle11152004.html > > > > November 15, 2004 > > A War Crime in Real Time > > Obliterating Fallujah > > By FRANCIS A. BOYLE > > The obliteration of Fallujah continues apace. Article 6(b) of the 1945 Nuremberg Charter defines a Nuremberg War Crime in relevant part as the ". . . wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages. . ." According to this definitive definition, the Bush Jr. administration's destruction of Fallujah constitutes a war crime for which Nazis were tried and executed. There is nothing surprising about that. > > Since the Bush Jr. administration's installation in power by the United States Supreme Court in January of 2001, the peoples of the world have witnessed a government in the United States of America that has demonstrated little if any respect for fundamental considerations of international law, international organizations, and human rights, let alone appreciation of the requirements for maintaining international peace and security. What the world has watched instead is a comprehensive and malicious assault upon the integrity of the international legal order by a group of men and women who are thoroughly Machiavellian in their perception of international relations and in their conduct of both foreign policy and domestic affairs. This is not simply a question of giving or withholding the benefit of the doubt when it comes to complicated matters of foreign affairs and defense policies to a U.S. government charged with the security of both its own citizens and those of its allies in Europe, the Western Hemisphere, and the Pacific. Rather, the Bush Jr. administration's foreign policy constitutes ongoing criminal activity under well-recognized principles of both international law and U.S. domestic law, in particular the Nuremberg Charter, the Nuremberg Judgment, and the Nuremberg Principles. So their obliteration of Fallujah was to be expected. > > One generation ago the peoples of the world asked themselves: Where were the "good" Germans? Well, there were some good Germans. The Lutheran theologian and pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer was the foremost exemplar of someone who led a life of principled opposition to the Nazi-terror state even unto death. > > Today the peoples of the world are likewise asking themselves: Where are the "good" Americans? Well, there are some good Americans. Like three Catholic Nuns in Denver, they are getting arrested and going to jail for protesting against United States weapons of mass destruction (WMD) whose power for human extermination far exceeds even the wildest fantasies of Hitler and the Nazis. Or else for protesting against illegal U.S.. military interventions around the world. Just recently the Nuclear Resister estimated that since the Fall of 2002, there have been more than 9,500 anti-war related arrests in the United States alone. Many more will be coming. > > In international legal terms, the Bush Jr. administration itself should now be viewed as constituting an ongoing criminal conspiracy under international criminal law in violation of the Nuremberg Charter, the Nuremberg Judgment, and the Nuremberg Principles, due to its formulation and undertaking of aggressive war policies that are legally akin to those perpetrated by the Nazi regime. As a consequence, American citizens possess the basic right under international law and the United States domestic law, including the U.S. Constitution, to engage in acts of non-violent civil resistance in order to prevent, impede, thwart, or terminate ongoing criminal activities perpetrated by U.S. government officials in their conduct of foreign affairs policies and military operations purported to relate to defense and counter-terrorism. > > This same right of civil resistance extends pari passu to all citizens of the world community of states. Everyone around the world has both the right and the duty under international law to resist ongoing criminal activities perpetrated by the Bush Jr. administration and its nefarious foreign accomplices such as Blair, Berlusconi, Howard, Koizumi, Kwasniewski, etc. by all non-violent means possible. If it is not so restrained, the Bush Jr. administration could very well precipitate a Third World War. > > The time for preventive action is now. Civil resistance is the way to go. People power can overcome power politics. Popular movements have succeeded in toppling tyrannical, dictatorial and authoritarian regimes throughout former Communist countries in Eastern Europe, as well as in Asia, and most recently in Latin America. It is time once again to exercise People Power here in the United States of America: "When in the Course of human Events. . . We hold these Truths to be self-evident. . . . we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and sacred Honor." > > Despite the best efforts by the Bush Jr. Leaguers to the contrary, we American Citizens still have our First Amendment Rights: Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Association, Freedom of Assembly, Freedom to Petition our Government for the Redress of these massive Grievances, Civil Resistance, etc. We are going to have to start vigorously exercising all of our First Amendment Rights right now. We must use them or else, as the saying goes, we will lose them. We must act not only for the good of the Peoples of Southwest Asia, but for our future, that of our children, that of our nation as a democratic society committed to the Rule of Law and the U.S. Constitution. The Nazis had their "homeland" too > > Francis A. Boyle, Professor of Law, University of Illinois, is author of Foundations of World Order, Duke University Press, The Criminality of Nuclear Deterrence, and Palestine, Palestinians and International Law, by Clarity Press. He can be reached at: FBOYLE at LAW.UIUC.EDU > > --- > Subscribed as: fboyle at law.uiuc.edu; to unsubscribe send to al-awda-universalist-request at umich.edu > with UNSUBSCRIBE as the SUBJECT. > URL: > > > Francis A. Boyle > > Law Building > > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > > Champaign IL 61820 USA > > 217-333-7954 (phone) > > 217-244-1478 (fax) > > (personal comments only) > > > > From: Roger Helbig [mailto:rwhelbig at gmail.com] > Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2017 6:43 PM > To: Boyle, Francis A > > Cc: Karen Aram >; Estabrook, Carl G >; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Jay Becker >; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; Szoke, Ron >; Dave Trippel >; Arlene Hickory >; David Swanson >; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG > > > > There was no massacre at Fallujah. This is nonsense. Mattis expected his troops to be peacekeepers. They brought soccer balls with them when they deployed. > > > > I would love to see your "so called" war crime indictment. Wonder how much of it is from your fertile Hate America imagination and how much from the fertile Arab anti-American propaganda organs. Doubt a single paragraph is actually based on fact. > > > > On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 8:22 AM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss > wrote: > > Trump’s Secretary of War Mad Dog Mattis was responsible for the Massacre at Fallujah, which I pointed out on Counterpunch was a Nuremberg War Crime along the lines of the Nazis—the wanton devastation of a city-- in revenge for them killing our mercenaries. Fab. > > > > Francis A. Boyle > > Law Building > > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > > Champaign IL 61820 USA > > 217-333-7954 (phone) > > 217-244-1478 (fax) > > (personal comments only) > > > > From: Karen Aram [mailto:karenaram at hotmail.com] > Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2017 10:04 AM > To: Estabrook, Carl G > > Cc: Boyle, Francis A >; Jay Becker >; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; Szoke, Ron >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; Arlene Hickory >; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; David Swanson >; Dave Trippel >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Mildred O'brien >; David Johnson >; Joe Lauria >; David Green > > Subject: Re: Guest Commentary by Carl in NG > > > > I’m sorry Carl, I don’t agree with that title either. It assumes that all in the anti-war movement welcome the Trump administration. Not all of us trust he will do some of that which he promised in respect to “defunding Nato,” “making friends with Russia,” or killing TPP. Even if he does those three things, his further provocations of China, are every bit as dangerous as those with Russia, it’s a mere tactic to drive a wedge between Russia and China, while chipping away at Iran. > > > > His Cabinet appointments are frightening to say the least in respect to Healthcare, Energy, Education, Housing, etc, etc. > > > > Further expansion of war in the Middle East, and North Africa, as well as expansion of capitalist corporate control is on the agenda no matter which of the two Party’s are in power. > > > > Obama paved the way, for all of which I have just referred, but it’s not over. Our only hope is that “the people” are now awake, and perhaps will focus on that which is most serious to survival. > > > > > > On Jan 22, 2017, at 07:44, Carl G. Estabrook > wrote: > > > > My original title was, “Why the anti-war movement welcomes the new administration.” > > > > For more on that theme, see . > > > > —CGE > > > > > > On Jan 22, 2017, at 9:29 AM, Karen Aram > wrote: > > > > An excellent letter, which I posted on FB. I deliberately deleted the title that I assumed the NG created, because it gives the false impression that those of us in the anti-war movement, all support Trump. We don’t, we just didn’t support Hillary. Anyone in the anti-war movement supporting Hillary was supporting more of the same that Obama provided. > > > > > > On Jan 22, 2017, at 07:16, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: > > > > He {Obama} attacked eight countries (two more than George Bush), and conducted what one leading political commentator called "the most extreme terrorist campaign of modern times — his drone assassinations." He killed thousands of civilians with drones, including U.S. citizens and hundreds of children. > > A good letter by Carl today in NG. (Remember NG writes their own titles to letters.) We must now hold Trump’s feet to the fire across the board! I think Carl’s quote comes from Chomsky? In any event the Illinois Nazis Law Faculty fully supported and promoted and held out for emulation by lawyers and this Campus and our Good Community: > > "the most extreme terrorist campaign of modern times — his drone assassinations." > > > > The Illinois Nazis Law Faculty are just a GANG OF SICK PUPPIES! > > Fab > > Ed Norton Professor of Law > > Carl Schmitt College of Law: > > “Mein Fuhrer, I can walk!” > > > > > > Francis A. Boyle > > Law Building > > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > > Champaign IL 61820 USA > > 217-333-7954 (phone) > > 217-244-1478 (fax) > > (personal comments only) > > > > Feed: News-Gazette.com > Posted on: Sunday, January 22, 2017 7:00 AM > Author: digital.media > Subject: Guest Commentary: Why anti-war movement welcomes Trump > > > > By C.G. ESTABROOK > > The European anti-war group "No War No NATO" writes as follows: > > "Demonstrating in Europe on 21 January, against the newly elected US President Donald Trump is tantamount to lending support to the Obama administration, which has transformed Europe into NATO's first line of attack, nuclear matters inclusive, against Russia. > > read more > > > View article... > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rwhelbig at gmail.com Sat Nov 4 14:31:07 2017 From: rwhelbig at gmail.com (Roger Helbig) Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2017 07:31:07 -0700 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG In-Reply-To: References: <9D3D5E59-5EFC-47DF-838D-C6508214E176@illinois.edu> Message-ID: what exactly is that supposed to mean - my choices of assignment were Intelligence, Weather and Cartography and the Air Force made me an Electronic Systems (ground radar maintenance) Officer - I liked languages - I was a literate three year old in Russian and wanted to learn more - I like puzzles - putting pieces together - that's what I thought intelligence officers did - Weather was where I got assigned for familiarization during summer camp so I somewhat expected that I would get that and a M/S in Meterology - Cartography because as a Geologist, I made maps of what was below the ground and cartographers made maps of what was above the ground. I voted for Democratic candidates starting with George McGovern - so I was not exactly a fan of Richard Nixon so hardly Nixonian! Roger On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 7:19 AM, Boyle, Francis A wrote: > “I wanted to be”—Military Intelligence. A Typical Nixonian Limited > Hang-out. fab. > > > > *Francis A. Boyle* > > *Law Building* > > *504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > * > > *Champaign IL 61820 USA > * > > *217-333-7954 <(217)%20333-7954> (phone)* > > *217-244-1478 <(217)%20244-1478> (fax)* > > *(personal comments only*) > > > > *From:* Roger Helbig [mailto:rwhelbig at gmail.com] > *Sent:* Saturday, November 04, 2017 9:15 AM > *To:* Boyle, Francis A ; Peace-discuss < > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> > *Subject:* Re: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG > > > > and you spread lies - I never worked for military intelligence - they > would not let me because I am partially color blind and to be an Air Force > intelligence officer, you needed to be able to interpret false colors on > air photos - I wanted to be because I like to work through problems and > took Russian as an elective my senior year as part of my know your enemy > program - > > > > Now, you have not refuted that The American Free Press was established by > Willis Carto - that Carto was a Neo Nazi or that Bollyn worked for Carto > and Buchanan - you more than likely have not read Blood and Politics - > maybe some of the others were. > > > > I don't seem to have scan of page where the American Free Press was > established to replace The Spotlight, but attached is the one where it > discusses the establishment of The Barnes Review and the conference > discussed on the blog is for both of these publications. > > > > On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 6:37 AM, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: > > *Once again, Roger crawls out of his hole as a Mole for US “Military > Intelligence”—an oxymoron to be sure.* > > *Fab* > > > > > > *Francis A. Boyle* > > *Law Building* > > *504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > * > > *Champaign IL 61820 USA > * > > *217-333-7954 <(217)%20333-7954> (phone)* > > *217-244-1478 <(217)%20244-1478> (fax)* > > *(personal comments only*) > > > > *From:* Roger Helbig [mailto:rwhelbig at gmail.com] > *Sent:* Saturday, November 04, 2017 8:12 AM > *To:* Boyle, Francis A > *Cc:* Karen Aram ; Estabrook, Carl G < > galliher at illinois.edu>; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK < > carl at newsfromneptune.com>; Jay Becker ; > a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria > ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; > Szoke, Ron ; Dave Trippel ; > Arlene Hickory ; David Swanson ; > peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; > abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne < > lina at worldcantwait.net>; chicago at worldcantwait.net > *Subject:* Re: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG > > > > You do know that Christopher Bollyn is NOT a reporter but is a Neo Nazi > operative of long standing and that the American Free Press is not a news > organization, but a Neo Nazi front - look up Willis Carto - he was Bollyn's > boss and founded the American Free Press - this website that has reports of > conference for American Free Press and The Barnes Review used to have a > prominent picture of a Nazi flag behind the blogger Alex Hassinger - > Douglas Lind Rokke of Urbana spoke at this event and Dave von Kleist the > producer of Rokke's first anti-US propaganda video "Beyond Treason" was > the master of ceremonies - http://www.chairmanofnordwave.blogspot.com > > > > Carto died in 2015 - there are a number of good sources on Carto in a > simple Google search - > > > > Learn about Neo Nazis - read this book - "Blood and Politics" - it > mentions Bollyn and extensively discusses Carto - pg 382, which I can > e-mail to all who request - has Carto's establishment of The Barnes Review, > a Holocaust Denial publication - The American Free Press replaced Carto's > The Spotlight after Carto lost a legal battle - Bollyn is also mentioned in > connection with a Pat Buchanan campaign apparatus > > > > On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 4:57 AM, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: > > *I also want to make it clear for the record that before the invasions of > Saipan, Tinian and Okinawa my Father, a Marine, was ordered by his Captain > not to take prisoners of war on the grounds of reciprocity that the > Japanese did not take Prisoners of War of our Men. My Father disobeyed > these clearly illegal orders and took Japanese Prisoners of War. I cite the > example of my Father to my law students to refute the objection that you > cannot expect soldiers to obey the laws of war during combat. If my Father > could obey the laws of war at Saipan, Tinian, and Okinawa, any other > soldier should be able to do the same. Meanwhile,while I am teaching this > to my students, the Illinois Nazis Law Faculty aid, abet, and promote and > facilitate war crimes and crimes against humanity from the safety of their > offices. My Father later became a Lawyer. RIP. The Illinois Nazis Law > Faculty are despicable! Fab.* > > > > *Francis A. Boyle* > > *Law Building* > > *504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > * > > *Champaign IL 61820 USA > * > > *217-333-7954 <(217)%20333-7954> (phone)* > > *217-244-1478 <(217)%20244-1478> (fax)* > > *(personal comments only*) > > > > *From:* Boyle, Francis A > *Sent:* Sunday, January 22, 2017 8:38 PM > *To:* Roger Helbig > *Cc:* Karen Aram ; Estabrook, Carl G < > galliher at illinois.edu>; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK < > carl at newsfromneptune.com>; Jay Becker ; > a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria > ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; > Szoke, Ron ; Dave Trippel ; > Arlene Hickory ; David Swanson ; > peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; > abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne < > lina at worldcantwait.net>; chicago at worldcantwait.net > *Subject:* RE: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG > > > > *Mad Dog Mattis the Nuremberg War Criminal. Fab.* > > *CONTROLLED PRESS IGNORES * > > *CRIMINAL OBLITERATION OF FALLUJAH* > > > > By Christopher Bollyn > > *American Free Press* > > > > *The controlled press has scrupulously avoided discussing the devastation > and prima facie evidence of war crimes committed during the U.S. siege and > assault of Fallujah.* > > > > As Americans prepared for Thanksgiving, an estimated 100,000 residents of > the besieged Iraqi city of Fallujah, trapped in their homes, struggled to > survive without fresh food, water or electricity, reportedly cut off by > U.S. forces on November 8. > > > > Meanwhile, on the streets of Fallujah, a city of more than 350,000, dogs > gnawed on bloated and rotting corpses that remained unburied for weeks. > > > > Thousands of families in Fallujah were reported to be in a critical > humanitarian situation after U.S. forces prevented the delivery of relief > supplies. An Iraq Red Crescent Society (IRCS) humanitarian aid convoy, > reportedly blocked by U.S. troops for more than two weeks, was allowed to > deliver aid to residents in the heart of the city on November 25. > > > > On Thanksgiving, U.S. forces permitted the IRCS convoy carrying thousands > of food parcels, blankets, tents and medical supplies to enter the city and > allowed one of the clinics to be converted into a temporary hospital to > treat the injured. Rana Sidani of the International Committee of the Red > Cross (ICRC) in Geneva, Switzerland however, told *American Free Press* > on Nov. 30 that "many civilians" were still prevented from receiving aid or > medical care. > > > > At the beginning of the U.S. operation in Fallujah on Nov. 5, a hospital > in the central Nazzal district of Fallujah was "reduced to rubble" as a > result of U.S. air and artillery bombardment. "Only its façade, with a > sign reading Nazzal Emergency Hospital, remained intact," Reuters > reported. > > > > "A nearby compound used by the main Falluja Hospital to store medical > supplies was also destroyed," witnesses told Reuters. Fallujah's main > hospital was occupied by U.S. forces when the ground offensive began. > These actions are apparent violations of international humanitarian law. > > > > "Bodies can be seen everywhere and people were crying when receiving the > food parcels," Muhammad al-Nuri, a spokesman for the IRCS in Baghdad, said. > "It is very sad. It is a human disaster." > > > > Al-Nuri said that it is difficult to move in the city due to the large > number of dead bodies in the streets. The ICRS estimates there are more > than 6,000 dead in Fallujah, al-Nuri said. > > > > AFP asked Major Jay Antonelli at the Coalition Press Information Center > (CPIC) in Baghdad if the ICRS estimate of 6,000 dead in Fallujah was > credible. "We do not keep a count of dead Iraqis," Antonelli said. Asked > the same question, the ICRC's Sidani said, "We don't know." > > > > Antonelli said, "U.S. forces never blocked aid convoys from reaching the > wounded. We only recommended to the aid convoys that they should not enter > the city because the MNF [Multi-National Forces] could not guarantee their > security or safety." > > > > "The ICRC is very worried about the humanitarian situation in Falluja," > Sidani said. Asked what the ICRC was doing to alleviate the suffering in > Fallujah, Sidani said: "We are reminding the parties of their > responsibilities under international humanitarian law." > > > > It should be noted that the U.S.A. and Britain, the belligerent occupying > powers in Iraq, are the two largest contributors to the ICRC, providing > more than 42 percent of its budget for field operations. > > > > A second convoy from Baghdad, headed by Dr. Said Ismael Haki, the IRCS > president, delivered aid to Fallujah on Nov. 26. "There are no houses left > in Fallujah, only destroyed places." Haki said. "I really don't know how > the people will return to the city. No one will find their homes." > > > > As U.S. troops in Fallujah engaged in what has been described as the most > intense urban combat since Vietnam, the controlled press scrupulously > avoided discussion or footage of the devastation of the rebellious Sunni > city. For example, during the second week of the attack, rather than > discuss the widespread devastation of Fallujah, U.S. television news > programs focused largely on a brawl between basketball players and fans in > Detroit. > > > > Lt. Col. Brandl, commander of the 1st Battalion, 8th Marine Regiment, was > filmed giving a "pep talk" to his marines: "The enemy has got a face – he's > called Satan," Brandl said. "He's in Fallujah, and we're going to destroy > him." > > > > At least 136 U.S. soldiers were killed during November in Iraq, and more > than 800 were wounded, most of them in Fallujah, making it the most costly > month, and operation, in terms of U.S. lives lost since the invasion of > Iraq began in March 2003. > > > > FOR WHAT CAUSE? > > > > Michael Ware, Baghdad bureau chief for *Time* magazine, who has been in > Fallujah during the fighting, said U.S. actions in Fallujah are "creating > the nightmare that we are seeking to prevent." > > > > "I stood there as I saw American boys die," Ware told Chris Matthews of > MSNBC on Nov. 24, "I mean, a man shot at close range, blown apart by a > rocket propelled grenade. He dies there in front of you and I can't help > but think why? For what cause? > > > > "I see us creating the very thing that the president said we went there to > prevent," Ware said, "…subsequent to this invasion and the occupation and > the guerrilla war that is currently underway, we are the midwives of the > next generation of al Qaida and Islamic terrorist." > > > > Ware, who has interviewed senior insurgent leaders, said they study the > writings of the Vietnamese general Vo Nguyen Giap, Che Guevara, and Mao > Zedong. "They're bringing it straight from the Vietnam, and the broader > insurgency playbook," Ware said. > > > > "The name of the game is deny the population to the insurgents," Ware > said. "That's what we're trying to do, win hearts and minds. But we're not > winning them." > > > > The U.S. struggle to win Iraqi hearts and minds suffered a further set > back when NBC TV broadcast footage of a U.S. marine executing a wounded and > unarmed Iraqi in a Fallujah mosque. The much-publicized shooting, > apparently part of a massacre of a group of wounded resistance fighters, > "was a rare crack in the façade that Washington, with the complicity of > most of the corporate media, has tried to present to the world of its > brutal assault on the rebel Iraqi city," Rohan Pearce wrote in *The > Greenleft Weekly Australia *on Nov. 24. > > > > *The New York Times* has reported actions taken by U.S. forces in > Fallujah, which appear to be prima facie evidence of war crimes, without > mentioning that the actions constitute clear violations of the Laws of Land > War found in the U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10. > > > > For example, a Nov. 20 *Times* article by Edward Wong, with two > correspondents in Fallujah, reports that U.S. marines had transformed a > mosque into a fortress with snipers and machine gunners perched on the roof. > > > > Then, using the passive form, Wong goes on to say that "no neutral group > has been able to enter the city," without mentioning that U.S. forces > blocked humanitarian aid convoys. Likewise, Wong wrote, "Electricity and > water had been cut off." > > > > The *Times*, whose motto is "All the news that's fit to print," > apparently didn't think that it's readers needed to know the U.S. forces > had cut off the water and power to a city of 340,000 people. > > > > Asked if U.S. forces had cut power and water to Fallujah, Maj. Jay > Antonelli of CPIC wrote: "MNF did, with approval of the Interim Iraqi > Government, cut off electricity to the city of Fallujah as Operation > Al-Fajr began. Water was not cut off intentionally, however the water > system did sustain some kinetic damage during strikes." > > > > *American Free Press* asked the Pentagon's Lt. Col. Joe Yoswa if it is > true that U.S. forces were using mosques as fortresses. "It's not > possible," Yoswa said. "Under no circumstances. We would not set up > snipers in a mosque in an offensive position." > > > > CPIC's Antonelli said: "MNF would not use a mosque as a 'fortress.' MNF > and Iraqi security forces would only fire from a mosque if they were being > fired upon and were firing back in self-defense." > > > > Abu Sabah, a refugee from Fallujah, reported seeing phosphorus bombs: > "They used these weird bombs that put up smoke like a mushroom cloud. Then > small pieces fell from the air with long tails of smoke trailing behind > them. These exploded on the ground with large fires that burnt for half > and hour," Abu Sabah said. "When anyone touched these fires their bodies > burnt for hours." > > > > Eyewitnesses from Fallujah also reported seeing "melted" bodies. > > > > "THROW-AWAY SOLDIERS" > > > > Having seen what appeared to be a depleted uranium (DU) missile fired at a > building in Fallujah on CNN during the first week of the fighting, AFP > asked the Pentagon if DU weapons are being used in Fallujah. "Yes," Yoswa > said, "DU is a standard round on the M-1 Abrams tank." > > > > Because U.S. marines in Fallujah are very close to the poison gas produced > by exploded DU shells, AFP asked Yoswa if anything was being done to > protect the troops from DU poisoning. Yoswa seemed unaware of the dangers > posed by the use of DU. > > > > Marion Fulk, a retired nuclear scientist from Livermore National Lab told > AFP that U.S. troops in DU contaminated battlefields are considered > "throw-away soldiers." The Marines exposed to DU in Fallujah, and > elsewhere, face greatly increased risks of cancer, deformed children, and > other health problems in the future. > > > > OBLITERATION OF FALLUJAH > > > > The "obliteration of Fallujah" is a serious war crime, according to > Francis A. Boyle, a professor of international law at the University of > Illinois. "The obliteration of Fallujah continues apace," Boyle wrote in > his Nov. 15 article, A War Crime in Real Time: Obliterating Fallujah. > "Article 6(b) of the 1945 Nuremberg Charter defines a Nuremberg War Crime > in relevant part as the 'wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages.' > According to this definitive definition, the Bush administration's > destruction of Fallujah constitutes a war crime for which Nazis were tried > and executed." > > > > *Finis* > > -30- > > 1629 words > ------------------------------ > > Do you Yahoo!? > The all-new My Yahoo! – What will yours do? > > > > > > *Francis A. Boyle* > > *Law Building* > > *504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > * > > *Champaign IL 61820 USA > * > > *217-333-7954 <(217)%20333-7954> (phone)* > > *217-244-1478 <(217)%20244-1478> (fax)* > > *(personal comments only*) > > > > *From:* Boyle, Francis A > *Sent:* Sunday, January 22, 2017 8:13 PM > *To:* 'Roger Helbig' > *Cc:* 'Karen Aram' ; Estabrook, Carl G < > galliher at illinois.edu>; 'peace-discuss at anti-war.net' < > peace-discuss at anti-war.net>; 'C. G. ESTABROOK' ; > 'Jay Becker' ; 'a-fields at uiuc.edu' < > a-fields at uiuc.edu>; Hoffman, Valerie J ; 'Joe > Lauria' ; Miller, Joseph Thomas < > jtmiller at illinois.edu>; Szoke, Ron ; 'Dave Trippel' > ; 'Arlene Hickory' ; 'David > Swanson' ; 'peace-discuss-request at lists. > chambana.net' ; ' > sherwoodross10 at gmail.com' ; 'abass10 at gmail.com' > ; 'mickalideh at gmail.com' ; 'Lina > Thorne' ; 'chicago at worldcantwait.net' < > chicago at worldcantwait.net> > *Subject:* RE: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG > > > > Mattis expected his troops to be peacekeepers. They brought soccer balls > with them when they deployed. > > LOL! Marines don’t play soccer or teach kids to play soccer.. My Dad was a > Marine. He invaded Saipan, Tinian and Okinawa before he became a Lawyer. > Marines destroy anyone and anything that is in front of them as they are > trained to do and did at Fallujah under Mattis—A Real Mad Dog War Criminal. > Fab. > > > > > > > > *Francis A. Boyle* > > *Law Building* > > *504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > * > > *Champaign IL 61820 USA > * > > *217-333-7954 <(217)%20333-7954> (phone)* > > *217-244-1478 <(217)%20244-1478> (fax)* > > *(personal comments only*) > > > > *From:* Boyle, Francis A > *Sent:* Sunday, January 22, 2017 7:52 PM > *To:* 'Roger Helbig' > *Cc:* Karen Aram ; Estabrook, Carl G < > galliher at illinois.edu>; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK < > carl at newsfromneptune.com>; Jay Becker ; > a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria > ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; > Szoke, Ron ; Dave Trippel ; > Arlene Hickory ; David Swanson ; > peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; > abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne < > lina at worldcantwait.net>; chicago at worldcantwait.net > *Subject:* RE: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG > > > > -----Original Message----- > *From:* Karim A G [mailto:coffee at euro-comm.co.uk ] > > *Sent:* Tuesday, November 16, 2004 5:00 PM > *To:* Karim A G > *Subject:* A War Crime in Real Time > > *http://www.counterpunch.org/boyle11152004.html > * > > > > *November 15, 2004* > > *A War Crime in Real Time* > > *Obliterating Fallujah* > > By FRANCIS A. BOYLE > > T*he obliteration of Fallujah continues apace. Article 6(b) of the 1945 > Nuremberg Charter defines a Nuremberg War Crime in relevant part as the ". > . . wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages. . ." According to this > definitive definition, the Bush Jr. administration's destruction of > Fallujah constitutes a war crime for which Nazis were tried and executed. > There is nothing surprising about that.* > > *Since the Bush Jr. administration's installation in power by the United > States Supreme Court in January of 2001, the peoples of the world have > witnessed a government in the United States of America that has > demonstrated little if any respect for fundamental considerations of > international law, international organizations, and human rights, let alone > appreciation of the requirements for maintaining international peace and > security. What the world has watched instead is a comprehensive and > malicious assault upon the integrity of the international legal order by a > group of men and women who are thoroughly Machiavellian in their perception > of international relations and in their conduct of both foreign policy and > domestic affairs. This is not simply a question of giving or withholding > the benefit of the doubt when it comes to complicated matters of foreign > affairs and defense policies to a U.S. government charged with the security > of both its own citizens and those of its allies in Europe, the Western > Hemisphere, and the Pacific. Rather, the Bush Jr. administration's foreign > policy constitutes ongoing criminal activity under well-recognized > principles of both international law and U.S. domestic law, in particular > the Nuremberg Charter, the Nuremberg Judgment, and the Nuremberg > Principles. So their obliteration of Fallujah was to be expected.* > > *One generation ago the peoples of the world asked themselves: Where were > the "good" Germans? Well, there were some good Germans. The Lutheran > theologian and pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer was the foremost exemplar of > someone who led a life of principled opposition to the Nazi-terror state > even unto death.* > > *Today the peoples of the world are likewise asking themselves: Where are > the "good" Americans? Well, there are some good Americans. Like three > Catholic Nuns in Denver, they are getting arrested and going to jail for > protesting against United States weapons of mass destruction (WMD) whose > power for human extermination far exceeds even the wildest fantasies of > Hitler and the Nazis. Or else for protesting against illegal U.S.. military > interventions around the world. Just recently the Nuclear Resister > estimated that since the Fall of 2002, there have been more than 9,500 > anti-war related arrests in the United States alone. Many more will be > coming.* > > *In international legal terms, the Bush Jr. administration itself should > now be viewed as constituting an ongoing criminal conspiracy under > international criminal law in violation of the Nuremberg Charter, the > Nuremberg Judgment, and the Nuremberg Principles, due to its formulation > and undertaking of aggressive war policies that are legally akin to those > perpetrated by the Nazi regime. As a consequence, American citizens possess > the basic right under international law and the United States domestic law, > including the U.S. Constitution, to engage in acts of non-violent civil > resistance in order to prevent, impede, thwart, or terminate ongoing > criminal activities perpetrated by U.S. government officials in their > conduct of foreign affairs policies and military operations purported to > relate to defense and counter-terrorism.* > > *This same right of civil resistance extends pari passu to all citizens of > the world community of states. Everyone around the world has both the right > and the duty under international law to resist ongoing criminal activities > perpetrated by the Bush Jr. administration and its nefarious foreign > accomplices such as Blair, Berlusconi, Howard, Koizumi, Kwasniewski, etc. > by all non-violent means possible. If it is not so restrained, the Bush Jr. > administration could very well precipitate a Third World War.* > > *The time for preventive action is now. Civil resistance is the way to go. > People power can overcome power politics. Popular movements have succeeded > in toppling tyrannical, dictatorial and authoritarian regimes throughout > former Communist countries in Eastern Europe, as well as in Asia, and most > recently in Latin America. It is time once again to exercise People Power > here in the United States of America: "When in the Course of human Events. > . . We hold these Truths to be self-evident. . . . we mutually pledge to > each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and sacred Honor."* > > *Despite the best efforts by the Bush Jr. Leaguers to the contrary, we > American Citizens still have our First Amendment Rights: Freedom of Speech, > Freedom of Association, Freedom of Assembly, Freedom to Petition our > Government for the Redress of these massive Grievances, Civil Resistance, > etc. We are going to have to start vigorously exercising all of our First > Amendment Rights right now. We must use them or else, as the saying goes, > we will lose them. We must act not only for the good of the Peoples of > Southwest Asia, but for our future, that of our children, that of our > nation as a democratic society committed to the Rule of Law and the U.S. > Constitution. The Nazis had their "homeland" too* > > Francis A. Boyle*, Professor of Law, University of Illinois, is author of > *Foundations of World Order > *, > Duke University Press, *The Criminality of Nuclear Deterrence > *, > and *Palestine, Palestinians and International Law > *, by > Clarity Press. He can be reached at: *FBOYLE at LAW.UIUC.EDU > > --- > Subscribed as: fboyle at law.uiuc.edu; to unsubscribe send to > al-awda-universalist-request at umich.edu > with UNSUBSCRIBE as the SUBJECT. > URL: awda-universalist > > > > *Francis A. Boyle* > > *Law Building* > > *504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > * > > *Champaign IL 61820 USA > * > > *217-333-7954 <(217)%20333-7954> (phone)* > > *217-244-1478 <(217)%20244-1478> (fax)* > > *(personal comments only*) > > > > *From:* Roger Helbig [mailto:rwhelbig at gmail.com ] > *Sent:* Sunday, January 22, 2017 6:43 PM > *To:* Boyle, Francis A > *Cc:* Karen Aram ; Estabrook, Carl G < > galliher at illinois.edu>; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK < > carl at newsfromneptune.com>; Jay Becker ; > a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria > ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; > Szoke, Ron ; Dave Trippel ; > Arlene Hickory ; David Swanson ; > peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; > abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne < > lina at worldcantwait.net>; chicago at worldcantwait.net > *Subject:* Re: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG > > > > There was no massacre at Fallujah. This is nonsense. Mattis expected > his troops to be peacekeepers. They brought soccer balls with them when > they deployed. > > > > I would love to see your "so called" war crime indictment. Wonder how > much of it is from your fertile Hate America imagination and how much from > the fertile Arab anti-American propaganda organs. Doubt a single paragraph > is actually based on fact. > > > > On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 8:22 AM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > > *Trump’s Secretary of War Mad Dog Mattis was responsible for the Massacre > at Fallujah, which I pointed out on Counterpunch was a Nuremberg War Crime > along the lines of the Nazis—the wanton devastation of a city-- in revenge > for them killing our mercenaries. Fab.* > > > > *Francis A. Boyle* > > *Law Building* > > *504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > * > > *Champaign IL 61820 USA > * > > *217-333-7954 <(217)%20333-7954> (phone)* > > *217-244-1478 <(217)%20244-1478> (fax)* > > *(personal comments only*) > > > > *From:* Karen Aram [mailto:karenaram at hotmail.com] > *Sent:* Sunday, January 22, 2017 10:04 AM > *To:* Estabrook, Carl G > *Cc:* Boyle, Francis A ; Jay Becker < > futureup2us at gmail.com>; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK < > carl at newsfromneptune.com>; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J < > vhoffman at illinois.edu>; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; > Szoke, Ron ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; Arlene > Hickory ; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; > David Swanson ; Dave Trippel < > davetrippel at ameritech.net>; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina > Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Mildred > O'brien ; David Johnson ; > Joe Lauria ; David Green > *Subject:* Re: Guest Commentary by Carl in NG > > > > I’m sorry Carl, I don’t agree with that title either. It assumes that all > in the anti-war movement welcome the Trump administration. Not all of us > trust he will do some of that which he promised in respect to “defunding > Nato,” “making friends with Russia,” or killing TPP. Even if he does those > three things, his further provocations of China, are every bit as dangerous > as those with Russia, it’s a mere tactic to drive a wedge between Russia > and China, while chipping away at Iran. > > > > His Cabinet appointments are frightening to say the least in respect to > Healthcare, Energy, Education, Housing, etc, etc. > > > > Further expansion of war in the Middle East, and North Africa, as well as > expansion of capitalist corporate control is on the agenda no matter which > of the two Party’s are in power. > > > > Obama paved the way, for all of which I have just referred, but it’s not > over. Our only hope is that “the people” are now awake, and perhaps will > focus on that which is most serious to survival. > > > > > > On Jan 22, 2017, at 07:44, Carl G. Estabrook > wrote: > > > > My original title was, “Why the anti-war movement welcomes the new > administration.” > > > > For more on that theme, see columnists/201701191049765550-how-trump-presidency-will-play-out/ > > >. > > > > —CGE > > > > > > On Jan 22, 2017, at 9:29 AM, Karen Aram wrote: > > > > An excellent letter, which I posted on FB. I deliberately deleted the > title that I assumed the NG created, because it gives the false impression > that those of us in the anti-war movement, all support Trump. We don’t, we > just didn’t support Hillary. Anyone in the anti-war movement supporting > Hillary was supporting more of the same that Obama provided. > > > > > > On Jan 22, 2017, at 07:16, Boyle, Francis A wrote: > > > > He {Obama} attacked eight countries (two more than George Bush), and > conducted what one leading political commentator called "the most extreme > terrorist campaign of modern times — his drone assassinations." He killed > thousands of civilians with drones, including U.S. citizens and hundreds of > children. > > A good letter by Carl today in NG. (Remember NG writes their own titles to > letters.) We must now hold Trump’s feet to the fire across the board! I > think Carl’s quote comes from Chomsky? In any event the Illinois Nazis Law > Faculty fully supported and promoted and held out for emulation by lawyers > and this Campus and our Good Community: > > "the most extreme terrorist campaign of modern times — his drone > assassinations." > > > > The Illinois Nazis Law Faculty are just a GANG OF SICK PUPPIES! > > Fab > > Ed Norton Professor of Law > > Carl Schmitt College of Law: > > “Mein Fuhrer, I can walk!” > > > > > > *Francis A. Boyle* > > *Law Building* > > *504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > * > > *Champaign IL 61820 USA > * > > *217-333-7954 <(217)%20333-7954> (phone)* > > *217-244-1478 <(217)%20244-1478> (fax)* > > *(personal comments only*) > > > > *Feed:* News-Gazette.com > > *Posted on:* Sunday, January 22, 2017 7:00 AM > *Author:* digital.media > *Subject:* Guest Commentary: Why anti-war movement welcomes Trump > > > > *By C.G. ESTABROOK* > > The European anti-war group "No War No NATO" writes as follows: > > "Demonstrating in Europe on 21 January, against the newly elected US > President Donald Trump is tantamount to lending support to the Obama > administration, which has transformed Europe into NATO's first line of > attack, nuclear matters inclusive, against Russia. > > read more > > > > View article... > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > > > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rwhelbig at gmail.com Sat Nov 4 14:32:51 2017 From: rwhelbig at gmail.com (Roger Helbig) Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2017 07:32:51 -0700 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG In-Reply-To: References: <9D3D5E59-5EFC-47DF-838D-C6508214E176@illinois.edu> Message-ID: Spreading lies yet again - if Rokke had not personally lied about me, I would not have grown so interested in Rokke and his pals all over the globe - On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 7:26 AM, Boyle, Francis A wrote: > Roger:“I wanted to be”—Military Intelligence. A Typical Nixonian Limited > Hang-out. > > -------------------- > > Yes Roger I am sure in your capacity as a Military Intelligence Mole you > have corresponded with all sorts of MI Colleagues. Fab. > > > > > > *Francis A. Boyle* > > *Law Building* > > *504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > * > > *Champaign IL 61820 USA > * > > *217-333-7954 <(217)%20333-7954> (phone)* > > *217-244-1478 <(217)%20244-1478> (fax)* > > *(personal comments only*) > > > > *From:* Roger Helbig [mailto:rwhelbig at gmail.com] > *Sent:* Saturday, November 04, 2017 9:24 AM > *To:* Boyle, Francis A ; Peace-discuss < > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> > *Subject:* Re: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG > > > > Oh wow, a Counter Punch article - they don't fact check anything and > really are more propaganda than news - Fallujah was not obliterated - but > the liars and their buddies like FAB want people to think so - I have > probably read more about the two Battles of Fallujah and corresponded with > people who were there than FAB ever has - > > > > On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 7:08 AM, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: > > http://www.counterpunch.org/boyle11152004.html > > November 15, 2004 > A War Crime in Real Time > Obliterating Fallujah > By FRANCIS A. BOYLE > The obliteration of Fallujah continues apace. Article 6(b) of the 1945 > Nuremberg Charter defines a Nuremberg War Crime in relevant part as the ". > . . wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages. . ." According to this > definitive definition, the Bush Jr. administration's destruction of > Fallujah constitutes a war crime for which Nazis were tried and executed. > There is nothing surprising about that. > Since the Bush Jr. administration's installation in power by the United > States Supreme Court in January of 2001, the peoples of the world have > witnessed a government in the United States of America that has > demonstrated little if any respect for fundamental considerations of > international law, international organizations, and human rights, let alone > appreciation of the requirements for maintaining international peace and > security. What the world has watched instead is a comprehensive and > malicious assault upon the integrity of the international legal order by a > group of men and women who are thoroughly Machiavellian in their perception > of international relations and in their conduct of both foreign policy and > domestic affairs. This is not simply a question of giving or withholding > the benefit of the doubt when it comes to complicated matters of foreign > affairs and defense policies to a U.S. government charged with the security > of both its own citizens and those of its allies in Europe, the Western > Hemisphere, and the Pacific. Rather, the Bush Jr. administration's foreign > policy constitutes ongoing criminal activity under well-recognized > principles of both international law and U.S. domestic law, in particular > the Nuremberg Charter, the Nuremberg Judgment, and the Nuremberg > Principles. So their obliteration of Fallujah was to be expected. > One generation ago the peoples of the world asked themselves: Where were > the "good" Germans? Well, there were some good Germans. The Lutheran > theologian and pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer was the foremost exemplar of > someone who led a life of principled opposition to the Nazi-terror state > even unto death. > Today the peoples of the world are likewise asking themselves: Where are > the "good" Americans? Well, there are some good Americans. Like three > Catholic Nuns in Denver, they are getting arrested and going to jail for > protesting against United States weapons of mass destruction (WMD) whose > power for human extermination far exceeds even the wildest fantasies of > Hitler and the Nazis. Or else for protesting against illegal U.S.. military > interventions around the world. Just recently the Nuclear Resister > estimated that since the Fall of 2002, there have been more than 9,500 > anti-war related arrests in the United States alone. Many more will be > coming. > In international legal terms, the Bush Jr. administration itself should > now be viewed as constituting an ongoing criminal conspiracy under > international criminal law in violation of the Nuremberg Charter, the > Nuremberg Judgment, and the Nuremberg Principles, due to its formulation > and undertaking of aggressive war policies that are legally akin to those > perpetrated by the Nazi regime. As a consequence, American citizens possess > the basic right under international law and the United States domestic law, > including the U.S. Constitution, to engage in acts of non-violent civil > resistance in order to prevent, impede, thwart, or terminate ongoing > criminal activities perpetrated by U.S. government officials in their > conduct of foreign affairs policies and military operations purported to > relate to defense and counter-terrorism. > This same right of civil resistance extends pari passu to all citizens of > the world community of states. Everyone around the world has both the right > and the duty under international law to resist ongoing criminal activities > perpetrated by the Bush Jr. administration and its nefarious foreign > accomplices such as Blair, Berlusconi, Howard, Koizumi, Kwasniewski, etc. > by all non-violent means possible. If it is not so restrained, the Bush Jr. > administration could very well precipitate a Third World War. > The time for preventive action is now. Civil resistance is the way to go. > People power can overcome power politics. Popular movements have succeeded > in toppling tyrannical, dictatorial and authoritarian regimes throughout > former Communist countries in Eastern Europe, as well as in Asia, and most > recently in Latin America. It is time once again to exercise People Power > here in the United States of America: "When in the Course of human Events. > . . We hold these Truths to be self-evident. . . . we mutually pledge to > each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and sacred Honor." > Despite the best efforts by the Bush Jr. Leaguers to the contrary, we > American Citizens still have our First Amendment Rights: Freedom of Speech, > Freedom of Association, Freedom of Assembly, Freedom to Petition our > Government for the Redress of these massive Grievances, Civil Resistance, > etc. We are going to have to start vigorously exercising all of our First > Amendment Rights right now. We must use them or else, as the saying goes, > we will lose them. We must act not only for the good of the Peoples of > Southwest Asia, but for our future, that of our children, that of our > nation as a democratic society committed to the Rule of Law and the U.S. > Constitution. The Nazis had their "homeland" too > Francis A. Boyle, Professor of Law, University of Illinois, is author of > Foundations of World Order, Duke University Press, The Criminality of > Nuclear Deterrence, and Palestine, Palestinians and International Law, by > Clarity Press. He can be reached at: FBOYLE at LAW.UIUC.EDU > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > > Champaign IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Boyle, Francis A > Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2017 8:57 AM > To: C G Estabrook ; Roger Helbig < > rwhelbig at gmail.com> > Cc: Karen Aram ; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. > ESTABROOK ; Jay Becker ; > a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria > ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; > Szoke, Ron ; Dave Trippel ; > Arlene Hickory ; David Swanson ; > peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; > abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne < > lina at worldcantwait.net>; chicago at worldcantwait.net > Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG > > In other words, approximately 3.3 million Iraqis were exterminated by the > United States and the United Kingdom from August of 1990 until the end of > 2011 when President Obama had ordered the purported “final” withdrawal of > U.S. military forces from Iraq. And these are very conservative figures > that I believe could be proven to the satisfaction of the International > Court of Justice. > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > > Champaign IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Boyle, Francis A > Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2017 8:55 AM > To: C G Estabrook ; Roger Helbig < > rwhelbig at gmail.com> > Cc: Karen Aram ; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. > ESTABROOK ; Jay Becker ; > a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria > ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; > Szoke, Ron ; Dave Trippel ; > Arlene Hickory ; David Swanson ; > peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; > abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne < > lina at worldcantwait.net>; chicago at worldcantwait.net > Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG > > Of course the Illinois Nazi Faculty of Law and its Yale Mafia Law Dean > Iceman Amar are more than happy to exterminate Muslims/Arabs/Asians of > Color. Fab. > Legal Protection Of Children In Armed Conflict: The Iraqi Children Genocide > > By Francis A. Boyle > > 04 December, 2012 > Countercurrents.org > > This is the text version of a speech delivered by Francis A. Boyle at The > International Conference on War-affected Children Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, > November 22, 2012 > > During the summer of 1991 I was contacted on behalf of several Mothers in > Iraq whose children were dying at astounding rates because of the genocidal > economic sanctions that had been imposed upon them by the Security Council > in August of 1990 at the behest of the Bush Senior administration. They > requested that I do something in order to save these innocent children from > perishing in agony in front of their mothers’ very own eyes. Using the > format of the Writ for World Habeas Corpus that had been previously > provided to me by my friend and colleague, the late Luis Kutner, Esq. of > Chicago, Illinois, I filed a class-action Complaint on behalf of the 4.5 > million children of Iraq against President George Bush Senior and the > United States of America with the United Nations Organization that was > dated 18 September 1991.[1] I submitted the Complaint to the Secretary > General of the U.N., member states of the General Assembly, the Economic > and Social Council, the Commission on Human Rights, the Sub-Commission on > Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, UNESCO, and > UNICEF. A copy of my Indictment, Complaint and Petition for Relief from > Genocide on behalf of the 4.5 million children of Iraq is reprinted below. > > This Complaint accused the United States and President Bush Senior (1) of > committing the international crime of genocide against the 4.5 Million > Children of Iraq in violation of the International Convention on the > Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide of 1948 and in violation > of the municipal legal systems of all civilized nations in the world; (2) > of a gross and consistent pattern of violations of the most fundamental > human rights of the 4.5 Million Children of Iraq as recognized and > guaranteed to them by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948; > (3) of the complete negation and denial of all the rights guaranteed to the > 4.5 Million Children of Iraq by the 1989 Convention on the Rights of the > Child; and (4) of the systematic violation of the special protections of > international humanitarian law guaranteed to the 4.5 Million Children of > Iraq by the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 and Additional Protocol I > thereto of 1977. > > My Complaint demanded (1) the termination of all forms of multilateral and > bilateral economic sanctions against Iraq; (2) the massive provision of > international humanitarian relief supplies to Iraq by all organs of the > United Nations System; (3) that monetary compensation be paid to the > children of Iraq and their families for deaths as well as for all physical > and mental injury by the United States; and (4) that criminal proceedings > for genocide be instituted against President George Bush Senior by the > appropriate organs of the United Nations System as well as by all municipal > legal systems in the world, including by the United States government. My > Complaint estimated that since sanctions were first imposed against Iraq in > August of 1990, Iraqi children were dying as a direct result thereof at the > rate of about 500 per day. > > Despite my best professional efforts working on behalf of my Clients pro > bono publico, the grossly hypocritical United Nations Organization > adamantly refused to act to terminate these genocidal sanctions and thus to > save the dying children of Iraq. In 1995 the United Nations’ own Food and > Agricultural Organization (FAO) Report estimated that these genocidal > economic sanctions against Iraq had by then killed about 560,000 Iraqi > children since when they were first imposed in 1990.[2] In specific regard > to these murdered Iraqi children, then U.S. Secretary of State Madeline > Albright, was interviewed on the CBS Television Network on 12 May 1996 by > correspondent Leslie Stahl. The transcript of this interview provided by > CBS News itself reads as follows:[3] > > Stahl: (Voiceover) If the Iraqi people place any blame on Saddam Hussein, > they’re afraid to say so. And there is no longer much hope that the > sanctions will inspire the people to rise up and topple the government. Now > people are just trying to get by because one of the side effects of the > sanctions has been inflation, which has jumped as high as 3,000 percent. To > make ends meet, Iraqis are selling everything they can. Flea markets have > sprung up on the streets, where families can sell their furniture, clothes, > anything they can to make a few extra dinars. Most Iraqis are suffering > > We have heard that a half a million children have died. I mean, that’s > more children than died when-wh-in-in Hiroshima. And-and, you know, is the > price worth it? > > Ambassador Albright: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price – > we think the price is worth it. > > This shocking and revolting statement made by the U.S. Secretary of State > provided proof positive of the genocidal intent by the United States > Government against Iraq and its children and its people as defined by and > in violation of Genocide Convention Article II: “In the present Convention, > genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, > in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group, as > such. . . .” Certainly a half-million dead Iraqi children that the U.S. > Secretary of State specifically intended to destroy as such, and did indeed > destroy as such, constituted a very important “part” of the Iraqi people. > These half-million dead children were the very future of the people and > state of Iraq. > > This Albright statement is what criminal lawyers call a classic “Admission > Against Interest.” This Statement by the then sitting U.S. Secretary of > State, acting within the scope of her official duties and speaking in the > name of the United States government, could be taken to the International > Court of Justice in The Hague and filed to prove that the United States of > America possessed the required mens rea (criminal intent) necessary to > commit the international crime of genocide. Under both international law > and U.S. domestic law, to be guilty of a crime a person or a state must > possess the requisite mens rea at the same time that he or she or it > commits the criminal act (actus reus). > > With respect to these genocidal economic sanctions against Iraq, the actus > reus for the U.S. government and its officials committing the international > crime of genocide is set forth in Genocide Convention Article II (c): > “Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to > bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.” The 500,000 dead > Iraqi children, as conceded and approved by U.S. Secretary of State > Albright, constituted a “substantial part” of the people of Iraq, which is > the threshold numerical test for genocide recognized by the International > Court of Justice itself that I had successfully argued there for Bosnia and > Herzegovina against Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) in 1993. Albright > incriminated both herself and the United States of America at the same > time, apparently without thought or concern as to any future international > legal determination of their culpability. Such is the arrogance of the > powerful—which is usually the source of their downfall. > > The United States and the United Kingdom obstinately insisted that the > genocidal economic sanctions imposed against Iraq remain in place until > after the conclusion of the internationally illegal Gulf War II of > aggression perpetrated by the Bush Junior administration and the Tony Blair > government against Iraq in March of 2003. Then, on 22 May 2003 the United > States and the United Kingdom procured U.N. Security Council Resolution > 1483 lifting these genocidal economic sanctions; yet not with a view to > easing the over decade-long suffering of the Iraqi people and children. But > rather so as to better facilitate the U.S./U.K. unsupervised looting and > plundering of the Iraqi economy and oil fields in violation of the > international laws of war as well as to the grave detriment of the Iraqi > people and their children. > > Once I had gotten this class-action Complaint filed with the United > Nations Organization and had worked out the basic legal theory for U.S. > genocide against the children of Iraq, starting in the Fall of 1991 I did > everything humanly possible to convince the then President of Iraq to give > me the legal authority to sue the United States and the United Kingdom at > the International Court of Justice in The Hague on the basis of the 1948 > Genocide Convention: First, in order to break the genocidal economic > embargo against the people of Iraq, and especially their children. And > second, in order to prevent what I perceived to be further impending > military attacks by the United States and Britain upon Iraq that would > culminate someday in stealing all their oil. I most strenuously pursued > these efforts systematically and continuously until the very eve of the war > of aggression against Iraq by the Bush Junior administration and the Tony > Blair government in mid-March of 2003. These efforts also included two > meetings with the then Foreign Minister of Iraq and their top international > lawyer to review, consider, and discuss papers I had drafted to be filed by > Iraq in the World Court against the United States and the United Kingdom in > order to accomplish these objectives.[4] In addition, at the very last > minute available I also attempted to convince the Deputy Prime Minister of > Iraq to give me the legal authority to file these World Court lawsuits > against the U.S. and the U.K. literally right up until the outbreak of > hostilities in mid-March of 2003. All to no avail. > > Despite my best efforts, I failed. This shall always be one of the great > disappointments of my life. Approximately 1.7 million Iraqis died as a > direct result of these genocidal economic sanctions, including within that > number about 750,000 Iraqi children. In addition, another 1.4 million > Iraqis died as a result of the Bush Junior/Tony Blair genocidal war of > aggression against Iraq. To this appalling genocidal death toll must be > added the 200,000 Iraqis President Bush Senior slaughtered in his 1991 Gulf > War I. In other words, approximately 3.3 million Iraqis were exterminated > by the United States and the United Kingdom from August of 1990 until the > end of 2011 when President Obama had ordered the purported “final” > withdrawal of U.S. military forces from Iraq. And these are very > conservative figures that I believe could be proven to the satisfaction of > the International Court of Justice. > > These World Court papers that I drew up for Iraq to sue the United States > and the United Kingdom at the International Court of Justice on the basis > of the 1948 Genocide Convention that were twice considered and reviewed by > the Foreign Minister of Iraq and their top international lawyer still sit > in my office today. They could be revised and updated by the current > government of Iraq in order to sue the United States and the United Kingdom > at the International Court of Justice for genocide today. Of course this is > for the current government of Iraq to decide. Towards facilitating that > objective, I will be more than happy to make these World Court papers > available to the current government of Iraq free of charge if they so > desire. For Iraq to file my proposed World Court lawsuits for genocide > against the United States and the United Kingdom would produce some small > degree of justice for the 750,000 murdered children of Iraq and at least > 3.3 million exterminated Iraqis. Thank you. > > [1] See Edward Pearce, Death and Indecency in a Time of Cholera, The > Guardian, Oct. 25, 1991. > > [2] See Ramsey Clark, FAO Report, and Others, The Children Are Dying > (World View Forum, Inc.: 1996). > > [3] See 5/12/96 60 Minutes, 1996 Westlaw 8064912. > > [4] Iraq to Go to World Court, South News, Jan. 28, 1998: “U.S. Professor > of International Law Francis Boyle has publicly offered to charge U.S. > leaders for genocide against the Iraqi people.” > > Professor Francis A. Boyle is an international law expert and served as > Legal Advisor to the Palestine Liberation Organization and Yasser Arafat on > the 1988 Palestinian Declaration of Independence, as well as to the > Palestinian Delegation to the Middle East Peace Negotiations from 1991 to > 1993, where he drafted the Palestinian counter-offer to the now defunct > Oslo Agreement. His books include “ Palestine, Palestinians and > International Law” (2003), and “ The Palestinian Right of Return under > International Law” (2010). > > © Copyright 2012 by Francis A. Boyle. All rights reserved. > > > > > > > > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > > Champaign IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 <(217)%20333-7954> (phone) > 217-244-1478 <(217)%20244-1478> (fax) > (personal comments only) > > > -----Original Message----- > From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] > Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2017 8:42 AM > To: Roger Helbig > Cc: Boyle, Francis A ; Karen Aram < > karenaram at hotmail.com>; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK < > carl at newsfromneptune.com>; Jay Becker ; > a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria > ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; > Szoke, Ron ; Dave Trippel ; > Arlene Hickory ; David Swanson ; > peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; > abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne < > lina at worldcantwait.net>; chicago at worldcantwait.net > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG > > Of course the US committed war crimes in Iraq. The US invasion of that > country is the greatest international crime of the century - so far. > > On ‘American Free Press,’ see wiki/American_Free_Press>. > > > > On Nov 4, 2017, at 8:11 AM, Roger Helbig wrote: > > > > You do know that Christopher Bollyn is NOT a reporter but is a Neo Nazi > operative of long standing and that the American Free Press is not a news > organization, but a Neo Nazi front - look up Willis Carto - he was Bollyn's > boss and founded the American Free Press - this website that has reports of > conference for American Free Press and The Barnes Review used to have a > prominent picture of a Nazi flag behind the blogger Alex Hassinger - > Douglas Lind Rokke of Urbana spoke at this event and Dave von Kleist the > producer of Rokke's first anti-US propaganda video "Beyond Treason" was > the master of ceremonies - http://www.chairmanofnordwave.blogspot.com > > > > Carto died in 2015 - there are a number of good sources on Carto in a > simple Google search - > > > > Learn about Neo Nazis - read this book - "Blood and Politics" - it > mentions Bollyn and extensively discusses Carto - pg 382, which I can > e-mail to all who request - has Carto's establishment of The Barnes Review, > a Holocaust Denial publication - The American Free Press replaced Carto's > The Spotlight after Carto lost a legal battle - Bollyn is also mentioned in > connection with a Pat Buchanan campaign apparatus > > > > On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 4:57 AM, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: > > I also want to make it clear for the record that before the invasions of > Saipan, Tinian and Okinawa my Father, a Marine, was ordered by his Captain > not to take prisoners of war on the grounds of reciprocity that the > Japanese did not take Prisoners of War of our Men. My Father disobeyed > these clearly illegal orders and took Japanese Prisoners of War. I cite the > example of my Father to my law students to refute the objection that you > cannot expect soldiers to obey the laws of war during combat. If my Father > could obey the laws of war at Saipan, Tinian, and Okinawa, any other > soldier should be able to do the same. Meanwhile,while I am teaching this > to my students, the Illinois Nazis Law Faculty aid, abet, and promote and > facilitate war crimes and crimes against humanity from the safety of their > offices. My Father later became a Lawyer. RIP. The Illinois Nazis Law > Faculty are despicable! Fab. > > > > > > > > Francis A. Boyle > > > > Law Building > > > > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > > > > > Champaign IL 61820 USA > > > > > 217-333-7954 (phone) > > > > 217-244-1478 (fax) > > > > (personal comments only) > > > > > > > > From: Boyle, Francis A > > Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2017 8:38 PM > > To: Roger Helbig > > Cc: Karen Aram ; Estabrook, Carl G < > galliher at illinois.edu>; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK < > carl at newsfromneptune.com>; Jay Becker ; > a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria > ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; > Szoke, Ron ; Dave Trippel ; > Arlene Hickory ; David Swanson ; > peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; > abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne < > lina at worldcantwait.net>; chicago at worldcantwait.net > > Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG > > > > > > > > Mad Dog Mattis the Nuremberg War Criminal. Fab. > > > > CONTROLLED PRESS IGNORES > > > > CRIMINAL OBLITERATION OF FALLUJAH > > > > > > > > By Christopher Bollyn > > > > American Free Press > > > > > > > > The controlled press has scrupulously avoided discussing the devastation > and prima facie evidence of war crimes committed during the U.S. siege and > assault of Fallujah. > > > > > > > > As Americans prepared for Thanksgiving, an estimated 100,000 residents > of the besieged Iraqi city of Fallujah, trapped in their homes, struggled > to survive without fresh food, water or electricity, reportedly cut off by > U.S. forces on November 8. > > > > > > > > Meanwhile, on the streets of Fallujah, a city of more than 350,000, dogs > gnawed on bloated and rotting corpses that remained unburied for weeks. > > > > > > > > Thousands of families in Fallujah were reported to be in a critical > humanitarian situation after U.S. forces prevented the delivery of relief > supplies. An Iraq Red Crescent Society (IRCS) humanitarian aid convoy, > reportedly blocked by U.S. troops for more than two weeks, was allowed to > deliver aid to residents in the heart of the city on November 25. > > > > > > > > On Thanksgiving, U.S. forces permitted the IRCS convoy carrying > thousands of food parcels, blankets, tents and medical supplies to enter > the city and allowed one of the clinics to be converted into a temporary > hospital to treat the injured. Rana Sidani of the International Committee > of the Red Cross (ICRC) in Geneva, Switzerland however, told American Free > Press on Nov. 30 that "many civilians" were still prevented from receiving > aid or medical care. > > > > > > > > At the beginning of the U.S. operation in Fallujah on Nov. 5, a hospital > in the central Nazzal district of Fallujah was "reduced to rubble" as a > result of U.S. air and artillery bombardment. "Only its façade, with a > sign reading Nazzal Emergency Hospital, remained intact," Reuters reported. > > > > > > > > "A nearby compound used by the main Falluja Hospital to store medical > supplies was also destroyed," witnesses told Reuters. Fallujah's main > hospital was occupied by U.S. forces when the ground offensive began. > These actions are apparent violations of international humanitarian law. > > > > > > > > "Bodies can be seen everywhere and people were crying when receiving the > food parcels," Muhammad al-Nuri, a spokesman for the IRCS in Baghdad, said. > "It is very sad. It is a human disaster." > > > > > > > > Al-Nuri said that it is difficult to move in the city due to the large > number of dead bodies in the streets. The ICRS estimates there are more > than 6,000 dead in Fallujah, al-Nuri said. > > > > > > > > AFP asked Major Jay Antonelli at the Coalition Press Information Center > (CPIC) in Baghdad if the ICRS estimate of 6,000 dead in Fallujah was > credible. "We do not keep a count of dead Iraqis," Antonelli said. Asked > the same question, the ICRC's Sidani said, "We don't know." > > > > > > > > Antonelli said, "U.S. forces never blocked aid convoys from reaching the > wounded. We only recommended to the aid convoys that they should not enter > the city because the MNF [Multi-National Forces] could not guarantee their > security or safety." > > > > > > > > "The ICRC is very worried about the humanitarian situation in Falluja," > Sidani said. Asked what the ICRC was doing to alleviate the suffering in > Fallujah, Sidani said: "We are reminding the parties of their > responsibilities under international humanitarian law." > > > > > > > > It should be noted that the U.S.A. and Britain, the belligerent > occupying powers in Iraq, are the two largest contributors to the ICRC, > providing more than 42 percent of its budget for field operations. > > > > > > > > A second convoy from Baghdad, headed by Dr. Said Ismael Haki, the IRCS > president, delivered aid to Fallujah on Nov. 26. "There are no houses left > in Fallujah, only destroyed places." Haki said. "I really don't know how > the people will return to the city. No one will find their homes." > > > > > > > > As U.S. troops in Fallujah engaged in what has been described as the > most intense urban combat since Vietnam, the controlled press scrupulously > avoided discussion or footage of the devastation of the rebellious Sunni > city. For example, during the second week of the attack, rather than > discuss the widespread devastation of Fallujah, U.S. television news > programs focused largely on a brawl between basketball players and fans in > Detroit. > > > > > > > > Lt. Col. Brandl, commander of the 1st Battalion, 8th Marine Regiment, > was filmed giving a "pep talk" to his marines: "The enemy has got a face – > he's called Satan," Brandl said. "He's in Fallujah, and we're going to > destroy him." > > > > > > > > At least 136 U.S. soldiers were killed during November in Iraq, and more > than 800 were wounded, most of them in Fallujah, making it the most costly > month, and operation, in terms of U.S. lives lost since the invasion of > Iraq began in March 2003. > > > > > > > > FOR WHAT CAUSE? > > > > > > > > Michael Ware, Baghdad bureau chief for Time magazine, who has been in > Fallujah during the fighting, said U.S. actions in Fallujah are "creating > the nightmare that we are seeking to prevent." > > > > > > > > "I stood there as I saw American boys die," Ware told Chris Matthews of > MSNBC on Nov. 24, "I mean, a man shot at close range, blown apart by a > rocket propelled grenade. He dies there in front of you and I can't help > but think why? For what cause? > > > > > > > > "I see us creating the very thing that the president said we went there > to prevent," Ware said, "…subsequent to this invasion and the occupation > and the guerrilla war that is currently underway, we are the midwives of > the next generation of al Qaida and Islamic terrorist." > > > > > > > > Ware, who has interviewed senior insurgent leaders, said they study the > writings of the Vietnamese general Vo Nguyen Giap, Che Guevara, and Mao > Zedong. "They're bringing it straight from the Vietnam, and the broader > insurgency playbook," Ware said. > > > > > > > > "The name of the game is deny the population to the insurgents," Ware > said. "That's what we're trying to do, win hearts and minds. But we're not > winning them." > > > > > > > > The U.S. struggle to win Iraqi hearts and minds suffered a further set > back when NBC TV broadcast footage of a U.S. marine executing a wounded and > unarmed Iraqi in a Fallujah mosque. The much-publicized shooting, > apparently part of a massacre of a group of wounded resistance fighters, > "was a rare crack in the façade that Washington, with the complicity of > most of the corporate media, has tried to present to the world of its > brutal assault on the rebel Iraqi city," Rohan Pearce wrote in The > Greenleft Weekly Australia on Nov. 24. > > > > > > > > The New York Times has reported actions taken by U.S. forces in > Fallujah, which appear to be prima facie evidence of war crimes, without > mentioning that the actions constitute clear violations of the Laws of Land > War found in the U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10. > > > > > > > > For example, a Nov. 20 Times article by Edward Wong, with two > correspondents in Fallujah, reports that U.S. marines had transformed a > mosque into a fortress with snipers and machine gunners perched on the roof. > > > > > > > > Then, using the passive form, Wong goes on to say that "no neutral group > has been able to enter the city," without mentioning that U.S. forces > blocked humanitarian aid convoys. Likewise, Wong wrote, "Electricity and > water had been cut off." > > > > > > > > The Times, whose motto is "All the news that's fit to print," apparently > didn't think that it's readers needed to know the U.S. forces had cut off > the water and power to a city of 340,000 people. > > > > > > > > Asked if U.S. forces had cut power and water to Fallujah, Maj. Jay > Antonelli of CPIC wrote: "MNF did, with approval of the Interim Iraqi > Government, cut off electricity to the city of Fallujah as Operation > Al-Fajr began. Water was not cut off intentionally, however the water > system did sustain some kinetic damage during strikes." > > > > > > > > American Free Press asked the Pentagon's Lt. Col. Joe Yoswa if it is > true that U.S. forces were using mosques as fortresses. "It's not > possible," Yoswa said. "Under no circumstances. We would not set up > snipers in a mosque in an offensive position." > > > > > > > > CPIC's Antonelli said: "MNF would not use a mosque as a 'fortress.' MNF > and Iraqi security forces would only fire from a mosque if they were being > fired upon and were firing back in self-defense." > > > > > > > > Abu Sabah, a refugee from Fallujah, reported seeing phosphorus bombs: > "They used these weird bombs that put up smoke like a mushroom cloud. Then > small pieces fell from the air with long tails of smoke trailing behind > them. These exploded on the ground with large fires that burnt for half > and hour," Abu Sabah said. "When anyone touched these fires their bodies > burnt for hours." > > > > > > > > Eyewitnesses from Fallujah also reported seeing "melted" bodies. > > > > > > > > "THROW-AWAY SOLDIERS" > > > > > > > > Having seen what appeared to be a depleted uranium (DU) missile fired at > a building in Fallujah on CNN during the first week of the fighting, AFP > asked the Pentagon if DU weapons are being used in Fallujah. "Yes," Yoswa > said, "DU is a standard round on the M-1 Abrams tank." > > > > > > > > Because U.S. marines in Fallujah are very close to the poison gas > produced by exploded DU shells, AFP asked Yoswa if anything was being done > to protect the troops from DU poisoning. Yoswa seemed unaware of the > dangers posed by the use of DU. > > > > > > > > Marion Fulk, a retired nuclear scientist from Livermore National Lab > told AFP that U.S. troops in DU contaminated battlefields are considered > "throw-away soldiers." The Marines exposed to DU in Fallujah, and > elsewhere, face greatly increased risks of cancer, deformed children, and > other health problems in the future. > > > > > > > > OBLITERATION OF FALLUJAH > > > > > > > > The "obliteration of Fallujah" is a serious war crime, according to > Francis A. Boyle, a professor of international law at the University of > Illinois. "The obliteration of Fallujah continues apace," Boyle wrote in > his Nov. 15 article, A War Crime in Real Time: Obliterating Fallujah. > "Article 6(b) of the 1945 Nuremberg Charter defines a Nuremberg War Crime > in relevant part as the 'wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages.' > According to this definitive definition, the Bush administration's > destruction of Fallujah constitutes a war crime for which Nazis were tried > and executed." > > > > > > > > Finis > > > > -30- > > > > 1629 words > > > > Do you Yahoo!? > > The all-new My Yahoo! – What will yours do? > > > > > > > > > > > > Francis A. Boyle > > > > Law Building > > > > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > > > > > Champaign IL 61820 USA > > > > > 217-333-7954 <(217)%20333-7954> (phone) > > > > 217-244-1478 <(217)%20244-1478> (fax) > > > > (personal comments only) > > > > > > > > From: Boyle, Francis A > > Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2017 8:13 PM > > To: 'Roger Helbig' > > Cc: 'Karen Aram' ; Estabrook, Carl G < > galliher at illinois.edu>; 'peace-discuss at anti-war.net' < > peace-discuss at anti-war.net>; 'C. G. ESTABROOK' ; > 'Jay Becker' ; 'a-fields at uiuc.edu' < > a-fields at uiuc.edu>; Hoffman, Valerie J ; 'Joe > Lauria' ; Miller, Joseph Thomas < > jtmiller at illinois.edu>; Szoke, Ron ; 'Dave Trippel' > ; 'Arlene Hickory' ; 'David > Swanson' ; 'peace-discuss-request at lists. > chambana.net' ; ' > sherwoodross10 at gmail.com' ; 'abass10 at gmail.com' > ; 'mickalideh at gmail.com' ; 'Lina > Thorne' ; 'chicago at worldcantwait.net' < > chicago at worldcantwait.net> > > Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG > > > > > > > > Mattis expected his troops to be peacekeepers. They brought soccer > balls with them when they deployed. > > > > LOL! Marines don’t play soccer or teach kids to play soccer.. My Dad was > a Marine. He invaded Saipan, Tinian and Okinawa before he became a Lawyer. > Marines destroy anyone and anything that is in front of them as they are > trained to do and did at Fallujah under Mattis—A Real Mad Dog War Criminal. > Fab. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Francis A. Boyle > > > > Law Building > > > > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > > > > > Champaign IL 61820 USA > > > > > 217-333-7954 <(217)%20333-7954> (phone) > > > > 217-244-1478 <(217)%20244-1478> (fax) > > > > (personal comments only) > > > > > > > > From: Boyle, Francis A > > Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2017 7:52 PM > > To: 'Roger Helbig' > > Cc: Karen Aram ; Estabrook, Carl G < > galliher at illinois.edu>; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK < > carl at newsfromneptune.com>; Jay Becker ; > a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria > ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; > Szoke, Ron ; Dave Trippel ; > Arlene Hickory ; David Swanson ; > peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; > abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne < > lina at worldcantwait.net>; chicago at worldcantwait.net > > Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Karim A G [mailto:coffee at euro-comm.co.uk] > > Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2004 5:00 PM > > To: Karim A G > > Subject: A War Crime in Real Time > > > > http://www.counterpunch.org/boyle11152004.html > > > > > > > > November 15, 2004 > > > > A War Crime in Real Time > > > > Obliterating Fallujah > > > > By FRANCIS A. BOYLE > > > > The obliteration of Fallujah continues apace. Article 6(b) of the 1945 > Nuremberg Charter defines a Nuremberg War Crime in relevant part as the ". > . . wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages. . ." According to this > definitive definition, the Bush Jr. administration's destruction of > Fallujah constitutes a war crime for which Nazis were tried and executed. > There is nothing surprising about that. > > > > Since the Bush Jr. administration's installation in power by the United > States Supreme Court in January of 2001, the peoples of the world have > witnessed a government in the United States of America that has > demonstrated little if any respect for fundamental considerations of > international law, international organizations, and human rights, let alone > appreciation of the requirements for maintaining international peace and > security. What the world has watched instead is a comprehensive and > malicious assault upon the integrity of the international legal order by a > group of men and women who are thoroughly Machiavellian in their perception > of international relations and in their conduct of both foreign policy and > domestic affairs. This is not simply a question of giving or withholding > the benefit of the doubt when it comes to complicated matters of foreign > affairs and defense policies to a U.S. government charged with the security > of both its own citizens and those of its allies in Europe, the Western > Hemisphere, and the Pacific. Rather, the Bush Jr. administration's foreign > policy constitutes ongoing criminal activity under well-recognized > principles of both international law and U.S. domestic law, in particular > the Nuremberg Charter, the Nuremberg Judgment, and the Nuremberg > Principles. So their obliteration of Fallujah was to be expected. > > > > One generation ago the peoples of the world asked themselves: Where were > the "good" Germans? Well, there were some good Germans. The Lutheran > theologian and pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer was the foremost exemplar of > someone who led a life of principled opposition to the Nazi-terror state > even unto death. > > > > Today the peoples of the world are likewise asking themselves: Where are > the "good" Americans? Well, there are some good Americans. Like three > Catholic Nuns in Denver, they are getting arrested and going to jail for > protesting against United States weapons of mass destruction (WMD) whose > power for human extermination far exceeds even the wildest fantasies of > Hitler and the Nazis. Or else for protesting against illegal U.S.. military > interventions around the world. Just recently the Nuclear Resister > estimated that since the Fall of 2002, there have been more than 9,500 > anti-war related arrests in the United States alone. Many more will be > coming. > > > > In international legal terms, the Bush Jr. administration itself should > now be viewed as constituting an ongoing criminal conspiracy under > international criminal law in violation of the Nuremberg Charter, the > Nuremberg Judgment, and the Nuremberg Principles, due to its formulation > and undertaking of aggressive war policies that are legally akin to those > perpetrated by the Nazi regime. As a consequence, American citizens possess > the basic right under international law and the United States domestic law, > including the U.S. Constitution, to engage in acts of non-violent civil > resistance in order to prevent, impede, thwart, or terminate ongoing > criminal activities perpetrated by U.S. government officials in their > conduct of foreign affairs policies and military operations purported to > relate to defense and counter-terrorism. > > > > This same right of civil resistance extends pari passu to all citizens > of the world community of states. Everyone around the world has both the > right and the duty under international law to resist ongoing criminal > activities perpetrated by the Bush Jr. administration and its nefarious > foreign accomplices such as Blair, Berlusconi, Howard, Koizumi, > Kwasniewski, etc. by all non-violent means possible. If it is not so > restrained, the Bush Jr. administration could very well precipitate a Third > World War. > > > > The time for preventive action is now. Civil resistance is the way to > go. People power can overcome power politics. Popular movements have > succeeded in toppling tyrannical, dictatorial and authoritarian regimes > throughout former Communist countries in Eastern Europe, as well as in > Asia, and most recently in Latin America. It is time once again to exercise > People Power here in the United States of America: "When in the Course of > human Events. . . We hold these Truths to be self-evident. . . . we > mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and sacred Honor." > > > > Despite the best efforts by the Bush Jr. Leaguers to the contrary, we > American Citizens still have our First Amendment Rights: Freedom of Speech, > Freedom of Association, Freedom of Assembly, Freedom to Petition our > Government for the Redress of these massive Grievances, Civil Resistance, > etc. We are going to have to start vigorously exercising all of our First > Amendment Rights right now. We must use them or else, as the saying goes, > we will lose them. We must act not only for the good of the Peoples of > Southwest Asia, but for our future, that of our children, that of our > nation as a democratic society committed to the Rule of Law and the U.S. > Constitution. The Nazis had their "homeland" too > > > > Francis A. Boyle, Professor of Law, University of Illinois, is author of > Foundations of World Order, Duke University Press, The Criminality of > Nuclear Deterrence, and Palestine, Palestinians and International Law, by > Clarity Press. He can be reached at: FBOYLE at LAW.UIUC.EDU > > > > --- > > Subscribed as: fboyle at law.uiuc.edu; to unsubscribe send to > al-awda-universalist-request at umich.edu > > with UNSUBSCRIBE as the SUBJECT. > > URL: awda-universalist > > > > > > > > Francis A. Boyle > > > > Law Building > > > > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > > > > > Champaign IL 61820 USA > > > > > 217-333-7954 <(217)%20333-7954> (phone) > > > > 217-244-1478 <(217)%20244-1478> (fax) > > > > (personal comments only) > > > > > > > > From: Roger Helbig [mailto:rwhelbig at gmail.com] > > Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2017 6:43 PM > > To: Boyle, Francis A > > Cc: Karen Aram ; Estabrook, Carl G < > galliher at illinois.edu>; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK < > carl at newsfromneptune.com>; Jay Becker ; > a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria > ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; > Szoke, Ron ; Dave Trippel ; > Arlene Hickory ; David Swanson ; > peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; > abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne < > lina at worldcantwait.net>; chicago at worldcantwait.net > > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG > > > > > > > > There was no massacre at Fallujah. This is nonsense. Mattis expected > his troops to be peacekeepers. They brought soccer balls with them when > they deployed. > > > > > > > > I would love to see your "so called" war crime indictment. Wonder how > much of it is from your fertile Hate America imagination and how much from > the fertile Arab anti-American propaganda organs. Doubt a single paragraph > is actually based on fact. > > > > > > > > On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 8:22 AM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > > > > Trump’s Secretary of War Mad Dog Mattis was responsible for the > Massacre at Fallujah, which I pointed out on Counterpunch was a Nuremberg > War Crime along the lines of the Nazis—the wanton devastation of a city-- > in revenge for them killing our mercenaries. Fab. > > > > > > > > Francis A. Boyle > > > > Law Building > > > > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > > > > > Champaign IL 61820 USA > > > > > 217-333-7954 <(217)%20333-7954> (phone) > > > > 217-244-1478 <(217)%20244-1478> (fax) > > > > (personal comments only) > > > > > > > > From: Karen Aram [mailto:karenaram at hotmail.com] > > Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2017 10:04 AM > > To: Estabrook, Carl G > > Cc: Boyle, Francis A ; Jay Becker < > futureup2us at gmail.com>; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK < > carl at newsfromneptune.com>; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J < > vhoffman at illinois.edu>; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; > Szoke, Ron ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; Arlene > Hickory ; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; > David Swanson ; Dave Trippel < > davetrippel at ameritech.net>; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina > Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Mildred > O'brien ; David Johnson ; > Joe Lauria ; David Green > > Subject: Re: Guest Commentary by Carl in NG > > > > > > > > I’m sorry Carl, I don’t agree with that title either. It assumes that > all in the anti-war movement welcome the Trump administration. Not all of > us trust he will do some of that which he promised in respect to “defunding > Nato,” “making friends with Russia,” or killing TPP. Even if he does those > three things, his further provocations of China, are every bit as dangerous > as those with Russia, it’s a mere tactic to drive a wedge between Russia > and China, while chipping away at Iran. > > > > > > > > His Cabinet appointments are frightening to say the least in respect to > Healthcare, Energy, Education, Housing, etc, etc. > > > > > > > > Further expansion of war in the Middle East, and North Africa, as well > as expansion of capitalist corporate control is on the agenda no matter > which of the two Party’s are in power. > > > > > > > > Obama paved the way, for all of which I have just referred, but it’s not > over. Our only hope is that “the people” are now awake, and perhaps will > focus on that which is most serious to survival. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jan 22, 2017, at 07:44, Carl G. Estabrook > wrote: > > > > > > > > My original title was, “Why the anti-war movement welcomes the new > administration.” > > > > > > > > For more on that theme, see columnists/201701191049765550-how-trump-presidency-will-play-out/>. > > > > > > > > —CGE > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jan 22, 2017, at 9:29 AM, Karen Aram wrote: > > > > > > > > An excellent letter, which I posted on FB. I deliberately deleted the > title that I assumed the NG created, because it gives the false impression > that those of us in the anti-war movement, all support Trump. We don’t, we > just didn’t support Hillary. Anyone in the anti-war movement supporting > Hillary was supporting more of the same that Obama provided. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jan 22, 2017, at 07:16, Boyle, Francis A wrote: > > > > > > > > He {Obama} attacked eight countries (two more than George Bush), and > conducted what one leading political commentator called "the most extreme > terrorist campaign of modern times — his drone assassinations." He killed > thousands of civilians with drones, including U.S. citizens and hundreds of > children. > > > > A good letter by Carl today in NG. (Remember NG writes their own titles > to letters.) We must now hold Trump’s feet to the fire across the board! I > think Carl’s quote comes from Chomsky? In any event the Illinois Nazis Law > Faculty fully supported and promoted and held out for emulation by lawyers > and this Campus and our Good Community: > > > > "the most extreme terrorist campaign of modern times — his drone > assassinations." > > > > > > > > The Illinois Nazis Law Faculty are just a GANG OF SICK PUPPIES! > > > > Fab > > > > Ed Norton Professor of Law > > > > Carl Schmitt College of Law: > > > > “Mein Fuhrer, I can walk!” > > > > > > > > > > > > Francis A. Boyle > > > > Law Building > > > > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > > > > > Champaign IL 61820 USA > > > > > 217-333-7954 <(217)%20333-7954> (phone) > > > > 217-244-1478 <(217)%20244-1478> (fax) > > > > (personal comments only) > > > > > > > > Feed: News-Gazette.com > > Posted on: Sunday, January 22, 2017 7:00 AM > > Author: digital.media > > Subject: Guest Commentary: Why anti-war movement welcomes Trump > > > > > > > > By C.G. ESTABROOK > > > > The European anti-war group "No War No NATO" writes as follows: > > > > "Demonstrating in Europe on 21 January, against the newly elected US > President Donald Trump is tantamount to lending support to the Obama > administration, which has transformed Europe into NATO's first line of > attack, nuclear matters inclusive, against Russia. > > > > read more > > > > > > View article... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Peace-discuss mailing list > > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > > > > > > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Sat Nov 4 14:38:34 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2017 14:38:34 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG In-Reply-To: References: <9D3D5E59-5EFC-47DF-838D-C6508214E176@illinois.edu> Message-ID: On another list I was on Roger vigorously supported the use of Depleted Uranium—Military Intelligence Mole for sure. This list too. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Roger Helbig [mailto:rwhelbig at gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2017 9:33 AM To: Boyle, Francis A Cc: Peace-discuss Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG Spreading lies yet again - if Rokke had not personally lied about me, I would not have grown so interested in Rokke and his pals all over the globe - On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 7:26 AM, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: Roger:“I wanted to be”—Military Intelligence. A Typical Nixonian Limited Hang-out. -------------------- Yes Roger I am sure in your capacity as a Military Intelligence Mole you have corresponded with all sorts of MI Colleagues. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Roger Helbig [mailto:rwhelbig at gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2017 9:24 AM To: Boyle, Francis A >; Peace-discuss > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG Oh wow, a Counter Punch article - they don't fact check anything and really are more propaganda than news - Fallujah was not obliterated - but the liars and their buddies like FAB want people to think so - I have probably read more about the two Battles of Fallujah and corresponded with people who were there than FAB ever has - On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 7:08 AM, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: http://www.counterpunch.org/boyle11152004.html November 15, 2004 A War Crime in Real Time Obliterating Fallujah By FRANCIS A. BOYLE The obliteration of Fallujah continues apace. Article 6(b) of the 1945 Nuremberg Charter defines a Nuremberg War Crime in relevant part as the ". . . wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages. . ." According to this definitive definition, the Bush Jr. administration's destruction of Fallujah constitutes a war crime for which Nazis were tried and executed. There is nothing surprising about that. Since the Bush Jr. administration's installation in power by the United States Supreme Court in January of 2001, the peoples of the world have witnessed a government in the United States of America that has demonstrated little if any respect for fundamental considerations of international law, international organizations, and human rights, let alone appreciation of the requirements for maintaining international peace and security. What the world has watched instead is a comprehensive and malicious assault upon the integrity of the international legal order by a group of men and women who are thoroughly Machiavellian in their perception of international relations and in their conduct of both foreign policy and domestic affairs. This is not simply a question of giving or withholding the benefit of the doubt when it comes to complicated matters of foreign affairs and defense policies to a U.S. government charged with the security of both its own citizens and those of its allies in Europe, the Western Hemisphere, and the Pacific. Rather, the Bush Jr. administration's foreign policy constitutes ongoing criminal activity under well-recognized principles of both international law and U.S. domestic law, in particular the Nuremberg Charter, the Nuremberg Judgment, and the Nuremberg Principles. So their obliteration of Fallujah was to be expected. One generation ago the peoples of the world asked themselves: Where were the "good" Germans? Well, there were some good Germans. The Lutheran theologian and pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer was the foremost exemplar of someone who led a life of principled opposition to the Nazi-terror state even unto death. Today the peoples of the world are likewise asking themselves: Where are the "good" Americans? Well, there are some good Americans. Like three Catholic Nuns in Denver, they are getting arrested and going to jail for protesting against United States weapons of mass destruction (WMD) whose power for human extermination far exceeds even the wildest fantasies of Hitler and the Nazis. Or else for protesting against illegal U.S.. military interventions around the world. Just recently the Nuclear Resister estimated that since the Fall of 2002, there have been more than 9,500 anti-war related arrests in the United States alone. Many more will be coming. In international legal terms, the Bush Jr. administration itself should now be viewed as constituting an ongoing criminal conspiracy under international criminal law in violation of the Nuremberg Charter, the Nuremberg Judgment, and the Nuremberg Principles, due to its formulation and undertaking of aggressive war policies that are legally akin to those perpetrated by the Nazi regime. As a consequence, American citizens possess the basic right under international law and the United States domestic law, including the U.S. Constitution, to engage in acts of non-violent civil resistance in order to prevent, impede, thwart, or terminate ongoing criminal activities perpetrated by U.S. government officials in their conduct of foreign affairs policies and military operations purported to relate to defense and counter-terrorism. This same right of civil resistance extends pari passu to all citizens of the world community of states. Everyone around the world has both the right and the duty under international law to resist ongoing criminal activities perpetrated by the Bush Jr. administration and its nefarious foreign accomplices such as Blair, Berlusconi, Howard, Koizumi, Kwasniewski, etc. by all non-violent means possible. If it is not so restrained, the Bush Jr. administration could very well precipitate a Third World War. The time for preventive action is now. Civil resistance is the way to go. People power can overcome power politics. Popular movements have succeeded in toppling tyrannical, dictatorial and authoritarian regimes throughout former Communist countries in Eastern Europe, as well as in Asia, and most recently in Latin America. It is time once again to exercise People Power here in the United States of America: "When in the Course of human Events. . . We hold these Truths to be self-evident. . . . we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and sacred Honor." Despite the best efforts by the Bush Jr. Leaguers to the contrary, we American Citizens still have our First Amendment Rights: Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Association, Freedom of Assembly, Freedom to Petition our Government for the Redress of these massive Grievances, Civil Resistance, etc. We are going to have to start vigorously exercising all of our First Amendment Rights right now. We must use them or else, as the saying goes, we will lose them. We must act not only for the good of the Peoples of Southwest Asia, but for our future, that of our children, that of our nation as a democratic society committed to the Rule of Law and the U.S. Constitution. The Nazis had their "homeland" too Francis A. Boyle, Professor of Law, University of Illinois, is author of Foundations of World Order, Duke University Press, The Criminality of Nuclear Deterrence, and Palestine, Palestinians and International Law, by Clarity Press. He can be reached at: FBOYLE at LAW.UIUC.EDU Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -----Original Message----- From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2017 8:57 AM To: C G Estabrook >; Roger Helbig > Cc: Karen Aram >; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Jay Becker >; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; Szoke, Ron >; Dave Trippel >; Arlene Hickory >; David Swanson >; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG In other words, approximately 3.3 million Iraqis were exterminated by the United States and the United Kingdom from August of 1990 until the end of 2011 when President Obama had ordered the purported “final” withdrawal of U.S. military forces from Iraq. And these are very conservative figures that I believe could be proven to the satisfaction of the International Court of Justice. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -----Original Message----- From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2017 8:55 AM To: C G Estabrook >; Roger Helbig > Cc: Karen Aram >; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Jay Becker >; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; Szoke, Ron >; Dave Trippel >; Arlene Hickory >; David Swanson >; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG Of course the Illinois Nazi Faculty of Law and its Yale Mafia Law Dean Iceman Amar are more than happy to exterminate Muslims/Arabs/Asians of Color. Fab. Legal Protection Of Children In Armed Conflict: The Iraqi Children Genocide By Francis A. Boyle 04 December, 2012 Countercurrents.org This is the text version of a speech delivered by Francis A. Boyle at The International Conference on War-affected Children Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, November 22, 2012 During the summer of 1991 I was contacted on behalf of several Mothers in Iraq whose children were dying at astounding rates because of the genocidal economic sanctions that had been imposed upon them by the Security Council in August of 1990 at the behest of the Bush Senior administration. They requested that I do something in order to save these innocent children from perishing in agony in front of their mothers’ very own eyes. Using the format of the Writ for World Habeas Corpus that had been previously provided to me by my friend and colleague, the late Luis Kutner, Esq. of Chicago, Illinois, I filed a class-action Complaint on behalf of the 4.5 million children of Iraq against President George Bush Senior and the United States of America with the United Nations Organization that was dated 18 September 1991.[1] I submitted the Complaint to the Secretary General of the U.N., member states of the General Assembly, the Economic and Social Council, the Commission on Human Rights, the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, UNESCO, and UNICEF. A copy of my Indictment, Complaint and Petition for Relief from Genocide on behalf of the 4.5 million children of Iraq is reprinted below. This Complaint accused the United States and President Bush Senior (1) of committing the international crime of genocide against the 4.5 Million Children of Iraq in violation of the International Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide of 1948 and in violation of the municipal legal systems of all civilized nations in the world; (2) of a gross and consistent pattern of violations of the most fundamental human rights of the 4.5 Million Children of Iraq as recognized and guaranteed to them by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948; (3) of the complete negation and denial of all the rights guaranteed to the 4.5 Million Children of Iraq by the 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child; and (4) of the systematic violation of the special protections of international humanitarian law guaranteed to the 4.5 Million Children of Iraq by the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 and Additional Protocol I thereto of 1977. My Complaint demanded (1) the termination of all forms of multilateral and bilateral economic sanctions against Iraq; (2) the massive provision of international humanitarian relief supplies to Iraq by all organs of the United Nations System; (3) that monetary compensation be paid to the children of Iraq and their families for deaths as well as for all physical and mental injury by the United States; and (4) that criminal proceedings for genocide be instituted against President George Bush Senior by the appropriate organs of the United Nations System as well as by all municipal legal systems in the world, including by the United States government. My Complaint estimated that since sanctions were first imposed against Iraq in August of 1990, Iraqi children were dying as a direct result thereof at the rate of about 500 per day. Despite my best professional efforts working on behalf of my Clients pro bono publico, the grossly hypocritical United Nations Organization adamantly refused to act to terminate these genocidal sanctions and thus to save the dying children of Iraq. In 1995 the United Nations’ own Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) Report estimated that these genocidal economic sanctions against Iraq had by then killed about 560,000 Iraqi children since when they were first imposed in 1990.[2] In specific regard to these murdered Iraqi children, then U.S. Secretary of State Madeline Albright, was interviewed on the CBS Television Network on 12 May 1996 by correspondent Leslie Stahl. The transcript of this interview provided by CBS News itself reads as follows:[3] Stahl: (Voiceover) If the Iraqi people place any blame on Saddam Hussein, they’re afraid to say so. And there is no longer much hope that the sanctions will inspire the people to rise up and topple the government. Now people are just trying to get by because one of the side effects of the sanctions has been inflation, which has jumped as high as 3,000 percent. To make ends meet, Iraqis are selling everything they can. Flea markets have sprung up on the streets, where families can sell their furniture, clothes, anything they can to make a few extra dinars. Most Iraqis are suffering We have heard that a half a million children have died. I mean, that’s more children than died when-wh-in-in Hiroshima. And-and, you know, is the price worth it? Ambassador Albright: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price – we think the price is worth it. This shocking and revolting statement made by the U.S. Secretary of State provided proof positive of the genocidal intent by the United States Government against Iraq and its children and its people as defined by and in violation of Genocide Convention Article II: “In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group, as such. . . .” Certainly a half-million dead Iraqi children that the U.S. Secretary of State specifically intended to destroy as such, and did indeed destroy as such, constituted a very important “part” of the Iraqi people. These half-million dead children were the very future of the people and state of Iraq. This Albright statement is what criminal lawyers call a classic “Admission Against Interest.” This Statement by the then sitting U.S. Secretary of State, acting within the scope of her official duties and speaking in the name of the United States government, could be taken to the International Court of Justice in The Hague and filed to prove that the United States of America possessed the required mens rea (criminal intent) necessary to commit the international crime of genocide. Under both international law and U.S. domestic law, to be guilty of a crime a person or a state must possess the requisite mens rea at the same time that he or she or it commits the criminal act (actus reus). With respect to these genocidal economic sanctions against Iraq, the actus reus for the U.S. government and its officials committing the international crime of genocide is set forth in Genocide Convention Article II (c): “Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.” The 500,000 dead Iraqi children, as conceded and approved by U.S. Secretary of State Albright, constituted a “substantial part” of the people of Iraq, which is the threshold numerical test for genocide recognized by the International Court of Justice itself that I had successfully argued there for Bosnia and Herzegovina against Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) in 1993. Albright incriminated both herself and the United States of America at the same time, apparently without thought or concern as to any future international legal determination of their culpability. Such is the arrogance of the powerful—which is usually the source of their downfall. The United States and the United Kingdom obstinately insisted that the genocidal economic sanctions imposed against Iraq remain in place until after the conclusion of the internationally illegal Gulf War II of aggression perpetrated by the Bush Junior administration and the Tony Blair government against Iraq in March of 2003. Then, on 22 May 2003 the United States and the United Kingdom procured U.N. Security Council Resolution 1483 lifting these genocidal economic sanctions; yet not with a view to easing the over decade-long suffering of the Iraqi people and children. But rather so as to better facilitate the U.S./U.K. unsupervised looting and plundering of the Iraqi economy and oil fields in violation of the international laws of war as well as to the grave detriment of the Iraqi people and their children. Once I had gotten this class-action Complaint filed with the United Nations Organization and had worked out the basic legal theory for U.S. genocide against the children of Iraq, starting in the Fall of 1991 I did everything humanly possible to convince the then President of Iraq to give me the legal authority to sue the United States and the United Kingdom at the International Court of Justice in The Hague on the basis of the 1948 Genocide Convention: First, in order to break the genocidal economic embargo against the people of Iraq, and especially their children. And second, in order to prevent what I perceived to be further impending military attacks by the United States and Britain upon Iraq that would culminate someday in stealing all their oil. I most strenuously pursued these efforts systematically and continuously until the very eve of the war of aggression against Iraq by the Bush Junior administration and the Tony Blair government in mid-March of 2003. These efforts also included two meetings with the then Foreign Minister of Iraq and their top international lawyer to review, consider, and discuss papers I had drafted to be filed by Iraq in the World Court against the United States and the United Kingdom in order to accomplish these objectives.[4] In addition, at the very last minute available I also attempted to convince the Deputy Prime Minister of Iraq to give me the legal authority to file these World Court lawsuits against the U.S. and the U.K. literally right up until the outbreak of hostilities in mid-March of 2003. All to no avail. Despite my best efforts, I failed. This shall always be one of the great disappointments of my life. Approximately 1.7 million Iraqis died as a direct result of these genocidal economic sanctions, including within that number about 750,000 Iraqi children. In addition, another 1.4 million Iraqis died as a result of the Bush Junior/Tony Blair genocidal war of aggression against Iraq. To this appalling genocidal death toll must be added the 200,000 Iraqis President Bush Senior slaughtered in his 1991 Gulf War I. In other words, approximately 3.3 million Iraqis were exterminated by the United States and the United Kingdom from August of 1990 until the end of 2011 when President Obama had ordered the purported “final” withdrawal of U.S. military forces from Iraq. And these are very conservative figures that I believe could be proven to the satisfaction of the International Court of Justice. These World Court papers that I drew up for Iraq to sue the United States and the United Kingdom at the International Court of Justice on the basis of the 1948 Genocide Convention that were twice considered and reviewed by the Foreign Minister of Iraq and their top international lawyer still sit in my office today. They could be revised and updated by the current government of Iraq in order to sue the United States and the United Kingdom at the International Court of Justice for genocide today. Of course this is for the current government of Iraq to decide. Towards facilitating that objective, I will be more than happy to make these World Court papers available to the current government of Iraq free of charge if they so desire. For Iraq to file my proposed World Court lawsuits for genocide against the United States and the United Kingdom would produce some small degree of justice for the 750,000 murdered children of Iraq and at least 3.3 million exterminated Iraqis. Thank you. [1] See Edward Pearce, Death and Indecency in a Time of Cholera, The Guardian, Oct. 25, 1991. [2] See Ramsey Clark, FAO Report, and Others, The Children Are Dying (World View Forum, Inc.: 1996). [3] See 5/12/96 60 Minutes, 1996 Westlaw 8064912. [4] Iraq to Go to World Court, South News, Jan. 28, 1998: “U.S. Professor of International Law Francis Boyle has publicly offered to charge U.S. leaders for genocide against the Iraqi people.” Professor Francis A. Boyle is an international law expert and served as Legal Advisor to the Palestine Liberation Organization and Yasser Arafat on the 1988 Palestinian Declaration of Independence, as well as to the Palestinian Delegation to the Middle East Peace Negotiations from 1991 to 1993, where he drafted the Palestinian counter-offer to the now defunct Oslo Agreement. His books include “ Palestine, Palestinians and International Law” (2003), and “ The Palestinian Right of Return under International Law” (2010). © Copyright 2012 by Francis A. Boyle. All rights reserved. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -----Original Message----- From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2017 8:42 AM To: Roger Helbig > Cc: Boyle, Francis A >; Karen Aram >; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Jay Becker >; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; Szoke, Ron >; Dave Trippel >; Arlene Hickory >; David Swanson >; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG Of course the US committed war crimes in Iraq. The US invasion of that country is the greatest international crime of the century - so far. On ‘American Free Press,’ see . > On Nov 4, 2017, at 8:11 AM, Roger Helbig > wrote: > > You do know that Christopher Bollyn is NOT a reporter but is a Neo Nazi operative of long standing and that the American Free Press is not a news organization, but a Neo Nazi front - look up Willis Carto - he was Bollyn's boss and founded the American Free Press - this website that has reports of conference for American Free Press and The Barnes Review used to have a prominent picture of a Nazi flag behind the blogger Alex Hassinger - Douglas Lind Rokke of Urbana spoke at this event and Dave von Kleist the producer of Rokke's first anti-US propaganda video "Beyond Treason" was the master of ceremonies - http://www.chairmanofnordwave.blogspot.com > > Carto died in 2015 - there are a number of good sources on Carto in a simple Google search - > > Learn about Neo Nazis - read this book - "Blood and Politics" - it mentions Bollyn and extensively discusses Carto - pg 382, which I can e-mail to all who request - has Carto's establishment of The Barnes Review, a Holocaust Denial publication - The American Free Press replaced Carto's The Spotlight after Carto lost a legal battle - Bollyn is also mentioned in connection with a Pat Buchanan campaign apparatus > > On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 4:57 AM, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: > I also want to make it clear for the record that before the invasions of Saipan, Tinian and Okinawa my Father, a Marine, was ordered by his Captain not to take prisoners of war on the grounds of reciprocity that the Japanese did not take Prisoners of War of our Men. My Father disobeyed these clearly illegal orders and took Japanese Prisoners of War. I cite the example of my Father to my law students to refute the objection that you cannot expect soldiers to obey the laws of war during combat. If my Father could obey the laws of war at Saipan, Tinian, and Okinawa, any other soldier should be able to do the same. Meanwhile,while I am teaching this to my students, the Illinois Nazis Law Faculty aid, abet, and promote and facilitate war crimes and crimes against humanity from the safety of their offices. My Father later became a Lawyer. RIP. The Illinois Nazis Law Faculty are despicable! Fab. > > > > Francis A. Boyle > > Law Building > > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > > Champaign IL 61820 USA > > 217-333-7954 (phone) > > 217-244-1478 (fax) > > (personal comments only) > > > > From: Boyle, Francis A > Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2017 8:38 PM > To: Roger Helbig > > Cc: Karen Aram >; Estabrook, Carl G >; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Jay Becker >; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; Szoke, Ron >; Dave Trippel >; Arlene Hickory >; David Swanson >; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net > Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG > > > > Mad Dog Mattis the Nuremberg War Criminal. Fab. > > CONTROLLED PRESS IGNORES > > CRIMINAL OBLITERATION OF FALLUJAH > > > > By Christopher Bollyn > > American Free Press > > > > The controlled press has scrupulously avoided discussing the devastation and prima facie evidence of war crimes committed during the U.S. siege and assault of Fallujah. > > > > As Americans prepared for Thanksgiving, an estimated 100,000 residents of the besieged Iraqi city of Fallujah, trapped in their homes, struggled to survive without fresh food, water or electricity, reportedly cut off by U.S. forces on November 8. > > > > Meanwhile, on the streets of Fallujah, a city of more than 350,000, dogs gnawed on bloated and rotting corpses that remained unburied for weeks. > > > > Thousands of families in Fallujah were reported to be in a critical humanitarian situation after U.S. forces prevented the delivery of relief supplies. An Iraq Red Crescent Society (IRCS) humanitarian aid convoy, reportedly blocked by U.S. troops for more than two weeks, was allowed to deliver aid to residents in the heart of the city on November 25. > > > > On Thanksgiving, U.S. forces permitted the IRCS convoy carrying thousands of food parcels, blankets, tents and medical supplies to enter the city and allowed one of the clinics to be converted into a temporary hospital to treat the injured. Rana Sidani of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) in Geneva, Switzerland however, told American Free Press on Nov. 30 that "many civilians" were still prevented from receiving aid or medical care. > > > > At the beginning of the U.S. operation in Fallujah on Nov. 5, a hospital in the central Nazzal district of Fallujah was "reduced to rubble" as a result of U.S. air and artillery bombardment. "Only its façade, with a sign reading Nazzal Emergency Hospital, remained intact," Reuters reported. > > > > "A nearby compound used by the main Falluja Hospital to store medical supplies was also destroyed," witnesses told Reuters. Fallujah's main hospital was occupied by U.S. forces when the ground offensive began. These actions are apparent violations of international humanitarian law. > > > > "Bodies can be seen everywhere and people were crying when receiving the food parcels," Muhammad al-Nuri, a spokesman for the IRCS in Baghdad, said. "It is very sad. It is a human disaster." > > > > Al-Nuri said that it is difficult to move in the city due to the large number of dead bodies in the streets. The ICRS estimates there are more than 6,000 dead in Fallujah, al-Nuri said. > > > > AFP asked Major Jay Antonelli at the Coalition Press Information Center (CPIC) in Baghdad if the ICRS estimate of 6,000 dead in Fallujah was credible. "We do not keep a count of dead Iraqis," Antonelli said. Asked the same question, the ICRC's Sidani said, "We don't know." > > > > Antonelli said, "U.S. forces never blocked aid convoys from reaching the wounded. We only recommended to the aid convoys that they should not enter the city because the MNF [Multi-National Forces] could not guarantee their security or safety." > > > > "The ICRC is very worried about the humanitarian situation in Falluja," Sidani said. Asked what the ICRC was doing to alleviate the suffering in Fallujah, Sidani said: "We are reminding the parties of their responsibilities under international humanitarian law." > > > > It should be noted that the U.S.A. and Britain, the belligerent occupying powers in Iraq, are the two largest contributors to the ICRC, providing more than 42 percent of its budget for field operations. > > > > A second convoy from Baghdad, headed by Dr. Said Ismael Haki, the IRCS president, delivered aid to Fallujah on Nov. 26. "There are no houses left in Fallujah, only destroyed places." Haki said. "I really don't know how the people will return to the city. No one will find their homes." > > > > As U.S. troops in Fallujah engaged in what has been described as the most intense urban combat since Vietnam, the controlled press scrupulously avoided discussion or footage of the devastation of the rebellious Sunni city. For example, during the second week of the attack, rather than discuss the widespread devastation of Fallujah, U.S. television news programs focused largely on a brawl between basketball players and fans in Detroit. > > > > Lt. Col. Brandl, commander of the 1st Battalion, 8th Marine Regiment, was filmed giving a "pep talk" to his marines: "The enemy has got a face – he's called Satan," Brandl said. "He's in Fallujah, and we're going to destroy him." > > > > At least 136 U.S. soldiers were killed during November in Iraq, and more than 800 were wounded, most of them in Fallujah, making it the most costly month, and operation, in terms of U.S. lives lost since the invasion of Iraq began in March 2003. > > > > FOR WHAT CAUSE? > > > > Michael Ware, Baghdad bureau chief for Time magazine, who has been in Fallujah during the fighting, said U.S. actions in Fallujah are "creating the nightmare that we are seeking to prevent." > > > > "I stood there as I saw American boys die," Ware told Chris Matthews of MSNBC on Nov. 24, "I mean, a man shot at close range, blown apart by a rocket propelled grenade. He dies there in front of you and I can't help but think why? For what cause? > > > > "I see us creating the very thing that the president said we went there to prevent," Ware said, "…subsequent to this invasion and the occupation and the guerrilla war that is currently underway, we are the midwives of the next generation of al Qaida and Islamic terrorist." > > > > Ware, who has interviewed senior insurgent leaders, said they study the writings of the Vietnamese general Vo Nguyen Giap, Che Guevara, and Mao Zedong. "They're bringing it straight from the Vietnam, and the broader insurgency playbook," Ware said. > > > > "The name of the game is deny the population to the insurgents," Ware said. "That's what we're trying to do, win hearts and minds. But we're not winning them." > > > > The U.S. struggle to win Iraqi hearts and minds suffered a further set back when NBC TV broadcast footage of a U.S. marine executing a wounded and unarmed Iraqi in a Fallujah mosque. The much-publicized shooting, apparently part of a massacre of a group of wounded resistance fighters, "was a rare crack in the façade that Washington, with the complicity of most of the corporate media, has tried to present to the world of its brutal assault on the rebel Iraqi city," Rohan Pearce wrote in The Greenleft Weekly Australia on Nov. 24. > > > > The New York Times has reported actions taken by U.S. forces in Fallujah, which appear to be prima facie evidence of war crimes, without mentioning that the actions constitute clear violations of the Laws of Land War found in the U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10. > > > > For example, a Nov. 20 Times article by Edward Wong, with two correspondents in Fallujah, reports that U.S. marines had transformed a mosque into a fortress with snipers and machine gunners perched on the roof. > > > > Then, using the passive form, Wong goes on to say that "no neutral group has been able to enter the city," without mentioning that U.S. forces blocked humanitarian aid convoys. Likewise, Wong wrote, "Electricity and water had been cut off." > > > > The Times, whose motto is "All the news that's fit to print," apparently didn't think that it's readers needed to know the U.S. forces had cut off the water and power to a city of 340,000 people. > > > > Asked if U.S. forces had cut power and water to Fallujah, Maj. Jay Antonelli of CPIC wrote: "MNF did, with approval of the Interim Iraqi Government, cut off electricity to the city of Fallujah as Operation Al-Fajr began. Water was not cut off intentionally, however the water system did sustain some kinetic damage during strikes." > > > > American Free Press asked the Pentagon's Lt. Col. Joe Yoswa if it is true that U.S. forces were using mosques as fortresses. "It's not possible," Yoswa said. "Under no circumstances. We would not set up snipers in a mosque in an offensive position." > > > > CPIC's Antonelli said: "MNF would not use a mosque as a 'fortress.' MNF and Iraqi security forces would only fire from a mosque if they were being fired upon and were firing back in self-defense." > > > > Abu Sabah, a refugee from Fallujah, reported seeing phosphorus bombs: "They used these weird bombs that put up smoke like a mushroom cloud. Then small pieces fell from the air with long tails of smoke trailing behind them. These exploded on the ground with large fires that burnt for half and hour," Abu Sabah said. "When anyone touched these fires their bodies burnt for hours." > > > > Eyewitnesses from Fallujah also reported seeing "melted" bodies. > > > > "THROW-AWAY SOLDIERS" > > > > Having seen what appeared to be a depleted uranium (DU) missile fired at a building in Fallujah on CNN during the first week of the fighting, AFP asked the Pentagon if DU weapons are being used in Fallujah. "Yes," Yoswa said, "DU is a standard round on the M-1 Abrams tank." > > > > Because U.S. marines in Fallujah are very close to the poison gas produced by exploded DU shells, AFP asked Yoswa if anything was being done to protect the troops from DU poisoning. Yoswa seemed unaware of the dangers posed by the use of DU. > > > > Marion Fulk, a retired nuclear scientist from Livermore National Lab told AFP that U.S. troops in DU contaminated battlefields are considered "throw-away soldiers." The Marines exposed to DU in Fallujah, and elsewhere, face greatly increased risks of cancer, deformed children, and other health problems in the future. > > > > OBLITERATION OF FALLUJAH > > > > The "obliteration of Fallujah" is a serious war crime, according to Francis A. Boyle, a professor of international law at the University of Illinois. "The obliteration of Fallujah continues apace," Boyle wrote in his Nov. 15 article, A War Crime in Real Time: Obliterating Fallujah. "Article 6(b) of the 1945 Nuremberg Charter defines a Nuremberg War Crime in relevant part as the 'wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages.' According to this definitive definition, the Bush administration's destruction of Fallujah constitutes a war crime for which Nazis were tried and executed." > > > > Finis > > -30- > > 1629 words > > Do you Yahoo!? > The all-new My Yahoo! – What will yours do? > > > > > > Francis A. Boyle > > Law Building > > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > > Champaign IL 61820 USA > > 217-333-7954 (phone) > > 217-244-1478 (fax) > > (personal comments only) > > > > From: Boyle, Francis A > Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2017 8:13 PM > To: 'Roger Helbig' > > Cc: 'Karen Aram' >; Estabrook, Carl G >; 'peace-discuss at anti-war.net' >; 'C. G. ESTABROOK' >; 'Jay Becker' >; 'a-fields at uiuc.edu' >; Hoffman, Valerie J >; 'Joe Lauria' >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; Szoke, Ron >; 'Dave Trippel' >; 'Arlene Hickory' >; 'David Swanson' >; 'peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net' >; 'sherwoodross10 at gmail.com' >; 'abass10 at gmail.com' >; 'mickalideh at gmail.com' >; 'Lina Thorne' >; 'chicago at worldcantwait.net' > > Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG > > > > Mattis expected his troops to be peacekeepers. They brought soccer balls with them when they deployed. > > LOL! Marines don’t play soccer or teach kids to play soccer.. My Dad was a Marine. He invaded Saipan, Tinian and Okinawa before he became a Lawyer. Marines destroy anyone and anything that is in front of them as they are trained to do and did at Fallujah under Mattis—A Real Mad Dog War Criminal. Fab. > > > > > > > > Francis A. Boyle > > Law Building > > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > > Champaign IL 61820 USA > > 217-333-7954 (phone) > > 217-244-1478 (fax) > > (personal comments only) > > > > From: Boyle, Francis A > Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2017 7:52 PM > To: 'Roger Helbig' > > Cc: Karen Aram >; Estabrook, Carl G >; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Jay Becker >; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; Szoke, Ron >; Dave Trippel >; Arlene Hickory >; David Swanson >; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net > Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Karim A G [mailto:coffee at euro-comm.co.uk] > Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2004 5:00 PM > To: Karim A G > Subject: A War Crime in Real Time > > http://www.counterpunch.org/boyle11152004.html > > > > November 15, 2004 > > A War Crime in Real Time > > Obliterating Fallujah > > By FRANCIS A. BOYLE > > The obliteration of Fallujah continues apace. Article 6(b) of the 1945 Nuremberg Charter defines a Nuremberg War Crime in relevant part as the ". . . wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages. . ." According to this definitive definition, the Bush Jr. administration's destruction of Fallujah constitutes a war crime for which Nazis were tried and executed. There is nothing surprising about that. > > Since the Bush Jr. administration's installation in power by the United States Supreme Court in January of 2001, the peoples of the world have witnessed a government in the United States of America that has demonstrated little if any respect for fundamental considerations of international law, international organizations, and human rights, let alone appreciation of the requirements for maintaining international peace and security. What the world has watched instead is a comprehensive and malicious assault upon the integrity of the international legal order by a group of men and women who are thoroughly Machiavellian in their perception of international relations and in their conduct of both foreign policy and domestic affairs. This is not simply a question of giving or withholding the benefit of the doubt when it comes to complicated matters of foreign affairs and defense policies to a U.S. government charged with the security of both its own citizens and those of its allies in Europe, the Western Hemisphere, and the Pacific. Rather, the Bush Jr. administration's foreign policy constitutes ongoing criminal activity under well-recognized principles of both international law and U.S. domestic law, in particular the Nuremberg Charter, the Nuremberg Judgment, and the Nuremberg Principles. So their obliteration of Fallujah was to be expected. > > One generation ago the peoples of the world asked themselves: Where were the "good" Germans? Well, there were some good Germans. The Lutheran theologian and pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer was the foremost exemplar of someone who led a life of principled opposition to the Nazi-terror state even unto death. > > Today the peoples of the world are likewise asking themselves: Where are the "good" Americans? Well, there are some good Americans. Like three Catholic Nuns in Denver, they are getting arrested and going to jail for protesting against United States weapons of mass destruction (WMD) whose power for human extermination far exceeds even the wildest fantasies of Hitler and the Nazis. Or else for protesting against illegal U.S.. military interventions around the world. Just recently the Nuclear Resister estimated that since the Fall of 2002, there have been more than 9,500 anti-war related arrests in the United States alone. Many more will be coming. > > In international legal terms, the Bush Jr. administration itself should now be viewed as constituting an ongoing criminal conspiracy under international criminal law in violation of the Nuremberg Charter, the Nuremberg Judgment, and the Nuremberg Principles, due to its formulation and undertaking of aggressive war policies that are legally akin to those perpetrated by the Nazi regime. As a consequence, American citizens possess the basic right under international law and the United States domestic law, including the U.S. Constitution, to engage in acts of non-violent civil resistance in order to prevent, impede, thwart, or terminate ongoing criminal activities perpetrated by U.S. government officials in their conduct of foreign affairs policies and military operations purported to relate to defense and counter-terrorism. > > This same right of civil resistance extends pari passu to all citizens of the world community of states. Everyone around the world has both the right and the duty under international law to resist ongoing criminal activities perpetrated by the Bush Jr. administration and its nefarious foreign accomplices such as Blair, Berlusconi, Howard, Koizumi, Kwasniewski, etc. by all non-violent means possible. If it is not so restrained, the Bush Jr. administration could very well precipitate a Third World War. > > The time for preventive action is now. Civil resistance is the way to go. People power can overcome power politics. Popular movements have succeeded in toppling tyrannical, dictatorial and authoritarian regimes throughout former Communist countries in Eastern Europe, as well as in Asia, and most recently in Latin America. It is time once again to exercise People Power here in the United States of America: "When in the Course of human Events. . . We hold these Truths to be self-evident. . . . we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and sacred Honor." > > Despite the best efforts by the Bush Jr. Leaguers to the contrary, we American Citizens still have our First Amendment Rights: Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Association, Freedom of Assembly, Freedom to Petition our Government for the Redress of these massive Grievances, Civil Resistance, etc. We are going to have to start vigorously exercising all of our First Amendment Rights right now. We must use them or else, as the saying goes, we will lose them. We must act not only for the good of the Peoples of Southwest Asia, but for our future, that of our children, that of our nation as a democratic society committed to the Rule of Law and the U.S. Constitution. The Nazis had their "homeland" too > > Francis A. Boyle, Professor of Law, University of Illinois, is author of Foundations of World Order, Duke University Press, The Criminality of Nuclear Deterrence, and Palestine, Palestinians and International Law, by Clarity Press. He can be reached at: FBOYLE at LAW.UIUC.EDU > > --- > Subscribed as: fboyle at law.uiuc.edu; to unsubscribe send to al-awda-universalist-request at umich.edu > with UNSUBSCRIBE as the SUBJECT. > URL: > > > Francis A. Boyle > > Law Building > > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > > Champaign IL 61820 USA > > 217-333-7954 (phone) > > 217-244-1478 (fax) > > (personal comments only) > > > > From: Roger Helbig [mailto:rwhelbig at gmail.com] > Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2017 6:43 PM > To: Boyle, Francis A > > Cc: Karen Aram >; Estabrook, Carl G >; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Jay Becker >; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; Szoke, Ron >; Dave Trippel >; Arlene Hickory >; David Swanson >; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG > > > > There was no massacre at Fallujah. This is nonsense. Mattis expected his troops to be peacekeepers. They brought soccer balls with them when they deployed. > > > > I would love to see your "so called" war crime indictment. Wonder how much of it is from your fertile Hate America imagination and how much from the fertile Arab anti-American propaganda organs. Doubt a single paragraph is actually based on fact. > > > > On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 8:22 AM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss > wrote: > > Trump’s Secretary of War Mad Dog Mattis was responsible for the Massacre at Fallujah, which I pointed out on Counterpunch was a Nuremberg War Crime along the lines of the Nazis—the wanton devastation of a city-- in revenge for them killing our mercenaries. Fab. > > > > Francis A. Boyle > > Law Building > > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > > Champaign IL 61820 USA > > 217-333-7954 (phone) > > 217-244-1478 (fax) > > (personal comments only) > > > > From: Karen Aram [mailto:karenaram at hotmail.com] > Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2017 10:04 AM > To: Estabrook, Carl G > > Cc: Boyle, Francis A >; Jay Becker >; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; Szoke, Ron >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; Arlene Hickory >; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; David Swanson >; Dave Trippel >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Mildred O'brien >; David Johnson >; Joe Lauria >; David Green > > Subject: Re: Guest Commentary by Carl in NG > > > > I’m sorry Carl, I don’t agree with that title either. It assumes that all in the anti-war movement welcome the Trump administration. Not all of us trust he will do some of that which he promised in respect to “defunding Nato,” “making friends with Russia,” or killing TPP. Even if he does those three things, his further provocations of China, are every bit as dangerous as those with Russia, it’s a mere tactic to drive a wedge between Russia and China, while chipping away at Iran. > > > > His Cabinet appointments are frightening to say the least in respect to Healthcare, Energy, Education, Housing, etc, etc. > > > > Further expansion of war in the Middle East, and North Africa, as well as expansion of capitalist corporate control is on the agenda no matter which of the two Party’s are in power. > > > > Obama paved the way, for all of which I have just referred, but it’s not over. Our only hope is that “the people” are now awake, and perhaps will focus on that which is most serious to survival. > > > > > > On Jan 22, 2017, at 07:44, Carl G. Estabrook > wrote: > > > > My original title was, “Why the anti-war movement welcomes the new administration.” > > > > For more on that theme, see . > > > > —CGE > > > > > > On Jan 22, 2017, at 9:29 AM, Karen Aram > wrote: > > > > An excellent letter, which I posted on FB. I deliberately deleted the title that I assumed the NG created, because it gives the false impression that those of us in the anti-war movement, all support Trump. We don’t, we just didn’t support Hillary. Anyone in the anti-war movement supporting Hillary was supporting more of the same that Obama provided. > > > > > > On Jan 22, 2017, at 07:16, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: > > > > He {Obama} attacked eight countries (two more than George Bush), and conducted what one leading political commentator called "the most extreme terrorist campaign of modern times — his drone assassinations." He killed thousands of civilians with drones, including U.S. citizens and hundreds of children. > > A good letter by Carl today in NG. (Remember NG writes their own titles to letters.) We must now hold Trump’s feet to the fire across the board! I think Carl’s quote comes from Chomsky? In any event the Illinois Nazis Law Faculty fully supported and promoted and held out for emulation by lawyers and this Campus and our Good Community: > > "the most extreme terrorist campaign of modern times — his drone assassinations." > > > > The Illinois Nazis Law Faculty are just a GANG OF SICK PUPPIES! > > Fab > > Ed Norton Professor of Law > > Carl Schmitt College of Law: > > “Mein Fuhrer, I can walk!” > > > > > > Francis A. Boyle > > Law Building > > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > > Champaign IL 61820 USA > > 217-333-7954 (phone) > > 217-244-1478 (fax) > > (personal comments only) > > > > Feed: News-Gazette.com > Posted on: Sunday, January 22, 2017 7:00 AM > Author: digital.media > Subject: Guest Commentary: Why anti-war movement welcomes Trump > > > > By C.G. ESTABROOK > > The European anti-war group "No War No NATO" writes as follows: > > "Demonstrating in Europe on 21 January, against the newly elected US President Donald Trump is tantamount to lending support to the Obama administration, which has transformed Europe into NATO's first line of attack, nuclear matters inclusive, against Russia. > > read more > > > View article... > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Sat Nov 4 14:57:32 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2017 14:57:32 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG In-Reply-To: References: <9D3D5E59-5EFC-47DF-838D-C6508214E176@illinois.edu> Message-ID: Roger Your statement: "There was no massacre at Fallujah. This is nonsense. Mattis expected his troops to be peacekeepers.” is so ludicrous, it invites laughter, long and loud laughter, if it weren’t so tragic, the many lives destroyed as a result of “Mad Dog Mattis” and the USG in it’s continuing genocide. Nothing you say, can ever be taken seriously, your continued harassment of anti-war activists on this “Peace Discussion List” is anathema to everything it stands for. I have to ask what are you doing here if not, just to irritate. Okay maybe your goal is to entertain, but your entertainment is very sick. Anyone and everyone, who supports the wars and interventions the US has and continues to perpetrate around the world, has blood on their hands, as “complicit Americans." That is the way we are viewed by others in the world today. On Nov 4, 2017, at 07:31, Roger Helbig via Peace-discuss > wrote: what exactly is that supposed to mean - my choices of assignment were Intelligence, Weather and Cartography and the Air Force made me an Electronic Systems (ground radar maintenance) Officer - I liked languages - I was a literate three year old in Russian and wanted to learn more - I like puzzles - putting pieces together - that's what I thought intelligence officers did - Weather was where I got assigned for familiarization during summer camp so I somewhat expected that I would get that and a M/S in Meterology - Cartography because as a Geologist, I made maps of what was below the ground and cartographers made maps of what was above the ground. I voted for Democratic candidates starting with George McGovern - so I was not exactly a fan of Richard Nixon so hardly Nixonian! Roger On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 7:19 AM, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: “I wanted to be”—Military Intelligence. A Typical Nixonian Limited Hang-out. fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Roger Helbig [mailto:rwhelbig at gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2017 9:15 AM To: Boyle, Francis A >; Peace-discuss > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG and you spread lies - I never worked for military intelligence - they would not let me because I am partially color blind and to be an Air Force intelligence officer, you needed to be able to interpret false colors on air photos - I wanted to be because I like to work through problems and took Russian as an elective my senior year as part of my know your enemy program - Now, you have not refuted that The American Free Press was established by Willis Carto - that Carto was a Neo Nazi or that Bollyn worked for Carto and Buchanan - you more than likely have not read Blood and Politics - maybe some of the others were. I don't seem to have scan of page where the American Free Press was established to replace The Spotlight, but attached is the one where it discusses the establishment of The Barnes Review and the conference discussed on the blog is for both of these publications. On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 6:37 AM, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: Once again, Roger crawls out of his hole as a Mole for US “Military Intelligence”—an oxymoron to be sure. Fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Roger Helbig [mailto:rwhelbig at gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2017 8:12 AM To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: Karen Aram >; Estabrook, Carl G >; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Jay Becker >; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; Szoke, Ron >; Dave Trippel >; Arlene Hickory >; David Swanson >; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com;abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG You do know that Christopher Bollyn is NOT a reporter but is a Neo Nazi operative of long standing and that the American Free Press is not a news organization, but a Neo Nazi front - look up Willis Carto - he was Bollyn's boss and founded the American Free Press - this website that has reports of conference for American Free Press and The Barnes Review used to have a prominent picture of a Nazi flag behind the blogger Alex Hassinger - Douglas Lind Rokke of Urbana spoke at this event and Dave von Kleist the producer of Rokke's first anti-US propaganda video "Beyond Treason" was the master of ceremonies - http://www.chairmanofnordwave.blogspot.com Carto died in 2015 - there are a number of good sources on Carto in a simple Google search - Learn about Neo Nazis - read this book - "Blood and Politics" - it mentions Bollyn and extensively discusses Carto - pg 382, which I can e-mail to all who request - has Carto's establishment of The Barnes Review, a Holocaust Denial publication - The American Free Press replaced Carto's The Spotlight after Carto lost a legal battle - Bollyn is also mentioned in connection with a Pat Buchanan campaign apparatus On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 4:57 AM, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: I also want to make it clear for the record that before the invasions of Saipan, Tinian and Okinawa my Father, a Marine, was ordered by his Captain not to take prisoners of war on the grounds of reciprocity that the Japanese did not take Prisoners of War of our Men. My Father disobeyed these clearly illegal orders and took Japanese Prisoners of War. I cite the example of my Father to my law students to refute the objection that you cannot expect soldiers to obey the laws of war during combat. If my Father could obey the laws of war at Saipan, Tinian, and Okinawa, any other soldier should be able to do the same. Meanwhile,while I am teaching this to my students, the Illinois Nazis Law Faculty aid, abet, and promote and facilitate war crimes and crimes against humanity from the safety of their offices. My Father later became a Lawyer. RIP. The Illinois Nazis Law Faculty are despicable! Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2017 8:38 PM To: Roger Helbig > Cc: Karen Aram >; Estabrook, Carl G >; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Jay Becker >; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; Szoke, Ron >; Dave Trippel >; Arlene Hickory >; David Swanson >; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com;abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG Mad Dog Mattis the Nuremberg War Criminal. Fab. CONTROLLED PRESS IGNORES CRIMINAL OBLITERATION OF FALLUJAH By Christopher Bollyn American Free Press The controlled press has scrupulously avoided discussing the devastation and prima facie evidence of war crimes committed during the U.S. siege and assault of Fallujah. As Americans prepared for Thanksgiving, an estimated 100,000 residents of the besieged Iraqi city of Fallujah, trapped in their homes, struggled to survive without fresh food, water or electricity, reportedly cut off by U.S. forces on November 8. Meanwhile, on the streets of Fallujah, a city of more than 350,000, dogs gnawed on bloated and rotting corpses that remained unburied for weeks. Thousands of families in Fallujah were reported to be in a critical humanitarian situation after U.S. forces prevented the delivery of relief supplies. An Iraq Red Crescent Society (IRCS) humanitarian aid convoy, reportedly blocked by U.S. troops for more than two weeks, was allowed to deliver aid to residents in the heart of the city on November 25. On Thanksgiving, U.S. forces permitted the IRCS convoy carrying thousands of food parcels, blankets, tents and medical supplies to enter the city and allowed one of the clinics to be converted into a temporary hospital to treat the injured. Rana Sidani of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) in Geneva, Switzerland however, told American Free Press on Nov. 30 that "many civilians" were still prevented from receiving aid or medical care. At the beginning of the U.S. operation in Fallujah on Nov. 5, a hospital in the central Nazzal district of Fallujah was "reduced to rubble" as a result of U.S. air and artillery bombardment. "Only its façade, with a sign reading Nazzal Emergency Hospital, remained intact," Reuters reported. "A nearby compound used by the main Falluja Hospital to store medical supplies was also destroyed," witnesses told Reuters. Fallujah's main hospital was occupied by U.S. forces when the ground offensive began. These actions are apparent violations of international humanitarian law. "Bodies can be seen everywhere and people were crying when receiving the food parcels," Muhammad al-Nuri, a spokesman for the IRCS in Baghdad, said. "It is very sad. It is a human disaster." Al-Nuri said that it is difficult to move in the city due to the large number of dead bodies in the streets. The ICRS estimates there are more than 6,000 dead in Fallujah, al-Nuri said. AFP asked Major Jay Antonelli at the Coalition Press Information Center (CPIC) in Baghdad if the ICRS estimate of 6,000 dead in Fallujah was credible. "We do not keep a count of dead Iraqis," Antonelli said. Asked the same question, the ICRC's Sidani said, "We don't know." Antonelli said, "U.S. forces never blocked aid convoys from reaching the wounded. We only recommended to the aid convoys that they should not enter the city because the MNF [Multi-National Forces] could not guarantee their security or safety." "The ICRC is very worried about the humanitarian situation in Falluja," Sidani said. Asked what the ICRC was doing to alleviate the suffering in Fallujah, Sidani said: "We are reminding the parties of their responsibilities under international humanitarian law." It should be noted that the U.S.A. and Britain, the belligerent occupying powers in Iraq, are the two largest contributors to the ICRC, providing more than 42 percent of its budget for field operations. A second convoy from Baghdad, headed by Dr. Said Ismael Haki, the IRCS president, delivered aid to Fallujah on Nov. 26. "There are no houses left in Fallujah, only destroyed places." Haki said. "I really don't know how the people will return to the city. No one will find their homes." As U.S. troops in Fallujah engaged in what has been described as the most intense urban combat since Vietnam, the controlled press scrupulously avoided discussion or footage of the devastation of the rebellious Sunni city. For example, during the second week of the attack, rather than discuss the widespread devastation of Fallujah, U.S. television news programs focused largely on a brawl between basketball players and fans in Detroit. Lt. Col. Brandl, commander of the 1st Battalion, 8th Marine Regiment, was filmed giving a "pep talk" to his marines: "The enemy has got a face – he's called Satan," Brandl said. "He's in Fallujah, and we're going to destroy him." At least 136 U.S. soldiers were killed during November in Iraq, and more than 800 were wounded, most of them in Fallujah, making it the most costly month, and operation, in terms of U.S. lives lost since the invasion of Iraq began in March 2003. FOR WHAT CAUSE? Michael Ware, Baghdad bureau chief for Time magazine, who has been in Fallujah during the fighting, said U.S. actions in Fallujah are "creating the nightmare that we are seeking to prevent." "I stood there as I saw American boys die," Ware told Chris Matthews of MSNBC on Nov. 24, "I mean, a man shot at close range, blown apart by a rocket propelled grenade. He dies there in front of you and I can't help but think why? For what cause? "I see us creating the very thing that the president said we went there to prevent," Ware said, "…subsequent to this invasion and the occupation and the guerrilla war that is currently underway, we are the midwives of the next generation of al Qaida and Islamic terrorist." Ware, who has interviewed senior insurgent leaders, said they study the writings of the Vietnamese general Vo Nguyen Giap, Che Guevara, and Mao Zedong. "They're bringing it straight from the Vietnam, and the broader insurgency playbook," Ware said. "The name of the game is deny the population to the insurgents," Ware said. "That's what we're trying to do, win hearts and minds. But we're not winning them." The U.S. struggle to win Iraqi hearts and minds suffered a further set back when NBC TV broadcast footage of a U.S. marine executing a wounded and unarmed Iraqi in a Fallujah mosque. The much-publicized shooting, apparently part of a massacre of a group of wounded resistance fighters, "was a rare crack in the façade that Washington, with the complicity of most of the corporate media, has tried to present to the world of its brutal assault on the rebel Iraqi city," Rohan Pearce wrote in The Greenleft Weekly Australia on Nov. 24. The New York Times has reported actions taken by U.S. forces in Fallujah, which appear to be prima facie evidence of war crimes, without mentioning that the actions constitute clear violations of the Laws of Land War found in the U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10. For example, a Nov. 20 Times article by Edward Wong, with two correspondents in Fallujah, reports that U.S. marines had transformed a mosque into a fortress with snipers and machine gunners perched on the roof. Then, using the passive form, Wong goes on to say that "no neutral group has been able to enter the city," without mentioning that U.S. forces blocked humanitarian aid convoys. Likewise, Wong wrote, "Electricity and water had been cut off." The Times, whose motto is "All the news that's fit to print," apparently didn't think that it's readers needed to know the U.S. forces had cut off the water and power to a city of 340,000 people. Asked if U.S. forces had cut power and water to Fallujah, Maj. Jay Antonelli of CPIC wrote: "MNF did, with approval of the Interim Iraqi Government, cut off electricity to the city of Fallujah as Operation Al-Fajr began. Water was not cut off intentionally, however the water system did sustain some kinetic damage during strikes." American Free Press asked the Pentagon's Lt. Col. Joe Yoswa if it is true that U.S. forces were using mosques as fortresses. "It's not possible," Yoswa said. "Under no circumstances. We would not set up snipers in a mosque in an offensive position." CPIC's Antonelli said: "MNF would not use a mosque as a 'fortress.' MNF and Iraqi security forces would only fire from a mosque if they were being fired upon and were firing back in self-defense." Abu Sabah, a refugee from Fallujah, reported seeing phosphorus bombs: "They used these weird bombs that put up smoke like a mushroom cloud. Then small pieces fell from the air with long tails of smoke trailing behind them. These exploded on the ground with large fires that burnt for half and hour," Abu Sabah said. "When anyone touched these fires their bodies burnt for hours." Eyewitnesses from Fallujah also reported seeing "melted" bodies. "THROW-AWAY SOLDIERS" Having seen what appeared to be a depleted uranium (DU) missile fired at a building in Fallujah on CNN during the first week of the fighting, AFP asked the Pentagon if DU weapons are being used in Fallujah. "Yes," Yoswa said, "DU is a standard round on the M-1 Abrams tank." Because U.S. marines in Fallujah are very close to the poison gas produced by exploded DU shells, AFP asked Yoswa if anything was being done to protect the troops from DU poisoning. Yoswa seemed unaware of the dangers posed by the use of DU. Marion Fulk, a retired nuclear scientist from Livermore National Lab told AFP that U.S. troops in DU contaminated battlefields are considered "throw-away soldiers." The Marines exposed to DU in Fallujah, and elsewhere, face greatly increased risks of cancer, deformed children, and other health problems in the future. OBLITERATION OF FALLUJAH The "obliteration of Fallujah" is a serious war crime, according to Francis A. Boyle, a professor of international law at the University of Illinois. "The obliteration of Fallujah continues apace," Boyle wrote in his Nov. 15 article, A War Crime in Real Time: Obliterating Fallujah. "Article 6(b) of the 1945 Nuremberg Charter defines a Nuremberg War Crime in relevant part as the 'wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages.' According to this definitive definition, the Bush administration's destruction of Fallujah constitutes a war crime for which Nazis were tried and executed." Finis -30- 1629 words ________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The all-new My Yahoo! – What will yours do? Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2017 8:13 PM To: 'Roger Helbig' > Cc: 'Karen Aram' >; Estabrook, Carl G >; 'peace-discuss at anti-war.net' >; 'C. G. ESTABROOK' >; 'Jay Becker' >; 'a-fields at uiuc.edu' >; Hoffman, Valerie J >; 'Joe Lauria' >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; Szoke, Ron >; 'Dave Trippel' >; 'Arlene Hickory' >; 'David Swanson' >; 'peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net' >; 'sherwoodross10 at gmail.com' >; 'abass10 at gmail.com' >; 'mickalideh at gmail.com' >; 'Lina Thorne' >; 'chicago at worldcantwait.net' > Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG Mattis expected his troops to be peacekeepers. They brought soccer balls with them when they deployed. LOL! Marines don’t play soccer or teach kids to play soccer.. My Dad was a Marine. He invaded Saipan, Tinian and Okinawa before he became a Lawyer. Marines destroy anyone and anything that is in front of them as they are trained to do and did at Fallujah under Mattis—A Real Mad Dog War Criminal. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2017 7:52 PM To: 'Roger Helbig' > Cc: Karen Aram >; Estabrook, Carl G >; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Jay Becker >; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; Szoke, Ron >; Dave Trippel >; Arlene Hickory >; David Swanson >; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com;abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG -----Original Message----- From: Karim A G [mailto:coffee at euro-comm.co.uk] Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2004 5:00 PM To: Karim A G Subject: A War Crime in Real Time http://www.counterpunch.org/boyle11152004.html November 15, 2004 A War Crime in Real Time Obliterating Fallujah By FRANCIS A. BOYLE The obliteration of Fallujah continues apace. Article 6(b) of the 1945 Nuremberg Charter defines a Nuremberg War Crime in relevant part as the ". . . wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages. . ." According to this definitive definition, the Bush Jr. administration's destruction of Fallujah constitutes a war crime for which Nazis were tried and executed. There is nothing surprising about that. Since the Bush Jr. administration's installation in power by the United States Supreme Court in January of 2001, the peoples of the world have witnessed a government in the United States of America that has demonstrated little if any respect for fundamental considerations of international law, international organizations, and human rights, let alone appreciation of the requirements for maintaining international peace and security. What the world has watched instead is a comprehensive and malicious assault upon the integrity of the international legal order by a group of men and women who are thoroughly Machiavellian in their perception of international relations and in their conduct of both foreign policy and domestic affairs. This is not simply a question of giving or withholding the benefit of the doubt when it comes to complicated matters of foreign affairs and defense policies to a U.S. government charged with the security of both its own citizens and those of its allies in Europe, the Western Hemisphere, and the Pacific. Rather, the Bush Jr. administration's foreign policy constitutes ongoing criminal activity under well-recognized principles of both international law and U.S. domestic law, in particular the Nuremberg Charter, the Nuremberg Judgment, and the Nuremberg Principles. So their obliteration of Fallujah was to be expected. One generation ago the peoples of the world asked themselves: Where were the "good" Germans? Well, there were some good Germans. The Lutheran theologian and pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer was the foremost exemplar of someone who led a life of principled opposition to the Nazi-terror state even unto death. Today the peoples of the world are likewise asking themselves: Where are the "good" Americans? Well, there are some good Americans. Like three Catholic Nuns in Denver, they are getting arrested and going to jail for protesting against United States weapons of mass destruction (WMD) whose power for human extermination far exceeds even the wildest fantasies of Hitler and the Nazis. Or else for protesting against illegal U.S.. military interventions around the world. Just recently the Nuclear Resister estimated that since the Fall of 2002, there have been more than 9,500 anti-war related arrests in the United States alone. Many more will be coming. In international legal terms, the Bush Jr. administration itself should now be viewed as constituting an ongoing criminal conspiracy under international criminal law in violation of the Nuremberg Charter, the Nuremberg Judgment, and the Nuremberg Principles, due to its formulation and undertaking of aggressive war policies that are legally akin to those perpetrated by the Nazi regime. As a consequence, American citizens possess the basic right under international law and the United States domestic law, including the U.S. Constitution, to engage in acts of non-violent civil resistance in order to prevent, impede, thwart, or terminate ongoing criminal activities perpetrated by U.S. government officials in their conduct of foreign affairs policies and military operations purported to relate to defense and counter-terrorism. This same right of civil resistance extends pari passu to all citizens of the world community of states. Everyone around the world has both the right and the duty under international law to resist ongoing criminal activities perpetrated by the Bush Jr. administration and its nefarious foreign accomplices such as Blair, Berlusconi, Howard, Koizumi, Kwasniewski, etc. by all non-violent means possible. If it is not so restrained, the Bush Jr. administration could very well precipitate a Third World War. The time for preventive action is now. Civil resistance is the way to go. People power can overcome power politics. Popular movements have succeeded in toppling tyrannical, dictatorial and authoritarian regimes throughout former Communist countries in Eastern Europe, as well as in Asia, and most recently in Latin America. It is time once again to exercise People Power here in the United States of America: "When in the Course of human Events. . . We hold these Truths to be self-evident. . . . we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and sacred Honor." Despite the best efforts by the Bush Jr. Leaguers to the contrary, we American Citizens still have our First Amendment Rights: Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Association, Freedom of Assembly, Freedom to Petition our Government for the Redress of these massive Grievances, Civil Resistance, etc. We are going to have to start vigorously exercising all of our First Amendment Rights right now. We must use them or else, as the saying goes, we will lose them. We must act not only for the good of the Peoples of Southwest Asia, but for our future, that of our children, that of our nation as a democratic society committed to the Rule of Law and the U.S. Constitution. The Nazis had their "homeland" too Francis A. Boyle, Professor of Law, University of Illinois, is author of Foundations of World Order, Duke University Press, The Criminality of Nuclear Deterrence, and Palestine, Palestinians and International Law, by Clarity Press. He can be reached at: FBOYLE at LAW.UIUC.EDU --- Subscribed as: fboyle at law.uiuc.edu; to unsubscribe send to al-awda-universalist-request at umich.edu with UNSUBSCRIBE as the SUBJECT. URL: Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Roger Helbig [mailto:rwhelbig at gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2017 6:43 PM To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: Karen Aram >; Estabrook, Carl G >; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Jay Becker >; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; Szoke, Ron >; Dave Trippel >; Arlene Hickory >; David Swanson >; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com;abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG There was no massacre at Fallujah. This is nonsense. Mattis expected his troops to be peacekeepers. They brought soccer balls with them when they deployed. I would love to see your "so called" war crime indictment. Wonder how much of it is from your fertile Hate America imagination and how much from the fertile Arab anti-American propaganda organs. Doubt a single paragraph is actually based on fact. On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 8:22 AM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss > wrote: Trump’s Secretary of War Mad Dog Mattis was responsible for the Massacre at Fallujah, which I pointed out on Counterpunch was a Nuremberg War Crime along the lines of the Nazis—the wanton devastation of a city-- in revenge for them killing our mercenaries. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Karen Aram [mailto:karenaram at hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2017 10:04 AM To: Estabrook, Carl G > Cc: Boyle, Francis A >; Jay Becker >; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; Szoke, Ron >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; Arlene Hickory >; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; David Swanson >; Dave Trippel >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Mildred O'brien >; David Johnson >; Joe Lauria >; David Green > Subject: Re: Guest Commentary by Carl in NG I’m sorry Carl, I don’t agree with that title either. It assumes that all in the anti-war movement welcome the Trump administration. Not all of us trust he will do some of that which he promised in respect to “defunding Nato,” “making friends with Russia,” or killing TPP. Even if he does those three things, his further provocations of China, are every bit as dangerous as those with Russia, it’s a mere tactic to drive a wedge between Russia and China, while chipping away at Iran. His Cabinet appointments are frightening to say the least in respect to Healthcare, Energy, Education, Housing, etc, etc. Further expansion of war in the Middle East, and North Africa, as well as expansion of capitalist corporate control is on the agenda no matter which of the two Party’s are in power. Obama paved the way, for all of which I have just referred, but it’s not over. Our only hope is that “the people” are now awake, and perhaps will focus on that which is most serious to survival. On Jan 22, 2017, at 07:44, Carl G. Estabrook > wrote: My original title was, “Why the anti-war movement welcomes the new administration.” For more on that theme, see >. —CGE On Jan 22, 2017, at 9:29 AM, Karen Aram > wrote: An excellent letter, which I posted on FB. I deliberately deleted the title that I assumed the NG created, because it gives the false impression that those of us in the anti-war movement, all support Trump. We don’t, we just didn’t support Hillary. Anyone in the anti-war movement supporting Hillary was supporting more of the same that Obama provided. On Jan 22, 2017, at 07:16, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: He {Obama} attacked eight countries (two more than George Bush), and conducted what one leading political commentator called "the most extreme terrorist campaign of modern times — his drone assassinations." He killed thousands of civilians with drones, including U.S. citizens and hundreds of children. A good letter by Carl today in NG. (Remember NG writes their own titles to letters.) We must now hold Trump’s feet to the fire across the board! I think Carl’s quote comes from Chomsky? In any event the Illinois Nazis Law Faculty fully supported and promoted and held out for emulation by lawyers and this Campus and our Good Community: "the most extreme terrorist campaign of modern times — his drone assassinations." The Illinois Nazis Law Faculty are just a GANG OF SICK PUPPIES! Fab Ed Norton Professor of Law Carl Schmitt College of Law: “Mein Fuhrer, I can walk!” Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) Feed: News-Gazette.com Posted on: Sunday, January 22, 2017 7:00 AM Author: digital.media Subject: Guest Commentary: Why anti-war movement welcomes Trump By C.G. ESTABROOK The European anti-war group "No War No NATO" writes as follows: "Demonstrating in Europe on 21 January, against the newly elected US President Donald Trump is tantamount to lending support to the Obama administration, which has transformed Europe into NATO's first line of attack, nuclear matters inclusive, against Russia. read more View article... _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.chambana.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fpeace-discuss&data=02%7C01%7Ckarenaram%40hotmail.com%7C6ea0294d887b4910ba5108d52390c739%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636454027089337207&sdata=v2ho9fKU8A%2F2dSYUS31%2Br1UPu4HaEfckCXJTgUP7vcU%3D&reserved=0 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Sat Nov 4 15:02:12 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2017 15:02:12 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG In-Reply-To: References: <9D3D5E59-5EFC-47DF-838D-C6508214E176@illinois.edu> Message-ID: Dear Karen: With all due respect, you must understand: Roger is a Mole for Military Intelligence. That is why he is on this Peace list. fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Karen Aram [mailto:karenaram at hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2017 9:58 AM To: Roger Helbig Cc: Boyle, Francis A ; Peace-discuss Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG Roger Your statement: "There was no massacre at Fallujah. This is nonsense. Mattis expected his troops to be peacekeepers.” is so ludicrous, it invites laughter, long and loud laughter, if it weren’t so tragic, the many lives destroyed as a result of “Mad Dog Mattis” and the USG in it’s continuing genocide. Nothing you say, can ever be taken seriously, your continued harassment of anti-war activists on this “Peace Discussion List” is anathema to everything it stands for. I have to ask what are you doing here if not, just to irritate. Okay maybe your goal is to entertain, but your entertainment is very sick. Anyone and everyone, who supports the wars and interventions the US has and continues to perpetrate around the world, has blood on their hands, as “complicit Americans." That is the way we are viewed by others in the world today. On Nov 4, 2017, at 07:31, Roger Helbig via Peace-discuss > wrote: what exactly is that supposed to mean - my choices of assignment were Intelligence, Weather and Cartography and the Air Force made me an Electronic Systems (ground radar maintenance) Officer - I liked languages - I was a literate three year old in Russian and wanted to learn more - I like puzzles - putting pieces together - that's what I thought intelligence officers did - Weather was where I got assigned for familiarization during summer camp so I somewhat expected that I would get that and a M/S in Meterology - Cartography because as a Geologist, I made maps of what was below the ground and cartographers made maps of what was above the ground. I voted for Democratic candidates starting with George McGovern - so I was not exactly a fan of Richard Nixon so hardly Nixonian! Roger On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 7:19 AM, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: “I wanted to be”—Military Intelligence. A Typical Nixonian Limited Hang-out. fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Roger Helbig [mailto:rwhelbig at gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2017 9:15 AM To: Boyle, Francis A >; Peace-discuss > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG and you spread lies - I never worked for military intelligence - they would not let me because I am partially color blind and to be an Air Force intelligence officer, you needed to be able to interpret false colors on air photos - I wanted to be because I like to work through problems and took Russian as an elective my senior year as part of my know your enemy program - Now, you have not refuted that The American Free Press was established by Willis Carto - that Carto was a Neo Nazi or that Bollyn worked for Carto and Buchanan - you more than likely have not read Blood and Politics - maybe some of the others were. I don't seem to have scan of page where the American Free Press was established to replace The Spotlight, but attached is the one where it discusses the establishment of The Barnes Review and the conference discussed on the blog is for both of these publications. On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 6:37 AM, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: Once again, Roger crawls out of his hole as a Mole for US “Military Intelligence”—an oxymoron to be sure. Fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Roger Helbig [mailto:rwhelbig at gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2017 8:12 AM To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: Karen Aram >; Estabrook, Carl G >; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Jay Becker >; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; Szoke, Ron >; Dave Trippel >; Arlene Hickory >; David Swanson >; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com;abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG You do know that Christopher Bollyn is NOT a reporter but is a Neo Nazi operative of long standing and that the American Free Press is not a news organization, but a Neo Nazi front - look up Willis Carto - he was Bollyn's boss and founded the American Free Press - this website that has reports of conference for American Free Press and The Barnes Review used to have a prominent picture of a Nazi flag behind the blogger Alex Hassinger - Douglas Lind Rokke of Urbana spoke at this event and Dave von Kleist the producer of Rokke's first anti-US propaganda video "Beyond Treason" was the master of ceremonies - http://www.chairmanofnordwave.blogspot.com Carto died in 2015 - there are a number of good sources on Carto in a simple Google search - Learn about Neo Nazis - read this book - "Blood and Politics" - it mentions Bollyn and extensively discusses Carto - pg 382, which I can e-mail to all who request - has Carto's establishment of The Barnes Review, a Holocaust Denial publication - The American Free Press replaced Carto's The Spotlight after Carto lost a legal battle - Bollyn is also mentioned in connection with a Pat Buchanan campaign apparatus On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 4:57 AM, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: I also want to make it clear for the record that before the invasions of Saipan, Tinian and Okinawa my Father, a Marine, was ordered by his Captain not to take prisoners of war on the grounds of reciprocity that the Japanese did not take Prisoners of War of our Men. My Father disobeyed these clearly illegal orders and took Japanese Prisoners of War. I cite the example of my Father to my law students to refute the objection that you cannot expect soldiers to obey the laws of war during combat. If my Father could obey the laws of war at Saipan, Tinian, and Okinawa, any other soldier should be able to do the same. Meanwhile,while I am teaching this to my students, the Illinois Nazis Law Faculty aid, abet, and promote and facilitate war crimes and crimes against humanity from the safety of their offices. My Father later became a Lawyer. RIP. The Illinois Nazis Law Faculty are despicable! Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2017 8:38 PM To: Roger Helbig > Cc: Karen Aram >; Estabrook, Carl G >; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Jay Becker >; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; Szoke, Ron >; Dave Trippel >; Arlene Hickory >; David Swanson >; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com;abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG Mad Dog Mattis the Nuremberg War Criminal. Fab. CONTROLLED PRESS IGNORES CRIMINAL OBLITERATION OF FALLUJAH By Christopher Bollyn American Free Press The controlled press has scrupulously avoided discussing the devastation and prima facie evidence of war crimes committed during the U.S. siege and assault of Fallujah. As Americans prepared for Thanksgiving, an estimated 100,000 residents of the besieged Iraqi city of Fallujah, trapped in their homes, struggled to survive without fresh food, water or electricity, reportedly cut off by U.S. forces on November 8. Meanwhile, on the streets of Fallujah, a city of more than 350,000, dogs gnawed on bloated and rotting corpses that remained unburied for weeks. Thousands of families in Fallujah were reported to be in a critical humanitarian situation after U.S. forces prevented the delivery of relief supplies. An Iraq Red Crescent Society (IRCS) humanitarian aid convoy, reportedly blocked by U.S. troops for more than two weeks, was allowed to deliver aid to residents in the heart of the city on November 25. On Thanksgiving, U.S. forces permitted the IRCS convoy carrying thousands of food parcels, blankets, tents and medical supplies to enter the city and allowed one of the clinics to be converted into a temporary hospital to treat the injured. Rana Sidani of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) in Geneva, Switzerland however, told American Free Press on Nov. 30 that "many civilians" were still prevented from receiving aid or medical care. At the beginning of the U.S. operation in Fallujah on Nov. 5, a hospital in the central Nazzal district of Fallujah was "reduced to rubble" as a result of U.S. air and artillery bombardment. "Only its façade, with a sign reading Nazzal Emergency Hospital, remained intact," Reuters reported. "A nearby compound used by the main Falluja Hospital to store medical supplies was also destroyed," witnesses told Reuters. Fallujah's main hospital was occupied by U.S. forces when the ground offensive began. These actions are apparent violations of international humanitarian law. "Bodies can be seen everywhere and people were crying when receiving the food parcels," Muhammad al-Nuri, a spokesman for the IRCS in Baghdad, said. "It is very sad. It is a human disaster." Al-Nuri said that it is difficult to move in the city due to the large number of dead bodies in the streets. The ICRS estimates there are more than 6,000 dead in Fallujah, al-Nuri said. AFP asked Major Jay Antonelli at the Coalition Press Information Center (CPIC) in Baghdad if the ICRS estimate of 6,000 dead in Fallujah was credible. "We do not keep a count of dead Iraqis," Antonelli said. Asked the same question, the ICRC's Sidani said, "We don't know." Antonelli said, "U.S. forces never blocked aid convoys from reaching the wounded. We only recommended to the aid convoys that they should not enter the city because the MNF [Multi-National Forces] could not guarantee their security or safety." "The ICRC is very worried about the humanitarian situation in Falluja," Sidani said. Asked what the ICRC was doing to alleviate the suffering in Fallujah, Sidani said: "We are reminding the parties of their responsibilities under international humanitarian law." It should be noted that the U.S.A. and Britain, the belligerent occupying powers in Iraq, are the two largest contributors to the ICRC, providing more than 42 percent of its budget for field operations. A second convoy from Baghdad, headed by Dr. Said Ismael Haki, the IRCS president, delivered aid to Fallujah on Nov. 26. "There are no houses left in Fallujah, only destroyed places." Haki said. "I really don't know how the people will return to the city. No one will find their homes." As U.S. troops in Fallujah engaged in what has been described as the most intense urban combat since Vietnam, the controlled press scrupulously avoided discussion or footage of the devastation of the rebellious Sunni city. For example, during the second week of the attack, rather than discuss the widespread devastation of Fallujah, U.S. television news programs focused largely on a brawl between basketball players and fans in Detroit. Lt. Col. Brandl, commander of the 1st Battalion, 8th Marine Regiment, was filmed giving a "pep talk" to his marines: "The enemy has got a face – he's called Satan," Brandl said. "He's in Fallujah, and we're going to destroy him." At least 136 U.S. soldiers were killed during November in Iraq, and more than 800 were wounded, most of them in Fallujah, making it the most costly month, and operation, in terms of U.S. lives lost since the invasion of Iraq began in March 2003. FOR WHAT CAUSE? Michael Ware, Baghdad bureau chief for Time magazine, who has been in Fallujah during the fighting, said U.S. actions in Fallujah are "creating the nightmare that we are seeking to prevent." "I stood there as I saw American boys die," Ware told Chris Matthews of MSNBC on Nov. 24, "I mean, a man shot at close range, blown apart by a rocket propelled grenade. He dies there in front of you and I can't help but think why? For what cause? "I see us creating the very thing that the president said we went there to prevent," Ware said, "…subsequent to this invasion and the occupation and the guerrilla war that is currently underway, we are the midwives of the next generation of al Qaida and Islamic terrorist." Ware, who has interviewed senior insurgent leaders, said they study the writings of the Vietnamese general Vo Nguyen Giap, Che Guevara, and Mao Zedong. "They're bringing it straight from the Vietnam, and the broader insurgency playbook," Ware said. "The name of the game is deny the population to the insurgents," Ware said. "That's what we're trying to do, win hearts and minds. But we're not winning them." The U.S. struggle to win Iraqi hearts and minds suffered a further set back when NBC TV broadcast footage of a U.S. marine executing a wounded and unarmed Iraqi in a Fallujah mosque. The much-publicized shooting, apparently part of a massacre of a group of wounded resistance fighters, "was a rare crack in the façade that Washington, with the complicity of most of the corporate media, has tried to present to the world of its brutal assault on the rebel Iraqi city," Rohan Pearce wrote in The Greenleft Weekly Australia on Nov. 24. The New York Times has reported actions taken by U.S. forces in Fallujah, which appear to be prima facie evidence of war crimes, without mentioning that the actions constitute clear violations of the Laws of Land War found in the U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10. For example, a Nov. 20 Times article by Edward Wong, with two correspondents in Fallujah, reports that U.S. marines had transformed a mosque into a fortress with snipers and machine gunners perched on the roof. Then, using the passive form, Wong goes on to say that "no neutral group has been able to enter the city," without mentioning that U.S. forces blocked humanitarian aid convoys. Likewise, Wong wrote, "Electricity and water had been cut off." The Times, whose motto is "All the news that's fit to print," apparently didn't think that it's readers needed to know the U.S. forces had cut off the water and power to a city of 340,000 people. Asked if U.S. forces had cut power and water to Fallujah, Maj. Jay Antonelli of CPIC wrote: "MNF did, with approval of the Interim Iraqi Government, cut off electricity to the city of Fallujah as Operation Al-Fajr began. Water was not cut off intentionally, however the water system did sustain some kinetic damage during strikes." American Free Press asked the Pentagon's Lt. Col. Joe Yoswa if it is true that U.S. forces were using mosques as fortresses. "It's not possible," Yoswa said. "Under no circumstances. We would not set up snipers in a mosque in an offensive position." CPIC's Antonelli said: "MNF would not use a mosque as a 'fortress.' MNF and Iraqi security forces would only fire from a mosque if they were being fired upon and were firing back in self-defense." Abu Sabah, a refugee from Fallujah, reported seeing phosphorus bombs: "They used these weird bombs that put up smoke like a mushroom cloud. Then small pieces fell from the air with long tails of smoke trailing behind them. These exploded on the ground with large fires that burnt for half and hour," Abu Sabah said. "When anyone touched these fires their bodies burnt for hours." Eyewitnesses from Fallujah also reported seeing "melted" bodies. "THROW-AWAY SOLDIERS" Having seen what appeared to be a depleted uranium (DU) missile fired at a building in Fallujah on CNN during the first week of the fighting, AFP asked the Pentagon if DU weapons are being used in Fallujah. "Yes," Yoswa said, "DU is a standard round on the M-1 Abrams tank." Because U.S. marines in Fallujah are very close to the poison gas produced by exploded DU shells, AFP asked Yoswa if anything was being done to protect the troops from DU poisoning. Yoswa seemed unaware of the dangers posed by the use of DU. Marion Fulk, a retired nuclear scientist from Livermore National Lab told AFP that U.S. troops in DU contaminated battlefields are considered "throw-away soldiers." The Marines exposed to DU in Fallujah, and elsewhere, face greatly increased risks of cancer, deformed children, and other health problems in the future. OBLITERATION OF FALLUJAH The "obliteration of Fallujah" is a serious war crime, according to Francis A. Boyle, a professor of international law at the University of Illinois. "The obliteration of Fallujah continues apace," Boyle wrote in his Nov. 15 article, A War Crime in Real Time: Obliterating Fallujah. "Article 6(b) of the 1945 Nuremberg Charter defines a Nuremberg War Crime in relevant part as the 'wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages.' According to this definitive definition, the Bush administration's destruction of Fallujah constitutes a war crime for which Nazis were tried and executed." Finis -30- 1629 words ________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The all-new My Yahoo! – What will yours do? Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2017 8:13 PM To: 'Roger Helbig' > Cc: 'Karen Aram' >; Estabrook, Carl G >; 'peace-discuss at anti-war.net' >; 'C. G. ESTABROOK' >; 'Jay Becker' >; 'a-fields at uiuc.edu' >; Hoffman, Valerie J >; 'Joe Lauria' >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; Szoke, Ron >; 'Dave Trippel' >; 'Arlene Hickory' >; 'David Swanson' >; 'peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net' >; 'sherwoodross10 at gmail.com' >; 'abass10 at gmail.com' >; 'mickalideh at gmail.com' >; 'Lina Thorne' >; 'chicago at worldcantwait.net' > Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG Mattis expected his troops to be peacekeepers. They brought soccer balls with them when they deployed. LOL! Marines don’t play soccer or teach kids to play soccer.. My Dad was a Marine. He invaded Saipan, Tinian and Okinawa before he became a Lawyer. Marines destroy anyone and anything that is in front of them as they are trained to do and did at Fallujah under Mattis—A Real Mad Dog War Criminal. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2017 7:52 PM To: 'Roger Helbig' > Cc: Karen Aram >; Estabrook, Carl G >; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Jay Becker >; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; Szoke, Ron >; Dave Trippel >; Arlene Hickory >; David Swanson >; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com;abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG -----Original Message----- From: Karim A G [mailto:coffee at euro-comm.co.uk] Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2004 5:00 PM To: Karim A G Subject: A War Crime in Real Time http://www.counterpunch.org/boyle11152004.html November 15, 2004 A War Crime in Real Time Obliterating Fallujah By FRANCIS A. BOYLE The obliteration of Fallujah continues apace. Article 6(b) of the 1945 Nuremberg Charter defines a Nuremberg War Crime in relevant part as the ". . . wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages. . ." According to this definitive definition, the Bush Jr. administration's destruction of Fallujah constitutes a war crime for which Nazis were tried and executed. There is nothing surprising about that. Since the Bush Jr. administration's installation in power by the United States Supreme Court in January of 2001, the peoples of the world have witnessed a government in the United States of America that has demonstrated little if any respect for fundamental considerations of international law, international organizations, and human rights, let alone appreciation of the requirements for maintaining international peace and security. What the world has watched instead is a comprehensive and malicious assault upon the integrity of the international legal order by a group of men and women who are thoroughly Machiavellian in their perception of international relations and in their conduct of both foreign policy and domestic affairs. This is not simply a question of giving or withholding the benefit of the doubt when it comes to complicated matters of foreign affairs and defense policies to a U.S. government charged with the security of both its own citizens and those of its allies in Europe, the Western Hemisphere, and the Pacific. Rather, the Bush Jr. administration's foreign policy constitutes ongoing criminal activity under well-recognized principles of both international law and U.S. domestic law, in particular the Nuremberg Charter, the Nuremberg Judgment, and the Nuremberg Principles. So their obliteration of Fallujah was to be expected. One generation ago the peoples of the world asked themselves: Where were the "good" Germans? Well, there were some good Germans. The Lutheran theologian and pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer was the foremost exemplar of someone who led a life of principled opposition to the Nazi-terror state even unto death. Today the peoples of the world are likewise asking themselves: Where are the "good" Americans? Well, there are some good Americans. Like three Catholic Nuns in Denver, they are getting arrested and going to jail for protesting against United States weapons of mass destruction (WMD) whose power for human extermination far exceeds even the wildest fantasies of Hitler and the Nazis. Or else for protesting against illegal U.S.. military interventions around the world. Just recently the Nuclear Resister estimated that since the Fall of 2002, there have been more than 9,500 anti-war related arrests in the United States alone. Many more will be coming. In international legal terms, the Bush Jr. administration itself should now be viewed as constituting an ongoing criminal conspiracy under international criminal law in violation of the Nuremberg Charter, the Nuremberg Judgment, and the Nuremberg Principles, due to its formulation and undertaking of aggressive war policies that are legally akin to those perpetrated by the Nazi regime. As a consequence, American citizens possess the basic right under international law and the United States domestic law, including the U.S. Constitution, to engage in acts of non-violent civil resistance in order to prevent, impede, thwart, or terminate ongoing criminal activities perpetrated by U.S. government officials in their conduct of foreign affairs policies and military operations purported to relate to defense and counter-terrorism. This same right of civil resistance extends pari passu to all citizens of the world community of states. Everyone around the world has both the right and the duty under international law to resist ongoing criminal activities perpetrated by the Bush Jr. administration and its nefarious foreign accomplices such as Blair, Berlusconi, Howard, Koizumi, Kwasniewski, etc. by all non-violent means possible. If it is not so restrained, the Bush Jr. administration could very well precipitate a Third World War. The time for preventive action is now. Civil resistance is the way to go. People power can overcome power politics. Popular movements have succeeded in toppling tyrannical, dictatorial and authoritarian regimes throughout former Communist countries in Eastern Europe, as well as in Asia, and most recently in Latin America. It is time once again to exercise People Power here in the United States of America: "When in the Course of human Events. . . We hold these Truths to be self-evident. . . . we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and sacred Honor." Despite the best efforts by the Bush Jr. Leaguers to the contrary, we American Citizens still have our First Amendment Rights: Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Association, Freedom of Assembly, Freedom to Petition our Government for the Redress of these massive Grievances, Civil Resistance, etc. We are going to have to start vigorously exercising all of our First Amendment Rights right now. We must use them or else, as the saying goes, we will lose them. We must act not only for the good of the Peoples of Southwest Asia, but for our future, that of our children, that of our nation as a democratic society committed to the Rule of Law and the U.S. Constitution. The Nazis had their "homeland" too Francis A. Boyle, Professor of Law, University of Illinois, is author of Foundations of World Order, Duke University Press, The Criminality of Nuclear Deterrence, and Palestine, Palestinians and International Law, by Clarity Press. He can be reached at: FBOYLE at LAW.UIUC.EDU --- Subscribed as: fboyle at law.uiuc.edu; to unsubscribe send to al-awda-universalist-request at umich.edu with UNSUBSCRIBE as the SUBJECT. URL: Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Roger Helbig [mailto:rwhelbig at gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2017 6:43 PM To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: Karen Aram >; Estabrook, Carl G >; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Jay Becker >; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; Szoke, Ron >; Dave Trippel >; Arlene Hickory >; David Swanson >; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com;abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG There was no massacre at Fallujah. This is nonsense. Mattis expected his troops to be peacekeepers. They brought soccer balls with them when they deployed. I would love to see your "so called" war crime indictment. Wonder how much of it is from your fertile Hate America imagination and how much from the fertile Arab anti-American propaganda organs. Doubt a single paragraph is actually based on fact. On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 8:22 AM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss > wrote: Trump’s Secretary of War Mad Dog Mattis was responsible for the Massacre at Fallujah, which I pointed out on Counterpunch was a Nuremberg War Crime along the lines of the Nazis—the wanton devastation of a city-- in revenge for them killing our mercenaries. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Karen Aram [mailto:karenaram at hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2017 10:04 AM To: Estabrook, Carl G > Cc: Boyle, Francis A >; Jay Becker >; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; Szoke, Ron >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; Arlene Hickory >; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; David Swanson >; Dave Trippel >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Mildred O'brien >; David Johnson >; Joe Lauria >; David Green > Subject: Re: Guest Commentary by Carl in NG I’m sorry Carl, I don’t agree with that title either. It assumes that all in the anti-war movement welcome the Trump administration. Not all of us trust he will do some of that which he promised in respect to “defunding Nato,” “making friends with Russia,” or killing TPP. Even if he does those three things, his further provocations of China, are every bit as dangerous as those with Russia, it’s a mere tactic to drive a wedge between Russia and China, while chipping away at Iran. His Cabinet appointments are frightening to say the least in respect to Healthcare, Energy, Education, Housing, etc, etc. Further expansion of war in the Middle East, and North Africa, as well as expansion of capitalist corporate control is on the agenda no matter which of the two Party’s are in power. Obama paved the way, for all of which I have just referred, but it’s not over. Our only hope is that “the people” are now awake, and perhaps will focus on that which is most serious to survival. On Jan 22, 2017, at 07:44, Carl G. Estabrook > wrote: My original title was, “Why the anti-war movement welcomes the new administration.” For more on that theme, see >. —CGE On Jan 22, 2017, at 9:29 AM, Karen Aram > wrote: An excellent letter, which I posted on FB. I deliberately deleted the title that I assumed the NG created, because it gives the false impression that those of us in the anti-war movement, all support Trump. We don’t, we just didn’t support Hillary. Anyone in the anti-war movement supporting Hillary was supporting more of the same that Obama provided. On Jan 22, 2017, at 07:16, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: He {Obama} attacked eight countries (two more than George Bush), and conducted what one leading political commentator called "the most extreme terrorist campaign of modern times — his drone assassinations." He killed thousands of civilians with drones, including U.S. citizens and hundreds of children. A good letter by Carl today in NG. (Remember NG writes their own titles to letters.) We must now hold Trump’s feet to the fire across the board! I think Carl’s quote comes from Chomsky? In any event the Illinois Nazis Law Faculty fully supported and promoted and held out for emulation by lawyers and this Campus and our Good Community: "the most extreme terrorist campaign of modern times — his drone assassinations." The Illinois Nazis Law Faculty are just a GANG OF SICK PUPPIES! Fab Ed Norton Professor of Law Carl Schmitt College of Law: “Mein Fuhrer, I can walk!” Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) Feed: News-Gazette.com Posted on: Sunday, January 22, 2017 7:00 AM Author: digital.media Subject: Guest Commentary: Why anti-war movement welcomes Trump By C.G. ESTABROOK The European anti-war group "No War No NATO" writes as follows: "Demonstrating in Europe on 21 January, against the newly elected US President Donald Trump is tantamount to lending support to the Obama administration, which has transformed Europe into NATO's first line of attack, nuclear matters inclusive, against Russia. read more View article... _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.chambana.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fpeace-discuss&data=02%7C01%7Ckarenaram%40hotmail.com%7C6ea0294d887b4910ba5108d52390c739%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636454027089337207&sdata=v2ho9fKU8A%2F2dSYUS31%2Br1UPu4HaEfckCXJTgUP7vcU%3D&reserved=0 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Sat Nov 4 17:59:17 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2017 17:59:17 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] INS (ICE) Midwest Regional Director v. IICEMAN Yale Law Mafia Dean Amar. Message-ID: I have conferred with a law professor friend of mine who works for undocumented migrants. He agreed with my assessment that UI Yale Law Mafia Dean Iceman Amar is the first and so far only Law Dean in America to have come out against the Sanctuary Movement. And I have been following the Sanctuary Movement since the mid-1980s when I served as Counsel to the Original Sanctuary Movement. Law Dean Iceman Amar has inflicted terrible harm upon 11 Million Human Beings, Their Families, Their Supporters, and now 800,00 DACA Kids threatened with deportation by the Trumpsters in March and it was just announced the Trumpsters are going to terminate temporary protected status for 50,000 Haitians and deport them. It has been a while since I went out to San Francisco for the adoption of their Original Sanctuary Resolution, but if I remember correctly, it also included Haitian Refugees by name. Indeed, it was just announced that the Trumpsters are going to terminate temporary protected status for the Central American Refugees whom we protected in the Original Sanctuary Movement and deport them despite the facts that they have been living in this country for three decades and I suspect most of them have children and perhaps even grandchildren who are Native Born US Citizens. Way to go Yale Law Mafia Dean Iceman Amar! Ditto for Killer Koh! The Illiniwaks Nazis Law School. Fab. following the Sanctuary Movement since the mid-1980s when I served as Counsel to the Original Sanctuary Movement. Law Dean Iceman Amar has inflicted terrible harm upon 11 Million Human Beings, Their Families, Their Supporters, and now 800,00 DACA Kids threatened with deportation by the Trumpsters in March and it was just announced the Trumpsters are going to terminate temporary protected status for 50,000 Haitians and deport them. It has been a while since I went out to San Francisco for the adoption of their Original Sanctuary Resolution, but if I remember correctly, it also included Haitian Refugees by name. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Friday, November 03, 2017 8:03 PM To: David Green ; C. G. ESTABROOK ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay ; David Johnson ; Mildred O'brien ; Estabrook, Carl G ; David Swanson Subject: INS (ICE) Midwest Regional Director v. IICEMAN Yale Law Mafia Dean Amar. I had this public debate in Oak Park Illinois with the INS {now ICE} District Director for the Midwest Region of the country on January 31, 1987 over the Oak Park Sanctuary Resolution, when ICEMAN Amar was a student at Yale Mafia Law School. As you can see it is based upon an April 1985 essay I wrote in a professional journal on the Sanctuary Movement while I was serving as Counsel to the Original Sanctuary Movement and ICEMAN Amar was a college student at Berkeley. This essay was written in reaction to the US government's kangaroo court persecution of the Founders of the Sanctuary Movement, whose case I worked on pro bono publico to defend them. During the course of the Oak Park debate, the Midwest INS District Director for the country publicly agreed with my assertion that State and Local Governments have no obligation to assist the U.S. Federal Government in the enforcement of Federal Immigration Laws. Fab. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Sat Nov 4 17:59:17 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2017 17:59:17 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] INS (ICE) Midwest Regional Director v. IICEMAN Yale Law Mafia Dean Amar. Message-ID: I have conferred with a law professor friend of mine who works for undocumented migrants. He agreed with my assessment that UI Yale Law Mafia Dean Iceman Amar is the first and so far only Law Dean in America to have come out against the Sanctuary Movement. And I have been following the Sanctuary Movement since the mid-1980s when I served as Counsel to the Original Sanctuary Movement. Law Dean Iceman Amar has inflicted terrible harm upon 11 Million Human Beings, Their Families, Their Supporters, and now 800,00 DACA Kids threatened with deportation by the Trumpsters in March and it was just announced the Trumpsters are going to terminate temporary protected status for 50,000 Haitians and deport them. It has been a while since I went out to San Francisco for the adoption of their Original Sanctuary Resolution, but if I remember correctly, it also included Haitian Refugees by name. Indeed, it was just announced that the Trumpsters are going to terminate temporary protected status for the Central American Refugees whom we protected in the Original Sanctuary Movement and deport them despite the facts that they have been living in this country for three decades and I suspect most of them have children and perhaps even grandchildren who are Native Born US Citizens. Way to go Yale Law Mafia Dean Iceman Amar! Ditto for Killer Koh! The Illiniwaks Nazis Law School. Fab. following the Sanctuary Movement since the mid-1980s when I served as Counsel to the Original Sanctuary Movement. Law Dean Iceman Amar has inflicted terrible harm upon 11 Million Human Beings, Their Families, Their Supporters, and now 800,00 DACA Kids threatened with deportation by the Trumpsters in March and it was just announced the Trumpsters are going to terminate temporary protected status for 50,000 Haitians and deport them. It has been a while since I went out to San Francisco for the adoption of their Original Sanctuary Resolution, but if I remember correctly, it also included Haitian Refugees by name. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Friday, November 03, 2017 8:03 PM To: David Green ; C. G. ESTABROOK ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay ; David Johnson ; Mildred O'brien ; Estabrook, Carl G ; David Swanson Subject: INS (ICE) Midwest Regional Director v. IICEMAN Yale Law Mafia Dean Amar. I had this public debate in Oak Park Illinois with the INS {now ICE} District Director for the Midwest Region of the country on January 31, 1987 over the Oak Park Sanctuary Resolution, when ICEMAN Amar was a student at Yale Mafia Law School. As you can see it is based upon an April 1985 essay I wrote in a professional journal on the Sanctuary Movement while I was serving as Counsel to the Original Sanctuary Movement and ICEMAN Amar was a college student at Berkeley. This essay was written in reaction to the US government's kangaroo court persecution of the Founders of the Sanctuary Movement, whose case I worked on pro bono publico to defend them. During the course of the Oak Park debate, the Midwest INS District Director for the country publicly agreed with my assertion that State and Local Governments have no obligation to assist the U.S. Federal Government in the enforcement of Federal Immigration Laws. Fab. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Sat Nov 4 18:25:39 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2017 18:25:39 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: NYT Joke of the Day: Harvard Law Obama AG Eric Holder Message-ID: It was Yale Law Mafia Killer Koh who personally approved the murders of Mr. Alwaki and his 16 year old son, both US citizens, then forwarded it on to Yale Law Mafia Clinton who approved and then forwarded on to Harvard Law Obama who approved and then murdered them both. Then Yale Law Mafia Dean Iceman Amar invited Yale Law Mafia Killer Koh to come out here and give an endowed lecture to justify it all as a Role Model for Lawyers Excellence in Government Service. Not one member of the Law Faculty supported me in opposition to Killer Koh. The Illiniwaks Nazi Law Faculty. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2017 1:13 PM To: sectns.aals at lists.aals.org Subject: NYT Joke of the Day: Harvard Law Obama AG Eric Holder “…he is a president who is willing to flout those norms that protect the rule of law”—sure like Holder publicly justifying their murders of US Citizens at Northwestern Law School, where he got two standing ovations before and after he spoke. The Holder/Northwestern Law: Give ‘em an offer they can’t refuse! See the link below. Fab. Native Chicagoan Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) Feed: "Francis Boyle" - Google Blog Search Posted on: Monday, March 12, 2012 2:54 PM Author: mwcnews at gmail.com (Francis Boyle) Subject: The Northwestern Law: Give him an offer he can't refuse! By Francis Boyle. Share Link: Bookmark Google Yahoo MyWeb Del.icio.us Digg Facebook Myspace Reddit Ma.gnolia Technorati Stumble Upon Newsvine · View Comments. Reagan's Attorney General Edmund Meese ... View article... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Sat Nov 4 18:25:39 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2017 18:25:39 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: NYT Joke of the Day: Harvard Law Obama AG Eric Holder Message-ID: It was Yale Law Mafia Killer Koh who personally approved the murders of Mr. Alwaki and his 16 year old son, both US citizens, then forwarded it on to Yale Law Mafia Clinton who approved and then forwarded on to Harvard Law Obama who approved and then murdered them both. Then Yale Law Mafia Dean Iceman Amar invited Yale Law Mafia Killer Koh to come out here and give an endowed lecture to justify it all as a Role Model for Lawyers Excellence in Government Service. Not one member of the Law Faculty supported me in opposition to Killer Koh. The Illiniwaks Nazi Law Faculty. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2017 1:13 PM To: sectns.aals at lists.aals.org Subject: NYT Joke of the Day: Harvard Law Obama AG Eric Holder “…he is a president who is willing to flout those norms that protect the rule of law”—sure like Holder publicly justifying their murders of US Citizens at Northwestern Law School, where he got two standing ovations before and after he spoke. The Holder/Northwestern Law: Give ‘em an offer they can’t refuse! See the link below. Fab. Native Chicagoan Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) Feed: "Francis Boyle" - Google Blog Search Posted on: Monday, March 12, 2012 2:54 PM Author: mwcnews at gmail.com (Francis Boyle) Subject: The Northwestern Law: Give him an offer he can't refuse! By Francis Boyle. Share Link: Bookmark Google Yahoo MyWeb Del.icio.us Digg Facebook Myspace Reddit Ma.gnolia Technorati Stumble Upon Newsvine · View Comments. Reagan's Attorney General Edmund Meese ... View article... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Sat Nov 4 20:13:26 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2017 20:13:26 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] INS (ICE) Midwest Regional Director v. IICEMAN Yale Law Mafia Dean Amar. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Oh. I forgot to mention: As you know last year at our rally against Killer Koh, I criticized our Yale Law Mafia Dean Iceman Amar for reducing our African American entering class to 3% and keeping our Latino/a entering class at 5% where it was because our fired, disgraced and ABA-sanctioned Dean Hurricane Heidi Hurd gutted our affirmative action programs for People of Color, having no American Indians at Illiniwak Law School whom I was aware of. In response, our Yale Law Mafia Dean Iceman Amar threw me off the Diversity Committee. I guess this French Irish American Law Professor is too diverse for the bigots and racists on Illiniwak Nazi Law Faculty. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2017 12:59 PM To: David Green ; C. G. ESTABROOK ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay ; David Johnson ; Mildred O'brien ; Estabrook, Carl G Subject: RE: INS (ICE) Midwest Regional Director v. IICEMAN Yale Law Mafia Dean Amar. I have conferred with a law professor friend of mine who works for undocumented migrants. He agreed with my assessment that UI Yale Law Mafia Dean Iceman Amar is the first and so far only Law Dean in America to have come out against the Sanctuary Movement. And I have been following the Sanctuary Movement since the mid-1980s when I served as Counsel to the Original Sanctuary Movement. Law Dean Iceman Amar has inflicted terrible harm upon 11 Million Human Beings, Their Families, Their Supporters, and now 800,00 DACA Kids threatened with deportation by the Trumpsters in March and it was just announced the Trumpsters are going to terminate temporary protected status for 50,000 Haitians and deport them. It has been a while since I went out to San Francisco for the adoption of their Original Sanctuary Resolution, but if I remember correctly, it also included Haitian Refugees by name. Indeed, it was just announced that the Trumpsters are going to terminate temporary protected status for the Central American Refugees whom we protected in the Original Sanctuary Movement and deport them despite the facts that they have been living in this country for three decades and I suspect most of them have children and perhaps even grandchildren who are Native Born US Citizens. Way to go Yale Law Mafia Dean Iceman Amar! Ditto for Killer Koh! The Illiniwaks Nazis Law School. Fab. following the Sanctuary Movement since the mid-1980s when I served as Counsel to the Original Sanctuary Movement. Law Dean Iceman Amar has inflicted terrible harm upon 11 Million Human Beings, Their Families, Their Supporters, and now 800,00 DACA Kids threatened with deportation by the Trumpsters in March and it was just announced the Trumpsters are going to terminate temporary protected status for 50,000 Haitians and deport them. It has been a while since I went out to San Francisco for the adoption of their Original Sanctuary Resolution, but if I remember correctly, it also included Haitian Refugees by name. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Friday, November 03, 2017 8:03 PM To: David Green >; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; Estabrook, Carl G >; David Swanson > Subject: INS (ICE) Midwest Regional Director v. IICEMAN Yale Law Mafia Dean Amar. I had this public debate in Oak Park Illinois with the INS {now ICE} District Director for the Midwest Region of the country on January 31, 1987 over the Oak Park Sanctuary Resolution, when ICEMAN Amar was a student at Yale Mafia Law School. As you can see it is based upon an April 1985 essay I wrote in a professional journal on the Sanctuary Movement while I was serving as Counsel to the Original Sanctuary Movement and ICEMAN Amar was a college student at Berkeley. This essay was written in reaction to the US government's kangaroo court persecution of the Founders of the Sanctuary Movement, whose case I worked on pro bono publico to defend them. During the course of the Oak Park debate, the Midwest INS District Director for the country publicly agreed with my assertion that State and Local Governments have no obligation to assist the U.S. Federal Government in the enforcement of Federal Immigration Laws. Fab. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Sat Nov 4 20:13:26 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2017 20:13:26 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] INS (ICE) Midwest Regional Director v. IICEMAN Yale Law Mafia Dean Amar. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Oh. I forgot to mention: As you know last year at our rally against Killer Koh, I criticized our Yale Law Mafia Dean Iceman Amar for reducing our African American entering class to 3% and keeping our Latino/a entering class at 5% where it was because our fired, disgraced and ABA-sanctioned Dean Hurricane Heidi Hurd gutted our affirmative action programs for People of Color, having no American Indians at Illiniwak Law School whom I was aware of. In response, our Yale Law Mafia Dean Iceman Amar threw me off the Diversity Committee. I guess this French Irish American Law Professor is too diverse for the bigots and racists on Illiniwak Nazi Law Faculty. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2017 12:59 PM To: David Green ; C. G. ESTABROOK ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay ; David Johnson ; Mildred O'brien ; Estabrook, Carl G Subject: RE: INS (ICE) Midwest Regional Director v. IICEMAN Yale Law Mafia Dean Amar. I have conferred with a law professor friend of mine who works for undocumented migrants. He agreed with my assessment that UI Yale Law Mafia Dean Iceman Amar is the first and so far only Law Dean in America to have come out against the Sanctuary Movement. And I have been following the Sanctuary Movement since the mid-1980s when I served as Counsel to the Original Sanctuary Movement. Law Dean Iceman Amar has inflicted terrible harm upon 11 Million Human Beings, Their Families, Their Supporters, and now 800,00 DACA Kids threatened with deportation by the Trumpsters in March and it was just announced the Trumpsters are going to terminate temporary protected status for 50,000 Haitians and deport them. It has been a while since I went out to San Francisco for the adoption of their Original Sanctuary Resolution, but if I remember correctly, it also included Haitian Refugees by name. Indeed, it was just announced that the Trumpsters are going to terminate temporary protected status for the Central American Refugees whom we protected in the Original Sanctuary Movement and deport them despite the facts that they have been living in this country for three decades and I suspect most of them have children and perhaps even grandchildren who are Native Born US Citizens. Way to go Yale Law Mafia Dean Iceman Amar! Ditto for Killer Koh! The Illiniwaks Nazis Law School. Fab. following the Sanctuary Movement since the mid-1980s when I served as Counsel to the Original Sanctuary Movement. Law Dean Iceman Amar has inflicted terrible harm upon 11 Million Human Beings, Their Families, Their Supporters, and now 800,00 DACA Kids threatened with deportation by the Trumpsters in March and it was just announced the Trumpsters are going to terminate temporary protected status for 50,000 Haitians and deport them. It has been a while since I went out to San Francisco for the adoption of their Original Sanctuary Resolution, but if I remember correctly, it also included Haitian Refugees by name. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Friday, November 03, 2017 8:03 PM To: David Green >; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; Estabrook, Carl G >; David Swanson > Subject: INS (ICE) Midwest Regional Director v. IICEMAN Yale Law Mafia Dean Amar. I had this public debate in Oak Park Illinois with the INS {now ICE} District Director for the Midwest Region of the country on January 31, 1987 over the Oak Park Sanctuary Resolution, when ICEMAN Amar was a student at Yale Mafia Law School. As you can see it is based upon an April 1985 essay I wrote in a professional journal on the Sanctuary Movement while I was serving as Counsel to the Original Sanctuary Movement and ICEMAN Amar was a college student at Berkeley. This essay was written in reaction to the US government's kangaroo court persecution of the Founders of the Sanctuary Movement, whose case I worked on pro bono publico to defend them. During the course of the Oak Park debate, the Midwest INS District Director for the country publicly agreed with my assertion that State and Local Governments have no obligation to assist the U.S. Federal Government in the enforcement of Federal Immigration Laws. Fab. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Sat Nov 4 20:53:32 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2017 20:53:32 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: [Peace] Prominent Iraq/Iran warmonger Eliot Cohen speaking at UIUC November 9, 2017 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Yeah, for sure. But what else do you expect at the warmongering university of Illinois where our Program in Arms Control, Disarmament and International Security as well as our Globaloney Studies Center were both founded and directed for many years by the die-hard warmonger and human rights trasher Ed Kolodziej. In a live debate we had on WILL-TV Kolodziej fully supported the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki with me arguing against them and him and a WW2 bomber pilot. Bombs away at the University of Illinois! Fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Peace [mailto:peace-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Robert Naiman via Peace Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2017 3:40 PM To: peace Subject: [Peace] Prominent Iraq/Iran warmonger Eliot Cohen speaking at UIUC November 9, 2017 The Big Stick: Military Power and American Foreign Policy in the Age of Trump http://illinois.edu/calendar/detail/598?eventId=33283229 http://www.clinecenter.illinois.edu/news/events/cline/2017ClineSymposium/EliotCohen.aspx https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliot_A._Cohen [...] In 1997, Cohen co-founded the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), which was a center for prominent neoconservatives. He has been a member of the Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee, a committee of civilians and retired military officers that the U.S. Secretary of Defense may call upon for advice, that was instituted during the administration of President George W. Bush. He was put on the board after acquaintance Richard Perle put forward his name.[5] Cohen has referred to the War on Terrorism as “World War IV”.[6] In the run-up to the 2003 Invasion of Iraq, he was a member of Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, a group of prominent persons who pressed for an invasion. [...] [...] Cohen was one of the first neoconservatives to publicly advocate war against Iran and Iraq. In a November 2001 op-ed for The Wall Street Journal, Cohen identified what he called World War IV and advocated the overthrow of Iran's government as a possible next step for the Bush Administration. Cohen claimed "regime change" in Iran could be accomplished with a focus on "pro-Western and anticlerical forces" in the Middle East and suggested that such an action would be "wise, moral and unpopular (among some of our allies)". He went on to argue that such a policy was as important as the then identified goal of Osama Bin Laden's capture: "The overthrow of the first theocratic revolutionary Muslim state and its replacement by a moderate or secular government, however, would be no less important a victory in this war than the annihilation of bin Laden." [...] === Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 Co-Sponsor Khanna-Massie to #StopSaudiFamineInYemen https://petitions.moveon.org/sign/force-vote-on-saudi-war?r_by=1135580 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Sat Nov 4 20:53:32 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2017 20:53:32 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: [Peace] Prominent Iraq/Iran warmonger Eliot Cohen speaking at UIUC November 9, 2017 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Yeah, for sure. But what else do you expect at the warmongering university of Illinois where our Program in Arms Control, Disarmament and International Security as well as our Globaloney Studies Center were both founded and directed for many years by the die-hard warmonger and human rights trasher Ed Kolodziej. In a live debate we had on WILL-TV Kolodziej fully supported the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki with me arguing against them and him and a WW2 bomber pilot. Bombs away at the University of Illinois! Fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Peace [mailto:peace-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Robert Naiman via Peace Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2017 3:40 PM To: peace Subject: [Peace] Prominent Iraq/Iran warmonger Eliot Cohen speaking at UIUC November 9, 2017 The Big Stick: Military Power and American Foreign Policy in the Age of Trump http://illinois.edu/calendar/detail/598?eventId=33283229 http://www.clinecenter.illinois.edu/news/events/cline/2017ClineSymposium/EliotCohen.aspx https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliot_A._Cohen [...] In 1997, Cohen co-founded the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), which was a center for prominent neoconservatives. He has been a member of the Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee, a committee of civilians and retired military officers that the U.S. Secretary of Defense may call upon for advice, that was instituted during the administration of President George W. Bush. He was put on the board after acquaintance Richard Perle put forward his name.[5] Cohen has referred to the War on Terrorism as “World War IV”.[6] In the run-up to the 2003 Invasion of Iraq, he was a member of Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, a group of prominent persons who pressed for an invasion. [...] [...] Cohen was one of the first neoconservatives to publicly advocate war against Iran and Iraq. In a November 2001 op-ed for The Wall Street Journal, Cohen identified what he called World War IV and advocated the overthrow of Iran's government as a possible next step for the Bush Administration. Cohen claimed "regime change" in Iran could be accomplished with a focus on "pro-Western and anticlerical forces" in the Middle East and suggested that such an action would be "wise, moral and unpopular (among some of our allies)". He went on to argue that such a policy was as important as the then identified goal of Osama Bin Laden's capture: "The overthrow of the first theocratic revolutionary Muslim state and its replacement by a moderate or secular government, however, would be no less important a victory in this war than the annihilation of bin Laden." [...] === Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 Co-Sponsor Khanna-Massie to #StopSaudiFamineInYemen https://petitions.moveon.org/sign/force-vote-on-saudi-war?r_by=1135580 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Sat Nov 4 21:09:38 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2017 21:09:38 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Prominent Iraq/Iran warmonger Eliot Cohen speaking at UIUC November 9, 2017 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: And speaking of ACDIS and Kolodziej and the wars against Iraq and warmongering and NeoCons, Kolodziej tried to blackball me off of the All University Forum held in Foelinger Auditorium on the eve of Bush Sr’s War against Iraq in mid-January of 1991. Meanwhile Kolodziej had flown in the NeoCon Warmonger Geoff Kemp to argue in favor of the war that would exterminate about 200,000 Iraqis. Bombs away once again at the warmongering University of Illinois! Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2017 3:54 PM To: David Green ; C. G. ESTABROOK ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay ; David Johnson ; Mildred O'brien ; Estabrook, Carl G Cc: Robert Naiman via Peace Subject: FW: [Peace] Prominent Iraq/Iran warmonger Eliot Cohen speaking at UIUC November 9, 2017 Yeah, for sure. But what else do you expect at the warmongering university of Illinois where our Program in Arms Control, Disarmament and International Security as well as our Globaloney Studies Center were both founded and directed for many years by the die-hard warmonger and human rights trasher Ed Kolodziej. In a live debate we had on WILL-TV Kolodziej fully supported the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki with me arguing against them and him and a WW2 bomber pilot. Bombs away at the University of Illinois! Fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Peace [mailto:peace-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Robert Naiman via Peace Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2017 3:40 PM To: peace > Subject: [Peace] Prominent Iraq/Iran warmonger Eliot Cohen speaking at UIUC November 9, 2017 The Big Stick: Military Power and American Foreign Policy in the Age of Trump http://illinois.edu/calendar/detail/598?eventId=33283229 http://www.clinecenter.illinois.edu/news/events/cline/2017ClineSymposium/EliotCohen.aspx https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliot_A._Cohen [...] In 1997, Cohen co-founded the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), which was a center for prominent neoconservatives. He has been a member of the Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee, a committee of civilians and retired military officers that the U.S. Secretary of Defense may call upon for advice, that was instituted during the administration of President George W. Bush. He was put on the board after acquaintance Richard Perle put forward his name.[5] Cohen has referred to the War on Terrorism as “World War IV”.[6] In the run-up to the 2003 Invasion of Iraq, he was a member of Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, a group of prominent persons who pressed for an invasion. [...] [...] Cohen was one of the first neoconservatives to publicly advocate war against Iran and Iraq. In a November 2001 op-ed for The Wall Street Journal, Cohen identified what he called World War IV and advocated the overthrow of Iran's government as a possible next step for the Bush Administration. Cohen claimed "regime change" in Iran could be accomplished with a focus on "pro-Western and anticlerical forces" in the Middle East and suggested that such an action would be "wise, moral and unpopular (among some of our allies)". He went on to argue that such a policy was as important as the then identified goal of Osama Bin Laden's capture: "The overthrow of the first theocratic revolutionary Muslim state and its replacement by a moderate or secular government, however, would be no less important a victory in this war than the annihilation of bin Laden." [...] === Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 Co-Sponsor Khanna-Massie to #StopSaudiFamineInYemen https://petitions.moveon.org/sign/force-vote-on-saudi-war?r_by=1135580 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Sat Nov 4 21:09:38 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2017 21:09:38 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Prominent Iraq/Iran warmonger Eliot Cohen speaking at UIUC November 9, 2017 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: And speaking of ACDIS and Kolodziej and the wars against Iraq and warmongering and NeoCons, Kolodziej tried to blackball me off of the All University Forum held in Foelinger Auditorium on the eve of Bush Sr’s War against Iraq in mid-January of 1991. Meanwhile Kolodziej had flown in the NeoCon Warmonger Geoff Kemp to argue in favor of the war that would exterminate about 200,000 Iraqis. Bombs away once again at the warmongering University of Illinois! Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2017 3:54 PM To: David Green ; C. G. ESTABROOK ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay ; David Johnson ; Mildred O'brien ; Estabrook, Carl G Cc: Robert Naiman via Peace Subject: FW: [Peace] Prominent Iraq/Iran warmonger Eliot Cohen speaking at UIUC November 9, 2017 Yeah, for sure. But what else do you expect at the warmongering university of Illinois where our Program in Arms Control, Disarmament and International Security as well as our Globaloney Studies Center were both founded and directed for many years by the die-hard warmonger and human rights trasher Ed Kolodziej. In a live debate we had on WILL-TV Kolodziej fully supported the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki with me arguing against them and him and a WW2 bomber pilot. Bombs away at the University of Illinois! Fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Peace [mailto:peace-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Robert Naiman via Peace Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2017 3:40 PM To: peace > Subject: [Peace] Prominent Iraq/Iran warmonger Eliot Cohen speaking at UIUC November 9, 2017 The Big Stick: Military Power and American Foreign Policy in the Age of Trump http://illinois.edu/calendar/detail/598?eventId=33283229 http://www.clinecenter.illinois.edu/news/events/cline/2017ClineSymposium/EliotCohen.aspx https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliot_A._Cohen [...] In 1997, Cohen co-founded the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), which was a center for prominent neoconservatives. He has been a member of the Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee, a committee of civilians and retired military officers that the U.S. Secretary of Defense may call upon for advice, that was instituted during the administration of President George W. Bush. He was put on the board after acquaintance Richard Perle put forward his name.[5] Cohen has referred to the War on Terrorism as “World War IV”.[6] In the run-up to the 2003 Invasion of Iraq, he was a member of Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, a group of prominent persons who pressed for an invasion. [...] [...] Cohen was one of the first neoconservatives to publicly advocate war against Iran and Iraq. In a November 2001 op-ed for The Wall Street Journal, Cohen identified what he called World War IV and advocated the overthrow of Iran's government as a possible next step for the Bush Administration. Cohen claimed "regime change" in Iran could be accomplished with a focus on "pro-Western and anticlerical forces" in the Middle East and suggested that such an action would be "wise, moral and unpopular (among some of our allies)". He went on to argue that such a policy was as important as the then identified goal of Osama Bin Laden's capture: "The overthrow of the first theocratic revolutionary Muslim state and its replacement by a moderate or secular government, however, would be no less important a victory in this war than the annihilation of bin Laden." [...] === Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 Co-Sponsor Khanna-Massie to #StopSaudiFamineInYemen https://petitions.moveon.org/sign/force-vote-on-saudi-war?r_by=1135580 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From galliher at illinois.edu Sat Nov 4 23:34:07 2017 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2017 18:34:07 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Prominent Iraq/Iran warmonger Eliot Cohen speaking at UIUC November 9, 2017 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7E039E74-194D-4A98-A508-41DE54F4497A@illinois.edu> Perhaps an informational picket with a leaflet describing Cohen’s crimes? > On Nov 4, 2017, at 3:39 PM, Robert Naiman via Peace wrote: > > The Big Stick: Military Power and American Foreign Policy in the Age of Trump > > http://illinois.edu/calendar/detail/598?eventId=33283229 > > http://www.clinecenter.illinois.edu/news/events/cline/2017ClineSymposium/EliotCohen.aspx > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliot_A._Cohen > > [...] > In 1997, Cohen co-founded the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), which was a center for prominent neoconservatives. He has been a member of the Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee, a committee of civilians and retired military officers that the U.S. Secretary of Defense may call upon for advice, that was instituted during the administration of President George W. Bush. He was put on the board after acquaintance Richard Perle put forward his name.[5] Cohen has referred to the War on Terrorism as “World War IV”.[6] In the run-up to the 2003 Invasion of Iraq, he was a member of Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, a group of prominent persons who pressed for an invasion. > [...] > > [...] > Cohen was one of the first neoconservatives to publicly advocate war against Iran and Iraq. In a November 2001 op-ed for The Wall Street Journal, Cohen identified what he called World War IV and advocated the overthrow of Iran's government as a possible next step for the Bush Administration. Cohen claimed "regime change" in Iran could be accomplished with a focus on "pro-Western and anticlerical forces" in the Middle East and suggested that such an action would be "wise, moral and unpopular (among some of our allies)". He went on to argue that such a policy was as important as the then identified goal of Osama Bin Laden's capture: "The overthrow of the first theocratic revolutionary Muslim state and its replacement by a moderate or secular government, however, would be no less important a victory in this war than the annihilation of bin Laden." > [...] > > === > > Robert Naiman > Policy Director > Just Foreign Policy > www.justforeignpolicy.org > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > Co-Sponsor Khanna-Massie to #StopSaudiFamineInYemen > https://petitions.moveon.org/sign/force-vote-on-saudi-war?r_by=1135580 > > > _______________________________________________ > Peace mailing list > Peace at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Sat Nov 4 23:50:30 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2017 23:50:30 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Illinois Governor Rauner versus Illinois Law Dean Amar Message-ID: I am no fan of Governor Rauner. But to his great and everlasting credit, Governor Rauner recently signed legislation that turned the entire State of Illinois into a Sanctuary State. Soon thereafter Illinois Law Dean Amar of the University of Illinois College of Law-the Flagship State Law School on the Flagship Campus of the University of Illinois where Governor Rauner sits on the Board of Trustees as an Ex Officio Member- publicly came out against the Sanctuary Movement. Republican Governor Rauner courageously aligned himself and the State of Illinois with the Sanctuary Movement against Trump. Illinois Law Dean Amar cravenly aligned himself with Trump against the Sanctuary Movement and Governor Rauner and the State of Illinois and 11 Million Undocumented Migrants and Their Families and 800,000 DACA Kids and 50,000 Haitian Refugees and Tens of Thousands of Central American Refugees still in this country from the Original Sanctuary Movement and Their Families. And to the best of my knowledge, and I stand subject to correction, Illinois Law Dean Amar is the first and so far the only Law Dean in the country to publicly come out against the Sanctuary Movement and 11 Million Undocumented Migrants and Their Families, and 800,000 DACA Kids and 50,000 Haitian Refugees and Tens of Thousands of Central American refugees still in this country from the Original Sanctuary Movement whom Illinois Governor Rauner had the courage and common sense and decency and compassion and principles and integrity to protect from Trump by turning the entire State of Illinois into a Sanctuary State for them all. Professor Francis A. Boyle University of Illinois College of Law Board of Directors, Amnesty International USA (1988-1992) Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Sat Nov 4 23:50:30 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2017 23:50:30 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Illinois Governor Rauner versus Illinois Law Dean Amar Message-ID: I am no fan of Governor Rauner. But to his great and everlasting credit, Governor Rauner recently signed legislation that turned the entire State of Illinois into a Sanctuary State. Soon thereafter Illinois Law Dean Amar of the University of Illinois College of Law-the Flagship State Law School on the Flagship Campus of the University of Illinois where Governor Rauner sits on the Board of Trustees as an Ex Officio Member- publicly came out against the Sanctuary Movement. Republican Governor Rauner courageously aligned himself and the State of Illinois with the Sanctuary Movement against Trump. Illinois Law Dean Amar cravenly aligned himself with Trump against the Sanctuary Movement and Governor Rauner and the State of Illinois and 11 Million Undocumented Migrants and Their Families and 800,000 DACA Kids and 50,000 Haitian Refugees and Tens of Thousands of Central American Refugees still in this country from the Original Sanctuary Movement and Their Families. And to the best of my knowledge, and I stand subject to correction, Illinois Law Dean Amar is the first and so far the only Law Dean in the country to publicly come out against the Sanctuary Movement and 11 Million Undocumented Migrants and Their Families, and 800,000 DACA Kids and 50,000 Haitian Refugees and Tens of Thousands of Central American refugees still in this country from the Original Sanctuary Movement whom Illinois Governor Rauner had the courage and common sense and decency and compassion and principles and integrity to protect from Trump by turning the entire State of Illinois into a Sanctuary State for them all. Professor Francis A. Boyle University of Illinois College of Law Board of Directors, Amnesty International USA (1988-1992) Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Sun Nov 5 03:41:54 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2017 03:41:54 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] WE v. Illinois Law Dean Amar & His Faculty Message-ID: [http://s.ytimg.com/yt/img/email/digest/email_header.png] [https://yt3.ggpht.com/-w4phvYGWivc/AAAAAAAAAAI/AAAAAAAAAAA/_Vq2X19VNEk/s50-c-k-no-mo-rj-c0xffffff/photo.jpg] Francis Boyle has shared a video with you on YouTube [https://i.ytimg.com/vi/SXDXZHYCYKc/mqdefault.jpg] Protesting Harold Koh by UPTV6 Local activists gather to protest Harold Koh who is speaking at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Help center • Report spam ©2016 YouTube, LLC 901 Cherry Ave, San Bruno, CA 94066 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Sun Nov 5 03:41:54 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2017 03:41:54 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] WE v. Illinois Law Dean Amar & His Faculty Message-ID: [http://s.ytimg.com/yt/img/email/digest/email_header.png] [https://yt3.ggpht.com/-w4phvYGWivc/AAAAAAAAAAI/AAAAAAAAAAA/_Vq2X19VNEk/s50-c-k-no-mo-rj-c0xffffff/photo.jpg] Francis Boyle has shared a video with you on YouTube [https://i.ytimg.com/vi/SXDXZHYCYKc/mqdefault.jpg] Protesting Harold Koh by UPTV6 Local activists gather to protest Harold Koh who is speaking at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Help center • Report spam ©2016 YouTube, LLC 901 Cherry Ave, San Bruno, CA 94066 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rwhelbig at gmail.com Sun Nov 5 10:50:48 2017 From: rwhelbig at gmail.com (Roger Helbig) Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2017 02:50:48 -0800 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Prominent Iraq/Iran warmonger Eliot Cohen speaking at UIUC November 9, 2017 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: There you go - exterminate 200,000 Iraqis - US never did that and you know it. Why spread lies - does it make you feel big? On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 2:09 PM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss < peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > *And speaking of ACDIS and Kolodziej and the wars against Iraq and > warmongering and NeoCons, Kolodziej tried to blackball me off of the All > University Forum held in Foelinger Auditorium on the eve of Bush Sr’s War > against Iraq in mid-January of 1991. Meanwhile Kolodziej had flown in the > NeoCon Warmonger Geoff Kemp to argue in favor of the war that would > exterminate about 200,000 Iraqis. Bombs away once again at the > warmongering University of Illinois!* > > *Fab.* > > > > *Francis A. Boyle* > > *Law Building* > > *504 E. Pennsylvania Ave.* > > *Champaign IL 61820 USA* > > *217-333-7954 <(217)%20333-7954> (phone)* > > *217-244-1478 <(217)%20244-1478> (fax)* > > *(personal comments only*) > > > > *From:* Boyle, Francis A > *Sent:* Saturday, November 04, 2017 3:54 PM > *To:* David Green ; C. G. ESTABROOK < > carl at newsfromneptune.com>; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; > sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; > Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria < > joelauria at gmail.com>; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; > peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron ; > Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram ; > abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne < > lina at worldcantwait.net>; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay < > futureup2us at gmail.com>; David Johnson ; > Mildred O'brien ; Estabrook, Carl G < > galliher at illinois.edu> > *Cc:* Robert Naiman via Peace > *Subject:* FW: [Peace] Prominent Iraq/Iran warmonger Eliot Cohen speaking > at UIUC November 9, 2017 > > > > *Yeah, for sure. But what else do you expect at the warmongering > university of Illinois where our Program in Arms Control, Disarmament and > International Security as well as our Globaloney Studies Center were both > founded and directed for many years by the die-hard warmonger and human > rights trasher Ed Kolodziej. In a live debate we had on WILL-TV Kolodziej > fully supported the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki with me > arguing against them and him and a WW2 bomber pilot. Bombs away at the > University of Illinois!* > > *Fab* > > > > > > *Francis A. Boyle* > > *Law Building* > > *504 E. Pennsylvania Ave.* > > *Champaign IL 61820 USA* > > *217-333-7954 <(217)%20333-7954> (phone)* > > *217-244-1478 <(217)%20244-1478> (fax)* > > *(personal comments only*) > > > > *From:* Peace [mailto:peace-bounces at lists.chambana.net > ] *On Behalf Of *Robert Naiman via Peace > *Sent:* Saturday, November 04, 2017 3:40 PM > *To:* peace > *Subject:* [Peace] Prominent Iraq/Iran warmonger Eliot Cohen speaking at > UIUC November 9, 2017 > > > > The Big Stick: Military Power and American Foreign Policy in the Age of > Trump > > > > http://illinois.edu/calendar/detail/598?eventId=33283229 > > > > http://www.clinecenter.illinois.edu/news/events/cline/2017ClineSymposium/ > EliotCohen.aspx > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliot_A._Cohen > > > > [...] > > In 1997, Cohen co-founded the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), > which was a center for prominent neoconservatives. He has been a member of > the Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee, a committee of civilians and > retired military officers that the U.S. Secretary of Defense may call upon > for advice, that was instituted during the administration of President > George W. Bush. He was put on the board after acquaintance Richard Perle > put forward his name.[5] Cohen has referred to the War on Terrorism as > “World War IV”.[6] In the run-up to the 2003 Invasion of Iraq, he was a > member of Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, a group of prominent > persons who pressed for an invasion. > > [...] > > > > [...] > > Cohen was one of the first neoconservatives to publicly advocate war > against Iran and Iraq. In a November 2001 op-ed for The Wall Street > Journal, Cohen identified what he called World War IV and advocated the > overthrow of Iran's government as a possible next step for the Bush > Administration. Cohen claimed "regime change" in Iran could be accomplished > with a focus on "pro-Western and anticlerical forces" in the Middle East > and suggested that such an action would be "wise, moral and unpopular > (among some of our allies)". He went on to argue that such a policy was as > important as the then identified goal of Osama Bin Laden's capture: "The > overthrow of the first theocratic revolutionary Muslim state and its > replacement by a moderate or secular government, however, would be no less > important a victory in this war than the annihilation of bin Laden." > > [...] > > > > === > > > Robert Naiman > Policy Director > Just Foreign Policy > www.justforeignpolicy.org > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > > (202) 448-2898 x1 <(202)%20448-2898> > > > > Co-Sponsor Khanna-Massie to #StopSaudiFamineInYemen > https://petitions.moveon.org/sign/force-vote-on-saudi-war?r_by=1135580 > > > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rwhelbig at gmail.com Sun Nov 5 11:22:15 2017 From: rwhelbig at gmail.com (Roger Helbig) Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2017 03:22:15 -0800 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG In-Reply-To: References: <9D3D5E59-5EFC-47DF-838D-C6508214E176@illinois.edu> Message-ID: No, but Boyle likes to spread lies - I joined your list because of Douglas Lind Rokke, University of Illinois PhD graduate and resident of nearby Rantoul. Rokke is a professional liar (see my other much longer message which is still being edited). Roger W Helbig Richmond, CA My mother was 1941 graduate of the University of Illinois - sadly, she died two days after I was born due to childbirth complications. On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 8:02 AM, Boyle, Francis A wrote: > *Dear Karen: With all due respect, you must understand: Roger is a Mole > for Military Intelligence. That is why he is on this **Peace** list. > fab.* > > > > *Francis A. Boyle* > > *Law Building* > > *504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > * > > *Champaign IL 61820 USA > * > > *217-333-7954 <(217)%20333-7954> (phone)* > > *217-244-1478 <(217)%20244-1478> (fax)* > > *(personal comments only*) > > > > *From:* Karen Aram [mailto:karenaram at hotmail.com] > *Sent:* Saturday, November 04, 2017 9:58 AM > *To:* Roger Helbig > *Cc:* Boyle, Francis A ; Peace-discuss < > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> > *Subject:* Re: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG > > > > Roger > > > > Your statement: "There was no massacre at Fallujah. This is nonsense. > Mattis expected his troops to be peacekeepers.” > > is so ludicrous, it invites laughter, long and loud laughter, if it > weren’t so tragic, the many lives destroyed as a result of “Mad Dog Mattis” > and the USG in it’s continuing genocide. > > > > Nothing you say, can ever be taken seriously, your continued harassment of > anti-war activists on this “Peace Discussion List” is anathema to > everything it stands for. > > > > I have to ask what are you doing here if not, just to irritate. Okay maybe > your goal is to entertain, but your entertainment is very sick. > > > > Anyone and everyone, who supports the wars and interventions the US has > and continues to perpetrate around the world, has blood on their hands, as > “complicit Americans." That is the way we are viewed by others in the world > today. > > > > On Nov 4, 2017, at 07:31, Roger Helbig via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > > > > what exactly is that supposed to mean - my choices of assignment were > Intelligence, Weather and Cartography and the Air Force made me an > Electronic Systems (ground radar maintenance) Officer - I liked languages - > I was a literate three year old in Russian and wanted to learn more - I > like puzzles - putting pieces together - that's what I thought intelligence > officers did - Weather was where I got assigned for familiarization during > summer camp so I somewhat expected that I would get that and a M/S in > Meterology - Cartography because as a Geologist, I made maps of what was > below the ground and cartographers made maps of what was above the ground. > > > > I voted for Democratic candidates starting with George McGovern - so I was > not exactly a fan of Richard Nixon so hardly Nixonian! > > > > Roger > > > > On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 7:19 AM, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: > > “I wanted to be”—Military Intelligence. A Typical Nixonian Limited > Hang-out. fab. > > > > *Francis A. Boyle* > > *Law Building* > > *504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > * > > *Champaign IL 61820 USA > * > > *217-333-7954 <(217)%20333-7954> (phone)* > > *217-244-1478 <(217)%20244-1478> (fax)* > > *(personal comments only*) > > > > *From:* Roger Helbig [mailto:rwhelbig at gmail.com] > *Sent:* Saturday, November 04, 2017 9:15 AM > *To:* Boyle, Francis A ; Peace-discuss < > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> > *Subject:* Re: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG > > > > and you spread lies - I never worked for military intelligence - they > would not let me because I am partially color blind and to be an Air Force > intelligence officer, you needed to be able to interpret false colors on > air photos - I wanted to be because I like to work through problems and > took Russian as an elective my senior year as part of my know your enemy > program - > > > > Now, you have not refuted that The American Free Press was established by > Willis Carto - that Carto was a Neo Nazi or that Bollyn worked for Carto > and Buchanan - you more than likely have not read Blood and Politics - > maybe some of the others were. > > > > I don't seem to have scan of page where the American Free Press was > established to replace The Spotlight, but attached is the one where it > discusses the establishment of The Barnes Review and the conference > discussed on the blog is for both of these publications. > > > > On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 6:37 AM, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: > > *Once again, Roger crawls out of his hole as a Mole for US “Military > Intelligence”—an oxymoron to be sure.* > > *Fab* > > > > > > *Francis A. Boyle* > > *Law Building* > > *504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > * > > *Champaign IL 61820 USA > * > > *217-333-7954 <(217)%20333-7954> (phone)* > > *217-244-1478 <(217)%20244-1478> (fax)* > > *(personal comments only*) > > > > *From:* Roger Helbig [mailto:rwhelbig at gmail.com] > *Sent:* Saturday, November 04, 2017 8:12 AM > *To:* Boyle, Francis A > *Cc:* Karen Aram ; Estabrook, Carl G < > galliher at illinois.edu>; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK < > carl at newsfromneptune.com>; Jay Becker ; a- > fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria < > joelauria at gmail.com>; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; > Szoke, Ron ; Dave Trippel ; > Arlene Hickory ; David Swanson >; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; > abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne < > lina at worldcantwait.net>; chicago at worldcantwait.net > *Subject:* Re: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG > > > > You do know that Christopher Bollyn is NOT a reporter but is a Neo Nazi > operative of long standing and that the American Free Press is not a news > organization, but a Neo Nazi front - look up Willis Carto - he was Bollyn's > boss and founded the American Free Press - this website that has reports of > conference for American Free Press and The Barnes Review used to have a > prominent picture of a Nazi flag behind the blogger Alex Hassinger - > Douglas Lind Rokke of Urbana spoke at this event and Dave von Kleist the > producer of Rokke's first anti-US propaganda video "Beyond Treason" was > the master of ceremonies - http://www.chairmanofnordwave.blogspot.com > > > > > Carto died in 2015 - there are a number of good sources on Carto in a > simple Google search - > > > > Learn about Neo Nazis - read this book - "Blood and Politics" - it > mentions Bollyn and extensively discusses Carto - pg 382, which I can > e-mail to all who request - has Carto's establishment of The Barnes Review, > a Holocaust Denial publication - The American Free Press replaced Carto's > The Spotlight after Carto lost a legal battle - Bollyn is also mentioned in > connection with a Pat Buchanan campaign apparatus > > > > On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 4:57 AM, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: > > *I also want to make it clear for the record that before the invasions of > Saipan, Tinian and Okinawa my Father, a Marine, was ordered by his Captain > not to take prisoners of war on the grounds of reciprocity that the > Japanese did not take Prisoners of War of our Men. My Father disobeyed > these clearly illegal orders and took Japanese Prisoners of War. I cite the > example of my Father to my law students to refute the objection that you > cannot expect soldiers to obey the laws of war during combat. If my Father > could obey the laws of war at Saipan, Tinian, and Okinawa, any other > soldier should be able to do the same. Meanwhile,while I am teaching this > to my students, the Illinois Nazis Law Faculty aid, abet, and promote and > facilitate war crimes and crimes against humanity from the safety of their > offices. My Father later became a Lawyer. RIP. The Illinois Nazis Law > Faculty are despicable! Fab.* > > > > *Francis A. Boyle* > > *Law Building* > > *504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > * > > *Champaign IL 61820 USA > * > > *217-333-7954 <(217)%20333-7954> (phone)* > > *217-244-1478 <(217)%20244-1478> (fax)* > > *(personal comments only*) > > > > *From:* Boyle, Francis A > *Sent:* Sunday, January 22, 2017 8:38 PM > *To:* Roger Helbig > *Cc:* Karen Aram ; Estabrook, Carl G < > galliher at illinois.edu>; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK < > carl at newsfromneptune.com>; Jay Becker ; a- > fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria < > joelauria at gmail.com>; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; > Szoke, Ron ; Dave Trippel ; > Arlene Hickory ; David Swanson >; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; > abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne < > lina at worldcantwait.net>; chicago at worldcantwait.net > *Subject:* RE: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG > > > > *Mad Dog Mattis the Nuremberg War Criminal. Fab.* > > *CONTROLLED PRESS IGNORES* > > *CRIMINAL OBLITERATION OF FALLUJAH* > > > > By Christopher Bollyn > > *American Free Press* > > > > *The controlled press has scrupulously avoided discussing the devastation > and prima facie evidence of war crimes committed during the U.S. siege and > assault of Fallujah.* > > > > As Americans prepared for Thanksgiving, an estimated 100,000 residents of > the besieged Iraqi city of Fallujah, trapped in their homes, struggled to > survive without fresh food, water or electricity, reportedly cut off by > U.S. forces on November 8. > > > > Meanwhile, on the streets of Fallujah, a city of more than 350,000, dogs > gnawed on bloated and rotting corpses that remained unburied for weeks. > > > > Thousands of families in Fallujah were reported to be in a critical > humanitarian situation after U.S. forces prevented the delivery of relief > supplies. An Iraq Red Crescent Society (IRCS) humanitarian aid convoy, > reportedly blocked by U.S. troops for more than two weeks, was allowed to > deliver aid to residents in the heart of the city on November 25. > > > > On Thanksgiving, U.S. forces permitted the IRCS convoy carrying thousands > of food parcels, blankets, tents and medical supplies to enter the city and > allowed one of the clinics to be converted into a temporary hospital to > treat the injured. Rana Sidani of the International Committee of the Red > Cross (ICRC) in Geneva, Switzerland however, told *American Free Press* on > Nov. 30 that "many civilians" were still prevented from receiving aid or > medical care. > > > > At the beginning of the U.S. operation in Fallujah on Nov. 5, a hospital > in the central Nazzal district of Fallujah was "reduced to rubble" as a > result of U.S. air and artillery bombardment. "Only its façade, with a > sign reading Nazzal Emergency Hospital, remained intact," Reuters reported. > > > > "A nearby compound used by the main Falluja Hospital to store medical > supplies was also destroyed," witnesses told Reuters. Fallujah's main > hospital was occupied by U.S. forces when the ground offensive began. > These actions are apparent violations of international humanitarian law. > > > > "Bodies can be seen everywhere and people were crying when receiving the > food parcels," Muhammad al-Nuri, a spokesman for the IRCS in Baghdad, said. > "It is very sad. It is a human disaster." > > > > Al-Nuri said that it is difficult to move in the city due to the large > number of dead bodies in the streets. The ICRS estimates there are more > than 6,000 dead in Fallujah, al-Nuri said. > > > > AFP asked Major Jay Antonelli at the Coalition Press Information Center > (CPIC) in Baghdad if the ICRS estimate of 6,000 dead in Fallujah was > credible. "We do not keep a count of dead Iraqis," Antonelli said. Asked > the same question, the ICRC's Sidani said, "We don't know." > > > > Antonelli said, "U.S. forces never blocked aid convoys from reaching the > wounded. We only recommended to the aid convoys that they should not enter > the city because the MNF [Multi-National Forces] could not guarantee their > security or safety." > > > > "The ICRC is very worried about the humanitarian situation in Falluja," > Sidani said. Asked what the ICRC was doing to alleviate the suffering in > Fallujah, Sidani said: "We are reminding the parties of their > responsibilities under international humanitarian law." > > > > It should be noted that the U.S.A. and Britain, the belligerent occupying > powers in Iraq, are the two largest contributors to the ICRC, providing > more than 42 percent of its budget for field operations. > > > > A second convoy from Baghdad, headed by Dr. Said Ismael Haki, the IRCS > president, delivered aid to Fallujah on Nov. 26. "There are no houses left > in Fallujah, only destroyed places." Haki said. "I really don't know how > the people will return to the city. No one will find their homes." > > > > As U.S. troops in Fallujah engaged in what has been described as the most > intense urban combat since Vietnam, the controlled press scrupulously > avoided discussion or footage of the devastation of the rebellious Sunni > city. For example, during the second week of the attack, rather than > discuss the widespread devastation of Fallujah, U.S. television news > programs focused largely on a brawl between basketball players and fans in > Detroit. > > > > Lt. Col. Brandl, commander of the 1st Battalion, 8th Marine Regiment, was > filmed giving a "pep talk" to his marines: "The enemy has got a face – he's > called Satan," Brandl said. "He's in Fallujah, and we're going to destroy > him." > > > > At least 136 U.S. soldiers were killed during November in Iraq, and more > than 800 were wounded, most of them in Fallujah, making it the most costly > month, and operation, in terms of U.S. lives lost since the invasion of > Iraq began in March 2003. > > > > FOR WHAT CAUSE? > > > > Michael Ware, Baghdad bureau chief for *Time* magazine, who has been in > Fallujah during the fighting, said U.S. actions in Fallujah are "creating > the nightmare that we are seeking to prevent." > > > > "I stood there as I saw American boys die," Ware told Chris Matthews of > MSNBC on Nov. 24, "I mean, a man shot at close range, blown apart by a > rocket propelled grenade. He dies there in front of you and I can't help > but think why? For what cause? > > > > "I see us creating the very thing that the president said we went there to > prevent," Ware said, "…subsequent to this invasion and the occupation and > the guerrilla war that is currently underway, we are the midwives of the > next generation of al Qaida and Islamic terrorist." > > > > Ware, who has interviewed senior insurgent leaders, said they study the > writings of the Vietnamese general Vo Nguyen Giap, Che Guevara, and Mao > Zedong. "They're bringing it straight from the Vietnam, and the broader > insurgency playbook," Ware said. > > > > "The name of the game is deny the population to the insurgents," Ware > said. "That's what we're trying to do, win hearts and minds. But we're not > winning them." > > > > The U.S. struggle to win Iraqi hearts and minds suffered a further set > back when NBC TV broadcast footage of a U.S. marine executing a wounded and > unarmed Iraqi in a Fallujah mosque. The much-publicized shooting, > apparently part of a massacre of a group of wounded resistance fighters, > "was a rare crack in the façade that Washington, with the complicity of > most of the corporate media, has tried to present to the world of its > brutal assault on the rebel Iraqi city," Rohan Pearce wrote in *The > Greenleft Weekly Australia *on Nov. 24. > > > > *The New York Times* has reported actions taken by U.S. forces in > Fallujah, which appear to be prima facie evidence of war crimes, without > mentioning that the actions constitute clear violations of the Laws of Land > War found in the U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10. > > > > For example, a Nov. 20 *Times* article by Edward Wong, with two > correspondents in Fallujah, reports that U.S. marines had transformed a > mosque into a fortress with snipers and machine gunners perched on the roof. > > > > Then, using the passive form, Wong goes on to say that "no neutral group > has been able to enter the city," without mentioning that U.S. forces > blocked humanitarian aid convoys. Likewise, Wong wrote, "Electricity and > water had been cut off." > > > > The *Times*, whose motto is "All the news that's fit to print," > apparently didn't think that it's readers needed to know the U.S. forces > had cut off the water and power to a city of 340,000 people. > > > > Asked if U.S. forces had cut power and water to Fallujah, Maj. Jay > Antonelli of CPIC wrote: "MNF did, with approval of the Interim Iraqi > Government, cut off electricity to the city of Fallujah as Operation > Al-Fajr began. Water was not cut off intentionally, however the water > system did sustain some kinetic damage during strikes." > > > > *American Free Press* asked the Pentagon's Lt. Col. Joe Yoswa if it is > true that U.S. forces were using mosques as fortresses. "It's not > possible," Yoswa said. "Under no circumstances. We would not set up > snipers in a mosque in an offensive position." > > > > CPIC's Antonelli said: "MNF would not use a mosque as a 'fortress.' MNF > and Iraqi security forces would only fire from a mosque if they were being > fired upon and were firing back in self-defense." > > > > Abu Sabah, a refugee from Fallujah, reported seeing phosphorus bombs: > "They used these weird bombs that put up smoke like a mushroom cloud. Then > small pieces fell from the air with long tails of smoke trailing behind > them. These exploded on the ground with large fires that burnt for half > and hour," Abu Sabah said. "When anyone touched these fires their bodies > burnt for hours." > > > > Eyewitnesses from Fallujah also reported seeing "melted" bodies. > > > > "THROW-AWAY SOLDIERS" > > > > Having seen what appeared to be a depleted uranium (DU) missile fired at a > building in Fallujah on CNN during the first week of the fighting, AFP > asked the Pentagon if DU weapons are being used in Fallujah. "Yes," Yoswa > said, "DU is a standard round on the M-1 Abrams tank." > > > > Because U.S. marines in Fallujah are very close to the poison gas produced > by exploded DU shells, AFP asked Yoswa if anything was being done to > protect the troops from DU poisoning. Yoswa seemed unaware of the dangers > posed by the use of DU. > > > > Marion Fulk, a retired nuclear scientist from Livermore National Lab told > AFP that U.S. troops in DU contaminated battlefields are considered > "throw-away soldiers." The Marines exposed to DU in Fallujah, and > elsewhere, face greatly increased risks of cancer, deformed children, and > other health problems in the future. > > > > OBLITERATION OF FALLUJAH > > > > The "obliteration of Fallujah" is a serious war crime, according to > Francis A. Boyle, a professor of international law at the University of > Illinois. "The obliteration of Fallujah continues apace," Boyle wrote in > his Nov. 15 article, A War Crime in Real Time: Obliterating Fallujah. > "Article 6(b) of the 1945 Nuremberg Charter defines a Nuremberg War Crime > in relevant part as the 'wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages.' > According to this definitive definition, the Bush administration's > destruction of Fallujah constitutes a war crime for which Nazis were tried > and executed." > > > > *Finis* > > -30- > > 1629 words > ------------------------------ > > Do you Yahoo!? > The all-new My Yahoo! > > – What will yours do? > > > > > > *Francis A. Boyle* > > *Law Building* > > *504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > * > > *Champaign IL 61820 USA > * > > *217-333-7954 <(217)%20333-7954> (phone)* > > *217-244-1478 <(217)%20244-1478> (fax)* > > *(personal comments only*) > > > > *From:* Boyle, Francis A > *Sent:* Sunday, January 22, 2017 8:13 PM > *To:* 'Roger Helbig' > *Cc:* 'Karen Aram' ; Estabrook, Carl G < > galliher at illinois.edu>; 'peace-discuss at anti-war.net' < > peace-discuss at anti-war.net>; 'C. G. ESTABROOK' ; > 'Jay Becker' ; 'a-fields at uiuc.edu' < > a-fields at uiuc.edu>; Hoffman, Valerie J ; 'Joe > Lauria' ; Miller, Joseph Thomas < > jtmiller at illinois.edu>; Szoke, Ron ; 'Dave Trippel' > ; 'Arlene Hickory' ; 'David > Swanson' ; 'peace-discuss-request at lists. > chambana.net' ; ' > sherwoodross10 at gmail.com' ; 'abass10 at gmail.com' > ; 'mickalideh at gmail.com' ; 'Lina > Thorne' ; 'chicago at worldcantwait.net' < > chicago at worldcantwait.net> > *Subject:* RE: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG > > > > Mattis expected his troops to be peacekeepers. They brought soccer balls > with them when they deployed. > > LOL! Marines don’t play soccer or teach kids to play soccer.. My Dad was a > Marine. He invaded Saipan, Tinian and Okinawa before he became a Lawyer. > Marines destroy anyone and anything that is in front of them as they are > trained to do and did at Fallujah under Mattis—A Real Mad Dog War Criminal. > Fab. > > > > > > > > *Francis A. Boyle* > > *Law Building* > > *504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > * > > *Champaign IL 61820 USA > * > > *217-333-7954 <(217)%20333-7954> (phone)* > > *217-244-1478 <(217)%20244-1478> (fax)* > > *(personal comments only*) > > > > *From:* Boyle, Francis A > *Sent:* Sunday, January 22, 2017 7:52 PM > *To:* 'Roger Helbig' > *Cc:* Karen Aram ; Estabrook, Carl G < > galliher at illinois.edu>; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK < > carl at newsfromneptune.com>; Jay Becker ; a- > fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria < > joelauria at gmail.com>; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; > Szoke, Ron ; Dave Trippel ; > Arlene Hickory ; David Swanson >; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; > abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne < > lina at worldcantwait.net>; chicago at worldcantwait.net > *Subject:* RE: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG > > > > -----Original Message----- > *From:* Karim A G [mailto:coffee at euro-comm.co.uk ] > > *Sent:* Tuesday, November 16, 2004 5:00 PM > *To:* Karim A G > *Subject:* A War Crime in Real Time > > *http://www.counterpunch.org/boyle11152004.html > * > > > > *November 15, 2004* > > *A War Crime in Real Time* > > *Obliterating Fallujah* > > By FRANCIS A. BOYLE > > T*he obliteration of Fallujah continues apace. Article 6(b) of the 1945 > Nuremberg Charter defines a Nuremberg War Crime in relevant part as the ". > . . wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages. . ." According to this > definitive definition, the Bush Jr. administration's destruction of > Fallujah constitutes a war crime for which Nazis were tried and executed. > There is nothing surprising about that.* > > *Since the Bush Jr. administration's installation in power by the United > States Supreme Court in January of 2001, the peoples of the world have > witnessed a government in the United States of America that has > demonstrated little if any respect for fundamental considerations of > international law, international organizations, and human rights, let alone > appreciation of the requirements for maintaining international peace and > security. What the world has watched instead is a comprehensive and > malicious assault upon the integrity of the international legal order by a > group of men and women who are thoroughly Machiavellian in their perception > of international relations and in their conduct of both foreign policy and > domestic affairs. This is not simply a question of giving or withholding > the benefit of the doubt when it comes to complicated matters of foreign > affairs and defense policies to a U.S. government charged with the security > of both its own citizens and those of its allies in Europe, the Western > Hemisphere, and the Pacific. Rather, the Bush Jr. administration's foreign > policy constitutes ongoing criminal activity under well-recognized > principles of both international law and U.S. domestic law, in particular > the Nuremberg Charter, the Nuremberg Judgment, and the Nuremberg > Principles. So their obliteration of Fallujah was to be expected.* > > *One generation ago the peoples of the world asked themselves: Where were > the "good" Germans? Well, there were some good Germans. The Lutheran > theologian and pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer was the foremost exemplar of > someone who led a life of principled opposition to the Nazi-terror state > even unto death.* > > *Today the peoples of the world are likewise asking themselves: Where are > the "good" Americans? Well, there are some good Americans. Like three > Catholic Nuns in Denver, they are getting arrested and going to jail for > protesting against United States weapons of mass destruction (WMD) whose > power for human extermination far exceeds even the wildest fantasies of > Hitler and the Nazis. Or else for protesting against illegal U.S.. military > interventions around the world. Just recently the Nuclear Resister > estimated that since the Fall of 2002, there have been more than 9,500 > anti-war related arrests in the United States alone. Many more will be > coming.* > > *In international legal terms, the Bush Jr. administration itself should > now be viewed as constituting an ongoing criminal conspiracy under > international criminal law in violation of the Nuremberg Charter, the > Nuremberg Judgment, and the Nuremberg Principles, due to its formulation > and undertaking of aggressive war policies that are legally akin to those > perpetrated by the Nazi regime. As a consequence, American citizens possess > the basic right under international law and the United States domestic law, > including the U.S. Constitution, to engage in acts of non-violent civil > resistance in order to prevent, impede, thwart, or terminate ongoing > criminal activities perpetrated by U.S. government officials in their > conduct of foreign affairs policies and military operations purported to > relate to defense and counter-terrorism.* > > *This same right of civil resistance extends pari passu to all citizens of > the world community of states. Everyone around the world has both the right > and the duty under international law to resist ongoing criminal activities > perpetrated by the Bush Jr. administration and its nefarious foreign > accomplices such as Blair, Berlusconi, Howard, Koizumi, Kwasniewski, etc. > by all non-violent means possible. If it is not so restrained, the Bush Jr. > administration could very well precipitate a Third World War.* > > *The time for preventive action is now. Civil resistance is the way to go. > People power can overcome power politics. Popular movements have succeeded > in toppling tyrannical, dictatorial and authoritarian regimes throughout > former Communist countries in Eastern Europe, as well as in Asia, and most > recently in Latin America. It is time once again to exercise People Power > here in the United States of America: "When in the Course of human Events. > . . We hold these Truths to be self-evident. . . . we mutually pledge to > each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and sacred Honor."* > > *Despite the best efforts by the Bush Jr. Leaguers to the contrary, we > American Citizens still have our First Amendment Rights: Freedom of Speech, > Freedom of Association, Freedom of Assembly, Freedom to Petition our > Government for the Redress of these massive Grievances, Civil Resistance, > etc. We are going to have to start vigorously exercising all of our First > Amendment Rights right now. We must use them or else, as the saying goes, > we will lose them. We must act not only for the good of the Peoples of > Southwest Asia, but for our future, that of our children, that of our > nation as a democratic society committed to the Rule of Law and the U.S. > Constitution. The Nazis had their "homeland" too* > > Francis A. Boyle*, Professor of Law, University of Illinois, is author > of *Foundations of World Order > *, > Duke University Press, *The Criminality of Nuclear Deterrence > *, > and *Palestine, Palestinians and International Law > *, > by Clarity Press. He can be reached at: *FBOYLE at LAW.UIUC.EDU > > --- > Subscribed as: fboyle at law.uiuc.edu; to unsubscribe send to > al-awda-universalist-request at umich.edu > with UNSUBSCRIBE as the SUBJECT. > URL: awda-universalist > > > > > *Francis A. Boyle* > > *Law Building* > > *504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > * > > *Champaign IL 61820 USA > * > > *217-333-7954 <(217)%20333-7954> (phone)* > > *217-244-1478 <(217)%20244-1478> (fax)* > > *(personal comments only*) > > > > *From:* Roger Helbig [mailto:rwhelbig at gmail.com ] > *Sent:* Sunday, January 22, 2017 6:43 PM > *To:* Boyle, Francis A > *Cc:* Karen Aram ; Estabrook, Carl G < > galliher at illinois.edu>; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK < > carl at newsfromneptune.com>; Jay Becker ; a- > fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria < > joelauria at gmail.com>; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; > Szoke, Ron ; Dave Trippel ; > Arlene Hickory ; David Swanson >; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; > abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne < > lina at worldcantwait.net>; chicago at worldcantwait.net > *Subject:* Re: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG > > > > There was no massacre at Fallujah. This is nonsense. Mattis expected > his troops to be peacekeepers. They brought soccer balls with them when > they deployed. > > > > I would love to see your "so called" war crime indictment. Wonder how > much of it is from your fertile Hate America imagination and how much from > the fertile Arab anti-American propaganda organs. Doubt a single paragraph > is actually based on fact. > > > > On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 8:22 AM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > > *Trump’s Secretary of War Mad Dog Mattis was responsible for the Massacre > at Fallujah, which I pointed out on Counterpunch was a Nuremberg War Crime > along the lines of the Nazis—the wanton devastation of a city-- in revenge > for them killing our mercenaries. Fab.* > > > > *Francis A. Boyle* > > *Law Building* > > *504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > * > > *Champaign IL 61820 USA > * > > *217-333-7954 <(217)%20333-7954> (phone)* > > *217-244-1478 <(217)%20244-1478> (fax)* > > *(personal comments only*) > > > > *From:* Karen Aram [mailto:karenaram at hotmail.com] > *Sent:* Sunday, January 22, 2017 10:04 AM > *To:* Estabrook, Carl G > *Cc:* Boyle, Francis A ; Jay Becker < > futureup2us at gmail.com>; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK < > carl at newsfromneptune.com>; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J < > vhoffman at illinois.edu>; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; > Szoke, Ron ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; Arlene > Hickory ; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; > David Swanson ; Dave Trippel < > davetrippel at ameritech.net>; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina > Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Mildred > O'brien ; David Johnson ; > Joe Lauria ; David Green > *Subject:* Re: Guest Commentary by Carl in NG > > > > I’m sorry Carl, I don’t agree with that title either. It assumes that all > in the anti-war movement welcome the Trump administration. Not all of us > trust he will do some of that which he promised in respect to “defunding > Nato,” “making friends with Russia,” or killing TPP. Even if he does those > three things, his further provocations of China, are every bit as dangerous > as those with Russia, it’s a mere tactic to drive a wedge between Russia > and China, while chipping away at Iran. > > > > His Cabinet appointments are frightening to say the least in respect to > Healthcare, Energy, Education, Housing, etc, etc. > > > > Further expansion of war in the Middle East, and North Africa, as well as > expansion of capitalist corporate control is on the agenda no matter which > of the two Party’s are in power. > > > > Obama paved the way, for all of which I have just referred, but it’s not > over. Our only hope is that “the people” are now awake, and perhaps will > focus on that which is most serious to survival. > > > > > > On Jan 22, 2017, at 07:44, Carl G. Estabrook > wrote: > > > > My original title was, “Why the anti-war movement welcomes the new > administration.” > > > > For more on that theme, see columnists/201701191049765550-how-trump-presidency-will-play-out/ > > >. > > > > —CGE > > > > > > On Jan 22, 2017, at 9:29 AM, Karen Aram wrote: > > > > An excellent letter, which I posted on FB. I deliberately deleted the > title that I assumed the NG created, because it gives the false impression > that those of us in the anti-war movement, all support Trump. We don’t, we > just didn’t support Hillary. Anyone in the anti-war movement supporting > Hillary was supporting more of the same that Obama provided. > > > > > > On Jan 22, 2017, at 07:16, Boyle, Francis A wrote: > > > > He {Obama} attacked eight countries (two more than George Bush), and > conducted what one leading political commentator called "the most extreme > terrorist campaign of modern times — his drone assassinations." He killed > thousands of civilians with drones, including U.S. citizens and hundreds of > children. > > A good letter by Carl today in NG. (Remember NG writes their own titles to > letters.) We must now hold Trump’s feet to the fire across the board! I > think Carl’s quote comes from Chomsky? In any event the Illinois Nazis Law > Faculty fully supported and promoted and held out for emulation by lawyers > and this Campus and our Good Community: > > "the most extreme terrorist campaign of modern times — his drone > assassinations." > > > > The Illinois Nazis Law Faculty are just a GANG OF SICK PUPPIES! > > Fab > > Ed Norton Professor of Law > > Carl Schmitt College of Law: > > “Mein Fuhrer, I can walk!” > > > > > > *Francis A. Boyle* > > *Law Building* > > *504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > * > > *Champaign IL 61820 USA > * > > *217-333-7954 <(217)%20333-7954> (phone)* > > *217-244-1478 <(217)%20244-1478> (fax)* > > *(personal comments only*) > > > > *Feed:* News-Gazette.com > > *Posted on:* Sunday, January 22, 2017 7:00 AM > *Author:* digital.media > *Subject:* Guest Commentary: Why anti-war movement welcomes Trump > > > > *By C.G. ESTABROOK* > > The European anti-war group "No War No NATO" writes as follows: > > "Demonstrating in Europe on 21 January, against the newly elected US > President Donald Trump is tantamount to lending support to the Obama > administration, which has transformed Europe into NATO's first line of > attack, nuclear matters inclusive, against Russia. > > read more > > > > View article... > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url= > https%3A%2F%2Flists.chambana.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo% > 2Fpeace-discuss&data=02%7C01%7Ckarenaram%40hotmail.com% > 7C6ea0294d887b4910ba5108d52390c739%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaa > aaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636454027089337207&sdata=v2ho9fKU8A%2F2dSYUS31% > 2Br1UPu4HaEfckCXJTgUP7vcU%3D&reserved=0 > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rwhelbig at gmail.com Sun Nov 5 12:04:33 2017 From: rwhelbig at gmail.com (Roger Helbig) Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2017 04:04:33 -0800 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG In-Reply-To: References: <9D3D5E59-5EFC-47DF-838D-C6508214E176@illinois.edu> Message-ID: Karen, You don't have the facts. What books have you read on the subject? I have corresponded with authors and veterans of the fight. I don't recall saying anything about General Mattis's exhortation to his Marines before they began serving in Iraq. I have not looked up that old e-mail from over a decade ago. Roger What I would really like to see is satellite photos before and after the two Battles of Fallujah. I also wish that Marines had kept records of the people who left before the 2nd Battle. I strongly expect that all the innocent civilians who could leave left. I don't know if any records exist of the number of people who did. You and Boyle, though, greatly exagerate the number of supposed innocent civilians who were killed. My sole interest in the two battles was determining if depleted uranium was used and in the refutation of lies such as those set out in supposed peer reviewed journals (that really are nothing more than profit centers that publish all that the author is willing to pay the processing fee for) by Christoper Charles Busby and associates like Mozghan Savabiesafahani and even by news organizations like the BBC and Australian Broadcasting Corporation. I did this because of my over decade long independent research into DU that began when Douglas Lind Rokke of Rantoul personally lied about me like Boyle does because people on Pro-Kerry lists paid attention to what I wrote that disagreed with him and his fellow liars Dennis Joseph Kyne, Jr and Leuren K Moret, both of whom appeared in the video "Beyond Treason" produced by Neo Nazi David von Kleist. I got interested in depleted uranium because Kyne's girlfriend posted to an anti-Bush list that DU was worse than nuclear fallout (I can dig back and find the exact quotes, but that will take time) and worse than Nagasakl or Hiroshima. My degree is in Geology and the Air Force trained me to predict, detect and protect against fallout so I thought that was wrong and began researching and finding that I was correct in my assumptions. After Rokke lied about who I was, I decided to background him using the Freedom of Information Act and other tools I had learned about from journalists when I was a whistleblower. It took me two tries to get his records, but I found that he lied about far more than just me and then I began to dig deeper. The subject never dies even though DU has not been used on any significant basis since the drive on Baghdad in 2003. Two strafing runs were made against ISIS fuel tankers in 2015 and a few hundred rounds were fired in Syria, but none were ever fired in Libya or Afghanistan or Somalia (where Italians successfully won court case to be reimbursed for non-existent DU exposure). PS - Boyle should change the name of the Law Building to Speculative Innuendo Building because he spreads speculative innuendo - not fact based evidence as required to render lawful judgment PPS - the spreading of lies on this list is the real anathema to what it stands for - when I was fighting Bush, I always said you do not fight lies with bigger lies! You and Boyle need to understand that. I fought the Swift Boat Liars during the Kerry Campaign. Sadly, he did not win the Presidency either. PPPS - Marion Fulk was cited in part of what I erased to make this message much shorter - my longer message provides a link to the reply I got from the University of California about Leuren K Moret and Marion Fulk. Neither of them is particularly knowledgeable about uranium, depleted or otherwise. It is also highly unlikely that Fulk was a Manhattan Project scientist as Moret has claimed that he was, but there appear to be no records that would prove that definitively. What is true is that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on-line files show that Moret used Fulk's Livermore residence address and presumably was living with Fulk at the time. On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 7:57 AM, Karen Aram wrote: > Roger > > Your statement: "There was no massacre at Fallujah. This is nonsense. > Mattis expected his troops to be peacekeepers.” > is so ludicrous, it invites laughter, long and loud laughter, if it > weren’t so tragic, the many lives destroyed as a result of “Mad Dog Mattis” > and the USG in it’s continuing genocide. > > Nothing you say, can ever be taken seriously, your continued harassment of > anti-war activists on this “Peace Discussion List” is anathema to > everything it stands for. > > I have to ask what are you doing here if not, just to irritate. Okay maybe > your goal is to entertain, but your entertainment is very sick. > > Anyone and everyone, who supports the wars and interventions the US has > and continues to perpetrate around the world, has blood on their hands, as > “complicit Americans." That is the way we are viewed by others in the world > today. > > On Nov 4, 2017, at 07:31, Roger Helbig via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > > what exactly is that supposed to mean - my choices of assignment were > Intelligence, Weather and Cartography and the Air Force made me an > Electronic Systems (ground radar maintenance) Officer - I liked languages - > I was a literate three year old in Russian and wanted to learn more - I > like puzzles - putting pieces together - that's what I thought intelligence > officers did - Weather was where I got assigned for familiarization during > summer camp so I somewhat expected that I would get that and a M/S in > Meterology - Cartography because as a Geologist, I made maps of what was > below the ground and cartographers made maps of what was above the ground. > > I voted for Democratic candidates starting with George McGovern - so I was > not exactly a fan of Richard Nixon so hardly Nixonian! > > Roger > > On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 7:19 AM, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: > >> “I wanted to be”—Military Intelligence. A Typical Nixonian Limited >> Hang-out. fab. >> >> >> >> *From:* Roger Helbig [mailto:rwhelbig at gmail.com] >> *Sent:* Saturday, November 04, 2017 9:15 AM >> *To:* Boyle, Francis A ; Peace-discuss < >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> >> *Subject:* Re: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG >> >> >> >> and you spread lies - I never worked for military intelligence - they >> would not let me because I am partially color blind and to be an Air Force >> intelligence officer, you needed to be able to interpret false colors on >> air photos - I wanted to be because I like to work through problems and >> took Russian as an elective my senior year as part of my know your enemy >> program - >> >> >> >> Now, you have not refuted that The American Free Press was established by >> Willis Carto - that Carto was a Neo Nazi or that Bollyn worked for Carto >> and Buchanan - you more than likely have not read Blood and Politics - >> maybe some of the others were. >> >> >> >> I don't seem to have scan of page where the American Free Press was >> established to replace The Spotlight, but attached is the one where it >> discusses the establishment of The Barnes Review and the conference >> discussed on the blog is for both of these publications. >> >> >> >> On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 6:37 AM, Boyle, Francis A >> wrote: >> >> *Once again, Roger crawls out of his hole as a Mole for US “Military >> Intelligence”—an oxymoron to be sure.* >> >> *Fab* >> >> >> >> >> *From:* Roger Helbig [mailto:rwhelbig at gmail.com] >> *Sent:* Saturday, November 04, 2017 8:12 AM >> >> >> You do know that Christopher Bollyn is NOT a reporter but is a Neo Nazi >> operative of long standing and that the American Free Press is not a news >> organization, but a Neo Nazi front - look up Willis Carto - he was Bollyn's >> boss and founded the American Free Press - this website that has reports of >> conference for American Free Press and The Barnes Review used to have a >> prominent picture of a Nazi flag behind the blogger Alex Hassinger - >> Douglas Lind Rokke of Urbana spoke at this event and Dave von Kleist the >> producer of Rokke's first anti-US propaganda video "Beyond Treason" was >> the master of ceremonies - http://www.chairmanofnordwave.blogspot.com >> >> >> >> >> Carto died in 2015 - there are a number of good sources on Carto in a >> simple Google search - >> >> >> >> Learn about Neo Nazis - read this book - "Blood and Politics" - it >> mentions Bollyn and extensively discusses Carto - pg 382, which I can >> e-mail to all who request - has Carto's establishment of The Barnes Review, >> a Holocaust Denial publication - The American Free Press replaced Carto's >> The Spotlight after Carto lost a legal battle - Bollyn is also mentioned in >> connection with a Pat Buchanan campaign apparatus >> >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Sun Nov 5 12:21:20 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2017 12:21:20 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG In-Reply-To: References: <9D3D5E59-5EFC-47DF-838D-C6508214E176@illinois.edu> Message-ID: For the record, Doug Rokke helped me and Ramsey Clark defend Phil Berrigan and the DU Plowshares. We started out with them facing 40 years. At the end of a kangaroo court proceeding, they got two. The Prosecutor had publicly stated he was going to put Phil away for the rest of his life. At least Phil was able to die at his home surrounded by his Family and Friends instead of in some Federal Hell Hole. RIP: Phil Berrigan. Fab [Boylebookemail.JPG] Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Roger Helbig [mailto:rwhelbig at gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2017 5:22 AM To: Boyle, Francis A ; Karen Aram ; Peace-discuss Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG No, but Boyle likes to spread lies - I joined your list because of Douglas Lind Rokke, University of Illinois PhD graduate and resident of nearby Rantoul. Rokke is a professional liar (see my other much longer message which is still being edited). Roger W Helbig Richmond, CA My mother was 1941 graduate of the University of Illinois - sadly, she died two days after I was born due to childbirth complications. On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 8:02 AM, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: Dear Karen: With all due respect, you must understand: Roger is a Mole for Military Intelligence. That is why he is on this Peace list. fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Karen Aram [mailto:karenaram at hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2017 9:58 AM To: Roger Helbig > Cc: Boyle, Francis A >; Peace-discuss > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG Roger Your statement: "There was no massacre at Fallujah. This is nonsense. Mattis expected his troops to be peacekeepers.” is so ludicrous, it invites laughter, long and loud laughter, if it weren’t so tragic, the many lives destroyed as a result of “Mad Dog Mattis” and the USG in it’s continuing genocide. Nothing you say, can ever be taken seriously, your continued harassment of anti-war activists on this “Peace Discussion List” is anathema to everything it stands for. I have to ask what are you doing here if not, just to irritate. Okay maybe your goal is to entertain, but your entertainment is very sick. Anyone and everyone, who supports the wars and interventions the US has and continues to perpetrate around the world, has blood on their hands, as “complicit Americans." That is the way we are viewed by others in the world today. On Nov 4, 2017, at 07:31, Roger Helbig via Peace-discuss > wrote: what exactly is that supposed to mean - my choices of assignment were Intelligence, Weather and Cartography and the Air Force made me an Electronic Systems (ground radar maintenance) Officer - I liked languages - I was a literate three year old in Russian and wanted to learn more - I like puzzles - putting pieces together - that's what I thought intelligence officers did - Weather was where I got assigned for familiarization during summer camp so I somewhat expected that I would get that and a M/S in Meterology - Cartography because as a Geologist, I made maps of what was below the ground and cartographers made maps of what was above the ground. I voted for Democratic candidates starting with George McGovern - so I was not exactly a fan of Richard Nixon so hardly Nixonian! Roger On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 7:19 AM, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: “I wanted to be”—Military Intelligence. A Typical Nixonian Limited Hang-out. fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Roger Helbig [mailto:rwhelbig at gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2017 9:15 AM To: Boyle, Francis A >; Peace-discuss > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG and you spread lies - I never worked for military intelligence - they would not let me because I am partially color blind and to be an Air Force intelligence officer, you needed to be able to interpret false colors on air photos - I wanted to be because I like to work through problems and took Russian as an elective my senior year as part of my know your enemy program - Now, you have not refuted that The American Free Press was established by Willis Carto - that Carto was a Neo Nazi or that Bollyn worked for Carto and Buchanan - you more than likely have not read Blood and Politics - maybe some of the others were. I don't seem to have scan of page where the American Free Press was established to replace The Spotlight, but attached is the one where it discusses the establishment of The Barnes Review and the conference discussed on the blog is for both of these publications. On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 6:37 AM, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: Once again, Roger crawls out of his hole as a Mole for US “Military Intelligence”—an oxymoron to be sure. Fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Roger Helbig [mailto:rwhelbig at gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2017 8:12 AM To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: Karen Aram >; Estabrook, Carl G >; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Jay Becker >; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; Szoke, Ron >; Dave Trippel >; Arlene Hickory >; David Swanson >; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com;abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG You do know that Christopher Bollyn is NOT a reporter but is a Neo Nazi operative of long standing and that the American Free Press is not a news organization, but a Neo Nazi front - look up Willis Carto - he was Bollyn's boss and founded the American Free Press - this website that has reports of conference for American Free Press and The Barnes Review used to have a prominent picture of a Nazi flag behind the blogger Alex Hassinger - Douglas Lind Rokke of Urbana spoke at this event and Dave von Kleist the producer of Rokke's first anti-US propaganda video "Beyond Treason" was the master of ceremonies - http://www.chairmanofnordwave.blogspot.com Carto died in 2015 - there are a number of good sources on Carto in a simple Google search - Learn about Neo Nazis - read this book - "Blood and Politics" - it mentions Bollyn and extensively discusses Carto - pg 382, which I can e-mail to all who request - has Carto's establishment of The Barnes Review, a Holocaust Denial publication - The American Free Press replaced Carto's The Spotlight after Carto lost a legal battle - Bollyn is also mentioned in connection with a Pat Buchanan campaign apparatus On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 4:57 AM, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: I also want to make it clear for the record that before the invasions of Saipan, Tinian and Okinawa my Father, a Marine, was ordered by his Captain not to take prisoners of war on the grounds of reciprocity that the Japanese did not take Prisoners of War of our Men. My Father disobeyed these clearly illegal orders and took Japanese Prisoners of War. I cite the example of my Father to my law students to refute the objection that you cannot expect soldiers to obey the laws of war during combat. If my Father could obey the laws of war at Saipan, Tinian, and Okinawa, any other soldier should be able to do the same. Meanwhile,while I am teaching this to my students, the Illinois Nazis Law Faculty aid, abet, and promote and facilitate war crimes and crimes against humanity from the safety of their offices. My Father later became a Lawyer. RIP. The Illinois Nazis Law Faculty are despicable! Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2017 8:38 PM To: Roger Helbig > Cc: Karen Aram >; Estabrook, Carl G >; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Jay Becker >; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; Szoke, Ron >; Dave Trippel >; Arlene Hickory >; David Swanson >; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com;abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG Mad Dog Mattis the Nuremberg War Criminal. Fab. CONTROLLED PRESS IGNORES CRIMINAL OBLITERATION OF FALLUJAH By Christopher Bollyn American Free Press The controlled press has scrupulously avoided discussing the devastation and prima facie evidence of war crimes committed during the U.S. siege and assault of Fallujah. As Americans prepared for Thanksgiving, an estimated 100,000 residents of the besieged Iraqi city of Fallujah, trapped in their homes, struggled to survive without fresh food, water or electricity, reportedly cut off by U.S. forces on November 8. Meanwhile, on the streets of Fallujah, a city of more than 350,000, dogs gnawed on bloated and rotting corpses that remained unburied for weeks. Thousands of families in Fallujah were reported to be in a critical humanitarian situation after U.S. forces prevented the delivery of relief supplies. An Iraq Red Crescent Society (IRCS) humanitarian aid convoy, reportedly blocked by U.S. troops for more than two weeks, was allowed to deliver aid to residents in the heart of the city on November 25. On Thanksgiving, U.S. forces permitted the IRCS convoy carrying thousands of food parcels, blankets, tents and medical supplies to enter the city and allowed one of the clinics to be converted into a temporary hospital to treat the injured. Rana Sidani of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) in Geneva, Switzerland however, told American Free Press on Nov. 30 that "many civilians" were still prevented from receiving aid or medical care. At the beginning of the U.S. operation in Fallujah on Nov. 5, a hospital in the central Nazzal district of Fallujah was "reduced to rubble" as a result of U.S. air and artillery bombardment. "Only its façade, with a sign reading Nazzal Emergency Hospital, remained intact," Reuters reported. "A nearby compound used by the main Falluja Hospital to store medical supplies was also destroyed," witnesses told Reuters. Fallujah's main hospital was occupied by U.S. forces when the ground offensive began. These actions are apparent violations of international humanitarian law. "Bodies can be seen everywhere and people were crying when receiving the food parcels," Muhammad al-Nuri, a spokesman for the IRCS in Baghdad, said. "It is very sad. It is a human disaster." Al-Nuri said that it is difficult to move in the city due to the large number of dead bodies in the streets. The ICRS estimates there are more than 6,000 dead in Fallujah, al-Nuri said. AFP asked Major Jay Antonelli at the Coalition Press Information Center (CPIC) in Baghdad if the ICRS estimate of 6,000 dead in Fallujah was credible. "We do not keep a count of dead Iraqis," Antonelli said. Asked the same question, the ICRC's Sidani said, "We don't know." Antonelli said, "U.S. forces never blocked aid convoys from reaching the wounded. We only recommended to the aid convoys that they should not enter the city because the MNF [Multi-National Forces] could not guarantee their security or safety." "The ICRC is very worried about the humanitarian situation in Falluja," Sidani said. Asked what the ICRC was doing to alleviate the suffering in Fallujah, Sidani said: "We are reminding the parties of their responsibilities under international humanitarian law." It should be noted that the U.S.A. and Britain, the belligerent occupying powers in Iraq, are the two largest contributors to the ICRC, providing more than 42 percent of its budget for field operations. A second convoy from Baghdad, headed by Dr. Said Ismael Haki, the IRCS president, delivered aid to Fallujah on Nov. 26. "There are no houses left in Fallujah, only destroyed places." Haki said. "I really don't know how the people will return to the city. No one will find their homes." As U.S. troops in Fallujah engaged in what has been described as the most intense urban combat since Vietnam, the controlled press scrupulously avoided discussion or footage of the devastation of the rebellious Sunni city. For example, during the second week of the attack, rather than discuss the widespread devastation of Fallujah, U.S. television news programs focused largely on a brawl between basketball players and fans in Detroit. Lt. Col. Brandl, commander of the 1st Battalion, 8th Marine Regiment, was filmed giving a "pep talk" to his marines: "The enemy has got a face – he's called Satan," Brandl said. "He's in Fallujah, and we're going to destroy him." At least 136 U.S. soldiers were killed during November in Iraq, and more than 800 were wounded, most of them in Fallujah, making it the most costly month, and operation, in terms of U.S. lives lost since the invasion of Iraq began in March 2003. FOR WHAT CAUSE? Michael Ware, Baghdad bureau chief for Time magazine, who has been in Fallujah during the fighting, said U.S. actions in Fallujah are "creating the nightmare that we are seeking to prevent." "I stood there as I saw American boys die," Ware told Chris Matthews of MSNBC on Nov. 24, "I mean, a man shot at close range, blown apart by a rocket propelled grenade. He dies there in front of you and I can't help but think why? For what cause? "I see us creating the very thing that the president said we went there to prevent," Ware said, "…subsequent to this invasion and the occupation and the guerrilla war that is currently underway, we are the midwives of the next generation of al Qaida and Islamic terrorist." Ware, who has interviewed senior insurgent leaders, said they study the writings of the Vietnamese general Vo Nguyen Giap, Che Guevara, and Mao Zedong. "They're bringing it straight from the Vietnam, and the broader insurgency playbook," Ware said. "The name of the game is deny the population to the insurgents," Ware said. "That's what we're trying to do, win hearts and minds. But we're not winning them." The U.S. struggle to win Iraqi hearts and minds suffered a further set back when NBC TV broadcast footage of a U.S. marine executing a wounded and unarmed Iraqi in a Fallujah mosque. The much-publicized shooting, apparently part of a massacre of a group of wounded resistance fighters, "was a rare crack in the façade that Washington, with the complicity of most of the corporate media, has tried to present to the world of its brutal assault on the rebel Iraqi city," Rohan Pearce wrote in The Greenleft Weekly Australia on Nov. 24. The New York Times has reported actions taken by U.S. forces in Fallujah, which appear to be prima facie evidence of war crimes, without mentioning that the actions constitute clear violations of the Laws of Land War found in the U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10. For example, a Nov. 20 Times article by Edward Wong, with two correspondents in Fallujah, reports that U.S. marines had transformed a mosque into a fortress with snipers and machine gunners perched on the roof. Then, using the passive form, Wong goes on to say that "no neutral group has been able to enter the city," without mentioning that U.S. forces blocked humanitarian aid convoys. Likewise, Wong wrote, "Electricity and water had been cut off." The Times, whose motto is "All the news that's fit to print," apparently didn't think that it's readers needed to know the U.S. forces had cut off the water and power to a city of 340,000 people. Asked if U.S. forces had cut power and water to Fallujah, Maj. Jay Antonelli of CPIC wrote: "MNF did, with approval of the Interim Iraqi Government, cut off electricity to the city of Fallujah as Operation Al-Fajr began. Water was not cut off intentionally, however the water system did sustain some kinetic damage during strikes." American Free Press asked the Pentagon's Lt. Col. Joe Yoswa if it is true that U.S. forces were using mosques as fortresses. "It's not possible," Yoswa said. "Under no circumstances. We would not set up snipers in a mosque in an offensive position." CPIC's Antonelli said: "MNF would not use a mosque as a 'fortress.' MNF and Iraqi security forces would only fire from a mosque if they were being fired upon and were firing back in self-defense." Abu Sabah, a refugee from Fallujah, reported seeing phosphorus bombs: "They used these weird bombs that put up smoke like a mushroom cloud. Then small pieces fell from the air with long tails of smoke trailing behind them. These exploded on the ground with large fires that burnt for half and hour," Abu Sabah said. "When anyone touched these fires their bodies burnt for hours." Eyewitnesses from Fallujah also reported seeing "melted" bodies. "THROW-AWAY SOLDIERS" Having seen what appeared to be a depleted uranium (DU) missile fired at a building in Fallujah on CNN during the first week of the fighting, AFP asked the Pentagon if DU weapons are being used in Fallujah. "Yes," Yoswa said, "DU is a standard round on the M-1 Abrams tank." Because U.S. marines in Fallujah are very close to the poison gas produced by exploded DU shells, AFP asked Yoswa if anything was being done to protect the troops from DU poisoning. Yoswa seemed unaware of the dangers posed by the use of DU. Marion Fulk, a retired nuclear scientist from Livermore National Lab told AFP that U.S. troops in DU contaminated battlefields are considered "throw-away soldiers." The Marines exposed to DU in Fallujah, and elsewhere, face greatly increased risks of cancer, deformed children, and other health problems in the future. OBLITERATION OF FALLUJAH The "obliteration of Fallujah" is a serious war crime, according to Francis A. Boyle, a professor of international law at the University of Illinois. "The obliteration of Fallujah continues apace," Boyle wrote in his Nov. 15 article, A War Crime in Real Time: Obliterating Fallujah. "Article 6(b) of the 1945 Nuremberg Charter defines a Nuremberg War Crime in relevant part as the 'wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages.' According to this definitive definition, the Bush administration's destruction of Fallujah constitutes a war crime for which Nazis were tried and executed." Finis -30- 1629 words ________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The all-new My Yahoo! – What will yours do? Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2017 8:13 PM To: 'Roger Helbig' > Cc: 'Karen Aram' >; Estabrook, Carl G >; 'peace-discuss at anti-war.net' >; 'C. G. ESTABROOK' >; 'Jay Becker' >; 'a-fields at uiuc.edu' >; Hoffman, Valerie J >; 'Joe Lauria' >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; Szoke, Ron >; 'Dave Trippel' >; 'Arlene Hickory' >; 'David Swanson' >; 'peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net' >; 'sherwoodross10 at gmail.com' >; 'abass10 at gmail.com' >; 'mickalideh at gmail.com' >; 'Lina Thorne' >; 'chicago at worldcantwait.net' > Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG Mattis expected his troops to be peacekeepers. They brought soccer balls with them when they deployed. LOL! Marines don’t play soccer or teach kids to play soccer.. My Dad was a Marine. He invaded Saipan, Tinian and Okinawa before he became a Lawyer. Marines destroy anyone and anything that is in front of them as they are trained to do and did at Fallujah under Mattis—A Real Mad Dog War Criminal. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2017 7:52 PM To: 'Roger Helbig' > Cc: Karen Aram >; Estabrook, Carl G >; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Jay Becker >; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; Szoke, Ron >; Dave Trippel >; Arlene Hickory >; David Swanson >; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com;abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG -----Original Message----- From: Karim A G [mailto:coffee at euro-comm.co.uk] Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2004 5:00 PM To: Karim A G Subject: A War Crime in Real Time http://www.counterpunch.org/boyle11152004.html November 15, 2004 A War Crime in Real Time Obliterating Fallujah By FRANCIS A. BOYLE The obliteration of Fallujah continues apace. Article 6(b) of the 1945 Nuremberg Charter defines a Nuremberg War Crime in relevant part as the ". . . wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages. . ." According to this definitive definition, the Bush Jr. administration's destruction of Fallujah constitutes a war crime for which Nazis were tried and executed. There is nothing surprising about that. Since the Bush Jr. administration's installation in power by the United States Supreme Court in January of 2001, the peoples of the world have witnessed a government in the United States of America that has demonstrated little if any respect for fundamental considerations of international law, international organizations, and human rights, let alone appreciation of the requirements for maintaining international peace and security. What the world has watched instead is a comprehensive and malicious assault upon the integrity of the international legal order by a group of men and women who are thoroughly Machiavellian in their perception of international relations and in their conduct of both foreign policy and domestic affairs. This is not simply a question of giving or withholding the benefit of the doubt when it comes to complicated matters of foreign affairs and defense policies to a U.S. government charged with the security of both its own citizens and those of its allies in Europe, the Western Hemisphere, and the Pacific. Rather, the Bush Jr. administration's foreign policy constitutes ongoing criminal activity under well-recognized principles of both international law and U.S. domestic law, in particular the Nuremberg Charter, the Nuremberg Judgment, and the Nuremberg Principles. So their obliteration of Fallujah was to be expected. One generation ago the peoples of the world asked themselves: Where were the "good" Germans? Well, there were some good Germans. The Lutheran theologian and pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer was the foremost exemplar of someone who led a life of principled opposition to the Nazi-terror state even unto death. Today the peoples of the world are likewise asking themselves: Where are the "good" Americans? Well, there are some good Americans. Like three Catholic Nuns in Denver, they are getting arrested and going to jail for protesting against United States weapons of mass destruction (WMD) whose power for human extermination far exceeds even the wildest fantasies of Hitler and the Nazis. Or else for protesting against illegal U.S.. military interventions around the world. Just recently the Nuclear Resister estimated that since the Fall of 2002, there have been more than 9,500 anti-war related arrests in the United States alone. Many more will be coming. In international legal terms, the Bush Jr. administration itself should now be viewed as constituting an ongoing criminal conspiracy under international criminal law in violation of the Nuremberg Charter, the Nuremberg Judgment, and the Nuremberg Principles, due to its formulation and undertaking of aggressive war policies that are legally akin to those perpetrated by the Nazi regime. As a consequence, American citizens possess the basic right under international law and the United States domestic law, including the U.S. Constitution, to engage in acts of non-violent civil resistance in order to prevent, impede, thwart, or terminate ongoing criminal activities perpetrated by U.S. government officials in their conduct of foreign affairs policies and military operations purported to relate to defense and counter-terrorism. This same right of civil resistance extends pari passu to all citizens of the world community of states. Everyone around the world has both the right and the duty under international law to resist ongoing criminal activities perpetrated by the Bush Jr. administration and its nefarious foreign accomplices such as Blair, Berlusconi, Howard, Koizumi, Kwasniewski, etc. by all non-violent means possible. If it is not so restrained, the Bush Jr. administration could very well precipitate a Third World War. The time for preventive action is now. Civil resistance is the way to go. People power can overcome power politics. Popular movements have succeeded in toppling tyrannical, dictatorial and authoritarian regimes throughout former Communist countries in Eastern Europe, as well as in Asia, and most recently in Latin America. It is time once again to exercise People Power here in the United States of America: "When in the Course of human Events. . . We hold these Truths to be self-evident. . . . we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and sacred Honor." Despite the best efforts by the Bush Jr. Leaguers to the contrary, we American Citizens still have our First Amendment Rights: Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Association, Freedom of Assembly, Freedom to Petition our Government for the Redress of these massive Grievances, Civil Resistance, etc. We are going to have to start vigorously exercising all of our First Amendment Rights right now. We must use them or else, as the saying goes, we will lose them. We must act not only for the good of the Peoples of Southwest Asia, but for our future, that of our children, that of our nation as a democratic society committed to the Rule of Law and the U.S. Constitution. The Nazis had their "homeland" too Francis A. Boyle, Professor of Law, University of Illinois, is author of Foundations of World Order, Duke University Press, The Criminality of Nuclear Deterrence, and Palestine, Palestinians and International Law, by Clarity Press. He can be reached at: FBOYLE at LAW.UIUC.EDU --- Subscribed as: fboyle at law.uiuc.edu; to unsubscribe send to al-awda-universalist-request at umich.edu with UNSUBSCRIBE as the SUBJECT. URL: Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Roger Helbig [mailto:rwhelbig at gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2017 6:43 PM To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: Karen Aram >; Estabrook, Carl G >; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Jay Becker >; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; Szoke, Ron >; Dave Trippel >; Arlene Hickory >; David Swanson >; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com;abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG There was no massacre at Fallujah. This is nonsense. Mattis expected his troops to be peacekeepers. They brought soccer balls with them when they deployed. I would love to see your "so called" war crime indictment. Wonder how much of it is from your fertile Hate America imagination and how much from the fertile Arab anti-American propaganda organs. Doubt a single paragraph is actually based on fact. On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 8:22 AM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss > wrote: Trump’s Secretary of War Mad Dog Mattis was responsible for the Massacre at Fallujah, which I pointed out on Counterpunch was a Nuremberg War Crime along the lines of the Nazis—the wanton devastation of a city-- in revenge for them killing our mercenaries. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Karen Aram [mailto:karenaram at hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2017 10:04 AM To: Estabrook, Carl G > Cc: Boyle, Francis A >; Jay Becker >; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; Szoke, Ron >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; Arlene Hickory >; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; David Swanson >; Dave Trippel >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Mildred O'brien >; David Johnson >; Joe Lauria >; David Green > Subject: Re: Guest Commentary by Carl in NG I’m sorry Carl, I don’t agree with that title either. It assumes that all in the anti-war movement welcome the Trump administration. Not all of us trust he will do some of that which he promised in respect to “defunding Nato,” “making friends with Russia,” or killing TPP. Even if he does those three things, his further provocations of China, are every bit as dangerous as those with Russia, it’s a mere tactic to drive a wedge between Russia and China, while chipping away at Iran. His Cabinet appointments are frightening to say the least in respect to Healthcare, Energy, Education, Housing, etc, etc. Further expansion of war in the Middle East, and North Africa, as well as expansion of capitalist corporate control is on the agenda no matter which of the two Party’s are in power. Obama paved the way, for all of which I have just referred, but it’s not over. Our only hope is that “the people” are now awake, and perhaps will focus on that which is most serious to survival. On Jan 22, 2017, at 07:44, Carl G. Estabrook > wrote: My original title was, “Why the anti-war movement welcomes the new administration.” For more on that theme, see >. —CGE On Jan 22, 2017, at 9:29 AM, Karen Aram > wrote: An excellent letter, which I posted on FB. I deliberately deleted the title that I assumed the NG created, because it gives the false impression that those of us in the anti-war movement, all support Trump. We don’t, we just didn’t support Hillary. Anyone in the anti-war movement supporting Hillary was supporting more of the same that Obama provided. On Jan 22, 2017, at 07:16, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: He {Obama} attacked eight countries (two more than George Bush), and conducted what one leading political commentator called "the most extreme terrorist campaign of modern times — his drone assassinations." He killed thousands of civilians with drones, including U.S. citizens and hundreds of children. A good letter by Carl today in NG. (Remember NG writes their own titles to letters.) We must now hold Trump’s feet to the fire across the board! I think Carl’s quote comes from Chomsky? In any event the Illinois Nazis Law Faculty fully supported and promoted and held out for emulation by lawyers and this Campus and our Good Community: "the most extreme terrorist campaign of modern times — his drone assassinations." The Illinois Nazis Law Faculty are just a GANG OF SICK PUPPIES! Fab Ed Norton Professor of Law Carl Schmitt College of Law: “Mein Fuhrer, I can walk!” Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) Feed: News-Gazette.com Posted on: Sunday, January 22, 2017 7:00 AM Author: digital.media Subject: Guest Commentary: Why anti-war movement welcomes Trump By C.G. ESTABROOK The European anti-war group "No War No NATO" writes as follows: "Demonstrating in Europe on 21 January, against the newly elected US President Donald Trump is tantamount to lending support to the Obama administration, which has transformed Europe into NATO's first line of attack, nuclear matters inclusive, against Russia. read more View article... _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.chambana.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fpeace-discuss&data=02%7C01%7Ckarenaram%40hotmail.com%7C6ea0294d887b4910ba5108d52390c739%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636454027089337207&sdata=v2ho9fKU8A%2F2dSYUS31%2Br1UPu4HaEfckCXJTgUP7vcU%3D&reserved=0 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 20855 bytes Desc: image001.jpg URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Sun Nov 5 12:26:03 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2017 12:26:03 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: Economic Deja-vu/Thailand and everywhere else? References: <61854989.1944.0@wordpress.com> Message-ID: New post on Uglytruth-Thailand [http://s0.wp.com/i/emails/blavatar.png] [http://2.gravatar.com/avatar/b94c98491e599510a5ec039e64af3261?s=50&d=identicon&r=G] Economic Deja-vu by uglytruththailand Giles Ji Ungpakorn A recent analysis of the state of the Thai economy from the research department of Phatra Capital indicated two important structural problems. Firstly, continuing economic inequality means that any GDP growth at the present rates does not translate into increased well-being for the majority of the population. Secondly, Thai rates of productivity are too low to compete on the world market which is still growing slowly due to the long recession since 2008. A big factor here is that most industrial companies are still relying on cheap labour rather than trying to invest in modern technology and a higher skilled labour force. The cheap labour today comes from migrant workers from neighbouring countries. In rural areas productivity among small agricultural producers remains too low to raise people out of poverty. Where agriculture has a higher productivity it is among the agribusiness conglomerates. This is exactly the same problem which faced the Thai economy just before the 1997 economic crisis. For this reason Taksin Shinawat and his newly formed Thai Rak Thai party set out to modernise Thailand, develop a higher skilled work force, increase productivity and raise the general standard of living of most working people, both in rural areas and in the city. Thai Rak Thai called this a “dual track” policy, mixing grass-roots Keynesian state investment with promotion of the free-market at a national level. Among the policies initiated by Taksin’s government were universal health care for all, job creation at village level through cheap loans, measures to reduce farmers’ debt and increased investment in education and the promotion of digital skills. The Yingluck government’s rice price subsidy scheme was part of this kind of policy. Taksin’s policies did not wipe out poverty or bring in economic equality. He denied that he wanted to build a welfare state, which would have been a vast improvement, and he was totally opposed to raising taxes on the rich. However, the policies did raise the living standards of most citizens and gave them hope for the future. This is why millions voted for his parties in elections without Taksin having to spend millions in buying votes like political parties in the past. Yet the conservatives and neo-liberals derided these policies. The Democrat Party, the conservative bureaucrats, the right-wing academics and the middle classes called it “Populism”. Some foreign academics have gone along with this kind of right-wing discourse. For all these people, supporting the poor and the majority of the population was “bad for the country”. They wanted to return to the bad old days when the poor knew their place, state spending was concentrated on the military and the elites and elections were nothing to do with real policies. In the end the conservatives and neo-liberals got their way with military and judicial coups. They are now ensuring that in any future elections, governments will not be allowed to support the poor, bring about modernisation or lower inequality. In terms of the structural problems in the Thai economy, we are back to Square One. But if we look at Taksin’s side, he and his party were reluctant in mobilising the mass of the population against the military and the conservatives. They have deliberately destroyed the pro-democracy red shirt movement. This is because they feared the results of any future mass uprising more than they feared the continued dominance of the military and the conservatives. We could even say that Taksin’s attempts to drag Thai society into the modern world and solve the problems of inequality were just half-hearted. This reminds me of Leon Trotsky and Karl Marx’s theories of Permanent Revolution. The theory of Permanent Revolution argues that in less developed countries the modern capitalists and the conservative monarchists will seek compromise with each other and real progress towards a modern and equal society will need to be led by the working class and a working class based revolutionary party. This holds true for Thailand today. Taksin’s capitalist party attempted to carry out half-hearted modernisation, while always seeking to find ways to compromise with the conservatives and hold back the mass movement, and this has ended in the destruction of democracy and the fossilisation of society. uglytruththailand | November 5, 2017 at 5:31 am | Tags: Giles Ji Ungpakorn, Military Dictatorship, Taksin Shinawat, Thai economy, Thai politics | Categories: Thai politics | URL: https://wp.me/p4bxj7-vm Unsubscribe to no longer receive posts from Uglytruth-Thailand. Change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions. Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser: https://uglytruththailand.wordpress.com/2017/11/05/economic-deja-vu/ Thanks for flying with [https://s0.wp.com/i/emails/blavatar-default.png] WordPress.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Sun Nov 5 12:26:00 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2017 12:26:00 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG References: <9D3D5E59-5EFC-47DF-838D-C6508214E176@illinois.edu> Message-ID: And I forgot to add: Roger is in favor of Depleted Uranium. He is just a Mole for Military Intelligence on another Peace List. fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2017 6:21 AM To: Karen Aram ; Peace-discuss Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG For the record, Doug Rokke helped me and Ramsey Clark defend Phil Berrigan and the DU Plowshares. We started out with them facing 40 years. At the end of a kangaroo court proceeding, they got two. The Prosecutor had publicly stated he was going to put Phil away for the rest of his life. At least Phil was able to die at his home surrounded by his Family and Friends instead of in some Federal Hell Hole. RIP: Phil Berrigan. Fab [Boylebookemail.JPG] Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Roger Helbig [mailto:rwhelbig at gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2017 5:22 AM To: Boyle, Francis A >; Karen Aram >; Peace-discuss > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG No, but Boyle likes to spread lies - I joined your list because of Douglas Lind Rokke, University of Illinois PhD graduate and resident of nearby Rantoul. Rokke is a professional liar (see my other much longer message which is still being edited). Roger W Helbig Richmond, CA My mother was 1941 graduate of the University of Illinois - sadly, she died two days after I was born due to childbirth complications. On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 8:02 AM, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: Dear Karen: With all due respect, you must understand: Roger is a Mole for Military Intelligence. That is why he is on this Peace list. fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Karen Aram [mailto:karenaram at hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2017 9:58 AM To: Roger Helbig > Cc: Boyle, Francis A >; Peace-discuss > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG Roger Your statement: "There was no massacre at Fallujah. This is nonsense. Mattis expected his troops to be peacekeepers.” is so ludicrous, it invites laughter, long and loud laughter, if it weren’t so tragic, the many lives destroyed as a result of “Mad Dog Mattis” and the USG in it’s continuing genocide. Nothing you say, can ever be taken seriously, your continued harassment of anti-war activists on this “Peace Discussion List” is anathema to everything it stands for. I have to ask what are you doing here if not, just to irritate. Okay maybe your goal is to entertain, but your entertainment is very sick. Anyone and everyone, who supports the wars and interventions the US has and continues to perpetrate around the world, has blood on their hands, as “complicit Americans." That is the way we are viewed by others in the world today. On Nov 4, 2017, at 07:31, Roger Helbig via Peace-discuss > wrote: what exactly is that supposed to mean - my choices of assignment were Intelligence, Weather and Cartography and the Air Force made me an Electronic Systems (ground radar maintenance) Officer - I liked languages - I was a literate three year old in Russian and wanted to learn more - I like puzzles - putting pieces together - that's what I thought intelligence officers did - Weather was where I got assigned for familiarization during summer camp so I somewhat expected that I would get that and a M/S in Meterology - Cartography because as a Geologist, I made maps of what was below the ground and cartographers made maps of what was above the ground. I voted for Democratic candidates starting with George McGovern - so I was not exactly a fan of Richard Nixon so hardly Nixonian! Roger On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 7:19 AM, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: “I wanted to be”—Military Intelligence. A Typical Nixonian Limited Hang-out. fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Roger Helbig [mailto:rwhelbig at gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2017 9:15 AM To: Boyle, Francis A >; Peace-discuss > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG and you spread lies - I never worked for military intelligence - they would not let me because I am partially color blind and to be an Air Force intelligence officer, you needed to be able to interpret false colors on air photos - I wanted to be because I like to work through problems and took Russian as an elective my senior year as part of my know your enemy program - Now, you have not refuted that The American Free Press was established by Willis Carto - that Carto was a Neo Nazi or that Bollyn worked for Carto and Buchanan - you more than likely have not read Blood and Politics - maybe some of the others were. I don't seem to have scan of page where the American Free Press was established to replace The Spotlight, but attached is the one where it discusses the establishment of The Barnes Review and the conference discussed on the blog is for both of these publications. On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 6:37 AM, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: Once again, Roger crawls out of his hole as a Mole for US “Military Intelligence”—an oxymoron to be sure. Fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Roger Helbig [mailto:rwhelbig at gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2017 8:12 AM To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: Karen Aram >; Estabrook, Carl G >; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Jay Becker >; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; Szoke, Ron >; Dave Trippel >; Arlene Hickory >; David Swanson >; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com;abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG You do know that Christopher Bollyn is NOT a reporter but is a Neo Nazi operative of long standing and that the American Free Press is not a news organization, but a Neo Nazi front - look up Willis Carto - he was Bollyn's boss and founded the American Free Press - this website that has reports of conference for American Free Press and The Barnes Review used to have a prominent picture of a Nazi flag behind the blogger Alex Hassinger - Douglas Lind Rokke of Urbana spoke at this event and Dave von Kleist the producer of Rokke's first anti-US propaganda video "Beyond Treason" was the master of ceremonies - http://www.chairmanofnordwave.blogspot.com Carto died in 2015 - there are a number of good sources on Carto in a simple Google search - Learn about Neo Nazis - read this book - "Blood and Politics" - it mentions Bollyn and extensively discusses Carto - pg 382, which I can e-mail to all who request - has Carto's establishment of The Barnes Review, a Holocaust Denial publication - The American Free Press replaced Carto's The Spotlight after Carto lost a legal battle - Bollyn is also mentioned in connection with a Pat Buchanan campaign apparatus On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 4:57 AM, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: I also want to make it clear for the record that before the invasions of Saipan, Tinian and Okinawa my Father, a Marine, was ordered by his Captain not to take prisoners of war on the grounds of reciprocity that the Japanese did not take Prisoners of War of our Men. My Father disobeyed these clearly illegal orders and took Japanese Prisoners of War. I cite the example of my Father to my law students to refute the objection that you cannot expect soldiers to obey the laws of war during combat. If my Father could obey the laws of war at Saipan, Tinian, and Okinawa, any other soldier should be able to do the same. Meanwhile,while I am teaching this to my students, the Illinois Nazis Law Faculty aid, abet, and promote and facilitate war crimes and crimes against humanity from the safety of their offices. My Father later became a Lawyer. RIP. The Illinois Nazis Law Faculty are despicable! Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2017 8:38 PM To: Roger Helbig > Cc: Karen Aram >; Estabrook, Carl G >; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Jay Becker >; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; Szoke, Ron >; Dave Trippel >; Arlene Hickory >; David Swanson >; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com;abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG Mad Dog Mattis the Nuremberg War Criminal. Fab. CONTROLLED PRESS IGNORES CRIMINAL OBLITERATION OF FALLUJAH By Christopher Bollyn American Free Press The controlled press has scrupulously avoided discussing the devastation and prima facie evidence of war crimes committed during the U.S. siege and assault of Fallujah. As Americans prepared for Thanksgiving, an estimated 100,000 residents of the besieged Iraqi city of Fallujah, trapped in their homes, struggled to survive without fresh food, water or electricity, reportedly cut off by U.S. forces on November 8. Meanwhile, on the streets of Fallujah, a city of more than 350,000, dogs gnawed on bloated and rotting corpses that remained unburied for weeks. Thousands of families in Fallujah were reported to be in a critical humanitarian situation after U.S. forces prevented the delivery of relief supplies. An Iraq Red Crescent Society (IRCS) humanitarian aid convoy, reportedly blocked by U.S. troops for more than two weeks, was allowed to deliver aid to residents in the heart of the city on November 25. On Thanksgiving, U.S. forces permitted the IRCS convoy carrying thousands of food parcels, blankets, tents and medical supplies to enter the city and allowed one of the clinics to be converted into a temporary hospital to treat the injured. Rana Sidani of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) in Geneva, Switzerland however, told American Free Press on Nov. 30 that "many civilians" were still prevented from receiving aid or medical care. At the beginning of the U.S. operation in Fallujah on Nov. 5, a hospital in the central Nazzal district of Fallujah was "reduced to rubble" as a result of U.S. air and artillery bombardment. "Only its façade, with a sign reading Nazzal Emergency Hospital, remained intact," Reuters reported. "A nearby compound used by the main Falluja Hospital to store medical supplies was also destroyed," witnesses told Reuters. Fallujah's main hospital was occupied by U.S. forces when the ground offensive began. These actions are apparent violations of international humanitarian law. "Bodies can be seen everywhere and people were crying when receiving the food parcels," Muhammad al-Nuri, a spokesman for the IRCS in Baghdad, said. "It is very sad. It is a human disaster." Al-Nuri said that it is difficult to move in the city due to the large number of dead bodies in the streets. The ICRS estimates there are more than 6,000 dead in Fallujah, al-Nuri said. AFP asked Major Jay Antonelli at the Coalition Press Information Center (CPIC) in Baghdad if the ICRS estimate of 6,000 dead in Fallujah was credible. "We do not keep a count of dead Iraqis," Antonelli said. Asked the same question, the ICRC's Sidani said, "We don't know." Antonelli said, "U.S. forces never blocked aid convoys from reaching the wounded. We only recommended to the aid convoys that they should not enter the city because the MNF [Multi-National Forces] could not guarantee their security or safety." "The ICRC is very worried about the humanitarian situation in Falluja," Sidani said. Asked what the ICRC was doing to alleviate the suffering in Fallujah, Sidani said: "We are reminding the parties of their responsibilities under international humanitarian law." It should be noted that the U.S.A. and Britain, the belligerent occupying powers in Iraq, are the two largest contributors to the ICRC, providing more than 42 percent of its budget for field operations. A second convoy from Baghdad, headed by Dr. Said Ismael Haki, the IRCS president, delivered aid to Fallujah on Nov. 26. "There are no houses left in Fallujah, only destroyed places." Haki said. "I really don't know how the people will return to the city. No one will find their homes." As U.S. troops in Fallujah engaged in what has been described as the most intense urban combat since Vietnam, the controlled press scrupulously avoided discussion or footage of the devastation of the rebellious Sunni city. For example, during the second week of the attack, rather than discuss the widespread devastation of Fallujah, U.S. television news programs focused largely on a brawl between basketball players and fans in Detroit. Lt. Col. Brandl, commander of the 1st Battalion, 8th Marine Regiment, was filmed giving a "pep talk" to his marines: "The enemy has got a face – he's called Satan," Brandl said. "He's in Fallujah, and we're going to destroy him." At least 136 U.S. soldiers were killed during November in Iraq, and more than 800 were wounded, most of them in Fallujah, making it the most costly month, and operation, in terms of U.S. lives lost since the invasion of Iraq began in March 2003. FOR WHAT CAUSE? Michael Ware, Baghdad bureau chief for Time magazine, who has been in Fallujah during the fighting, said U.S. actions in Fallujah are "creating the nightmare that we are seeking to prevent." "I stood there as I saw American boys die," Ware told Chris Matthews of MSNBC on Nov. 24, "I mean, a man shot at close range, blown apart by a rocket propelled grenade. He dies there in front of you and I can't help but think why? For what cause? "I see us creating the very thing that the president said we went there to prevent," Ware said, "…subsequent to this invasion and the occupation and the guerrilla war that is currently underway, we are the midwives of the next generation of al Qaida and Islamic terrorist." Ware, who has interviewed senior insurgent leaders, said they study the writings of the Vietnamese general Vo Nguyen Giap, Che Guevara, and Mao Zedong. "They're bringing it straight from the Vietnam, and the broader insurgency playbook," Ware said. "The name of the game is deny the population to the insurgents," Ware said. "That's what we're trying to do, win hearts and minds. But we're not winning them." The U.S. struggle to win Iraqi hearts and minds suffered a further set back when NBC TV broadcast footage of a U.S. marine executing a wounded and unarmed Iraqi in a Fallujah mosque. The much-publicized shooting, apparently part of a massacre of a group of wounded resistance fighters, "was a rare crack in the façade that Washington, with the complicity of most of the corporate media, has tried to present to the world of its brutal assault on the rebel Iraqi city," Rohan Pearce wrote in The Greenleft Weekly Australia on Nov. 24. The New York Times has reported actions taken by U.S. forces in Fallujah, which appear to be prima facie evidence of war crimes, without mentioning that the actions constitute clear violations of the Laws of Land War found in the U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10. For example, a Nov. 20 Times article by Edward Wong, with two correspondents in Fallujah, reports that U.S. marines had transformed a mosque into a fortress with snipers and machine gunners perched on the roof. Then, using the passive form, Wong goes on to say that "no neutral group has been able to enter the city," without mentioning that U.S. forces blocked humanitarian aid convoys. Likewise, Wong wrote, "Electricity and water had been cut off." The Times, whose motto is "All the news that's fit to print," apparently didn't think that it's readers needed to know the U.S. forces had cut off the water and power to a city of 340,000 people. Asked if U.S. forces had cut power and water to Fallujah, Maj. Jay Antonelli of CPIC wrote: "MNF did, with approval of the Interim Iraqi Government, cut off electricity to the city of Fallujah as Operation Al-Fajr began. Water was not cut off intentionally, however the water system did sustain some kinetic damage during strikes." American Free Press asked the Pentagon's Lt. Col. Joe Yoswa if it is true that U.S. forces were using mosques as fortresses. "It's not possible," Yoswa said. "Under no circumstances. We would not set up snipers in a mosque in an offensive position." CPIC's Antonelli said: "MNF would not use a mosque as a 'fortress.' MNF and Iraqi security forces would only fire from a mosque if they were being fired upon and were firing back in self-defense." Abu Sabah, a refugee from Fallujah, reported seeing phosphorus bombs: "They used these weird bombs that put up smoke like a mushroom cloud. Then small pieces fell from the air with long tails of smoke trailing behind them. These exploded on the ground with large fires that burnt for half and hour," Abu Sabah said. "When anyone touched these fires their bodies burnt for hours." Eyewitnesses from Fallujah also reported seeing "melted" bodies. "THROW-AWAY SOLDIERS" Having seen what appeared to be a depleted uranium (DU) missile fired at a building in Fallujah on CNN during the first week of the fighting, AFP asked the Pentagon if DU weapons are being used in Fallujah. "Yes," Yoswa said, "DU is a standard round on the M-1 Abrams tank." Because U.S. marines in Fallujah are very close to the poison gas produced by exploded DU shells, AFP asked Yoswa if anything was being done to protect the troops from DU poisoning. Yoswa seemed unaware of the dangers posed by the use of DU. Marion Fulk, a retired nuclear scientist from Livermore National Lab told AFP that U.S. troops in DU contaminated battlefields are considered "throw-away soldiers." The Marines exposed to DU in Fallujah, and elsewhere, face greatly increased risks of cancer, deformed children, and other health problems in the future. OBLITERATION OF FALLUJAH The "obliteration of Fallujah" is a serious war crime, according to Francis A. Boyle, a professor of international law at the University of Illinois. "The obliteration of Fallujah continues apace," Boyle wrote in his Nov. 15 article, A War Crime in Real Time: Obliterating Fallujah. "Article 6(b) of the 1945 Nuremberg Charter defines a Nuremberg War Crime in relevant part as the 'wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages.' According to this definitive definition, the Bush administration's destruction of Fallujah constitutes a war crime for which Nazis were tried and executed." Finis -30- 1629 words ________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The all-new My Yahoo! – What will yours do? Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2017 8:13 PM To: 'Roger Helbig' > Cc: 'Karen Aram' >; Estabrook, Carl G >; 'peace-discuss at anti-war.net' >; 'C. G. ESTABROOK' >; 'Jay Becker' >; 'a-fields at uiuc.edu' >; Hoffman, Valerie J >; 'Joe Lauria' >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; Szoke, Ron >; 'Dave Trippel' >; 'Arlene Hickory' >; 'David Swanson' >; 'peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net' >; 'sherwoodross10 at gmail.com' >; 'abass10 at gmail.com' >; 'mickalideh at gmail.com' >; 'Lina Thorne' >; 'chicago at worldcantwait.net' > Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG Mattis expected his troops to be peacekeepers. They brought soccer balls with them when they deployed. LOL! Marines don’t play soccer or teach kids to play soccer.. My Dad was a Marine. He invaded Saipan, Tinian and Okinawa before he became a Lawyer. Marines destroy anyone and anything that is in front of them as they are trained to do and did at Fallujah under Mattis—A Real Mad Dog War Criminal. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2017 7:52 PM To: 'Roger Helbig' > Cc: Karen Aram >; Estabrook, Carl G >; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Jay Becker >; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; Szoke, Ron >; Dave Trippel >; Arlene Hickory >; David Swanson >; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com;abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG -----Original Message----- From: Karim A G [mailto:coffee at euro-comm.co.uk] Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2004 5:00 PM To: Karim A G Subject: A War Crime in Real Time http://www.counterpunch.org/boyle11152004.html November 15, 2004 A War Crime in Real Time Obliterating Fallujah By FRANCIS A. BOYLE The obliteration of Fallujah continues apace. Article 6(b) of the 1945 Nuremberg Charter defines a Nuremberg War Crime in relevant part as the ". . . wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages. . ." According to this definitive definition, the Bush Jr. administration's destruction of Fallujah constitutes a war crime for which Nazis were tried and executed. There is nothing surprising about that. Since the Bush Jr. administration's installation in power by the United States Supreme Court in January of 2001, the peoples of the world have witnessed a government in the United States of America that has demonstrated little if any respect for fundamental considerations of international law, international organizations, and human rights, let alone appreciation of the requirements for maintaining international peace and security. What the world has watched instead is a comprehensive and malicious assault upon the integrity of the international legal order by a group of men and women who are thoroughly Machiavellian in their perception of international relations and in their conduct of both foreign policy and domestic affairs. This is not simply a question of giving or withholding the benefit of the doubt when it comes to complicated matters of foreign affairs and defense policies to a U.S. government charged with the security of both its own citizens and those of its allies in Europe, the Western Hemisphere, and the Pacific. Rather, the Bush Jr. administration's foreign policy constitutes ongoing criminal activity under well-recognized principles of both international law and U.S. domestic law, in particular the Nuremberg Charter, the Nuremberg Judgment, and the Nuremberg Principles. So their obliteration of Fallujah was to be expected. One generation ago the peoples of the world asked themselves: Where were the "good" Germans? Well, there were some good Germans. The Lutheran theologian and pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer was the foremost exemplar of someone who led a life of principled opposition to the Nazi-terror state even unto death. Today the peoples of the world are likewise asking themselves: Where are the "good" Americans? Well, there are some good Americans. Like three Catholic Nuns in Denver, they are getting arrested and going to jail for protesting against United States weapons of mass destruction (WMD) whose power for human extermination far exceeds even the wildest fantasies of Hitler and the Nazis. Or else for protesting against illegal U.S.. military interventions around the world. Just recently the Nuclear Resister estimated that since the Fall of 2002, there have been more than 9,500 anti-war related arrests in the United States alone. Many more will be coming. In international legal terms, the Bush Jr. administration itself should now be viewed as constituting an ongoing criminal conspiracy under international criminal law in violation of the Nuremberg Charter, the Nuremberg Judgment, and the Nuremberg Principles, due to its formulation and undertaking of aggressive war policies that are legally akin to those perpetrated by the Nazi regime. As a consequence, American citizens possess the basic right under international law and the United States domestic law, including the U.S. Constitution, to engage in acts of non-violent civil resistance in order to prevent, impede, thwart, or terminate ongoing criminal activities perpetrated by U.S. government officials in their conduct of foreign affairs policies and military operations purported to relate to defense and counter-terrorism. This same right of civil resistance extends pari passu to all citizens of the world community of states. Everyone around the world has both the right and the duty under international law to resist ongoing criminal activities perpetrated by the Bush Jr. administration and its nefarious foreign accomplices such as Blair, Berlusconi, Howard, Koizumi, Kwasniewski, etc. by all non-violent means possible. If it is not so restrained, the Bush Jr. administration could very well precipitate a Third World War. The time for preventive action is now. Civil resistance is the way to go. People power can overcome power politics. Popular movements have succeeded in toppling tyrannical, dictatorial and authoritarian regimes throughout former Communist countries in Eastern Europe, as well as in Asia, and most recently in Latin America. It is time once again to exercise People Power here in the United States of America: "When in the Course of human Events. . . We hold these Truths to be self-evident. . . . we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and sacred Honor." Despite the best efforts by the Bush Jr. Leaguers to the contrary, we American Citizens still have our First Amendment Rights: Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Association, Freedom of Assembly, Freedom to Petition our Government for the Redress of these massive Grievances, Civil Resistance, etc. We are going to have to start vigorously exercising all of our First Amendment Rights right now. We must use them or else, as the saying goes, we will lose them. We must act not only for the good of the Peoples of Southwest Asia, but for our future, that of our children, that of our nation as a democratic society committed to the Rule of Law and the U.S. Constitution. The Nazis had their "homeland" too Francis A. Boyle, Professor of Law, University of Illinois, is author of Foundations of World Order, Duke University Press, The Criminality of Nuclear Deterrence, and Palestine, Palestinians and International Law, by Clarity Press. He can be reached at: FBOYLE at LAW.UIUC.EDU --- Subscribed as: fboyle at law.uiuc.edu; to unsubscribe send to al-awda-universalist-request at umich.edu with UNSUBSCRIBE as the SUBJECT. URL: Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Roger Helbig [mailto:rwhelbig at gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2017 6:43 PM To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: Karen Aram >; Estabrook, Carl G >; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Jay Becker >; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; Szoke, Ron >; Dave Trippel >; Arlene Hickory >; David Swanson >; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com;abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG There was no massacre at Fallujah. This is nonsense. Mattis expected his troops to be peacekeepers. They brought soccer balls with them when they deployed. I would love to see your "so called" war crime indictment. Wonder how much of it is from your fertile Hate America imagination and how much from the fertile Arab anti-American propaganda organs. Doubt a single paragraph is actually based on fact. On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 8:22 AM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss > wrote: Trump’s Secretary of War Mad Dog Mattis was responsible for the Massacre at Fallujah, which I pointed out on Counterpunch was a Nuremberg War Crime along the lines of the Nazis—the wanton devastation of a city-- in revenge for them killing our mercenaries. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Karen Aram [mailto:karenaram at hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2017 10:04 AM To: Estabrook, Carl G > Cc: Boyle, Francis A >; Jay Becker >; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; Szoke, Ron >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; Arlene Hickory >; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; David Swanson >; Dave Trippel >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Mildred O'brien >; David Johnson >; Joe Lauria >; David Green > Subject: Re: Guest Commentary by Carl in NG I’m sorry Carl, I don’t agree with that title either. It assumes that all in the anti-war movement welcome the Trump administration. Not all of us trust he will do some of that which he promised in respect to “defunding Nato,” “making friends with Russia,” or killing TPP. Even if he does those three things, his further provocations of China, are every bit as dangerous as those with Russia, it’s a mere tactic to drive a wedge between Russia and China, while chipping away at Iran. His Cabinet appointments are frightening to say the least in respect to Healthcare, Energy, Education, Housing, etc, etc. Further expansion of war in the Middle East, and North Africa, as well as expansion of capitalist corporate control is on the agenda no matter which of the two Party’s are in power. Obama paved the way, for all of which I have just referred, but it’s not over. Our only hope is that “the people” are now awake, and perhaps will focus on that which is most serious to survival. On Jan 22, 2017, at 07:44, Carl G. Estabrook > wrote: My original title was, “Why the anti-war movement welcomes the new administration.” For more on that theme, see >. —CGE On Jan 22, 2017, at 9:29 AM, Karen Aram > wrote: An excellent letter, which I posted on FB. I deliberately deleted the title that I assumed the NG created, because it gives the false impression that those of us in the anti-war movement, all support Trump. We don’t, we just didn’t support Hillary. Anyone in the anti-war movement supporting Hillary was supporting more of the same that Obama provided. On Jan 22, 2017, at 07:16, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: He {Obama} attacked eight countries (two more than George Bush), and conducted what one leading political commentator called "the most extreme terrorist campaign of modern times — his drone assassinations." He killed thousands of civilians with drones, including U.S. citizens and hundreds of children. A good letter by Carl today in NG. (Remember NG writes their own titles to letters.) We must now hold Trump’s feet to the fire across the board! I think Carl’s quote comes from Chomsky? In any event the Illinois Nazis Law Faculty fully supported and promoted and held out for emulation by lawyers and this Campus and our Good Community: "the most extreme terrorist campaign of modern times — his drone assassinations." The Illinois Nazis Law Faculty are just a GANG OF SICK PUPPIES! Fab Ed Norton Professor of Law Carl Schmitt College of Law: “Mein Fuhrer, I can walk!” Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) Feed: News-Gazette.com Posted on: Sunday, January 22, 2017 7:00 AM Author: digital.media Subject: Guest Commentary: Why anti-war movement welcomes Trump By C.G. ESTABROOK The European anti-war group "No War No NATO" writes as follows: "Demonstrating in Europe on 21 January, against the newly elected US President Donald Trump is tantamount to lending support to the Obama administration, which has transformed Europe into NATO's first line of attack, nuclear matters inclusive, against Russia. read more View article... _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.chambana.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fpeace-discuss&data=02%7C01%7Ckarenaram%40hotmail.com%7C6ea0294d887b4910ba5108d52390c739%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636454027089337207&sdata=v2ho9fKU8A%2F2dSYUS31%2Br1UPu4HaEfckCXJTgUP7vcU%3D&reserved=0 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 20855 bytes Desc: image001.jpg URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Sun Nov 5 12:40:36 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2017 12:40:36 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: An ICC Investigation of the U.S. in Afghanistan: What does it Mean? | Just Security References: Message-ID: Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -----Original Message----- From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2017 6:37 AM To: 'actiongreens at yahoogroups.com' Subject: FW: An ICC Investigation of the U.S. in Afghanistan: What does it Mean? | Just Security Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -----Original Message----- From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2017 7:00 PM To: SECTNS.aals at lists.aals.org Subject: RE: An ICC Investigation of the U.S. in Afghanistan: What does it Mean? | Just Security "It's been a long time comin'" But better late than never. Fab, Woodstock Generation. BUSH TO THE HAGUE International Criminal Court Complaint Filed Against Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Tenet, Rice and Gonzales INTERNATIONAL ARREST WARRANTS REQUESTED Professor Francis A. Boyle of the University of Illinois College of Law in Champaign, U.S.A. has filed a Complaint with the Prosecutor for the International Criminal Court (I.C.C.) in The Hague against U.S. citizens George W. Bush, Richard Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, George Tenet, Condoleezza Rice, and Alberto Gonzales (the "Accused") for their criminal policy and practice of "extraordinary rendition" perpetrated upon about 100 human beings. This term is really their euphemism for the enforced disappearance of persons and their consequent torture. This criminal policy and practice by the Accused constitute Crimes against Humanity in violation of the Rome Statute establishing the I.C.C. The United States is not a party to the Rome Statute. Nevertheless the Accused have ordered and been responsible for the commission of I.C.C. statutory crimes within the respective territories of many I.C.C. member states, including several in Europe. Consequently, the I.C.C. has jurisdiction to prosecute the Accused for their I. C.C. statutory crimes under Rome Statute article 12(2)(a) that affords the I.C.C. jurisdiction to prosecute for I.C. C. statutory crimes committed in I.C.C. member states. The Complaint requests (1) that the I.C.C. Prosecutor open an investigation of the Accused on his own accord under Rome Statute article 15(1); and (2) that the I.C.C. Prosecutor also formally "submit to the [I.C.C.] Pre-Trial Chamber a request for authorization of an investigation" of the Accused under Rome Statute article 15(3). For similar reasons, the Highest Level Officials of the Obama administration risk the filing of a follow-up Complaint with the I.C.C. if they do not immediately terminate the Accused's criminal policy and practice of "extraordinary rendition," which the Obama administration has continued to implement. The Complaint concludes with a request that the I.C.C. Prosecutor obtain International Arrest Warrants for the Accused from the I.C.C. in accordance with Rome Statute articles 58(1)(a), 58(1)(b)(i), 58(1)(b)(ii), and 58(1)(b) (iii). In order to demonstrate your support for this Complaint you can contact the I.C.C. Prosecutor by letter, fax, or email as indicated below. The Honorable Luis Moreno-Ocampo Office of the Prosecutor International Criminal Court Post Office Box 19519 2500 CM, The Hague The Netherlands Fax No.: 31-70-515-8555 Email: OTP.InformationDesk at icc-cpi.int January 19, 2010 Dear Sir: Please accept my personal compliments. I have the honor hereby to file with you and the International Criminal Court this Complaint against U.S. citizens George W. Bush, Richard Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, George Tenet, Condoleezza Rice , and Alberto Gonzales (hereinafter referred to as the "Accused") for their criminal policy and practice of "extraordinary rendition." This term is really a euphemism for the enforced disappearancesof persons, their torture, severe deprivation of their liberty, their violent sexual abuse, and other inhumane acts perpetrated upon these Victims. The Accused have inflicted this criminal policy and practice of "extraordinary rendition" upon about one hundred (100) human beings, almost all of whom are Muslims/Arabs/Asians and People of Color. I doubt very seriously that the Accused would have inflicted these criminal practices upon 100 White Judeo-Christian men. The Accused's criminal policy and practice of "extraordinary rendition" are both "widespread" and "systematic" within the meaning of Rome Statute article 7(1). Therefore the Accused have committed numerous "Crimes against Humanity" in flagrant and repeated and longstanding violation of Rome Statute articles 5(1)(b), 7(1)(a), 7 (1)(e), 7(1)(f), 7(1)(g), 7(1)(h), 7(1)(i), and 7(1)(k). Furthermore, the Accused's Rome Statute Crimes Against Humanity of enforced disappearances of persons constitutes ongoing criminal activity that continues even as of today. The United States is not a contracting party to the Rome Statute. Nevertheless, the Accused ordered and were responsible for the commission of these I.C.C. statutory crimes on, in, and over the respective territories of several I.C.C. member states, including many located in Europe. Therefore, the I.C.C. has jurisdiction over the Accused for their I.C.C. statutory crimes in accordance with Rome Statute article 12(2)(a), which provides as follows: Article 12 Preconditions to the Exercise of Jurisdiction ... 2. In the case of article 13, paragraph (a) or (c), the Court may exercise its jurisdiction if one or more of the following States are Parties to this Statute or have accepted the jurisdiction of the Court in accordance with paragraph 3: (a) The State on the territory of which the conduct in question occurred ... So the fact that United States is not a contracting party to the Rome Statute is no bar to the I.C.C.'s prosecution of the Accused because they have ordered and been responsible for the commission of Rome Statute Crimes against Humanity on, in, and over the respective territories of several I.C.C. member states. Consequently, I hereby respectfully request that the Court exercise its jurisdiction over the Accused for these Crimes against Humanity in accordance with Rome Statute article 13(c), which provides as follows: Article 13 Exercise of Jurisdiction The Court may exercise its jurisdiction with respect to a crime referred to in article 5 in accordance with the provisions of this Statute if: ... (c) The Prosecutor has initiated an investigation in respect of such a crime in accordance with article 15. Pursuant to Rome Statute article 13(c), I hereby respectfully request that you initiate an investigation proprio motu against the Accused in accordance with Rome Statute article 15(1): "The Prosecutor may initiate investigations proprio motu on the basis of information on crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court." My detailed Complaint against the Accused constitutes the sufficient "information" required by article 15(1). Furthermore, I respectfully submit that this Complaint by itself constitutes "a reasonable basis to proceed with an investigation" under Rome Statute article 15(3). Hence, I also respectfully request that you formally "submit to the Pre-Trial Chamber a request for authorization of an investigation" of the Accused under Rome Statute article 15(3) at this time. Please inform me at your earliest convenience about the status and disposition of my two requests set forth immediately above. Based upon your extensive human rights work in Argentina, you know full well from direct personal experience the terrors and the horrors of enforced disappearances of persons and their consequent torture. According to reputable news media sources here in the United States, about 100 human beings have been subjected to enforced disappearances and subsequent torture by the Accused. We still have no accounting for these Victims. In other words, many of these Victims of enforced disappearances and torture by the Accused could still be alive today. Their very lives are at stake right now as we communicate. You could very well save some of their lives by publicly stating that you are opening an investigation of my Complaint. As for those Victims of enforced disappearances by the Accused who have died, your opening an investigation of my Complaint is the only means by which we might be able to obtain some explanation and accounting for their whereabouts and the location of their remains in order to communicate this critical information to their next- of-kin and loved-ones. Based upon your extensive experience combating enforced disappearances of persons and their consequent torture in Argentina, you know full well how important that objective is. The next-of-kin, loved-ones, and friends of "disappeared" human beings can never benefit from psychological "closure" unless and until there is an accounting for the fates, if not the remains, of the Victims. In part that is precisely why the Accused's enforced disappearances of about 100 human beings constitutes ongoing criminal activity that continues as of today and will continue until the fates of all their Victims have been officially determined by you opening an investigation into my Complaint. Let us mutually suppose that during the so-called "dirty war" in Argentina the International Criminal Court had been in existence. I submit that as an Argentinean human rights lawyer you would have moved heaven and earth and done everything in your power to get the I.C.C. and its Prosecutor to assume jurisdiction over the Argentine Junta in order to terminate and prosecute their enforced disappearances and torture of your fellow Argentinean citizens. I would have done the same. Unfortunately, the I.C.C. did not exist during those darkest of days for the Argentine Republic when we could have so acted. But today as the I.C.C. Prosecutor, you have both the opportunity and the legal power to do something to rectify this mass and total human rights annihilation, and to resolve and to terminate and to prosecute the "widespread" and "systematic" policy and practice of enforced disappearances and consequent torture of about 100 human beings by the Accused. Unfortunately, the new Obama administration in the United States has made it perfectly clear by means of public statements by President Obama and his Attorney General Eric Holder that they are not going to open any criminal investigation of any of the Accused for these aforementioned Crimes against Humanity. Hence an I.C.C. "case" against the Accused is "admissible" under Rome Statute article 1(complementarity) and article 17. As of right now you and the I.C.C. Judges are the only people in the entire world who can bring some degree of Justice, Closure, and Healing into this dire, tragic, and deplorable situation for the lives and well-being of about one hundred "disappeared" and tortured human beings as well as for their loved-ones and next-of-kin, who are also Victims of the Accused's Crimes against Humanity. On behalf of them all, as a fellow human rights lawyer I implore you to open an investigation into my Complaint and to issue a public statement to that effect. Also, most regretfully, the new Obama administration has publicly stated that it will continue the Accused's policy and practice of "extraordinary rendition," which is really their euphemism for enforced disappearances of human beings and consequent torture by other States. Hence the Highest Level Officials of the Obama administration fully intend to commit their own Crimes against Humanity under the I.C.C. Rome Statute - unless you stop them! Your opening an investigation of my Complaint will undoubtedly deter the Obama administration from engaging in any more "extraordinary renditions" -- enforced disappearances of human beings and having them tortured by other States. Indeed your opening of an investigation into my Complaint might encourage the Obama administration to terminate its criminal "extraordinary rendition" program immediately and thoroughly by means of issuing a public statement to that effect. In other words, your opening an investigation of my Complaint could very well save the lives of a large number of additional human beings who otherwise will be subjected by the Obama administration to the Rome Statute Crimes against Humanity of enforced disappearances of persons and their consequent torture by other States, inter alia. The lives and well-being of countless human beings are now at risk, hanging in the balance, waiting for you to act promptly, effectively, and immediately to save them from becoming Victims of Rome Statute Crimes against Humanity perpetrated by the Highest Level Officials of the Obama administration as successors-in-law to the Accused by opening an investigation of my Complaint. Otherwise, I shall be forced to file with you and the I.C.C. a follow-up Complaint against the Highest Level Officials of the Obama administration. I certainly hope it will not come to that. Please make it so. Finally, for reasons more fully explained in the Conclusion to my Complaint, I respectfully request that you obtain I.C.C. arrest warrants for the Accused in accordance with Rome Statute articles 58(1)(a), article 58(1)(b)(i), article 58(1)(b)(ii), and article 58(1)(b)(iii). The sooner, the better for all humankind. I respectfully request that you schedule a meeting with me at our earliest mutual convenience in order to discuss this Complaint. I look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience. This transmission letter is an integral part of my Complaint against the Accused and is hereby incorporated by reference into the attached Complaint dated as of today as well. Please accept, Sir, the assurance of my highest consideration. Francis A. Boyle Professor of International Law FRANCIS A. BOYLE is a leading American expert in international law. He was responsible for drafting the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989, the American implementing legislation for the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention. He served on the Board of Directors of Amnesty International (1988-1992), and represented Bosnia-Herzegovina at the World Court. He served as legal adviser to the Palestinian Delegation to the Middle East peace negotiations from 1991 to 1993. In 2007, he delivered the Bertrand Russell Peace Lectures. Previous Russell Lecturers have included E.P. Thompson, Elena Bonner, Edward Said, Ramsey Clark, Nobel Peace Prize Winner Joseph Rotblat, Johan Galtung, and Noam Chomsky. Professor Boyle teaches international law at the University of Illinois, Champaign and is author of, inter alia, The Future of International Law and American Foreign Policy, Foundations of World Order, The Criminality of Nuclear Deterrence, Palestine, Palestinians and International Law, Destroying World Order, Biowarfare & Terrorism. And Tackling America's Toughest Questions. He holds a Doctor of Law Magna Cum Laude as well as a Ph.D. in Political Science, both from Harvard University. You are listed as a subscriber to the list of Clarity Press, Inc. If this is incorrect and you wish to be removed, Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -----Original Message----- Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2017 6:53 PM To: SECTNS.aals at lists.aals.org Subject: [SECTNS.aals] - An ICC Investigation of the U.S. in Afghanistan: What does it Mean? | Just Security https://www.justsecurity.org/46687/icc-investigation-u-s-afghanistan-mean/ A pretty appalling piece at Just Security. The United States puts in place a 69 country torture regime, after the Senate Armed Forces and Judiciary reports someone can say what the US did was aberrational and limited. ________________________________ View post online: https://connect.aals.org/p/fo/st/?post=42183&anc=p42183#p42183 View mailing list online: https://connect.aals.org/p/fo/si/?topic=355 Start new thread via email: mailto:SECTNS.aals at lists.aals.org Unsubscribe from this mailing list: https://connect.aals.org/o/fo/?topic=355 Manage your subscription: https://connect.aals.org/p/us/to/ This email has been sent to: fboyle at illinois.edu This list is a forum for the exchange of points of view. Opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of the group associated with the list and do not necessarily represent the position of the Association of American Law Schools. Use of this email content is governed by the terms of service at: https://connect.aals.org/p/cm/ld/fid=280 ________________________________ From fboyle at illinois.edu Sun Nov 5 12:40:36 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2017 12:40:36 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: An ICC Investigation of the U.S. in Afghanistan: What does it Mean? | Just Security References: Message-ID: Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -----Original Message----- From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2017 6:37 AM To: 'actiongreens at yahoogroups.com' Subject: FW: An ICC Investigation of the U.S. in Afghanistan: What does it Mean? | Just Security Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -----Original Message----- From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2017 7:00 PM To: SECTNS.aals at lists.aals.org Subject: RE: An ICC Investigation of the U.S. in Afghanistan: What does it Mean? | Just Security "It's been a long time comin'" But better late than never. Fab, Woodstock Generation. BUSH TO THE HAGUE International Criminal Court Complaint Filed Against Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Tenet, Rice and Gonzales INTERNATIONAL ARREST WARRANTS REQUESTED Professor Francis A. Boyle of the University of Illinois College of Law in Champaign, U.S.A. has filed a Complaint with the Prosecutor for the International Criminal Court (I.C.C.) in The Hague against U.S. citizens George W. Bush, Richard Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, George Tenet, Condoleezza Rice, and Alberto Gonzales (the "Accused") for their criminal policy and practice of "extraordinary rendition" perpetrated upon about 100 human beings. This term is really their euphemism for the enforced disappearance of persons and their consequent torture. This criminal policy and practice by the Accused constitute Crimes against Humanity in violation of the Rome Statute establishing the I.C.C. The United States is not a party to the Rome Statute. Nevertheless the Accused have ordered and been responsible for the commission of I.C.C. statutory crimes within the respective territories of many I.C.C. member states, including several in Europe. Consequently, the I.C.C. has jurisdiction to prosecute the Accused for their I. C.C. statutory crimes under Rome Statute article 12(2)(a) that affords the I.C.C. jurisdiction to prosecute for I.C. C. statutory crimes committed in I.C.C. member states. The Complaint requests (1) that the I.C.C. Prosecutor open an investigation of the Accused on his own accord under Rome Statute article 15(1); and (2) that the I.C.C. Prosecutor also formally "submit to the [I.C.C.] Pre-Trial Chamber a request for authorization of an investigation" of the Accused under Rome Statute article 15(3). For similar reasons, the Highest Level Officials of the Obama administration risk the filing of a follow-up Complaint with the I.C.C. if they do not immediately terminate the Accused's criminal policy and practice of "extraordinary rendition," which the Obama administration has continued to implement. The Complaint concludes with a request that the I.C.C. Prosecutor obtain International Arrest Warrants for the Accused from the I.C.C. in accordance with Rome Statute articles 58(1)(a), 58(1)(b)(i), 58(1)(b)(ii), and 58(1)(b) (iii). In order to demonstrate your support for this Complaint you can contact the I.C.C. Prosecutor by letter, fax, or email as indicated below. The Honorable Luis Moreno-Ocampo Office of the Prosecutor International Criminal Court Post Office Box 19519 2500 CM, The Hague The Netherlands Fax No.: 31-70-515-8555 Email: OTP.InformationDesk at icc-cpi.int January 19, 2010 Dear Sir: Please accept my personal compliments. I have the honor hereby to file with you and the International Criminal Court this Complaint against U.S. citizens George W. Bush, Richard Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, George Tenet, Condoleezza Rice , and Alberto Gonzales (hereinafter referred to as the "Accused") for their criminal policy and practice of "extraordinary rendition." This term is really a euphemism for the enforced disappearancesof persons, their torture, severe deprivation of their liberty, their violent sexual abuse, and other inhumane acts perpetrated upon these Victims. The Accused have inflicted this criminal policy and practice of "extraordinary rendition" upon about one hundred (100) human beings, almost all of whom are Muslims/Arabs/Asians and People of Color. I doubt very seriously that the Accused would have inflicted these criminal practices upon 100 White Judeo-Christian men. The Accused's criminal policy and practice of "extraordinary rendition" are both "widespread" and "systematic" within the meaning of Rome Statute article 7(1). Therefore the Accused have committed numerous "Crimes against Humanity" in flagrant and repeated and longstanding violation of Rome Statute articles 5(1)(b), 7(1)(a), 7 (1)(e), 7(1)(f), 7(1)(g), 7(1)(h), 7(1)(i), and 7(1)(k). Furthermore, the Accused's Rome Statute Crimes Against Humanity of enforced disappearances of persons constitutes ongoing criminal activity that continues even as of today. The United States is not a contracting party to the Rome Statute. Nevertheless, the Accused ordered and were responsible for the commission of these I.C.C. statutory crimes on, in, and over the respective territories of several I.C.C. member states, including many located in Europe. Therefore, the I.C.C. has jurisdiction over the Accused for their I.C.C. statutory crimes in accordance with Rome Statute article 12(2)(a), which provides as follows: Article 12 Preconditions to the Exercise of Jurisdiction ... 2. In the case of article 13, paragraph (a) or (c), the Court may exercise its jurisdiction if one or more of the following States are Parties to this Statute or have accepted the jurisdiction of the Court in accordance with paragraph 3: (a) The State on the territory of which the conduct in question occurred ... So the fact that United States is not a contracting party to the Rome Statute is no bar to the I.C.C.'s prosecution of the Accused because they have ordered and been responsible for the commission of Rome Statute Crimes against Humanity on, in, and over the respective territories of several I.C.C. member states. Consequently, I hereby respectfully request that the Court exercise its jurisdiction over the Accused for these Crimes against Humanity in accordance with Rome Statute article 13(c), which provides as follows: Article 13 Exercise of Jurisdiction The Court may exercise its jurisdiction with respect to a crime referred to in article 5 in accordance with the provisions of this Statute if: ... (c) The Prosecutor has initiated an investigation in respect of such a crime in accordance with article 15. Pursuant to Rome Statute article 13(c), I hereby respectfully request that you initiate an investigation proprio motu against the Accused in accordance with Rome Statute article 15(1): "The Prosecutor may initiate investigations proprio motu on the basis of information on crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court." My detailed Complaint against the Accused constitutes the sufficient "information" required by article 15(1). Furthermore, I respectfully submit that this Complaint by itself constitutes "a reasonable basis to proceed with an investigation" under Rome Statute article 15(3). Hence, I also respectfully request that you formally "submit to the Pre-Trial Chamber a request for authorization of an investigation" of the Accused under Rome Statute article 15(3) at this time. Please inform me at your earliest convenience about the status and disposition of my two requests set forth immediately above. Based upon your extensive human rights work in Argentina, you know full well from direct personal experience the terrors and the horrors of enforced disappearances of persons and their consequent torture. According to reputable news media sources here in the United States, about 100 human beings have been subjected to enforced disappearances and subsequent torture by the Accused. We still have no accounting for these Victims. In other words, many of these Victims of enforced disappearances and torture by the Accused could still be alive today. Their very lives are at stake right now as we communicate. You could very well save some of their lives by publicly stating that you are opening an investigation of my Complaint. As for those Victims of enforced disappearances by the Accused who have died, your opening an investigation of my Complaint is the only means by which we might be able to obtain some explanation and accounting for their whereabouts and the location of their remains in order to communicate this critical information to their next- of-kin and loved-ones. Based upon your extensive experience combating enforced disappearances of persons and their consequent torture in Argentina, you know full well how important that objective is. The next-of-kin, loved-ones, and friends of "disappeared" human beings can never benefit from psychological "closure" unless and until there is an accounting for the fates, if not the remains, of the Victims. In part that is precisely why the Accused's enforced disappearances of about 100 human beings constitutes ongoing criminal activity that continues as of today and will continue until the fates of all their Victims have been officially determined by you opening an investigation into my Complaint. Let us mutually suppose that during the so-called "dirty war" in Argentina the International Criminal Court had been in existence. I submit that as an Argentinean human rights lawyer you would have moved heaven and earth and done everything in your power to get the I.C.C. and its Prosecutor to assume jurisdiction over the Argentine Junta in order to terminate and prosecute their enforced disappearances and torture of your fellow Argentinean citizens. I would have done the same. Unfortunately, the I.C.C. did not exist during those darkest of days for the Argentine Republic when we could have so acted. But today as the I.C.C. Prosecutor, you have both the opportunity and the legal power to do something to rectify this mass and total human rights annihilation, and to resolve and to terminate and to prosecute the "widespread" and "systematic" policy and practice of enforced disappearances and consequent torture of about 100 human beings by the Accused. Unfortunately, the new Obama administration in the United States has made it perfectly clear by means of public statements by President Obama and his Attorney General Eric Holder that they are not going to open any criminal investigation of any of the Accused for these aforementioned Crimes against Humanity. Hence an I.C.C. "case" against the Accused is "admissible" under Rome Statute article 1(complementarity) and article 17. As of right now you and the I.C.C. Judges are the only people in the entire world who can bring some degree of Justice, Closure, and Healing into this dire, tragic, and deplorable situation for the lives and well-being of about one hundred "disappeared" and tortured human beings as well as for their loved-ones and next-of-kin, who are also Victims of the Accused's Crimes against Humanity. On behalf of them all, as a fellow human rights lawyer I implore you to open an investigation into my Complaint and to issue a public statement to that effect. Also, most regretfully, the new Obama administration has publicly stated that it will continue the Accused's policy and practice of "extraordinary rendition," which is really their euphemism for enforced disappearances of human beings and consequent torture by other States. Hence the Highest Level Officials of the Obama administration fully intend to commit their own Crimes against Humanity under the I.C.C. Rome Statute - unless you stop them! Your opening an investigation of my Complaint will undoubtedly deter the Obama administration from engaging in any more "extraordinary renditions" -- enforced disappearances of human beings and having them tortured by other States. Indeed your opening of an investigation into my Complaint might encourage the Obama administration to terminate its criminal "extraordinary rendition" program immediately and thoroughly by means of issuing a public statement to that effect. In other words, your opening an investigation of my Complaint could very well save the lives of a large number of additional human beings who otherwise will be subjected by the Obama administration to the Rome Statute Crimes against Humanity of enforced disappearances of persons and their consequent torture by other States, inter alia. The lives and well-being of countless human beings are now at risk, hanging in the balance, waiting for you to act promptly, effectively, and immediately to save them from becoming Victims of Rome Statute Crimes against Humanity perpetrated by the Highest Level Officials of the Obama administration as successors-in-law to the Accused by opening an investigation of my Complaint. Otherwise, I shall be forced to file with you and the I.C.C. a follow-up Complaint against the Highest Level Officials of the Obama administration. I certainly hope it will not come to that. Please make it so. Finally, for reasons more fully explained in the Conclusion to my Complaint, I respectfully request that you obtain I.C.C. arrest warrants for the Accused in accordance with Rome Statute articles 58(1)(a), article 58(1)(b)(i), article 58(1)(b)(ii), and article 58(1)(b)(iii). The sooner, the better for all humankind. I respectfully request that you schedule a meeting with me at our earliest mutual convenience in order to discuss this Complaint. I look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience. This transmission letter is an integral part of my Complaint against the Accused and is hereby incorporated by reference into the attached Complaint dated as of today as well. Please accept, Sir, the assurance of my highest consideration. Francis A. Boyle Professor of International Law FRANCIS A. BOYLE is a leading American expert in international law. He was responsible for drafting the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989, the American implementing legislation for the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention. He served on the Board of Directors of Amnesty International (1988-1992), and represented Bosnia-Herzegovina at the World Court. He served as legal adviser to the Palestinian Delegation to the Middle East peace negotiations from 1991 to 1993. In 2007, he delivered the Bertrand Russell Peace Lectures. Previous Russell Lecturers have included E.P. Thompson, Elena Bonner, Edward Said, Ramsey Clark, Nobel Peace Prize Winner Joseph Rotblat, Johan Galtung, and Noam Chomsky. Professor Boyle teaches international law at the University of Illinois, Champaign and is author of, inter alia, The Future of International Law and American Foreign Policy, Foundations of World Order, The Criminality of Nuclear Deterrence, Palestine, Palestinians and International Law, Destroying World Order, Biowarfare & Terrorism. And Tackling America's Toughest Questions. He holds a Doctor of Law Magna Cum Laude as well as a Ph.D. in Political Science, both from Harvard University. You are listed as a subscriber to the list of Clarity Press, Inc. If this is incorrect and you wish to be removed, Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -----Original Message----- Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2017 6:53 PM To: SECTNS.aals at lists.aals.org Subject: [SECTNS.aals] - An ICC Investigation of the U.S. in Afghanistan: What does it Mean? | Just Security https://www.justsecurity.org/46687/icc-investigation-u-s-afghanistan-mean/ A pretty appalling piece at Just Security. The United States puts in place a 69 country torture regime, after the Senate Armed Forces and Judiciary reports someone can say what the US did was aberrational and limited. ________________________________ View post online: https://connect.aals.org/p/fo/st/?post=42183&anc=p42183#p42183 View mailing list online: https://connect.aals.org/p/fo/si/?topic=355 Start new thread via email: mailto:SECTNS.aals at lists.aals.org Unsubscribe from this mailing list: https://connect.aals.org/o/fo/?topic=355 Manage your subscription: https://connect.aals.org/p/us/to/ This email has been sent to: fboyle at illinois.edu This list is a forum for the exchange of points of view. Opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of the group associated with the list and do not necessarily represent the position of the Association of American Law Schools. Use of this email content is governed by the terms of service at: https://connect.aals.org/p/cm/ld/fid=280 ________________________________ From fboyle at illinois.edu Sun Nov 5 12:42:20 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2017 12:42:20 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: Francis Boyle sent you a video: "CROSBY, STILLS & NASH /// 9. Long Time Gone - (Crosby, Stills & Nash) - (1969)" In-Reply-To: References: <001a113ed2fa0186e7055d3110df@google.com> Message-ID: Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A [mailto:support at lists.aals.org] Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2017 7:07 PM To: sectns.aals at lists.aals.org Subject: [SECTNS.aals] - Francis Boyle sent you a video: "CROSBY, STILLS & NASH /// 9. Long Time Gone - (Crosby, Stills & Nash) - (1969)" Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Francis Boyle via YouTube [mailto:noreply at youtube.com] Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2017 7:03 PM To: Boyle, Francis A > Subject: Francis Boyle sent you a video: "CROSBY, STILLS & NASH /// 9. Long Time Gone - (Crosby, Stills & Nash) - (1969)" [http://s.ytimg.com/yt/img/email/digest/email_header.png] [https://yt3.ggpht.com/-w4phvYGWivc/AAAAAAAAAAI/AAAAAAAAAAA/_Vq2X19VNEk/s50-c-k-no-mo-rj-c0xffffff/photo.jpg] Francis Boyle has shared a video with you on YouTube [https://i.ytimg.com/vi/2DUqplxIcNk/mqdefault.jpg] CROSBY, STILLS & NASH /// 9. Long Time Gone - (Crosby, Stills & Nash) - (1969) by bluearmyaudio Artist: Crosby, Stills & Nash Album: Crosby, Stills & Nash (1969) Track: 9 It's been a long time comin' It's goin' to be a Long Time Gone. And it appears to be a long, Appears to be a long, Appears to be a long Time, yes, a long, long, long ,long time before the dawn. Turn, turn any corner. Hear, you must hear what the people say. You know there's something that's goin' on around here, The surely, surely, surely won't stand the light of day. And it appears to be a long, Appears to be a long, Appears to be a long Time, yes, a long, long, long ,long time before the dawn. Speak out, you got to speak out against the madness, You got to speak your mind, If you dare. But don't no don't now try to get yourself elected If you do you had better cut your hair. `Cause it appears to be a long, Appears to be a long, Appears to be a long, Time, such a long long long long time before the dawn. It's been a long time comin' It's goin' to be a long time gone. But ... Help center • Report spam ©2017 YouTube, LLC 901 Cherry Ave, San Bruno, CA 94066, USA ________________________________ Site Links: View post online View mailing list online Start new thread via email Unsubscribe from this mailing list Manage your subscription This email has been sent to: fboyle at illinois.edu This list is a forum for the exchange of points of view. Opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of the group associated with the list and do not necessarily represent the position of the Association of American Law Schools. Use of this email content is governed by the terms of service at: https://connect.aals.org/p/cm/ld/fid=280 ________________________________ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Sun Nov 5 12:42:20 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2017 12:42:20 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: Francis Boyle sent you a video: "CROSBY, STILLS & NASH /// 9. Long Time Gone - (Crosby, Stills & Nash) - (1969)" In-Reply-To: References: <001a113ed2fa0186e7055d3110df@google.com> Message-ID: Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A [mailto:support at lists.aals.org] Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2017 7:07 PM To: sectns.aals at lists.aals.org Subject: [SECTNS.aals] - Francis Boyle sent you a video: "CROSBY, STILLS & NASH /// 9. Long Time Gone - (Crosby, Stills & Nash) - (1969)" Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Francis Boyle via YouTube [mailto:noreply at youtube.com] Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2017 7:03 PM To: Boyle, Francis A > Subject: Francis Boyle sent you a video: "CROSBY, STILLS & NASH /// 9. Long Time Gone - (Crosby, Stills & Nash) - (1969)" [http://s.ytimg.com/yt/img/email/digest/email_header.png] [https://yt3.ggpht.com/-w4phvYGWivc/AAAAAAAAAAI/AAAAAAAAAAA/_Vq2X19VNEk/s50-c-k-no-mo-rj-c0xffffff/photo.jpg] Francis Boyle has shared a video with you on YouTube [https://i.ytimg.com/vi/2DUqplxIcNk/mqdefault.jpg] CROSBY, STILLS & NASH /// 9. Long Time Gone - (Crosby, Stills & Nash) - (1969) by bluearmyaudio Artist: Crosby, Stills & Nash Album: Crosby, Stills & Nash (1969) Track: 9 It's been a long time comin' It's goin' to be a Long Time Gone. And it appears to be a long, Appears to be a long, Appears to be a long Time, yes, a long, long, long ,long time before the dawn. Turn, turn any corner. Hear, you must hear what the people say. You know there's something that's goin' on around here, The surely, surely, surely won't stand the light of day. And it appears to be a long, Appears to be a long, Appears to be a long Time, yes, a long, long, long ,long time before the dawn. Speak out, you got to speak out against the madness, You got to speak your mind, If you dare. But don't no don't now try to get yourself elected If you do you had better cut your hair. `Cause it appears to be a long, Appears to be a long, Appears to be a long, Time, such a long long long long time before the dawn. It's been a long time comin' It's goin' to be a long time gone. But ... Help center • Report spam ©2017 YouTube, LLC 901 Cherry Ave, San Bruno, CA 94066, USA ________________________________ Site Links: View post online View mailing list online Start new thread via email Unsubscribe from this mailing list Manage your subscription This email has been sent to: fboyle at illinois.edu This list is a forum for the exchange of points of view. Opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of the group associated with the list and do not necessarily represent the position of the Association of American Law Schools. Use of this email content is governed by the terms of service at: https://connect.aals.org/p/cm/ld/fid=280 ________________________________ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Sun Nov 5 12:44:19 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2017 12:44:19 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG In-Reply-To: References: <9D3D5E59-5EFC-47DF-838D-C6508214E176@illinois.edu> Message-ID: All worthy discussion on this “Peace Discuss List” is totally lost and muted by the likes of Roger, whether he is a mole, lacking the polish and sophistication of most “USG moles,” military or otherwise. I’m not referring to FBI contractors who almost always lack polish and sophistication, or just a nut, either way, he doesn’t belong here. He admits he signed up because of Mr. Rokke, and he has bashed this person many times over the years on this list. I know not whether Mr. Rokke is on this list, but its all become too absurd, and distracting. Distracting from anti-war efforts and serious discussion. Oh, but “freedom of speech, right?” Just not on the “Peace List." On Nov 5, 2017, at 04:26, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: And I forgot to add: Roger is in favor of Depleted Uranium. He is just a Mole for Military Intelligence on another Peace List. fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2017 6:21 AM To: Karen Aram >; Peace-discuss > Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG For the record, Doug Rokke helped me and Ramsey Clark defend Phil Berrigan and the DU Plowshares. We started out with them facing 40 years. At the end of a kangaroo court proceeding, they got two. The Prosecutor had publicly stated he was going to put Phil away for the rest of his life. At least Phil was able to die at his home surrounded by his Family and Friends instead of in some Federal Hell Hole. RIP: Phil Berrigan. Fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Roger Helbig [mailto:rwhelbig at gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2017 5:22 AM To: Boyle, Francis A >; Karen Aram >; Peace-discuss > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG No, but Boyle likes to spread lies - I joined your list because of Douglas Lind Rokke, University of Illinois PhD graduate and resident of nearby Rantoul. Rokke is a professional liar (see my other much longer message which is still being edited). Roger W Helbig Richmond, CA My mother was 1941 graduate of the University of Illinois - sadly, she died two days after I was born due to childbirth complications. On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 8:02 AM, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: Dear Karen: With all due respect, you must understand: Roger is a Mole for Military Intelligence. That is why he is on this Peace list. fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Karen Aram [mailto:karenaram at hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2017 9:58 AM To: Roger Helbig > Cc: Boyle, Francis A >; Peace-discuss > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG Roger Your statement: "There was no massacre at Fallujah. This is nonsense. Mattis expected his troops to be peacekeepers.” is so ludicrous, it invites laughter, long and loud laughter, if it weren’t so tragic, the many lives destroyed as a result of “Mad Dog Mattis” and the USG in it’s continuing genocide. Nothing you say, can ever be taken seriously, your continued harassment of anti-war activists on this “Peace Discussion List” is anathema to everything it stands for. I have to ask what are you doing here if not, just to irritate. Okay maybe your goal is to entertain, but your entertainment is very sick. Anyone and everyone, who supports the wars and interventions the US has and continues to perpetrate around the world, has blood on their hands, as “complicit Americans." That is the way we are viewed by others in the world today. On Nov 4, 2017, at 07:31, Roger Helbig via Peace-discuss > wrote: what exactly is that supposed to mean - my choices of assignment were Intelligence, Weather and Cartography and the Air Force made me an Electronic Systems (ground radar maintenance) Officer - I liked languages - I was a literate three year old in Russian and wanted to learn more - I like puzzles - putting pieces together - that's what I thought intelligence officers did - Weather was where I got assigned for familiarization during summer camp so I somewhat expected that I would get that and a M/S in Meterology - Cartography because as a Geologist, I made maps of what was below the ground and cartographers made maps of what was above the ground. I voted for Democratic candidates starting with George McGovern - so I was not exactly a fan of Richard Nixon so hardly Nixonian! Roger On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 7:19 AM, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: “I wanted to be”—Military Intelligence. A Typical Nixonian Limited Hang-out. fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Roger Helbig [mailto:rwhelbig at gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2017 9:15 AM To: Boyle, Francis A >; Peace-discuss > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG and you spread lies - I never worked for military intelligence - they would not let me because I am partially color blind and to be an Air Force intelligence officer, you needed to be able to interpret false colors on air photos - I wanted to be because I like to work through problems and took Russian as an elective my senior year as part of my know your enemy program - Now, you have not refuted that The American Free Press was established by Willis Carto - that Carto was a Neo Nazi or that Bollyn worked for Carto and Buchanan - you more than likely have not read Blood and Politics - maybe some of the others were. I don't seem to have scan of page where the American Free Press was established to replace The Spotlight, but attached is the one where it discusses the establishment of The Barnes Review and the conference discussed on the blog is for both of these publications. On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 6:37 AM, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: Once again, Roger crawls out of his hole as a Mole for US “Military Intelligence”—an oxymoron to be sure. Fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Roger Helbig [mailto:rwhelbig at gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2017 8:12 AM To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: Karen Aram >; Estabrook, Carl G >; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Jay Becker >; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; Szoke, Ron >; Dave Trippel >; Arlene Hickory >; David Swanson >; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com;abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG You do know that Christopher Bollyn is NOT a reporter but is a Neo Nazi operative of long standing and that the American Free Press is not a news organization, but a Neo Nazi front - look up Willis Carto - he was Bollyn's boss and founded the American Free Press - this website that has reports of conference for American Free Press and The Barnes Review used to have a prominent picture of a Nazi flag behind the blogger Alex Hassinger - Douglas Lind Rokke of Urbana spoke at this event and Dave von Kleist the producer of Rokke's first anti-US propaganda video "Beyond Treason" was the master of ceremonies - http://www.chairmanofnordwave.blogspot.com Carto died in 2015 - there are a number of good sources on Carto in a simple Google search - Learn about Neo Nazis - read this book - "Blood and Politics" - it mentions Bollyn and extensively discusses Carto - pg 382, which I can e-mail to all who request - has Carto's establishment of The Barnes Review, a Holocaust Denial publication - The American Free Press replaced Carto's The Spotlight after Carto lost a legal battle - Bollyn is also mentioned in connection with a Pat Buchanan campaign apparatus On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 4:57 AM, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: I also want to make it clear for the record that before the invasions of Saipan, Tinian and Okinawa my Father, a Marine, was ordered by his Captain not to take prisoners of war on the grounds of reciprocity that the Japanese did not take Prisoners of War of our Men. My Father disobeyed these clearly illegal orders and took Japanese Prisoners of War. I cite the example of my Father to my law students to refute the objection that you cannot expect soldiers to obey the laws of war during combat. If my Father could obey the laws of war at Saipan, Tinian, and Okinawa, any other soldier should be able to do the same. Meanwhile,while I am teaching this to my students, the Illinois Nazis Law Faculty aid, abet, and promote and facilitate war crimes and crimes against humanity from the safety of their offices. My Father later became a Lawyer. RIP. The Illinois Nazis Law Faculty are despicable! Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2017 8:38 PM To: Roger Helbig > Cc: Karen Aram >; Estabrook, Carl G >; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Jay Becker >; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; Szoke, Ron >; Dave Trippel >; Arlene Hickory >; David Swanson >; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com;abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG Mad Dog Mattis the Nuremberg War Criminal. Fab. CONTROLLED PRESS IGNORES CRIMINAL OBLITERATION OF FALLUJAH By Christopher Bollyn American Free Press The controlled press has scrupulously avoided discussing the devastation and prima facie evidence of war crimes committed during the U.S. siege and assault of Fallujah. As Americans prepared for Thanksgiving, an estimated 100,000 residents of the besieged Iraqi city of Fallujah, trapped in their homes, struggled to survive without fresh food, water or electricity, reportedly cut off by U.S. forces on November 8. Meanwhile, on the streets of Fallujah, a city of more than 350,000, dogs gnawed on bloated and rotting corpses that remained unburied for weeks. Thousands of families in Fallujah were reported to be in a critical humanitarian situation after U.S. forces prevented the delivery of relief supplies. An Iraq Red Crescent Society (IRCS) humanitarian aid convoy, reportedly blocked by U.S. troops for more than two weeks, was allowed to deliver aid to residents in the heart of the city on November 25. On Thanksgiving, U.S. forces permitted the IRCS convoy carrying thousands of food parcels, blankets, tents and medical supplies to enter the city and allowed one of the clinics to be converted into a temporary hospital to treat the injured. Rana Sidani of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) in Geneva, Switzerland however, told American Free Press on Nov. 30 that "many civilians" were still prevented from receiving aid or medical care. At the beginning of the U.S. operation in Fallujah on Nov. 5, a hospital in the central Nazzal district of Fallujah was "reduced to rubble" as a result of U.S. air and artillery bombardment. "Only its façade, with a sign reading Nazzal Emergency Hospital, remained intact," Reuters reported. "A nearby compound used by the main Falluja Hospital to store medical supplies was also destroyed," witnesses told Reuters. Fallujah's main hospital was occupied by U.S. forces when the ground offensive began. These actions are apparent violations of international humanitarian law. "Bodies can be seen everywhere and people were crying when receiving the food parcels," Muhammad al-Nuri, a spokesman for the IRCS in Baghdad, said. "It is very sad. It is a human disaster." Al-Nuri said that it is difficult to move in the city due to the large number of dead bodies in the streets. The ICRS estimates there are more than 6,000 dead in Fallujah, al-Nuri said. AFP asked Major Jay Antonelli at the Coalition Press Information Center (CPIC) in Baghdad if the ICRS estimate of 6,000 dead in Fallujah was credible. "We do not keep a count of dead Iraqis," Antonelli said. Asked the same question, the ICRC's Sidani said, "We don't know." Antonelli said, "U.S. forces never blocked aid convoys from reaching the wounded. We only recommended to the aid convoys that they should not enter the city because the MNF [Multi-National Forces] could not guarantee their security or safety." "The ICRC is very worried about the humanitarian situation in Falluja," Sidani said. Asked what the ICRC was doing to alleviate the suffering in Fallujah, Sidani said: "We are reminding the parties of their responsibilities under international humanitarian law." It should be noted that the U.S.A. and Britain, the belligerent occupying powers in Iraq, are the two largest contributors to the ICRC, providing more than 42 percent of its budget for field operations. A second convoy from Baghdad, headed by Dr. Said Ismael Haki, the IRCS president, delivered aid to Fallujah on Nov. 26. "There are no houses left in Fallujah, only destroyed places." Haki said. "I really don't know how the people will return to the city. No one will find their homes." As U.S. troops in Fallujah engaged in what has been described as the most intense urban combat since Vietnam, the controlled press scrupulously avoided discussion or footage of the devastation of the rebellious Sunni city. For example, during the second week of the attack, rather than discuss the widespread devastation of Fallujah, U.S. television news programs focused largely on a brawl between basketball players and fans in Detroit. Lt. Col. Brandl, commander of the 1st Battalion, 8th Marine Regiment, was filmed giving a "pep talk" to his marines: "The enemy has got a face – he's called Satan," Brandl said. "He's in Fallujah, and we're going to destroy him." At least 136 U.S. soldiers were killed during November in Iraq, and more than 800 were wounded, most of them in Fallujah, making it the most costly month, and operation, in terms of U.S. lives lost since the invasion of Iraq began in March 2003. FOR WHAT CAUSE? Michael Ware, Baghdad bureau chief for Time magazine, who has been in Fallujah during the fighting, said U.S. actions in Fallujah are "creating the nightmare that we are seeking to prevent." "I stood there as I saw American boys die," Ware told Chris Matthews of MSNBC on Nov. 24, "I mean, a man shot at close range, blown apart by a rocket propelled grenade. He dies there in front of you and I can't help but think why? For what cause? "I see us creating the very thing that the president said we went there to prevent," Ware said, "…subsequent to this invasion and the occupation and the guerrilla war that is currently underway, we are the midwives of the next generation of al Qaida and Islamic terrorist." Ware, who has interviewed senior insurgent leaders, said they study the writings of the Vietnamese general Vo Nguyen Giap, Che Guevara, and Mao Zedong. "They're bringing it straight from the Vietnam, and the broader insurgency playbook," Ware said. "The name of the game is deny the population to the insurgents," Ware said. "That's what we're trying to do, win hearts and minds. But we're not winning them." The U.S. struggle to win Iraqi hearts and minds suffered a further set back when NBC TV broadcast footage of a U.S. marine executing a wounded and unarmed Iraqi in a Fallujah mosque. The much-publicized shooting, apparently part of a massacre of a group of wounded resistance fighters, "was a rare crack in the façade that Washington, with the complicity of most of the corporate media, has tried to present to the world of its brutal assault on the rebel Iraqi city," Rohan Pearce wrote in The Greenleft Weekly Australia on Nov. 24. The New York Times has reported actions taken by U.S. forces in Fallujah, which appear to be prima facie evidence of war crimes, without mentioning that the actions constitute clear violations of the Laws of Land War found in the U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10. For example, a Nov. 20 Times article by Edward Wong, with two correspondents in Fallujah, reports that U.S. marines had transformed a mosque into a fortress with snipers and machine gunners perched on the roof. Then, using the passive form, Wong goes on to say that "no neutral group has been able to enter the city," without mentioning that U.S. forces blocked humanitarian aid convoys. Likewise, Wong wrote, "Electricity and water had been cut off." The Times, whose motto is "All the news that's fit to print," apparently didn't think that it's readers needed to know the U.S. forces had cut off the water and power to a city of 340,000 people. Asked if U.S. forces had cut power and water to Fallujah, Maj. Jay Antonelli of CPIC wrote: "MNF did, with approval of the Interim Iraqi Government, cut off electricity to the city of Fallujah as Operation Al-Fajr began. Water was not cut off intentionally, however the water system did sustain some kinetic damage during strikes." American Free Press asked the Pentagon's Lt. Col. Joe Yoswa if it is true that U.S. forces were using mosques as fortresses. "It's not possible," Yoswa said. "Under no circumstances. We would not set up snipers in a mosque in an offensive position." CPIC's Antonelli said: "MNF would not use a mosque as a 'fortress.' MNF and Iraqi security forces would only fire from a mosque if they were being fired upon and were firing back in self-defense." Abu Sabah, a refugee from Fallujah, reported seeing phosphorus bombs: "They used these weird bombs that put up smoke like a mushroom cloud. Then small pieces fell from the air with long tails of smoke trailing behind them. These exploded on the ground with large fires that burnt for half and hour," Abu Sabah said. "When anyone touched these fires their bodies burnt for hours." Eyewitnesses from Fallujah also reported seeing "melted" bodies. "THROW-AWAY SOLDIERS" Having seen what appeared to be a depleted uranium (DU) missile fired at a building in Fallujah on CNN during the first week of the fighting, AFP asked the Pentagon if DU weapons are being used in Fallujah. "Yes," Yoswa said, "DU is a standard round on the M-1 Abrams tank." Because U.S. marines in Fallujah are very close to the poison gas produced by exploded DU shells, AFP asked Yoswa if anything was being done to protect the troops from DU poisoning. Yoswa seemed unaware of the dangers posed by the use of DU. Marion Fulk, a retired nuclear scientist from Livermore National Lab told AFP that U.S. troops in DU contaminated battlefields are considered "throw-away soldiers." The Marines exposed to DU in Fallujah, and elsewhere, face greatly increased risks of cancer, deformed children, and other health problems in the future. OBLITERATION OF FALLUJAH The "obliteration of Fallujah" is a serious war crime, according to Francis A. Boyle, a professor of international law at the University of Illinois. "The obliteration of Fallujah continues apace," Boyle wrote in his Nov. 15 article, A War Crime in Real Time: Obliterating Fallujah. "Article 6(b) of the 1945 Nuremberg Charter defines a Nuremberg War Crime in relevant part as the 'wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages.' According to this definitive definition, the Bush administration's destruction of Fallujah constitutes a war crime for which Nazis were tried and executed." Finis -30- 1629 words ________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The all-new My Yahoo! – What will yours do? Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2017 8:13 PM To: 'Roger Helbig' > Cc: 'Karen Aram' >; Estabrook, Carl G >; 'peace-discuss at anti-war.net' >; 'C. G. ESTABROOK' >; 'Jay Becker' >; 'a-fields at uiuc.edu' >; Hoffman, Valerie J >; 'Joe Lauria' >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; Szoke, Ron >; 'Dave Trippel' >; 'Arlene Hickory' >; 'David Swanson' >; 'peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net' >; 'sherwoodross10 at gmail.com' >; 'abass10 at gmail.com' >; 'mickalideh at gmail.com' >; 'Lina Thorne' >; 'chicago at worldcantwait.net' > Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG Mattis expected his troops to be peacekeepers. They brought soccer balls with them when they deployed. LOL! Marines don’t play soccer or teach kids to play soccer.. My Dad was a Marine. He invaded Saipan, Tinian and Okinawa before he became a Lawyer. Marines destroy anyone and anything that is in front of them as they are trained to do and did at Fallujah under Mattis—A Real Mad Dog War Criminal. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2017 7:52 PM To: 'Roger Helbig' > Cc: Karen Aram >; Estabrook, Carl G >; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Jay Becker >; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; Szoke, Ron >; Dave Trippel >; Arlene Hickory >; David Swanson >; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com;abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG -----Original Message----- From: Karim A G [mailto:coffee at euro-comm.co.uk] Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2004 5:00 PM To: Karim A G Subject: A War Crime in Real Time http://www.counterpunch.org/boyle11152004.html November 15, 2004 A War Crime in Real Time Obliterating Fallujah By FRANCIS A. BOYLE The obliteration of Fallujah continues apace. Article 6(b) of the 1945 Nuremberg Charter defines a Nuremberg War Crime in relevant part as the ". . . wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages. . ." According to this definitive definition, the Bush Jr. administration's destruction of Fallujah constitutes a war crime for which Nazis were tried and executed. There is nothing surprising about that. Since the Bush Jr. administration's installation in power by the United States Supreme Court in January of 2001, the peoples of the world have witnessed a government in the United States of America that has demonstrated little if any respect for fundamental considerations of international law, international organizations, and human rights, let alone appreciation of the requirements for maintaining international peace and security. What the world has watched instead is a comprehensive and malicious assault upon the integrity of the international legal order by a group of men and women who are thoroughly Machiavellian in their perception of international relations and in their conduct of both foreign policy and domestic affairs. This is not simply a question of giving or withholding the benefit of the doubt when it comes to complicated matters of foreign affairs and defense policies to a U.S. government charged with the security of both its own citizens and those of its allies in Europe, the Western Hemisphere, and the Pacific. Rather, the Bush Jr. administration's foreign policy constitutes ongoing criminal activity under well-recognized principles of both international law and U.S. domestic law, in particular the Nuremberg Charter, the Nuremberg Judgment, and the Nuremberg Principles. So their obliteration of Fallujah was to be expected. One generation ago the peoples of the world asked themselves: Where were the "good" Germans? Well, there were some good Germans. The Lutheran theologian and pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer was the foremost exemplar of someone who led a life of principled opposition to the Nazi-terror state even unto death. Today the peoples of the world are likewise asking themselves: Where are the "good" Americans? Well, there are some good Americans. Like three Catholic Nuns in Denver, they are getting arrested and going to jail for protesting against United States weapons of mass destruction (WMD) whose power for human extermination far exceeds even the wildest fantasies of Hitler and the Nazis. Or else for protesting against illegal U.S.. military interventions around the world. Just recently the Nuclear Resister estimated that since the Fall of 2002, there have been more than 9,500 anti-war related arrests in the United States alone. Many more will be coming. In international legal terms, the Bush Jr. administration itself should now be viewed as constituting an ongoing criminal conspiracy under international criminal law in violation of the Nuremberg Charter, the Nuremberg Judgment, and the Nuremberg Principles, due to its formulation and undertaking of aggressive war policies that are legally akin to those perpetrated by the Nazi regime. As a consequence, American citizens possess the basic right under international law and the United States domestic law, including the U.S. Constitution, to engage in acts of non-violent civil resistance in order to prevent, impede, thwart, or terminate ongoing criminal activities perpetrated by U.S. government officials in their conduct of foreign affairs policies and military operations purported to relate to defense and counter-terrorism. This same right of civil resistance extends pari passu to all citizens of the world community of states. Everyone around the world has both the right and the duty under international law to resist ongoing criminal activities perpetrated by the Bush Jr. administration and its nefarious foreign accomplices such as Blair, Berlusconi, Howard, Koizumi, Kwasniewski, etc. by all non-violent means possible. If it is not so restrained, the Bush Jr. administration could very well precipitate a Third World War. The time for preventive action is now. Civil resistance is the way to go. People power can overcome power politics. Popular movements have succeeded in toppling tyrannical, dictatorial and authoritarian regimes throughout former Communist countries in Eastern Europe, as well as in Asia, and most recently in Latin America. It is time once again to exercise People Power here in the United States of America: "When in the Course of human Events. . . We hold these Truths to be self-evident. . . . we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and sacred Honor." Despite the best efforts by the Bush Jr. Leaguers to the contrary, we American Citizens still have our First Amendment Rights: Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Association, Freedom of Assembly, Freedom to Petition our Government for the Redress of these massive Grievances, Civil Resistance, etc. We are going to have to start vigorously exercising all of our First Amendment Rights right now. We must use them or else, as the saying goes, we will lose them. We must act not only for the good of the Peoples of Southwest Asia, but for our future, that of our children, that of our nation as a democratic society committed to the Rule of Law and the U.S. Constitution. The Nazis had their "homeland" too Francis A. Boyle, Professor of Law, University of Illinois, is author of Foundations of World Order, Duke University Press, The Criminality of Nuclear Deterrence, and Palestine, Palestinians and International Law, by Clarity Press. He can be reached at: FBOYLE at LAW.UIUC.EDU --- Subscribed as: fboyle at law.uiuc.edu; to unsubscribe send to al-awda-universalist-request at umich.edu with UNSUBSCRIBE as the SUBJECT. URL: Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Roger Helbig [mailto:rwhelbig at gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2017 6:43 PM To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: Karen Aram >; Estabrook, Carl G >; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Jay Becker >; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; Szoke, Ron >; Dave Trippel >; Arlene Hickory >; David Swanson >; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com;abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG There was no massacre at Fallujah. This is nonsense. Mattis expected his troops to be peacekeepers. They brought soccer balls with them when they deployed. I would love to see your "so called" war crime indictment. Wonder how much of it is from your fertile Hate America imagination and how much from the fertile Arab anti-American propaganda organs. Doubt a single paragraph is actually based on fact. On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 8:22 AM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss > wrote: Trump’s Secretary of War Mad Dog Mattis was responsible for the Massacre at Fallujah, which I pointed out on Counterpunch was a Nuremberg War Crime along the lines of the Nazis—the wanton devastation of a city-- in revenge for them killing our mercenaries. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Karen Aram [mailto:karenaram at hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2017 10:04 AM To: Estabrook, Carl G > Cc: Boyle, Francis A >; Jay Becker >; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; Szoke, Ron >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; Arlene Hickory >; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; David Swanson >; Dave Trippel >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Mildred O'brien >; David Johnson >; Joe Lauria >; David Green > Subject: Re: Guest Commentary by Carl in NG I’m sorry Carl, I don’t agree with that title either. It assumes that all in the anti-war movement welcome the Trump administration. Not all of us trust he will do some of that which he promised in respect to “defunding Nato,” “making friends with Russia,” or killing TPP. Even if he does those three things, his further provocations of China, are every bit as dangerous as those with Russia, it’s a mere tactic to drive a wedge between Russia and China, while chipping away at Iran. His Cabinet appointments are frightening to say the least in respect to Healthcare, Energy, Education, Housing, etc, etc. Further expansion of war in the Middle East, and North Africa, as well as expansion of capitalist corporate control is on the agenda no matter which of the two Party’s are in power. Obama paved the way, for all of which I have just referred, but it’s not over. Our only hope is that “the people” are now awake, and perhaps will focus on that which is most serious to survival. On Jan 22, 2017, at 07:44, Carl G. Estabrook > wrote: My original title was, “Why the anti-war movement welcomes the new administration.” For more on that theme, see >. —CGE On Jan 22, 2017, at 9:29 AM, Karen Aram > wrote: An excellent letter, which I posted on FB. I deliberately deleted the title that I assumed the NG created, because it gives the false impression that those of us in the anti-war movement, all support Trump. We don’t, we just didn’t support Hillary. Anyone in the anti-war movement supporting Hillary was supporting more of the same that Obama provided. On Jan 22, 2017, at 07:16, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: He {Obama} attacked eight countries (two more than George Bush), and conducted what one leading political commentator called "the most extreme terrorist campaign of modern times — his drone assassinations." He killed thousands of civilians with drones, including U.S. citizens and hundreds of children. A good letter by Carl today in NG. (Remember NG writes their own titles to letters.) We must now hold Trump’s feet to the fire across the board! I think Carl’s quote comes from Chomsky? In any event the Illinois Nazis Law Faculty fully supported and promoted and held out for emulation by lawyers and this Campus and our Good Community: "the most extreme terrorist campaign of modern times — his drone assassinations." The Illinois Nazis Law Faculty are just a GANG OF SICK PUPPIES! Fab Ed Norton Professor of Law Carl Schmitt College of Law: “Mein Fuhrer, I can walk!” Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) Feed: News-Gazette.com Posted on: Sunday, January 22, 2017 7:00 AM Author: digital.media Subject: Guest Commentary: Why anti-war movement welcomes Trump By C.G. ESTABROOK The European anti-war group "No War No NATO" writes as follows: "Demonstrating in Europe on 21 January, against the newly elected US President Donald Trump is tantamount to lending support to the Obama administration, which has transformed Europe into NATO's first line of attack, nuclear matters inclusive, against Russia. read more View article... _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.chambana.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fpeace-discuss&data=02%7C01%7Ckarenaram%40hotmail.com%7C6ea0294d887b4910ba5108d52390c739%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636454027089337207&sdata=v2ho9fKU8A%2F2dSYUS31%2Br1UPu4HaEfckCXJTgUP7vcU%3D&reserved=0 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Sun Nov 5 12:47:47 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2017 12:47:47 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG In-Reply-To: References: <9D3D5E59-5EFC-47DF-838D-C6508214E176@illinois.edu> Message-ID: Roger is deliberately on this Peace List in order to disrupt it, as he has done on other Peace lists, as a Mole for Military Intelligence. This happens to many if not most Peace Lists. They have MI Moles on there. How you all deal with Roger is up to you. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Karen Aram [mailto:karenaram at hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2017 6:44 AM To: Boyle, Francis A ; C G Estabrook ; David Green ; Stuart Levy Cc: Peace-discuss Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG All worthy discussion on this “Peace Discuss List” is totally lost and muted by the likes of Roger, whether he is a mole, lacking the polish and sophistication of most “USG moles,” military or otherwise. I’m not referring to FBI contractors who almost always lack polish and sophistication, or just a nut, either way, he doesn’t belong here. He admits he signed up because of Mr. Rokke, and he has bashed this person many times over the years on this list. I know not whether Mr. Rokke is on this list, but its all become too absurd, and distracting. Distracting from anti-war efforts and serious discussion. Oh, but “freedom of speech, right?” Just not on the “Peace List." On Nov 5, 2017, at 04:26, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: And I forgot to add: Roger is in favor of Depleted Uranium. He is just a Mole for Military Intelligence on another Peace List. fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2017 6:21 AM To: Karen Aram >; Peace-discuss > Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG For the record, Doug Rokke helped me and Ramsey Clark defend Phil Berrigan and the DU Plowshares. We started out with them facing 40 years. At the end of a kangaroo court proceeding, they got two. The Prosecutor had publicly stated he was going to put Phil away for the rest of his life. At least Phil was able to die at his home surrounded by his Family and Friends instead of in some Federal Hell Hole. RIP: Phil Berrigan. Fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Roger Helbig [mailto:rwhelbig at gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2017 5:22 AM To: Boyle, Francis A >; Karen Aram >; Peace-discuss > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG No, but Boyle likes to spread lies - I joined your list because of Douglas Lind Rokke, University of Illinois PhD graduate and resident of nearby Rantoul. Rokke is a professional liar (see my other much longer message which is still being edited). Roger W Helbig Richmond, CA My mother was 1941 graduate of the University of Illinois - sadly, she died two days after I was born due to childbirth complications. On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 8:02 AM, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: Dear Karen: With all due respect, you must understand: Roger is a Mole for Military Intelligence. That is why he is on this Peace list. fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Karen Aram [mailto:karenaram at hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2017 9:58 AM To: Roger Helbig > Cc: Boyle, Francis A >; Peace-discuss > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG Roger Your statement: "There was no massacre at Fallujah. This is nonsense. Mattis expected his troops to be peacekeepers.” is so ludicrous, it invites laughter, long and loud laughter, if it weren’t so tragic, the many lives destroyed as a result of “Mad Dog Mattis” and the USG in it’s continuing genocide. Nothing you say, can ever be taken seriously, your continued harassment of anti-war activists on this “Peace Discussion List” is anathema to everything it stands for. I have to ask what are you doing here if not, just to irritate. Okay maybe your goal is to entertain, but your entertainment is very sick. Anyone and everyone, who supports the wars and interventions the US has and continues to perpetrate around the world, has blood on their hands, as “complicit Americans." That is the way we are viewed by others in the world today. On Nov 4, 2017, at 07:31, Roger Helbig via Peace-discuss > wrote: what exactly is that supposed to mean - my choices of assignment were Intelligence, Weather and Cartography and the Air Force made me an Electronic Systems (ground radar maintenance) Officer - I liked languages - I was a literate three year old in Russian and wanted to learn more - I like puzzles - putting pieces together - that's what I thought intelligence officers did - Weather was where I got assigned for familiarization during summer camp so I somewhat expected that I would get that and a M/S in Meterology - Cartography because as a Geologist, I made maps of what was below the ground and cartographers made maps of what was above the ground. I voted for Democratic candidates starting with George McGovern - so I was not exactly a fan of Richard Nixon so hardly Nixonian! Roger On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 7:19 AM, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: “I wanted to be”—Military Intelligence. A Typical Nixonian Limited Hang-out. fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Roger Helbig [mailto:rwhelbig at gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2017 9:15 AM To: Boyle, Francis A >; Peace-discuss > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG and you spread lies - I never worked for military intelligence - they would not let me because I am partially color blind and to be an Air Force intelligence officer, you needed to be able to interpret false colors on air photos - I wanted to be because I like to work through problems and took Russian as an elective my senior year as part of my know your enemy program - Now, you have not refuted that The American Free Press was established by Willis Carto - that Carto was a Neo Nazi or that Bollyn worked for Carto and Buchanan - you more than likely have not read Blood and Politics - maybe some of the others were. I don't seem to have scan of page where the American Free Press was established to replace The Spotlight, but attached is the one where it discusses the establishment of The Barnes Review and the conference discussed on the blog is for both of these publications. On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 6:37 AM, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: Once again, Roger crawls out of his hole as a Mole for US “Military Intelligence”—an oxymoron to be sure. Fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Roger Helbig [mailto:rwhelbig at gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2017 8:12 AM To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: Karen Aram >; Estabrook, Carl G >; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Jay Becker >; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; Szoke, Ron >; Dave Trippel >; Arlene Hickory >; David Swanson >; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com;abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG You do know that Christopher Bollyn is NOT a reporter but is a Neo Nazi operative of long standing and that the American Free Press is not a news organization, but a Neo Nazi front - look up Willis Carto - he was Bollyn's boss and founded the American Free Press - this website that has reports of conference for American Free Press and The Barnes Review used to have a prominent picture of a Nazi flag behind the blogger Alex Hassinger - Douglas Lind Rokke of Urbana spoke at this event and Dave von Kleist the producer of Rokke's first anti-US propaganda video "Beyond Treason" was the master of ceremonies - http://www.chairmanofnordwave.blogspot.com Carto died in 2015 - there are a number of good sources on Carto in a simple Google search - Learn about Neo Nazis - read this book - "Blood and Politics" - it mentions Bollyn and extensively discusses Carto - pg 382, which I can e-mail to all who request - has Carto's establishment of The Barnes Review, a Holocaust Denial publication - The American Free Press replaced Carto's The Spotlight after Carto lost a legal battle - Bollyn is also mentioned in connection with a Pat Buchanan campaign apparatus On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 4:57 AM, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: I also want to make it clear for the record that before the invasions of Saipan, Tinian and Okinawa my Father, a Marine, was ordered by his Captain not to take prisoners of war on the grounds of reciprocity that the Japanese did not take Prisoners of War of our Men. My Father disobeyed these clearly illegal orders and took Japanese Prisoners of War. I cite the example of my Father to my law students to refute the objection that you cannot expect soldiers to obey the laws of war during combat. If my Father could obey the laws of war at Saipan, Tinian, and Okinawa, any other soldier should be able to do the same. Meanwhile,while I am teaching this to my students, the Illinois Nazis Law Faculty aid, abet, and promote and facilitate war crimes and crimes against humanity from the safety of their offices. My Father later became a Lawyer. RIP. The Illinois Nazis Law Faculty are despicable! Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2017 8:38 PM To: Roger Helbig > Cc: Karen Aram >; Estabrook, Carl G >; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Jay Becker >; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; Szoke, Ron >; Dave Trippel >; Arlene Hickory >; David Swanson >; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com;abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG Mad Dog Mattis the Nuremberg War Criminal. Fab. CONTROLLED PRESS IGNORES CRIMINAL OBLITERATION OF FALLUJAH By Christopher Bollyn American Free Press The controlled press has scrupulously avoided discussing the devastation and prima facie evidence of war crimes committed during the U.S. siege and assault of Fallujah. As Americans prepared for Thanksgiving, an estimated 100,000 residents of the besieged Iraqi city of Fallujah, trapped in their homes, struggled to survive without fresh food, water or electricity, reportedly cut off by U.S. forces on November 8. Meanwhile, on the streets of Fallujah, a city of more than 350,000, dogs gnawed on bloated and rotting corpses that remained unburied for weeks. Thousands of families in Fallujah were reported to be in a critical humanitarian situation after U.S. forces prevented the delivery of relief supplies. An Iraq Red Crescent Society (IRCS) humanitarian aid convoy, reportedly blocked by U.S. troops for more than two weeks, was allowed to deliver aid to residents in the heart of the city on November 25. On Thanksgiving, U.S. forces permitted the IRCS convoy carrying thousands of food parcels, blankets, tents and medical supplies to enter the city and allowed one of the clinics to be converted into a temporary hospital to treat the injured. Rana Sidani of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) in Geneva, Switzerland however, told American Free Press on Nov. 30 that "many civilians" were still prevented from receiving aid or medical care. At the beginning of the U.S. operation in Fallujah on Nov. 5, a hospital in the central Nazzal district of Fallujah was "reduced to rubble" as a result of U.S. air and artillery bombardment. "Only its façade, with a sign reading Nazzal Emergency Hospital, remained intact," Reuters reported. "A nearby compound used by the main Falluja Hospital to store medical supplies was also destroyed," witnesses told Reuters. Fallujah's main hospital was occupied by U.S. forces when the ground offensive began. These actions are apparent violations of international humanitarian law. "Bodies can be seen everywhere and people were crying when receiving the food parcels," Muhammad al-Nuri, a spokesman for the IRCS in Baghdad, said. "It is very sad. It is a human disaster." Al-Nuri said that it is difficult to move in the city due to the large number of dead bodies in the streets. The ICRS estimates there are more than 6,000 dead in Fallujah, al-Nuri said. AFP asked Major Jay Antonelli at the Coalition Press Information Center (CPIC) in Baghdad if the ICRS estimate of 6,000 dead in Fallujah was credible. "We do not keep a count of dead Iraqis," Antonelli said. Asked the same question, the ICRC's Sidani said, "We don't know." Antonelli said, "U.S. forces never blocked aid convoys from reaching the wounded. We only recommended to the aid convoys that they should not enter the city because the MNF [Multi-National Forces] could not guarantee their security or safety." "The ICRC is very worried about the humanitarian situation in Falluja," Sidani said. Asked what the ICRC was doing to alleviate the suffering in Fallujah, Sidani said: "We are reminding the parties of their responsibilities under international humanitarian law." It should be noted that the U.S.A. and Britain, the belligerent occupying powers in Iraq, are the two largest contributors to the ICRC, providing more than 42 percent of its budget for field operations. A second convoy from Baghdad, headed by Dr. Said Ismael Haki, the IRCS president, delivered aid to Fallujah on Nov. 26. "There are no houses left in Fallujah, only destroyed places." Haki said. "I really don't know how the people will return to the city. No one will find their homes." As U.S. troops in Fallujah engaged in what has been described as the most intense urban combat since Vietnam, the controlled press scrupulously avoided discussion or footage of the devastation of the rebellious Sunni city. For example, during the second week of the attack, rather than discuss the widespread devastation of Fallujah, U.S. television news programs focused largely on a brawl between basketball players and fans in Detroit. Lt. Col. Brandl, commander of the 1st Battalion, 8th Marine Regiment, was filmed giving a "pep talk" to his marines: "The enemy has got a face – he's called Satan," Brandl said. "He's in Fallujah, and we're going to destroy him." At least 136 U.S. soldiers were killed during November in Iraq, and more than 800 were wounded, most of them in Fallujah, making it the most costly month, and operation, in terms of U.S. lives lost since the invasion of Iraq began in March 2003. FOR WHAT CAUSE? Michael Ware, Baghdad bureau chief for Time magazine, who has been in Fallujah during the fighting, said U.S. actions in Fallujah are "creating the nightmare that we are seeking to prevent." "I stood there as I saw American boys die," Ware told Chris Matthews of MSNBC on Nov. 24, "I mean, a man shot at close range, blown apart by a rocket propelled grenade. He dies there in front of you and I can't help but think why? For what cause? "I see us creating the very thing that the president said we went there to prevent," Ware said, "…subsequent to this invasion and the occupation and the guerrilla war that is currently underway, we are the midwives of the next generation of al Qaida and Islamic terrorist." Ware, who has interviewed senior insurgent leaders, said they study the writings of the Vietnamese general Vo Nguyen Giap, Che Guevara, and Mao Zedong. "They're bringing it straight from the Vietnam, and the broader insurgency playbook," Ware said. "The name of the game is deny the population to the insurgents," Ware said. "That's what we're trying to do, win hearts and minds. But we're not winning them." The U.S. struggle to win Iraqi hearts and minds suffered a further set back when NBC TV broadcast footage of a U.S. marine executing a wounded and unarmed Iraqi in a Fallujah mosque. The much-publicized shooting, apparently part of a massacre of a group of wounded resistance fighters, "was a rare crack in the façade that Washington, with the complicity of most of the corporate media, has tried to present to the world of its brutal assault on the rebel Iraqi city," Rohan Pearce wrote in The Greenleft Weekly Australia on Nov. 24. The New York Times has reported actions taken by U.S. forces in Fallujah, which appear to be prima facie evidence of war crimes, without mentioning that the actions constitute clear violations of the Laws of Land War found in the U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10. For example, a Nov. 20 Times article by Edward Wong, with two correspondents in Fallujah, reports that U.S. marines had transformed a mosque into a fortress with snipers and machine gunners perched on the roof. Then, using the passive form, Wong goes on to say that "no neutral group has been able to enter the city," without mentioning that U.S. forces blocked humanitarian aid convoys. Likewise, Wong wrote, "Electricity and water had been cut off." The Times, whose motto is "All the news that's fit to print," apparently didn't think that it's readers needed to know the U.S. forces had cut off the water and power to a city of 340,000 people. Asked if U.S. forces had cut power and water to Fallujah, Maj. Jay Antonelli of CPIC wrote: "MNF did, with approval of the Interim Iraqi Government, cut off electricity to the city of Fallujah as Operation Al-Fajr began. Water was not cut off intentionally, however the water system did sustain some kinetic damage during strikes." American Free Press asked the Pentagon's Lt. Col. Joe Yoswa if it is true that U.S. forces were using mosques as fortresses. "It's not possible," Yoswa said. "Under no circumstances. We would not set up snipers in a mosque in an offensive position." CPIC's Antonelli said: "MNF would not use a mosque as a 'fortress.' MNF and Iraqi security forces would only fire from a mosque if they were being fired upon and were firing back in self-defense." Abu Sabah, a refugee from Fallujah, reported seeing phosphorus bombs: "They used these weird bombs that put up smoke like a mushroom cloud. Then small pieces fell from the air with long tails of smoke trailing behind them. These exploded on the ground with large fires that burnt for half and hour," Abu Sabah said. "When anyone touched these fires their bodies burnt for hours." Eyewitnesses from Fallujah also reported seeing "melted" bodies. "THROW-AWAY SOLDIERS" Having seen what appeared to be a depleted uranium (DU) missile fired at a building in Fallujah on CNN during the first week of the fighting, AFP asked the Pentagon if DU weapons are being used in Fallujah. "Yes," Yoswa said, "DU is a standard round on the M-1 Abrams tank." Because U.S. marines in Fallujah are very close to the poison gas produced by exploded DU shells, AFP asked Yoswa if anything was being done to protect the troops from DU poisoning. Yoswa seemed unaware of the dangers posed by the use of DU. Marion Fulk, a retired nuclear scientist from Livermore National Lab told AFP that U.S. troops in DU contaminated battlefields are considered "throw-away soldiers." The Marines exposed to DU in Fallujah, and elsewhere, face greatly increased risks of cancer, deformed children, and other health problems in the future. OBLITERATION OF FALLUJAH The "obliteration of Fallujah" is a serious war crime, according to Francis A. Boyle, a professor of international law at the University of Illinois. "The obliteration of Fallujah continues apace," Boyle wrote in his Nov. 15 article, A War Crime in Real Time: Obliterating Fallujah. "Article 6(b) of the 1945 Nuremberg Charter defines a Nuremberg War Crime in relevant part as the 'wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages.' According to this definitive definition, the Bush administration's destruction of Fallujah constitutes a war crime for which Nazis were tried and executed." Finis -30- 1629 words ________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The all-new My Yahoo! – What will yours do? Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2017 8:13 PM To: 'Roger Helbig' > Cc: 'Karen Aram' >; Estabrook, Carl G >; 'peace-discuss at anti-war.net' >; 'C. G. ESTABROOK' >; 'Jay Becker' >; 'a-fields at uiuc.edu' >; Hoffman, Valerie J >; 'Joe Lauria' >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; Szoke, Ron >; 'Dave Trippel' >; 'Arlene Hickory' >; 'David Swanson' >; 'peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net' >; 'sherwoodross10 at gmail.com' >; 'abass10 at gmail.com' >; 'mickalideh at gmail.com' >; 'Lina Thorne' >; 'chicago at worldcantwait.net' > Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG Mattis expected his troops to be peacekeepers. They brought soccer balls with them when they deployed. LOL! Marines don’t play soccer or teach kids to play soccer.. My Dad was a Marine. He invaded Saipan, Tinian and Okinawa before he became a Lawyer. Marines destroy anyone and anything that is in front of them as they are trained to do and did at Fallujah under Mattis—A Real Mad Dog War Criminal. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2017 7:52 PM To: 'Roger Helbig' > Cc: Karen Aram >; Estabrook, Carl G >; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Jay Becker >; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; Szoke, Ron >; Dave Trippel >; Arlene Hickory >; David Swanson >; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com;abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG -----Original Message----- From: Karim A G [mailto:coffee at euro-comm.co.uk] Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2004 5:00 PM To: Karim A G Subject: A War Crime in Real Time http://www.counterpunch.org/boyle11152004.html November 15, 2004 A War Crime in Real Time Obliterating Fallujah By FRANCIS A. BOYLE The obliteration of Fallujah continues apace. Article 6(b) of the 1945 Nuremberg Charter defines a Nuremberg War Crime in relevant part as the ". . . wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages. . ." According to this definitive definition, the Bush Jr. administration's destruction of Fallujah constitutes a war crime for which Nazis were tried and executed. There is nothing surprising about that. Since the Bush Jr. administration's installation in power by the United States Supreme Court in January of 2001, the peoples of the world have witnessed a government in the United States of America that has demonstrated little if any respect for fundamental considerations of international law, international organizations, and human rights, let alone appreciation of the requirements for maintaining international peace and security. What the world has watched instead is a comprehensive and malicious assault upon the integrity of the international legal order by a group of men and women who are thoroughly Machiavellian in their perception of international relations and in their conduct of both foreign policy and domestic affairs. This is not simply a question of giving or withholding the benefit of the doubt when it comes to complicated matters of foreign affairs and defense policies to a U.S. government charged with the security of both its own citizens and those of its allies in Europe, the Western Hemisphere, and the Pacific. Rather, the Bush Jr. administration's foreign policy constitutes ongoing criminal activity under well-recognized principles of both international law and U.S. domestic law, in particular the Nuremberg Charter, the Nuremberg Judgment, and the Nuremberg Principles. So their obliteration of Fallujah was to be expected. One generation ago the peoples of the world asked themselves: Where were the "good" Germans? Well, there were some good Germans. The Lutheran theologian and pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer was the foremost exemplar of someone who led a life of principled opposition to the Nazi-terror state even unto death. Today the peoples of the world are likewise asking themselves: Where are the "good" Americans? Well, there are some good Americans. Like three Catholic Nuns in Denver, they are getting arrested and going to jail for protesting against United States weapons of mass destruction (WMD) whose power for human extermination far exceeds even the wildest fantasies of Hitler and the Nazis. Or else for protesting against illegal U.S.. military interventions around the world. Just recently the Nuclear Resister estimated that since the Fall of 2002, there have been more than 9,500 anti-war related arrests in the United States alone. Many more will be coming. In international legal terms, the Bush Jr. administration itself should now be viewed as constituting an ongoing criminal conspiracy under international criminal law in violation of the Nuremberg Charter, the Nuremberg Judgment, and the Nuremberg Principles, due to its formulation and undertaking of aggressive war policies that are legally akin to those perpetrated by the Nazi regime. As a consequence, American citizens possess the basic right under international law and the United States domestic law, including the U.S. Constitution, to engage in acts of non-violent civil resistance in order to prevent, impede, thwart, or terminate ongoing criminal activities perpetrated by U.S. government officials in their conduct of foreign affairs policies and military operations purported to relate to defense and counter-terrorism. This same right of civil resistance extends pari passu to all citizens of the world community of states. Everyone around the world has both the right and the duty under international law to resist ongoing criminal activities perpetrated by the Bush Jr. administration and its nefarious foreign accomplices such as Blair, Berlusconi, Howard, Koizumi, Kwasniewski, etc. by all non-violent means possible. If it is not so restrained, the Bush Jr. administration could very well precipitate a Third World War. The time for preventive action is now. Civil resistance is the way to go. People power can overcome power politics. Popular movements have succeeded in toppling tyrannical, dictatorial and authoritarian regimes throughout former Communist countries in Eastern Europe, as well as in Asia, and most recently in Latin America. It is time once again to exercise People Power here in the United States of America: "When in the Course of human Events. . . We hold these Truths to be self-evident. . . . we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and sacred Honor." Despite the best efforts by the Bush Jr. Leaguers to the contrary, we American Citizens still have our First Amendment Rights: Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Association, Freedom of Assembly, Freedom to Petition our Government for the Redress of these massive Grievances, Civil Resistance, etc. We are going to have to start vigorously exercising all of our First Amendment Rights right now. We must use them or else, as the saying goes, we will lose them. We must act not only for the good of the Peoples of Southwest Asia, but for our future, that of our children, that of our nation as a democratic society committed to the Rule of Law and the U.S. Constitution. The Nazis had their "homeland" too Francis A. Boyle, Professor of Law, University of Illinois, is author of Foundations of World Order, Duke University Press, The Criminality of Nuclear Deterrence, and Palestine, Palestinians and International Law, by Clarity Press. He can be reached at: FBOYLE at LAW.UIUC.EDU --- Subscribed as: fboyle at law.uiuc.edu; to unsubscribe send to al-awda-universalist-request at umich.edu with UNSUBSCRIBE as the SUBJECT. URL: Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Roger Helbig [mailto:rwhelbig at gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2017 6:43 PM To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: Karen Aram >; Estabrook, Carl G >; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Jay Becker >; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; Szoke, Ron >; Dave Trippel >; Arlene Hickory >; David Swanson >; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com;abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG There was no massacre at Fallujah. This is nonsense. Mattis expected his troops to be peacekeepers. They brought soccer balls with them when they deployed. I would love to see your "so called" war crime indictment. Wonder how much of it is from your fertile Hate America imagination and how much from the fertile Arab anti-American propaganda organs. Doubt a single paragraph is actually based on fact. On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 8:22 AM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss > wrote: Trump’s Secretary of War Mad Dog Mattis was responsible for the Massacre at Fallujah, which I pointed out on Counterpunch was a Nuremberg War Crime along the lines of the Nazis—the wanton devastation of a city-- in revenge for them killing our mercenaries. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Karen Aram [mailto:karenaram at hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2017 10:04 AM To: Estabrook, Carl G > Cc: Boyle, Francis A >; Jay Becker >; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; Szoke, Ron >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; Arlene Hickory >; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; David Swanson >; Dave Trippel >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Mildred O'brien >; David Johnson >; Joe Lauria >; David Green > Subject: Re: Guest Commentary by Carl in NG I’m sorry Carl, I don’t agree with that title either. It assumes that all in the anti-war movement welcome the Trump administration. Not all of us trust he will do some of that which he promised in respect to “defunding Nato,” “making friends with Russia,” or killing TPP. Even if he does those three things, his further provocations of China, are every bit as dangerous as those with Russia, it’s a mere tactic to drive a wedge between Russia and China, while chipping away at Iran. His Cabinet appointments are frightening to say the least in respect to Healthcare, Energy, Education, Housing, etc, etc. Further expansion of war in the Middle East, and North Africa, as well as expansion of capitalist corporate control is on the agenda no matter which of the two Party’s are in power. Obama paved the way, for all of which I have just referred, but it’s not over. Our only hope is that “the people” are now awake, and perhaps will focus on that which is most serious to survival. On Jan 22, 2017, at 07:44, Carl G. Estabrook > wrote: My original title was, “Why the anti-war movement welcomes the new administration.” For more on that theme, see >. —CGE On Jan 22, 2017, at 9:29 AM, Karen Aram > wrote: An excellent letter, which I posted on FB. I deliberately deleted the title that I assumed the NG created, because it gives the false impression that those of us in the anti-war movement, all support Trump. We don’t, we just didn’t support Hillary. Anyone in the anti-war movement supporting Hillary was supporting more of the same that Obama provided. On Jan 22, 2017, at 07:16, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: He {Obama} attacked eight countries (two more than George Bush), and conducted what one leading political commentator called "the most extreme terrorist campaign of modern times — his drone assassinations." He killed thousands of civilians with drones, including U.S. citizens and hundreds of children. A good letter by Carl today in NG. (Remember NG writes their own titles to letters.) We must now hold Trump’s feet to the fire across the board! I think Carl’s quote comes from Chomsky? In any event the Illinois Nazis Law Faculty fully supported and promoted and held out for emulation by lawyers and this Campus and our Good Community: "the most extreme terrorist campaign of modern times — his drone assassinations." The Illinois Nazis Law Faculty are just a GANG OF SICK PUPPIES! Fab Ed Norton Professor of Law Carl Schmitt College of Law: “Mein Fuhrer, I can walk!” Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) Feed: News-Gazette.com Posted on: Sunday, January 22, 2017 7:00 AM Author: digital.media Subject: Guest Commentary: Why anti-war movement welcomes Trump By C.G. ESTABROOK The European anti-war group "No War No NATO" writes as follows: "Demonstrating in Europe on 21 January, against the newly elected US President Donald Trump is tantamount to lending support to the Obama administration, which has transformed Europe into NATO's first line of attack, nuclear matters inclusive, against Russia. read more View article... _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.chambana.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fpeace-discuss&data=02%7C01%7Ckarenaram%40hotmail.com%7C6ea0294d887b4910ba5108d52390c739%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636454027089337207&sdata=v2ho9fKU8A%2F2dSYUS31%2Br1UPu4HaEfckCXJTgUP7vcU%3D&reserved=0 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rwhelbig at gmail.com Sun Nov 5 12:52:59 2017 From: rwhelbig at gmail.com (Roger Helbig) Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2017 04:52:59 -0800 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG In-Reply-To: References: <9D3D5E59-5EFC-47DF-838D-C6508214E176@illinois.edu> Message-ID: Karen, I see where I had replied to the original back in January and had recalled the exhortation that General Mattis had made to his Marines before they deployed to Iraq (they did not expect the first Battle of Fallujah) - I apologize for forgetting that earlier reply which you had noted in your reply to me. My most recent was to make all aware of who Christopher Bollyn and the American Free Press really are and that triggered a flurry of FAB speculative indictments based on his fertile imagination - I will look to find the original quote from the then Lieutenant General. I had not seen the Bollyn article in this thread until the other night when I was looking for large e-mails in my GMAIL so I can delete those which are too large. Roger On Sun, Nov 5, 2017 at 4:04 AM, Roger Helbig wrote: > Karen, > > You don't have the facts. What books have you read on the subject? I > have corresponded with authors and veterans of the fight. I don't recall > saying anything about General Mattis's exhortation to his Marines before > they began serving in Iraq. I have not looked up that old e-mail from over > a decade ago. > > Roger > > What I would really like to see is satellite photos before and after the > two Battles of Fallujah. I also wish that Marines had kept records of the > people who left before the 2nd Battle. I strongly expect that all the > innocent civilians who could leave left. I don't know if any records exist > of the number of people who did. You and Boyle, though, greatly exagerate > the number of supposed innocent civilians who were killed. My sole > interest in the two battles was determining if depleted uranium was used > and in the refutation of lies such as those set out in supposed peer > reviewed journals (that really are nothing more than profit centers that > publish all that the author is willing to pay the processing fee for) by > Christoper Charles Busby and associates like Mozghan Savabiesafahani and > even by news organizations like the BBC and Australian Broadcasting > Corporation. I did this because of my over decade long independent > research into DU that began when Douglas Lind Rokke of Rantoul personally > lied about me like Boyle does because people on Pro-Kerry lists paid > attention to what I wrote that disagreed with him and his fellow liars > Dennis Joseph Kyne, Jr and Leuren K Moret, both of whom appeared in the > video "Beyond Treason" produced by Neo Nazi David von Kleist. I got > interested in depleted uranium because Kyne's girlfriend posted to an > anti-Bush list that DU was worse than nuclear fallout (I can dig back and > find the exact quotes, but that will take time) and worse than Nagasakl or > Hiroshima. My degree is in Geology and the Air Force trained me to > predict, detect and protect against fallout so I thought that was wrong and > began researching and finding that I was correct in my assumptions. After > Rokke lied about who I was, I decided to background him using the Freedom > of Information Act and other tools I had learned about from journalists > when I was a whistleblower. It took me two tries to get his records, but I > found that he lied about far more than just me and then I began to dig > deeper. The subject never dies even though DU has not been used on any > significant basis since the drive on Baghdad in 2003. Two strafing runs > were made against ISIS fuel tankers in 2015 and a few hundred rounds were > fired in Syria, but none were ever fired in Libya or Afghanistan or Somalia > (where Italians successfully won court case to be reimbursed for > non-existent DU exposure). > > PS - Boyle should change the name of the Law Building to Speculative > Innuendo Building because he spreads speculative innuendo - not fact based > evidence as required to render lawful judgment > > PPS - the spreading of lies on this list is the real anathema to what it > stands for - when I was fighting Bush, I always said you do not fight lies > with bigger lies! You and Boyle need to understand that. I fought the > Swift Boat Liars during the Kerry Campaign. Sadly, he did not win the > Presidency either. > > PPPS - Marion Fulk was cited in part of what I erased to make this message > much shorter - my longer message provides a link to the reply I got from > the University of California about Leuren K Moret and Marion Fulk. Neither > of them is particularly knowledgeable about uranium, depleted or > otherwise. It is also highly unlikely that Fulk was a Manhattan Project > scientist as Moret has claimed that he was, but there appear to be no > records that would prove that definitively. What is true is that the > Nuclear Regulatory Commission on-line files show that Moret used Fulk's > Livermore residence address and presumably was living with Fulk at the time. > > On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 7:57 AM, Karen Aram wrote: > >> Roger >> >> Your statement: "There was no massacre at Fallujah. This is nonsense. >> Mattis expected his troops to be peacekeepers.” >> is so ludicrous, it invites laughter, long and loud laughter, if it >> weren’t so tragic, the many lives destroyed as a result of “Mad Dog Mattis” >> and the USG in it’s continuing genocide. >> >> Nothing you say, can ever be taken seriously, your continued harassment >> of anti-war activists on this “Peace Discussion List” is anathema to >> everything it stands for. >> >> I have to ask what are you doing here if not, just to irritate. Okay >> maybe your goal is to entertain, but your entertainment is very sick. >> >> Anyone and everyone, who supports the wars and interventions the US has >> and continues to perpetrate around the world, has blood on their hands, as >> “complicit Americans." That is the way we are viewed by others in the world >> today. >> >> On Nov 4, 2017, at 07:31, Roger Helbig via Peace-discuss < >> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >> >> what exactly is that supposed to mean - my choices of assignment were >> Intelligence, Weather and Cartography and the Air Force made me an >> Electronic Systems (ground radar maintenance) Officer - I liked languages - >> I was a literate three year old in Russian and wanted to learn more - I >> like puzzles - putting pieces together - that's what I thought intelligence >> officers did - Weather was where I got assigned for familiarization during >> summer camp so I somewhat expected that I would get that and a M/S in >> Meterology - Cartography because as a Geologist, I made maps of what was >> below the ground and cartographers made maps of what was above the ground. >> >> I voted for Democratic candidates starting with George McGovern - so I >> was not exactly a fan of Richard Nixon so hardly Nixonian! >> >> Roger >> >> On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 7:19 AM, Boyle, Francis A >> wrote: >> >>> “I wanted to be”—Military Intelligence. A Typical Nixonian Limited >>> Hang-out. fab. >>> >>> >>> >>> *From:* Roger Helbig [mailto:rwhelbig at gmail.com] >>> *Sent:* Saturday, November 04, 2017 9:15 AM >>> *To:* Boyle, Francis A ; Peace-discuss < >>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> >>> *Subject:* Re: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG >>> >>> >>> >>> and you spread lies - I never worked for military intelligence - they >>> would not let me because I am partially color blind and to be an Air Force >>> intelligence officer, you needed to be able to interpret false colors on >>> air photos - I wanted to be because I like to work through problems and >>> took Russian as an elective my senior year as part of my know your enemy >>> program - >>> >>> >>> >>> Now, you have not refuted that The American Free Press was established >>> by Willis Carto - that Carto was a Neo Nazi or that Bollyn worked for Carto >>> and Buchanan - you more than likely have not read Blood and Politics - >>> maybe some of the others were. >>> >>> >>> >>> I don't seem to have scan of page where the American Free Press was >>> established to replace The Spotlight, but attached is the one where it >>> discusses the establishment of The Barnes Review and the conference >>> discussed on the blog is for both of these publications. >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 6:37 AM, Boyle, Francis A >>> wrote: >>> >>> *Once again, Roger crawls out of his hole as a Mole for US “Military >>> Intelligence”—an oxymoron to be sure.* >>> >>> *Fab* >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> *From:* Roger Helbig [mailto:rwhelbig at gmail.com] >>> *Sent:* Saturday, November 04, 2017 8:12 AM >>> >>> >>> You do know that Christopher Bollyn is NOT a reporter but is a Neo Nazi >>> operative of long standing and that the American Free Press is not a news >>> organization, but a Neo Nazi front - look up Willis Carto - he was Bollyn's >>> boss and founded the American Free Press - this website that has reports of >>> conference for American Free Press and The Barnes Review used to have a >>> prominent picture of a Nazi flag behind the blogger Alex Hassinger - >>> Douglas Lind Rokke of Urbana spoke at this event and Dave von Kleist the >>> producer of Rokke's first anti-US propaganda video "Beyond Treason" was >>> the master of ceremonies - http://www.chairmanofnordwave.blogspot.com >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Carto died in 2015 - there are a number of good sources on Carto in a >>> simple Google search - >>> >>> >>> >>> Learn about Neo Nazis - read this book - "Blood and Politics" - it >>> mentions Bollyn and extensively discusses Carto - pg 382, which I can >>> e-mail to all who request - has Carto's establishment of The Barnes Review, >>> a Holocaust Denial publication - The American Free Press replaced Carto's >>> The Spotlight after Carto lost a legal battle - Bollyn is also mentioned in >>> connection with a Pat Buchanan campaign apparatus >>> >>> >>> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Sun Nov 5 13:55:08 2017 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2017 07:55:08 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG In-Reply-To: References: <9D3D5E59-5EFC-47DF-838D-C6508214E176@illinois.edu> Message-ID: Censorship of an email list established to promote opposition to US wars seems to me a mistake. It is, in a small way, like antifa, a ‘gift to the Right.’ It suggests the silent promotion of views that the censors are unwilling to argue for. The equivocal George Orwell wrote (in the - suppressed - preface to 'Animal Farm’), "If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.” AWARE exists to liberate the anti-war discourse, effectively suppressed in main-stream media. And that means we sometimes have to talk to trolls and poltroons - and let them talk to us. —CGE > On Nov 5, 2017, at 6:44 AM, Karen Aram wrote: > > All worthy discussion on this “Peace Discuss List” is totally lost and muted by the likes of Roger, whether he is a mole, lacking the polish and sophistication of most “USG moles,” military or otherwise. I’m not referring to FBI contractors who almost always lack polish and sophistication, or just a nut, either way, he doesn’t belong here. > > He admits he signed up because of Mr. Rokke, and he has bashed this person many times over the years on this list. I know not whether Mr. Rokke is on this list, but its all become too absurd, and distracting. Distracting from anti-war efforts and serious discussion. > Oh, but “freedom of speech, right?” > Just not on the “Peace List." > > >> On Nov 5, 2017, at 04:26, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: >> >> And I forgot to add: Roger is in favor of Depleted Uranium. He is just a Mole for Military Intelligence on another Peace List. fab. >> >> Francis A. Boyle >> Law Building >> 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. >> Champaign IL 61820 USA >> 217-333-7954 (phone) >> 217-244-1478 (fax) >> (personal comments only) >> >> From: Boyle, Francis A >> Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2017 6:21 AM >> To: Karen Aram >; Peace-discuss > >> Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG >> >> For the record, Doug Rokke helped me and Ramsey Clark defend Phil Berrigan and the DU Plowshares. We started out with them facing 40 years. At the end of a kangaroo court proceeding, they got two. The Prosecutor had publicly stated he was going to put Phil away for the rest of his life. At least Phil was able to die at his home surrounded by his Family and Friends instead of in some Federal Hell Hole. >> RIP: Phil Berrigan. Fab >> >> >> >> >> >> Francis A. Boyle >> Law Building >> 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. >> Champaign IL 61820 USA >> 217-333-7954 (phone) >> 217-244-1478 (fax) >> (personal comments only) >> >> From: Roger Helbig [mailto:rwhelbig at gmail.com ] >> Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2017 5:22 AM >> To: Boyle, Francis A >; Karen Aram >; Peace-discuss > >> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG >> >> No, but Boyle likes to spread lies - I joined your list because of Douglas Lind Rokke, University of Illinois PhD graduate and resident of nearby Rantoul. Rokke is a professional liar (see my other much longer message which is still being edited). >> >> Roger W Helbig >> Richmond, CA >> >> My mother was 1941 graduate of the University of Illinois - sadly, she died two days after I was born due to childbirth complications. >> >> On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 8:02 AM, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: >> Dear Karen: With all due respect, you must understand: Roger is a Mole for Military Intelligence. That is why he is on this Peace list. fab. >> >> Francis A. Boyle >> Law Building >> 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. >> Champaign IL 61820 USA >> 217-333-7954 (phone) >> 217-244-1478 (fax) >> (personal comments only) >> >> From: Karen Aram [mailto:karenaram at hotmail.com ] >> Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2017 9:58 AM >> To: Roger Helbig > >> Cc: Boyle, Francis A >; Peace-discuss > >> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG >> >> Roger >> >> Your statement: "There was no massacre at Fallujah. This is nonsense. Mattis expected his troops to be peacekeepers.” >> is so ludicrous, it invites laughter, long and loud laughter, if it weren’t so tragic, the many lives destroyed as a result of “Mad Dog Mattis” and the USG in it’s continuing genocide. >> >> Nothing you say, can ever be taken seriously, your continued harassment of anti-war activists on this “Peace Discussion List” is anathema to everything it stands for. >> >> I have to ask what are you doing here if not, just to irritate. Okay maybe your goal is to entertain, but your entertainment is very sick. >> >> Anyone and everyone, who supports the wars and interventions the US has and continues to perpetrate around the world, has blood on their hands, as “complicit Americans." That is the way we are viewed by others in the world today. >> >> On Nov 4, 2017, at 07:31, Roger Helbig via Peace-discuss > wrote: >> >> what exactly is that supposed to mean - my choices of assignment were Intelligence, Weather and Cartography and the Air Force made me an Electronic Systems (ground radar maintenance) Officer - I liked languages - I was a literate three year old in Russian and wanted to learn more - I like puzzles - putting pieces together - that's what I thought intelligence officers did - Weather was where I got assigned for familiarization during summer camp so I somewhat expected that I would get that and a M/S in Meterology - Cartography because as a Geologist, I made maps of what was below the ground and cartographers made maps of what was above the ground. >> >> I voted for Democratic candidates starting with George McGovern - so I was not exactly a fan of Richard Nixon so hardly Nixonian! >> >> Roger >> >> On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 7:19 AM, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: >> “I wanted to be”—Military Intelligence. A Typical Nixonian Limited Hang-out. fab. >> >> Francis A. Boyle >> Law Building >> 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. >> Champaign IL 61820 USA >> 217-333-7954 (phone) >> 217-244-1478 (fax) >> (personal comments only) >> >> From: Roger Helbig [mailto:rwhelbig at gmail.com ] >> Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2017 9:15 AM >> To: Boyle, Francis A >; Peace-discuss > >> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG >> >> and you spread lies - I never worked for military intelligence - they would not let me because I am partially color blind and to be an Air Force intelligence officer, you needed to be able to interpret false colors on air photos - I wanted to be because I like to work through problems and took Russian as an elective my senior year as part of my know your enemy program - >> >> Now, you have not refuted that The American Free Press was established by Willis Carto - that Carto was a Neo Nazi or that Bollyn worked for Carto and Buchanan - you more than likely have not read Blood and Politics - maybe some of the others were. >> >> I don't seem to have scan of page where the American Free Press was established to replace The Spotlight, but attached is the one where it discusses the establishment of The Barnes Review and the conference discussed on the blog is for both of these publications. >> >> On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 6:37 AM, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: >> Once again, Roger crawls out of his hole as a Mole for US “Military Intelligence”—an oxymoron to be sure. >> Fab >> >> >> Francis A. Boyle >> Law Building >> 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. >> Champaign IL 61820 USA >> 217-333-7954 (phone) >> 217-244-1478 (fax) >> (personal comments only) >> >> From: Roger Helbig [mailto:rwhelbig at gmail.com ] >> Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2017 8:12 AM >> To: Boyle, Francis A > >> Cc: Karen Aram >; Estabrook, Carl G >; peace-discuss at anti-war.net ; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Jay Becker >; a-fields at uiuc.edu ; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; Szoke, Ron >; Dave Trippel >; Arlene Hickory >; David Swanson >; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com ;abass10 at gmail.com ; mickalideh at gmail.com ; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net >> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG >> >> You do know that Christopher Bollyn is NOT a reporter but is a Neo Nazi operative of long standing and that the American Free Press is not a news organization, but a Neo Nazi front - look up Willis Carto - he was Bollyn's boss and founded the American Free Press - this website that has reports of conference for American Free Press and The Barnes Review used to have a prominent picture of a Nazi flag behind the blogger Alex Hassinger - Douglas Lind Rokke of Urbana spoke at this event and Dave von Kleist the producer of Rokke's first anti-US propaganda video "Beyond Treason" was the master of ceremonies - http://www.chairmanofnordwave.blogspot.com >> >> Carto died in 2015 - there are a number of good sources on Carto in a simple Google search - >> >> Learn about Neo Nazis - read this book - "Blood and Politics" - it mentions Bollyn and extensively discusses Carto - pg 382, which I can e-mail to all who request - has Carto's establishment of The Barnes Review, a Holocaust Denial publication - The American Free Press replaced Carto's The Spotlight after Carto lost a legal battle - Bollyn is also mentioned in connection with a Pat Buchanan campaign apparatus >> >> On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 4:57 AM, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: >> I also want to make it clear for the record that before the invasions of Saipan, Tinian and Okinawa my Father, a Marine, was ordered by his Captain not to take prisoners of war on the grounds of reciprocity that the Japanese did not take Prisoners of War of our Men. My Father disobeyed these clearly illegal orders and took Japanese Prisoners of War. I cite the example of my Father to my law students to refute the objection that you cannot expect soldiers to obey the laws of war during combat. If my Father could obey the laws of war at Saipan, Tinian, and Okinawa, any other soldier should be able to do the same. Meanwhile,while I am teaching this to my students, the Illinois Nazis Law Faculty aid, abet, and promote and facilitate war crimes and crimes against humanity from the safety of their offices. My Father later became a Lawyer. RIP. The Illinois Nazis Law Faculty are despicable! Fab. >> >> Francis A. Boyle >> Law Building >> 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. >> Champaign IL 61820 USA >> 217-333-7954 (phone) >> 217-244-1478 (fax) >> (personal comments only) >> >> From: Boyle, Francis A >> Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2017 8:38 PM >> To: Roger Helbig > >> Cc: Karen Aram >; Estabrook, Carl G >; peace-discuss at anti-war.net ; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Jay Becker >; a-fields at uiuc.edu ; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; Szoke, Ron >; Dave Trippel >; Arlene Hickory >; David Swanson >; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com ;abass10 at gmail.com ; mickalideh at gmail.com ; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net >> Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG >> >> Mad Dog Mattis the Nuremberg War Criminal. Fab. >> CONTROLLED PRESS IGNORES >> CRIMINAL OBLITERATION OF FALLUJAH >> >> By Christopher Bollyn >> American Free Press >> >> The controlled press has scrupulously avoided discussing the devastation and prima facie evidence of war crimes committed during the U.S. siege and assault of Fallujah. >> >> As Americans prepared for Thanksgiving, an estimated 100,000 residents of the besieged Iraqi city of Fallujah, trapped in their homes, struggled to survive without fresh food, water or electricity, reportedly cut off by U.S. forces on November 8. >> >> Meanwhile, on the streets of Fallujah, a city of more than 350,000, dogs gnawed on bloated and rotting corpses that remained unburied for weeks. >> >> Thousands of families in Fallujah were reported to be in a critical humanitarian situation after U.S. forces prevented the delivery of relief supplies. An Iraq Red Crescent Society (IRCS) humanitarian aid convoy, reportedly blocked by U.S. troops for more than two weeks, was allowed to deliver aid to residents in the heart of the city on November 25. >> >> On Thanksgiving, U.S. forces permitted the IRCS convoy carrying thousands of food parcels, blankets, tents and medical supplies to enter the city and allowed one of the clinics to be converted into a temporary hospital to treat the injured. Rana Sidani of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) in Geneva, Switzerland however, told American Free Press on Nov. 30 that "many civilians" were still prevented from receiving aid or medical care. >> >> At the beginning of the U.S. operation in Fallujah on Nov. 5, a hospital in the central Nazzal district of Fallujah was "reduced to rubble" as a result of U.S. air and artillery bombardment. "Only its façade, with a sign reading Nazzal Emergency Hospital, remained intact," Reuters reported. >> >> "A nearby compound used by the main Falluja Hospital to store medical supplies was also destroyed," witnesses told Reuters. Fallujah's main hospital was occupied by U.S. forces when the ground offensive began. These actions are apparent violations of international humanitarian law. >> >> "Bodies can be seen everywhere and people were crying when receiving the food parcels," Muhammad al-Nuri, a spokesman for the IRCS in Baghdad, said. "It is very sad. It is a human disaster." >> >> Al-Nuri said that it is difficult to move in the city due to the large number of dead bodies in the streets. The ICRS estimates there are more than 6,000 dead in Fallujah, al-Nuri said. >> >> AFP asked Major Jay Antonelli at the Coalition Press Information Center (CPIC) in Baghdad if the ICRS estimate of 6,000 dead in Fallujah was credible. "We do not keep a count of dead Iraqis," Antonelli said. Asked the same question, the ICRC's Sidani said, "We don't know." >> >> Antonelli said, "U.S. forces never blocked aid convoys from reaching the wounded. We only recommended to the aid convoys that they should not enter the city because the MNF [Multi-National Forces] could not guarantee their security or safety." >> >> "The ICRC is very worried about the humanitarian situation in Falluja," Sidani said. Asked what the ICRC was doing to alleviate the suffering in Fallujah, Sidani said: "We are reminding the parties of their responsibilities under international humanitarian law." >> >> It should be noted that the U.S.A. and Britain, the belligerent occupying powers in Iraq, are the two largest contributors to the ICRC, providing more than 42 percent of its budget for field operations. >> >> A second convoy from Baghdad, headed by Dr. Said Ismael Haki, the IRCS president, delivered aid to Fallujah on Nov. 26. "There are no houses left in Fallujah, only destroyed places." Haki said. "I really don't know how the people will return to the city. No one will find their homes." >> >> As U.S. troops in Fallujah engaged in what has been described as the most intense urban combat since Vietnam, the controlled press scrupulously avoided discussion or footage of the devastation of the rebellious Sunni city. For example, during the second week of the attack, rather than discuss the widespread devastation of Fallujah, U.S. television news programs focused largely on a brawl between basketball players and fans in Detroit. >> >> Lt. Col. Brandl, commander of the 1st Battalion, 8th Marine Regiment, was filmed giving a "pep talk" to his marines: "The enemy has got a face – he's called Satan," Brandl said. "He's in Fallujah, and we're going to destroy him." >> >> At least 136 U.S. soldiers were killed during November in Iraq, and more than 800 were wounded, most of them in Fallujah, making it the most costly month, and operation, in terms of U.S. lives lost since the invasion of Iraq began in March 2003. >> >> FOR WHAT CAUSE? >> >> Michael Ware, Baghdad bureau chief for Time magazine, who has been in Fallujah during the fighting, said U.S. actions in Fallujah are "creating the nightmare that we are seeking to prevent." >> >> "I stood there as I saw American boys die," Ware told Chris Matthews of MSNBC on Nov. 24, "I mean, a man shot at close range, blown apart by a rocket propelled grenade. He dies there in front of you and I can't help but think why? For what cause? >> >> "I see us creating the very thing that the president said we went there to prevent," Ware said, "…subsequent to this invasion and the occupation and the guerrilla war that is currently underway, we are the midwives of the next generation of al Qaida and Islamic terrorist." >> >> Ware, who has interviewed senior insurgent leaders, said they study the writings of the Vietnamese general Vo Nguyen Giap, Che Guevara, and Mao Zedong. "They're bringing it straight from the Vietnam, and the broader insurgency playbook," Ware said. >> >> "The name of the game is deny the population to the insurgents," Ware said. "That's what we're trying to do, win hearts and minds. But we're not winning them." >> >> The U.S. struggle to win Iraqi hearts and minds suffered a further set back when NBC TV broadcast footage of a U.S. marine executing a wounded and unarmed Iraqi in a Fallujah mosque. The much-publicized shooting, apparently part of a massacre of a group of wounded resistance fighters, "was a rare crack in the façade that Washington, with the complicity of most of the corporate media, has tried to present to the world of its brutal assault on the rebel Iraqi city," Rohan Pearce wrote in The Greenleft Weekly Australia on Nov. 24. >> >> The New York Times has reported actions taken by U.S. forces in Fallujah, which appear to be prima facie evidence of war crimes, without mentioning that the actions constitute clear violations of the Laws of Land War found in the U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10. >> >> For example, a Nov. 20 Times article by Edward Wong, with two correspondents in Fallujah, reports that U.S. marines had transformed a mosque into a fortress with snipers and machine gunners perched on the roof. >> >> Then, using the passive form, Wong goes on to say that "no neutral group has been able to enter the city," without mentioning that U.S. forces blocked humanitarian aid convoys. Likewise, Wong wrote, "Electricity and water had been cut off." >> >> The Times, whose motto is "All the news that's fit to print," apparently didn't think that it's readers needed to know the U.S. forces had cut off the water and power to a city of 340,000 people. >> >> Asked if U.S. forces had cut power and water to Fallujah, Maj. Jay Antonelli of CPIC wrote: "MNF did, with approval of the Interim Iraqi Government, cut off electricity to the city of Fallujah as Operation Al-Fajr began. Water was not cut off intentionally, however the water system did sustain some kinetic damage during strikes." >> >> American Free Press asked the Pentagon's Lt. Col. Joe Yoswa if it is true that U.S. forces were using mosques as fortresses. "It's not possible," Yoswa said. "Under no circumstances. We would not set up snipers in a mosque in an offensive position." >> >> CPIC's Antonelli said: "MNF would not use a mosque as a 'fortress.' MNF and Iraqi security forces would only fire from a mosque if they were being fired upon and were firing back in self-defense." >> >> Abu Sabah, a refugee from Fallujah, reported seeing phosphorus bombs: "They used these weird bombs that put up smoke like a mushroom cloud. Then small pieces fell from the air with long tails of smoke trailing behind them. These exploded on the ground with large fires that burnt for half and hour," Abu Sabah said. "When anyone touched these fires their bodies burnt for hours." >> >> Eyewitnesses from Fallujah also reported seeing "melted" bodies. >> >> "THROW-AWAY SOLDIERS" >> >> Having seen what appeared to be a depleted uranium (DU) missile fired at a building in Fallujah on CNN during the first week of the fighting, AFP asked the Pentagon if DU weapons are being used in Fallujah. "Yes," Yoswa said, "DU is a standard round on the M-1 Abrams tank." >> >> Because U.S. marines in Fallujah are very close to the poison gas produced by exploded DU shells, AFP asked Yoswa if anything was being done to protect the troops from DU poisoning. Yoswa seemed unaware of the dangers posed by the use of DU. >> >> Marion Fulk, a retired nuclear scientist from Livermore National Lab told AFP that U.S. troops in DU contaminated battlefields are considered "throw-away soldiers." The Marines exposed to DU in Fallujah, and elsewhere, face greatly increased risks of cancer, deformed children, and other health problems in the future. >> >> OBLITERATION OF FALLUJAH >> >> The "obliteration of Fallujah" is a serious war crime, according to Francis A. Boyle, a professor of international law at the University of Illinois. "The obliteration of Fallujah continues apace," Boyle wrote in his Nov. 15 article, A War Crime in Real Time: Obliterating Fallujah. "Article 6(b) of the 1945 Nuremberg Charter defines a Nuremberg War Crime in relevant part as the 'wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages.' According to this definitive definition, the Bush administration's destruction of Fallujah constitutes a war crime for which Nazis were tried and executed." >> >> Finis >> -30- >> 1629 words >> Do you Yahoo!? >> The all-new My Yahoo! – What will yours do? >> >> >> Francis A. Boyle >> Law Building >> 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. >> Champaign IL 61820 USA >> 217-333-7954 (phone) >> 217-244-1478 (fax) >> (personal comments only) >> >> From: Boyle, Francis A >> Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2017 8:13 PM >> To: 'Roger Helbig' > >> Cc: 'Karen Aram' >; Estabrook, Carl G >; 'peace-discuss at anti-war.net ' >; 'C. G. ESTABROOK' >; 'Jay Becker' >; 'a-fields at uiuc.edu ' >; Hoffman, Valerie J >; 'Joe Lauria' >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; Szoke, Ron >; 'Dave Trippel' >; 'Arlene Hickory' >; 'David Swanson' >; 'peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net ' >; 'sherwoodross10 at gmail.com ' >; 'abass10 at gmail.com ' >; 'mickalideh at gmail.com ' >; 'Lina Thorne' >; 'chicago at worldcantwait.net ' > >> Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG >> >> Mattis expected his troops to be peacekeepers. They brought soccer balls with them when they deployed. >> LOL! Marines don’t play soccer or teach kids to play soccer.. My Dad was a Marine. He invaded Saipan, Tinian and Okinawa before he became a Lawyer. Marines destroy anyone and anything that is in front of them as they are trained to do and did at Fallujah under Mattis—A Real Mad Dog War Criminal. Fab. >> >> >> >> Francis A. Boyle >> Law Building >> 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. >> Champaign IL 61820 USA >> 217-333-7954 (phone) >> 217-244-1478 (fax) >> (personal comments only) >> >> From: Boyle, Francis A >> Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2017 7:52 PM >> To: 'Roger Helbig' > >> Cc: Karen Aram >; Estabrook, Carl G >; peace-discuss at anti-war.net ; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Jay Becker >; a-fields at uiuc.edu ; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; Szoke, Ron >; Dave Trippel >; Arlene Hickory >; David Swanson >; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com ;abass10 at gmail.com ; mickalideh at gmail.com ; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net >> Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Karim A G [mailto:coffee at euro-comm.co.uk ] >> Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2004 5:00 PM >> To: Karim A G >> Subject: A War Crime in Real Time >> >> http://www.counterpunch.org/boyle11152004.html >> >> November 15, 2004 >> A War Crime in Real Time >> Obliterating Fallujah >> By FRANCIS A. BOYLE >> The obliteration of Fallujah continues apace. Article 6(b) of the 1945 Nuremberg Charter defines a Nuremberg War Crime in relevant part as the ". . . wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages. . ." According to this definitive definition, the Bush Jr. administration's destruction of Fallujah constitutes a war crime for which Nazis were tried and executed. There is nothing surprising about that. >> Since the Bush Jr. administration's installation in power by the United States Supreme Court in January of 2001, the peoples of the world have witnessed a government in the United States of America that has demonstrated little if any respect for fundamental considerations of international law, international organizations, and human rights, let alone appreciation of the requirements for maintaining international peace and security. What the world has watched instead is a comprehensive and malicious assault upon the integrity of the international legal order by a group of men and women who are thoroughly Machiavellian in their perception of international relations and in their conduct of both foreign policy and domestic affairs. This is not simply a question of giving or withholding the benefit of the doubt when it comes to complicated matters of foreign affairs and defense policies to a U.S. government charged with the security of both its own citizens and those of its allies in Europe, the Western Hemisphere, and the Pacific. Rather, the Bush Jr. administration's foreign policy constitutes ongoing criminal activity under well-recognized principles of both international law and U.S. domestic law, in particular the Nuremberg Charter, the Nuremberg Judgment, and the Nuremberg Principles. So their obliteration of Fallujah was to be expected. >> One generation ago the peoples of the world asked themselves: Where were the "good" Germans? Well, there were some good Germans. The Lutheran theologian and pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer was the foremost exemplar of someone who led a life of principled opposition to the Nazi-terror state even unto death. >> Today the peoples of the world are likewise asking themselves: Where are the "good" Americans? Well, there are some good Americans. Like three Catholic Nuns in Denver, they are getting arrested and going to jail for protesting against United States weapons of mass destruction (WMD) whose power for human extermination far exceeds even the wildest fantasies of Hitler and the Nazis. Or else for protesting against illegal U.S.. military interventions around the world. Just recently the Nuclear Resister estimated that since the Fall of 2002, there have been more than 9,500 anti-war related arrests in the United States alone. Many more will be coming. >> In international legal terms, the Bush Jr. administration itself should now be viewed as constituting an ongoing criminal conspiracy under international criminal law in violation of the Nuremberg Charter, the Nuremberg Judgment, and the Nuremberg Principles, due to its formulation and undertaking of aggressive war policies that are legally akin to those perpetrated by the Nazi regime. As a consequence, American citizens possess the basic right under international law and the United States domestic law, including the U.S. Constitution, to engage in acts of non-violent civil resistance in order to prevent, impede, thwart, or terminate ongoing criminal activities perpetrated by U.S. government officials in their conduct of foreign affairs policies and military operations purported to relate to defense and counter-terrorism. >> This same right of civil resistance extends pari passu to all citizens of the world community of states. Everyone around the world has both the right and the duty under international law to resist ongoing criminal activities perpetrated by the Bush Jr. administration and its nefarious foreign accomplices such as Blair, Berlusconi, Howard, Koizumi, Kwasniewski, etc. by all non-violent means possible. If it is not so restrained, the Bush Jr. administration could very well precipitate a Third World War. >> The time for preventive action is now. Civil resistance is the way to go. People power can overcome power politics. Popular movements have succeeded in toppling tyrannical, dictatorial and authoritarian regimes throughout former Communist countries in Eastern Europe, as well as in Asia, and most recently in Latin America. It is time once again to exercise People Power here in the United States of America: "When in the Course of human Events. . . We hold these Truths to be self-evident. . . . we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and sacred Honor." >> Despite the best efforts by the Bush Jr. Leaguers to the contrary, we American Citizens still have our First Amendment Rights: Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Association, Freedom of Assembly, Freedom to Petition our Government for the Redress of these massive Grievances, Civil Resistance, etc. We are going to have to start vigorously exercising all of our First Amendment Rights right now. We must use them or else, as the saying goes, we will lose them. We must act not only for the good of the Peoples of Southwest Asia, but for our future, that of our children, that of our nation as a democratic society committed to the Rule of Law and the U.S. Constitution. The Nazis had their "homeland" too >> Francis A. Boyle, Professor of Law, University of Illinois, is author of Foundations of World Order , Duke University Press, The Criminality of Nuclear Deterrence , and Palestine, Palestinians and International Law , by Clarity Press. He can be reached at: FBOYLE at LAW.UIUC.EDU >> --- >> Subscribed as: fboyle at law.uiuc.edu ; to unsubscribe send to al-awda-universalist-request at umich.edu >> with UNSUBSCRIBE as the SUBJECT. >> URL: >> >> Francis A. Boyle >> Law Building >> 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. >> Champaign IL 61820 USA >> 217-333-7954 (phone) >> 217-244-1478 (fax) >> (personal comments only) >> >> From: Roger Helbig [mailto:rwhelbig at gmail.com ] >> Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2017 6:43 PM >> To: Boyle, Francis A > >> Cc: Karen Aram >; Estabrook, Carl G >; peace-discuss at anti-war.net ; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Jay Becker >; a-fields at uiuc.edu ; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; Szoke, Ron >; Dave Trippel >; Arlene Hickory >; David Swanson >; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com ;abass10 at gmail.com ; mickalideh at gmail.com ; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net >> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG >> >> There was no massacre at Fallujah. This is nonsense. Mattis expected his troops to be peacekeepers. They brought soccer balls with them when they deployed. >> >> I would love to see your "so called" war crime indictment. Wonder how much of it is from your fertile Hate America imagination and how much from the fertile Arab anti-American propaganda organs. Doubt a single paragraph is actually based on fact. >> >> On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 8:22 AM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss > wrote: >> Trump’s Secretary of War Mad Dog Mattis was responsible for the Massacre at Fallujah, which I pointed out on Counterpunch was a Nuremberg War Crime along the lines of the Nazis—the wanton devastation of a city-- in revenge for them killing our mercenaries. Fab. >> >> Francis A. Boyle >> Law Building >> 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. >> Champaign IL 61820 USA >> 217-333-7954 (phone) >> 217-244-1478 (fax) >> (personal comments only) >> >> From: Karen Aram [mailto:karenaram at hotmail.com ] >> Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2017 10:04 AM >> To: Estabrook, Carl G > >> Cc: Boyle, Francis A >; Jay Becker >; peace-discuss at anti-war.net ; C. G. ESTABROOK >; a-fields at uiuc.edu ; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; Szoke, Ron >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com ; Arlene Hickory >; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net ; David Swanson >; Dave Trippel >; abass10 at gmail.com ; mickalideh at gmail.com ; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net ; Mildred O'brien >; David Johnson >; Joe Lauria >; David Green > >> Subject: Re: Guest Commentary by Carl in NG >> >> I’m sorry Carl, I don’t agree with that title either. It assumes that all in the anti-war movement welcome the Trump administration. Not all of us trust he will do some of that which he promised in respect to “defunding Nato,” “making friends with Russia,” or killing TPP. Even if he does those three things, his further provocations of China, are every bit as dangerous as those with Russia, it’s a mere tactic to drive a wedge between Russia and China, while chipping away at Iran. >> >> His Cabinet appointments are frightening to say the least in respect to Healthcare, Energy, Education, Housing, etc, etc. >> >> Further expansion of war in the Middle East, and North Africa, as well as expansion of capitalist corporate control is on the agenda no matter which of the two Party’s are in power. >> >> Obama paved the way, for all of which I have just referred, but it’s not over. Our only hope is that “the people” are now awake, and perhaps will focus on that which is most serious to survival. >> >> >> On Jan 22, 2017, at 07:44, Carl G. Estabrook > wrote: >> >> My original title was, “Why the anti-war movement welcomes the new administration.” >> >> For more on that theme, see >. >> >> —CGE >> >> >> On Jan 22, 2017, at 9:29 AM, Karen Aram > wrote: >> >> An excellent letter, which I posted on FB. I deliberately deleted the title that I assumed the NG created, because it gives the false impression that those of us in the anti-war movement, all support Trump. We don’t, we just didn’t support Hillary. Anyone in the anti-war movement supporting Hillary was supporting more of the same that Obama provided. >> >> >> >> On Jan 22, 2017, at 07:16, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: >> >> He {Obama} attacked eight countries (two more than George Bush), and conducted what one leading political commentator called "the most extreme terrorist campaign of modern times — his drone assassinations." He killed thousands of civilians with drones, including U.S. citizens and hundreds of children. >> A good letter by Carl today in NG. (Remember NG writes their own titles to letters.) We must now hold Trump’s feet to the fire across the board! I think Carl’s quote comes from Chomsky? In any event the Illinois Nazis Law Faculty fully supported and promoted and held out for emulation by lawyers and this Campus and our Good Community: >> "the most extreme terrorist campaign of modern times — his drone assassinations." >> >> The Illinois Nazis Law Faculty are just a GANG OF SICK PUPPIES! >> Fab >> Ed Norton Professor of Law >> Carl Schmitt College of Law: >> “Mein Fuhrer, I can walk!” >> >> >> Francis A. Boyle >> Law Building >> 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. >> Champaign IL 61820 USA >> 217-333-7954 (phone) >> 217-244-1478 (fax) >> (personal comments only) >> >> Feed: News-Gazette.com >> Posted on: Sunday, January 22, 2017 7:00 AM >> Author: digital.media >> Subject: Guest Commentary: Why anti-war movement welcomes Trump >> >> By C.G. ESTABROOK >> The European anti-war group "No War No NATO" writes as follows: >> "Demonstrating in Europe on 21 January, against the newly elected US President Donald Trump is tantamount to lending support to the Obama administration, which has transformed Europe into NATO's first line of attack, nuclear matters inclusive, against Russia. >> read more >> >> View article... >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Peace-discuss mailing list >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Peace-discuss mailing list >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >> https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.chambana.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fpeace-discuss&data=02%7C01%7Ckarenaram%40hotmail.com%7C6ea0294d887b4910ba5108d52390c739%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636454027089337207&sdata=v2ho9fKU8A%2F2dSYUS31%2Br1UPu4HaEfckCXJTgUP7vcU%3D&reserved=0 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Sun Nov 5 13:57:17 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2017 13:57:17 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG In-Reply-To: References: <9D3D5E59-5EFC-47DF-838D-C6508214E176@illinois.edu> Message-ID: OK Carl. Understood. But I do wish to correct the record: Roger is a Mole for Military Intelligence. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2017 7:55 AM To: Karen Aram Cc: Boyle, Francis A ; David Green ; Stuart Levy ; Peace-discuss Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG Censorship of an email list established to promote opposition to US wars seems to me a mistake. It is, in a small way, like antifa, a ‘gift to the Right.’ It suggests the silent promotion of views that the censors are unwilling to argue for. The equivocal George Orwell wrote (in the - suppressed - preface to 'Animal Farm’), "If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.” AWARE exists to liberate the anti-war discourse, effectively suppressed in main-stream media. And that means we sometimes have to talk to trolls and poltroons - and let them talk to us. —CGE On Nov 5, 2017, at 6:44 AM, Karen Aram > wrote: All worthy discussion on this “Peace Discuss List” is totally lost and muted by the likes of Roger, whether he is a mole, lacking the polish and sophistication of most “USG moles,” military or otherwise. I’m not referring to FBI contractors who almost always lack polish and sophistication, or just a nut, either way, he doesn’t belong here. He admits he signed up because of Mr. Rokke, and he has bashed this person many times over the years on this list. I know not whether Mr. Rokke is on this list, but its all become too absurd, and distracting. Distracting from anti-war efforts and serious discussion. Oh, but “freedom of speech, right?” Just not on the “Peace List." On Nov 5, 2017, at 04:26, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: And I forgot to add: Roger is in favor of Depleted Uranium. He is just a Mole for Military Intelligence on another Peace List. fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2017 6:21 AM To: Karen Aram >; Peace-discuss > Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG For the record, Doug Rokke helped me and Ramsey Clark defend Phil Berrigan and the DU Plowshares. We started out with them facing 40 years. At the end of a kangaroo court proceeding, they got two. The Prosecutor had publicly stated he was going to put Phil away for the rest of his life. At least Phil was able to die at his home surrounded by his Family and Friends instead of in some Federal Hell Hole. RIP: Phil Berrigan. Fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Roger Helbig [mailto:rwhelbig at gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2017 5:22 AM To: Boyle, Francis A >; Karen Aram >; Peace-discuss > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG No, but Boyle likes to spread lies - I joined your list because of Douglas Lind Rokke, University of Illinois PhD graduate and resident of nearby Rantoul. Rokke is a professional liar (see my other much longer message which is still being edited). Roger W Helbig Richmond, CA My mother was 1941 graduate of the University of Illinois - sadly, she died two days after I was born due to childbirth complications. On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 8:02 AM, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: Dear Karen: With all due respect, you must understand: Roger is a Mole for Military Intelligence. That is why he is on this Peace list. fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Karen Aram [mailto:karenaram at hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2017 9:58 AM To: Roger Helbig > Cc: Boyle, Francis A >; Peace-discuss > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG Roger Your statement: "There was no massacre at Fallujah. This is nonsense. Mattis expected his troops to be peacekeepers.” is so ludicrous, it invites laughter, long and loud laughter, if it weren’t so tragic, the many lives destroyed as a result of “Mad Dog Mattis” and the USG in it’s continuing genocide. Nothing you say, can ever be taken seriously, your continued harassment of anti-war activists on this “Peace Discussion List” is anathema to everything it stands for. I have to ask what are you doing here if not, just to irritate. Okay maybe your goal is to entertain, but your entertainment is very sick. Anyone and everyone, who supports the wars and interventions the US has and continues to perpetrate around the world, has blood on their hands, as “complicit Americans." That is the way we are viewed by others in the world today. On Nov 4, 2017, at 07:31, Roger Helbig via Peace-discuss > wrote: what exactly is that supposed to mean - my choices of assignment were Intelligence, Weather and Cartography and the Air Force made me an Electronic Systems (ground radar maintenance) Officer - I liked languages - I was a literate three year old in Russian and wanted to learn more - I like puzzles - putting pieces together - that's what I thought intelligence officers did - Weather was where I got assigned for familiarization during summer camp so I somewhat expected that I would get that and a M/S in Meterology - Cartography because as a Geologist, I made maps of what was below the ground and cartographers made maps of what was above the ground. I voted for Democratic candidates starting with George McGovern - so I was not exactly a fan of Richard Nixon so hardly Nixonian! Roger On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 7:19 AM, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: “I wanted to be”—Military Intelligence. A Typical Nixonian Limited Hang-out. fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Roger Helbig [mailto:rwhelbig at gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2017 9:15 AM To: Boyle, Francis A >; Peace-discuss > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG and you spread lies - I never worked for military intelligence - they would not let me because I am partially color blind and to be an Air Force intelligence officer, you needed to be able to interpret false colors on air photos - I wanted to be because I like to work through problems and took Russian as an elective my senior year as part of my know your enemy program - Now, you have not refuted that The American Free Press was established by Willis Carto - that Carto was a Neo Nazi or that Bollyn worked for Carto and Buchanan - you more than likely have not read Blood and Politics - maybe some of the others were. I don't seem to have scan of page where the American Free Press was established to replace The Spotlight, but attached is the one where it discusses the establishment of The Barnes Review and the conference discussed on the blog is for both of these publications. On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 6:37 AM, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: Once again, Roger crawls out of his hole as a Mole for US “Military Intelligence”—an oxymoron to be sure. Fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Roger Helbig [mailto:rwhelbig at gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2017 8:12 AM To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: Karen Aram >; Estabrook, Carl G >; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Jay Becker >; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; Szoke, Ron >; Dave Trippel >; Arlene Hickory >; David Swanson >; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com;abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG You do know that Christopher Bollyn is NOT a reporter but is a Neo Nazi operative of long standing and that the American Free Press is not a news organization, but a Neo Nazi front - look up Willis Carto - he was Bollyn's boss and founded the American Free Press - this website that has reports of conference for American Free Press and The Barnes Review used to have a prominent picture of a Nazi flag behind the blogger Alex Hassinger - Douglas Lind Rokke of Urbana spoke at this event and Dave von Kleist the producer of Rokke's first anti-US propaganda video "Beyond Treason" was the master of ceremonies - http://www.chairmanofnordwave.blogspot.com Carto died in 2015 - there are a number of good sources on Carto in a simple Google search - Learn about Neo Nazis - read this book - "Blood and Politics" - it mentions Bollyn and extensively discusses Carto - pg 382, which I can e-mail to all who request - has Carto's establishment of The Barnes Review, a Holocaust Denial publication - The American Free Press replaced Carto's The Spotlight after Carto lost a legal battle - Bollyn is also mentioned in connection with a Pat Buchanan campaign apparatus On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 4:57 AM, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: I also want to make it clear for the record that before the invasions of Saipan, Tinian and Okinawa my Father, a Marine, was ordered by his Captain not to take prisoners of war on the grounds of reciprocity that the Japanese did not take Prisoners of War of our Men. My Father disobeyed these clearly illegal orders and took Japanese Prisoners of War. I cite the example of my Father to my law students to refute the objection that you cannot expect soldiers to obey the laws of war during combat. If my Father could obey the laws of war at Saipan, Tinian, and Okinawa, any other soldier should be able to do the same. Meanwhile,while I am teaching this to my students, the Illinois Nazis Law Faculty aid, abet, and promote and facilitate war crimes and crimes against humanity from the safety of their offices. My Father later became a Lawyer. RIP. The Illinois Nazis Law Faculty are despicable! Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2017 8:38 PM To: Roger Helbig > Cc: Karen Aram >; Estabrook, Carl G >; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Jay Becker >; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; Szoke, Ron >; Dave Trippel >; Arlene Hickory >; David Swanson >; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com;abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG Mad Dog Mattis the Nuremberg War Criminal. Fab. CONTROLLED PRESS IGNORES CRIMINAL OBLITERATION OF FALLUJAH By Christopher Bollyn American Free Press The controlled press has scrupulously avoided discussing the devastation and prima facie evidence of war crimes committed during the U.S. siege and assault of Fallujah. As Americans prepared for Thanksgiving, an estimated 100,000 residents of the besieged Iraqi city of Fallujah, trapped in their homes, struggled to survive without fresh food, water or electricity, reportedly cut off by U.S. forces on November 8. Meanwhile, on the streets of Fallujah, a city of more than 350,000, dogs gnawed on bloated and rotting corpses that remained unburied for weeks. Thousands of families in Fallujah were reported to be in a critical humanitarian situation after U.S. forces prevented the delivery of relief supplies. An Iraq Red Crescent Society (IRCS) humanitarian aid convoy, reportedly blocked by U.S. troops for more than two weeks, was allowed to deliver aid to residents in the heart of the city on November 25. On Thanksgiving, U.S. forces permitted the IRCS convoy carrying thousands of food parcels, blankets, tents and medical supplies to enter the city and allowed one of the clinics to be converted into a temporary hospital to treat the injured. Rana Sidani of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) in Geneva, Switzerland however, told American Free Press on Nov. 30 that "many civilians" were still prevented from receiving aid or medical care. At the beginning of the U.S. operation in Fallujah on Nov. 5, a hospital in the central Nazzal district of Fallujah was "reduced to rubble" as a result of U.S. air and artillery bombardment. "Only its façade, with a sign reading Nazzal Emergency Hospital, remained intact," Reuters reported. "A nearby compound used by the main Falluja Hospital to store medical supplies was also destroyed," witnesses told Reuters. Fallujah's main hospital was occupied by U.S. forces when the ground offensive began. These actions are apparent violations of international humanitarian law. "Bodies can be seen everywhere and people were crying when receiving the food parcels," Muhammad al-Nuri, a spokesman for the IRCS in Baghdad, said. "It is very sad. It is a human disaster." Al-Nuri said that it is difficult to move in the city due to the large number of dead bodies in the streets. The ICRS estimates there are more than 6,000 dead in Fallujah, al-Nuri said. AFP asked Major Jay Antonelli at the Coalition Press Information Center (CPIC) in Baghdad if the ICRS estimate of 6,000 dead in Fallujah was credible. "We do not keep a count of dead Iraqis," Antonelli said. Asked the same question, the ICRC's Sidani said, "We don't know." Antonelli said, "U.S. forces never blocked aid convoys from reaching the wounded. We only recommended to the aid convoys that they should not enter the city because the MNF [Multi-National Forces] could not guarantee their security or safety." "The ICRC is very worried about the humanitarian situation in Falluja," Sidani said. Asked what the ICRC was doing to alleviate the suffering in Fallujah, Sidani said: "We are reminding the parties of their responsibilities under international humanitarian law." It should be noted that the U.S.A. and Britain, the belligerent occupying powers in Iraq, are the two largest contributors to the ICRC, providing more than 42 percent of its budget for field operations. A second convoy from Baghdad, headed by Dr. Said Ismael Haki, the IRCS president, delivered aid to Fallujah on Nov. 26. "There are no houses left in Fallujah, only destroyed places." Haki said. "I really don't know how the people will return to the city. No one will find their homes." As U.S. troops in Fallujah engaged in what has been described as the most intense urban combat since Vietnam, the controlled press scrupulously avoided discussion or footage of the devastation of the rebellious Sunni city. For example, during the second week of the attack, rather than discuss the widespread devastation of Fallujah, U.S. television news programs focused largely on a brawl between basketball players and fans in Detroit. Lt. Col. Brandl, commander of the 1st Battalion, 8th Marine Regiment, was filmed giving a "pep talk" to his marines: "The enemy has got a face – he's called Satan," Brandl said. "He's in Fallujah, and we're going to destroy him." At least 136 U.S. soldiers were killed during November in Iraq, and more than 800 were wounded, most of them in Fallujah, making it the most costly month, and operation, in terms of U.S. lives lost since the invasion of Iraq began in March 2003. FOR WHAT CAUSE? Michael Ware, Baghdad bureau chief for Time magazine, who has been in Fallujah during the fighting, said U.S. actions in Fallujah are "creating the nightmare that we are seeking to prevent." "I stood there as I saw American boys die," Ware told Chris Matthews of MSNBC on Nov. 24, "I mean, a man shot at close range, blown apart by a rocket propelled grenade. He dies there in front of you and I can't help but think why? For what cause? "I see us creating the very thing that the president said we went there to prevent," Ware said, "…subsequent to this invasion and the occupation and the guerrilla war that is currently underway, we are the midwives of the next generation of al Qaida and Islamic terrorist." Ware, who has interviewed senior insurgent leaders, said they study the writings of the Vietnamese general Vo Nguyen Giap, Che Guevara, and Mao Zedong. "They're bringing it straight from the Vietnam, and the broader insurgency playbook," Ware said. "The name of the game is deny the population to the insurgents," Ware said. "That's what we're trying to do, win hearts and minds. But we're not winning them." The U.S. struggle to win Iraqi hearts and minds suffered a further set back when NBC TV broadcast footage of a U.S. marine executing a wounded and unarmed Iraqi in a Fallujah mosque. The much-publicized shooting, apparently part of a massacre of a group of wounded resistance fighters, "was a rare crack in the façade that Washington, with the complicity of most of the corporate media, has tried to present to the world of its brutal assault on the rebel Iraqi city," Rohan Pearce wrote in The Greenleft Weekly Australia on Nov. 24. The New York Times has reported actions taken by U.S. forces in Fallujah, which appear to be prima facie evidence of war crimes, without mentioning that the actions constitute clear violations of the Laws of Land War found in the U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10. For example, a Nov. 20 Times article by Edward Wong, with two correspondents in Fallujah, reports that U.S. marines had transformed a mosque into a fortress with snipers and machine gunners perched on the roof. Then, using the passive form, Wong goes on to say that "no neutral group has been able to enter the city," without mentioning that U.S. forces blocked humanitarian aid convoys. Likewise, Wong wrote, "Electricity and water had been cut off." The Times, whose motto is "All the news that's fit to print," apparently didn't think that it's readers needed to know the U.S. forces had cut off the water and power to a city of 340,000 people. Asked if U.S. forces had cut power and water to Fallujah, Maj. Jay Antonelli of CPIC wrote: "MNF did, with approval of the Interim Iraqi Government, cut off electricity to the city of Fallujah as Operation Al-Fajr began. Water was not cut off intentionally, however the water system did sustain some kinetic damage during strikes." American Free Press asked the Pentagon's Lt. Col. Joe Yoswa if it is true that U.S. forces were using mosques as fortresses. "It's not possible," Yoswa said. "Under no circumstances. We would not set up snipers in a mosque in an offensive position." CPIC's Antonelli said: "MNF would not use a mosque as a 'fortress.' MNF and Iraqi security forces would only fire from a mosque if they were being fired upon and were firing back in self-defense." Abu Sabah, a refugee from Fallujah, reported seeing phosphorus bombs: "They used these weird bombs that put up smoke like a mushroom cloud. Then small pieces fell from the air with long tails of smoke trailing behind them. These exploded on the ground with large fires that burnt for half and hour," Abu Sabah said. "When anyone touched these fires their bodies burnt for hours." Eyewitnesses from Fallujah also reported seeing "melted" bodies. "THROW-AWAY SOLDIERS" Having seen what appeared to be a depleted uranium (DU) missile fired at a building in Fallujah on CNN during the first week of the fighting, AFP asked the Pentagon if DU weapons are being used in Fallujah. "Yes," Yoswa said, "DU is a standard round on the M-1 Abrams tank." Because U.S. marines in Fallujah are very close to the poison gas produced by exploded DU shells, AFP asked Yoswa if anything was being done to protect the troops from DU poisoning. Yoswa seemed unaware of the dangers posed by the use of DU. Marion Fulk, a retired nuclear scientist from Livermore National Lab told AFP that U.S. troops in DU contaminated battlefields are considered "throw-away soldiers." The Marines exposed to DU in Fallujah, and elsewhere, face greatly increased risks of cancer, deformed children, and other health problems in the future. OBLITERATION OF FALLUJAH The "obliteration of Fallujah" is a serious war crime, according to Francis A. Boyle, a professor of international law at the University of Illinois. "The obliteration of Fallujah continues apace," Boyle wrote in his Nov. 15 article, A War Crime in Real Time: Obliterating Fallujah. "Article 6(b) of the 1945 Nuremberg Charter defines a Nuremberg War Crime in relevant part as the 'wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages.' According to this definitive definition, the Bush administration's destruction of Fallujah constitutes a war crime for which Nazis were tried and executed." Finis -30- 1629 words ________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The all-new My Yahoo! – What will yours do? Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2017 8:13 PM To: 'Roger Helbig' > Cc: 'Karen Aram' >; Estabrook, Carl G >; 'peace-discuss at anti-war.net' >; 'C. G. ESTABROOK' >; 'Jay Becker' >; 'a-fields at uiuc.edu' >; Hoffman, Valerie J >; 'Joe Lauria' >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; Szoke, Ron >; 'Dave Trippel' >; 'Arlene Hickory' >; 'David Swanson' >; 'peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net' >; 'sherwoodross10 at gmail.com' >; 'abass10 at gmail.com' >; 'mickalideh at gmail.com' >; 'Lina Thorne' >; 'chicago at worldcantwait.net' > Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG Mattis expected his troops to be peacekeepers. They brought soccer balls with them when they deployed. LOL! Marines don’t play soccer or teach kids to play soccer.. My Dad was a Marine. He invaded Saipan, Tinian and Okinawa before he became a Lawyer. Marines destroy anyone and anything that is in front of them as they are trained to do and did at Fallujah under Mattis—A Real Mad Dog War Criminal. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2017 7:52 PM To: 'Roger Helbig' > Cc: Karen Aram >; Estabrook, Carl G >; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Jay Becker >; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; Szoke, Ron >; Dave Trippel >; Arlene Hickory >; David Swanson >; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com;abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG -----Original Message----- From: Karim A G [mailto:coffee at euro-comm.co.uk] Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2004 5:00 PM To: Karim A G Subject: A War Crime in Real Time http://www.counterpunch.org/boyle11152004.html November 15, 2004 A War Crime in Real Time Obliterating Fallujah By FRANCIS A. BOYLE The obliteration of Fallujah continues apace. Article 6(b) of the 1945 Nuremberg Charter defines a Nuremberg War Crime in relevant part as the ". . . wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages. . ." According to this definitive definition, the Bush Jr. administration's destruction of Fallujah constitutes a war crime for which Nazis were tried and executed. There is nothing surprising about that. Since the Bush Jr. administration's installation in power by the United States Supreme Court in January of 2001, the peoples of the world have witnessed a government in the United States of America that has demonstrated little if any respect for fundamental considerations of international law, international organizations, and human rights, let alone appreciation of the requirements for maintaining international peace and security. What the world has watched instead is a comprehensive and malicious assault upon the integrity of the international legal order by a group of men and women who are thoroughly Machiavellian in their perception of international relations and in their conduct of both foreign policy and domestic affairs. This is not simply a question of giving or withholding the benefit of the doubt when it comes to complicated matters of foreign affairs and defense policies to a U.S. government charged with the security of both its own citizens and those of its allies in Europe, the Western Hemisphere, and the Pacific. Rather, the Bush Jr. administration's foreign policy constitutes ongoing criminal activity under well-recognized principles of both international law and U.S. domestic law, in particular the Nuremberg Charter, the Nuremberg Judgment, and the Nuremberg Principles. So their obliteration of Fallujah was to be expected. One generation ago the peoples of the world asked themselves: Where were the "good" Germans? Well, there were some good Germans. The Lutheran theologian and pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer was the foremost exemplar of someone who led a life of principled opposition to the Nazi-terror state even unto death. Today the peoples of the world are likewise asking themselves: Where are the "good" Americans? Well, there are some good Americans. Like three Catholic Nuns in Denver, they are getting arrested and going to jail for protesting against United States weapons of mass destruction (WMD) whose power for human extermination far exceeds even the wildest fantasies of Hitler and the Nazis. Or else for protesting against illegal U.S.. military interventions around the world. Just recently the Nuclear Resister estimated that since the Fall of 2002, there have been more than 9,500 anti-war related arrests in the United States alone. Many more will be coming. In international legal terms, the Bush Jr. administration itself should now be viewed as constituting an ongoing criminal conspiracy under international criminal law in violation of the Nuremberg Charter, the Nuremberg Judgment, and the Nuremberg Principles, due to its formulation and undertaking of aggressive war policies that are legally akin to those perpetrated by the Nazi regime. As a consequence, American citizens possess the basic right under international law and the United States domestic law, including the U.S. Constitution, to engage in acts of non-violent civil resistance in order to prevent, impede, thwart, or terminate ongoing criminal activities perpetrated by U.S. government officials in their conduct of foreign affairs policies and military operations purported to relate to defense and counter-terrorism. This same right of civil resistance extends pari passu to all citizens of the world community of states. Everyone around the world has both the right and the duty under international law to resist ongoing criminal activities perpetrated by the Bush Jr. administration and its nefarious foreign accomplices such as Blair, Berlusconi, Howard, Koizumi, Kwasniewski, etc. by all non-violent means possible. If it is not so restrained, the Bush Jr. administration could very well precipitate a Third World War. The time for preventive action is now. Civil resistance is the way to go. People power can overcome power politics. Popular movements have succeeded in toppling tyrannical, dictatorial and authoritarian regimes throughout former Communist countries in Eastern Europe, as well as in Asia, and most recently in Latin America. It is time once again to exercise People Power here in the United States of America: "When in the Course of human Events. . . We hold these Truths to be self-evident. . . . we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and sacred Honor." Despite the best efforts by the Bush Jr. Leaguers to the contrary, we American Citizens still have our First Amendment Rights: Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Association, Freedom of Assembly, Freedom to Petition our Government for the Redress of these massive Grievances, Civil Resistance, etc. We are going to have to start vigorously exercising all of our First Amendment Rights right now. We must use them or else, as the saying goes, we will lose them. We must act not only for the good of the Peoples of Southwest Asia, but for our future, that of our children, that of our nation as a democratic society committed to the Rule of Law and the U.S. Constitution. The Nazis had their "homeland" too Francis A. Boyle, Professor of Law, University of Illinois, is author of Foundations of World Order, Duke University Press, The Criminality of Nuclear Deterrence, and Palestine, Palestinians and International Law, by Clarity Press. He can be reached at: FBOYLE at LAW.UIUC.EDU --- Subscribed as: fboyle at law.uiuc.edu; to unsubscribe send to al-awda-universalist-request at umich.edu with UNSUBSCRIBE as the SUBJECT. URL: Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Roger Helbig [mailto:rwhelbig at gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2017 6:43 PM To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: Karen Aram >; Estabrook, Carl G >; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Jay Becker >; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; Szoke, Ron >; Dave Trippel >; Arlene Hickory >; David Swanson >; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com;abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG There was no massacre at Fallujah. This is nonsense. Mattis expected his troops to be peacekeepers. They brought soccer balls with them when they deployed. I would love to see your "so called" war crime indictment. Wonder how much of it is from your fertile Hate America imagination and how much from the fertile Arab anti-American propaganda organs. Doubt a single paragraph is actually based on fact. On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 8:22 AM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss > wrote: Trump’s Secretary of War Mad Dog Mattis was responsible for the Massacre at Fallujah, which I pointed out on Counterpunch was a Nuremberg War Crime along the lines of the Nazis—the wanton devastation of a city-- in revenge for them killing our mercenaries. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Karen Aram [mailto:karenaram at hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2017 10:04 AM To: Estabrook, Carl G > Cc: Boyle, Francis A >; Jay Becker >; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; Szoke, Ron >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; Arlene Hickory >; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; David Swanson >; Dave Trippel >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Mildred O'brien >; David Johnson >; Joe Lauria >; David Green > Subject: Re: Guest Commentary by Carl in NG I’m sorry Carl, I don’t agree with that title either. It assumes that all in the anti-war movement welcome the Trump administration. Not all of us trust he will do some of that which he promised in respect to “defunding Nato,” “making friends with Russia,” or killing TPP. Even if he does those three things, his further provocations of China, are every bit as dangerous as those with Russia, it’s a mere tactic to drive a wedge between Russia and China, while chipping away at Iran. His Cabinet appointments are frightening to say the least in respect to Healthcare, Energy, Education, Housing, etc, etc. Further expansion of war in the Middle East, and North Africa, as well as expansion of capitalist corporate control is on the agenda no matter which of the two Party’s are in power. Obama paved the way, for all of which I have just referred, but it’s not over. Our only hope is that “the people” are now awake, and perhaps will focus on that which is most serious to survival. On Jan 22, 2017, at 07:44, Carl G. Estabrook > wrote: My original title was, “Why the anti-war movement welcomes the new administration.” For more on that theme, see >. —CGE On Jan 22, 2017, at 9:29 AM, Karen Aram > wrote: An excellent letter, which I posted on FB. I deliberately deleted the title that I assumed the NG created, because it gives the false impression that those of us in the anti-war movement, all support Trump. We don’t, we just didn’t support Hillary. Anyone in the anti-war movement supporting Hillary was supporting more of the same that Obama provided. On Jan 22, 2017, at 07:16, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: He {Obama} attacked eight countries (two more than George Bush), and conducted what one leading political commentator called "the most extreme terrorist campaign of modern times — his drone assassinations." He killed thousands of civilians with drones, including U.S. citizens and hundreds of children. A good letter by Carl today in NG. (Remember NG writes their own titles to letters.) We must now hold Trump’s feet to the fire across the board! I think Carl’s quote comes from Chomsky? In any event the Illinois Nazis Law Faculty fully supported and promoted and held out for emulation by lawyers and this Campus and our Good Community: "the most extreme terrorist campaign of modern times — his drone assassinations." The Illinois Nazis Law Faculty are just a GANG OF SICK PUPPIES! Fab Ed Norton Professor of Law Carl Schmitt College of Law: “Mein Fuhrer, I can walk!” Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) Feed: News-Gazette.com Posted on: Sunday, January 22, 2017 7:00 AM Author: digital.media Subject: Guest Commentary: Why anti-war movement welcomes Trump By C.G. ESTABROOK The European anti-war group "No War No NATO" writes as follows: "Demonstrating in Europe on 21 January, against the newly elected US President Donald Trump is tantamount to lending support to the Obama administration, which has transformed Europe into NATO's first line of attack, nuclear matters inclusive, against Russia. read more View article... _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.chambana.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fpeace-discuss&data=02%7C01%7Ckarenaram%40hotmail.com%7C6ea0294d887b4910ba5108d52390c739%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636454027089337207&sdata=v2ho9fKU8A%2F2dSYUS31%2Br1UPu4HaEfckCXJTgUP7vcU%3D&reserved=0 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Sun Nov 5 14:12:09 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2017 14:12:09 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG References: <9D3D5E59-5EFC-47DF-838D-C6508214E176@illinois.edu> Message-ID: Oh. And this is what Roger told about Mr. Alwaki’s 16 year old son, a US citizen drone murdered to death by KillerKoh/Clinton/Obama et al: This piece of shit doesn't do you any honor - the kid was killed because he went to where his Dad was recruiting and training Americans to kill Americans – According to the Intercept Expose on the Obama/Clinton/KillerKoh drone murder campaign, their CIA source told the Intercept that Mr. Alwaki’s child was deliberately murdered. And now we have killed his daughter. Corruption of Blood. Just like what Kings used to do during the Middle Ages. Kings Obama/Trump. Now prohibited by the United States Constitution. But as President George Bush Jr once said about the Constitution: “It’s just a goddam’ piece of paper!” Ditto for Harvard Law Obama. Ditto for Yale Law Clinton. Ditto for Harvard/Yale Law Killer Koh. Ditto for the Dean and Faculty of the University of Illiniwaks College of Law. fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2017 7:57 AM To: 'C G Estabrook' ; Karen Aram Cc: David Green ; Stuart Levy ; Peace-discuss Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG OK Carl. Understood. But I do wish to correct the record: Roger is a Mole for Military Intelligence. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2017 7:55 AM To: Karen Aram > Cc: Boyle, Francis A >; David Green >; Stuart Levy >; Peace-discuss > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG Censorship of an email list established to promote opposition to US wars seems to me a mistake. It is, in a small way, like antifa, a ‘gift to the Right.’ It suggests the silent promotion of views that the censors are unwilling to argue for. The equivocal George Orwell wrote (in the - suppressed - preface to 'Animal Farm’), "If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.” AWARE exists to liberate the anti-war discourse, effectively suppressed in main-stream media. And that means we sometimes have to talk to trolls and poltroons - and let them talk to us. —CGE On Nov 5, 2017, at 6:44 AM, Karen Aram > wrote: All worthy discussion on this “Peace Discuss List” is totally lost and muted by the likes of Roger, whether he is a mole, lacking the polish and sophistication of most “USG moles,” military or otherwise. I’m not referring to FBI contractors who almost always lack polish and sophistication, or just a nut, either way, he doesn’t belong here. He admits he signed up because of Mr. Rokke, and he has bashed this person many times over the years on this list. I know not whether Mr. Rokke is on this list, but its all become too absurd, and distracting. Distracting from anti-war efforts and serious discussion. Oh, but “freedom of speech, right?” Just not on the “Peace List." On Nov 5, 2017, at 04:26, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: And I forgot to add: Roger is in favor of Depleted Uranium. He is just a Mole for Military Intelligence on another Peace List. fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2017 6:21 AM To: Karen Aram >; Peace-discuss > Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG For the record, Doug Rokke helped me and Ramsey Clark defend Phil Berrigan and the DU Plowshares. We started out with them facing 40 years. At the end of a kangaroo court proceeding, they got two. The Prosecutor had publicly stated he was going to put Phil away for the rest of his life. At least Phil was able to die at his home surrounded by his Family and Friends instead of in some Federal Hell Hole. RIP: Phil Berrigan. Fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Roger Helbig [mailto:rwhelbig at gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2017 5:22 AM To: Boyle, Francis A >; Karen Aram >; Peace-discuss > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG No, but Boyle likes to spread lies - I joined your list because of Douglas Lind Rokke, University of Illinois PhD graduate and resident of nearby Rantoul. Rokke is a professional liar (see my other much longer message which is still being edited). Roger W Helbig Richmond, CA My mother was 1941 graduate of the University of Illinois - sadly, she died two days after I was born due to childbirth complications. On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 8:02 AM, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: Dear Karen: With all due respect, you must understand: Roger is a Mole for Military Intelligence. That is why he is on this Peace list. fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Karen Aram [mailto:karenaram at hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2017 9:58 AM To: Roger Helbig > Cc: Boyle, Francis A >; Peace-discuss > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG Roger Your statement: "There was no massacre at Fallujah. This is nonsense. Mattis expected his troops to be peacekeepers.” is so ludicrous, it invites laughter, long and loud laughter, if it weren’t so tragic, the many lives destroyed as a result of “Mad Dog Mattis” and the USG in it’s continuing genocide. Nothing you say, can ever be taken seriously, your continued harassment of anti-war activists on this “Peace Discussion List” is anathema to everything it stands for. I have to ask what are you doing here if not, just to irritate. Okay maybe your goal is to entertain, but your entertainment is very sick. Anyone and everyone, who supports the wars and interventions the US has and continues to perpetrate around the world, has blood on their hands, as “complicit Americans." That is the way we are viewed by others in the world today. On Nov 4, 2017, at 07:31, Roger Helbig via Peace-discuss > wrote: what exactly is that supposed to mean - my choices of assignment were Intelligence, Weather and Cartography and the Air Force made me an Electronic Systems (ground radar maintenance) Officer - I liked languages - I was a literate three year old in Russian and wanted to learn more - I like puzzles - putting pieces together - that's what I thought intelligence officers did - Weather was where I got assigned for familiarization during summer camp so I somewhat expected that I would get that and a M/S in Meterology - Cartography because as a Geologist, I made maps of what was below the ground and cartographers made maps of what was above the ground. I voted for Democratic candidates starting with George McGovern - so I was not exactly a fan of Richard Nixon so hardly Nixonian! Roger On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 7:19 AM, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: “I wanted to be”—Military Intelligence. A Typical Nixonian Limited Hang-out. fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Roger Helbig [mailto:rwhelbig at gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2017 9:15 AM To: Boyle, Francis A >; Peace-discuss > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG and you spread lies - I never worked for military intelligence - they would not let me because I am partially color blind and to be an Air Force intelligence officer, you needed to be able to interpret false colors on air photos - I wanted to be because I like to work through problems and took Russian as an elective my senior year as part of my know your enemy program - Now, you have not refuted that The American Free Press was established by Willis Carto - that Carto was a Neo Nazi or that Bollyn worked for Carto and Buchanan - you more than likely have not read Blood and Politics - maybe some of the others were. I don't seem to have scan of page where the American Free Press was established to replace The Spotlight, but attached is the one where it discusses the establishment of The Barnes Review and the conference discussed on the blog is for both of these publications. On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 6:37 AM, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: Once again, Roger crawls out of his hole as a Mole for US “Military Intelligence”—an oxymoron to be sure. Fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Roger Helbig [mailto:rwhelbig at gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2017 8:12 AM To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: Karen Aram >; Estabrook, Carl G >; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Jay Becker >; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; Szoke, Ron >; Dave Trippel >; Arlene Hickory >; David Swanson >; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com;abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG You do know that Christopher Bollyn is NOT a reporter but is a Neo Nazi operative of long standing and that the American Free Press is not a news organization, but a Neo Nazi front - look up Willis Carto - he was Bollyn's boss and founded the American Free Press - this website that has reports of conference for American Free Press and The Barnes Review used to have a prominent picture of a Nazi flag behind the blogger Alex Hassinger - Douglas Lind Rokke of Urbana spoke at this event and Dave von Kleist the producer of Rokke's first anti-US propaganda video "Beyond Treason" was the master of ceremonies - http://www.chairmanofnordwave.blogspot.com Carto died in 2015 - there are a number of good sources on Carto in a simple Google search - Learn about Neo Nazis - read this book - "Blood and Politics" - it mentions Bollyn and extensively discusses Carto - pg 382, which I can e-mail to all who request - has Carto's establishment of The Barnes Review, a Holocaust Denial publication - The American Free Press replaced Carto's The Spotlight after Carto lost a legal battle - Bollyn is also mentioned in connection with a Pat Buchanan campaign apparatus On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 4:57 AM, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: I also want to make it clear for the record that before the invasions of Saipan, Tinian and Okinawa my Father, a Marine, was ordered by his Captain not to take prisoners of war on the grounds of reciprocity that the Japanese did not take Prisoners of War of our Men. My Father disobeyed these clearly illegal orders and took Japanese Prisoners of War. I cite the example of my Father to my law students to refute the objection that you cannot expect soldiers to obey the laws of war during combat. If my Father could obey the laws of war at Saipan, Tinian, and Okinawa, any other soldier should be able to do the same. Meanwhile,while I am teaching this to my students, the Illinois Nazis Law Faculty aid, abet, and promote and facilitate war crimes and crimes against humanity from the safety of their offices. My Father later became a Lawyer. RIP. The Illinois Nazis Law Faculty are despicable! Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2017 8:38 PM To: Roger Helbig > Cc: Karen Aram >; Estabrook, Carl G >; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Jay Becker >; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; Szoke, Ron >; Dave Trippel >; Arlene Hickory >; David Swanson >; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com;abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG Mad Dog Mattis the Nuremberg War Criminal. Fab. CONTROLLED PRESS IGNORES CRIMINAL OBLITERATION OF FALLUJAH By Christopher Bollyn American Free Press The controlled press has scrupulously avoided discussing the devastation and prima facie evidence of war crimes committed during the U.S. siege and assault of Fallujah. As Americans prepared for Thanksgiving, an estimated 100,000 residents of the besieged Iraqi city of Fallujah, trapped in their homes, struggled to survive without fresh food, water or electricity, reportedly cut off by U.S. forces on November 8. Meanwhile, on the streets of Fallujah, a city of more than 350,000, dogs gnawed on bloated and rotting corpses that remained unburied for weeks. Thousands of families in Fallujah were reported to be in a critical humanitarian situation after U.S. forces prevented the delivery of relief supplies. An Iraq Red Crescent Society (IRCS) humanitarian aid convoy, reportedly blocked by U.S. troops for more than two weeks, was allowed to deliver aid to residents in the heart of the city on November 25. On Thanksgiving, U.S. forces permitted the IRCS convoy carrying thousands of food parcels, blankets, tents and medical supplies to enter the city and allowed one of the clinics to be converted into a temporary hospital to treat the injured. Rana Sidani of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) in Geneva, Switzerland however, told American Free Press on Nov. 30 that "many civilians" were still prevented from receiving aid or medical care. At the beginning of the U.S. operation in Fallujah on Nov. 5, a hospital in the central Nazzal district of Fallujah was "reduced to rubble" as a result of U.S. air and artillery bombardment. "Only its façade, with a sign reading Nazzal Emergency Hospital, remained intact," Reuters reported. "A nearby compound used by the main Falluja Hospital to store medical supplies was also destroyed," witnesses told Reuters. Fallujah's main hospital was occupied by U.S. forces when the ground offensive began. These actions are apparent violations of international humanitarian law. "Bodies can be seen everywhere and people were crying when receiving the food parcels," Muhammad al-Nuri, a spokesman for the IRCS in Baghdad, said. "It is very sad. It is a human disaster." Al-Nuri said that it is difficult to move in the city due to the large number of dead bodies in the streets. The ICRS estimates there are more than 6,000 dead in Fallujah, al-Nuri said. AFP asked Major Jay Antonelli at the Coalition Press Information Center (CPIC) in Baghdad if the ICRS estimate of 6,000 dead in Fallujah was credible. "We do not keep a count of dead Iraqis," Antonelli said. Asked the same question, the ICRC's Sidani said, "We don't know." Antonelli said, "U.S. forces never blocked aid convoys from reaching the wounded. We only recommended to the aid convoys that they should not enter the city because the MNF [Multi-National Forces] could not guarantee their security or safety." "The ICRC is very worried about the humanitarian situation in Falluja," Sidani said. Asked what the ICRC was doing to alleviate the suffering in Fallujah, Sidani said: "We are reminding the parties of their responsibilities under international humanitarian law." It should be noted that the U.S.A. and Britain, the belligerent occupying powers in Iraq, are the two largest contributors to the ICRC, providing more than 42 percent of its budget for field operations. A second convoy from Baghdad, headed by Dr. Said Ismael Haki, the IRCS president, delivered aid to Fallujah on Nov. 26. "There are no houses left in Fallujah, only destroyed places." Haki said. "I really don't know how the people will return to the city. No one will find their homes." As U.S. troops in Fallujah engaged in what has been described as the most intense urban combat since Vietnam, the controlled press scrupulously avoided discussion or footage of the devastation of the rebellious Sunni city. For example, during the second week of the attack, rather than discuss the widespread devastation of Fallujah, U.S. television news programs focused largely on a brawl between basketball players and fans in Detroit. Lt. Col. Brandl, commander of the 1st Battalion, 8th Marine Regiment, was filmed giving a "pep talk" to his marines: "The enemy has got a face – he's called Satan," Brandl said. "He's in Fallujah, and we're going to destroy him." At least 136 U.S. soldiers were killed during November in Iraq, and more than 800 were wounded, most of them in Fallujah, making it the most costly month, and operation, in terms of U.S. lives lost since the invasion of Iraq began in March 2003. FOR WHAT CAUSE? Michael Ware, Baghdad bureau chief for Time magazine, who has been in Fallujah during the fighting, said U.S. actions in Fallujah are "creating the nightmare that we are seeking to prevent." "I stood there as I saw American boys die," Ware told Chris Matthews of MSNBC on Nov. 24, "I mean, a man shot at close range, blown apart by a rocket propelled grenade. He dies there in front of you and I can't help but think why? For what cause? "I see us creating the very thing that the president said we went there to prevent," Ware said, "…subsequent to this invasion and the occupation and the guerrilla war that is currently underway, we are the midwives of the next generation of al Qaida and Islamic terrorist." Ware, who has interviewed senior insurgent leaders, said they study the writings of the Vietnamese general Vo Nguyen Giap, Che Guevara, and Mao Zedong. "They're bringing it straight from the Vietnam, and the broader insurgency playbook," Ware said. "The name of the game is deny the population to the insurgents," Ware said. "That's what we're trying to do, win hearts and minds. But we're not winning them." The U.S. struggle to win Iraqi hearts and minds suffered a further set back when NBC TV broadcast footage of a U.S. marine executing a wounded and unarmed Iraqi in a Fallujah mosque. The much-publicized shooting, apparently part of a massacre of a group of wounded resistance fighters, "was a rare crack in the façade that Washington, with the complicity of most of the corporate media, has tried to present to the world of its brutal assault on the rebel Iraqi city," Rohan Pearce wrote in The Greenleft Weekly Australia on Nov. 24. The New York Times has reported actions taken by U.S. forces in Fallujah, which appear to be prima facie evidence of war crimes, without mentioning that the actions constitute clear violations of the Laws of Land War found in the U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10. For example, a Nov. 20 Times article by Edward Wong, with two correspondents in Fallujah, reports that U.S. marines had transformed a mosque into a fortress with snipers and machine gunners perched on the roof. Then, using the passive form, Wong goes on to say that "no neutral group has been able to enter the city," without mentioning that U.S. forces blocked humanitarian aid convoys. Likewise, Wong wrote, "Electricity and water had been cut off." The Times, whose motto is "All the news that's fit to print," apparently didn't think that it's readers needed to know the U.S. forces had cut off the water and power to a city of 340,000 people. Asked if U.S. forces had cut power and water to Fallujah, Maj. Jay Antonelli of CPIC wrote: "MNF did, with approval of the Interim Iraqi Government, cut off electricity to the city of Fallujah as Operation Al-Fajr began. Water was not cut off intentionally, however the water system did sustain some kinetic damage during strikes." American Free Press asked the Pentagon's Lt. Col. Joe Yoswa if it is true that U.S. forces were using mosques as fortresses. "It's not possible," Yoswa said. "Under no circumstances. We would not set up snipers in a mosque in an offensive position." CPIC's Antonelli said: "MNF would not use a mosque as a 'fortress.' MNF and Iraqi security forces would only fire from a mosque if they were being fired upon and were firing back in self-defense." Abu Sabah, a refugee from Fallujah, reported seeing phosphorus bombs: "They used these weird bombs that put up smoke like a mushroom cloud. Then small pieces fell from the air with long tails of smoke trailing behind them. These exploded on the ground with large fires that burnt for half and hour," Abu Sabah said. "When anyone touched these fires their bodies burnt for hours." Eyewitnesses from Fallujah also reported seeing "melted" bodies. "THROW-AWAY SOLDIERS" Having seen what appeared to be a depleted uranium (DU) missile fired at a building in Fallujah on CNN during the first week of the fighting, AFP asked the Pentagon if DU weapons are being used in Fallujah. "Yes," Yoswa said, "DU is a standard round on the M-1 Abrams tank." Because U.S. marines in Fallujah are very close to the poison gas produced by exploded DU shells, AFP asked Yoswa if anything was being done to protect the troops from DU poisoning. Yoswa seemed unaware of the dangers posed by the use of DU. Marion Fulk, a retired nuclear scientist from Livermore National Lab told AFP that U.S. troops in DU contaminated battlefields are considered "throw-away soldiers." The Marines exposed to DU in Fallujah, and elsewhere, face greatly increased risks of cancer, deformed children, and other health problems in the future. OBLITERATION OF FALLUJAH The "obliteration of Fallujah" is a serious war crime, according to Francis A. Boyle, a professor of international law at the University of Illinois. "The obliteration of Fallujah continues apace," Boyle wrote in his Nov. 15 article, A War Crime in Real Time: Obliterating Fallujah. "Article 6(b) of the 1945 Nuremberg Charter defines a Nuremberg War Crime in relevant part as the 'wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages.' According to this definitive definition, the Bush administration's destruction of Fallujah constitutes a war crime for which Nazis were tried and executed." Finis -30- 1629 words ________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The all-new My Yahoo! – What will yours do? Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2017 8:13 PM To: 'Roger Helbig' > Cc: 'Karen Aram' >; Estabrook, Carl G >; 'peace-discuss at anti-war.net' >; 'C. G. ESTABROOK' >; 'Jay Becker' >; 'a-fields at uiuc.edu' >; Hoffman, Valerie J >; 'Joe Lauria' >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; Szoke, Ron >; 'Dave Trippel' >; 'Arlene Hickory' >; 'David Swanson' >; 'peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net' >; 'sherwoodross10 at gmail.com' >; 'abass10 at gmail.com' >; 'mickalideh at gmail.com' >; 'Lina Thorne' >; 'chicago at worldcantwait.net' > Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG Mattis expected his troops to be peacekeepers. They brought soccer balls with them when they deployed. LOL! Marines don’t play soccer or teach kids to play soccer.. My Dad was a Marine. He invaded Saipan, Tinian and Okinawa before he became a Lawyer. Marines destroy anyone and anything that is in front of them as they are trained to do and did at Fallujah under Mattis—A Real Mad Dog War Criminal. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2017 7:52 PM To: 'Roger Helbig' > Cc: Karen Aram >; Estabrook, Carl G >; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Jay Becker >; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; Szoke, Ron >; Dave Trippel >; Arlene Hickory >; David Swanson >; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com;abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG -----Original Message----- From: Karim A G [mailto:coffee at euro-comm.co.uk] Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2004 5:00 PM To: Karim A G Subject: A War Crime in Real Time http://www.counterpunch.org/boyle11152004.html November 15, 2004 A War Crime in Real Time Obliterating Fallujah By FRANCIS A. BOYLE The obliteration of Fallujah continues apace. Article 6(b) of the 1945 Nuremberg Charter defines a Nuremberg War Crime in relevant part as the ". . . wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages. . ." According to this definitive definition, the Bush Jr. administration's destruction of Fallujah constitutes a war crime for which Nazis were tried and executed. There is nothing surprising about that. Since the Bush Jr. administration's installation in power by the United States Supreme Court in January of 2001, the peoples of the world have witnessed a government in the United States of America that has demonstrated little if any respect for fundamental considerations of international law, international organizations, and human rights, let alone appreciation of the requirements for maintaining international peace and security. What the world has watched instead is a comprehensive and malicious assault upon the integrity of the international legal order by a group of men and women who are thoroughly Machiavellian in their perception of international relations and in their conduct of both foreign policy and domestic affairs. This is not simply a question of giving or withholding the benefit of the doubt when it comes to complicated matters of foreign affairs and defense policies to a U.S. government charged with the security of both its own citizens and those of its allies in Europe, the Western Hemisphere, and the Pacific. Rather, the Bush Jr. administration's foreign policy constitutes ongoing criminal activity under well-recognized principles of both international law and U.S. domestic law, in particular the Nuremberg Charter, the Nuremberg Judgment, and the Nuremberg Principles. So their obliteration of Fallujah was to be expected. One generation ago the peoples of the world asked themselves: Where were the "good" Germans? Well, there were some good Germans. The Lutheran theologian and pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer was the foremost exemplar of someone who led a life of principled opposition to the Nazi-terror state even unto death. Today the peoples of the world are likewise asking themselves: Where are the "good" Americans? Well, there are some good Americans. Like three Catholic Nuns in Denver, they are getting arrested and going to jail for protesting against United States weapons of mass destruction (WMD) whose power for human extermination far exceeds even the wildest fantasies of Hitler and the Nazis. Or else for protesting against illegal U.S.. military interventions around the world. Just recently the Nuclear Resister estimated that since the Fall of 2002, there have been more than 9,500 anti-war related arrests in the United States alone. Many more will be coming. In international legal terms, the Bush Jr. administration itself should now be viewed as constituting an ongoing criminal conspiracy under international criminal law in violation of the Nuremberg Charter, the Nuremberg Judgment, and the Nuremberg Principles, due to its formulation and undertaking of aggressive war policies that are legally akin to those perpetrated by the Nazi regime. As a consequence, American citizens possess the basic right under international law and the United States domestic law, including the U.S. Constitution, to engage in acts of non-violent civil resistance in order to prevent, impede, thwart, or terminate ongoing criminal activities perpetrated by U.S. government officials in their conduct of foreign affairs policies and military operations purported to relate to defense and counter-terrorism. This same right of civil resistance extends pari passu to all citizens of the world community of states. Everyone around the world has both the right and the duty under international law to resist ongoing criminal activities perpetrated by the Bush Jr. administration and its nefarious foreign accomplices such as Blair, Berlusconi, Howard, Koizumi, Kwasniewski, etc. by all non-violent means possible. If it is not so restrained, the Bush Jr. administration could very well precipitate a Third World War. The time for preventive action is now. Civil resistance is the way to go. People power can overcome power politics. Popular movements have succeeded in toppling tyrannical, dictatorial and authoritarian regimes throughout former Communist countries in Eastern Europe, as well as in Asia, and most recently in Latin America. It is time once again to exercise People Power here in the United States of America: "When in the Course of human Events. . . We hold these Truths to be self-evident. . . . we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and sacred Honor." Despite the best efforts by the Bush Jr. Leaguers to the contrary, we American Citizens still have our First Amendment Rights: Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Association, Freedom of Assembly, Freedom to Petition our Government for the Redress of these massive Grievances, Civil Resistance, etc. We are going to have to start vigorously exercising all of our First Amendment Rights right now. We must use them or else, as the saying goes, we will lose them. We must act not only for the good of the Peoples of Southwest Asia, but for our future, that of our children, that of our nation as a democratic society committed to the Rule of Law and the U.S. Constitution. The Nazis had their "homeland" too Francis A. Boyle, Professor of Law, University of Illinois, is author of Foundations of World Order, Duke University Press, The Criminality of Nuclear Deterrence, and Palestine, Palestinians and International Law, by Clarity Press. He can be reached at: FBOYLE at LAW.UIUC.EDU --- Subscribed as: fboyle at law.uiuc.edu; to unsubscribe send to al-awda-universalist-request at umich.edu with UNSUBSCRIBE as the SUBJECT. URL: Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Roger Helbig [mailto:rwhelbig at gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2017 6:43 PM To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: Karen Aram >; Estabrook, Carl G >; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Jay Becker >; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; Szoke, Ron >; Dave Trippel >; Arlene Hickory >; David Swanson >; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com;abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG There was no massacre at Fallujah. This is nonsense. Mattis expected his troops to be peacekeepers. They brought soccer balls with them when they deployed. I would love to see your "so called" war crime indictment. Wonder how much of it is from your fertile Hate America imagination and how much from the fertile Arab anti-American propaganda organs. Doubt a single paragraph is actually based on fact. On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 8:22 AM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss > wrote: Trump’s Secretary of War Mad Dog Mattis was responsible for the Massacre at Fallujah, which I pointed out on Counterpunch was a Nuremberg War Crime along the lines of the Nazis—the wanton devastation of a city-- in revenge for them killing our mercenaries. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Karen Aram [mailto:karenaram at hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2017 10:04 AM To: Estabrook, Carl G > Cc: Boyle, Francis A >; Jay Becker >; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; Szoke, Ron >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; Arlene Hickory >; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; David Swanson >; Dave Trippel >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Mildred O'brien >; David Johnson >; Joe Lauria >; David Green > Subject: Re: Guest Commentary by Carl in NG I’m sorry Carl, I don’t agree with that title either. It assumes that all in the anti-war movement welcome the Trump administration. Not all of us trust he will do some of that which he promised in respect to “defunding Nato,” “making friends with Russia,” or killing TPP. Even if he does those three things, his further provocations of China, are every bit as dangerous as those with Russia, it’s a mere tactic to drive a wedge between Russia and China, while chipping away at Iran. His Cabinet appointments are frightening to say the least in respect to Healthcare, Energy, Education, Housing, etc, etc. Further expansion of war in the Middle East, and North Africa, as well as expansion of capitalist corporate control is on the agenda no matter which of the two Party’s are in power. Obama paved the way, for all of which I have just referred, but it’s not over. Our only hope is that “the people” are now awake, and perhaps will focus on that which is most serious to survival. On Jan 22, 2017, at 07:44, Carl G. Estabrook > wrote: My original title was, “Why the anti-war movement welcomes the new administration.” For more on that theme, see >. —CGE On Jan 22, 2017, at 9:29 AM, Karen Aram > wrote: An excellent letter, which I posted on FB. I deliberately deleted the title that I assumed the NG created, because it gives the false impression that those of us in the anti-war movement, all support Trump. We don’t, we just didn’t support Hillary. Anyone in the anti-war movement supporting Hillary was supporting more of the same that Obama provided. On Jan 22, 2017, at 07:16, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: He {Obama} attacked eight countries (two more than George Bush), and conducted what one leading political commentator called "the most extreme terrorist campaign of modern times — his drone assassinations." He killed thousands of civilians with drones, including U.S. citizens and hundreds of children. A good letter by Carl today in NG. (Remember NG writes their own titles to letters.) We must now hold Trump’s feet to the fire across the board! I think Carl’s quote comes from Chomsky? In any event the Illinois Nazis Law Faculty fully supported and promoted and held out for emulation by lawyers and this Campus and our Good Community: "the most extreme terrorist campaign of modern times — his drone assassinations." The Illinois Nazis Law Faculty are just a GANG OF SICK PUPPIES! Fab Ed Norton Professor of Law Carl Schmitt College of Law: “Mein Fuhrer, I can walk!” Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) Feed: News-Gazette.com Posted on: Sunday, January 22, 2017 7:00 AM Author: digital.media Subject: Guest Commentary: Why anti-war movement welcomes Trump By C.G. ESTABROOK The European anti-war group "No War No NATO" writes as follows: "Demonstrating in Europe on 21 January, against the newly elected US President Donald Trump is tantamount to lending support to the Obama administration, which has transformed Europe into NATO's first line of attack, nuclear matters inclusive, against Russia. read more View article... _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.chambana.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fpeace-discuss&data=02%7C01%7Ckarenaram%40hotmail.com%7C6ea0294d887b4910ba5108d52390c739%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636454027089337207&sdata=v2ho9fKU8A%2F2dSYUS31%2Br1UPu4HaEfckCXJTgUP7vcU%3D&reserved=0 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Sun Nov 5 14:14:14 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2017 14:14:14 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG References: <9D3D5E59-5EFC-47DF-838D-C6508214E176@illinois.edu> Message-ID: I am no fan of Governor Rauner. But to his great and everlasting credit, Governor Rauner recently signed legislation that turned the entire State of Illinois into a Sanctuary State. Soon thereafter Illinois Law Dean Amar of the University of Illinois College of Law—the Flagship State Law School on the Flagship Campus of the University of Illinois where Governor Rauner sits on the Board of Trustees as an Ex Officio Member— publicly came out against the Sanctuary Movement. Republican Governor Rauner courageously aligned himself and the State of Illinois with the Sanctuary Movement against Trump. Illinois Law Dean Amar cravenly aligned himself with Trump against the Sanctuary Movement and Governor Rauner and the State of Illinois and 11 Million Undocumented Migrants and Their Families and 800,000 DACA Kids and 50,000 Haitian Refugees and Tens of Thousands of Central American Refugees still in this country from the Original Sanctuary Movement and Their Families. And to the best of my knowledge, and I stand subject to correction, Illinois Law Dean Amar is the first and so far the only Law Dean in the country to publicly come out against the Sanctuary Movement and 11 Million Undocumented Migrants and Their Families, and 800,000 DACA Kids and 50,000 Haitian Refugees and Tens of Thousands of Central American refugees still in this country from the Original Sanctuary Movement whom Illinois Governor Rauner had the courage and common sense and decency and compassion and principles and integrity to protect from Trump by turning the entire State of Illinois into a Sanctuary State for them all. Professor Francis A. Boyle University of Illinois College of Law Board of Directors, Amnesty International USA (1988-1992) Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2017 8:12 AM To: 'C G Estabrook' ; 'Karen Aram' Cc: 'David Green' ; 'Stuart Levy' ; 'Peace-discuss' Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG Oh. And this is what Roger told about Mr. Alwaki’s 16 year old son, a US citizen drone murdered to death by KillerKoh/Clinton/Obama et al: This piece of shit doesn't do you any honor - the kid was killed because he went to where his Dad was recruiting and training Americans to kill Americans – According to the Intercept Expose on the Obama/Clinton/KillerKoh drone murder campaign, their CIA source told the Intercept that Mr. Alwaki’s child was deliberately murdered. And now we have killed his daughter. Corruption of Blood. Just like what Kings used to do during the Middle Ages. Kings Obama/Trump. Now prohibited by the United States Constitution. But as President George Bush Jr once said about the Constitution: “It’s just a goddam’ piece of paper!” Ditto for Harvard Law Obama. Ditto for Yale Law Clinton. Ditto for Harvard/Yale Law Killer Koh. Ditto for the Dean and Faculty of the University of Illiniwaks College of Law. fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2017 7:57 AM To: 'C G Estabrook' >; Karen Aram > Cc: David Green >; Stuart Levy >; Peace-discuss > Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG OK Carl. Understood. But I do wish to correct the record: Roger is a Mole for Military Intelligence. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2017 7:55 AM To: Karen Aram > Cc: Boyle, Francis A >; David Green >; Stuart Levy >; Peace-discuss > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG Censorship of an email list established to promote opposition to US wars seems to me a mistake. It is, in a small way, like antifa, a ‘gift to the Right.’ It suggests the silent promotion of views that the censors are unwilling to argue for. The equivocal George Orwell wrote (in the - suppressed - preface to 'Animal Farm’), "If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.” AWARE exists to liberate the anti-war discourse, effectively suppressed in main-stream media. And that means we sometimes have to talk to trolls and poltroons - and let them talk to us. —CGE On Nov 5, 2017, at 6:44 AM, Karen Aram > wrote: All worthy discussion on this “Peace Discuss List” is totally lost and muted by the likes of Roger, whether he is a mole, lacking the polish and sophistication of most “USG moles,” military or otherwise. I’m not referring to FBI contractors who almost always lack polish and sophistication, or just a nut, either way, he doesn’t belong here. He admits he signed up because of Mr. Rokke, and he has bashed this person many times over the years on this list. I know not whether Mr. Rokke is on this list, but its all become too absurd, and distracting. Distracting from anti-war efforts and serious discussion. Oh, but “freedom of speech, right?” Just not on the “Peace List." On Nov 5, 2017, at 04:26, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: And I forgot to add: Roger is in favor of Depleted Uranium. He is just a Mole for Military Intelligence on another Peace List. fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2017 6:21 AM To: Karen Aram >; Peace-discuss > Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG For the record, Doug Rokke helped me and Ramsey Clark defend Phil Berrigan and the DU Plowshares. We started out with them facing 40 years. At the end of a kangaroo court proceeding, they got two. The Prosecutor had publicly stated he was going to put Phil away for the rest of his life. At least Phil was able to die at his home surrounded by his Family and Friends instead of in some Federal Hell Hole. RIP: Phil Berrigan. Fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Roger Helbig [mailto:rwhelbig at gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2017 5:22 AM To: Boyle, Francis A >; Karen Aram >; Peace-discuss > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG No, but Boyle likes to spread lies - I joined your list because of Douglas Lind Rokke, University of Illinois PhD graduate and resident of nearby Rantoul. Rokke is a professional liar (see my other much longer message which is still being edited). Roger W Helbig Richmond, CA My mother was 1941 graduate of the University of Illinois - sadly, she died two days after I was born due to childbirth complications. On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 8:02 AM, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: Dear Karen: With all due respect, you must understand: Roger is a Mole for Military Intelligence. That is why he is on this Peace list. fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Karen Aram [mailto:karenaram at hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2017 9:58 AM To: Roger Helbig > Cc: Boyle, Francis A >; Peace-discuss > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG Roger Your statement: "There was no massacre at Fallujah. This is nonsense. Mattis expected his troops to be peacekeepers.” is so ludicrous, it invites laughter, long and loud laughter, if it weren’t so tragic, the many lives destroyed as a result of “Mad Dog Mattis” and the USG in it’s continuing genocide. Nothing you say, can ever be taken seriously, your continued harassment of anti-war activists on this “Peace Discussion List” is anathema to everything it stands for. I have to ask what are you doing here if not, just to irritate. Okay maybe your goal is to entertain, but your entertainment is very sick. Anyone and everyone, who supports the wars and interventions the US has and continues to perpetrate around the world, has blood on their hands, as “complicit Americans." That is the way we are viewed by others in the world today. On Nov 4, 2017, at 07:31, Roger Helbig via Peace-discuss > wrote: what exactly is that supposed to mean - my choices of assignment were Intelligence, Weather and Cartography and the Air Force made me an Electronic Systems (ground radar maintenance) Officer - I liked languages - I was a literate three year old in Russian and wanted to learn more - I like puzzles - putting pieces together - that's what I thought intelligence officers did - Weather was where I got assigned for familiarization during summer camp so I somewhat expected that I would get that and a M/S in Meterology - Cartography because as a Geologist, I made maps of what was below the ground and cartographers made maps of what was above the ground. I voted for Democratic candidates starting with George McGovern - so I was not exactly a fan of Richard Nixon so hardly Nixonian! Roger On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 7:19 AM, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: “I wanted to be”—Military Intelligence. A Typical Nixonian Limited Hang-out. fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Roger Helbig [mailto:rwhelbig at gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2017 9:15 AM To: Boyle, Francis A >; Peace-discuss > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG and you spread lies - I never worked for military intelligence - they would not let me because I am partially color blind and to be an Air Force intelligence officer, you needed to be able to interpret false colors on air photos - I wanted to be because I like to work through problems and took Russian as an elective my senior year as part of my know your enemy program - Now, you have not refuted that The American Free Press was established by Willis Carto - that Carto was a Neo Nazi or that Bollyn worked for Carto and Buchanan - you more than likely have not read Blood and Politics - maybe some of the others were. I don't seem to have scan of page where the American Free Press was established to replace The Spotlight, but attached is the one where it discusses the establishment of The Barnes Review and the conference discussed on the blog is for both of these publications. On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 6:37 AM, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: Once again, Roger crawls out of his hole as a Mole for US “Military Intelligence”—an oxymoron to be sure. Fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Roger Helbig [mailto:rwhelbig at gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2017 8:12 AM To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: Karen Aram >; Estabrook, Carl G >; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Jay Becker >; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; Szoke, Ron >; Dave Trippel >; Arlene Hickory >; David Swanson >; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com;abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG You do know that Christopher Bollyn is NOT a reporter but is a Neo Nazi operative of long standing and that the American Free Press is not a news organization, but a Neo Nazi front - look up Willis Carto - he was Bollyn's boss and founded the American Free Press - this website that has reports of conference for American Free Press and The Barnes Review used to have a prominent picture of a Nazi flag behind the blogger Alex Hassinger - Douglas Lind Rokke of Urbana spoke at this event and Dave von Kleist the producer of Rokke's first anti-US propaganda video "Beyond Treason" was the master of ceremonies - http://www.chairmanofnordwave.blogspot.com Carto died in 2015 - there are a number of good sources on Carto in a simple Google search - Learn about Neo Nazis - read this book - "Blood and Politics" - it mentions Bollyn and extensively discusses Carto - pg 382, which I can e-mail to all who request - has Carto's establishment of The Barnes Review, a Holocaust Denial publication - The American Free Press replaced Carto's The Spotlight after Carto lost a legal battle - Bollyn is also mentioned in connection with a Pat Buchanan campaign apparatus On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 4:57 AM, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: I also want to make it clear for the record that before the invasions of Saipan, Tinian and Okinawa my Father, a Marine, was ordered by his Captain not to take prisoners of war on the grounds of reciprocity that the Japanese did not take Prisoners of War of our Men. My Father disobeyed these clearly illegal orders and took Japanese Prisoners of War. I cite the example of my Father to my law students to refute the objection that you cannot expect soldiers to obey the laws of war during combat. If my Father could obey the laws of war at Saipan, Tinian, and Okinawa, any other soldier should be able to do the same. Meanwhile,while I am teaching this to my students, the Illinois Nazis Law Faculty aid, abet, and promote and facilitate war crimes and crimes against humanity from the safety of their offices. My Father later became a Lawyer. RIP. The Illinois Nazis Law Faculty are despicable! Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2017 8:38 PM To: Roger Helbig > Cc: Karen Aram >; Estabrook, Carl G >; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Jay Becker >; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; Szoke, Ron >; Dave Trippel >; Arlene Hickory >; David Swanson >; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com;abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG Mad Dog Mattis the Nuremberg War Criminal. Fab. CONTROLLED PRESS IGNORES CRIMINAL OBLITERATION OF FALLUJAH By Christopher Bollyn American Free Press The controlled press has scrupulously avoided discussing the devastation and prima facie evidence of war crimes committed during the U.S. siege and assault of Fallujah. As Americans prepared for Thanksgiving, an estimated 100,000 residents of the besieged Iraqi city of Fallujah, trapped in their homes, struggled to survive without fresh food, water or electricity, reportedly cut off by U.S. forces on November 8. Meanwhile, on the streets of Fallujah, a city of more than 350,000, dogs gnawed on bloated and rotting corpses that remained unburied for weeks. Thousands of families in Fallujah were reported to be in a critical humanitarian situation after U.S. forces prevented the delivery of relief supplies. An Iraq Red Crescent Society (IRCS) humanitarian aid convoy, reportedly blocked by U.S. troops for more than two weeks, was allowed to deliver aid to residents in the heart of the city on November 25. On Thanksgiving, U.S. forces permitted the IRCS convoy carrying thousands of food parcels, blankets, tents and medical supplies to enter the city and allowed one of the clinics to be converted into a temporary hospital to treat the injured. Rana Sidani of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) in Geneva, Switzerland however, told American Free Press on Nov. 30 that "many civilians" were still prevented from receiving aid or medical care. At the beginning of the U.S. operation in Fallujah on Nov. 5, a hospital in the central Nazzal district of Fallujah was "reduced to rubble" as a result of U.S. air and artillery bombardment. "Only its façade, with a sign reading Nazzal Emergency Hospital, remained intact," Reuters reported. "A nearby compound used by the main Falluja Hospital to store medical supplies was also destroyed," witnesses told Reuters. Fallujah's main hospital was occupied by U.S. forces when the ground offensive began. These actions are apparent violations of international humanitarian law. "Bodies can be seen everywhere and people were crying when receiving the food parcels," Muhammad al-Nuri, a spokesman for the IRCS in Baghdad, said. "It is very sad. It is a human disaster." Al-Nuri said that it is difficult to move in the city due to the large number of dead bodies in the streets. The ICRS estimates there are more than 6,000 dead in Fallujah, al-Nuri said. AFP asked Major Jay Antonelli at the Coalition Press Information Center (CPIC) in Baghdad if the ICRS estimate of 6,000 dead in Fallujah was credible. "We do not keep a count of dead Iraqis," Antonelli said. Asked the same question, the ICRC's Sidani said, "We don't know." Antonelli said, "U.S. forces never blocked aid convoys from reaching the wounded. We only recommended to the aid convoys that they should not enter the city because the MNF [Multi-National Forces] could not guarantee their security or safety." "The ICRC is very worried about the humanitarian situation in Falluja," Sidani said. Asked what the ICRC was doing to alleviate the suffering in Fallujah, Sidani said: "We are reminding the parties of their responsibilities under international humanitarian law." It should be noted that the U.S.A. and Britain, the belligerent occupying powers in Iraq, are the two largest contributors to the ICRC, providing more than 42 percent of its budget for field operations. A second convoy from Baghdad, headed by Dr. Said Ismael Haki, the IRCS president, delivered aid to Fallujah on Nov. 26. "There are no houses left in Fallujah, only destroyed places." Haki said. "I really don't know how the people will return to the city. No one will find their homes." As U.S. troops in Fallujah engaged in what has been described as the most intense urban combat since Vietnam, the controlled press scrupulously avoided discussion or footage of the devastation of the rebellious Sunni city. For example, during the second week of the attack, rather than discuss the widespread devastation of Fallujah, U.S. television news programs focused largely on a brawl between basketball players and fans in Detroit. Lt. Col. Brandl, commander of the 1st Battalion, 8th Marine Regiment, was filmed giving a "pep talk" to his marines: "The enemy has got a face – he's called Satan," Brandl said. "He's in Fallujah, and we're going to destroy him." At least 136 U.S. soldiers were killed during November in Iraq, and more than 800 were wounded, most of them in Fallujah, making it the most costly month, and operation, in terms of U.S. lives lost since the invasion of Iraq began in March 2003. FOR WHAT CAUSE? Michael Ware, Baghdad bureau chief for Time magazine, who has been in Fallujah during the fighting, said U.S. actions in Fallujah are "creating the nightmare that we are seeking to prevent." "I stood there as I saw American boys die," Ware told Chris Matthews of MSNBC on Nov. 24, "I mean, a man shot at close range, blown apart by a rocket propelled grenade. He dies there in front of you and I can't help but think why? For what cause? "I see us creating the very thing that the president said we went there to prevent," Ware said, "…subsequent to this invasion and the occupation and the guerrilla war that is currently underway, we are the midwives of the next generation of al Qaida and Islamic terrorist." Ware, who has interviewed senior insurgent leaders, said they study the writings of the Vietnamese general Vo Nguyen Giap, Che Guevara, and Mao Zedong. "They're bringing it straight from the Vietnam, and the broader insurgency playbook," Ware said. "The name of the game is deny the population to the insurgents," Ware said. "That's what we're trying to do, win hearts and minds. But we're not winning them." The U.S. struggle to win Iraqi hearts and minds suffered a further set back when NBC TV broadcast footage of a U.S. marine executing a wounded and unarmed Iraqi in a Fallujah mosque. The much-publicized shooting, apparently part of a massacre of a group of wounded resistance fighters, "was a rare crack in the façade that Washington, with the complicity of most of the corporate media, has tried to present to the world of its brutal assault on the rebel Iraqi city," Rohan Pearce wrote in The Greenleft Weekly Australia on Nov. 24. The New York Times has reported actions taken by U.S. forces in Fallujah, which appear to be prima facie evidence of war crimes, without mentioning that the actions constitute clear violations of the Laws of Land War found in the U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10. For example, a Nov. 20 Times article by Edward Wong, with two correspondents in Fallujah, reports that U.S. marines had transformed a mosque into a fortress with snipers and machine gunners perched on the roof. Then, using the passive form, Wong goes on to say that "no neutral group has been able to enter the city," without mentioning that U.S. forces blocked humanitarian aid convoys. Likewise, Wong wrote, "Electricity and water had been cut off." The Times, whose motto is "All the news that's fit to print," apparently didn't think that it's readers needed to know the U.S. forces had cut off the water and power to a city of 340,000 people. Asked if U.S. forces had cut power and water to Fallujah, Maj. Jay Antonelli of CPIC wrote: "MNF did, with approval of the Interim Iraqi Government, cut off electricity to the city of Fallujah as Operation Al-Fajr began. Water was not cut off intentionally, however the water system did sustain some kinetic damage during strikes." American Free Press asked the Pentagon's Lt. Col. Joe Yoswa if it is true that U.S. forces were using mosques as fortresses. "It's not possible," Yoswa said. "Under no circumstances. We would not set up snipers in a mosque in an offensive position." CPIC's Antonelli said: "MNF would not use a mosque as a 'fortress.' MNF and Iraqi security forces would only fire from a mosque if they were being fired upon and were firing back in self-defense." Abu Sabah, a refugee from Fallujah, reported seeing phosphorus bombs: "They used these weird bombs that put up smoke like a mushroom cloud. Then small pieces fell from the air with long tails of smoke trailing behind them. These exploded on the ground with large fires that burnt for half and hour," Abu Sabah said. "When anyone touched these fires their bodies burnt for hours." Eyewitnesses from Fallujah also reported seeing "melted" bodies. "THROW-AWAY SOLDIERS" Having seen what appeared to be a depleted uranium (DU) missile fired at a building in Fallujah on CNN during the first week of the fighting, AFP asked the Pentagon if DU weapons are being used in Fallujah. "Yes," Yoswa said, "DU is a standard round on the M-1 Abrams tank." Because U.S. marines in Fallujah are very close to the poison gas produced by exploded DU shells, AFP asked Yoswa if anything was being done to protect the troops from DU poisoning. Yoswa seemed unaware of the dangers posed by the use of DU. Marion Fulk, a retired nuclear scientist from Livermore National Lab told AFP that U.S. troops in DU contaminated battlefields are considered "throw-away soldiers." The Marines exposed to DU in Fallujah, and elsewhere, face greatly increased risks of cancer, deformed children, and other health problems in the future. OBLITERATION OF FALLUJAH The "obliteration of Fallujah" is a serious war crime, according to Francis A. Boyle, a professor of international law at the University of Illinois. "The obliteration of Fallujah continues apace," Boyle wrote in his Nov. 15 article, A War Crime in Real Time: Obliterating Fallujah. "Article 6(b) of the 1945 Nuremberg Charter defines a Nuremberg War Crime in relevant part as the 'wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages.' According to this definitive definition, the Bush administration's destruction of Fallujah constitutes a war crime for which Nazis were tried and executed." Finis -30- 1629 words ________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The all-new My Yahoo! – What will yours do? Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2017 8:13 PM To: 'Roger Helbig' > Cc: 'Karen Aram' >; Estabrook, Carl G >; 'peace-discuss at anti-war.net' >; 'C. G. ESTABROOK' >; 'Jay Becker' >; 'a-fields at uiuc.edu' >; Hoffman, Valerie J >; 'Joe Lauria' >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; Szoke, Ron >; 'Dave Trippel' >; 'Arlene Hickory' >; 'David Swanson' >; 'peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net' >; 'sherwoodross10 at gmail.com' >; 'abass10 at gmail.com' >; 'mickalideh at gmail.com' >; 'Lina Thorne' >; 'chicago at worldcantwait.net' > Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG Mattis expected his troops to be peacekeepers. They brought soccer balls with them when they deployed. LOL! Marines don’t play soccer or teach kids to play soccer.. My Dad was a Marine. He invaded Saipan, Tinian and Okinawa before he became a Lawyer. Marines destroy anyone and anything that is in front of them as they are trained to do and did at Fallujah under Mattis—A Real Mad Dog War Criminal. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2017 7:52 PM To: 'Roger Helbig' > Cc: Karen Aram >; Estabrook, Carl G >; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Jay Becker >; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; Szoke, Ron >; Dave Trippel >; Arlene Hickory >; David Swanson >; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com;abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG -----Original Message----- From: Karim A G [mailto:coffee at euro-comm.co.uk] Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2004 5:00 PM To: Karim A G Subject: A War Crime in Real Time http://www.counterpunch.org/boyle11152004.html November 15, 2004 A War Crime in Real Time Obliterating Fallujah By FRANCIS A. BOYLE The obliteration of Fallujah continues apace. Article 6(b) of the 1945 Nuremberg Charter defines a Nuremberg War Crime in relevant part as the ". . . wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages. . ." According to this definitive definition, the Bush Jr. administration's destruction of Fallujah constitutes a war crime for which Nazis were tried and executed. There is nothing surprising about that. Since the Bush Jr. administration's installation in power by the United States Supreme Court in January of 2001, the peoples of the world have witnessed a government in the United States of America that has demonstrated little if any respect for fundamental considerations of international law, international organizations, and human rights, let alone appreciation of the requirements for maintaining international peace and security. What the world has watched instead is a comprehensive and malicious assault upon the integrity of the international legal order by a group of men and women who are thoroughly Machiavellian in their perception of international relations and in their conduct of both foreign policy and domestic affairs. This is not simply a question of giving or withholding the benefit of the doubt when it comes to complicated matters of foreign affairs and defense policies to a U.S. government charged with the security of both its own citizens and those of its allies in Europe, the Western Hemisphere, and the Pacific. Rather, the Bush Jr. administration's foreign policy constitutes ongoing criminal activity under well-recognized principles of both international law and U.S. domestic law, in particular the Nuremberg Charter, the Nuremberg Judgment, and the Nuremberg Principles. So their obliteration of Fallujah was to be expected. One generation ago the peoples of the world asked themselves: Where were the "good" Germans? Well, there were some good Germans. The Lutheran theologian and pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer was the foremost exemplar of someone who led a life of principled opposition to the Nazi-terror state even unto death. Today the peoples of the world are likewise asking themselves: Where are the "good" Americans? Well, there are some good Americans. Like three Catholic Nuns in Denver, they are getting arrested and going to jail for protesting against United States weapons of mass destruction (WMD) whose power for human extermination far exceeds even the wildest fantasies of Hitler and the Nazis. Or else for protesting against illegal U.S.. military interventions around the world. Just recently the Nuclear Resister estimated that since the Fall of 2002, there have been more than 9,500 anti-war related arrests in the United States alone. Many more will be coming. In international legal terms, the Bush Jr. administration itself should now be viewed as constituting an ongoing criminal conspiracy under international criminal law in violation of the Nuremberg Charter, the Nuremberg Judgment, and the Nuremberg Principles, due to its formulation and undertaking of aggressive war policies that are legally akin to those perpetrated by the Nazi regime. As a consequence, American citizens possess the basic right under international law and the United States domestic law, including the U.S. Constitution, to engage in acts of non-violent civil resistance in order to prevent, impede, thwart, or terminate ongoing criminal activities perpetrated by U.S. government officials in their conduct of foreign affairs policies and military operations purported to relate to defense and counter-terrorism. This same right of civil resistance extends pari passu to all citizens of the world community of states. Everyone around the world has both the right and the duty under international law to resist ongoing criminal activities perpetrated by the Bush Jr. administration and its nefarious foreign accomplices such as Blair, Berlusconi, Howard, Koizumi, Kwasniewski, etc. by all non-violent means possible. If it is not so restrained, the Bush Jr. administration could very well precipitate a Third World War. The time for preventive action is now. Civil resistance is the way to go. People power can overcome power politics. Popular movements have succeeded in toppling tyrannical, dictatorial and authoritarian regimes throughout former Communist countries in Eastern Europe, as well as in Asia, and most recently in Latin America. It is time once again to exercise People Power here in the United States of America: "When in the Course of human Events. . . We hold these Truths to be self-evident. . . . we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and sacred Honor." Despite the best efforts by the Bush Jr. Leaguers to the contrary, we American Citizens still have our First Amendment Rights: Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Association, Freedom of Assembly, Freedom to Petition our Government for the Redress of these massive Grievances, Civil Resistance, etc. We are going to have to start vigorously exercising all of our First Amendment Rights right now. We must use them or else, as the saying goes, we will lose them. We must act not only for the good of the Peoples of Southwest Asia, but for our future, that of our children, that of our nation as a democratic society committed to the Rule of Law and the U.S. Constitution. The Nazis had their "homeland" too Francis A. Boyle, Professor of Law, University of Illinois, is author of Foundations of World Order, Duke University Press, The Criminality of Nuclear Deterrence, and Palestine, Palestinians and International Law, by Clarity Press. He can be reached at: FBOYLE at LAW.UIUC.EDU --- Subscribed as: fboyle at law.uiuc.edu; to unsubscribe send to al-awda-universalist-request at umich.edu with UNSUBSCRIBE as the SUBJECT. URL: Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Roger Helbig [mailto:rwhelbig at gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2017 6:43 PM To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: Karen Aram >; Estabrook, Carl G >; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Jay Becker >; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; Szoke, Ron >; Dave Trippel >; Arlene Hickory >; David Swanson >; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com;abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG There was no massacre at Fallujah. This is nonsense. Mattis expected his troops to be peacekeepers. They brought soccer balls with them when they deployed. I would love to see your "so called" war crime indictment. Wonder how much of it is from your fertile Hate America imagination and how much from the fertile Arab anti-American propaganda organs. Doubt a single paragraph is actually based on fact. On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 8:22 AM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss > wrote: Trump’s Secretary of War Mad Dog Mattis was responsible for the Massacre at Fallujah, which I pointed out on Counterpunch was a Nuremberg War Crime along the lines of the Nazis—the wanton devastation of a city-- in revenge for them killing our mercenaries. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Karen Aram [mailto:karenaram at hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2017 10:04 AM To: Estabrook, Carl G > Cc: Boyle, Francis A >; Jay Becker >; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; Szoke, Ron >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; Arlene Hickory >; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; David Swanson >; Dave Trippel >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Mildred O'brien >; David Johnson >; Joe Lauria >; David Green > Subject: Re: Guest Commentary by Carl in NG I’m sorry Carl, I don’t agree with that title either. It assumes that all in the anti-war movement welcome the Trump administration. Not all of us trust he will do some of that which he promised in respect to “defunding Nato,” “making friends with Russia,” or killing TPP. Even if he does those three things, his further provocations of China, are every bit as dangerous as those with Russia, it’s a mere tactic to drive a wedge between Russia and China, while chipping away at Iran. His Cabinet appointments are frightening to say the least in respect to Healthcare, Energy, Education, Housing, etc, etc. Further expansion of war in the Middle East, and North Africa, as well as expansion of capitalist corporate control is on the agenda no matter which of the two Party’s are in power. Obama paved the way, for all of which I have just referred, but it’s not over. Our only hope is that “the people” are now awake, and perhaps will focus on that which is most serious to survival. On Jan 22, 2017, at 07:44, Carl G. Estabrook > wrote: My original title was, “Why the anti-war movement welcomes the new administration.” For more on that theme, see >. —CGE On Jan 22, 2017, at 9:29 AM, Karen Aram > wrote: An excellent letter, which I posted on FB. I deliberately deleted the title that I assumed the NG created, because it gives the false impression that those of us in the anti-war movement, all support Trump. We don’t, we just didn’t support Hillary. Anyone in the anti-war movement supporting Hillary was supporting more of the same that Obama provided. On Jan 22, 2017, at 07:16, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: He {Obama} attacked eight countries (two more than George Bush), and conducted what one leading political commentator called "the most extreme terrorist campaign of modern times — his drone assassinations." He killed thousands of civilians with drones, including U.S. citizens and hundreds of children. A good letter by Carl today in NG. (Remember NG writes their own titles to letters.) We must now hold Trump’s feet to the fire across the board! I think Carl’s quote comes from Chomsky? In any event the Illinois Nazis Law Faculty fully supported and promoted and held out for emulation by lawyers and this Campus and our Good Community: "the most extreme terrorist campaign of modern times — his drone assassinations." The Illinois Nazis Law Faculty are just a GANG OF SICK PUPPIES! Fab Ed Norton Professor of Law Carl Schmitt College of Law: “Mein Fuhrer, I can walk!” Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) Feed: News-Gazette.com Posted on: Sunday, January 22, 2017 7:00 AM Author: digital.media Subject: Guest Commentary: Why anti-war movement welcomes Trump By C.G. ESTABROOK The European anti-war group "No War No NATO" writes as follows: "Demonstrating in Europe on 21 January, against the newly elected US President Donald Trump is tantamount to lending support to the Obama administration, which has transformed Europe into NATO's first line of attack, nuclear matters inclusive, against Russia. read more View article... _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.chambana.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fpeace-discuss&data=02%7C01%7Ckarenaram%40hotmail.com%7C6ea0294d887b4910ba5108d52390c739%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636454027089337207&sdata=v2ho9fKU8A%2F2dSYUS31%2Br1UPu4HaEfckCXJTgUP7vcU%3D&reserved=0 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Sun Nov 5 14:19:46 2017 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2017 08:19:46 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG In-Reply-To: References: <9D3D5E59-5EFC-47DF-838D-C6508214E176@illinois.edu> Message-ID: <4D21EB4D-6F86-4058-8CBE-F3DDB3AE4195@gmail.com> I was delighted to find that it was Georges Clemenceau (of all people) who is supposed to have remarked, "Il suffit d'ajouter ‘militaire' à un mot pour lui faire perdre sa signification. Ainsi la justice militaire n'est pas la justice, la musique militaire n'est pas la musique." "It suffices to add ‘military' to a word for it to lose its meaning. Military justice is to justice what military music is to music.” Cf. ‘Military Intelligence’? > On Nov 5, 2017, at 7:57 AM, Boyle, Francis A wrote: > > OK Carl. Understood. But I do wish to correct the record: Roger is a Mole for Military Intelligence. Fab. > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) > > From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] > Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2017 7:55 AM > To: Karen Aram > Cc: Boyle, Francis A ; David Green ; Stuart Levy ; Peace-discuss > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG > > Censorship of an email list established to promote opposition to US wars seems to me a mistake. > > It is, in a small way, like antifa, a ‘gift to the Right.’ > > It suggests the silent promotion of views that the censors are unwilling to argue for. > > The equivocal George Orwell wrote (in the - suppressed - preface to 'Animal Farm’), > "If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.” > > AWARE exists to liberate the anti-war discourse, effectively suppressed in main-stream media. > > And that means we sometimes have to talk to trolls and poltroons - and let them talk to us. —CGE > > > On Nov 5, 2017, at 6:44 AM, Karen Aram wrote: > > All worthy discussion on this “Peace Discuss List” is totally lost and muted by the likes of Roger, whether he is a mole, lacking the polish and sophistication of most “USG moles,” military or otherwise. I’m not referring to FBI contractors who almost always lack polish and sophistication, or just a nut, either way, he doesn’t belong here. > > He admits he signed up because of Mr. Rokke, and he has bashed this person many times over the years on this list. I know not whether Mr. Rokke is on this list, but its all become too absurd, and distracting. Distracting from anti-war efforts and serious discussion. > Oh, but “freedom of speech, right?” > Just not on the “Peace List." > > > On Nov 5, 2017, at 04:26, Boyle, Francis A wrote: > > And I forgot to add: Roger is in favor of Depleted Uranium. He is just a Mole for Military Intelligence on another Peace List. fab. > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) > > From: Boyle, Francis A > Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2017 6:21 AM > To: Karen Aram ; Peace-discuss > Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG > > For the record, Doug Rokke helped me and Ramsey Clark defend Phil Berrigan and the DU Plowshares. We started out with them facing 40 years. At the end of a kangaroo court proceeding, they got two. The Prosecutor had publicly stated he was going to put Phil away for the rest of his life. At least Phil was able to die at his home surrounded by his Family and Friends instead of in some Federal Hell Hole. > RIP: Phil Berrigan. Fab > > > > > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) > > From: Roger Helbig [mailto:rwhelbig at gmail.com] > Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2017 5:22 AM > To: Boyle, Francis A ; Karen Aram ; Peace-discuss > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG > > No, but Boyle likes to spread lies - I joined your list because of Douglas Lind Rokke, University of Illinois PhD graduate and resident of nearby Rantoul. Rokke is a professional liar (see my other much longer message which is still being edited). > > Roger W Helbig > Richmond, CA > > My mother was 1941 graduate of the University of Illinois - sadly, she died two days after I was born due to childbirth complications. > > On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 8:02 AM, Boyle, Francis A wrote: > Dear Karen: With all due respect, you must understand: Roger is a Mole for Military Intelligence. That is why he is on this Peace list. fab. > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) > > From: Karen Aram [mailto:karenaram at hotmail.com] > Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2017 9:58 AM > To: Roger Helbig > Cc: Boyle, Francis A ; Peace-discuss > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG > > Roger > > Your statement: "There was no massacre at Fallujah. This is nonsense. Mattis expected his troops to be peacekeepers.” > is so ludicrous, it invites laughter, long and loud laughter, if it weren’t so tragic, the many lives destroyed as a result of “Mad Dog Mattis” and the USG in it’s continuing genocide. > > Nothing you say, can ever be taken seriously, your continued harassment of anti-war activists on this “Peace Discussion List” is anathema to everything it stands for. > > I have to ask what are you doing here if not, just to irritate. Okay maybe your goal is to entertain, but your entertainment is very sick. > > Anyone and everyone, who supports the wars and interventions the US has and continues to perpetrate around the world, has blood on their hands, as “complicit Americans." That is the way we are viewed by others in the world today. > > On Nov 4, 2017, at 07:31, Roger Helbig via Peace-discuss wrote: > > what exactly is that supposed to mean - my choices of assignment were Intelligence, Weather and Cartography and the Air Force made me an Electronic Systems (ground radar maintenance) Officer - I liked languages - I was a literate three year old in Russian and wanted to learn more - I like puzzles - putting pieces together - that's what I thought intelligence officers did - Weather was where I got assigned for familiarization during summer camp so I somewhat expected that I would get that and a M/S in Meterology - Cartography because as a Geologist, I made maps of what was below the ground and cartographers made maps of what was above the ground. > > I voted for Democratic candidates starting with George McGovern - so I was not exactly a fan of Richard Nixon so hardly Nixonian! > > Roger > > On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 7:19 AM, Boyle, Francis A wrote: > “I wanted to be”—Military Intelligence. A Typical Nixonian Limited Hang-out. fab. > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) > > From: Roger Helbig [mailto:rwhelbig at gmail.com] > Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2017 9:15 AM > To: Boyle, Francis A ; Peace-discuss > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG > > and you spread lies - I never worked for military intelligence - they would not let me because I am partially color blind and to be an Air Force intelligence officer, you needed to be able to interpret false colors on air photos - I wanted to be because I like to work through problems and took Russian as an elective my senior year as part of my know your enemy program - > > Now, you have not refuted that The American Free Press was established by Willis Carto - that Carto was a Neo Nazi or that Bollyn worked for Carto and Buchanan - you more than likely have not read Blood and Politics - maybe some of the others were. > > I don't seem to have scan of page where the American Free Press was established to replace The Spotlight, but attached is the one where it discusses the establishment of The Barnes Review and the conference discussed on the blog is for both of these publications. > > On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 6:37 AM, Boyle, Francis A wrote: > Once again, Roger crawls out of his hole as a Mole for US “Military Intelligence”—an oxymoron to be sure. > Fab > > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) > > From: Roger Helbig [mailto:rwhelbig at gmail.com] > Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2017 8:12 AM > To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: Karen Aram ; Estabrook, Carl G ; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; Jay Becker ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; Szoke, Ron ; Dave Trippel ; Arlene Hickory ; David Swanson ; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com;abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG > > You do know that Christopher Bollyn is NOT a reporter but is a Neo Nazi operative of long standing and that the American Free Press is not a news organization, but a Neo Nazi front - look up Willis Carto - he was Bollyn's boss and founded the American Free Press - this website that has reports of conference for American Free Press and The Barnes Review used to have a prominent picture of a Nazi flag behind the blogger Alex Hassinger - Douglas Lind Rokke of Urbana spoke at this event and Dave von Kleist the producer of Rokke's first anti-US propaganda video "Beyond Treason" was the master of ceremonies - http://www.chairmanofnordwave.blogspot.com > > Carto died in 2015 - there are a number of good sources on Carto in a simple Google search - > > Learn about Neo Nazis - read this book - "Blood and Politics" - it mentions Bollyn and extensively discusses Carto - pg 382, which I can e-mail to all who request - has Carto's establishment of The Barnes Review, a Holocaust Denial publication - The American Free Press replaced Carto's The Spotlight after Carto lost a legal battle - Bollyn is also mentioned in connection with a Pat Buchanan campaign apparatus > > On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 4:57 AM, Boyle, Francis A wrote: > I also want to make it clear for the record that before the invasions of Saipan, Tinian and Okinawa my Father, a Marine, was ordered by his Captain not to take prisoners of war on the grounds of reciprocity that the Japanese did not take Prisoners of War of our Men. My Father disobeyed these clearly illegal orders and took Japanese Prisoners of War. I cite the example of my Father to my law students to refute the objection that you cannot expect soldiers to obey the laws of war during combat. If my Father could obey the laws of war at Saipan, Tinian, and Okinawa, any other soldier should be able to do the same. Meanwhile,while I am teaching this to my students, the Illinois Nazis Law Faculty aid, abet, and promote and facilitate war crimes and crimes against humanity from the safety of their offices. My Father later became a Lawyer. RIP. The Illinois Nazis Law Faculty are despicable! Fab. > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) > > From: Boyle, Francis A > Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2017 8:38 PM > To: Roger Helbig > Cc: Karen Aram ; Estabrook, Carl G ; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; Jay Becker ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; Szoke, Ron ; Dave Trippel ; Arlene Hickory ; David Swanson ; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com;abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net > Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG > > Mad Dog Mattis the Nuremberg War Criminal. Fab. > CONTROLLED PRESS IGNORES > CRIMINAL OBLITERATION OF FALLUJAH > > By Christopher Bollyn > American Free Press > > The controlled press has scrupulously avoided discussing the devastation and prima facie evidence of war crimes committed during the U.S. siege and assault of Fallujah. > > As Americans prepared for Thanksgiving, an estimated 100,000 residents of the besieged Iraqi city of Fallujah, trapped in their homes, struggled to survive without fresh food, water or electricity, reportedly cut off by U.S. forces on November 8. > > Meanwhile, on the streets of Fallujah, a city of more than 350,000, dogs gnawed on bloated and rotting corpses that remained unburied for weeks. > > Thousands of families in Fallujah were reported to be in a critical humanitarian situation after U.S. forces prevented the delivery of relief supplies. An Iraq Red Crescent Society (IRCS) humanitarian aid convoy, reportedly blocked by U.S. troops for more than two weeks, was allowed to deliver aid to residents in the heart of the city on November 25. > > On Thanksgiving, U.S. forces permitted the IRCS convoy carrying thousands of food parcels, blankets, tents and medical supplies to enter the city and allowed one of the clinics to be converted into a temporary hospital to treat the injured. Rana Sidani of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) in Geneva, Switzerland however, told American Free Press on Nov. 30 that "many civilians" were still prevented from receiving aid or medical care. > > At the beginning of the U.S. operation in Fallujah on Nov. 5, a hospital in the central Nazzal district of Fallujah was "reduced to rubble" as a result of U.S. air and artillery bombardment. "Only its façade, with a sign reading Nazzal Emergency Hospital, remained intact," Reuters reported. > > "A nearby compound used by the main Falluja Hospital to store medical supplies was also destroyed," witnesses told Reuters. Fallujah's main hospital was occupied by U.S. forces when the ground offensive began. These actions are apparent violations of international humanitarian law. > > "Bodies can be seen everywhere and people were crying when receiving the food parcels," Muhammad al-Nuri, a spokesman for the IRCS in Baghdad, said. "It is very sad. It is a human disaster." > > Al-Nuri said that it is difficult to move in the city due to the large number of dead bodies in the streets. The ICRS estimates there are more than 6,000 dead in Fallujah, al-Nuri said. > > AFP asked Major Jay Antonelli at the Coalition Press Information Center (CPIC) in Baghdad if the ICRS estimate of 6,000 dead in Fallujah was credible. "We do not keep a count of dead Iraqis," Antonelli said. Asked the same question, the ICRC's Sidani said, "We don't know." > > Antonelli said, "U.S. forces never blocked aid convoys from reaching the wounded. We only recommended to the aid convoys that they should not enter the city because the MNF [Multi-National Forces] could not guarantee their security or safety." > > "The ICRC is very worried about the humanitarian situation in Falluja," Sidani said. Asked what the ICRC was doing to alleviate the suffering in Fallujah, Sidani said: "We are reminding the parties of their responsibilities under international humanitarian law." > > It should be noted that the U.S.A. and Britain, the belligerent occupying powers in Iraq, are the two largest contributors to the ICRC, providing more than 42 percent of its budget for field operations. > > A second convoy from Baghdad, headed by Dr. Said Ismael Haki, the IRCS president, delivered aid to Fallujah on Nov. 26. "There are no houses left in Fallujah, only destroyed places." Haki said. "I really don't know how the people will return to the city. No one will find their homes." > > As U.S. troops in Fallujah engaged in what has been described as the most intense urban combat since Vietnam, the controlled press scrupulously avoided discussion or footage of the devastation of the rebellious Sunni city. For example, during the second week of the attack, rather than discuss the widespread devastation of Fallujah, U.S. television news programs focused largely on a brawl between basketball players and fans in Detroit. > > Lt. Col. Brandl, commander of the 1st Battalion, 8th Marine Regiment, was filmed giving a "pep talk" to his marines: "The enemy has got a face – he's called Satan," Brandl said. "He's in Fallujah, and we're going to destroy him." > > At least 136 U.S. soldiers were killed during November in Iraq, and more than 800 were wounded, most of them in Fallujah, making it the most costly month, and operation, in terms of U.S. lives lost since the invasion of Iraq began in March 2003. > > FOR WHAT CAUSE? > > Michael Ware, Baghdad bureau chief for Time magazine, who has been in Fallujah during the fighting, said U.S. actions in Fallujah are "creating the nightmare that we are seeking to prevent." > > "I stood there as I saw American boys die," Ware told Chris Matthews of MSNBC on Nov. 24, "I mean, a man shot at close range, blown apart by a rocket propelled grenade. He dies there in front of you and I can't help but think why? For what cause? > > "I see us creating the very thing that the president said we went there to prevent," Ware said, "…subsequent to this invasion and the occupation and the guerrilla war that is currently underway, we are the midwives of the next generation of al Qaida and Islamic terrorist." > > Ware, who has interviewed senior insurgent leaders, said they study the writings of the Vietnamese general Vo Nguyen Giap, Che Guevara, and Mao Zedong. "They're bringing it straight from the Vietnam, and the broader insurgency playbook," Ware said. > > "The name of the game is deny the population to the insurgents," Ware said. "That's what we're trying to do, win hearts and minds. But we're not winning them." > > The U.S. struggle to win Iraqi hearts and minds suffered a further set back when NBC TV broadcast footage of a U.S. marine executing a wounded and unarmed Iraqi in a Fallujah mosque. The much-publicized shooting, apparently part of a massacre of a group of wounded resistance fighters, "was a rare crack in the façade that Washington, with the complicity of most of the corporate media, has tried to present to the world of its brutal assault on the rebel Iraqi city," Rohan Pearce wrote in The Greenleft Weekly Australia on Nov. 24. > > The New York Times has reported actions taken by U.S. forces in Fallujah, which appear to be prima facie evidence of war crimes, without mentioning that the actions constitute clear violations of the Laws of Land War found in the U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10. > > For example, a Nov. 20 Times article by Edward Wong, with two correspondents in Fallujah, reports that U.S. marines had transformed a mosque into a fortress with snipers and machine gunners perched on the roof. > > Then, using the passive form, Wong goes on to say that "no neutral group has been able to enter the city," without mentioning that U.S. forces blocked humanitarian aid convoys. Likewise, Wong wrote, "Electricity and water had been cut off." > > The Times, whose motto is "All the news that's fit to print," apparently didn't think that it's readers needed to know the U.S. forces had cut off the water and power to a city of 340,000 people. > > Asked if U.S. forces had cut power and water to Fallujah, Maj. Jay Antonelli of CPIC wrote: "MNF did, with approval of the Interim Iraqi Government, cut off electricity to the city of Fallujah as Operation Al-Fajr began. Water was not cut off intentionally, however the water system did sustain some kinetic damage during strikes." > > American Free Press asked the Pentagon's Lt. Col. Joe Yoswa if it is true that U.S. forces were using mosques as fortresses. "It's not possible," Yoswa said. "Under no circumstances. We would not set up snipers in a mosque in an offensive position." > > CPIC's Antonelli said: "MNF would not use a mosque as a 'fortress.' MNF and Iraqi security forces would only fire from a mosque if they were being fired upon and were firing back in self-defense." > > Abu Sabah, a refugee from Fallujah, reported seeing phosphorus bombs: "They used these weird bombs that put up smoke like a mushroom cloud. Then small pieces fell from the air with long tails of smoke trailing behind them. These exploded on the ground with large fires that burnt for half and hour," Abu Sabah said. "When anyone touched these fires their bodies burnt for hours." > > Eyewitnesses from Fallujah also reported seeing "melted" bodies. > > "THROW-AWAY SOLDIERS" > > Having seen what appeared to be a depleted uranium (DU) missile fired at a building in Fallujah on CNN during the first week of the fighting, AFP asked the Pentagon if DU weapons are being used in Fallujah. "Yes," Yoswa said, "DU is a standard round on the M-1 Abrams tank." > > Because U.S. marines in Fallujah are very close to the poison gas produced by exploded DU shells, AFP asked Yoswa if anything was being done to protect the troops from DU poisoning. Yoswa seemed unaware of the dangers posed by the use of DU. > > Marion Fulk, a retired nuclear scientist from Livermore National Lab told AFP that U.S. troops in DU contaminated battlefields are considered "throw-away soldiers." The Marines exposed to DU in Fallujah, and elsewhere, face greatly increased risks of cancer, deformed children, and other health problems in the future. > > OBLITERATION OF FALLUJAH > > The "obliteration of Fallujah" is a serious war crime, according to Francis A. Boyle, a professor of international law at the University of Illinois. "The obliteration of Fallujah continues apace," Boyle wrote in his Nov. 15 article, A War Crime in Real Time: Obliterating Fallujah. "Article 6(b) of the 1945 Nuremberg Charter defines a Nuremberg War Crime in relevant part as the 'wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages.' According to this definitive definition, the Bush administration's destruction of Fallujah constitutes a war crime for which Nazis were tried and executed." > > Finis > -30- > 1629 words > Do you Yahoo!? > The all-new My Yahoo! – What will yours do? > > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) > > From: Boyle, Francis A > Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2017 8:13 PM > To: 'Roger Helbig' > Cc: 'Karen Aram' ; Estabrook, Carl G ; 'peace-discuss at anti-war.net' ; 'C. G. ESTABROOK' ; 'Jay Becker' ; 'a-fields at uiuc.edu' ; Hoffman, Valerie J ; 'Joe Lauria' ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; Szoke, Ron ; 'Dave Trippel' ; 'Arlene Hickory' ; 'David Swanson' ; 'peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net' ; 'sherwoodross10 at gmail.com' ; 'abass10 at gmail.com' ; 'mickalideh at gmail.com' ; 'Lina Thorne' ; 'chicago at worldcantwait.net' > Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG > > Mattis expected his troops to be peacekeepers. They brought soccer balls with them when they deployed. > LOL! Marines don’t play soccer or teach kids to play soccer.. My Dad was a Marine. He invaded Saipan, Tinian and Okinawa before he became a Lawyer. Marines destroy anyone and anything that is in front of them as they are trained to do and did at Fallujah under Mattis—A Real Mad Dog War Criminal. Fab. > > > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) > > From: Boyle, Francis A > Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2017 7:52 PM > To: 'Roger Helbig' > Cc: Karen Aram ; Estabrook, Carl G ; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; Jay Becker ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; Szoke, Ron ; Dave Trippel ; Arlene Hickory ; David Swanson ; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com;abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net > Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG > > -----Original Message----- > From: Karim A G [mailto:coffee at euro-comm.co.uk] > Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2004 5:00 PM > To: Karim A G > Subject: A War Crime in Real Time > > http://www.counterpunch.org/boyle11152004.html > > November 15, 2004 > A War Crime in Real Time > Obliterating Fallujah > By FRANCIS A. BOYLE > The obliteration of Fallujah continues apace. Article 6(b) of the 1945 Nuremberg Charter defines a Nuremberg War Crime in relevant part as the ". . . wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages. . ." According to this definitive definition, the Bush Jr. administration's destruction of Fallujah constitutes a war crime for which Nazis were tried and executed. There is nothing surprising about that. > Since the Bush Jr. administration's installation in power by the United States Supreme Court in January of 2001, the peoples of the world have witnessed a government in the United States of America that has demonstrated little if any respect for fundamental considerations of international law, international organizations, and human rights, let alone appreciation of the requirements for maintaining international peace and security. What the world has watched instead is a comprehensive and malicious assault upon the integrity of the international legal order by a group of men and women who are thoroughly Machiavellian in their perception of international relations and in their conduct of both foreign policy and domestic affairs. This is not simply a question of giving or withholding the benefit of the doubt when it comes to complicated matters of foreign affairs and defense policies to a U.S. government charged with the security of both its own citizens and those of its allies in Europe, the Western Hemisphere, and the Pacific. Rather, the Bush Jr. administration's foreign policy constitutes ongoing criminal activity under well-recognized principles of both international law and U.S. domestic law, in particular the Nuremberg Charter, the Nuremberg Judgment, and the Nuremberg Principles. So their obliteration of Fallujah was to be expected. > One generation ago the peoples of the world asked themselves: Where were the "good" Germans? Well, there were some good Germans. The Lutheran theologian and pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer was the foremost exemplar of someone who led a life of principled opposition to the Nazi-terror state even unto death. > Today the peoples of the world are likewise asking themselves: Where are the "good" Americans? Well, there are some good Americans. Like three Catholic Nuns in Denver, they are getting arrested and going to jail for protesting against United States weapons of mass destruction (WMD) whose power for human extermination far exceeds even the wildest fantasies of Hitler and the Nazis. Or else for protesting against illegal U.S.. military interventions around the world. Just recently the Nuclear Resister estimated that since the Fall of 2002, there have been more than 9,500 anti-war related arrests in the United States alone. Many more will be coming. > In international legal terms, the Bush Jr. administration itself should now be viewed as constituting an ongoing criminal conspiracy under international criminal law in violation of the Nuremberg Charter, the Nuremberg Judgment, and the Nuremberg Principles, due to its formulation and undertaking of aggressive war policies that are legally akin to those perpetrated by the Nazi regime. As a consequence, American citizens possess the basic right under international law and the United States domestic law, including the U.S. Constitution, to engage in acts of non-violent civil resistance in order to prevent, impede, thwart, or terminate ongoing criminal activities perpetrated by U.S. government officials in their conduct of foreign affairs policies and military operations purported to relate to defense and counter-terrorism. > This same right of civil resistance extends pari passu to all citizens of the world community of states. Everyone around the world has both the right and the duty under international law to resist ongoing criminal activities perpetrated by the Bush Jr. administration and its nefarious foreign accomplices such as Blair, Berlusconi, Howard, Koizumi, Kwasniewski, etc. by all non-violent means possible. If it is not so restrained, the Bush Jr. administration could very well precipitate a Third World War. > The time for preventive action is now. Civil resistance is the way to go. People power can overcome power politics. Popular movements have succeeded in toppling tyrannical, dictatorial and authoritarian regimes throughout former Communist countries in Eastern Europe, as well as in Asia, and most recently in Latin America. It is time once again to exercise People Power here in the United States of America: "When in the Course of human Events. . . We hold these Truths to be self-evident. . . . we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and sacred Honor." > Despite the best efforts by the Bush Jr. Leaguers to the contrary, we American Citizens still have our First Amendment Rights: Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Association, Freedom of Assembly, Freedom to Petition our Government for the Redress of these massive Grievances, Civil Resistance, etc. We are going to have to start vigorously exercising all of our First Amendment Rights right now. We must use them or else, as the saying goes, we will lose them. We must act not only for the good of the Peoples of Southwest Asia, but for our future, that of our children, that of our nation as a democratic society committed to the Rule of Law and the U.S. Constitution. The Nazis had their "homeland" too > Francis A. Boyle, Professor of Law, University of Illinois, is author of Foundations of World Order, Duke University Press, The Criminality of Nuclear Deterrence, and Palestine, Palestinians and International Law, by Clarity Press. He can be reached at: FBOYLE at LAW.UIUC.EDU > --- > Subscribed as: fboyle at law.uiuc.edu; to unsubscribe send to al-awda-universalist-request at umich.edu > with UNSUBSCRIBE as the SUBJECT. > URL: > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) > > From: Roger Helbig [mailto:rwhelbig at gmail.com] > Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2017 6:43 PM > To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: Karen Aram ; Estabrook, Carl G ; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; Jay Becker ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; Szoke, Ron ; Dave Trippel ; Arlene Hickory ; David Swanson ; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com;abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG > > There was no massacre at Fallujah. This is nonsense. Mattis expected his troops to be peacekeepers. They brought soccer balls with them when they deployed. > > I would love to see your "so called" war crime indictment. Wonder how much of it is from your fertile Hate America imagination and how much from the fertile Arab anti-American propaganda organs. Doubt a single paragraph is actually based on fact. > > On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 8:22 AM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: > Trump’s Secretary of War Mad Dog Mattis was responsible for the Massacre at Fallujah, which I pointed out on Counterpunch was a Nuremberg War Crime along the lines of the Nazis—the wanton devastation of a city-- in revenge for them killing our mercenaries. Fab. > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) > > From: Karen Aram [mailto:karenaram at hotmail.com] > Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2017 10:04 AM > To: Estabrook, Carl G > Cc: Boyle, Francis A ; Jay Becker ; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; Szoke, Ron ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; Arlene Hickory ; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; David Swanson ; Dave Trippel ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Mildred O'brien ; David Johnson ; Joe Lauria ; David Green > Subject: Re: Guest Commentary by Carl in NG > > I’m sorry Carl, I don’t agree with that title either. It assumes that all in the anti-war movement welcome the Trump administration. Not all of us trust he will do some of that which he promised in respect to “defunding Nato,” “making friends with Russia,” or killing TPP. Even if he does those three things, his further provocations of China, are every bit as dangerous as those with Russia, it’s a mere tactic to drive a wedge between Russia and China, while chipping away at Iran. > > His Cabinet appointments are frightening to say the least in respect to Healthcare, Energy, Education, Housing, etc, etc. > > Further expansion of war in the Middle East, and North Africa, as well as expansion of capitalist corporate control is on the agenda no matter which of the two Party’s are in power. > > Obama paved the way, for all of which I have just referred, but it’s not over. Our only hope is that “the people” are now awake, and perhaps will focus on that which is most serious to survival. > > > On Jan 22, 2017, at 07:44, Carl G. Estabrook wrote: > > My original title was, “Why the anti-war movement welcomes the new administration.” > > For more on that theme, see . > > —CGE > > > On Jan 22, 2017, at 9:29 AM, Karen Aram wrote: > > An excellent letter, which I posted on FB. I deliberately deleted the title that I assumed the NG created, because it gives the false impression that those of us in the anti-war movement, all support Trump. We don’t, we just didn’t support Hillary. Anyone in the anti-war movement supporting Hillary was supporting more of the same that Obama provided. > > > > On Jan 22, 2017, at 07:16, Boyle, Francis A wrote: > > He {Obama} attacked eight countries (two more than George Bush), and conducted what one leading political commentator called "the most extreme terrorist campaign of modern times — his drone assassinations." He killed thousands of civilians with drones, including U.S. citizens and hundreds of children. > A good letter by Carl today in NG. (Remember NG writes their own titles to letters.) We must now hold Trump’s feet to the fire across the board! I think Carl’s quote comes from Chomsky? In any event the Illinois Nazis Law Faculty fully supported and promoted and held out for emulation by lawyers and this Campus and our Good Community: > "the most extreme terrorist campaign of modern times — his drone assassinations." > > The Illinois Nazis Law Faculty are just a GANG OF SICK PUPPIES! > Fab > Ed Norton Professor of Law > Carl Schmitt College of Law: > “Mein Fuhrer, I can walk!” > > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) > > Feed: News-Gazette.com > Posted on: Sunday, January 22, 2017 7:00 AM > Author: digital.media > Subject: Guest Commentary: Why anti-war movement welcomes Trump > > By C.G. ESTABROOK > The European anti-war group "No War No NATO" writes as follows: > "Demonstrating in Europe on 21 January, against the newly elected US President Donald Trump is tantamount to lending support to the Obama administration, which has transformed Europe into NATO's first line of attack, nuclear matters inclusive, against Russia. > read more > > View article... > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.chambana.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fpeace-discuss&data=02%7C01%7Ckarenaram%40hotmail.com%7C6ea0294d887b4910ba5108d52390c739%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636454027089337207&sdata=v2ho9fKU8A%2F2dSYUS31%2Br1UPu4HaEfckCXJTgUP7vcU%3D&reserved=0 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Sun Nov 5 14:30:53 2017 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2017 08:30:53 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG In-Reply-To: References: <9D3D5E59-5EFC-47DF-838D-C6508214E176@illinois.edu> Message-ID: And the political establishment is desperately using the comic figure of Donald Trump to distract us from the crimes of Obama and Clinton (which Trump continues). Exposing and opposing those crimes, past and present, are what people like us, who have the leisure to do so, should be doing - as you are. —CGE > On Nov 5, 2017, at 8:12 AM, Boyle, Francis A wrote: > > Oh. And this is what Roger told about Mr. Alwaki’s 16 year old son, a US citizen drone murdered to death by KillerKoh/Clinton/Obama et al: > > "This piece of shit doesn't do you any honor - the kid was killed because he went to where his Dad was recruiting and training Americans to kill Americans –" > > According to the Intercept Expose on the Obama/Clinton/KillerKoh drone murder campaign, their CIA source told the Intercept that Mr. Alwaki’s child was deliberately murdered. And now we have killed his daughter. Corruption of Blood. Just like what Kings used to do during the Middle Ages. Kings Obama/Trump. Now prohibited by the United States Constitution. But as President George Bush Jr once said about the Constitution: “It’s just a goddam’ piece of paper!” Ditto for Harvard Law Obama. Ditto for Yale Law Clinton. Ditto for Harvard/Yale Law Killer Koh. Ditto for the Dean and Faculty of the University of Illiniwaks College of Law. fab > > From fboyle at illinois.edu Sun Nov 5 14:36:07 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2017 14:36:07 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG In-Reply-To: References: <9D3D5E59-5EFC-47DF-838D-C6508214E176@illinois.edu> Message-ID: For sure Carl. And I am very happy to be doing it with you all. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -----Original Message----- From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2017 8:31 AM To: Boyle, Francis A Cc: Karen Aram ; David Green ; Stuart Levy ; Peace-discuss Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG And the political establishment is desperately using the comic figure of Donald Trump to distract us from the crimes of Obama and Clinton (which Trump continues). Exposing and opposing those crimes, past and present, are what people like us, who have the leisure to do so, should be doing - as you are. —CGE > On Nov 5, 2017, at 8:12 AM, Boyle, Francis A wrote: > > Oh. And this is what Roger told about Mr. Alwaki’s 16 year old son, a US citizen drone murdered to death by KillerKoh/Clinton/Obama et al: > > "This piece of shit doesn't do you any honor - the kid was killed because he went to where his Dad was recruiting and training Americans to kill Americans –" > > According to the Intercept Expose on the Obama/Clinton/KillerKoh drone murder campaign, their CIA source told the Intercept that Mr. Alwaki’s child was deliberately murdered. And now we have killed his daughter. Corruption of Blood. Just like what Kings used to do during the Middle Ages. Kings Obama/Trump. Now prohibited by the United States Constitution. But as President George Bush Jr once said about the Constitution: “It’s just a goddam’ piece of paper!” Ditto for Harvard Law Obama. Ditto for Yale Law Clinton. Ditto for Harvard/Yale Law Killer Koh. Ditto for the Dean and Faculty of the University of Illiniwaks College of Law. fab > > From fboyle at illinois.edu Sun Nov 5 14:38:12 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2017 14:38:12 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: WE v. Illinois Law Dean Amar & His Faculty In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: For sure Carl.fab. WE v. Illinois Law Dean Amar & His Faculty [http://s.ytimg.com/yt/img/email/digest/email_header.png] [https://yt3.ggpht.com/-w4phvYGWivc/AAAAAAAAAAI/AAAAAAAAAAA/_Vq2X19VNEk/s50-c-k-no-mo-rj-c0xffffff/photo.jpg] Francis Boyle has shared a video with you on YouTube [https://i.ytimg.com/vi/SXDXZHYCYKc/mqdefault.jpg] Protesting Harold Koh by UPTV6 Local activists gather to protest Harold Koh who is speaking at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Help center • Report spam ©2016 YouTube, LLC 901 Cherry Ave, San Bruno, CA 94066 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Sun Nov 5 14:53:27 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2017 14:53:27 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: NYT Book Review- Dirty -Dersh on Scalia/ Fall Street Journal on " Scalia Speaks" Message-ID: Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2017 8:48 AM To: sectns.aals at lists.aals.org Subject: NYT Book Review- Dirty -Dersh on Scalia/ Fall Street Journal on " Scalia Speaks" ""Scalia Speaks" gives a glimpse of the man, as I came to know and respect him..." Dirty Dersh. Yeah, sure. Does not surprise me at all that Dirty Dersh "respects" Scalia after Scalia publicly stated that if he had been on the Supremes for Brown v. Board, he would have upheld the Separate But Equal Doctrine for Africans Americans. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A [mailto:support at lists.aals.org] Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2017 4:21 PM To: sectns.aals at lists.aals.org Subject: [SECTNS.aals] - Fall Street Journal on " Scalia Speaks" "Underlying Scalia's appreciation of moral character was his faith in God...It was even why, in part, he liked turkey hunting, which afforded him quiet time alone, out in the woods where "you can pray to the Creator""-while Scalia systematically, mercilessly and needlessly slaughtered God's Creatures over a period of many years including innumerable Mothers of Bambis--RIP. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) ________________________________ Site Links: View post online View mailing list online Start new thread via email Unsubscribe from this mailing list Manage your subscription This email has been sent to: fboyle at illinois.edu This list is a forum for the exchange of points of view. Opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of the group associated with the list and do not necessarily represent the position of the Association of American Law Schools. Use of this email content is governed by the terms of service at: https://connect.aals.org/p/cm/ld/fid=280 ________________________________ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Sun Nov 5 14:53:27 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2017 14:53:27 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: NYT Book Review- Dirty -Dersh on Scalia/ Fall Street Journal on " Scalia Speaks" Message-ID: Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2017 8:48 AM To: sectns.aals at lists.aals.org Subject: NYT Book Review- Dirty -Dersh on Scalia/ Fall Street Journal on " Scalia Speaks" ""Scalia Speaks" gives a glimpse of the man, as I came to know and respect him..." Dirty Dersh. Yeah, sure. Does not surprise me at all that Dirty Dersh "respects" Scalia after Scalia publicly stated that if he had been on the Supremes for Brown v. Board, he would have upheld the Separate But Equal Doctrine for Africans Americans. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A [mailto:support at lists.aals.org] Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2017 4:21 PM To: sectns.aals at lists.aals.org Subject: [SECTNS.aals] - Fall Street Journal on " Scalia Speaks" "Underlying Scalia's appreciation of moral character was his faith in God...It was even why, in part, he liked turkey hunting, which afforded him quiet time alone, out in the woods where "you can pray to the Creator""-while Scalia systematically, mercilessly and needlessly slaughtered God's Creatures over a period of many years including innumerable Mothers of Bambis--RIP. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) ________________________________ Site Links: View post online View mailing list online Start new thread via email Unsubscribe from this mailing list Manage your subscription This email has been sent to: fboyle at illinois.edu This list is a forum for the exchange of points of view. Opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of the group associated with the list and do not necessarily represent the position of the Association of American Law Schools. Use of this email content is governed by the terms of service at: https://connect.aals.org/p/cm/ld/fid=280 ________________________________ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Sun Nov 5 15:16:18 2017 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2017 09:16:18 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] US war with Iran? Message-ID: <836C60F3-F94B-41C5-BBD0-AA5E68E3CBD5@gmail.com> We should oppose the Democrats and Republicans pressing for more US aggression in the Mideast. "President Trump’s stance on conflict in the Middle East is a mixture of bellicose threats and demonisation of opponents combined with rather more cautious and carefully calculated action or inaction on the ground ... US strategy in Iraq and Syria has remained very much the same... "...Some sort of collision between the US and Iran looks possible or even likely, a battle which will probably be carried out by proxies and will not be fought to a finish. This is because Trump’s approach to the outside world is a blend of American nationalism and isolationism. The former produces belligerent threats and the latter a wish to avoid getting entangled in any new Middle East war. "...such is the intensity of political strife in the US that new foreign policy ventures do not look very feasible... "...The central government [of Iraq] is far stronger than it was three years ago when Isis was rampaging across the country. Its army, with great help from American airpower, defeated Isis in the nine-month siege of Mosul. The Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi faced down the Kurdish leadership and won an almost bloodless success regaining Kirkuk. "It is doubtful if either the US or Iran would come out the winner in any new confrontation, but Iraqis would certainly come out the losers. "The best policy for the US in Iraq, Syria and elsewhere is to do nothing very new... "Curiously, Iran owes much of its expanded influence not to its own machinations but to the US itself. It has been the collateral beneficiary of US-led regime change in two of its neighbours, Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003, both which had been viscerally anti-Iranian... "Trump may speak of confronting Iran, but there is no sign that he has a coherent plan to do so. Much of what is happening in the region is beyond his control and US influence is going down, but for reasons that have nothing to do with him. The US has never quite recovered from its failure to achieve its ends in Iraq after the invasion. The return of Russia to the region as a great power has also limited US influence. The US public does not want another war in the Middle East…" > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Sun Nov 5 15:26:13 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2017 15:26:13 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG In-Reply-To: References: <9D3D5E59-5EFC-47DF-838D-C6508214E176@illinois.edu> Message-ID: Carl My point is that these discussions on the Peace Discuss List, with so many ad hominids, with people who clearly support war and destruction, and not with sound arguments, but with goals to merely trash everything we say, as trolls, is a deterrent to folks with real interests in the topic of “anti-war” and peace. George Orwell likely was not referring to the internet back in the day. It is probably why we can’t allow anything other than “announcements” on the Peace List. I don’t like it, but understand it. PS Misspelling is due to “spell check.” > On Nov 5, 2017, at 06:36, Boyle, Francis A wrote: > > For sure Carl. And I am very happy to be doing it with you all. Fab. > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) > > > -----Original Message----- > From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] > Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2017 8:31 AM > To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: Karen Aram ; David Green ; Stuart Levy ; Peace-discuss > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG > > And the political establishment is desperately using the comic figure of Donald Trump to distract us from the crimes of Obama and Clinton (which Trump continues). > > Exposing and opposing those crimes, past and present, are what people like us, who have the leisure to do so, should be doing - as you are. —CGE > > >> On Nov 5, 2017, at 8:12 AM, Boyle, Francis A wrote: >> >> Oh. And this is what Roger told about Mr. Alwaki’s 16 year old son, a US citizen drone murdered to death by KillerKoh/Clinton/Obama et al: >> >> "This piece of shit doesn't do you any honor - the kid was killed because he went to where his Dad was recruiting and training Americans to kill Americans –" >> >> According to the Intercept Expose on the Obama/Clinton/KillerKoh drone murder campaign, their CIA source told the Intercept that Mr. Alwaki’s child was deliberately murdered. And now we have killed his daughter. Corruption of Blood. Just like what Kings used to do during the Middle Ages. Kings Obama/Trump. Now prohibited by the United States Constitution. But as President George Bush Jr once said about the Constitution: “It’s just a goddam’ piece of paper!” Ditto for Harvard Law Obama. Ditto for Yale Law Clinton. Ditto for Harvard/Yale Law Killer Koh. Ditto for the Dean and Faculty of the University of Illiniwaks College of Law. fab >> >> From cgestabrook at gmail.com Sun Nov 5 16:05:51 2017 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2017 10:05:51 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG In-Reply-To: References: <9D3D5E59-5EFC-47DF-838D-C6508214E176@illinois.edu> Message-ID: “…can’t allow…”? Who gets to do the allowing? 百花齐放,百家争鸣 ('"Let a hundred flowers bloom; let a hundred schools of thought contend" is the policy for promoting progress in the arts and the sciences and a flourishing socialist culture in our land.') > On Nov 5, 2017, at 9:26 AM, Karen Aram wrote: > > Carl > > My point is that these discussions on the Peace Discuss List, with so many ad hominids, with people who clearly support war and destruction, and not with sound arguments, but with goals to merely trash everything we say, as trolls, is a deterrent to folks with real interests in the topic of “anti-war” and peace. > > George Orwell likely was not referring to the internet back in the day. > > It is probably why we can’t allow anything other than “announcements” on the Peace List. I don’t like it, but understand it. > > PS Misspelling is due to “spell check.” > > >> On Nov 5, 2017, at 06:36, Boyle, Francis A wrote: >> >> For sure Carl. And I am very happy to be doing it with you all. Fab. >> >> Francis A. Boyle >> Law Building >> 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. >> Champaign IL 61820 USA >> 217-333-7954 (phone) >> 217-244-1478 (fax) >> (personal comments only) >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] >> Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2017 8:31 AM >> To: Boyle, Francis A >> Cc: Karen Aram ; David Green ; Stuart Levy ; Peace-discuss >> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG >> >> And the political establishment is desperately using the comic figure of Donald Trump to distract us from the crimes of Obama and Clinton (which Trump continues). >> >> Exposing and opposing those crimes, past and present, are what people like us, who have the leisure to do so, should be doing - as you are. —CGE >> >> >>> On Nov 5, 2017, at 8:12 AM, Boyle, Francis A wrote: >>> >>> Oh. And this is what Roger told about Mr. Alwaki’s 16 year old son, a US citizen drone murdered to death by KillerKoh/Clinton/Obama et al: >>> >>> "This piece of shit doesn't do you any honor - the kid was killed because he went to where his Dad was recruiting and training Americans to kill Americans –" >>> >>> According to the Intercept Expose on the Obama/Clinton/KillerKoh drone murder campaign, their CIA source told the Intercept that Mr. Alwaki’s child was deliberately murdered. And now we have killed his daughter. Corruption of Blood. Just like what Kings used to do during the Middle Ages. Kings Obama/Trump. Now prohibited by the United States Constitution. But as President George Bush Jr once said about the Constitution: “It’s just a goddam’ piece of paper!” Ditto for Harvard Law Obama. Ditto for Yale Law Clinton. Ditto for Harvard/Yale Law Killer Koh. Ditto for the Dean and Faculty of the University of Illiniwaks College of Law. fab >>> >>> > From fboyle at illinois.edu Sun Nov 5 16:10:43 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2017 16:10:43 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG In-Reply-To: References: <9D3D5E59-5EFC-47DF-838D-C6508214E176@illinois.edu> Message-ID: Yeah, Mao's Good Ole Cultural Revolution. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -----Original Message----- From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2017 10:06 AM To: Karen Aram Cc: Boyle, Francis A ; David Green ; Stuart Levy ; Peace-discuss Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG “…can’t allow…”? Who gets to do the allowing? 百花齐放,百家争鸣 ('"Let a hundred flowers bloom; let a hundred schools of thought contend" is the policy for promoting progress in the arts and the sciences and a flourishing socialist culture in our land.') > On Nov 5, 2017, at 9:26 AM, Karen Aram wrote: > > Carl > > My point is that these discussions on the Peace Discuss List, with so many ad hominids, with people who clearly support war and destruction, and not with sound arguments, but with goals to merely trash everything we say, as trolls, is a deterrent to folks with real interests in the topic of “anti-war” and peace. > > George Orwell likely was not referring to the internet back in the day. > > It is probably why we can’t allow anything other than “announcements” on the Peace List. I don’t like it, but understand it. > > PS Misspelling is due to “spell check.” > > >> On Nov 5, 2017, at 06:36, Boyle, Francis A wrote: >> >> For sure Carl. And I am very happy to be doing it with you all. Fab. >> >> Francis A. Boyle >> Law Building >> 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. >> Champaign IL 61820 USA >> 217-333-7954 (phone) >> 217-244-1478 (fax) >> (personal comments only) >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] >> Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2017 8:31 AM >> To: Boyle, Francis A >> Cc: Karen Aram ; David Green ; Stuart Levy ; Peace-discuss >> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG >> >> And the political establishment is desperately using the comic figure of Donald Trump to distract us from the crimes of Obama and Clinton (which Trump continues). >> >> Exposing and opposing those crimes, past and present, are what people like us, who have the leisure to do so, should be doing - as you are. —CGE >> >> >>> On Nov 5, 2017, at 8:12 AM, Boyle, Francis A wrote: >>> >>> Oh. And this is what Roger told about Mr. Alwaki’s 16 year old son, a US citizen drone murdered to death by KillerKoh/Clinton/Obama et al: >>> >>> "This piece of shit doesn't do you any honor - the kid was killed because he went to where his Dad was recruiting and training Americans to kill Americans –" >>> >>> According to the Intercept Expose on the Obama/Clinton/KillerKoh drone murder campaign, their CIA source told the Intercept that Mr. Alwaki’s child was deliberately murdered. And now we have killed his daughter. Corruption of Blood. Just like what Kings used to do during the Middle Ages. Kings Obama/Trump. Now prohibited by the United States Constitution. But as President George Bush Jr once said about the Constitution: “It’s just a goddam’ piece of paper!” Ditto for Harvard Law Obama. Ditto for Yale Law Clinton. Ditto for Harvard/Yale Law Killer Koh. Ditto for the Dean and Faculty of the University of Illiniwaks College of Law. fab >>> >>> > From fboyle at illinois.edu Sun Nov 5 16:16:26 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2017 16:16:26 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG References: <9D3D5E59-5EFC-47DF-838D-C6508214E176@illinois.edu> Message-ID: Where would China be today without Mao's Good Ole Cultural Revolution? Fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -----Original Message----- From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2017 10:11 AM To: 'C G Estabrook' ; Karen Aram Cc: David Green ; Stuart Levy ; Peace-discuss Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG Yeah, Mao's Good Ole Cultural Revolution. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -----Original Message----- From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2017 10:06 AM To: Karen Aram Cc: Boyle, Francis A ; David Green ; Stuart Levy ; Peace-discuss Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG “…can’t allow…”? Who gets to do the allowing? 百花齐放,百家争鸣 ('"Let a hundred flowers bloom; let a hundred schools of thought contend" is the policy for promoting progress in the arts and the sciences and a flourishing socialist culture in our land.') > On Nov 5, 2017, at 9:26 AM, Karen Aram wrote: > > Carl > > My point is that these discussions on the Peace Discuss List, with so many ad hominids, with people who clearly support war and destruction, and not with sound arguments, but with goals to merely trash everything we say, as trolls, is a deterrent to folks with real interests in the topic of “anti-war” and peace. > > George Orwell likely was not referring to the internet back in the day. > > It is probably why we can’t allow anything other than “announcements” on the Peace List. I don’t like it, but understand it. > > PS Misspelling is due to “spell check.” > > >> On Nov 5, 2017, at 06:36, Boyle, Francis A wrote: >> >> For sure Carl. And I am very happy to be doing it with you all. Fab. >> >> Francis A. Boyle >> Law Building >> 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. >> Champaign IL 61820 USA >> 217-333-7954 (phone) >> 217-244-1478 (fax) >> (personal comments only) >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] >> Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2017 8:31 AM >> To: Boyle, Francis A >> Cc: Karen Aram ; David Green ; Stuart Levy ; Peace-discuss >> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG >> >> And the political establishment is desperately using the comic figure of Donald Trump to distract us from the crimes of Obama and Clinton (which Trump continues). >> >> Exposing and opposing those crimes, past and present, are what people like us, who have the leisure to do so, should be doing - as you are. —CGE >> >> >>> On Nov 5, 2017, at 8:12 AM, Boyle, Francis A wrote: >>> >>> Oh. And this is what Roger told about Mr. Alwaki’s 16 year old son, a US citizen drone murdered to death by KillerKoh/Clinton/Obama et al: >>> >>> "This piece of shit doesn't do you any honor - the kid was killed because he went to where his Dad was recruiting and training Americans to kill Americans –" >>> >>> According to the Intercept Expose on the Obama/Clinton/KillerKoh drone murder campaign, their CIA source told the Intercept that Mr. Alwaki’s child was deliberately murdered. And now we have killed his daughter. Corruption of Blood. Just like what Kings used to do during the Middle Ages. Kings Obama/Trump. Now prohibited by the United States Constitution. But as President George Bush Jr once said about the Constitution: “It’s just a goddam’ piece of paper!” Ditto for Harvard Law Obama. Ditto for Yale Law Clinton. Ditto for Harvard/Yale Law Killer Koh. Ditto for the Dean and Faculty of the University of Illiniwaks College of Law. fab >>> >>> > From cgestabrook at gmail.com Sun Nov 5 16:51:58 2017 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2017 10:51:58 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG In-Reply-To: References: <9D3D5E59-5EFC-47DF-838D-C6508214E176@illinois.edu> Message-ID: Many Americans don’t realize that the greatest unpleasant fp surprise to the US elite in the 20th century was neither the Bolshevik coup (which led the Wilson administration to invade Russia) nor Pearl Harbor (which the Roosevelt administration angled for, as the Lincoln administration angled for the attack on Fort Sumter, and for the same reason: to coerce an unwilling US public into war). It was rather the ‘loss of China' in 1949. And for that reason, China is misrepresented in US media and scholarship, more than any other major state, with the possible exception of Russia. Perhaps the paramount task of the anti-war movement is to combat those misrepresentations - including the Cultural Revolution (1966-76) and the Tiananmen Square protests (1989) - as the Trump administration continues the previous administration’s war provocations against those two counties. —CGE > On Nov 5, 2017, at 10:16 AM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: > > Where would China be today without Mao's Good Ole Cultural Revolution? > > Fab > > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Boyle, Francis A > Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2017 10:11 AM > To: 'C G Estabrook' ; Karen Aram > Cc: David Green ; Stuart Levy ; Peace-discuss > Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG > > Yeah, Mao's Good Ole Cultural Revolution. Fab. > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) > > -----Original Message----- > From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] > Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2017 10:06 AM > To: Karen Aram > Cc: Boyle, Francis A ; David Green ; Stuart Levy ; Peace-discuss > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG > > “…can’t allow…”? > > Who gets to do the allowing? 百花齐放,百家争鸣 > > ('"Let a hundred flowers bloom; let a hundred schools of thought contend" is the policy for promoting progress in the arts and the sciences and a flourishing socialist culture in our land.') > > >> On Nov 5, 2017, at 9:26 AM, Karen Aram wrote: >> >> Carl >> >> My point is that these discussions on the Peace Discuss List, with so many ad hominids, with people who clearly support war and destruction, and not with sound arguments, but with goals to merely trash everything we say, as trolls, is a deterrent to folks with real interests in the topic of “anti-war” and peace. >> >> George Orwell likely was not referring to the internet back in the day. >> >> It is probably why we can’t allow anything other than “announcements” on the Peace List. I don’t like it, but understand it. >> >> PS Misspelling is due to “spell check.” >> >> >>> On Nov 5, 2017, at 06:36, Boyle, Francis A wrote: >>> >>> For sure Carl. And I am very happy to be doing it with you all. Fab. >>> >>> Francis A. Boyle >>> Law Building >>> 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. >>> Champaign IL 61820 USA >>> 217-333-7954 (phone) >>> 217-244-1478 (fax) >>> (personal comments only) >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] >>> Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2017 8:31 AM >>> To: Boyle, Francis A >>> Cc: Karen Aram ; David Green ; Stuart Levy ; Peace-discuss >>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG >>> >>> And the political establishment is desperately using the comic figure of Donald Trump to distract us from the crimes of Obama and Clinton (which Trump continues). >>> >>> Exposing and opposing those crimes, past and present, are what people like us, who have the leisure to do so, should be doing - as you are. —CGE >>> >>> >>>> On Nov 5, 2017, at 8:12 AM, Boyle, Francis A wrote: >>>> >>>> Oh. And this is what Roger told about Mr. Alwaki’s 16 year old son, a US citizen drone murdered to death by KillerKoh/Clinton/Obama et al: >>>> >>>> "This piece of shit doesn't do you any honor - the kid was killed because he went to where his Dad was recruiting and training Americans to kill Americans –" >>>> >>>> According to the Intercept Expose on the Obama/Clinton/KillerKoh drone murder campaign, their CIA source told the Intercept that Mr. Alwaki’s child was deliberately murdered. And now we have killed his daughter. Corruption of Blood. Just like what Kings used to do during the Middle Ages. Kings Obama/Trump. Now prohibited by the United States Constitution. But as President George Bush Jr once said about the Constitution: “It’s just a goddam’ piece of paper!” Ditto for Harvard Law Obama. Ditto for Yale Law Clinton. Ditto for Harvard/Yale Law Killer Koh. Ditto for the Dean and Faculty of the University of Illiniwaks College of Law. fab >>>> >>>> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss From karenaram at hotmail.com Sun Nov 5 16:59:45 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2017 16:59:45 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Nov. 3rd, 2017 "News from Neptune." Message-ID: Excellent and informative. https://youtu.be/EY-aCx3uP7Y From galliher at illinois.edu Sun Nov 5 17:09:05 2017 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2017 11:09:05 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Nov. 3rd, 2017 "News from Neptune." In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks. > On Nov 5, 2017, at 10:59 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: > > Excellent and informative. > > https://youtu.be/EY-aCx3uP7Y > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss From karenaram at hotmail.com Sun Nov 5 17:29:13 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2017 17:29:13 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG In-Reply-To: References: <9D3D5E59-5EFC-47DF-838D-C6508214E176@illinois.edu> Message-ID: ??? Exactly, who? When I refer to the internet, I am referring to “private” blogs or discussion groups on the internet, not open social media. Meaning do we open the door to everyone? Do we provide our sign up sheet to everyone who we have discussions with at the Market? Do we ask someone who is rude, saying he/she supports war and we are unpatriotic not to do the same? Or are we selective in our choice of who we ask if they’d like to sign up, after interesting, positive conversations? I suggest its the latter. We don’t go around door knocking. Often we just put people on the “Peace List” that we meant to put on the “Peace Discuss List.” We may not approve of a speaker but we don’t remove their platform to speak, if they have acquired one. We don’t need to provide one either. > On Nov 5, 2017, at 08:05, C G Estabrook wrote: > > “…can’t allow…”? > > Who gets to do the allowing? 百花齐放,百家争鸣 > > ('"Let a hundred flowers bloom; let a hundred schools of thought contend" is the policy for promoting progress in the arts and the sciences and a flourishing socialist culture in our land.') > > >> On Nov 5, 2017, at 9:26 AM, Karen Aram wrote: >> >> Carl >> >> My point is that these discussions on the Peace Discuss List, with so many ad hominids, with people who clearly support war and destruction, and not with sound arguments, but with goals to merely trash everything we say, as trolls, is a deterrent to folks with real interests in the topic of “anti-war” and peace. >> >> George Orwell likely was not referring to the internet back in the day. >> >> It is probably why we can’t allow anything other than “announcements” on the Peace List. I don’t like it, but understand it. >> >> PS Misspelling is due to “spell check.” >> >> >>> On Nov 5, 2017, at 06:36, Boyle, Francis A wrote: >>> >>> For sure Carl. And I am very happy to be doing it with you all. Fab. >>> >>> Francis A. Boyle >>> Law Building >>> 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. >>> Champaign IL 61820 USA >>> 217-333-7954 (phone) >>> 217-244-1478 (fax) >>> (personal comments only) >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] >>> Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2017 8:31 AM >>> To: Boyle, Francis A >>> Cc: Karen Aram ; David Green ; Stuart Levy ; Peace-discuss >>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG >>> >>> And the political establishment is desperately using the comic figure of Donald Trump to distract us from the crimes of Obama and Clinton (which Trump continues). >>> >>> Exposing and opposing those crimes, past and present, are what people like us, who have the leisure to do so, should be doing - as you are. —CGE >>> >>> >>>> On Nov 5, 2017, at 8:12 AM, Boyle, Francis A wrote: >>>> >>>> Oh. And this is what Roger told about Mr. Alwaki’s 16 year old son, a US citizen drone murdered to death by KillerKoh/Clinton/Obama et al: >>>> >>>> "This piece of shit doesn't do you any honor - the kid was killed because he went to where his Dad was recruiting and training Americans to kill Americans –" >>>> >>>> According to the Intercept Expose on the Obama/Clinton/KillerKoh drone murder campaign, their CIA source told the Intercept that Mr. Alwaki’s child was deliberately murdered. And now we have killed his daughter. Corruption of Blood. Just like what Kings used to do during the Middle Ages. Kings Obama/Trump. Now prohibited by the United States Constitution. But as President George Bush Jr once said about the Constitution: “It’s just a goddam’ piece of paper!” Ditto for Harvard Law Obama. Ditto for Yale Law Clinton. Ditto for Harvard/Yale Law Killer Koh. Ditto for the Dean and Faculty of the University of Illiniwaks College of Law. fab >>>> >>>> >> > From fboyle at illinois.edu Sun Nov 5 18:20:04 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2017 18:20:04 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG In-Reply-To: References: <9D3D5E59-5EFC-47DF-838D-C6508214E176@illinois.edu> Message-ID: Yeah, as I said before: Where would China be today without Mao's Good Ole Cultural Revolution? fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -----Original Message----- From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2017 10:52 AM To: Boyle, Francis A Cc: Karen Aram ; Peace-discuss Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG Many Americans don’t realize that the greatest unpleasant fp surprise to the US elite in the 20th century was neither the Bolshevik coup (which led the Wilson administration to invade Russia) nor Pearl Harbor (which the Roosevelt administration angled for, as the Lincoln administration angled for the attack on Fort Sumter, and for the same reason: to coerce an unwilling US public into war). It was rather the ‘loss of China' in 1949. And for that reason, China is misrepresented in US media and scholarship, more than any other major state, with the possible exception of Russia. Perhaps the paramount task of the anti-war movement is to combat those misrepresentations - including the Cultural Revolution (1966-76) and the Tiananmen Square protests (1989) - as the Trump administration continues the previous administration’s war provocations against those two counties. —CGE > On Nov 5, 2017, at 10:16 AM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: > > Where would China be today without Mao's Good Ole Cultural Revolution? > > Fab > > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Boyle, Francis A > Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2017 10:11 AM > To: 'C G Estabrook' ; Karen Aram > Cc: David Green ; Stuart Levy ; Peace-discuss > Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG > > Yeah, Mao's Good Ole Cultural Revolution. Fab. > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) > > -----Original Message----- > From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] > Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2017 10:06 AM > To: Karen Aram > Cc: Boyle, Francis A ; David Green ; Stuart Levy ; Peace-discuss > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG > > “…can’t allow…”? > > Who gets to do the allowing? 百花齐放,百家争鸣 > > ('"Let a hundred flowers bloom; let a hundred schools of thought contend" is the policy for promoting progress in the arts and the sciences and a flourishing socialist culture in our land.') > > >> On Nov 5, 2017, at 9:26 AM, Karen Aram wrote: >> >> Carl >> >> My point is that these discussions on the Peace Discuss List, with so many ad hominids, with people who clearly support war and destruction, and not with sound arguments, but with goals to merely trash everything we say, as trolls, is a deterrent to folks with real interests in the topic of “anti-war” and peace. >> >> George Orwell likely was not referring to the internet back in the day. >> >> It is probably why we can’t allow anything other than “announcements” on the Peace List. I don’t like it, but understand it. >> >> PS Misspelling is due to “spell check.” >> >> >>> On Nov 5, 2017, at 06:36, Boyle, Francis A wrote: >>> >>> For sure Carl. And I am very happy to be doing it with you all. Fab. >>> >>> Francis A. Boyle >>> Law Building >>> 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. >>> Champaign IL 61820 USA >>> 217-333-7954 (phone) >>> 217-244-1478 (fax) >>> (personal comments only) >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] >>> Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2017 8:31 AM >>> To: Boyle, Francis A >>> Cc: Karen Aram ; David Green ; Stuart Levy ; Peace-discuss >>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG >>> >>> And the political establishment is desperately using the comic figure of Donald Trump to distract us from the crimes of Obama and Clinton (which Trump continues). >>> >>> Exposing and opposing those crimes, past and present, are what people like us, who have the leisure to do so, should be doing - as you are. —CGE >>> >>> >>>> On Nov 5, 2017, at 8:12 AM, Boyle, Francis A wrote: >>>> >>>> Oh. And this is what Roger told about Mr. Alwaki’s 16 year old son, a US citizen drone murdered to death by KillerKoh/Clinton/Obama et al: >>>> >>>> "This piece of shit doesn't do you any honor - the kid was killed because he went to where his Dad was recruiting and training Americans to kill Americans –" >>>> >>>> According to the Intercept Expose on the Obama/Clinton/KillerKoh drone murder campaign, their CIA source told the Intercept that Mr. Alwaki’s child was deliberately murdered. And now we have killed his daughter. Corruption of Blood. Just like what Kings used to do during the Middle Ages. Kings Obama/Trump. Now prohibited by the United States Constitution. But as President George Bush Jr once said about the Constitution: “It’s just a goddam’ piece of paper!” Ditto for Harvard Law Obama. Ditto for Yale Law Clinton. Ditto for Harvard/Yale Law Killer Koh. Ditto for the Dean and Faculty of the University of Illiniwaks College of Law. fab >>>> >>>> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss From karenaram at hotmail.com Sun Nov 5 18:38:12 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2017 18:38:12 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] I've said it before but this is the best "Gramsci" by Hedges & Wolff Message-ID: https://youtu.be/UtO34uc8UxM From cgestabrook at gmail.com Sun Nov 5 20:06:01 2017 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2017 14:06:01 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG In-Reply-To: References: <9D3D5E59-5EFC-47DF-838D-C6508214E176@illinois.edu> Message-ID: <18215092-0C76-4059-8049-2BD80474EDF8@gmail.com> Probably roughly where it is, wouldn’t you think? > On Nov 5, 2017, at 12:20 PM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: > > Yeah, as I said before: Where would China be today without Mao's Good Ole Cultural Revolution? > > fab > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) > > > -----Original Message----- > From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] > Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2017 10:52 AM > To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: Karen Aram ; Peace-discuss > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG > > Many Americans don’t realize that the greatest unpleasant fp surprise to the US elite in the 20th century was neither the Bolshevik coup (which led the Wilson administration to invade Russia) nor Pearl Harbor (which the Roosevelt administration angled for, as the Lincoln administration angled for the attack on Fort Sumter, and for the same reason: to coerce an unwilling US public into war). > > It was rather the ‘loss of China' in 1949. And for that reason, China is misrepresented in US media and scholarship, more than any other major state, with the possible exception of Russia. > > Perhaps the paramount task of the anti-war movement is to combat those misrepresentations - including the Cultural Revolution (1966-76) and the Tiananmen Square protests (1989) - as the Trump administration continues the previous administration’s war provocations against those two counties. > > —CGE > > >> On Nov 5, 2017, at 10:16 AM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: >> >> Where would China be today without Mao's Good Ole Cultural Revolution? >> >> Fab >> >> >> Francis A. Boyle >> Law Building >> 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. >> Champaign IL 61820 USA >> 217-333-7954 (phone) >> 217-244-1478 (fax) >> (personal comments only) >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Boyle, Francis A >> Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2017 10:11 AM >> To: 'C G Estabrook' ; Karen Aram >> Cc: David Green ; Stuart Levy ; Peace-discuss >> Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG >> >> Yeah, Mao's Good Ole Cultural Revolution. Fab. >> >> Francis A. Boyle >> Law Building >> 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. >> Champaign IL 61820 USA >> 217-333-7954 (phone) >> 217-244-1478 (fax) >> (personal comments only) >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] >> Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2017 10:06 AM >> To: Karen Aram >> Cc: Boyle, Francis A ; David Green ; Stuart Levy ; Peace-discuss >> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG >> >> “…can’t allow…”? >> >> Who gets to do the allowing? 百花齐放,百家争鸣 >> >> ('"Let a hundred flowers bloom; let a hundred schools of thought contend" is the policy for promoting progress in the arts and the sciences and a flourishing socialist culture in our land.') >> >> >>> On Nov 5, 2017, at 9:26 AM, Karen Aram wrote: >>> >>> Carl >>> >>> My point is that these discussions on the Peace Discuss List, with so many ad hominids, with people who clearly support war and destruction, and not with sound arguments, but with goals to merely trash everything we say, as trolls, is a deterrent to folks with real interests in the topic of “anti-war” and peace. >>> >>> George Orwell likely was not referring to the internet back in the day. >>> >>> It is probably why we can’t allow anything other than “announcements” on the Peace List. I don’t like it, but understand it. >>> >>> PS Misspelling is due to “spell check.” >>> >>> >>>> On Nov 5, 2017, at 06:36, Boyle, Francis A wrote: >>>> >>>> For sure Carl. And I am very happy to be doing it with you all. Fab. >>>> >>>> Francis A. Boyle >>>> Law Building >>>> 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. >>>> Champaign IL 61820 USA >>>> 217-333-7954 (phone) >>>> 217-244-1478 (fax) >>>> (personal comments only) >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] >>>> Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2017 8:31 AM >>>> To: Boyle, Francis A >>>> Cc: Karen Aram ; David Green ; Stuart Levy ; Peace-discuss >>>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG >>>> >>>> And the political establishment is desperately using the comic figure of Donald Trump to distract us from the crimes of Obama and Clinton (which Trump continues). >>>> >>>> Exposing and opposing those crimes, past and present, are what people like us, who have the leisure to do so, should be doing - as you are. —CGE >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Nov 5, 2017, at 8:12 AM, Boyle, Francis A wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Oh. And this is what Roger told about Mr. Alwaki’s 16 year old son, a US citizen drone murdered to death by KillerKoh/Clinton/Obama et al: >>>>> >>>>> "This piece of shit doesn't do you any honor - the kid was killed because he went to where his Dad was recruiting and training Americans to kill Americans –" >>>>> >>>>> According to the Intercept Expose on the Obama/Clinton/KillerKoh drone murder campaign, their CIA source told the Intercept that Mr. Alwaki’s child was deliberately murdered. And now we have killed his daughter. Corruption of Blood. Just like what Kings used to do during the Middle Ages. Kings Obama/Trump. Now prohibited by the United States Constitution. But as President George Bush Jr once said about the Constitution: “It’s just a goddam’ piece of paper!” Ditto for Harvard Law Obama. Ditto for Yale Law Clinton. Ditto for Harvard/Yale Law Killer Koh. Ditto for the Dean and Faculty of the University of Illiniwaks College of Law. fab >>>>> >>>>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Peace-discuss mailing list >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss From karenaram at hotmail.com Sun Nov 5 21:11:47 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2017 21:11:47 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Harriet Fraud: How Capitalism Shreds Our Personal Lives 2016 Message-ID: https://youtu.be/gF3HhkCyTEs From fboyle at illinois.edu Sun Nov 5 21:15:14 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2017 21:15:14 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG In-Reply-To: <18215092-0C76-4059-8049-2BD80474EDF8@gmail.com> References: <9D3D5E59-5EFC-47DF-838D-C6508214E176@illinois.edu> <18215092-0C76-4059-8049-2BD80474EDF8@gmail.com> Message-ID: As Cho En Lai said about the French Revolution: It is too early to say. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -----Original Message----- From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2017 2:06 PM To: Boyle, Francis A Cc: Peace-discuss ; Karen Aram Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG Probably roughly where it is, wouldn’t you think? > On Nov 5, 2017, at 12:20 PM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: > > Yeah, as I said before: Where would China be today without Mao's Good Ole Cultural Revolution? > > fab > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) > > > -----Original Message----- > From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] > Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2017 10:52 AM > To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: Karen Aram ; Peace-discuss > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG > > Many Americans don’t realize that the greatest unpleasant fp surprise to the US elite in the 20th century was neither the Bolshevik coup (which led the Wilson administration to invade Russia) nor Pearl Harbor (which the Roosevelt administration angled for, as the Lincoln administration angled for the attack on Fort Sumter, and for the same reason: to coerce an unwilling US public into war). > > It was rather the ‘loss of China' in 1949. And for that reason, China is misrepresented in US media and scholarship, more than any other major state, with the possible exception of Russia. > > Perhaps the paramount task of the anti-war movement is to combat those misrepresentations - including the Cultural Revolution (1966-76) and the Tiananmen Square protests (1989) - as the Trump administration continues the previous administration’s war provocations against those two counties. > > —CGE > > >> On Nov 5, 2017, at 10:16 AM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: >> >> Where would China be today without Mao's Good Ole Cultural Revolution? >> >> Fab >> >> >> Francis A. Boyle >> Law Building >> 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. >> Champaign IL 61820 USA >> 217-333-7954 (phone) >> 217-244-1478 (fax) >> (personal comments only) >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Boyle, Francis A >> Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2017 10:11 AM >> To: 'C G Estabrook' ; Karen Aram >> Cc: David Green ; Stuart Levy ; Peace-discuss >> Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG >> >> Yeah, Mao's Good Ole Cultural Revolution. Fab. >> >> Francis A. Boyle >> Law Building >> 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. >> Champaign IL 61820 USA >> 217-333-7954 (phone) >> 217-244-1478 (fax) >> (personal comments only) >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] >> Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2017 10:06 AM >> To: Karen Aram >> Cc: Boyle, Francis A ; David Green ; Stuart Levy ; Peace-discuss >> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG >> >> “…can’t allow…”? >> >> Who gets to do the allowing? 百花齐放,百家争鸣 >> >> ('"Let a hundred flowers bloom; let a hundred schools of thought contend" is the policy for promoting progress in the arts and the sciences and a flourishing socialist culture in our land.') >> >> >>> On Nov 5, 2017, at 9:26 AM, Karen Aram wrote: >>> >>> Carl >>> >>> My point is that these discussions on the Peace Discuss List, with so many ad hominids, with people who clearly support war and destruction, and not with sound arguments, but with goals to merely trash everything we say, as trolls, is a deterrent to folks with real interests in the topic of “anti-war” and peace. >>> >>> George Orwell likely was not referring to the internet back in the day. >>> >>> It is probably why we can’t allow anything other than “announcements” on the Peace List. I don’t like it, but understand it. >>> >>> PS Misspelling is due to “spell check.” >>> >>> >>>> On Nov 5, 2017, at 06:36, Boyle, Francis A wrote: >>>> >>>> For sure Carl. And I am very happy to be doing it with you all. Fab. >>>> >>>> Francis A. Boyle >>>> Law Building >>>> 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. >>>> Champaign IL 61820 USA >>>> 217-333-7954 (phone) >>>> 217-244-1478 (fax) >>>> (personal comments only) >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] >>>> Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2017 8:31 AM >>>> To: Boyle, Francis A >>>> Cc: Karen Aram ; David Green ; Stuart Levy ; Peace-discuss >>>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG >>>> >>>> And the political establishment is desperately using the comic figure of Donald Trump to distract us from the crimes of Obama and Clinton (which Trump continues). >>>> >>>> Exposing and opposing those crimes, past and present, are what people like us, who have the leisure to do so, should be doing - as you are. —CGE >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Nov 5, 2017, at 8:12 AM, Boyle, Francis A wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Oh. And this is what Roger told about Mr. Alwaki’s 16 year old son, a US citizen drone murdered to death by KillerKoh/Clinton/Obama et al: >>>>> >>>>> "This piece of shit doesn't do you any honor - the kid was killed because he went to where his Dad was recruiting and training Americans to kill Americans –" >>>>> >>>>> According to the Intercept Expose on the Obama/Clinton/KillerKoh drone murder campaign, their CIA source told the Intercept that Mr. Alwaki’s child was deliberately murdered. And now we have killed his daughter. Corruption of Blood. Just like what Kings used to do during the Middle Ages. Kings Obama/Trump. Now prohibited by the United States Constitution. But as President George Bush Jr once said about the Constitution: “It’s just a goddam’ piece of paper!” Ditto for Harvard Law Obama. Ditto for Yale Law Clinton. Ditto for Harvard/Yale Law Killer Koh. Ditto for the Dean and Faculty of the University of Illiniwaks College of Law. fab >>>>> >>>>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Peace-discuss mailing list >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss From fboyle at illinois.edu Mon Nov 6 02:04:32 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2017 02:04:32 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Illinois Governor Rauner versus Illinois Law Dean Amar In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dean Amar has posted his attack upon the Sanctuary Movement on the College of Law's blog/web page for all of our students to read. That just shows you the Power For Evil that a Law Dean has. Of course we learned that last year when Dean Amar went all out to promote Killer Koh as a Role Model in Excellence for Lawyers in Government Service. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2017 6:51 PM To: David Green ; C. G. ESTABROOK ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay ; David Johnson ; Mildred O'brien ; Estabrook, Carl G Subject: Illinois Governor Rauner versus Illinois Law Dean Amar I am no fan of Governor Rauner. But to his great and everlasting credit, Governor Rauner recently signed legislation that turned the entire State of Illinois into a Sanctuary State. Soon thereafter Illinois Law Dean Amar of the University of Illinois College of Law-the Flagship State Law School on the Flagship Campus of the University of Illinois where Governor Rauner sits on the Board of Trustees as an Ex Officio Member- publicly came out against the Sanctuary Movement. Republican Governor Rauner courageously aligned himself and the State of Illinois with the Sanctuary Movement against Trump. Illinois Law Dean Amar cravenly aligned himself with Trump against the Sanctuary Movement and Governor Rauner and the State of Illinois and 11 Million Undocumented Migrants and Their Families and 800,000 DACA Kids and 50,000 Haitian Refugees and Tens of Thousands of Central American Refugees still in this country from the Original Sanctuary Movement and Their Families. And to the best of my knowledge, and I stand subject to correction, Illinois Law Dean Amar is the first and so far the only Law Dean in the country to publicly come out against the Sanctuary Movement and 11 Million Undocumented Migrants and Their Families, and 800,000 DACA Kids and 50,000 Haitian Refugees and Tens of Thousands of Central American refugees still in this country from the Original Sanctuary Movement whom Illinois Governor Rauner had the courage and common sense and decency and compassion and principles and integrity to protect from Trump by turning the entire State of Illinois into a Sanctuary State for them all. Professor Francis A. Boyle University of Illinois College of Law Board of Directors, Amnesty International USA (1988-1992) Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Mon Nov 6 02:04:32 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2017 02:04:32 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Illinois Governor Rauner versus Illinois Law Dean Amar In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dean Amar has posted his attack upon the Sanctuary Movement on the College of Law's blog/web page for all of our students to read. That just shows you the Power For Evil that a Law Dean has. Of course we learned that last year when Dean Amar went all out to promote Killer Koh as a Role Model in Excellence for Lawyers in Government Service. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2017 6:51 PM To: David Green ; C. G. ESTABROOK ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay ; David Johnson ; Mildred O'brien ; Estabrook, Carl G Subject: Illinois Governor Rauner versus Illinois Law Dean Amar I am no fan of Governor Rauner. But to his great and everlasting credit, Governor Rauner recently signed legislation that turned the entire State of Illinois into a Sanctuary State. Soon thereafter Illinois Law Dean Amar of the University of Illinois College of Law-the Flagship State Law School on the Flagship Campus of the University of Illinois where Governor Rauner sits on the Board of Trustees as an Ex Officio Member- publicly came out against the Sanctuary Movement. Republican Governor Rauner courageously aligned himself and the State of Illinois with the Sanctuary Movement against Trump. Illinois Law Dean Amar cravenly aligned himself with Trump against the Sanctuary Movement and Governor Rauner and the State of Illinois and 11 Million Undocumented Migrants and Their Families and 800,000 DACA Kids and 50,000 Haitian Refugees and Tens of Thousands of Central American Refugees still in this country from the Original Sanctuary Movement and Their Families. And to the best of my knowledge, and I stand subject to correction, Illinois Law Dean Amar is the first and so far the only Law Dean in the country to publicly come out against the Sanctuary Movement and 11 Million Undocumented Migrants and Their Families, and 800,000 DACA Kids and 50,000 Haitian Refugees and Tens of Thousands of Central American refugees still in this country from the Original Sanctuary Movement whom Illinois Governor Rauner had the courage and common sense and decency and compassion and principles and integrity to protect from Trump by turning the entire State of Illinois into a Sanctuary State for them all. Professor Francis A. Boyle University of Illinois College of Law Board of Directors, Amnesty International USA (1988-1992) Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Mon Nov 6 03:17:53 2017 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2017 21:17:53 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG In-Reply-To: References: <9D3D5E59-5EFC-47DF-838D-C6508214E176@illinois.edu> <18215092-0C76-4059-8049-2BD80474EDF8@gmail.com> Message-ID: Probably not, I’d say. (And maybe Zhou didn’t either. His famous remark, "It is too soon to say,” is often thought to refer to the significance of the French Revolution of 1789, but it has been argued that he was actually referring to the French protests of 1968; see "Zhou’s cryptic caution lost in translation" by Richard McGregor in Financial Times, 10 June 2011.) Modern Chinese history doesn’t stop with the Cultural Revolution. Surely Deng’s reforms of the 1980s were at least as important. —CGE > On Nov 5, 2017, at 3:15 PM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: > > As Cho En Lai said about the French Revolution: It is too early to say. Fab. > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) > > > -----Original Message----- > From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] > Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2017 2:06 PM > To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: Peace-discuss ; Karen Aram > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG > > Probably roughly where it is, wouldn’t you think? > > >> On Nov 5, 2017, at 12:20 PM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: >> >> Yeah, as I said before: Where would China be today without Mao's Good Ole Cultural Revolution? >> >> fab >> >> Francis A. Boyle >> Law Building >> 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. >> Champaign IL 61820 USA >> 217-333-7954 (phone) >> 217-244-1478 (fax) >> (personal comments only) >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] >> Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2017 10:52 AM >> To: Boyle, Francis A >> Cc: Karen Aram ; Peace-discuss >> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG >> >> Many Americans don’t realize that the greatest unpleasant fp surprise to the US elite in the 20th century was neither the Bolshevik coup (which led the Wilson administration to invade Russia) nor Pearl Harbor (which the Roosevelt administration angled for, as the Lincoln administration angled for the attack on Fort Sumter, and for the same reason: to coerce an unwilling US public into war). >> >> It was rather the ‘loss of China' in 1949. And for that reason, China is misrepresented in US media and scholarship, more than any other major state, with the possible exception of Russia. >> >> Perhaps the paramount task of the anti-war movement is to combat those misrepresentations - including the Cultural Revolution (1966-76) and the Tiananmen Square protests (1989) - as the Trump administration continues the previous administration’s war provocations against those two counties. >> >> —CGE >> >> >>> On Nov 5, 2017, at 10:16 AM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: >>> >>> Where would China be today without Mao's Good Ole Cultural Revolution? >>> >>> Fab >>> >>> >>> Francis A. Boyle >>> Law Building >>> 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. >>> Champaign IL 61820 USA >>> 217-333-7954 (phone) >>> 217-244-1478 (fax) >>> (personal comments only) >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Boyle, Francis A >>> Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2017 10:11 AM >>> To: 'C G Estabrook' ; Karen Aram >>> Cc: David Green ; Stuart Levy ; Peace-discuss >>> Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG >>> >>> Yeah, Mao's Good Ole Cultural Revolution. Fab. >>> >>> Francis A. Boyle >>> Law Building >>> 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. >>> Champaign IL 61820 USA >>> 217-333-7954 (phone) >>> 217-244-1478 (fax) >>> (personal comments only) >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] >>> Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2017 10:06 AM >>> To: Karen Aram >>> Cc: Boyle, Francis A ; David Green ; Stuart Levy ; Peace-discuss >>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG >>> >>> “…can’t allow…”? >>> >>> Who gets to do the allowing? 百花齐放,百家争鸣 >>> >>> ('"Let a hundred flowers bloom; let a hundred schools of thought contend" is the policy for promoting progress in the arts and the sciences and a flourishing socialist culture in our land.') >>> >>> >>>> On Nov 5, 2017, at 9:26 AM, Karen Aram wrote: >>>> >>>> Carl >>>> >>>> My point is that these discussions on the Peace Discuss List, with so many ad hominids, with people who clearly support war and destruction, and not with sound arguments, but with goals to merely trash everything we say, as trolls, is a deterrent to folks with real interests in the topic of “anti-war” and peace. >>>> >>>> George Orwell likely was not referring to the internet back in the day. >>>> >>>> It is probably why we can’t allow anything other than “announcements” on the Peace List. I don’t like it, but understand it. >>>> >>>> PS Misspelling is due to “spell check.” >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Nov 5, 2017, at 06:36, Boyle, Francis A wrote: >>>>> >>>>> For sure Carl. And I am very happy to be doing it with you all. Fab. >>>>> >>>>> Francis A. Boyle >>>>> Law Building >>>>> 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. >>>>> Champaign IL 61820 USA >>>>> 217-333-7954 (phone) >>>>> 217-244-1478 (fax) >>>>> (personal comments only) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] >>>>> Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2017 8:31 AM >>>>> To: Boyle, Francis A >>>>> Cc: Karen Aram ; David Green ; Stuart Levy ; Peace-discuss >>>>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG >>>>> >>>>> And the political establishment is desperately using the comic figure of Donald Trump to distract us from the crimes of Obama and Clinton (which Trump continues). >>>>> >>>>> Exposing and opposing those crimes, past and present, are what people like us, who have the leisure to do so, should be doing - as you are. —CGE >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On Nov 5, 2017, at 8:12 AM, Boyle, Francis A wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Oh. And this is what Roger told about Mr. Alwaki’s 16 year old son, a US citizen drone murdered to death by KillerKoh/Clinton/Obama et al: >>>>>> >>>>>> "This piece of shit doesn't do you any honor - the kid was killed because he went to where his Dad was recruiting and training Americans to kill Americans –" >>>>>> >>>>>> According to the Intercept Expose on the Obama/Clinton/KillerKoh drone murder campaign, their CIA source told the Intercept that Mr. Alwaki’s child was deliberately murdered. And now we have killed his daughter. Corruption of Blood. Just like what Kings used to do during the Middle Ages. Kings Obama/Trump. Now prohibited by the United States Constitution. But as President George Bush Jr once said about the Constitution: “It’s just a goddam’ piece of paper!” Ditto for Harvard Law Obama. Ditto for Yale Law Clinton. Ditto for Harvard/Yale Law Killer Koh. Ditto for the Dean and Faculty of the University of Illiniwaks College of Law. fab >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> From r-szoke at illinois.edu Mon Nov 6 05:06:22 2017 From: r-szoke at illinois.edu (Szoke, Ron) Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2017 05:06:22 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Harriet Fraud: How Capitalism Shreds Our Personal Lives 2016 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Please: Fraad, not Fraud. From fboyle at illinois.edu Mon Nov 6 11:53:57 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2017 11:53:57 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG In-Reply-To: References: <9D3D5E59-5EFC-47DF-838D-C6508214E176@illinois.edu> <18215092-0C76-4059-8049-2BD80474EDF8@gmail.com> Message-ID: Yes, of course, turn China into a Capitalist Mecca. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -----Original Message----- From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2017 9:18 PM To: Boyle, Francis A Cc: Peace-discuss ; Karen Aram Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG Probably not, I’d say. (And maybe Zhou didn’t either. His famous remark, "It is too soon to say,” is often thought to refer to the significance of the French Revolution of 1789, but it has been argued that he was actually referring to the French protests of 1968; see "Zhou’s cryptic caution lost in translation" by Richard McGregor in Financial Times, 10 June 2011.) Modern Chinese history doesn’t stop with the Cultural Revolution. Surely Deng’s reforms of the 1980s were at least as important. —CGE > On Nov 5, 2017, at 3:15 PM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: > > As Cho En Lai said about the French Revolution: It is too early to say. Fab. > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) > > > -----Original Message----- > From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] > Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2017 2:06 PM > To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: Peace-discuss ; Karen Aram > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG > > Probably roughly where it is, wouldn’t you think? > > >> On Nov 5, 2017, at 12:20 PM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: >> >> Yeah, as I said before: Where would China be today without Mao's Good Ole Cultural Revolution? >> >> fab >> >> Francis A. Boyle >> Law Building >> 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. >> Champaign IL 61820 USA >> 217-333-7954 (phone) >> 217-244-1478 (fax) >> (personal comments only) >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] >> Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2017 10:52 AM >> To: Boyle, Francis A >> Cc: Karen Aram ; Peace-discuss >> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG >> >> Many Americans don’t realize that the greatest unpleasant fp surprise to the US elite in the 20th century was neither the Bolshevik coup (which led the Wilson administration to invade Russia) nor Pearl Harbor (which the Roosevelt administration angled for, as the Lincoln administration angled for the attack on Fort Sumter, and for the same reason: to coerce an unwilling US public into war). >> >> It was rather the ‘loss of China' in 1949. And for that reason, China is misrepresented in US media and scholarship, more than any other major state, with the possible exception of Russia. >> >> Perhaps the paramount task of the anti-war movement is to combat those misrepresentations - including the Cultural Revolution (1966-76) and the Tiananmen Square protests (1989) - as the Trump administration continues the previous administration’s war provocations against those two counties. >> >> —CGE >> >> >>> On Nov 5, 2017, at 10:16 AM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: >>> >>> Where would China be today without Mao's Good Ole Cultural Revolution? >>> >>> Fab >>> >>> >>> Francis A. Boyle >>> Law Building >>> 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. >>> Champaign IL 61820 USA >>> 217-333-7954 (phone) >>> 217-244-1478 (fax) >>> (personal comments only) >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Boyle, Francis A >>> Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2017 10:11 AM >>> To: 'C G Estabrook' ; Karen Aram >>> Cc: David Green ; Stuart Levy ; Peace-discuss >>> Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG >>> >>> Yeah, Mao's Good Ole Cultural Revolution. Fab. >>> >>> Francis A. Boyle >>> Law Building >>> 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. >>> Champaign IL 61820 USA >>> 217-333-7954 (phone) >>> 217-244-1478 (fax) >>> (personal comments only) >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] >>> Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2017 10:06 AM >>> To: Karen Aram >>> Cc: Boyle, Francis A ; David Green ; Stuart Levy ; Peace-discuss >>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG >>> >>> “…can’t allow…”? >>> >>> Who gets to do the allowing? 百花齐放,百家争鸣 >>> >>> ('"Let a hundred flowers bloom; let a hundred schools of thought contend" is the policy for promoting progress in the arts and the sciences and a flourishing socialist culture in our land.') >>> >>> >>>> On Nov 5, 2017, at 9:26 AM, Karen Aram wrote: >>>> >>>> Carl >>>> >>>> My point is that these discussions on the Peace Discuss List, with so many ad hominids, with people who clearly support war and destruction, and not with sound arguments, but with goals to merely trash everything we say, as trolls, is a deterrent to folks with real interests in the topic of “anti-war” and peace. >>>> >>>> George Orwell likely was not referring to the internet back in the day. >>>> >>>> It is probably why we can’t allow anything other than “announcements” on the Peace List. I don’t like it, but understand it. >>>> >>>> PS Misspelling is due to “spell check.” >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Nov 5, 2017, at 06:36, Boyle, Francis A wrote: >>>>> >>>>> For sure Carl. And I am very happy to be doing it with you all. Fab. >>>>> >>>>> Francis A. Boyle >>>>> Law Building >>>>> 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. >>>>> Champaign IL 61820 USA >>>>> 217-333-7954 (phone) >>>>> 217-244-1478 (fax) >>>>> (personal comments only) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] >>>>> Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2017 8:31 AM >>>>> To: Boyle, Francis A >>>>> Cc: Karen Aram ; David Green ; Stuart Levy ; Peace-discuss >>>>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG >>>>> >>>>> And the political establishment is desperately using the comic figure of Donald Trump to distract us from the crimes of Obama and Clinton (which Trump continues). >>>>> >>>>> Exposing and opposing those crimes, past and present, are what people like us, who have the leisure to do so, should be doing - as you are. —CGE >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On Nov 5, 2017, at 8:12 AM, Boyle, Francis A wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Oh. And this is what Roger told about Mr. Alwaki’s 16 year old son, a US citizen drone murdered to death by KillerKoh/Clinton/Obama et al: >>>>>> >>>>>> "This piece of shit doesn't do you any honor - the kid was killed because he went to where his Dad was recruiting and training Americans to kill Americans –" >>>>>> >>>>>> According to the Intercept Expose on the Obama/Clinton/KillerKoh drone murder campaign, their CIA source told the Intercept that Mr. Alwaki’s child was deliberately murdered. And now we have killed his daughter. Corruption of Blood. Just like what Kings used to do during the Middle Ages. Kings Obama/Trump. Now prohibited by the United States Constitution. But as President George Bush Jr once said about the Constitution: “It’s just a goddam’ piece of paper!” Ditto for Harvard Law Obama. Ditto for Yale Law Clinton. Ditto for Harvard/Yale Law Killer Koh. Ditto for the Dean and Faculty of the University of Illiniwaks College of Law. fab >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> From karenaram at hotmail.com Mon Nov 6 12:34:12 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2017 12:34:12 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Harriet Fraud: How Capitalism Shreds Our Personal Lives 2016 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Damn auto spell check. > On Nov 5, 2017, at 21:06, Szoke, Ron wrote: > > Please: Fraad, not Fraud. From karenaram at hotmail.com Mon Nov 6 12:39:34 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2017 12:39:34 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: True, it was Deng who with his reforms brought about capitalism. China is now a “mixed economy.” Sadly, neither college education or healthcare are free under their capitalist reforms. > On Nov 6, 2017, at 03:53, Boyle, Francis A wrote: > > Yes, of course, turn China into a Capitalist Mecca. Fab. > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) > > > -----Original Message----- > From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] > Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2017 9:18 PM > To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: Peace-discuss ; Karen Aram > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG > > Probably not, I’d say. > > (And maybe Zhou didn’t either. His famous remark, "It is too soon to say,” is often thought to refer to the significance of the French Revolution of 1789, but it has been argued that he was actually referring to the French protests of 1968; see "Zhou’s cryptic caution lost in translation" by Richard McGregor in Financial Times, 10 June 2011.) > > Modern Chinese history doesn’t stop with the Cultural Revolution. Surely Deng’s reforms of the 1980s were at least as important. —CGE > > >> On Nov 5, 2017, at 3:15 PM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: >> >> As Cho En Lai said about the French Revolution: It is too early to say. Fab. >> >> Francis A. Boyle >> Law Building >> 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. >> Champaign IL 61820 USA >> 217-333-7954 (phone) >> 217-244-1478 (fax) >> (personal comments only) >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] >> Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2017 2:06 PM >> To: Boyle, Francis A >> Cc: Peace-discuss ; Karen Aram >> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG >> >> Probably roughly where it is, wouldn’t you think? >> >> >>> On Nov 5, 2017, at 12:20 PM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: >>> >>> Yeah, as I said before: Where would China be today without Mao's Good Ole Cultural Revolution? >>> >>> fab >>> >>> Francis A. Boyle >>> Law Building >>> 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. >>> Champaign IL 61820 USA >>> 217-333-7954 (phone) >>> 217-244-1478 (fax) >>> (personal comments only) >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] >>> Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2017 10:52 AM >>> To: Boyle, Francis A >>> Cc: Karen Aram ; Peace-discuss >>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG >>> >>> Many Americans don’t realize that the greatest unpleasant fp surprise to the US elite in the 20th century was neither the Bolshevik coup (which led the Wilson administration to invade Russia) nor Pearl Harbor (which the Roosevelt administration angled for, as the Lincoln administration angled for the attack on Fort Sumter, and for the same reason: to coerce an unwilling US public into war). >>> >>> It was rather the ‘loss of China' in 1949. And for that reason, China is misrepresented in US media and scholarship, more than any other major state, with the possible exception of Russia. >>> >>> Perhaps the paramount task of the anti-war movement is to combat those misrepresentations - including the Cultural Revolution (1966-76) and the Tiananmen Square protests (1989) - as the Trump administration continues the previous administration’s war provocations against those two counties. >>> >>> —CGE >>> >>> >>>> On Nov 5, 2017, at 10:16 AM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: >>>> >>>> Where would China be today without Mao's Good Ole Cultural Revolution? >>>> >>>> Fab >>>> >>>> >>>> Francis A. Boyle >>>> Law Building >>>> 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. >>>> Champaign IL 61820 USA >>>> 217-333-7954 (phone) >>>> 217-244-1478 (fax) >>>> (personal comments only) >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Boyle, Francis A >>>> Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2017 10:11 AM >>>> To: 'C G Estabrook' ; Karen Aram >>>> Cc: David Green ; Stuart Levy ; Peace-discuss >>>> Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG >>>> >>>> Yeah, Mao's Good Ole Cultural Revolution. Fab. >>>> >>>> Francis A. Boyle >>>> Law Building >>>> 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. >>>> Champaign IL 61820 USA >>>> 217-333-7954 (phone) >>>> 217-244-1478 (fax) >>>> (personal comments only) >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] >>>> Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2017 10:06 AM >>>> To: Karen Aram >>>> Cc: Boyle, Francis A ; David Green ; Stuart Levy ; Peace-discuss >>>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG >>>> >>>> “…can’t allow…”? >>>> >>>> Who gets to do the allowing? 百花齐放,百家争鸣 >>>> >>>> ('"Let a hundred flowers bloom; let a hundred schools of thought contend" is the policy for promoting progress in the arts and the sciences and a flourishing socialist culture in our land.') >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Nov 5, 2017, at 9:26 AM, Karen Aram wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Carl >>>>> >>>>> My point is that these discussions on the Peace Discuss List, with so many ad hominids, with people who clearly support war and destruction, and not with sound arguments, but with goals to merely trash everything we say, as trolls, is a deterrent to folks with real interests in the topic of “anti-war” and peace. >>>>> >>>>> George Orwell likely was not referring to the internet back in the day. >>>>> >>>>> It is probably why we can’t allow anything other than “announcements” on the Peace List. I don’t like it, but understand it. >>>>> >>>>> PS Misspelling is due to “spell check.” >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On Nov 5, 2017, at 06:36, Boyle, Francis A wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> For sure Carl. And I am very happy to be doing it with you all. Fab. >>>>>> >>>>>> Francis A. Boyle >>>>>> Law Building >>>>>> 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. >>>>>> Champaign IL 61820 USA >>>>>> 217-333-7954 (phone) >>>>>> 217-244-1478 (fax) >>>>>> (personal comments only) >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] >>>>>> Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2017 8:31 AM >>>>>> To: Boyle, Francis A >>>>>> Cc: Karen Aram ; David Green ; Stuart Levy ; Peace-discuss >>>>>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG >>>>>> >>>>>> And the political establishment is desperately using the comic figure of Donald Trump to distract us from the crimes of Obama and Clinton (which Trump continues). >>>>>> >>>>>> Exposing and opposing those crimes, past and present, are what people like us, who have the leisure to do so, should be doing - as you are. —CGE >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Nov 5, 2017, at 8:12 AM, Boyle, Francis A wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Oh. And this is what Roger told about Mr. Alwaki’s 16 year old son, a US citizen drone murdered to death by KillerKoh/Clinton/Obama et al: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "This piece of shit doesn't do you any honor - the kid was killed because he went to where his Dad was recruiting and training Americans to kill Americans –" >>>>>>> >>>>>>> According to the Intercept Expose on the Obama/Clinton/KillerKoh drone murder campaign, their CIA source told the Intercept that Mr. Alwaki’s child was deliberately murdered. And now we have killed his daughter. Corruption of Blood. Just like what Kings used to do during the Middle Ages. Kings Obama/Trump. Now prohibited by the United States Constitution. But as President George Bush Jr once said about the Constitution: “It’s just a goddam’ piece of paper!” Ditto for Harvard Law Obama. Ditto for Yale Law Clinton. Ditto for Harvard/Yale Law Killer Koh. Ditto for the Dean and Faculty of the University of Illiniwaks College of Law. fab >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> > From fboyle at illinois.edu Mon Nov 6 13:04:42 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2017 13:04:42 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Illinois Governor Rauner versus Illinois Law Dean Amar In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: So this is far worse than I had originally anticipated with you. Instead of just teaching his Gratuitous Attack on the Sanctuary Movement to his own law students, Dean Amar is teaching his Gratuitous Attack on the Sanctuary Movement to the entire University of Illinois College of Law Community, all of whom will go on to become lawyers, judges, politicians, legislators and professors etc. The Power of Evil by a Law Dean. Just like Amar's Killer Koh. Pure Evil. Déjà vu all over again. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2017 8:05 PM To: David Green ; C. G. ESTABROOK ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay ; David Johnson ; Mildred O'brien ; Estabrook, Carl G Subject: RE: Illinois Governor Rauner versus Illinois Law Dean Amar Dean Amar has posted his attack upon the Sanctuary Movement on the College of Law's blog/web page for all of our students to read. That just shows you the Power For Evil that a Law Dean has. Of course we learned that last year when Dean Amar went all out to promote Killer Koh as a Role Model in Excellence for Lawyers in Government Service. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2017 6:51 PM To: David Green >; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; Estabrook, Carl G > Subject: Illinois Governor Rauner versus Illinois Law Dean Amar I am no fan of Governor Rauner. But to his great and everlasting credit, Governor Rauner recently signed legislation that turned the entire State of Illinois into a Sanctuary State. Soon thereafter Illinois Law Dean Amar of the University of Illinois College of Law-the Flagship State Law School on the Flagship Campus of the University of Illinois where Governor Rauner sits on the Board of Trustees as an Ex Officio Member- publicly came out against the Sanctuary Movement. Republican Governor Rauner courageously aligned himself and the State of Illinois with the Sanctuary Movement against Trump. Illinois Law Dean Amar cravenly aligned himself with Trump against the Sanctuary Movement and Governor Rauner and the State of Illinois and 11 Million Undocumented Migrants and Their Families and 800,000 DACA Kids and 50,000 Haitian Refugees and Tens of Thousands of Central American Refugees still in this country from the Original Sanctuary Movement and Their Families. And to the best of my knowledge, and I stand subject to correction, Illinois Law Dean Amar is the first and so far the only Law Dean in the country to publicly come out against the Sanctuary Movement and 11 Million Undocumented Migrants and Their Families, and 800,000 DACA Kids and 50,000 Haitian Refugees and Tens of Thousands of Central American refugees still in this country from the Original Sanctuary Movement whom Illinois Governor Rauner had the courage and common sense and decency and compassion and principles and integrity to protect from Trump by turning the entire State of Illinois into a Sanctuary State for them all. Professor Francis A. Boyle University of Illinois College of Law Board of Directors, Amnesty International USA (1988-1992) Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Mon Nov 6 13:04:42 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2017 13:04:42 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Illinois Governor Rauner versus Illinois Law Dean Amar In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: So this is far worse than I had originally anticipated with you. Instead of just teaching his Gratuitous Attack on the Sanctuary Movement to his own law students, Dean Amar is teaching his Gratuitous Attack on the Sanctuary Movement to the entire University of Illinois College of Law Community, all of whom will go on to become lawyers, judges, politicians, legislators and professors etc. The Power of Evil by a Law Dean. Just like Amar's Killer Koh. Pure Evil. Déjà vu all over again. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2017 8:05 PM To: David Green ; C. G. ESTABROOK ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay ; David Johnson ; Mildred O'brien ; Estabrook, Carl G Subject: RE: Illinois Governor Rauner versus Illinois Law Dean Amar Dean Amar has posted his attack upon the Sanctuary Movement on the College of Law's blog/web page for all of our students to read. That just shows you the Power For Evil that a Law Dean has. Of course we learned that last year when Dean Amar went all out to promote Killer Koh as a Role Model in Excellence for Lawyers in Government Service. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2017 6:51 PM To: David Green >; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; Estabrook, Carl G > Subject: Illinois Governor Rauner versus Illinois Law Dean Amar I am no fan of Governor Rauner. But to his great and everlasting credit, Governor Rauner recently signed legislation that turned the entire State of Illinois into a Sanctuary State. Soon thereafter Illinois Law Dean Amar of the University of Illinois College of Law-the Flagship State Law School on the Flagship Campus of the University of Illinois where Governor Rauner sits on the Board of Trustees as an Ex Officio Member- publicly came out against the Sanctuary Movement. Republican Governor Rauner courageously aligned himself and the State of Illinois with the Sanctuary Movement against Trump. Illinois Law Dean Amar cravenly aligned himself with Trump against the Sanctuary Movement and Governor Rauner and the State of Illinois and 11 Million Undocumented Migrants and Their Families and 800,000 DACA Kids and 50,000 Haitian Refugees and Tens of Thousands of Central American Refugees still in this country from the Original Sanctuary Movement and Their Families. And to the best of my knowledge, and I stand subject to correction, Illinois Law Dean Amar is the first and so far the only Law Dean in the country to publicly come out against the Sanctuary Movement and 11 Million Undocumented Migrants and Their Families, and 800,000 DACA Kids and 50,000 Haitian Refugees and Tens of Thousands of Central American refugees still in this country from the Original Sanctuary Movement whom Illinois Governor Rauner had the courage and common sense and decency and compassion and principles and integrity to protect from Trump by turning the entire State of Illinois into a Sanctuary State for them all. Professor Francis A. Boyle University of Illinois College of Law Board of Directors, Amnesty International USA (1988-1992) Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Mon Nov 6 14:07:21 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2017 14:07:21 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] A must listen, Kevin Zeese & Glen Ford on infiltration of the Left Message-ID: A must listen,,,,,anyone who doubts the Left has been infiltrated, the proven stats are chilling…..it is as American as always be wary of "distraction and chaos”……… https://youtu.be/rs0OruX1uyo -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Mon Nov 6 15:05:31 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2017 15:05:31 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Illinois Governor Rauner versus Illinois Law Dean Amar In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: According to my files, I became pro bono publico Counsel to the Sanctuary Movement no later than early 1985--perhaps sooner. Amar was 22 years old. And yet a generation later Amar launched a Gratuitous Attack on the Sanctuary Movement that gets circulated nationwide to a legal audience of lawyers, law professors, judges, etc, which is how I got it, then puts it on the College of Law blog/web for the entire University of Illinois College of Law Community. Pure Evil. Just like his promotion of Killer Koh here. Pure Evil. Déjà vu all over again by Amar in Pure Evil. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Monday, November 6, 2017 7:05 AM To: David Green ; C. G. ESTABROOK ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay ; David Johnson ; Mildred O'brien ; Estabrook, Carl G Subject: RE: Illinois Governor Rauner versus Illinois Law Dean Amar So this is far worse than I had originally anticipated with you. Instead of just teaching his Gratuitous Attack on the Sanctuary Movement to his own law students, Dean Amar is teaching his Gratuitous Attack on the Sanctuary Movement to the entire University of Illinois College of Law Community, all of whom will go on to become lawyers, judges, politicians, legislators and professors etc. The Power of Evil by a Law Dean. Just like Amar's Killer Koh. Pure Evil. Déjà vu all over again. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2017 8:05 PM To: David Green >; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; Estabrook, Carl G > Subject: RE: Illinois Governor Rauner versus Illinois Law Dean Amar Dean Amar has posted his attack upon the Sanctuary Movement on the College of Law's blog/web page for all of our students to read. That just shows you the Power For Evil that a Law Dean has. Of course we learned that last year when Dean Amar went all out to promote Killer Koh as a Role Model in Excellence for Lawyers in Government Service. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2017 6:51 PM To: David Green >; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; Estabrook, Carl G > Subject: Illinois Governor Rauner versus Illinois Law Dean Amar I am no fan of Governor Rauner. But to his great and everlasting credit, Governor Rauner recently signed legislation that turned the entire State of Illinois into a Sanctuary State. Soon thereafter Illinois Law Dean Amar of the University of Illinois College of Law-the Flagship State Law School on the Flagship Campus of the University of Illinois where Governor Rauner sits on the Board of Trustees as an Ex Officio Member- publicly came out against the Sanctuary Movement. Republican Governor Rauner courageously aligned himself and the State of Illinois with the Sanctuary Movement against Trump. Illinois Law Dean Amar cravenly aligned himself with Trump against the Sanctuary Movement and Governor Rauner and the State of Illinois and 11 Million Undocumented Migrants and Their Families and 800,000 DACA Kids and 50,000 Haitian Refugees and Tens of Thousands of Central American Refugees still in this country from the Original Sanctuary Movement and Their Families. And to the best of my knowledge, and I stand subject to correction, Illinois Law Dean Amar is the first and so far the only Law Dean in the country to publicly come out against the Sanctuary Movement and 11 Million Undocumented Migrants and Their Families, and 800,000 DACA Kids and 50,000 Haitian Refugees and Tens of Thousands of Central American refugees still in this country from the Original Sanctuary Movement whom Illinois Governor Rauner had the courage and common sense and decency and compassion and principles and integrity to protect from Trump by turning the entire State of Illinois into a Sanctuary State for them all. Professor Francis A. Boyle University of Illinois College of Law Board of Directors, Amnesty International USA (1988-1992) Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Mon Nov 6 15:05:31 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2017 15:05:31 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Illinois Governor Rauner versus Illinois Law Dean Amar In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: According to my files, I became pro bono publico Counsel to the Sanctuary Movement no later than early 1985--perhaps sooner. Amar was 22 years old. And yet a generation later Amar launched a Gratuitous Attack on the Sanctuary Movement that gets circulated nationwide to a legal audience of lawyers, law professors, judges, etc, which is how I got it, then puts it on the College of Law blog/web for the entire University of Illinois College of Law Community. Pure Evil. Just like his promotion of Killer Koh here. Pure Evil. Déjà vu all over again by Amar in Pure Evil. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Monday, November 6, 2017 7:05 AM To: David Green ; C. G. ESTABROOK ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay ; David Johnson ; Mildred O'brien ; Estabrook, Carl G Subject: RE: Illinois Governor Rauner versus Illinois Law Dean Amar So this is far worse than I had originally anticipated with you. Instead of just teaching his Gratuitous Attack on the Sanctuary Movement to his own law students, Dean Amar is teaching his Gratuitous Attack on the Sanctuary Movement to the entire University of Illinois College of Law Community, all of whom will go on to become lawyers, judges, politicians, legislators and professors etc. The Power of Evil by a Law Dean. Just like Amar's Killer Koh. Pure Evil. Déjà vu all over again. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2017 8:05 PM To: David Green >; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; Estabrook, Carl G > Subject: RE: Illinois Governor Rauner versus Illinois Law Dean Amar Dean Amar has posted his attack upon the Sanctuary Movement on the College of Law's blog/web page for all of our students to read. That just shows you the Power For Evil that a Law Dean has. Of course we learned that last year when Dean Amar went all out to promote Killer Koh as a Role Model in Excellence for Lawyers in Government Service. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2017 6:51 PM To: David Green >; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; Estabrook, Carl G > Subject: Illinois Governor Rauner versus Illinois Law Dean Amar I am no fan of Governor Rauner. But to his great and everlasting credit, Governor Rauner recently signed legislation that turned the entire State of Illinois into a Sanctuary State. Soon thereafter Illinois Law Dean Amar of the University of Illinois College of Law-the Flagship State Law School on the Flagship Campus of the University of Illinois where Governor Rauner sits on the Board of Trustees as an Ex Officio Member- publicly came out against the Sanctuary Movement. Republican Governor Rauner courageously aligned himself and the State of Illinois with the Sanctuary Movement against Trump. Illinois Law Dean Amar cravenly aligned himself with Trump against the Sanctuary Movement and Governor Rauner and the State of Illinois and 11 Million Undocumented Migrants and Their Families and 800,000 DACA Kids and 50,000 Haitian Refugees and Tens of Thousands of Central American Refugees still in this country from the Original Sanctuary Movement and Their Families. And to the best of my knowledge, and I stand subject to correction, Illinois Law Dean Amar is the first and so far the only Law Dean in the country to publicly come out against the Sanctuary Movement and 11 Million Undocumented Migrants and Their Families, and 800,000 DACA Kids and 50,000 Haitian Refugees and Tens of Thousands of Central American refugees still in this country from the Original Sanctuary Movement whom Illinois Governor Rauner had the courage and common sense and decency and compassion and principles and integrity to protect from Trump by turning the entire State of Illinois into a Sanctuary State for them all. Professor Francis A. Boyle University of Illinois College of Law Board of Directors, Amnesty International USA (1988-1992) Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Mon Nov 6 15:50:03 2017 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2017 09:50:03 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <751A830C-BAC1-4000-8BCC-6AE76510F964@gmail.com> I think we should abandon the labels 'capitalist’ and ‘socialist’ as descriptions of the US or Chinese economies - or at least say what we mean by them. Neither the Chinese nor the US economy bears much relation to the capitalism Marx analyzed a century and a half ago - largely because of the involvement of the state. It’s the (quite traditional) belligerent policy of the US government, working for the 1%, that seeks to derail […] Chinese development, notably the BRI. We should of course be opposing USG policy, and call on it to cease the attacks on China (and Russia). —CGE > On Nov 6, 2017, at 6:39 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: > > True, it was Deng who with his reforms brought about capitalism. China is now a “mixed economy.” > > Sadly, neither college education or healthcare are free under their capitalist reforms. > > >> On Nov 6, 2017, at 03:53, Boyle, Francis A wrote: >> >> Yes, of course, turn China into a Capitalist Mecca. Fab. >> >> Francis A. Boyle >> Law Building >> 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. >> Champaign IL 61820 USA >> 217-333-7954 (phone) >> 217-244-1478 (fax) >> (personal comments only) >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] >> Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2017 9:18 PM >> To: Boyle, Francis A >> Cc: Peace-discuss ; Karen Aram >> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG >> >> Probably not, I’d say. >> >> (And maybe Zhou didn’t either. His famous remark, "It is too soon to say,” is often thought to refer to the significance of the French Revolution of 1789, but it has been argued that he was actually referring to the French protests of 1968; see "Zhou’s cryptic caution lost in translation" by Richard McGregor in Financial Times, 10 June 2011.) >> >> Modern Chinese history doesn’t stop with the Cultural Revolution. Surely Deng’s reforms of the 1980s were at least as important. —CGE >> >> >>> On Nov 5, 2017, at 3:15 PM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: >>> >>> As Cho En Lai said about the French Revolution: It is too early to say. Fab. >>> >>> Francis A. Boyle >>> Law Building >>> 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. >>> Champaign IL 61820 USA >>> 217-333-7954 (phone) >>> 217-244-1478 (fax) >>> (personal comments only) >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] >>> Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2017 2:06 PM >>> To: Boyle, Francis A >>> Cc: Peace-discuss ; Karen Aram >>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG >>> >>> Probably roughly where it is, wouldn’t you think? >>> >>> >>>> On Nov 5, 2017, at 12:20 PM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: >>>> >>>> Yeah, as I said before: Where would China be today without Mao's Good Ole Cultural Revolution? >>>> >>>> fab >>>> >>>> Francis A. Boyle >>>> Law Building >>>> 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. >>>> Champaign IL 61820 USA >>>> 217-333-7954 (phone) >>>> 217-244-1478 (fax) >>>> (personal comments only) >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] >>>> Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2017 10:52 AM >>>> To: Boyle, Francis A >>>> Cc: Karen Aram ; Peace-discuss >>>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG >>>> >>>> Many Americans don’t realize that the greatest unpleasant fp surprise to the US elite in the 20th century was neither the Bolshevik coup (which led the Wilson administration to invade Russia) nor Pearl Harbor (which the Roosevelt administration angled for, as the Lincoln administration angled for the attack on Fort Sumter, and for the same reason: to coerce an unwilling US public into war). >>>> >>>> It was rather the ‘loss of China' in 1949. And for that reason, China is misrepresented in US media and scholarship, more than any other major state, with the possible exception of Russia. >>>> >>>> Perhaps the paramount task of the anti-war movement is to combat those misrepresentations - including the Cultural Revolution (1966-76) and the Tiananmen Square protests (1989) - as the Trump administration continues the previous administration’s war provocations against those two counties. >>>> >>>> —CGE >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Nov 5, 2017, at 10:16 AM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Where would China be today without Mao's Good Ole Cultural Revolution? >>>>> >>>>> Fab >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Francis A. Boyle >>>>> Law Building >>>>> 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. >>>>> Champaign IL 61820 USA >>>>> 217-333-7954 (phone) >>>>> 217-244-1478 (fax) >>>>> (personal comments only) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Boyle, Francis A >>>>> Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2017 10:11 AM >>>>> To: 'C G Estabrook' ; Karen Aram >>>>> Cc: David Green ; Stuart Levy ; Peace-discuss >>>>> Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG >>>>> >>>>> Yeah, Mao's Good Ole Cultural Revolution. Fab. >>>>> >>>>> Francis A. Boyle >>>>> Law Building >>>>> 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. >>>>> Champaign IL 61820 USA >>>>> 217-333-7954 (phone) >>>>> 217-244-1478 (fax) >>>>> (personal comments only) >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] >>>>> Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2017 10:06 AM >>>>> To: Karen Aram >>>>> Cc: Boyle, Francis A ; David Green ; Stuart Levy ; Peace-discuss >>>>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG >>>>> >>>>> “…can’t allow…”? >>>>> >>>>> Who gets to do the allowing? 百花齐放,百家争鸣 >>>>> >>>>> ('"Let a hundred flowers bloom; let a hundred schools of thought contend" is the policy for promoting progress in the arts and the sciences and a flourishing socialist culture in our land.') >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On Nov 5, 2017, at 9:26 AM, Karen Aram wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Carl >>>>>> >>>>>> My point is that these discussions on the Peace Discuss List, with so many ad hominids, with people who clearly support war and destruction, and not with sound arguments, but with goals to merely trash everything we say, as trolls, is a deterrent to folks with real interests in the topic of “anti-war” and peace. >>>>>> >>>>>> George Orwell likely was not referring to the internet back in the day. >>>>>> >>>>>> It is probably why we can’t allow anything other than “announcements” on the Peace List. I don’t like it, but understand it. >>>>>> >>>>>> PS Misspelling is due to “spell check.” >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Nov 5, 2017, at 06:36, Boyle, Francis A wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> For sure Carl. And I am very happy to be doing it with you all. Fab. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Francis A. Boyle >>>>>>> Law Building >>>>>>> 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. >>>>>>> Champaign IL 61820 USA >>>>>>> 217-333-7954 (phone) >>>>>>> 217-244-1478 (fax) >>>>>>> (personal comments only) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>> From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] >>>>>>> Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2017 8:31 AM >>>>>>> To: Boyle, Francis A >>>>>>> Cc: Karen Aram ; David Green ; Stuart Levy ; Peace-discuss >>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG >>>>>>> >>>>>>> And the political establishment is desperately using the comic figure of Donald Trump to distract us from the crimes of Obama and Clinton (which Trump continues). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Exposing and opposing those crimes, past and present, are what people like us, who have the leisure to do so, should be doing - as you are. —CGE >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Nov 5, 2017, at 8:12 AM, Boyle, Francis A wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Oh. And this is what Roger told about Mr. Alwaki’s 16 year old son, a US citizen drone murdered to death by KillerKoh/Clinton/Obama et al: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> "This piece of shit doesn't do you any honor - the kid was killed because he went to where his Dad was recruiting and training Americans to kill Americans –" >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> According to the Intercept Expose on the Obama/Clinton/KillerKoh drone murder campaign, their CIA source told the Intercept that Mr. Alwaki’s child was deliberately murdered. And now we have killed his daughter. Corruption of Blood. Just like what Kings used to do during the Middle Ages. Kings Obama/Trump. Now prohibited by the United States Constitution. But as President George Bush Jr once said about the Constitution: “It’s just a goddam’ piece of paper!” Ditto for Harvard Law Obama. Ditto for Yale Law Clinton. Ditto for Harvard/Yale Law Killer Koh. Ditto for the Dean and Faculty of the University of Illiniwaks College of Law. fab >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss From karenaram at hotmail.com Mon Nov 6 16:26:57 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2017 16:26:57 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG In-Reply-To: <751A830C-BAC1-4000-8BCC-6AE76510F964@gmail.com> References: <751A830C-BAC1-4000-8BCC-6AE76510F964@gmail.com> Message-ID: Carl I’m not sure we can abandon those labels of capitalism when referring to US deterioration as a result of our being a capitalist system. Just as many refer to Chinese as Communist, they are a mixed economy. It is a form of Capitalism that is creating the many Chinese billionaires in relation to investment and business, therefore inequality, with the “State” no longer paying for higher education or healthcare. It is Communism in that they use a five year plan agreed to by “the Communist Party upper echelon.” Well educated generally in the field of engineering, or STEM. There are thousands of “members” of the Communist Party, top students in China are invited to join, upon graduation. My Assistant in Shanghai was a member. Does this mean she has any say or vote within the Party? No, not at all. Capitalism in China is a fact of life, with Communist control, but either way, the goal of the Party and Xi Jing Ping is to improve the lives of the people by way of business and development. Not by suppressing the people in order to promote the 1% as we do in the US. The Silk Road or BRI is capitalist investment, but its in infrastructure projects which will benefit all nations involved. Unlike the US who provides only loans nations can not pay back, or war and destruction to benefit the elites. While I support China’s programs, I know they are self serving and at some point capitalism will doom them, as it has us, if “profit” is their only goal. However, they are not hegemonous or imperialist, in that they prefer peace and stability. A win win, on both sides and shared markets is the age old Chinese tradition when it comes to business and they look at “long term profits.” Unlike the US who is about “winner take all” “crush the competition,” with “short term profits the goal.” Either way, the Chinese economy and politics, is the business of the Chinese people, not the US. The US has no business interfering with our foreign policy of containment and control, by way of imperialist wars and destruction. > On Nov 6, 2017, at 07:50, C G Estabrook wrote: > > I think we should abandon the labels 'capitalist’ and ‘socialist’ as descriptions of the US or Chinese economies - or at least say what we mean by them. > > Neither the Chinese nor the US economy bears much relation to the capitalism Marx analyzed a century and a half ago - largely because of the involvement of the state. > > It’s the (quite traditional) belligerent policy of the US government, working for the 1%, that seeks to derail […] Chinese development, notably the BRI. > > We should of course be opposing USG policy, and call on it to cease the attacks on China (and Russia). —CGE > > >> On Nov 6, 2017, at 6:39 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: >> >> True, it was Deng who with his reforms brought about capitalism. China is now a “mixed economy.” >> >> Sadly, neither college education or healthcare are free under their capitalist reforms. >> >> >>> On Nov 6, 2017, at 03:53, Boyle, Francis A wrote: >>> >>> Yes, of course, turn China into a Capitalist Mecca. Fab. >>> >>> Francis A. Boyle >>> Law Building >>> 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. >>> Champaign IL 61820 USA >>> 217-333-7954 (phone) >>> 217-244-1478 (fax) >>> (personal comments only) >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] >>> Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2017 9:18 PM >>> To: Boyle, Francis A >>> Cc: Peace-discuss ; Karen Aram >>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG >>> >>> Probably not, I’d say. >>> >>> (And maybe Zhou didn’t either. His famous remark, "It is too soon to say,” is often thought to refer to the significance of the French Revolution of 1789, but it has been argued that he was actually referring to the French protests of 1968; see "Zhou’s cryptic caution lost in translation" by Richard McGregor in Financial Times, 10 June 2011.) >>> >>> Modern Chinese history doesn’t stop with the Cultural Revolution. Surely Deng’s reforms of the 1980s were at least as important. —CGE >>> >>> >>>> On Nov 5, 2017, at 3:15 PM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: >>>> >>>> As Cho En Lai said about the French Revolution: It is too early to say. Fab. >>>> >>>> Francis A. Boyle >>>> Law Building >>>> 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. >>>> Champaign IL 61820 USA >>>> 217-333-7954 (phone) >>>> 217-244-1478 (fax) >>>> (personal comments only) >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] >>>> Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2017 2:06 PM >>>> To: Boyle, Francis A >>>> Cc: Peace-discuss ; Karen Aram >>>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG >>>> >>>> Probably roughly where it is, wouldn’t you think? >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Nov 5, 2017, at 12:20 PM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Yeah, as I said before: Where would China be today without Mao's Good Ole Cultural Revolution? >>>>> >>>>> fab >>>>> >>>>> Francis A. Boyle >>>>> Law Building >>>>> 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. >>>>> Champaign IL 61820 USA >>>>> 217-333-7954 (phone) >>>>> 217-244-1478 (fax) >>>>> (personal comments only) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] >>>>> Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2017 10:52 AM >>>>> To: Boyle, Francis A >>>>> Cc: Karen Aram ; Peace-discuss >>>>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG >>>>> >>>>> Many Americans don’t realize that the greatest unpleasant fp surprise to the US elite in the 20th century was neither the Bolshevik coup (which led the Wilson administration to invade Russia) nor Pearl Harbor (which the Roosevelt administration angled for, as the Lincoln administration angled for the attack on Fort Sumter, and for the same reason: to coerce an unwilling US public into war). >>>>> >>>>> It was rather the ‘loss of China' in 1949. And for that reason, China is misrepresented in US media and scholarship, more than any other major state, with the possible exception of Russia. >>>>> >>>>> Perhaps the paramount task of the anti-war movement is to combat those misrepresentations - including the Cultural Revolution (1966-76) and the Tiananmen Square protests (1989) - as the Trump administration continues the previous administration’s war provocations against those two counties. >>>>> >>>>> —CGE >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On Nov 5, 2017, at 10:16 AM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Where would China be today without Mao's Good Ole Cultural Revolution? >>>>>> >>>>>> Fab >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Francis A. Boyle >>>>>> Law Building >>>>>> 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. >>>>>> Champaign IL 61820 USA >>>>>> 217-333-7954 (phone) >>>>>> 217-244-1478 (fax) >>>>>> (personal comments only) >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> From: Boyle, Francis A >>>>>> Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2017 10:11 AM >>>>>> To: 'C G Estabrook' ; Karen Aram >>>>>> Cc: David Green ; Stuart Levy ; Peace-discuss >>>>>> Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG >>>>>> >>>>>> Yeah, Mao's Good Ole Cultural Revolution. Fab. >>>>>> >>>>>> Francis A. Boyle >>>>>> Law Building >>>>>> 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. >>>>>> Champaign IL 61820 USA >>>>>> 217-333-7954 (phone) >>>>>> 217-244-1478 (fax) >>>>>> (personal comments only) >>>>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] >>>>>> Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2017 10:06 AM >>>>>> To: Karen Aram >>>>>> Cc: Boyle, Francis A ; David Green ; Stuart Levy ; Peace-discuss >>>>>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG >>>>>> >>>>>> “…can’t allow…”? >>>>>> >>>>>> Who gets to do the allowing? 百花齐放,百家争鸣 >>>>>> >>>>>> ('"Let a hundred flowers bloom; let a hundred schools of thought contend" is the policy for promoting progress in the arts and the sciences and a flourishing socialist culture in our land.') >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Nov 5, 2017, at 9:26 AM, Karen Aram wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Carl >>>>>>> >>>>>>> My point is that these discussions on the Peace Discuss List, with so many ad hominids, with people who clearly support war and destruction, and not with sound arguments, but with goals to merely trash everything we say, as trolls, is a deterrent to folks with real interests in the topic of “anti-war” and peace. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> George Orwell likely was not referring to the internet back in the day. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It is probably why we can’t allow anything other than “announcements” on the Peace List. I don’t like it, but understand it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> PS Misspelling is due to “spell check.” >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Nov 5, 2017, at 06:36, Boyle, Francis A wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> For sure Carl. And I am very happy to be doing it with you all. Fab. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Francis A. Boyle >>>>>>>> Law Building >>>>>>>> 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. >>>>>>>> Champaign IL 61820 USA >>>>>>>> 217-333-7954 (phone) >>>>>>>> 217-244-1478 (fax) >>>>>>>> (personal comments only) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>> From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] >>>>>>>> Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2017 8:31 AM >>>>>>>> To: Boyle, Francis A >>>>>>>> Cc: Karen Aram ; David Green ; Stuart Levy ; Peace-discuss >>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Guest Commentary by Carl in NG >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> And the political establishment is desperately using the comic figure of Donald Trump to distract us from the crimes of Obama and Clinton (which Trump continues). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Exposing and opposing those crimes, past and present, are what people like us, who have the leisure to do so, should be doing - as you are. —CGE >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Nov 5, 2017, at 8:12 AM, Boyle, Francis A wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Oh. And this is what Roger told about Mr. Alwaki’s 16 year old son, a US citizen drone murdered to death by KillerKoh/Clinton/Obama et al: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> "This piece of shit doesn't do you any honor - the kid was killed because he went to where his Dad was recruiting and training Americans to kill Americans –" >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> According to the Intercept Expose on the Obama/Clinton/KillerKoh drone murder campaign, their CIA source told the Intercept that Mr. Alwaki’s child was deliberately murdered. And now we have killed his daughter. Corruption of Blood. Just like what Kings used to do during the Middle Ages. Kings Obama/Trump. Now prohibited by the United States Constitution. But as President George Bush Jr once said about the Constitution: “It’s just a goddam’ piece of paper!” Ditto for Harvard Law Obama. Ditto for Yale Law Clinton. Ditto for Harvard/Yale Law Killer Koh. Ditto for the Dean and Faculty of the University of Illiniwaks College of Law. fab >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Peace-discuss mailing list >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >> https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.chambana.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fpeace-discuss&data=02%7C01%7Ckarenaram%40hotmail.com%7C93fb822f5fbc493ce9c208d5252e10dc%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636455802130759176&sdata=9S0tnWGsGpWiE%2BDupjiCYyUhKi2wIYt2suHD920norc%3D&reserved=0 From r-szoke at illinois.edu Mon Nov 6 18:48:29 2017 From: r-szoke at illinois.edu (Szoke, Ron) Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2017 18:48:29 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: U.S. Must Invade North Korea to Wipe out Kim Jong Un's Nuclear Weapons, Military Leaders Say References: <89D1DC89-0C21-4A70-8C14-13E3C255980C@illinois.edu> Message-ID: <4372A63B-37CD-4A1E-8222-44F799B9542B@illinois.edu> From: "Szoke, Ron" > Subject: U.S. Must Invade North Korea to Wipe out Kim Jong Un's Nuclear Weapons, Military Leaders Say Date: November 6, 2017 U.S. Must Invade North Korea to Wipe out Kim Jong Un's Nuclear Weapons, Military Leaders Say https://www.yahoo.com/news/u-must-invade-north-korea-091003273.html?soc_src=hl-viewer&soc_trk=ma -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Mon Nov 6 18:51:14 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2017 18:51:14 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Illinois Governor Rauner versus Illinois Law Dean Amar In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I worked pro bono publico with the Center for Constitutional Rights on these Sanctuary Cases as their designated Expert on International Law along with Professor Richard Falk who was their other designated Expert on International Law to prevent their persecution by Reagan. Meanwhile Amar's Good Buddy Killer Koh was working for Reagan on international law matters. The Smell Of Death Surrounds Amar! FAB. The Sanctuary Trials[edit] The Immigration and Naturalization Service Agency (INS) decided to crack down on movement members by the mid-1980s, which culminated in a series of high-profile trials in Texas and Arizona. In 1985, the INS launched a ten-month investigation dubbed Operation Sojourner, sending paid informants into sanctuary communities to gain the trust of members, find information and report back to federal officials. In 1985, the government initiated criminal prosecutions against two activists in the Rio Grande Valley-Catholic layman Jack Elder and Methodist Stacey Merkt, both of whom provided sanctuary to Central Americans at Casa Oscar Romero in Brownsville, Texas.[15] In 1986, in the more publicized of the two cases, the Justice Department indicted sixteen U.S. and Mexican religious on 71 counts of conspiracy and encouraging and aiding "illegal aliens to enter the United States by shielding, harboring and transporting them." This group of indictees included Father Quiñones from Our Lady Church in Nogales, Catholic Reverend Anthony Clark, Jim Corbett, John Fife, Sister Darlene Nicgorski, and a handful of other Sanctuary members and lay religious from participating churches. In what became known as "The Sanctuary Trials," the defendants called upon their rights protected under both the U.S. constitution and international law. They employed First Amendment free exercise claims, arguing they were simply living out their faith by providing refuge to their fellow brethren in need; this was the call of the Gospel and an exercise of their religion. As Sister Nicgorski stated on the day of her arraignment, "If I am guilty of anything, I am guilty of the gospel." Defendants referenced passages in the Old and New Testaments, such as Leviticus 19:34 ("The stranger who sojourns with you shall be to you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself) and the story of Exodus ("What answer is there for the envoys of the nation? This: that the Lord has fixed Zion in her place, and the afflicted among God's people shall take refuge there" [Isaiah 14:32]). The defense also called upon international law to defend their actions. They argued that the U.S. administration's policy towards Central Americans violated the 1980 Refugee Act, a U.S. law enacted under Carter that reflected international norms set down in the 1951 U.N. Convention and 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees. The Sanctuary Trials spurred public outcry from many sympathetic to the movement. Demonstrations at INS facilities were held in San Francisco, Chicago, Milwaukee, Cincinnati, Philadelphia, New York City, and Tucson, among other places. Though the court did find eight movement members guilty on alien smuggling charges, most received suspended sentences or underwent short house arrests. Supported by the Center for Constitutional Rights, a broad coalition of eight religious organizations also eventually brought suit against the U.S. Attorney General and head of the INS. Plaintiffs alleged, among other claims, that defendants violated domestic and international laws and movement members' First Amendment rights of free exercise. While the courts ruled in this case, American Baptist Churches vs. Thurnburgh, that international law did not apply and the government did not violate Sanctuary members' First Amendment rights, the movement won the public's sympathies and the government eventually granted asylum status to many of the refugees involved in the trial. Furthermore, many Congressional Democrats took up the cause of the Central American refugees-due in large part to the lobbying and publicity efforts of Sanctuary members. In 1990, the House and Senate approved a bill granting temporary protected status (TPS) to Central Americans in need of safe haven, but not until the 1997 Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act did Congress allow fleeing Central Americans to apply for permanent residence.[16] Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Monday, November 6, 2017 9:06 AM To: David Green ; C. G. ESTABROOK ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay ; David Johnson ; Mildred O'brien ; Estabrook, Carl G Subject: RE: Illinois Governor Rauner versus Illinois Law Dean Amar According to my files, I became pro bono publico Counsel to the Sanctuary Movement no later than early 1985--perhaps sooner. Amar was 22 years old. And yet a generation later Amar launched a Gratuitous Attack on the Sanctuary Movement that gets circulated nationwide to a legal audience of lawyers, law professors, judges, etc, which is how I got it, then puts it on the College of Law blog/web for the entire University of Illinois College of Law Community. Pure Evil. Just like his promotion of Killer Koh here. Pure Evil. Déjà vu all over again by Amar in Pure Evil. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Monday, November 6, 2017 7:05 AM To: David Green >; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; Estabrook, Carl G > Subject: RE: Illinois Governor Rauner versus Illinois Law Dean Amar So this is far worse than I had originally anticipated with you. Instead of just teaching his Gratuitous Attack on the Sanctuary Movement to his own law students, Dean Amar is teaching his Gratuitous Attack on the Sanctuary Movement to the entire University of Illinois College of Law Community, all of whom will go on to become lawyers, judges, politicians, legislators and professors etc. The Power of Evil by a Law Dean. Just like Amar's Killer Koh. Pure Evil. Déjà vu all over again. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2017 8:05 PM To: David Green >; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; Estabrook, Carl G > Subject: RE: Illinois Governor Rauner versus Illinois Law Dean Amar Dean Amar has posted his attack upon the Sanctuary Movement on the College of Law's blog/web page for all of our students to read. That just shows you the Power For Evil that a Law Dean has. Of course we learned that last year when Dean Amar went all out to promote Killer Koh as a Role Model in Excellence for Lawyers in Government Service. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2017 6:51 PM To: David Green >; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; Estabrook, Carl G > Subject: Illinois Governor Rauner versus Illinois Law Dean Amar I am no fan of Governor Rauner. But to his great and everlasting credit, Governor Rauner recently signed legislation that turned the entire State of Illinois into a Sanctuary State. Soon thereafter Illinois Law Dean Amar of the University of Illinois College of Law-the Flagship State Law School on the Flagship Campus of the University of Illinois where Governor Rauner sits on the Board of Trustees as an Ex Officio Member- publicly came out against the Sanctuary Movement. Republican Governor Rauner courageously aligned himself and the State of Illinois with the Sanctuary Movement against Trump. Illinois Law Dean Amar cravenly aligned himself with Trump against the Sanctuary Movement and Governor Rauner and the State of Illinois and 11 Million Undocumented Migrants and Their Families and 800,000 DACA Kids and 50,000 Haitian Refugees and Tens of Thousands of Central American Refugees still in this country from the Original Sanctuary Movement and Their Families. And to the best of my knowledge, and I stand subject to correction, Illinois Law Dean Amar is the first and so far the only Law Dean in the country to publicly come out against the Sanctuary Movement and 11 Million Undocumented Migrants and Their Families, and 800,000 DACA Kids and 50,000 Haitian Refugees and Tens of Thousands of Central American refugees still in this country from the Original Sanctuary Movement whom Illinois Governor Rauner had the courage and common sense and decency and compassion and principles and integrity to protect from Trump by turning the entire State of Illinois into a Sanctuary State for them all. Professor Francis A. Boyle University of Illinois College of Law Board of Directors, Amnesty International USA (1988-1992) Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Mon Nov 6 18:51:14 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2017 18:51:14 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Illinois Governor Rauner versus Illinois Law Dean Amar In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I worked pro bono publico with the Center for Constitutional Rights on these Sanctuary Cases as their designated Expert on International Law along with Professor Richard Falk who was their other designated Expert on International Law to prevent their persecution by Reagan. Meanwhile Amar's Good Buddy Killer Koh was working for Reagan on international law matters. The Smell Of Death Surrounds Amar! FAB. The Sanctuary Trials[edit] The Immigration and Naturalization Service Agency (INS) decided to crack down on movement members by the mid-1980s, which culminated in a series of high-profile trials in Texas and Arizona. In 1985, the INS launched a ten-month investigation dubbed Operation Sojourner, sending paid informants into sanctuary communities to gain the trust of members, find information and report back to federal officials. In 1985, the government initiated criminal prosecutions against two activists in the Rio Grande Valley-Catholic layman Jack Elder and Methodist Stacey Merkt, both of whom provided sanctuary to Central Americans at Casa Oscar Romero in Brownsville, Texas.[15] In 1986, in the more publicized of the two cases, the Justice Department indicted sixteen U.S. and Mexican religious on 71 counts of conspiracy and encouraging and aiding "illegal aliens to enter the United States by shielding, harboring and transporting them." This group of indictees included Father Quiñones from Our Lady Church in Nogales, Catholic Reverend Anthony Clark, Jim Corbett, John Fife, Sister Darlene Nicgorski, and a handful of other Sanctuary members and lay religious from participating churches. In what became known as "The Sanctuary Trials," the defendants called upon their rights protected under both the U.S. constitution and international law. They employed First Amendment free exercise claims, arguing they were simply living out their faith by providing refuge to their fellow brethren in need; this was the call of the Gospel and an exercise of their religion. As Sister Nicgorski stated on the day of her arraignment, "If I am guilty of anything, I am guilty of the gospel." Defendants referenced passages in the Old and New Testaments, such as Leviticus 19:34 ("The stranger who sojourns with you shall be to you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself) and the story of Exodus ("What answer is there for the envoys of the nation? This: that the Lord has fixed Zion in her place, and the afflicted among God's people shall take refuge there" [Isaiah 14:32]). The defense also called upon international law to defend their actions. They argued that the U.S. administration's policy towards Central Americans violated the 1980 Refugee Act, a U.S. law enacted under Carter that reflected international norms set down in the 1951 U.N. Convention and 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees. The Sanctuary Trials spurred public outcry from many sympathetic to the movement. Demonstrations at INS facilities were held in San Francisco, Chicago, Milwaukee, Cincinnati, Philadelphia, New York City, and Tucson, among other places. Though the court did find eight movement members guilty on alien smuggling charges, most received suspended sentences or underwent short house arrests. Supported by the Center for Constitutional Rights, a broad coalition of eight religious organizations also eventually brought suit against the U.S. Attorney General and head of the INS. Plaintiffs alleged, among other claims, that defendants violated domestic and international laws and movement members' First Amendment rights of free exercise. While the courts ruled in this case, American Baptist Churches vs. Thurnburgh, that international law did not apply and the government did not violate Sanctuary members' First Amendment rights, the movement won the public's sympathies and the government eventually granted asylum status to many of the refugees involved in the trial. Furthermore, many Congressional Democrats took up the cause of the Central American refugees-due in large part to the lobbying and publicity efforts of Sanctuary members. In 1990, the House and Senate approved a bill granting temporary protected status (TPS) to Central Americans in need of safe haven, but not until the 1997 Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act did Congress allow fleeing Central Americans to apply for permanent residence.[16] Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Monday, November 6, 2017 9:06 AM To: David Green ; C. G. ESTABROOK ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay ; David Johnson ; Mildred O'brien ; Estabrook, Carl G Subject: RE: Illinois Governor Rauner versus Illinois Law Dean Amar According to my files, I became pro bono publico Counsel to the Sanctuary Movement no later than early 1985--perhaps sooner. Amar was 22 years old. And yet a generation later Amar launched a Gratuitous Attack on the Sanctuary Movement that gets circulated nationwide to a legal audience of lawyers, law professors, judges, etc, which is how I got it, then puts it on the College of Law blog/web for the entire University of Illinois College of Law Community. Pure Evil. Just like his promotion of Killer Koh here. Pure Evil. Déjà vu all over again by Amar in Pure Evil. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Monday, November 6, 2017 7:05 AM To: David Green >; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; Estabrook, Carl G > Subject: RE: Illinois Governor Rauner versus Illinois Law Dean Amar So this is far worse than I had originally anticipated with you. Instead of just teaching his Gratuitous Attack on the Sanctuary Movement to his own law students, Dean Amar is teaching his Gratuitous Attack on the Sanctuary Movement to the entire University of Illinois College of Law Community, all of whom will go on to become lawyers, judges, politicians, legislators and professors etc. The Power of Evil by a Law Dean. Just like Amar's Killer Koh. Pure Evil. Déjà vu all over again. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2017 8:05 PM To: David Green >; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; Estabrook, Carl G > Subject: RE: Illinois Governor Rauner versus Illinois Law Dean Amar Dean Amar has posted his attack upon the Sanctuary Movement on the College of Law's blog/web page for all of our students to read. That just shows you the Power For Evil that a Law Dean has. Of course we learned that last year when Dean Amar went all out to promote Killer Koh as a Role Model in Excellence for Lawyers in Government Service. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2017 6:51 PM To: David Green >; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; Estabrook, Carl G > Subject: Illinois Governor Rauner versus Illinois Law Dean Amar I am no fan of Governor Rauner. But to his great and everlasting credit, Governor Rauner recently signed legislation that turned the entire State of Illinois into a Sanctuary State. Soon thereafter Illinois Law Dean Amar of the University of Illinois College of Law-the Flagship State Law School on the Flagship Campus of the University of Illinois where Governor Rauner sits on the Board of Trustees as an Ex Officio Member- publicly came out against the Sanctuary Movement. Republican Governor Rauner courageously aligned himself and the State of Illinois with the Sanctuary Movement against Trump. Illinois Law Dean Amar cravenly aligned himself with Trump against the Sanctuary Movement and Governor Rauner and the State of Illinois and 11 Million Undocumented Migrants and Their Families and 800,000 DACA Kids and 50,000 Haitian Refugees and Tens of Thousands of Central American Refugees still in this country from the Original Sanctuary Movement and Their Families. And to the best of my knowledge, and I stand subject to correction, Illinois Law Dean Amar is the first and so far the only Law Dean in the country to publicly come out against the Sanctuary Movement and 11 Million Undocumented Migrants and Their Families, and 800,000 DACA Kids and 50,000 Haitian Refugees and Tens of Thousands of Central American refugees still in this country from the Original Sanctuary Movement whom Illinois Governor Rauner had the courage and common sense and decency and compassion and principles and integrity to protect from Trump by turning the entire State of Illinois into a Sanctuary State for them all. Professor Francis A. Boyle University of Illinois College of Law Board of Directors, Amnesty International USA (1988-1992) Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Mon Nov 6 19:04:59 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2017 19:04:59 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] AMAR:THE SMELL OF DEATH SURROUNDS YOU! Message-ID: Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Francis Boyle via YouTube [mailto:noreply at youtube.com] Sent: Monday, November 6, 2017 1:03 PM To: Boyle, Francis A Subject: Francis Boyle sent you a video: "Lynyrd Skynyrd - That Smell" [http://s.ytimg.com/yt/img/email/digest/email_header.png] [https://yt3.ggpht.com/-w4phvYGWivc/AAAAAAAAAAI/AAAAAAAAAAA/_Vq2X19VNEk/s50-c-k-no-mo-rj-c0xffffff/photo.jpg] Francis Boyle has shared a video with you on YouTube [https://i.ytimg.com/vi/J4j7ggZqbiU/mqdefault.jpg] Lynyrd Skynyrd - That Smell by XMetallicaAXxx Whiskey bottles and brand new cars Oak tree, you're in my way There's too much coke and too much smoke Look what's going on inside you Ooh, that smell Can't you smell that smell? Ooh, that smell The smell of death surrounds you, yeah Angel of darkness is upon you Stuck a needle in your arm (You, fool, you) So take another toke, have a blow for your nose One more drink, fool, would drown you (Hell, yeah) Ooh, that smell Can't you smell that smell? Ooh, that smell The smell of death surrounds you Now, they call you prince charming Can't speak a word when you're full of 'ludes Say you'll be alright come tomorrow But tomorrow might not be here for you (Yeah, you) Ooh, that smell Can't you smell that smell? Ooh, that smell The smell of death surrounds you Aw, you, fool, you You stick them needles In your arm I know, I've been there before One little problem that confronts you Got a monkey on your back Just one more fix, Lord, might do the tr... Help center • Report spam ©2017 YouTube, LLC 901 Cherry Ave, San Bruno, CA 94066, USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Mon Nov 6 19:04:59 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2017 19:04:59 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] AMAR:THE SMELL OF DEATH SURROUNDS YOU! Message-ID: Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Francis Boyle via YouTube [mailto:noreply at youtube.com] Sent: Monday, November 6, 2017 1:03 PM To: Boyle, Francis A Subject: Francis Boyle sent you a video: "Lynyrd Skynyrd - That Smell" [http://s.ytimg.com/yt/img/email/digest/email_header.png] [https://yt3.ggpht.com/-w4phvYGWivc/AAAAAAAAAAI/AAAAAAAAAAA/_Vq2X19VNEk/s50-c-k-no-mo-rj-c0xffffff/photo.jpg] Francis Boyle has shared a video with you on YouTube [https://i.ytimg.com/vi/J4j7ggZqbiU/mqdefault.jpg] Lynyrd Skynyrd - That Smell by XMetallicaAXxx Whiskey bottles and brand new cars Oak tree, you're in my way There's too much coke and too much smoke Look what's going on inside you Ooh, that smell Can't you smell that smell? Ooh, that smell The smell of death surrounds you, yeah Angel of darkness is upon you Stuck a needle in your arm (You, fool, you) So take another toke, have a blow for your nose One more drink, fool, would drown you (Hell, yeah) Ooh, that smell Can't you smell that smell? Ooh, that smell The smell of death surrounds you Now, they call you prince charming Can't speak a word when you're full of 'ludes Say you'll be alright come tomorrow But tomorrow might not be here for you (Yeah, you) Ooh, that smell Can't you smell that smell? Ooh, that smell The smell of death surrounds you Aw, you, fool, you You stick them needles In your arm I know, I've been there before One little problem that confronts you Got a monkey on your back Just one more fix, Lord, might do the tr... Help center • Report spam ©2017 YouTube, LLC 901 Cherry Ave, San Bruno, CA 94066, USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Mon Nov 6 19:37:09 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2017 19:37:09 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] AMAR:THE SMELL OF DEATH SURROUNDS YOU! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Amar’s Good Buddy Killer Koh was working for Reagan’s Department of Injustice that persecuted the Founders of the Sanctuary Movement and subjected them to kangaroo court proceedings in US Federal Court where Falk and I were prevented from testifying on their behalf that could have acquitted them. Amar: The Smell of Death Surrounds You! fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Monday, November 6, 2017 1:05 PM To: David Green ; C. G. ESTABROOK ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay ; David Johnson ; Mildred O'brien ; Estabrook, Carl G Subject: AMAR:THE SMELL OF DEATH SURROUNDS YOU! Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Francis Boyle via YouTube [mailto:noreply at youtube.com] Sent: Monday, November 6, 2017 1:03 PM To: Boyle, Francis A > Subject: Francis Boyle sent you a video: "Lynyrd Skynyrd - That Smell" [http://s.ytimg.com/yt/img/email/digest/email_header.png] [https://yt3.ggpht.com/-w4phvYGWivc/AAAAAAAAAAI/AAAAAAAAAAA/_Vq2X19VNEk/s50-c-k-no-mo-rj-c0xffffff/photo.jpg] Francis Boyle has shared a video with you on YouTube [https://i.ytimg.com/vi/J4j7ggZqbiU/mqdefault.jpg] Lynyrd Skynyrd - That Smell by XMetallicaAXxx Whiskey bottles and brand new cars Oak tree, you're in my way There's too much coke and too much smoke Look what's going on inside you Ooh, that smell Can't you smell that smell? Ooh, that smell The smell of death surrounds you, yeah Angel of darkness is upon you Stuck a needle in your arm (You, fool, you) So take another toke, have a blow for your nose One more drink, fool, would drown you (Hell, yeah) Ooh, that smell Can't you smell that smell? Ooh, that smell The smell of death surrounds you Now, they call you prince charming Can't speak a word when you're full of 'ludes Say you'll be alright come tomorrow But tomorrow might not be here for you (Yeah, you) Ooh, that smell Can't you smell that smell? Ooh, that smell The smell of death surrounds you Aw, you, fool, you You stick them needles In your arm I know, I've been there before One little problem that confronts you Got a monkey on your back Just one more fix, Lord, might do the tr... Help center • Report spam ©2017 YouTube, LLC 901 Cherry Ave, San Bruno, CA 94066, USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Mon Nov 6 19:37:09 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2017 19:37:09 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] AMAR:THE SMELL OF DEATH SURROUNDS YOU! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Amar’s Good Buddy Killer Koh was working for Reagan’s Department of Injustice that persecuted the Founders of the Sanctuary Movement and subjected them to kangaroo court proceedings in US Federal Court where Falk and I were prevented from testifying on their behalf that could have acquitted them. Amar: The Smell of Death Surrounds You! fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Monday, November 6, 2017 1:05 PM To: David Green ; C. G. ESTABROOK ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay ; David Johnson ; Mildred O'brien ; Estabrook, Carl G Subject: AMAR:THE SMELL OF DEATH SURROUNDS YOU! Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Francis Boyle via YouTube [mailto:noreply at youtube.com] Sent: Monday, November 6, 2017 1:03 PM To: Boyle, Francis A > Subject: Francis Boyle sent you a video: "Lynyrd Skynyrd - That Smell" [http://s.ytimg.com/yt/img/email/digest/email_header.png] [https://yt3.ggpht.com/-w4phvYGWivc/AAAAAAAAAAI/AAAAAAAAAAA/_Vq2X19VNEk/s50-c-k-no-mo-rj-c0xffffff/photo.jpg] Francis Boyle has shared a video with you on YouTube [https://i.ytimg.com/vi/J4j7ggZqbiU/mqdefault.jpg] Lynyrd Skynyrd - That Smell by XMetallicaAXxx Whiskey bottles and brand new cars Oak tree, you're in my way There's too much coke and too much smoke Look what's going on inside you Ooh, that smell Can't you smell that smell? Ooh, that smell The smell of death surrounds you, yeah Angel of darkness is upon you Stuck a needle in your arm (You, fool, you) So take another toke, have a blow for your nose One more drink, fool, would drown you (Hell, yeah) Ooh, that smell Can't you smell that smell? Ooh, that smell The smell of death surrounds you Now, they call you prince charming Can't speak a word when you're full of 'ludes Say you'll be alright come tomorrow But tomorrow might not be here for you (Yeah, you) Ooh, that smell Can't you smell that smell? Ooh, that smell The smell of death surrounds you Aw, you, fool, you You stick them needles In your arm I know, I've been there before One little problem that confronts you Got a monkey on your back Just one more fix, Lord, might do the tr... Help center • Report spam ©2017 YouTube, LLC 901 Cherry Ave, San Bruno, CA 94066, USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Mon Nov 6 20:30:25 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2017 20:30:25 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: [globenet] U.S., South Korean, and Japanese Civil Society Organizations Call for Bold Shift in Policy to Avert War in Korea References: <7ee9d23d-d61a-42b2-b3d9-afa63bc87795@getmailbird.com> Message-ID: Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Monday, November 6, 2017 2:26 PM To: 'globenet at yahoogroups.com' Subject: RE: [globenet] U.S., South Korean, and Japanese Civil Society Organizations Call for Bold Shift in Policy to Avert War in Korea Yeah, it is well known in the Japanese Peace Movement that Japan already has nuclear weapons. So why should DPRK disarm itself after the long history of aggression and occupation and genocide by Japan against Korea? The Warmongering Japanese Militarists under Abe still refuse to accept responsibility for the Korean Sex Slaves. And Japan is still threatening ROK over Dokdo. Besides, in its Advisory Opinion on the Legality of the Threat and Use of Nuclear Weapons, the International Court of Justice intimated that a State can use nuclear weapons when its very existence is at stake. Trump and Mad Dog Mattis have made that perfectly clear to DPRK. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: globenet at yahoogroups.com [mailto:globenet at yahoogroups.com] Sent: Monday, November 6, 2017 2:07 PM To: globenet at yahoogroups.com Subject: [globenet] U.S., South Korean, and Japanese Civil Society Organizations Call for Bold Shift in Policy to Avert War in Korea As Trump Visits Asia, Civil Society in the U.S., South Korea, and Japan Call for Bold Shift in Policy to Avert War in Korea FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Monday, November 6, 2017 Contact: Christine Ahn (310) 482-9333 Jackie Cabasso (510) 306-0119 HONOLULU -- Today, hundreds of national civil society organizations from Japan, South Korea and the United States issued a joint statement calling for a diplomatic resolution of the crisis of belligerent rhetoric between the United States and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea). Based in countries whose populations could greatly suffer in the event of war, they call on their respective governments to take bold action now to safeguard peace and build long-lasting trust in the region. “Washington is forcing a trilateral military alliance and provocative war drills on Tokyo and Seoul that threatens North Korea and the region,” said Christine Ahn, international coordinator of Women Cross DMZ. “The people of Japan, South Korea and United States oppose war. Our demands are an urgent pivot towards peace.” “In Japan, Prime Minister Abe utilizes the U.S.-North Korea crisis to promote public hysteria and fear and encourage right-wing groups that call for Japan’s militarization, including the acquisition of nuclear weapons for itself,” explains Yoshioka Tatsuya, Co-Founder and Director of Peace Boat, Japan’s largest peace organization. “But we really have to understand that the joint military exercises by the U.S., Japan, and South Korea increase the risk of war in this region. Japan has the experience of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. We have to work to abolish nuclear weapons, but it’s unreasonable to demand that North Korea be the only one to give up theirs. All of us, including the U.S. and Japan, must say no to them.” “The South Korean public is highly critical of Trump for making threats of war and dismissing the gravity of its consequences as something ‘over there,’” says Choi Eun-a of the Korean Alliance for Progressive Movements, which is among the 222 South Korean civil society organizations from the Candlelight Revolution that have called for nationwide protest timed with Trump’s visit to South Korea. “The war-threatening, weapons salesman Trump is not welcome here, especially as he demands that South Korea pay more to host U.S. troops and set aside land for useless weapons like the THAAD missile defense system.” “Peace-loving people in the United States, Japan, and South Korea reject the war-mongering policies of our governments and express our friendship and solidarity with the people of North Korea,” said Jackie Cabasso, Executive Director of the Western States Legal Foundation in California, and the National Co-Convener of United for Peace and Justice. “The U.S. government must end its policy of sanctions and military threats against North Korea, cease the deployment of more weapons of mass destruction to the Korean peninsula and the region, and halt large-scale military exercises that impede dialogue with North Korea.” "It's time for peace-makers, for diplomats, and particularly for the people of South Korea, Japan and the U.S. to demand a peaceful resolution from our governments,” noted Kevin Martin, President of Peace Action, the United States' largest grassroots peace and disarmament organization. “While not excusing its behavior, North Korea has legitimate security concerns that need to be addressed in order to move toward an enduring peace on the Korean Peninsula.” On 2 November 2017, American lawmakers announced new bipartisan, bicameral legislation to ensure that President Trump cannot attack North Korea without the consent of Congress. Under this legislation, Congress would be empowered to prohibit any expenditure of funds for such a strike. The No Unconstitutional Strike Against North Korea Act of 2017 prohibits funds available to the Department of Defense or to any other federal department or agency from being used to launch a military strike against North Korea without the prior approval of Congress. The bill reflects the wishes of citizens seen in recent polls, which show that more than two-thirds of Americans oppose military action in dealing with North Korea. Joint Statement U.S., South Korean, and Japanese Civil Society Organizations Call for a Bold Shift in Policy for Peace in Korea and Northeast Asia As U.S. President Trump travels to Asia, we civil society groups from the United States, South Korea, and Japan call for a diplomatic solution to the dangerous conflict between the United States and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea). As those who would be directly impacted by the outbreak of such a conflict, we call on our leaders to take bold steps to ensure lasting peace. Recent events have set the stage for a possible catastrophe on the Korean Peninsula and even throughout the greater Northeast Asian region. Any further escalation of tensions could rapidly degenerate into violence. In its 27 October 2017 report, the U.S. Congressional Research Service estimates that over 300,000 people would die in the opening days of a military conflict on the Korean Peninsula, even without nuclear weapons, and would ultimately claim 25 million lives. Even as President Trump calls his predecessor’s policy of “strategic patience” on North Korea a failure, he continues the same policy, i.e., intensifying U.N. and unilateral sanctions and military threats. Meanwhile, North Korea continues to escalate the pace and scale of its nuclear and missile tests. The Abe government, seizing on the crisis in Korea, has quickened the pace of remilitarization and revision of Article 9 of its constitution. South Korean President Moon Jae-in meanwhile, despite an unambiguous mandate from the South Korean people, who ousted his hawkish predecessor in hopes of a radical transition to harmonious North-South relations, instead continues to do the bidding of the United States as he assumes a hostile posture vis-à-vis North Korea. We therefore demand that: 1. The Trump administration boldly shift to a policy of peace by: • Ending its policy of sanctions and military threats against North Korea; • Ceasing the deployment of more weapons of mass destruction on the Korean peninsula and in the region, and withdrawing the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) missile defense system from South Korea as it only exacerbates tensions in the region; and • Halting large-scale military exercises that impede dialogue with North Korea 2. The administration of President Moon Jae-in of South Korea honor the spirit of past North-South joint declarations for peace and reconciliation by: • Assertively pursuing inter-Korean dialogue and cooperation; • Halting future large-scale U.S.-South Korea combined military exercises to minimize the risk of confrontation ahead of the 2018 Winter Olympics in Pyongchang, South Korea; and • No longer cooperating with investments in costly weapon systems with the United States and Japan, including spending on missile defense, which only exacerbates tensions in the region and diverts precious resources away from human needs. 3. The government of Japan's Prime Minister Shinzo Abe immediately cease all further moves toward military buildup and instead contribute to regional peace by: • Abolishing the controversial "Conspiracy Law" and "State Secrecy Law," as well as the 2015 "Peace and Security Legislation" or war bills which permit the use of the so-called right to collective self-defense; • Pursuing the normalization of relations between Japan and North Korea based upon the principles of the Pyongyang Declaration and the Stockholm Agreement; and • Ceasing moves to change Article 9, the peace clause in its constitution. These are among the hundreds of civil society organizations who have signed on: Japan[1] • Citizens Association against Constitutional Revision (許すな!憲法改悪・市民連絡会) • Femin Women's Democratic Club (ふぇみん婦人民主クラブ) • Japan-Korea People’s Solidarity Network (日韓民衆連帯全国ネットワーク) • Kyoto/Kinki Association against the U.S. X-band Radar Base (米軍Xバンドレーダー基地反対・京都/近畿連絡) • Network of Religious Persons Making Peace (平和を作る宗教者ネット) • Nipponzan-Myōhōji (日本山妙法寺) • Peace Boat (ピースボート) • Veterans for Peace Japan (ベテランズ・フォー・ピース・ジャパン) South Korea • Federation of Korean Trade Unions (한국노동조합총연맹) • Korean Alliance of Progressive Movements (한국진보연대) • Korean Confederation of Trade Unions (전국민주노동조합총연맹) • Korean Peasants League (전국농민회총연맹) • Korean Street Vendors Confederation (전국노점상연합) • Korean Women’s Alliance (전국여성연대) • Korean Women Peasants Alliance (전국여성농민회총연합) • Korean Youth Solidarity (한국청년연대) • National Alliance of Squatters and Evictees (전국철거민연합) United States • Campaign for Peace, Disarmament and Common Security • International Forum on Globalization • Peace Action • Task Force to Stop THAAD in Korea and Militarism in Asia and the Pacific • United for Peace and Justice • Veterans for Peace National • Western States Legal Foundation • Women Cross DMZ ### ________________________________ [1] This is a provisional translation __._,_.___ ________________________________ Posted by: "Jacqueline Cabasso" > ________________________________ Reply via web post • Reply to sender • Reply to group • Start a New Topic • Messages in this topic (1) ________________________________ [https://s.yimg.com/ru/static/images/yg/img/megaphone/1464031581_phpFA8bON] Have you tried the highest rated email app? With 4.5 stars in iTunes, the Yahoo Mail app is the highest rated email app on the market. What are you waiting for? Now you can access all your inboxes (Gmail, Outlook, AOL and more) in one place. Never delete an email again with 1000GB of free cloud storage. ________________________________ Visit Your Group [Yahoo! Groups] • Privacy • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use . __,_._,___ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Mon Nov 6 20:30:25 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2017 20:30:25 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: [globenet] U.S., South Korean, and Japanese Civil Society Organizations Call for Bold Shift in Policy to Avert War in Korea References: <7ee9d23d-d61a-42b2-b3d9-afa63bc87795@getmailbird.com> Message-ID: Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Monday, November 6, 2017 2:26 PM To: 'globenet at yahoogroups.com' Subject: RE: [globenet] U.S., South Korean, and Japanese Civil Society Organizations Call for Bold Shift in Policy to Avert War in Korea Yeah, it is well known in the Japanese Peace Movement that Japan already has nuclear weapons. So why should DPRK disarm itself after the long history of aggression and occupation and genocide by Japan against Korea? The Warmongering Japanese Militarists under Abe still refuse to accept responsibility for the Korean Sex Slaves. And Japan is still threatening ROK over Dokdo. Besides, in its Advisory Opinion on the Legality of the Threat and Use of Nuclear Weapons, the International Court of Justice intimated that a State can use nuclear weapons when its very existence is at stake. Trump and Mad Dog Mattis have made that perfectly clear to DPRK. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: globenet at yahoogroups.com [mailto:globenet at yahoogroups.com] Sent: Monday, November 6, 2017 2:07 PM To: globenet at yahoogroups.com Subject: [globenet] U.S., South Korean, and Japanese Civil Society Organizations Call for Bold Shift in Policy to Avert War in Korea As Trump Visits Asia, Civil Society in the U.S., South Korea, and Japan Call for Bold Shift in Policy to Avert War in Korea FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Monday, November 6, 2017 Contact: Christine Ahn (310) 482-9333 Jackie Cabasso (510) 306-0119 HONOLULU -- Today, hundreds of national civil society organizations from Japan, South Korea and the United States issued a joint statement calling for a diplomatic resolution of the crisis of belligerent rhetoric between the United States and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea). Based in countries whose populations could greatly suffer in the event of war, they call on their respective governments to take bold action now to safeguard peace and build long-lasting trust in the region. “Washington is forcing a trilateral military alliance and provocative war drills on Tokyo and Seoul that threatens North Korea and the region,” said Christine Ahn, international coordinator of Women Cross DMZ. “The people of Japan, South Korea and United States oppose war. Our demands are an urgent pivot towards peace.” “In Japan, Prime Minister Abe utilizes the U.S.-North Korea crisis to promote public hysteria and fear and encourage right-wing groups that call for Japan’s militarization, including the acquisition of nuclear weapons for itself,” explains Yoshioka Tatsuya, Co-Founder and Director of Peace Boat, Japan’s largest peace organization. “But we really have to understand that the joint military exercises by the U.S., Japan, and South Korea increase the risk of war in this region. Japan has the experience of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. We have to work to abolish nuclear weapons, but it’s unreasonable to demand that North Korea be the only one to give up theirs. All of us, including the U.S. and Japan, must say no to them.” “The South Korean public is highly critical of Trump for making threats of war and dismissing the gravity of its consequences as something ‘over there,’” says Choi Eun-a of the Korean Alliance for Progressive Movements, which is among the 222 South Korean civil society organizations from the Candlelight Revolution that have called for nationwide protest timed with Trump’s visit to South Korea. “The war-threatening, weapons salesman Trump is not welcome here, especially as he demands that South Korea pay more to host U.S. troops and set aside land for useless weapons like the THAAD missile defense system.” “Peace-loving people in the United States, Japan, and South Korea reject the war-mongering policies of our governments and express our friendship and solidarity with the people of North Korea,” said Jackie Cabasso, Executive Director of the Western States Legal Foundation in California, and the National Co-Convener of United for Peace and Justice. “The U.S. government must end its policy of sanctions and military threats against North Korea, cease the deployment of more weapons of mass destruction to the Korean peninsula and the region, and halt large-scale military exercises that impede dialogue with North Korea.” "It's time for peace-makers, for diplomats, and particularly for the people of South Korea, Japan and the U.S. to demand a peaceful resolution from our governments,” noted Kevin Martin, President of Peace Action, the United States' largest grassroots peace and disarmament organization. “While not excusing its behavior, North Korea has legitimate security concerns that need to be addressed in order to move toward an enduring peace on the Korean Peninsula.” On 2 November 2017, American lawmakers announced new bipartisan, bicameral legislation to ensure that President Trump cannot attack North Korea without the consent of Congress. Under this legislation, Congress would be empowered to prohibit any expenditure of funds for such a strike. The No Unconstitutional Strike Against North Korea Act of 2017 prohibits funds available to the Department of Defense or to any other federal department or agency from being used to launch a military strike against North Korea without the prior approval of Congress. The bill reflects the wishes of citizens seen in recent polls, which show that more than two-thirds of Americans oppose military action in dealing with North Korea. Joint Statement U.S., South Korean, and Japanese Civil Society Organizations Call for a Bold Shift in Policy for Peace in Korea and Northeast Asia As U.S. President Trump travels to Asia, we civil society groups from the United States, South Korea, and Japan call for a diplomatic solution to the dangerous conflict between the United States and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea). As those who would be directly impacted by the outbreak of such a conflict, we call on our leaders to take bold steps to ensure lasting peace. Recent events have set the stage for a possible catastrophe on the Korean Peninsula and even throughout the greater Northeast Asian region. Any further escalation of tensions could rapidly degenerate into violence. In its 27 October 2017 report, the U.S. Congressional Research Service estimates that over 300,000 people would die in the opening days of a military conflict on the Korean Peninsula, even without nuclear weapons, and would ultimately claim 25 million lives. Even as President Trump calls his predecessor’s policy of “strategic patience” on North Korea a failure, he continues the same policy, i.e., intensifying U.N. and unilateral sanctions and military threats. Meanwhile, North Korea continues to escalate the pace and scale of its nuclear and missile tests. The Abe government, seizing on the crisis in Korea, has quickened the pace of remilitarization and revision of Article 9 of its constitution. South Korean President Moon Jae-in meanwhile, despite an unambiguous mandate from the South Korean people, who ousted his hawkish predecessor in hopes of a radical transition to harmonious North-South relations, instead continues to do the bidding of the United States as he assumes a hostile posture vis-à-vis North Korea. We therefore demand that: 1. The Trump administration boldly shift to a policy of peace by: • Ending its policy of sanctions and military threats against North Korea; • Ceasing the deployment of more weapons of mass destruction on the Korean peninsula and in the region, and withdrawing the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) missile defense system from South Korea as it only exacerbates tensions in the region; and • Halting large-scale military exercises that impede dialogue with North Korea 2. The administration of President Moon Jae-in of South Korea honor the spirit of past North-South joint declarations for peace and reconciliation by: • Assertively pursuing inter-Korean dialogue and cooperation; • Halting future large-scale U.S.-South Korea combined military exercises to minimize the risk of confrontation ahead of the 2018 Winter Olympics in Pyongchang, South Korea; and • No longer cooperating with investments in costly weapon systems with the United States and Japan, including spending on missile defense, which only exacerbates tensions in the region and diverts precious resources away from human needs. 3. The government of Japan's Prime Minister Shinzo Abe immediately cease all further moves toward military buildup and instead contribute to regional peace by: • Abolishing the controversial "Conspiracy Law" and "State Secrecy Law," as well as the 2015 "Peace and Security Legislation" or war bills which permit the use of the so-called right to collective self-defense; • Pursuing the normalization of relations between Japan and North Korea based upon the principles of the Pyongyang Declaration and the Stockholm Agreement; and • Ceasing moves to change Article 9, the peace clause in its constitution. These are among the hundreds of civil society organizations who have signed on: Japan[1] • Citizens Association against Constitutional Revision (許すな!憲法改悪・市民連絡会) • Femin Women's Democratic Club (ふぇみん婦人民主クラブ) • Japan-Korea People’s Solidarity Network (日韓民衆連帯全国ネットワーク) • Kyoto/Kinki Association against the U.S. X-band Radar Base (米軍Xバンドレーダー基地反対・京都/近畿連絡) • Network of Religious Persons Making Peace (平和を作る宗教者ネット) • Nipponzan-Myōhōji (日本山妙法寺) • Peace Boat (ピースボート) • Veterans for Peace Japan (ベテランズ・フォー・ピース・ジャパン) South Korea • Federation of Korean Trade Unions (한국노동조합총연맹) • Korean Alliance of Progressive Movements (한국진보연대) • Korean Confederation of Trade Unions (전국민주노동조합총연맹) • Korean Peasants League (전국농민회총연맹) • Korean Street Vendors Confederation (전국노점상연합) • Korean Women’s Alliance (전국여성연대) • Korean Women Peasants Alliance (전국여성농민회총연합) • Korean Youth Solidarity (한국청년연대) • National Alliance of Squatters and Evictees (전국철거민연합) United States • Campaign for Peace, Disarmament and Common Security • International Forum on Globalization • Peace Action • Task Force to Stop THAAD in Korea and Militarism in Asia and the Pacific • United for Peace and Justice • Veterans for Peace National • Western States Legal Foundation • Women Cross DMZ ### ________________________________ [1] This is a provisional translation __._,_.___ ________________________________ Posted by: "Jacqueline Cabasso" > ________________________________ Reply via web post • Reply to sender • Reply to group • Start a New Topic • Messages in this topic (1) ________________________________ [https://s.yimg.com/ru/static/images/yg/img/megaphone/1464031581_phpFA8bON] Have you tried the highest rated email app? With 4.5 stars in iTunes, the Yahoo Mail app is the highest rated email app on the market. What are you waiting for? Now you can access all your inboxes (Gmail, Outlook, AOL and more) in one place. Never delete an email again with 1000GB of free cloud storage. ________________________________ Visit Your Group [Yahoo! Groups] • Privacy • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use . __,_._,___ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Mon Nov 6 20:42:42 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2017 20:42:42 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] AMAR & ILLINIWAKS LAW FACULTY:THE SMELL OF DEATH SURROUNDS YOU! Message-ID: I fully explained all of the criminal dirty work Killer Koh had done for Reagan and then Obama/Clinton to Amar and the entire Faculty of the Illiniwaks College of Law. As Amar and the rest of them saw it, that fully qualified Killer Koh to give their special endowed lecture on being a Role Model of Excellence for Lawyers in Government Service. NOT EVEN ONE OF THEM SUPPORTED US AGAINST KILLER KOH! THE SMELL OF DEATH SURROUNDS THEM ALL! Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Monday, November 6, 2017 1:37 PM To: David Green ; C. G. ESTABROOK ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay ; David Johnson ; Mildred O'brien ; Estabrook, Carl G Subject: RE: AMAR:THE SMELL OF DEATH SURROUNDS YOU! Amar’s Good Buddy Killer Koh was working for Reagan’s Department of Injustice that persecuted the Founders of the Sanctuary Movement and subjected them to kangaroo court proceedings in US Federal Court where Falk and I were prevented from testifying on their behalf that could have acquitted them. Amar: The Smell of Death Surrounds You! fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Monday, November 6, 2017 1:05 PM To: David Green >; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; Estabrook, Carl G > Subject: AMAR:THE SMELL OF DEATH SURROUNDS YOU! Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Francis Boyle via YouTube [mailto:noreply at youtube.com] Sent: Monday, November 6, 2017 1:03 PM To: Boyle, Francis A > Subject: Francis Boyle sent you a video: "Lynyrd Skynyrd - That Smell" [http://s.ytimg.com/yt/img/email/digest/email_header.png] [https://yt3.ggpht.com/-w4phvYGWivc/AAAAAAAAAAI/AAAAAAAAAAA/_Vq2X19VNEk/s50-c-k-no-mo-rj-c0xffffff/photo.jpg] Francis Boyle has shared a video with you on YouTube [https://i.ytimg.com/vi/J4j7ggZqbiU/mqdefault.jpg] Lynyrd Skynyrd - That Smell by XMetallicaAXxx Whiskey bottles and brand new cars Oak tree, you're in my way There's too much coke and too much smoke Look what's going on inside you Ooh, that smell Can't you smell that smell? Ooh, that smell The smell of death surrounds you, yeah Angel of darkness is upon you Stuck a needle in your arm (You, fool, you) So take another toke, have a blow for your nose One more drink, fool, would drown you (Hell, yeah) Ooh, that smell Can't you smell that smell? Ooh, that smell The smell of death surrounds you Now, they call you prince charming Can't speak a word when you're full of 'ludes Say you'll be alright come tomorrow But tomorrow might not be here for you (Yeah, you) Ooh, that smell Can't you smell that smell? Ooh, that smell The smell of death surrounds you Aw, you, fool, you You stick them needles In your arm I know, I've been there before One little problem that confronts you Got a monkey on your back Just one more fix, Lord, might do the tr... Help center • Report spam ©2017 YouTube, LLC 901 Cherry Ave, San Bruno, CA 94066, USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Mon Nov 6 20:42:42 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2017 20:42:42 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] AMAR & ILLINIWAKS LAW FACULTY:THE SMELL OF DEATH SURROUNDS YOU! Message-ID: I fully explained all of the criminal dirty work Killer Koh had done for Reagan and then Obama/Clinton to Amar and the entire Faculty of the Illiniwaks College of Law. As Amar and the rest of them saw it, that fully qualified Killer Koh to give their special endowed lecture on being a Role Model of Excellence for Lawyers in Government Service. NOT EVEN ONE OF THEM SUPPORTED US AGAINST KILLER KOH! THE SMELL OF DEATH SURROUNDS THEM ALL! Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Monday, November 6, 2017 1:37 PM To: David Green ; C. G. ESTABROOK ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay ; David Johnson ; Mildred O'brien ; Estabrook, Carl G Subject: RE: AMAR:THE SMELL OF DEATH SURROUNDS YOU! Amar’s Good Buddy Killer Koh was working for Reagan’s Department of Injustice that persecuted the Founders of the Sanctuary Movement and subjected them to kangaroo court proceedings in US Federal Court where Falk and I were prevented from testifying on their behalf that could have acquitted them. Amar: The Smell of Death Surrounds You! fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Monday, November 6, 2017 1:05 PM To: David Green >; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; Estabrook, Carl G > Subject: AMAR:THE SMELL OF DEATH SURROUNDS YOU! Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Francis Boyle via YouTube [mailto:noreply at youtube.com] Sent: Monday, November 6, 2017 1:03 PM To: Boyle, Francis A > Subject: Francis Boyle sent you a video: "Lynyrd Skynyrd - That Smell" [http://s.ytimg.com/yt/img/email/digest/email_header.png] [https://yt3.ggpht.com/-w4phvYGWivc/AAAAAAAAAAI/AAAAAAAAAAA/_Vq2X19VNEk/s50-c-k-no-mo-rj-c0xffffff/photo.jpg] Francis Boyle has shared a video with you on YouTube [https://i.ytimg.com/vi/J4j7ggZqbiU/mqdefault.jpg] Lynyrd Skynyrd - That Smell by XMetallicaAXxx Whiskey bottles and brand new cars Oak tree, you're in my way There's too much coke and too much smoke Look what's going on inside you Ooh, that smell Can't you smell that smell? Ooh, that smell The smell of death surrounds you, yeah Angel of darkness is upon you Stuck a needle in your arm (You, fool, you) So take another toke, have a blow for your nose One more drink, fool, would drown you (Hell, yeah) Ooh, that smell Can't you smell that smell? Ooh, that smell The smell of death surrounds you Now, they call you prince charming Can't speak a word when you're full of 'ludes Say you'll be alright come tomorrow But tomorrow might not be here for you (Yeah, you) Ooh, that smell Can't you smell that smell? Ooh, that smell The smell of death surrounds you Aw, you, fool, you You stick them needles In your arm I know, I've been there before One little problem that confronts you Got a monkey on your back Just one more fix, Lord, might do the tr... Help center • Report spam ©2017 YouTube, LLC 901 Cherry Ave, San Bruno, CA 94066, USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brussel at illinois.edu Mon Nov 6 21:17:40 2017 From: brussel at illinois.edu (Brussel, Morton K) Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2017 21:17:40 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [globenet] U.S., South Korean, and Japanese Civil Society Organizations Call for Bold Shift in Policy to Avert War in Korea In-Reply-To: References: <7ee9d23d-d61a-42b2-b3d9-afa63bc87795@getmailbird.com> Message-ID: Would you care to give references for your first sentence, relative to japan having nuclear weapons already.? —mkb On Nov 6, 2017, at 2:30 PM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss > wrote: Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Monday, November 6, 2017 2:26 PM To: 'globenet at yahoogroups.com' > Subject: RE: [globenet] U.S., South Korean, and Japanese Civil Society Organizations Call for Bold Shift in Policy to Avert War in Korea Yeah, it is well known in the Japanese Peace Movement that Japan already has nuclear weapons. So why should DPRK disarm itself after the long history of aggression and occupation and genocide by Japan against Korea? The Warmongering Japanese Militarists under Abe still refuse to accept responsibility for the Korean Sex Slaves. And Japan is still threatening ROK over Dokdo. Besides, in its Advisory Opinion on the Legality of the Threat and Use of Nuclear Weapons, the International Court of Justice intimated that a State can use nuclear weapons when its very existence is at stake. Trump and Mad Dog Mattis have made that perfectly clear to DPRK. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: globenet at yahoogroups.com [mailto:globenet at yahoogroups.com] Sent: Monday, November 6, 2017 2:07 PM To: globenet at yahoogroups.com Subject: [globenet] U.S., South Korean, and Japanese Civil Society Organizations Call for Bold Shift in Policy to Avert War in Korea As Trump Visits Asia, Civil Society in the U.S., South Korea, and Japan Call for Bold Shift in Policy to Avert War in Korea FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Monday, November 6, 2017 Contact: Christine Ahn (310) 482-9333 Jackie Cabasso (510) 306-0119 HONOLULU -- Today, hundreds of national civil society organizations from Japan, South Korea and the United States issued a joint statement calling for a diplomatic resolution of the crisis of belligerent rhetoric between the United States and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea). Based in countries whose populations could greatly suffer in the event of war, they call on their respective governments to take bold action now to safeguard peace and build long-lasting trust in the region. “Washington is forcing a trilateral military alliance and provocative war drills on Tokyo and Seoul that threatens North Korea and the region,” said Christine Ahn, international coordinator of Women Cross DMZ. “The people of Japan, South Korea and United States oppose war. Our demands are an urgent pivot towards peace.” “In Japan, Prime Minister Abe utilizes the U.S.-North Korea crisis to promote public hysteria and fear and encourage right-wing groups that call for Japan’s militarization, including the acquisition of nuclear weapons for itself,” explains Yoshioka Tatsuya, Co-Founder and Director of Peace Boat, Japan’s largest peace organization. “But we really have to understand that the joint military exercises by the U.S., Japan, and South Korea increase the risk of war in this region. Japan has the experience of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. We have to work to abolish nuclear weapons, but it’s unreasonable to demand that North Korea be the only one to give up theirs. All of us, including the U.S. and Japan, must say no to them.” “The South Korean public is highly critical of Trump for making threats of war and dismissing the gravity of its consequences as something ‘over there,’” says Choi Eun-a of the Korean Alliance for Progressive Movements, which is among the 222 South Korean civil society organizations from the Candlelight Revolution that have called for nationwide protest timed with Trump’s visit to South Korea. “The war-threatening, weapons salesman Trump is not welcome here, especially as he demands that South Korea pay more to host U.S. troops and set aside land for useless weapons like the THAAD missile defense system.” “Peace-loving people in the United States, Japan, and South Korea reject the war-mongering policies of our governments and express our friendship and solidarity with the people of North Korea,” said Jackie Cabasso, Executive Director of the Western States Legal Foundation in California, and the National Co-Convener of United for Peace and Justice. “The U.S. government must end its policy of sanctions and military threats against North Korea, cease the deployment of more weapons of mass destruction to the Korean peninsula and the region, and halt large-scale military exercises that impede dialogue with North Korea.” "It's time for peace-makers, for diplomats, and particularly for the people of South Korea, Japan and the U.S. to demand a peaceful resolution from our governments,” noted Kevin Martin, President of Peace Action, the United States' largest grassroots peace and disarmament organization. “While not excusing its behavior, North Korea has legitimate security concerns that need to be addressed in order to move toward an enduring peace on the Korean Peninsula.” On 2 November 2017, American lawmakers announced new bipartisan, bicameral legislation to ensure that President Trump cannot attack North Korea without the consent of Congress. Under this legislation, Congress would be empowered to prohibit any expenditure of funds for such a strike. The No Unconstitutional Strike Against North Korea Act of 2017 prohibits funds available to the Department of Defense or to any other federal department or agency from being used to launch a military strike against North Korea without the prior approval of Congress. The bill reflects the wishes of citizens seen in recent polls, which show that more than two-thirds of Americans oppose military action in dealing with North Korea. Joint Statement U.S., South Korean, and Japanese Civil Society Organizations Call for a Bold Shift in Policy for Peace in Korea and Northeast Asia As U.S. President Trump travels to Asia, we civil society groups from the United States, South Korea, and Japan call for a diplomatic solution to the dangerous conflict between the United States and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea). As those who would be directly impacted by the outbreak of such a conflict, we call on our leaders to take bold steps to ensure lasting peace. Recent events have set the stage for a possible catastrophe on the Korean Peninsula and even throughout the greater Northeast Asian region. Any further escalation of tensions could rapidly degenerate into violence. In its 27 October 2017 report, the U.S. Congressional Research Service estimates that over 300,000 people would die in the opening days of a military conflict on the Korean Peninsula, even without nuclear weapons, and would ultimately claim 25 million lives. Even as President Trump calls his predecessor’s policy of “strategic patience” on North Korea a failure, he continues the same policy, i.e., intensifying U.N. and unilateral sanctions and military threats. Meanwhile, North Korea continues to escalate the pace and scale of its nuclear and missile tests. The Abe government, seizing on the crisis in Korea, has quickened the pace of remilitarization and revision of Article 9 of its constitution. South Korean President Moon Jae-in meanwhile, despite an unambiguous mandate from the South Korean people, who ousted his hawkish predecessor in hopes of a radical transition to harmonious North-South relations, instead continues to do the bidding of the United States as he assumes a hostile posture vis-à-vis North Korea. We therefore demand that: 1. The Trump administration boldly shift to a policy of peace by: • Ending its policy of sanctions and military threats against North Korea; • Ceasing the deployment of more weapons of mass destruction on the Korean peninsula and in the region, and withdrawing the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) missile defense system from South Korea as it only exacerbates tensions in the region; and • Halting large-scale military exercises that impede dialogue with North Korea 2. The administration of President Moon Jae-in of South Korea honor the spirit of past North-South joint declarations for peace and reconciliation by: • Assertively pursuing inter-Korean dialogue and cooperation; • Halting future large-scale U.S.-South Korea combined military exercises to minimize the risk of confrontation ahead of the 2018 Winter Olympics in Pyongchang, South Korea; and • No longer cooperating with investments in costly weapon systems with the United States and Japan, including spending on missile defense, which only exacerbates tensions in the region and diverts precious resources away from human needs. 3. The government of Japan's Prime Minister Shinzo Abe immediately cease all further moves toward military buildup and instead contribute to regional peace by: • Abolishing the controversial "Conspiracy Law" and "State Secrecy Law," as well as the 2015 "Peace and Security Legislation" or war bills which permit the use of the so-called right to collective self-defense; • Pursuing the normalization of relations between Japan and North Korea based upon the principles of the Pyongyang Declaration and the Stockholm Agreement; and • Ceasing moves to change Article 9, the peace clause in its constitution. These are among the hundreds of civil society organizations who have signed on: Japan[1] • Citizens Association against Constitutional Revision (許すな!憲法改悪・市民連絡会) • Femin Women's Democratic Club (ふぇみん婦人民主クラブ) • Japan-Korea People’s Solidarity Network (日韓民衆連帯全国ネットワーク) • Kyoto/Kinki Association against the U.S. X-band Radar Base (米軍Xバンドレーダー基地反対・京都/近畿連絡) • Network of Religious Persons Making Peace (平和を作る宗教者ネット) • Nipponzan-Myōhōji (日本山妙法寺) • Peace Boat (ピースボート) • Veterans for Peace Japan (ベテランズ・フォー・ピース・ジャパン) South Korea • Federation of Korean Trade Unions (한국노동조합총연맹) • Korean Alliance of Progressive Movements (한국진보연대) • Korean Confederation of Trade Unions (전국민주노동조합총연맹) • Korean Peasants League (전국농민회총연맹) • Korean Street Vendors Confederation (전국노점상연합) • Korean Women’s Alliance (전국여성연대) • Korean Women Peasants Alliance (전국여성농민회총연합) • Korean Youth Solidarity (한국청년연대) • National Alliance of Squatters and Evictees (전국철거민연합) United States • Campaign for Peace, Disarmament and Common Security • International Forum on Globalization • Peace Action • Task Force to Stop THAAD in Korea and Militarism in Asia and the Pacific • United for Peace and Justice • Veterans for Peace National • Western States Legal Foundation • Women Cross DMZ ### ________________________________ [1] This is a provisional translation __._,_.___ ________________________________ Posted by: "Jacqueline Cabasso" > ________________________________ Reply via web post • Reply to sender • Reply to group • Start a New Topic • Messages in this topic (1) ________________________________ [https://s.yimg.com/ru/static/images/yg/img/megaphone/1464031581_phpFA8bON] Have you tried the highest rated email app? With 4.5 stars in iTunes, the Yahoo Mail app is the highest rated email app on the market. What are you waiting for? Now you can access all your inboxes (Gmail, Outlook, AOL and more) in one place. Never delete an email again with 1000GB of free cloud storage. ________________________________ VISIT YOUR GROUP [Yahoo! Groups] • Privacy • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use . __,_._,___ _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brussel at illinois.edu Mon Nov 6 21:17:40 2017 From: brussel at illinois.edu (Brussel, Morton K) Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2017 21:17:40 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [globenet] U.S., South Korean, and Japanese Civil Society Organizations Call for Bold Shift in Policy to Avert War in Korea In-Reply-To: References: <7ee9d23d-d61a-42b2-b3d9-afa63bc87795@getmailbird.com> Message-ID: Would you care to give references for your first sentence, relative to japan having nuclear weapons already.? —mkb On Nov 6, 2017, at 2:30 PM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss > wrote: Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Monday, November 6, 2017 2:26 PM To: 'globenet at yahoogroups.com' > Subject: RE: [globenet] U.S., South Korean, and Japanese Civil Society Organizations Call for Bold Shift in Policy to Avert War in Korea Yeah, it is well known in the Japanese Peace Movement that Japan already has nuclear weapons. So why should DPRK disarm itself after the long history of aggression and occupation and genocide by Japan against Korea? The Warmongering Japanese Militarists under Abe still refuse to accept responsibility for the Korean Sex Slaves. And Japan is still threatening ROK over Dokdo. Besides, in its Advisory Opinion on the Legality of the Threat and Use of Nuclear Weapons, the International Court of Justice intimated that a State can use nuclear weapons when its very existence is at stake. Trump and Mad Dog Mattis have made that perfectly clear to DPRK. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: globenet at yahoogroups.com [mailto:globenet at yahoogroups.com] Sent: Monday, November 6, 2017 2:07 PM To: globenet at yahoogroups.com Subject: [globenet] U.S., South Korean, and Japanese Civil Society Organizations Call for Bold Shift in Policy to Avert War in Korea As Trump Visits Asia, Civil Society in the U.S., South Korea, and Japan Call for Bold Shift in Policy to Avert War in Korea FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Monday, November 6, 2017 Contact: Christine Ahn (310) 482-9333 Jackie Cabasso (510) 306-0119 HONOLULU -- Today, hundreds of national civil society organizations from Japan, South Korea and the United States issued a joint statement calling for a diplomatic resolution of the crisis of belligerent rhetoric between the United States and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea). Based in countries whose populations could greatly suffer in the event of war, they call on their respective governments to take bold action now to safeguard peace and build long-lasting trust in the region. “Washington is forcing a trilateral military alliance and provocative war drills on Tokyo and Seoul that threatens North Korea and the region,” said Christine Ahn, international coordinator of Women Cross DMZ. “The people of Japan, South Korea and United States oppose war. Our demands are an urgent pivot towards peace.” “In Japan, Prime Minister Abe utilizes the U.S.-North Korea crisis to promote public hysteria and fear and encourage right-wing groups that call for Japan’s militarization, including the acquisition of nuclear weapons for itself,” explains Yoshioka Tatsuya, Co-Founder and Director of Peace Boat, Japan’s largest peace organization. “But we really have to understand that the joint military exercises by the U.S., Japan, and South Korea increase the risk of war in this region. Japan has the experience of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. We have to work to abolish nuclear weapons, but it’s unreasonable to demand that North Korea be the only one to give up theirs. All of us, including the U.S. and Japan, must say no to them.” “The South Korean public is highly critical of Trump for making threats of war and dismissing the gravity of its consequences as something ‘over there,’” says Choi Eun-a of the Korean Alliance for Progressive Movements, which is among the 222 South Korean civil society organizations from the Candlelight Revolution that have called for nationwide protest timed with Trump’s visit to South Korea. “The war-threatening, weapons salesman Trump is not welcome here, especially as he demands that South Korea pay more to host U.S. troops and set aside land for useless weapons like the THAAD missile defense system.” “Peace-loving people in the United States, Japan, and South Korea reject the war-mongering policies of our governments and express our friendship and solidarity with the people of North Korea,” said Jackie Cabasso, Executive Director of the Western States Legal Foundation in California, and the National Co-Convener of United for Peace and Justice. “The U.S. government must end its policy of sanctions and military threats against North Korea, cease the deployment of more weapons of mass destruction to the Korean peninsula and the region, and halt large-scale military exercises that impede dialogue with North Korea.” "It's time for peace-makers, for diplomats, and particularly for the people of South Korea, Japan and the U.S. to demand a peaceful resolution from our governments,” noted Kevin Martin, President of Peace Action, the United States' largest grassroots peace and disarmament organization. “While not excusing its behavior, North Korea has legitimate security concerns that need to be addressed in order to move toward an enduring peace on the Korean Peninsula.” On 2 November 2017, American lawmakers announced new bipartisan, bicameral legislation to ensure that President Trump cannot attack North Korea without the consent of Congress. Under this legislation, Congress would be empowered to prohibit any expenditure of funds for such a strike. The No Unconstitutional Strike Against North Korea Act of 2017 prohibits funds available to the Department of Defense or to any other federal department or agency from being used to launch a military strike against North Korea without the prior approval of Congress. The bill reflects the wishes of citizens seen in recent polls, which show that more than two-thirds of Americans oppose military action in dealing with North Korea. Joint Statement U.S., South Korean, and Japanese Civil Society Organizations Call for a Bold Shift in Policy for Peace in Korea and Northeast Asia As U.S. President Trump travels to Asia, we civil society groups from the United States, South Korea, and Japan call for a diplomatic solution to the dangerous conflict between the United States and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea). As those who would be directly impacted by the outbreak of such a conflict, we call on our leaders to take bold steps to ensure lasting peace. Recent events have set the stage for a possible catastrophe on the Korean Peninsula and even throughout the greater Northeast Asian region. Any further escalation of tensions could rapidly degenerate into violence. In its 27 October 2017 report, the U.S. Congressional Research Service estimates that over 300,000 people would die in the opening days of a military conflict on the Korean Peninsula, even without nuclear weapons, and would ultimately claim 25 million lives. Even as President Trump calls his predecessor’s policy of “strategic patience” on North Korea a failure, he continues the same policy, i.e., intensifying U.N. and unilateral sanctions and military threats. Meanwhile, North Korea continues to escalate the pace and scale of its nuclear and missile tests. The Abe government, seizing on the crisis in Korea, has quickened the pace of remilitarization and revision of Article 9 of its constitution. South Korean President Moon Jae-in meanwhile, despite an unambiguous mandate from the South Korean people, who ousted his hawkish predecessor in hopes of a radical transition to harmonious North-South relations, instead continues to do the bidding of the United States as he assumes a hostile posture vis-à-vis North Korea. We therefore demand that: 1. The Trump administration boldly shift to a policy of peace by: • Ending its policy of sanctions and military threats against North Korea; • Ceasing the deployment of more weapons of mass destruction on the Korean peninsula and in the region, and withdrawing the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) missile defense system from South Korea as it only exacerbates tensions in the region; and • Halting large-scale military exercises that impede dialogue with North Korea 2. The administration of President Moon Jae-in of South Korea honor the spirit of past North-South joint declarations for peace and reconciliation by: • Assertively pursuing inter-Korean dialogue and cooperation; • Halting future large-scale U.S.-South Korea combined military exercises to minimize the risk of confrontation ahead of the 2018 Winter Olympics in Pyongchang, South Korea; and • No longer cooperating with investments in costly weapon systems with the United States and Japan, including spending on missile defense, which only exacerbates tensions in the region and diverts precious resources away from human needs. 3. The government of Japan's Prime Minister Shinzo Abe immediately cease all further moves toward military buildup and instead contribute to regional peace by: • Abolishing the controversial "Conspiracy Law" and "State Secrecy Law," as well as the 2015 "Peace and Security Legislation" or war bills which permit the use of the so-called right to collective self-defense; • Pursuing the normalization of relations between Japan and North Korea based upon the principles of the Pyongyang Declaration and the Stockholm Agreement; and • Ceasing moves to change Article 9, the peace clause in its constitution. These are among the hundreds of civil society organizations who have signed on: Japan[1] • Citizens Association against Constitutional Revision (許すな!憲法改悪・市民連絡会) • Femin Women's Democratic Club (ふぇみん婦人民主クラブ) • Japan-Korea People’s Solidarity Network (日韓民衆連帯全国ネットワーク) • Kyoto/Kinki Association against the U.S. X-band Radar Base (米軍Xバンドレーダー基地反対・京都/近畿連絡) • Network of Religious Persons Making Peace (平和を作る宗教者ネット) • Nipponzan-Myōhōji (日本山妙法寺) • Peace Boat (ピースボート) • Veterans for Peace Japan (ベテランズ・フォー・ピース・ジャパン) South Korea • Federation of Korean Trade Unions (한국노동조합총연맹) • Korean Alliance of Progressive Movements (한국진보연대) • Korean Confederation of Trade Unions (전국민주노동조합총연맹) • Korean Peasants League (전국농민회총연맹) • Korean Street Vendors Confederation (전국노점상연합) • Korean Women’s Alliance (전국여성연대) • Korean Women Peasants Alliance (전국여성농민회총연합) • Korean Youth Solidarity (한국청년연대) • National Alliance of Squatters and Evictees (전국철거민연합) United States • Campaign for Peace, Disarmament and Common Security • International Forum on Globalization • Peace Action • Task Force to Stop THAAD in Korea and Militarism in Asia and the Pacific • United for Peace and Justice • Veterans for Peace National • Western States Legal Foundation • Women Cross DMZ ### ________________________________ [1] This is a provisional translation __._,_.___ ________________________________ Posted by: "Jacqueline Cabasso" > ________________________________ Reply via web post • Reply to sender • Reply to group • Start a New Topic • Messages in this topic (1) ________________________________ [https://s.yimg.com/ru/static/images/yg/img/megaphone/1464031581_phpFA8bON] Have you tried the highest rated email app? With 4.5 stars in iTunes, the Yahoo Mail app is the highest rated email app on the market. What are you waiting for? Now you can access all your inboxes (Gmail, Outlook, AOL and more) in one place. Never delete an email again with 1000GB of free cloud storage. ________________________________ VISIT YOUR GROUP [Yahoo! Groups] • Privacy • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use . __,_._,___ _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brussel at illinois.edu Mon Nov 6 22:30:38 2017 From: brussel at illinois.edu (Brussel, Morton K) Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2017 22:30:38 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] One of the better Chomsky interviews Message-ID: See http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00963402.2017.1388659 With the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Mon Nov 6 22:37:32 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2017 22:37:32 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [globenet] U.S., South Korean, and Japanese Civil Society Organizations Call for Bold Shift in Policy to Avert War in Korea In-Reply-To: References: <7ee9d23d-d61a-42b2-b3d9-afa63bc87795@getmailbird.com> Message-ID: The Nuclear Arming of Japan, by Tsuchida in Evans & Nanda Nuclear Proliferation and the Legality of Nuclear Weapons, UPA, (1995). Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Brussel, Morton K Sent: Monday, November 6, 2017 3:18 PM To: Boyle, Francis A Cc: David Green ; C. G. ESTABROOK ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay ; David Johnson ; Mildred O'brien ; Estabrook, Carl G Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [globenet] U.S., South Korean, and Japanese Civil Society Organizations Call for Bold Shift in Policy to Avert War in Korea Would you care to give references for your first sentence, relative to japan having nuclear weapons already.? —mkb On Nov 6, 2017, at 2:30 PM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss > wrote: Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Monday, November 6, 2017 2:26 PM To: 'globenet at yahoogroups.com' > Subject: RE: [globenet] U.S., South Korean, and Japanese Civil Society Organizations Call for Bold Shift in Policy to Avert War in Korea Yeah, it is well known in the Japanese Peace Movement that Japan already has nuclear weapons. So why should DPRK disarm itself after the long history of aggression and occupation and genocide by Japan against Korea? The Warmongering Japanese Militarists under Abe still refuse to accept responsibility for the Korean Sex Slaves. And Japan is still threatening ROK over Dokdo. Besides, in its Advisory Opinion on the Legality of the Threat and Use of Nuclear Weapons, the International Court of Justice intimated that a State can use nuclear weapons when its very existence is at stake. Trump and Mad Dog Mattis have made that perfectly clear to DPRK. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: globenet at yahoogroups.com [mailto:globenet at yahoogroups.com] Sent: Monday, November 6, 2017 2:07 PM To: globenet at yahoogroups.com Subject: [globenet] U.S., South Korean, and Japanese Civil Society Organizations Call for Bold Shift in Policy to Avert War in Korea As Trump Visits Asia, Civil Society in the U.S., South Korea, and Japan Call for Bold Shift in Policy to Avert War in Korea FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Monday, November 6, 2017 Contact: Christine Ahn (310) 482-9333 Jackie Cabasso (510) 306-0119 HONOLULU -- Today, hundreds of national civil society organizations from Japan, South Korea and the United States issued a joint statement calling for a diplomatic resolution of the crisis of belligerent rhetoric between the United States and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea). Based in countries whose populations could greatly suffer in the event of war, they call on their respective governments to take bold action now to safeguard peace and build long-lasting trust in the region. “Washington is forcing a trilateral military alliance and provocative war drills on Tokyo and Seoul that threatens North Korea and the region,” said Christine Ahn, international coordinator of Women Cross DMZ. “The people of Japan, South Korea and United States oppose war. Our demands are an urgent pivot towards peace.” “In Japan, Prime Minister Abe utilizes the U.S.-North Korea crisis to promote public hysteria and fear and encourage right-wing groups that call for Japan’s militarization, including the acquisition of nuclear weapons for itself,” explains Yoshioka Tatsuya, Co-Founder and Director of Peace Boat, Japan’s largest peace organization. “But we really have to understand that the joint military exercises by the U.S., Japan, and South Korea increase the risk of war in this region. Japan has the experience of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. We have to work to abolish nuclear weapons, but it’s unreasonable to demand that North Korea be the only one to give up theirs. All of us, including the U.S. and Japan, must say no to them.” “The South Korean public is highly critical of Trump for making threats of war and dismissing the gravity of its consequences as something ‘over there,’” says Choi Eun-a of the Korean Alliance for Progressive Movements, which is among the 222 South Korean civil society organizations from the Candlelight Revolution that have called for nationwide protest timed with Trump’s visit to South Korea. “The war-threatening, weapons salesman Trump is not welcome here, especially as he demands that South Korea pay more to host U.S. troops and set aside land for useless weapons like the THAAD missile defense system.” “Peace-loving people in the United States, Japan, and South Korea reject the war-mongering policies of our governments and express our friendship and solidarity with the people of North Korea,” said Jackie Cabasso, Executive Director of the Western States Legal Foundation in California, and the National Co-Convener of United for Peace and Justice. “The U.S. government must end its policy of sanctions and military threats against North Korea, cease the deployment of more weapons of mass destruction to the Korean peninsula and the region, and halt large-scale military exercises that impede dialogue with North Korea.” "It's time for peace-makers, for diplomats, and particularly for the people of South Korea, Japan and the U.S. to demand a peaceful resolution from our governments,” noted Kevin Martin, President of Peace Action, the United States' largest grassroots peace and disarmament organization. “While not excusing its behavior, North Korea has legitimate security concerns that need to be addressed in order to move toward an enduring peace on the Korean Peninsula.” On 2 November 2017, American lawmakers announced new bipartisan, bicameral legislation to ensure that President Trump cannot attack North Korea without the consent of Congress. Under this legislation, Congress would be empowered to prohibit any expenditure of funds for such a strike. The No Unconstitutional Strike Against North Korea Act of 2017 prohibits funds available to the Department of Defense or to any other federal department or agency from being used to launch a military strike against North Korea without the prior approval of Congress. The bill reflects the wishes of citizens seen in recent polls, which show that more than two-thirds of Americans oppose military action in dealing with North Korea. Joint Statement U.S., South Korean, and Japanese Civil Society Organizations Call for a Bold Shift in Policy for Peace in Korea and Northeast Asia As U.S. President Trump travels to Asia, we civil society groups from the United States, South Korea, and Japan call for a diplomatic solution to the dangerous conflict between the United States and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea). As those who would be directly impacted by the outbreak of such a conflict, we call on our leaders to take bold steps to ensure lasting peace. Recent events have set the stage for a possible catastrophe on the Korean Peninsula and even throughout the greater Northeast Asian region. Any further escalation of tensions could rapidly degenerate into violence. In its 27 October 2017 report, the U.S. Congressional Research Service estimates that over 300,000 people would die in the opening days of a military conflict on the Korean Peninsula, even without nuclear weapons, and would ultimately claim 25 million lives. Even as President Trump calls his predecessor’s policy of “strategic patience” on North Korea a failure, he continues the same policy, i.e., intensifying U.N. and unilateral sanctions and military threats. Meanwhile, North Korea continues to escalate the pace and scale of its nuclear and missile tests. The Abe government, seizing on the crisis in Korea, has quickened the pace of remilitarization and revision of Article 9 of its constitution. South Korean President Moon Jae-in meanwhile, despite an unambiguous mandate from the South Korean people, who ousted his hawkish predecessor in hopes of a radical transition to harmonious North-South relations, instead continues to do the bidding of the United States as he assumes a hostile posture vis-à-vis North Korea. We therefore demand that: 1. The Trump administration boldly shift to a policy of peace by: • Ending its policy of sanctions and military threats against North Korea; • Ceasing the deployment of more weapons of mass destruction on the Korean peninsula and in the region, and withdrawing the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) missile defense system from South Korea as it only exacerbates tensions in the region; and • Halting large-scale military exercises that impede dialogue with North Korea 2. The administration of President Moon Jae-in of South Korea honor the spirit of past North-South joint declarations for peace and reconciliation by: • Assertively pursuing inter-Korean dialogue and cooperation; • Halting future large-scale U.S.-South Korea combined military exercises to minimize the risk of confrontation ahead of the 2018 Winter Olympics in Pyongchang, South Korea; and • No longer cooperating with investments in costly weapon systems with the United States and Japan, including spending on missile defense, which only exacerbates tensions in the region and diverts precious resources away from human needs. 3. The government of Japan's Prime Minister Shinzo Abe immediately cease all further moves toward military buildup and instead contribute to regional peace by: • Abolishing the controversial "Conspiracy Law" and "State Secrecy Law," as well as the 2015 "Peace and Security Legislation" or war bills which permit the use of the so-called right to collective self-defense; • Pursuing the normalization of relations between Japan and North Korea based upon the principles of the Pyongyang Declaration and the Stockholm Agreement; and • Ceasing moves to change Article 9, the peace clause in its constitution. These are among the hundreds of civil society organizations who have signed on: Japan[1] • Citizens Association against Constitutional Revision (許すな!憲法改悪・市民連絡会) • Femin Women's Democratic Club (ふぇみん婦人民主クラブ) • Japan-Korea People’s Solidarity Network (日韓民衆連帯全国ネットワーク) • Kyoto/Kinki Association against the U.S. X-band Radar Base (米軍Xバンドレーダー基地反対・京都/近畿連絡) • Network of Religious Persons Making Peace (平和を作る宗教者ネット) • Nipponzan-Myōhōji (日本山妙法寺) • Peace Boat (ピースボート) • Veterans for Peace Japan (ベテランズ・フォー・ピース・ジャパン) South Korea • Federation of Korean Trade Unions (한국노동조합총연맹) • Korean Alliance of Progressive Movements (한국진보연대) • Korean Confederation of Trade Unions (전국민주노동조합총연맹) • Korean Peasants League (전국농민회총연맹) • Korean Street Vendors Confederation (전국노점상연합) • Korean Women’s Alliance (전국여성연대) • Korean Women Peasants Alliance (전국여성농민회총연합) • Korean Youth Solidarity (한국청년연대) • National Alliance of Squatters and Evictees (전국철거민연합) United States • Campaign for Peace, Disarmament and Common Security • International Forum on Globalization • Peace Action • Task Force to Stop THAAD in Korea and Militarism in Asia and the Pacific • United for Peace and Justice • Veterans for Peace National • Western States Legal Foundation • Women Cross DMZ ### ________________________________ [1] This is a provisional translation __._,_.___ ________________________________ Posted by: "Jacqueline Cabasso" > ________________________________ Reply via web post • Reply to sender • Reply to group • Start a New Topic • Messages in this topic (1) ________________________________ [https://s.yimg.com/ru/static/images/yg/img/megaphone/1464031581_phpFA8bON] Have you tried the highest rated email app? With 4.5 stars in iTunes, the Yahoo Mail app is the highest rated email app on the market. What are you waiting for? Now you can access all your inboxes (Gmail, Outlook, AOL and more) in one place. Never delete an email again with 1000GB of free cloud storage. ________________________________ VISIT YOUR GROUP [Yahoo! Groups] • Privacy • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use . __,_._,___ _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Mon Nov 6 22:37:32 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2017 22:37:32 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [globenet] U.S., South Korean, and Japanese Civil Society Organizations Call for Bold Shift in Policy to Avert War in Korea In-Reply-To: References: <7ee9d23d-d61a-42b2-b3d9-afa63bc87795@getmailbird.com> Message-ID: The Nuclear Arming of Japan, by Tsuchida in Evans & Nanda Nuclear Proliferation and the Legality of Nuclear Weapons, UPA, (1995). Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Brussel, Morton K Sent: Monday, November 6, 2017 3:18 PM To: Boyle, Francis A Cc: David Green ; C. G. ESTABROOK ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay ; David Johnson ; Mildred O'brien ; Estabrook, Carl G Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [globenet] U.S., South Korean, and Japanese Civil Society Organizations Call for Bold Shift in Policy to Avert War in Korea Would you care to give references for your first sentence, relative to japan having nuclear weapons already.? —mkb On Nov 6, 2017, at 2:30 PM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss > wrote: Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Monday, November 6, 2017 2:26 PM To: 'globenet at yahoogroups.com' > Subject: RE: [globenet] U.S., South Korean, and Japanese Civil Society Organizations Call for Bold Shift in Policy to Avert War in Korea Yeah, it is well known in the Japanese Peace Movement that Japan already has nuclear weapons. So why should DPRK disarm itself after the long history of aggression and occupation and genocide by Japan against Korea? The Warmongering Japanese Militarists under Abe still refuse to accept responsibility for the Korean Sex Slaves. And Japan is still threatening ROK over Dokdo. Besides, in its Advisory Opinion on the Legality of the Threat and Use of Nuclear Weapons, the International Court of Justice intimated that a State can use nuclear weapons when its very existence is at stake. Trump and Mad Dog Mattis have made that perfectly clear to DPRK. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: globenet at yahoogroups.com [mailto:globenet at yahoogroups.com] Sent: Monday, November 6, 2017 2:07 PM To: globenet at yahoogroups.com Subject: [globenet] U.S., South Korean, and Japanese Civil Society Organizations Call for Bold Shift in Policy to Avert War in Korea As Trump Visits Asia, Civil Society in the U.S., South Korea, and Japan Call for Bold Shift in Policy to Avert War in Korea FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Monday, November 6, 2017 Contact: Christine Ahn (310) 482-9333 Jackie Cabasso (510) 306-0119 HONOLULU -- Today, hundreds of national civil society organizations from Japan, South Korea and the United States issued a joint statement calling for a diplomatic resolution of the crisis of belligerent rhetoric between the United States and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea). Based in countries whose populations could greatly suffer in the event of war, they call on their respective governments to take bold action now to safeguard peace and build long-lasting trust in the region. “Washington is forcing a trilateral military alliance and provocative war drills on Tokyo and Seoul that threatens North Korea and the region,” said Christine Ahn, international coordinator of Women Cross DMZ. “The people of Japan, South Korea and United States oppose war. Our demands are an urgent pivot towards peace.” “In Japan, Prime Minister Abe utilizes the U.S.-North Korea crisis to promote public hysteria and fear and encourage right-wing groups that call for Japan’s militarization, including the acquisition of nuclear weapons for itself,” explains Yoshioka Tatsuya, Co-Founder and Director of Peace Boat, Japan’s largest peace organization. “But we really have to understand that the joint military exercises by the U.S., Japan, and South Korea increase the risk of war in this region. Japan has the experience of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. We have to work to abolish nuclear weapons, but it’s unreasonable to demand that North Korea be the only one to give up theirs. All of us, including the U.S. and Japan, must say no to them.” “The South Korean public is highly critical of Trump for making threats of war and dismissing the gravity of its consequences as something ‘over there,’” says Choi Eun-a of the Korean Alliance for Progressive Movements, which is among the 222 South Korean civil society organizations from the Candlelight Revolution that have called for nationwide protest timed with Trump’s visit to South Korea. “The war-threatening, weapons salesman Trump is not welcome here, especially as he demands that South Korea pay more to host U.S. troops and set aside land for useless weapons like the THAAD missile defense system.” “Peace-loving people in the United States, Japan, and South Korea reject the war-mongering policies of our governments and express our friendship and solidarity with the people of North Korea,” said Jackie Cabasso, Executive Director of the Western States Legal Foundation in California, and the National Co-Convener of United for Peace and Justice. “The U.S. government must end its policy of sanctions and military threats against North Korea, cease the deployment of more weapons of mass destruction to the Korean peninsula and the region, and halt large-scale military exercises that impede dialogue with North Korea.” "It's time for peace-makers, for diplomats, and particularly for the people of South Korea, Japan and the U.S. to demand a peaceful resolution from our governments,” noted Kevin Martin, President of Peace Action, the United States' largest grassroots peace and disarmament organization. “While not excusing its behavior, North Korea has legitimate security concerns that need to be addressed in order to move toward an enduring peace on the Korean Peninsula.” On 2 November 2017, American lawmakers announced new bipartisan, bicameral legislation to ensure that President Trump cannot attack North Korea without the consent of Congress. Under this legislation, Congress would be empowered to prohibit any expenditure of funds for such a strike. The No Unconstitutional Strike Against North Korea Act of 2017 prohibits funds available to the Department of Defense or to any other federal department or agency from being used to launch a military strike against North Korea without the prior approval of Congress. The bill reflects the wishes of citizens seen in recent polls, which show that more than two-thirds of Americans oppose military action in dealing with North Korea. Joint Statement U.S., South Korean, and Japanese Civil Society Organizations Call for a Bold Shift in Policy for Peace in Korea and Northeast Asia As U.S. President Trump travels to Asia, we civil society groups from the United States, South Korea, and Japan call for a diplomatic solution to the dangerous conflict between the United States and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea). As those who would be directly impacted by the outbreak of such a conflict, we call on our leaders to take bold steps to ensure lasting peace. Recent events have set the stage for a possible catastrophe on the Korean Peninsula and even throughout the greater Northeast Asian region. Any further escalation of tensions could rapidly degenerate into violence. In its 27 October 2017 report, the U.S. Congressional Research Service estimates that over 300,000 people would die in the opening days of a military conflict on the Korean Peninsula, even without nuclear weapons, and would ultimately claim 25 million lives. Even as President Trump calls his predecessor’s policy of “strategic patience” on North Korea a failure, he continues the same policy, i.e., intensifying U.N. and unilateral sanctions and military threats. Meanwhile, North Korea continues to escalate the pace and scale of its nuclear and missile tests. The Abe government, seizing on the crisis in Korea, has quickened the pace of remilitarization and revision of Article 9 of its constitution. South Korean President Moon Jae-in meanwhile, despite an unambiguous mandate from the South Korean people, who ousted his hawkish predecessor in hopes of a radical transition to harmonious North-South relations, instead continues to do the bidding of the United States as he assumes a hostile posture vis-à-vis North Korea. We therefore demand that: 1. The Trump administration boldly shift to a policy of peace by: • Ending its policy of sanctions and military threats against North Korea; • Ceasing the deployment of more weapons of mass destruction on the Korean peninsula and in the region, and withdrawing the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) missile defense system from South Korea as it only exacerbates tensions in the region; and • Halting large-scale military exercises that impede dialogue with North Korea 2. The administration of President Moon Jae-in of South Korea honor the spirit of past North-South joint declarations for peace and reconciliation by: • Assertively pursuing inter-Korean dialogue and cooperation; • Halting future large-scale U.S.-South Korea combined military exercises to minimize the risk of confrontation ahead of the 2018 Winter Olympics in Pyongchang, South Korea; and • No longer cooperating with investments in costly weapon systems with the United States and Japan, including spending on missile defense, which only exacerbates tensions in the region and diverts precious resources away from human needs. 3. The government of Japan's Prime Minister Shinzo Abe immediately cease all further moves toward military buildup and instead contribute to regional peace by: • Abolishing the controversial "Conspiracy Law" and "State Secrecy Law," as well as the 2015 "Peace and Security Legislation" or war bills which permit the use of the so-called right to collective self-defense; • Pursuing the normalization of relations between Japan and North Korea based upon the principles of the Pyongyang Declaration and the Stockholm Agreement; and • Ceasing moves to change Article 9, the peace clause in its constitution. These are among the hundreds of civil society organizations who have signed on: Japan[1] • Citizens Association against Constitutional Revision (許すな!憲法改悪・市民連絡会) • Femin Women's Democratic Club (ふぇみん婦人民主クラブ) • Japan-Korea People’s Solidarity Network (日韓民衆連帯全国ネットワーク) • Kyoto/Kinki Association against the U.S. X-band Radar Base (米軍Xバンドレーダー基地反対・京都/近畿連絡) • Network of Religious Persons Making Peace (平和を作る宗教者ネット) • Nipponzan-Myōhōji (日本山妙法寺) • Peace Boat (ピースボート) • Veterans for Peace Japan (ベテランズ・フォー・ピース・ジャパン) South Korea • Federation of Korean Trade Unions (한국노동조합총연맹) • Korean Alliance of Progressive Movements (한국진보연대) • Korean Confederation of Trade Unions (전국민주노동조합총연맹) • Korean Peasants League (전국농민회총연맹) • Korean Street Vendors Confederation (전국노점상연합) • Korean Women’s Alliance (전국여성연대) • Korean Women Peasants Alliance (전국여성농민회총연합) • Korean Youth Solidarity (한국청년연대) • National Alliance of Squatters and Evictees (전국철거민연합) United States • Campaign for Peace, Disarmament and Common Security • International Forum on Globalization • Peace Action • Task Force to Stop THAAD in Korea and Militarism in Asia and the Pacific • United for Peace and Justice • Veterans for Peace National • Western States Legal Foundation • Women Cross DMZ ### ________________________________ [1] This is a provisional translation __._,_.___ ________________________________ Posted by: "Jacqueline Cabasso" > ________________________________ Reply via web post • Reply to sender • Reply to group • Start a New Topic • Messages in this topic (1) ________________________________ [https://s.yimg.com/ru/static/images/yg/img/megaphone/1464031581_phpFA8bON] Have you tried the highest rated email app? With 4.5 stars in iTunes, the Yahoo Mail app is the highest rated email app on the market. What are you waiting for? Now you can access all your inboxes (Gmail, Outlook, AOL and more) in one place. Never delete an email again with 1000GB of free cloud storage. ________________________________ VISIT YOUR GROUP [Yahoo! Groups] • Privacy • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use . __,_._,___ _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brussel at illinois.edu Mon Nov 6 22:44:22 2017 From: brussel at illinois.edu (Brussel, Morton K) Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2017 22:44:22 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [globenet] U.S., South Korean, and Japanese Civil Society Organizations Call for Bold Shift in Policy to Avert War in Korea In-Reply-To: References: <7ee9d23d-d61a-42b2-b3d9-afa63bc87795@getmailbird.com> Message-ID: Does this mean that Japan has been sitting on their nuclear weapons for 23 years? —mkb On Nov 6, 2017, at 4:37 PM, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: The Nuclear Arming of Japan, by Tsuchida in Evans & Nanda Nuclear Proliferation and the Legality of Nuclear Weapons, UPA, (1995). Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Brussel, Morton K Sent: Monday, November 6, 2017 3:18 PM To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: David Green >; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; Estabrook, Carl G > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [globenet] U.S., South Korean, and Japanese Civil Society Organizations Call for Bold Shift in Policy to Avert War in Korea Would you care to give references for your first sentence, relative to japan having nuclear weapons already.? —mkb On Nov 6, 2017, at 2:30 PM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss > wrote: Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Monday, November 6, 2017 2:26 PM To: 'globenet at yahoogroups.com' > Subject: RE: [globenet] U.S., South Korean, and Japanese Civil Society Organizations Call for Bold Shift in Policy to Avert War in Korea Yeah, it is well known in the Japanese Peace Movement that Japan already has nuclear weapons. So why should DPRK disarm itself after the long history of aggression and occupation and genocide by Japan against Korea? The Warmongering Japanese Militarists under Abe still refuse to accept responsibility for the Korean Sex Slaves. And Japan is still threatening ROK over Dokdo. Besides, in its Advisory Opinion on the Legality of the Threat and Use of Nuclear Weapons, the International Court of Justice intimated that a State can use nuclear weapons when its very existence is at stake. Trump and Mad Dog Mattis have made that perfectly clear to DPRK. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: globenet at yahoogroups.com [mailto:globenet at yahoogroups.com] Sent: Monday, November 6, 2017 2:07 PM To: globenet at yahoogroups.com Subject: [globenet] U.S., South Korean, and Japanese Civil Society Organizations Call for Bold Shift in Policy to Avert War in Korea As Trump Visits Asia, Civil Society in the U.S., South Korea, and Japan Call for Bold Shift in Policy to Avert War in Korea FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Monday, November 6, 2017 Contact: Christine Ahn (310) 482-9333 Jackie Cabasso (510) 306-0119 HONOLULU -- Today, hundreds of national civil society organizations from Japan, South Korea and the United States issued a joint statement calling for a diplomatic resolution of the crisis of belligerent rhetoric between the United States and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea). Based in countries whose populations could greatly suffer in the event of war, they call on their respective governments to take bold action now to safeguard peace and build long-lasting trust in the region. “Washington is forcing a trilateral military alliance and provocative war drills on Tokyo and Seoul that threatens North Korea and the region,” said Christine Ahn, international coordinator of Women Cross DMZ. “The people of Japan, South Korea and United States oppose war. Our demands are an urgent pivot towards peace.” “In Japan, Prime Minister Abe utilizes the U.S.-North Korea crisis to promote public hysteria and fear and encourage right-wing groups that call for Japan’s militarization, including the acquisition of nuclear weapons for itself,” explains Yoshioka Tatsuya, Co-Founder and Director of Peace Boat, Japan’s largest peace organization. “But we really have to understand that the joint military exercises by the U.S., Japan, and South Korea increase the risk of war in this region. Japan has the experience of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. We have to work to abolish nuclear weapons, but it’s unreasonable to demand that North Korea be the only one to give up theirs. All of us, including the U.S. and Japan, must say no to them.” “The South Korean public is highly critical of Trump for making threats of war and dismissing the gravity of its consequences as something ‘over there,’” says Choi Eun-a of the Korean Alliance for Progressive Movements, which is among the 222 South Korean civil society organizations from the Candlelight Revolution that have called for nationwide protest timed with Trump’s visit to South Korea. “The war-threatening, weapons salesman Trump is not welcome here, especially as he demands that South Korea pay more to host U.S. troops and set aside land for useless weapons like the THAAD missile defense system.” “Peace-loving people in the United States, Japan, and South Korea reject the war-mongering policies of our governments and express our friendship and solidarity with the people of North Korea,” said Jackie Cabasso, Executive Director of the Western States Legal Foundation in California, and the National Co-Convener of United for Peace and Justice. “The U.S. government must end its policy of sanctions and military threats against North Korea, cease the deployment of more weapons of mass destruction to the Korean peninsula and the region, and halt large-scale military exercises that impede dialogue with North Korea.” "It's time for peace-makers, for diplomats, and particularly for the people of South Korea, Japan and the U.S. to demand a peaceful resolution from our governments,” noted Kevin Martin, President of Peace Action, the United States' largest grassroots peace and disarmament organization. “While not excusing its behavior, North Korea has legitimate security concerns that need to be addressed in order to move toward an enduring peace on the Korean Peninsula.” On 2 November 2017, American lawmakers announced new bipartisan, bicameral legislation to ensure that President Trump cannot attack North Korea without the consent of Congress. Under this legislation, Congress would be empowered to prohibit any expenditure of funds for such a strike. The No Unconstitutional Strike Against North Korea Act of 2017 prohibits funds available to the Department of Defense or to any other federal department or agency from being used to launch a military strike against North Korea without the prior approval of Congress. The bill reflects the wishes of citizens seen in recent polls, which show that more than two-thirds of Americans oppose military action in dealing with North Korea. Joint Statement U.S., South Korean, and Japanese Civil Society Organizations Call for a Bold Shift in Policy for Peace in Korea and Northeast Asia As U.S. President Trump travels to Asia, we civil society groups from the United States, South Korea, and Japan call for a diplomatic solution to the dangerous conflict between the United States and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea). As those who would be directly impacted by the outbreak of such a conflict, we call on our leaders to take bold steps to ensure lasting peace. Recent events have set the stage for a possible catastrophe on the Korean Peninsula and even throughout the greater Northeast Asian region. Any further escalation of tensions could rapidly degenerate into violence. In its 27 October 2017 report, the U.S. Congressional Research Service estimates that over 300,000 people would die in the opening days of a military conflict on the Korean Peninsula, even without nuclear weapons, and would ultimately claim 25 million lives. Even as President Trump calls his predecessor’s policy of “strategic patience” on North Korea a failure, he continues the same policy, i.e., intensifying U.N. and unilateral sanctions and military threats. Meanwhile, North Korea continues to escalate the pace and scale of its nuclear and missile tests. The Abe government, seizing on the crisis in Korea, has quickened the pace of remilitarization and revision of Article 9 of its constitution. South Korean President Moon Jae-in meanwhile, despite an unambiguous mandate from the South Korean people, who ousted his hawkish predecessor in hopes of a radical transition to harmonious North-South relations, instead continues to do the bidding of the United States as he assumes a hostile posture vis-à-vis North Korea. We therefore demand that: 1. The Trump administration boldly shift to a policy of peace by: • Ending its policy of sanctions and military threats against North Korea; • Ceasing the deployment of more weapons of mass destruction on the Korean peninsula and in the region, and withdrawing the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) missile defense system from South Korea as it only exacerbates tensions in the region; and • Halting large-scale military exercises that impede dialogue with North Korea 2. The administration of President Moon Jae-in of South Korea honor the spirit of past North-South joint declarations for peace and reconciliation by: • Assertively pursuing inter-Korean dialogue and cooperation; • Halting future large-scale U.S.-South Korea combined military exercises to minimize the risk of confrontation ahead of the 2018 Winter Olympics in Pyongchang, South Korea; and • No longer cooperating with investments in costly weapon systems with the United States and Japan, including spending on missile defense, which only exacerbates tensions in the region and diverts precious resources away from human needs. 3. The government of Japan's Prime Minister Shinzo Abe immediately cease all further moves toward military buildup and instead contribute to regional peace by: • Abolishing the controversial "Conspiracy Law" and "State Secrecy Law," as well as the 2015 "Peace and Security Legislation" or war bills which permit the use of the so-called right to collective self-defense; • Pursuing the normalization of relations between Japan and North Korea based upon the principles of the Pyongyang Declaration and the Stockholm Agreement; and • Ceasing moves to change Article 9, the peace clause in its constitution. These are among the hundreds of civil society organizations who have signed on: Japan[1] • Citizens Association against Constitutional Revision (許すな!憲法改悪・市民連絡会) • Femin Women's Democratic Club (ふぇみん婦人民主クラブ) • Japan-Korea People’s Solidarity Network (日韓民衆連帯全国ネットワーク) • Kyoto/Kinki Association against the U.S. X-band Radar Base (米軍Xバンドレーダー基地反対・京都/近畿連絡) • Network of Religious Persons Making Peace (平和を作る宗教者ネット) • Nipponzan-Myōhōji (日本山妙法寺) • Peace Boat (ピースボート) • Veterans for Peace Japan (ベテランズ・フォー・ピース・ジャパン) South Korea • Federation of Korean Trade Unions (한국노동조합총연맹) • Korean Alliance of Progressive Movements (한국진보연대) • Korean Confederation of Trade Unions (전국민주노동조합총연맹) • Korean Peasants League (전국농민회총연맹) • Korean Street Vendors Confederation (전국노점상연합) • Korean Women’s Alliance (전국여성연대) • Korean Women Peasants Alliance (전국여성농민회총연합) • Korean Youth Solidarity (한국청년연대) • National Alliance of Squatters and Evictees (전국철거민연합) United States • Campaign for Peace, Disarmament and Common Security • International Forum on Globalization • Peace Action • Task Force to Stop THAAD in Korea and Militarism in Asia and the Pacific • United for Peace and Justice • Veterans for Peace National • Western States Legal Foundation • Women Cross DMZ ### ________________________________ [1] This is a provisional translation __._,_.___ ________________________________ Posted by: "Jacqueline Cabasso" > ________________________________ Reply via web post • Reply to sender • Reply to group • Start a New Topic • Messages in this topic (1) ________________________________ [https://s.yimg.com/ru/static/images/yg/img/megaphone/1464031581_phpFA8bON] Have you tried the highest rated email app? With 4.5 stars in iTunes, the Yahoo Mail app is the highest rated email app on the market. What are you waiting for? Now you can access all your inboxes (Gmail, Outlook, AOL and more) in one place. Never delete an email again with 1000GB of free cloud storage. ________________________________ VISIT YOUR GROUP [Yahoo! Groups] • Privacy • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use . __,_._,___ _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brussel at illinois.edu Mon Nov 6 22:44:22 2017 From: brussel at illinois.edu (Brussel, Morton K) Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2017 22:44:22 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [globenet] U.S., South Korean, and Japanese Civil Society Organizations Call for Bold Shift in Policy to Avert War in Korea In-Reply-To: References: <7ee9d23d-d61a-42b2-b3d9-afa63bc87795@getmailbird.com> Message-ID: Does this mean that Japan has been sitting on their nuclear weapons for 23 years? —mkb On Nov 6, 2017, at 4:37 PM, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: The Nuclear Arming of Japan, by Tsuchida in Evans & Nanda Nuclear Proliferation and the Legality of Nuclear Weapons, UPA, (1995). Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Brussel, Morton K Sent: Monday, November 6, 2017 3:18 PM To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: David Green >; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; Estabrook, Carl G > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [globenet] U.S., South Korean, and Japanese Civil Society Organizations Call for Bold Shift in Policy to Avert War in Korea Would you care to give references for your first sentence, relative to japan having nuclear weapons already.? —mkb On Nov 6, 2017, at 2:30 PM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss > wrote: Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Monday, November 6, 2017 2:26 PM To: 'globenet at yahoogroups.com' > Subject: RE: [globenet] U.S., South Korean, and Japanese Civil Society Organizations Call for Bold Shift in Policy to Avert War in Korea Yeah, it is well known in the Japanese Peace Movement that Japan already has nuclear weapons. So why should DPRK disarm itself after the long history of aggression and occupation and genocide by Japan against Korea? The Warmongering Japanese Militarists under Abe still refuse to accept responsibility for the Korean Sex Slaves. And Japan is still threatening ROK over Dokdo. Besides, in its Advisory Opinion on the Legality of the Threat and Use of Nuclear Weapons, the International Court of Justice intimated that a State can use nuclear weapons when its very existence is at stake. Trump and Mad Dog Mattis have made that perfectly clear to DPRK. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: globenet at yahoogroups.com [mailto:globenet at yahoogroups.com] Sent: Monday, November 6, 2017 2:07 PM To: globenet at yahoogroups.com Subject: [globenet] U.S., South Korean, and Japanese Civil Society Organizations Call for Bold Shift in Policy to Avert War in Korea As Trump Visits Asia, Civil Society in the U.S., South Korea, and Japan Call for Bold Shift in Policy to Avert War in Korea FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Monday, November 6, 2017 Contact: Christine Ahn (310) 482-9333 Jackie Cabasso (510) 306-0119 HONOLULU -- Today, hundreds of national civil society organizations from Japan, South Korea and the United States issued a joint statement calling for a diplomatic resolution of the crisis of belligerent rhetoric between the United States and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea). Based in countries whose populations could greatly suffer in the event of war, they call on their respective governments to take bold action now to safeguard peace and build long-lasting trust in the region. “Washington is forcing a trilateral military alliance and provocative war drills on Tokyo and Seoul that threatens North Korea and the region,” said Christine Ahn, international coordinator of Women Cross DMZ. “The people of Japan, South Korea and United States oppose war. Our demands are an urgent pivot towards peace.” “In Japan, Prime Minister Abe utilizes the U.S.-North Korea crisis to promote public hysteria and fear and encourage right-wing groups that call for Japan’s militarization, including the acquisition of nuclear weapons for itself,” explains Yoshioka Tatsuya, Co-Founder and Director of Peace Boat, Japan’s largest peace organization. “But we really have to understand that the joint military exercises by the U.S., Japan, and South Korea increase the risk of war in this region. Japan has the experience of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. We have to work to abolish nuclear weapons, but it’s unreasonable to demand that North Korea be the only one to give up theirs. All of us, including the U.S. and Japan, must say no to them.” “The South Korean public is highly critical of Trump for making threats of war and dismissing the gravity of its consequences as something ‘over there,’” says Choi Eun-a of the Korean Alliance for Progressive Movements, which is among the 222 South Korean civil society organizations from the Candlelight Revolution that have called for nationwide protest timed with Trump’s visit to South Korea. “The war-threatening, weapons salesman Trump is not welcome here, especially as he demands that South Korea pay more to host U.S. troops and set aside land for useless weapons like the THAAD missile defense system.” “Peace-loving people in the United States, Japan, and South Korea reject the war-mongering policies of our governments and express our friendship and solidarity with the people of North Korea,” said Jackie Cabasso, Executive Director of the Western States Legal Foundation in California, and the National Co-Convener of United for Peace and Justice. “The U.S. government must end its policy of sanctions and military threats against North Korea, cease the deployment of more weapons of mass destruction to the Korean peninsula and the region, and halt large-scale military exercises that impede dialogue with North Korea.” "It's time for peace-makers, for diplomats, and particularly for the people of South Korea, Japan and the U.S. to demand a peaceful resolution from our governments,” noted Kevin Martin, President of Peace Action, the United States' largest grassroots peace and disarmament organization. “While not excusing its behavior, North Korea has legitimate security concerns that need to be addressed in order to move toward an enduring peace on the Korean Peninsula.” On 2 November 2017, American lawmakers announced new bipartisan, bicameral legislation to ensure that President Trump cannot attack North Korea without the consent of Congress. Under this legislation, Congress would be empowered to prohibit any expenditure of funds for such a strike. The No Unconstitutional Strike Against North Korea Act of 2017 prohibits funds available to the Department of Defense or to any other federal department or agency from being used to launch a military strike against North Korea without the prior approval of Congress. The bill reflects the wishes of citizens seen in recent polls, which show that more than two-thirds of Americans oppose military action in dealing with North Korea. Joint Statement U.S., South Korean, and Japanese Civil Society Organizations Call for a Bold Shift in Policy for Peace in Korea and Northeast Asia As U.S. President Trump travels to Asia, we civil society groups from the United States, South Korea, and Japan call for a diplomatic solution to the dangerous conflict between the United States and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea). As those who would be directly impacted by the outbreak of such a conflict, we call on our leaders to take bold steps to ensure lasting peace. Recent events have set the stage for a possible catastrophe on the Korean Peninsula and even throughout the greater Northeast Asian region. Any further escalation of tensions could rapidly degenerate into violence. In its 27 October 2017 report, the U.S. Congressional Research Service estimates that over 300,000 people would die in the opening days of a military conflict on the Korean Peninsula, even without nuclear weapons, and would ultimately claim 25 million lives. Even as President Trump calls his predecessor’s policy of “strategic patience” on North Korea a failure, he continues the same policy, i.e., intensifying U.N. and unilateral sanctions and military threats. Meanwhile, North Korea continues to escalate the pace and scale of its nuclear and missile tests. The Abe government, seizing on the crisis in Korea, has quickened the pace of remilitarization and revision of Article 9 of its constitution. South Korean President Moon Jae-in meanwhile, despite an unambiguous mandate from the South Korean people, who ousted his hawkish predecessor in hopes of a radical transition to harmonious North-South relations, instead continues to do the bidding of the United States as he assumes a hostile posture vis-à-vis North Korea. We therefore demand that: 1. The Trump administration boldly shift to a policy of peace by: • Ending its policy of sanctions and military threats against North Korea; • Ceasing the deployment of more weapons of mass destruction on the Korean peninsula and in the region, and withdrawing the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) missile defense system from South Korea as it only exacerbates tensions in the region; and • Halting large-scale military exercises that impede dialogue with North Korea 2. The administration of President Moon Jae-in of South Korea honor the spirit of past North-South joint declarations for peace and reconciliation by: • Assertively pursuing inter-Korean dialogue and cooperation; • Halting future large-scale U.S.-South Korea combined military exercises to minimize the risk of confrontation ahead of the 2018 Winter Olympics in Pyongchang, South Korea; and • No longer cooperating with investments in costly weapon systems with the United States and Japan, including spending on missile defense, which only exacerbates tensions in the region and diverts precious resources away from human needs. 3. The government of Japan's Prime Minister Shinzo Abe immediately cease all further moves toward military buildup and instead contribute to regional peace by: • Abolishing the controversial "Conspiracy Law" and "State Secrecy Law," as well as the 2015 "Peace and Security Legislation" or war bills which permit the use of the so-called right to collective self-defense; • Pursuing the normalization of relations between Japan and North Korea based upon the principles of the Pyongyang Declaration and the Stockholm Agreement; and • Ceasing moves to change Article 9, the peace clause in its constitution. These are among the hundreds of civil society organizations who have signed on: Japan[1] • Citizens Association against Constitutional Revision (許すな!憲法改悪・市民連絡会) • Femin Women's Democratic Club (ふぇみん婦人民主クラブ) • Japan-Korea People’s Solidarity Network (日韓民衆連帯全国ネットワーク) • Kyoto/Kinki Association against the U.S. X-band Radar Base (米軍Xバンドレーダー基地反対・京都/近畿連絡) • Network of Religious Persons Making Peace (平和を作る宗教者ネット) • Nipponzan-Myōhōji (日本山妙法寺) • Peace Boat (ピースボート) • Veterans for Peace Japan (ベテランズ・フォー・ピース・ジャパン) South Korea • Federation of Korean Trade Unions (한국노동조합총연맹) • Korean Alliance of Progressive Movements (한국진보연대) • Korean Confederation of Trade Unions (전국민주노동조합총연맹) • Korean Peasants League (전국농민회총연맹) • Korean Street Vendors Confederation (전국노점상연합) • Korean Women’s Alliance (전국여성연대) • Korean Women Peasants Alliance (전국여성농민회총연합) • Korean Youth Solidarity (한국청년연대) • National Alliance of Squatters and Evictees (전국철거민연합) United States • Campaign for Peace, Disarmament and Common Security • International Forum on Globalization • Peace Action • Task Force to Stop THAAD in Korea and Militarism in Asia and the Pacific • United for Peace and Justice • Veterans for Peace National • Western States Legal Foundation • Women Cross DMZ ### ________________________________ [1] This is a provisional translation __._,_.___ ________________________________ Posted by: "Jacqueline Cabasso" > ________________________________ Reply via web post • Reply to sender • Reply to group • Start a New Topic • Messages in this topic (1) ________________________________ [https://s.yimg.com/ru/static/images/yg/img/megaphone/1464031581_phpFA8bON] Have you tried the highest rated email app? With 4.5 stars in iTunes, the Yahoo Mail app is the highest rated email app on the market. What are you waiting for? Now you can access all your inboxes (Gmail, Outlook, AOL and more) in one place. Never delete an email again with 1000GB of free cloud storage. ________________________________ VISIT YOUR GROUP [Yahoo! Groups] • Privacy • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use . __,_._,___ _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Mon Nov 6 22:46:11 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2017 22:46:11 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [globenet] U.S., South Korean, and Japanese Civil Society Organizations Call for Bold Shift in Policy to Avert War in Korea In-Reply-To: References: <7ee9d23d-d61a-42b2-b3d9-afa63bc87795@getmailbird.com> Message-ID: Longer than that. I have not read the article in a while.But I think we gave them the Green Light around 1955 or so. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Brussel, Morton K Sent: Monday, November 6, 2017 4:44 PM To: Boyle, Francis A Cc: David Green ; C. G. ESTABROOK ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay ; David Johnson ; Mildred O'brien ; Estabrook, Carl G Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [globenet] U.S., South Korean, and Japanese Civil Society Organizations Call for Bold Shift in Policy to Avert War in Korea Does this mean that Japan has been sitting on their nuclear weapons for 23 years? —mkb On Nov 6, 2017, at 4:37 PM, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: The Nuclear Arming of Japan, by Tsuchida in Evans & Nanda Nuclear Proliferation and the Legality of Nuclear Weapons, UPA, (1995). Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Brussel, Morton K Sent: Monday, November 6, 2017 3:18 PM To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: David Green >; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; Estabrook, Carl G > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [globenet] U.S., South Korean, and Japanese Civil Society Organizations Call for Bold Shift in Policy to Avert War in Korea Would you care to give references for your first sentence, relative to japan having nuclear weapons already.? —mkb On Nov 6, 2017, at 2:30 PM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss > wrote: Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Monday, November 6, 2017 2:26 PM To: 'globenet at yahoogroups.com' > Subject: RE: [globenet] U.S., South Korean, and Japanese Civil Society Organizations Call for Bold Shift in Policy to Avert War in Korea Yeah, it is well known in the Japanese Peace Movement that Japan already has nuclear weapons. So why should DPRK disarm itself after the long history of aggression and occupation and genocide by Japan against Korea? The Warmongering Japanese Militarists under Abe still refuse to accept responsibility for the Korean Sex Slaves. And Japan is still threatening ROK over Dokdo. Besides, in its Advisory Opinion on the Legality of the Threat and Use of Nuclear Weapons, the International Court of Justice intimated that a State can use nuclear weapons when its very existence is at stake. Trump and Mad Dog Mattis have made that perfectly clear to DPRK. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: globenet at yahoogroups.com [mailto:globenet at yahoogroups.com] Sent: Monday, November 6, 2017 2:07 PM To: globenet at yahoogroups.com Subject: [globenet] U.S., South Korean, and Japanese Civil Society Organizations Call for Bold Shift in Policy to Avert War in Korea As Trump Visits Asia, Civil Society in the U.S., South Korea, and Japan Call for Bold Shift in Policy to Avert War in Korea FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Monday, November 6, 2017 Contact: Christine Ahn (310) 482-9333 Jackie Cabasso (510) 306-0119 HONOLULU -- Today, hundreds of national civil society organizations from Japan, South Korea and the United States issued a joint statement calling for a diplomatic resolution of the crisis of belligerent rhetoric between the United States and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea). Based in countries whose populations could greatly suffer in the event of war, they call on their respective governments to take bold action now to safeguard peace and build long-lasting trust in the region. “Washington is forcing a trilateral military alliance and provocative war drills on Tokyo and Seoul that threatens North Korea and the region,” said Christine Ahn, international coordinator of Women Cross DMZ. “The people of Japan, South Korea and United States oppose war. Our demands are an urgent pivot towards peace.” “In Japan, Prime Minister Abe utilizes the U.S.-North Korea crisis to promote public hysteria and fear and encourage right-wing groups that call for Japan’s militarization, including the acquisition of nuclear weapons for itself,” explains Yoshioka Tatsuya, Co-Founder and Director of Peace Boat, Japan’s largest peace organization. “But we really have to understand that the joint military exercises by the U.S., Japan, and South Korea increase the risk of war in this region. Japan has the experience of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. We have to work to abolish nuclear weapons, but it’s unreasonable to demand that North Korea be the only one to give up theirs. All of us, including the U.S. and Japan, must say no to them.” “The South Korean public is highly critical of Trump for making threats of war and dismissing the gravity of its consequences as something ‘over there,’” says Choi Eun-a of the Korean Alliance for Progressive Movements, which is among the 222 South Korean civil society organizations from the Candlelight Revolution that have called for nationwide protest timed with Trump’s visit to South Korea. “The war-threatening, weapons salesman Trump is not welcome here, especially as he demands that South Korea pay more to host U.S. troops and set aside land for useless weapons like the THAAD missile defense system.” “Peace-loving people in the United States, Japan, and South Korea reject the war-mongering policies of our governments and express our friendship and solidarity with the people of North Korea,” said Jackie Cabasso, Executive Director of the Western States Legal Foundation in California, and the National Co-Convener of United for Peace and Justice. “The U.S. government must end its policy of sanctions and military threats against North Korea, cease the deployment of more weapons of mass destruction to the Korean peninsula and the region, and halt large-scale military exercises that impede dialogue with North Korea.” "It's time for peace-makers, for diplomats, and particularly for the people of South Korea, Japan and the U.S. to demand a peaceful resolution from our governments,” noted Kevin Martin, President of Peace Action, the United States' largest grassroots peace and disarmament organization. “While not excusing its behavior, North Korea has legitimate security concerns that need to be addressed in order to move toward an enduring peace on the Korean Peninsula.” On 2 November 2017, American lawmakers announced new bipartisan, bicameral legislation to ensure that President Trump cannot attack North Korea without the consent of Congress. Under this legislation, Congress would be empowered to prohibit any expenditure of funds for such a strike. The No Unconstitutional Strike Against North Korea Act of 2017 prohibits funds available to the Department of Defense or to any other federal department or agency from being used to launch a military strike against North Korea without the prior approval of Congress. The bill reflects the wishes of citizens seen in recent polls, which show that more than two-thirds of Americans oppose military action in dealing with North Korea. Joint Statement U.S., South Korean, and Japanese Civil Society Organizations Call for a Bold Shift in Policy for Peace in Korea and Northeast Asia As U.S. President Trump travels to Asia, we civil society groups from the United States, South Korea, and Japan call for a diplomatic solution to the dangerous conflict between the United States and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea). As those who would be directly impacted by the outbreak of such a conflict, we call on our leaders to take bold steps to ensure lasting peace. Recent events have set the stage for a possible catastrophe on the Korean Peninsula and even throughout the greater Northeast Asian region. Any further escalation of tensions could rapidly degenerate into violence. In its 27 October 2017 report, the U.S. Congressional Research Service estimates that over 300,000 people would die in the opening days of a military conflict on the Korean Peninsula, even without nuclear weapons, and would ultimately claim 25 million lives. Even as President Trump calls his predecessor’s policy of “strategic patience” on North Korea a failure, he continues the same policy, i.e., intensifying U.N. and unilateral sanctions and military threats. Meanwhile, North Korea continues to escalate the pace and scale of its nuclear and missile tests. The Abe government, seizing on the crisis in Korea, has quickened the pace of remilitarization and revision of Article 9 of its constitution. South Korean President Moon Jae-in meanwhile, despite an unambiguous mandate from the South Korean people, who ousted his hawkish predecessor in hopes of a radical transition to harmonious North-South relations, instead continues to do the bidding of the United States as he assumes a hostile posture vis-à-vis North Korea. We therefore demand that: 1. The Trump administration boldly shift to a policy of peace by: • Ending its policy of sanctions and military threats against North Korea; • Ceasing the deployment of more weapons of mass destruction on the Korean peninsula and in the region, and withdrawing the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) missile defense system from South Korea as it only exacerbates tensions in the region; and • Halting large-scale military exercises that impede dialogue with North Korea 2. The administration of President Moon Jae-in of South Korea honor the spirit of past North-South joint declarations for peace and reconciliation by: • Assertively pursuing inter-Korean dialogue and cooperation; • Halting future large-scale U.S.-South Korea combined military exercises to minimize the risk of confrontation ahead of the 2018 Winter Olympics in Pyongchang, South Korea; and • No longer cooperating with investments in costly weapon systems with the United States and Japan, including spending on missile defense, which only exacerbates tensions in the region and diverts precious resources away from human needs. 3. The government of Japan's Prime Minister Shinzo Abe immediately cease all further moves toward military buildup and instead contribute to regional peace by: • Abolishing the controversial "Conspiracy Law" and "State Secrecy Law," as well as the 2015 "Peace and Security Legislation" or war bills which permit the use of the so-called right to collective self-defense; • Pursuing the normalization of relations between Japan and North Korea based upon the principles of the Pyongyang Declaration and the Stockholm Agreement; and • Ceasing moves to change Article 9, the peace clause in its constitution. These are among the hundreds of civil society organizations who have signed on: Japan[1] • Citizens Association against Constitutional Revision (許すな!憲法改悪・市民連絡会) • Femin Women's Democratic Club (ふぇみん婦人民主クラブ) • Japan-Korea People’s Solidarity Network (日韓民衆連帯全国ネットワーク) • Kyoto/Kinki Association against the U.S. X-band Radar Base (米軍Xバンドレーダー基地反対・京都/近畿連絡) • Network of Religious Persons Making Peace (平和を作る宗教者ネット) • Nipponzan-Myōhōji (日本山妙法寺) • Peace Boat (ピースボート) • Veterans for Peace Japan (ベテランズ・フォー・ピース・ジャパン) South Korea • Federation of Korean Trade Unions (한국노동조합총연맹) • Korean Alliance of Progressive Movements (한국진보연대) • Korean Confederation of Trade Unions (전국민주노동조합총연맹) • Korean Peasants League (전국농민회총연맹) • Korean Street Vendors Confederation (전국노점상연합) • Korean Women’s Alliance (전국여성연대) • Korean Women Peasants Alliance (전국여성농민회총연합) • Korean Youth Solidarity (한국청년연대) • National Alliance of Squatters and Evictees (전국철거민연합) United States • Campaign for Peace, Disarmament and Common Security • International Forum on Globalization • Peace Action • Task Force to Stop THAAD in Korea and Militarism in Asia and the Pacific • United for Peace and Justice • Veterans for Peace National • Western States Legal Foundation • Women Cross DMZ ### ________________________________ [1] This is a provisional translation __._,_.___ ________________________________ Posted by: "Jacqueline Cabasso" > ________________________________ Reply via web post • Reply to sender • Reply to group • Start a New Topic • Messages in this topic (1) ________________________________ [https://s.yimg.com/ru/static/images/yg/img/megaphone/1464031581_phpFA8bON] Have you tried the highest rated email app? With 4.5 stars in iTunes, the Yahoo Mail app is the highest rated email app on the market. What are you waiting for? Now you can access all your inboxes (Gmail, Outlook, AOL and more) in one place. Never delete an email again with 1000GB of free cloud storage. ________________________________ VISIT YOUR GROUP [Yahoo! Groups] • Privacy • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use . __,_._,___ _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Mon Nov 6 22:46:11 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2017 22:46:11 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [globenet] U.S., South Korean, and Japanese Civil Society Organizations Call for Bold Shift in Policy to Avert War in Korea In-Reply-To: References: <7ee9d23d-d61a-42b2-b3d9-afa63bc87795@getmailbird.com> Message-ID: Longer than that. I have not read the article in a while.But I think we gave them the Green Light around 1955 or so. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Brussel, Morton K Sent: Monday, November 6, 2017 4:44 PM To: Boyle, Francis A Cc: David Green ; C. G. ESTABROOK ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay ; David Johnson ; Mildred O'brien ; Estabrook, Carl G Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [globenet] U.S., South Korean, and Japanese Civil Society Organizations Call for Bold Shift in Policy to Avert War in Korea Does this mean that Japan has been sitting on their nuclear weapons for 23 years? —mkb On Nov 6, 2017, at 4:37 PM, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: The Nuclear Arming of Japan, by Tsuchida in Evans & Nanda Nuclear Proliferation and the Legality of Nuclear Weapons, UPA, (1995). Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Brussel, Morton K Sent: Monday, November 6, 2017 3:18 PM To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: David Green >; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; Estabrook, Carl G > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [globenet] U.S., South Korean, and Japanese Civil Society Organizations Call for Bold Shift in Policy to Avert War in Korea Would you care to give references for your first sentence, relative to japan having nuclear weapons already.? —mkb On Nov 6, 2017, at 2:30 PM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss > wrote: Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Monday, November 6, 2017 2:26 PM To: 'globenet at yahoogroups.com' > Subject: RE: [globenet] U.S., South Korean, and Japanese Civil Society Organizations Call for Bold Shift in Policy to Avert War in Korea Yeah, it is well known in the Japanese Peace Movement that Japan already has nuclear weapons. So why should DPRK disarm itself after the long history of aggression and occupation and genocide by Japan against Korea? The Warmongering Japanese Militarists under Abe still refuse to accept responsibility for the Korean Sex Slaves. And Japan is still threatening ROK over Dokdo. Besides, in its Advisory Opinion on the Legality of the Threat and Use of Nuclear Weapons, the International Court of Justice intimated that a State can use nuclear weapons when its very existence is at stake. Trump and Mad Dog Mattis have made that perfectly clear to DPRK. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: globenet at yahoogroups.com [mailto:globenet at yahoogroups.com] Sent: Monday, November 6, 2017 2:07 PM To: globenet at yahoogroups.com Subject: [globenet] U.S., South Korean, and Japanese Civil Society Organizations Call for Bold Shift in Policy to Avert War in Korea As Trump Visits Asia, Civil Society in the U.S., South Korea, and Japan Call for Bold Shift in Policy to Avert War in Korea FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Monday, November 6, 2017 Contact: Christine Ahn (310) 482-9333 Jackie Cabasso (510) 306-0119 HONOLULU -- Today, hundreds of national civil society organizations from Japan, South Korea and the United States issued a joint statement calling for a diplomatic resolution of the crisis of belligerent rhetoric between the United States and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea). Based in countries whose populations could greatly suffer in the event of war, they call on their respective governments to take bold action now to safeguard peace and build long-lasting trust in the region. “Washington is forcing a trilateral military alliance and provocative war drills on Tokyo and Seoul that threatens North Korea and the region,” said Christine Ahn, international coordinator of Women Cross DMZ. “The people of Japan, South Korea and United States oppose war. Our demands are an urgent pivot towards peace.” “In Japan, Prime Minister Abe utilizes the U.S.-North Korea crisis to promote public hysteria and fear and encourage right-wing groups that call for Japan’s militarization, including the acquisition of nuclear weapons for itself,” explains Yoshioka Tatsuya, Co-Founder and Director of Peace Boat, Japan’s largest peace organization. “But we really have to understand that the joint military exercises by the U.S., Japan, and South Korea increase the risk of war in this region. Japan has the experience of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. We have to work to abolish nuclear weapons, but it’s unreasonable to demand that North Korea be the only one to give up theirs. All of us, including the U.S. and Japan, must say no to them.” “The South Korean public is highly critical of Trump for making threats of war and dismissing the gravity of its consequences as something ‘over there,’” says Choi Eun-a of the Korean Alliance for Progressive Movements, which is among the 222 South Korean civil society organizations from the Candlelight Revolution that have called for nationwide protest timed with Trump’s visit to South Korea. “The war-threatening, weapons salesman Trump is not welcome here, especially as he demands that South Korea pay more to host U.S. troops and set aside land for useless weapons like the THAAD missile defense system.” “Peace-loving people in the United States, Japan, and South Korea reject the war-mongering policies of our governments and express our friendship and solidarity with the people of North Korea,” said Jackie Cabasso, Executive Director of the Western States Legal Foundation in California, and the National Co-Convener of United for Peace and Justice. “The U.S. government must end its policy of sanctions and military threats against North Korea, cease the deployment of more weapons of mass destruction to the Korean peninsula and the region, and halt large-scale military exercises that impede dialogue with North Korea.” "It's time for peace-makers, for diplomats, and particularly for the people of South Korea, Japan and the U.S. to demand a peaceful resolution from our governments,” noted Kevin Martin, President of Peace Action, the United States' largest grassroots peace and disarmament organization. “While not excusing its behavior, North Korea has legitimate security concerns that need to be addressed in order to move toward an enduring peace on the Korean Peninsula.” On 2 November 2017, American lawmakers announced new bipartisan, bicameral legislation to ensure that President Trump cannot attack North Korea without the consent of Congress. Under this legislation, Congress would be empowered to prohibit any expenditure of funds for such a strike. The No Unconstitutional Strike Against North Korea Act of 2017 prohibits funds available to the Department of Defense or to any other federal department or agency from being used to launch a military strike against North Korea without the prior approval of Congress. The bill reflects the wishes of citizens seen in recent polls, which show that more than two-thirds of Americans oppose military action in dealing with North Korea. Joint Statement U.S., South Korean, and Japanese Civil Society Organizations Call for a Bold Shift in Policy for Peace in Korea and Northeast Asia As U.S. President Trump travels to Asia, we civil society groups from the United States, South Korea, and Japan call for a diplomatic solution to the dangerous conflict between the United States and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea). As those who would be directly impacted by the outbreak of such a conflict, we call on our leaders to take bold steps to ensure lasting peace. Recent events have set the stage for a possible catastrophe on the Korean Peninsula and even throughout the greater Northeast Asian region. Any further escalation of tensions could rapidly degenerate into violence. In its 27 October 2017 report, the U.S. Congressional Research Service estimates that over 300,000 people would die in the opening days of a military conflict on the Korean Peninsula, even without nuclear weapons, and would ultimately claim 25 million lives. Even as President Trump calls his predecessor’s policy of “strategic patience” on North Korea a failure, he continues the same policy, i.e., intensifying U.N. and unilateral sanctions and military threats. Meanwhile, North Korea continues to escalate the pace and scale of its nuclear and missile tests. The Abe government, seizing on the crisis in Korea, has quickened the pace of remilitarization and revision of Article 9 of its constitution. South Korean President Moon Jae-in meanwhile, despite an unambiguous mandate from the South Korean people, who ousted his hawkish predecessor in hopes of a radical transition to harmonious North-South relations, instead continues to do the bidding of the United States as he assumes a hostile posture vis-à-vis North Korea. We therefore demand that: 1. The Trump administration boldly shift to a policy of peace by: • Ending its policy of sanctions and military threats against North Korea; • Ceasing the deployment of more weapons of mass destruction on the Korean peninsula and in the region, and withdrawing the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) missile defense system from South Korea as it only exacerbates tensions in the region; and • Halting large-scale military exercises that impede dialogue with North Korea 2. The administration of President Moon Jae-in of South Korea honor the spirit of past North-South joint declarations for peace and reconciliation by: • Assertively pursuing inter-Korean dialogue and cooperation; • Halting future large-scale U.S.-South Korea combined military exercises to minimize the risk of confrontation ahead of the 2018 Winter Olympics in Pyongchang, South Korea; and • No longer cooperating with investments in costly weapon systems with the United States and Japan, including spending on missile defense, which only exacerbates tensions in the region and diverts precious resources away from human needs. 3. The government of Japan's Prime Minister Shinzo Abe immediately cease all further moves toward military buildup and instead contribute to regional peace by: • Abolishing the controversial "Conspiracy Law" and "State Secrecy Law," as well as the 2015 "Peace and Security Legislation" or war bills which permit the use of the so-called right to collective self-defense; • Pursuing the normalization of relations between Japan and North Korea based upon the principles of the Pyongyang Declaration and the Stockholm Agreement; and • Ceasing moves to change Article 9, the peace clause in its constitution. These are among the hundreds of civil society organizations who have signed on: Japan[1] • Citizens Association against Constitutional Revision (許すな!憲法改悪・市民連絡会) • Femin Women's Democratic Club (ふぇみん婦人民主クラブ) • Japan-Korea People’s Solidarity Network (日韓民衆連帯全国ネットワーク) • Kyoto/Kinki Association against the U.S. X-band Radar Base (米軍Xバンドレーダー基地反対・京都/近畿連絡) • Network of Religious Persons Making Peace (平和を作る宗教者ネット) • Nipponzan-Myōhōji (日本山妙法寺) • Peace Boat (ピースボート) • Veterans for Peace Japan (ベテランズ・フォー・ピース・ジャパン) South Korea • Federation of Korean Trade Unions (한국노동조합총연맹) • Korean Alliance of Progressive Movements (한국진보연대) • Korean Confederation of Trade Unions (전국민주노동조합총연맹) • Korean Peasants League (전국농민회총연맹) • Korean Street Vendors Confederation (전국노점상연합) • Korean Women’s Alliance (전국여성연대) • Korean Women Peasants Alliance (전국여성농민회총연합) • Korean Youth Solidarity (한국청년연대) • National Alliance of Squatters and Evictees (전국철거민연합) United States • Campaign for Peace, Disarmament and Common Security • International Forum on Globalization • Peace Action • Task Force to Stop THAAD in Korea and Militarism in Asia and the Pacific • United for Peace and Justice • Veterans for Peace National • Western States Legal Foundation • Women Cross DMZ ### ________________________________ [1] This is a provisional translation __._,_.___ ________________________________ Posted by: "Jacqueline Cabasso" > ________________________________ Reply via web post • Reply to sender • Reply to group • Start a New Topic • Messages in this topic (1) ________________________________ [https://s.yimg.com/ru/static/images/yg/img/megaphone/1464031581_phpFA8bON] Have you tried the highest rated email app? With 4.5 stars in iTunes, the Yahoo Mail app is the highest rated email app on the market. What are you waiting for? Now you can access all your inboxes (Gmail, Outlook, AOL and more) in one place. Never delete an email again with 1000GB of free cloud storage. ________________________________ VISIT YOUR GROUP [Yahoo! Groups] • Privacy • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use . __,_._,___ _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Mon Nov 6 22:40:09 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2017 22:40:09 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: MOX for Bombs in Japan In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: This was a very lengthy interview I gave in Japan courtesy of their peace and anti-nuclear movement. It was heavily censored. My basic point was that Japan was using MOX to make bombs and that my best estimate was that Japan probably had as many bombs as PRC, which would be in the area of 500. So when the details of the disaster at Fukushima came out, it was clear to me it was one of their leading bomb complexes. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: globenet at yahoogroups.com [mailto:globenet at yahoogroups.com] Sent: Saturday, March 21, 2015 8:10 AM To: globenet at yahoogroups.com Cc: 'Hiroshi Taka'; 'Gensuikyo'; 'Akira Kawasaki'; oheyeran at yahoogroups.com; asia-pacific_demil_mdg-request at lists.riseup.net; 'Coleen Rowley'; 'Douglas Roche' Subject: [globenet] MOX for Bombs in Japan Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) [cid:268490113 at 28042010-1B9B] Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (Voice) 217-244-1478 (Fax) (personal comments only) __._,_.___ ________________________________ Posted by: "Boyle, Francis A" > ________________________________ Reply via web post • Reply to sender • Reply to group • Start a New Topic • Messages in this topic (1) Visit Your Group [Yahoo! Groups] • Privacy • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use . __,_._,___ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Outlook.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 472533 bytes Desc: Outlook.jpg URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Mon Nov 6 22:40:09 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2017 22:40:09 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: MOX for Bombs in Japan In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: This was a very lengthy interview I gave in Japan courtesy of their peace and anti-nuclear movement. It was heavily censored. My basic point was that Japan was using MOX to make bombs and that my best estimate was that Japan probably had as many bombs as PRC, which would be in the area of 500. So when the details of the disaster at Fukushima came out, it was clear to me it was one of their leading bomb complexes. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: globenet at yahoogroups.com [mailto:globenet at yahoogroups.com] Sent: Saturday, March 21, 2015 8:10 AM To: globenet at yahoogroups.com Cc: 'Hiroshi Taka'; 'Gensuikyo'; 'Akira Kawasaki'; oheyeran at yahoogroups.com; asia-pacific_demil_mdg-request at lists.riseup.net; 'Coleen Rowley'; 'Douglas Roche' Subject: [globenet] MOX for Bombs in Japan Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) [cid:268490113 at 28042010-1B9B] Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (Voice) 217-244-1478 (Fax) (personal comments only) __._,_.___ ________________________________ Posted by: "Boyle, Francis A" > ________________________________ Reply via web post • Reply to sender • Reply to group • Start a New Topic • Messages in this topic (1) Visit Your Group [Yahoo! Groups] • Privacy • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use . __,_._,___ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Outlook.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 472533 bytes Desc: Outlook.jpg URL: From brussel at illinois.edu Mon Nov 6 22:49:11 2017 From: brussel at illinois.edu (Brussel, Morton K) Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2017 22:49:11 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] One of the better Chomsky interviews In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: One criticism of the interview is that Chomsky relegates an attack on N. Korea as less critical or imminent than amelioration of Climate Change. But the interview was a little time ago, and the threats have since gotten worse. On Nov 6, 2017, at 4:30 PM, Brussel, Morton K via Peace-discuss > wrote: See http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00963402.2017.1388659 With the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists. _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Mon Nov 6 23:03:29 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2017 23:03:29 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [globenet] U.S., South Korean, and Japanese Civil Society Organizations Call for Bold Shift in Policy to Avert War in Korea References: <7ee9d23d-d61a-42b2-b3d9-afa63bc87795@getmailbird.com> Message-ID: It might have been under Eisenhower using his “Atoms for Peace” Program as the Cover Story—an oxymoron to be sure. fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Monday, November 6, 2017 4:46 PM To: Brussel, Morton K Cc: David Green ; C. G. ESTABROOK ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay ; David Johnson ; Mildred O'brien ; Estabrook, Carl G Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] [globenet] U.S., South Korean, and Japanese Civil Society Organizations Call for Bold Shift in Policy to Avert War in Korea Longer than that. I have not read the article in a while.But I think we gave them the Green Light around 1955 or so. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Brussel, Morton K Sent: Monday, November 6, 2017 4:44 PM To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: David Green >; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; Estabrook, Carl G > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [globenet] U.S., South Korean, and Japanese Civil Society Organizations Call for Bold Shift in Policy to Avert War in Korea Does this mean that Japan has been sitting on their nuclear weapons for 23 years? —mkb On Nov 6, 2017, at 4:37 PM, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: The Nuclear Arming of Japan, by Tsuchida in Evans & Nanda Nuclear Proliferation and the Legality of Nuclear Weapons, UPA, (1995). Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Brussel, Morton K Sent: Monday, November 6, 2017 3:18 PM To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: David Green >; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; Estabrook, Carl G > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [globenet] U.S., South Korean, and Japanese Civil Society Organizations Call for Bold Shift in Policy to Avert War in Korea Would you care to give references for your first sentence, relative to japan having nuclear weapons already.? —mkb On Nov 6, 2017, at 2:30 PM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss > wrote: Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Monday, November 6, 2017 2:26 PM To: 'globenet at yahoogroups.com' > Subject: RE: [globenet] U.S., South Korean, and Japanese Civil Society Organizations Call for Bold Shift in Policy to Avert War in Korea Yeah, it is well known in the Japanese Peace Movement that Japan already has nuclear weapons. So why should DPRK disarm itself after the long history of aggression and occupation and genocide by Japan against Korea? The Warmongering Japanese Militarists under Abe still refuse to accept responsibility for the Korean Sex Slaves. And Japan is still threatening ROK over Dokdo. Besides, in its Advisory Opinion on the Legality of the Threat and Use of Nuclear Weapons, the International Court of Justice intimated that a State can use nuclear weapons when its very existence is at stake. Trump and Mad Dog Mattis have made that perfectly clear to DPRK. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: globenet at yahoogroups.com [mailto:globenet at yahoogroups.com] Sent: Monday, November 6, 2017 2:07 PM To: globenet at yahoogroups.com Subject: [globenet] U.S., South Korean, and Japanese Civil Society Organizations Call for Bold Shift in Policy to Avert War in Korea As Trump Visits Asia, Civil Society in the U.S., South Korea, and Japan Call for Bold Shift in Policy to Avert War in Korea FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Monday, November 6, 2017 Contact: Christine Ahn (310) 482-9333 Jackie Cabasso (510) 306-0119 HONOLULU -- Today, hundreds of national civil society organizations from Japan, South Korea and the United States issued a joint statement calling for a diplomatic resolution of the crisis of belligerent rhetoric between the United States and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea). Based in countries whose populations could greatly suffer in the event of war, they call on their respective governments to take bold action now to safeguard peace and build long-lasting trust in the region. “Washington is forcing a trilateral military alliance and provocative war drills on Tokyo and Seoul that threatens North Korea and the region,” said Christine Ahn, international coordinator of Women Cross DMZ. “The people of Japan, South Korea and United States oppose war. Our demands are an urgent pivot towards peace.” “In Japan, Prime Minister Abe utilizes the U.S.-North Korea crisis to promote public hysteria and fear and encourage right-wing groups that call for Japan’s militarization, including the acquisition of nuclear weapons for itself,” explains Yoshioka Tatsuya, Co-Founder and Director of Peace Boat, Japan’s largest peace organization. “But we really have to understand that the joint military exercises by the U.S., Japan, and South Korea increase the risk of war in this region. Japan has the experience of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. We have to work to abolish nuclear weapons, but it’s unreasonable to demand that North Korea be the only one to give up theirs. All of us, including the U.S. and Japan, must say no to them.” “The South Korean public is highly critical of Trump for making threats of war and dismissing the gravity of its consequences as something ‘over there,’” says Choi Eun-a of the Korean Alliance for Progressive Movements, which is among the 222 South Korean civil society organizations from the Candlelight Revolution that have called for nationwide protest timed with Trump’s visit to South Korea. “The war-threatening, weapons salesman Trump is not welcome here, especially as he demands that South Korea pay more to host U.S. troops and set aside land for useless weapons like the THAAD missile defense system.” “Peace-loving people in the United States, Japan, and South Korea reject the war-mongering policies of our governments and express our friendship and solidarity with the people of North Korea,” said Jackie Cabasso, Executive Director of the Western States Legal Foundation in California, and the National Co-Convener of United for Peace and Justice. “The U.S. government must end its policy of sanctions and military threats against North Korea, cease the deployment of more weapons of mass destruction to the Korean peninsula and the region, and halt large-scale military exercises that impede dialogue with North Korea.” "It's time for peace-makers, for diplomats, and particularly for the people of South Korea, Japan and the U.S. to demand a peaceful resolution from our governments,” noted Kevin Martin, President of Peace Action, the United States' largest grassroots peace and disarmament organization. “While not excusing its behavior, North Korea has legitimate security concerns that need to be addressed in order to move toward an enduring peace on the Korean Peninsula.” On 2 November 2017, American lawmakers announced new bipartisan, bicameral legislation to ensure that President Trump cannot attack North Korea without the consent of Congress. Under this legislation, Congress would be empowered to prohibit any expenditure of funds for such a strike. The No Unconstitutional Strike Against North Korea Act of 2017 prohibits funds available to the Department of Defense or to any other federal department or agency from being used to launch a military strike against North Korea without the prior approval of Congress. The bill reflects the wishes of citizens seen in recent polls, which show that more than two-thirds of Americans oppose military action in dealing with North Korea. Joint Statement U.S., South Korean, and Japanese Civil Society Organizations Call for a Bold Shift in Policy for Peace in Korea and Northeast Asia As U.S. President Trump travels to Asia, we civil society groups from the United States, South Korea, and Japan call for a diplomatic solution to the dangerous conflict between the United States and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea). As those who would be directly impacted by the outbreak of such a conflict, we call on our leaders to take bold steps to ensure lasting peace. Recent events have set the stage for a possible catastrophe on the Korean Peninsula and even throughout the greater Northeast Asian region. Any further escalation of tensions could rapidly degenerate into violence. In its 27 October 2017 report, the U.S. Congressional Research Service estimates that over 300,000 people would die in the opening days of a military conflict on the Korean Peninsula, even without nuclear weapons, and would ultimately claim 25 million lives. Even as President Trump calls his predecessor’s policy of “strategic patience” on North Korea a failure, he continues the same policy, i.e., intensifying U.N. and unilateral sanctions and military threats. Meanwhile, North Korea continues to escalate the pace and scale of its nuclear and missile tests. The Abe government, seizing on the crisis in Korea, has quickened the pace of remilitarization and revision of Article 9 of its constitution. South Korean President Moon Jae-in meanwhile, despite an unambiguous mandate from the South Korean people, who ousted his hawkish predecessor in hopes of a radical transition to harmonious North-South relations, instead continues to do the bidding of the United States as he assumes a hostile posture vis-à-vis North Korea. We therefore demand that: 1. The Trump administration boldly shift to a policy of peace by: • Ending its policy of sanctions and military threats against North Korea; • Ceasing the deployment of more weapons of mass destruction on the Korean peninsula and in the region, and withdrawing the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) missile defense system from South Korea as it only exacerbates tensions in the region; and • Halting large-scale military exercises that impede dialogue with North Korea 2. The administration of President Moon Jae-in of South Korea honor the spirit of past North-South joint declarations for peace and reconciliation by: • Assertively pursuing inter-Korean dialogue and cooperation; • Halting future large-scale U.S.-South Korea combined military exercises to minimize the risk of confrontation ahead of the 2018 Winter Olympics in Pyongchang, South Korea; and • No longer cooperating with investments in costly weapon systems with the United States and Japan, including spending on missile defense, which only exacerbates tensions in the region and diverts precious resources away from human needs. 3. The government of Japan's Prime Minister Shinzo Abe immediately cease all further moves toward military buildup and instead contribute to regional peace by: • Abolishing the controversial "Conspiracy Law" and "State Secrecy Law," as well as the 2015 "Peace and Security Legislation" or war bills which permit the use of the so-called right to collective self-defense; • Pursuing the normalization of relations between Japan and North Korea based upon the principles of the Pyongyang Declaration and the Stockholm Agreement; and • Ceasing moves to change Article 9, the peace clause in its constitution. These are among the hundreds of civil society organizations who have signed on: Japan[1] • Citizens Association against Constitutional Revision (許すな!憲法改悪・市民連絡会) • Femin Women's Democratic Club (ふぇみん婦人民主クラブ) • Japan-Korea People’s Solidarity Network (日韓民衆連帯全国ネットワーク) • Kyoto/Kinki Association against the U.S. X-band Radar Base (米軍Xバンドレーダー基地反対・京都/近畿連絡) • Network of Religious Persons Making Peace (平和を作る宗教者ネット) • Nipponzan-Myōhōji (日本山妙法寺) • Peace Boat (ピースボート) • Veterans for Peace Japan (ベテランズ・フォー・ピース・ジャパン) South Korea • Federation of Korean Trade Unions (한국노동조합총연맹) • Korean Alliance of Progressive Movements (한국진보연대) • Korean Confederation of Trade Unions (전국민주노동조합총연맹) • Korean Peasants League (전국농민회총연맹) • Korean Street Vendors Confederation (전국노점상연합) • Korean Women’s Alliance (전국여성연대) • Korean Women Peasants Alliance (전국여성농민회총연합) • Korean Youth Solidarity (한국청년연대) • National Alliance of Squatters and Evictees (전국철거민연합) United States • Campaign for Peace, Disarmament and Common Security • International Forum on Globalization • Peace Action • Task Force to Stop THAAD in Korea and Militarism in Asia and the Pacific • United for Peace and Justice • Veterans for Peace National • Western States Legal Foundation • Women Cross DMZ ### ________________________________ [1] This is a provisional translation __._,_.___ ________________________________ Posted by: "Jacqueline Cabasso" > ________________________________ Reply via web post • Reply to sender • Reply to group • Start a New Topic • Messages in this topic (1) ________________________________ [https://s.yimg.com/ru/static/images/yg/img/megaphone/1464031581_phpFA8bON] Have you tried the highest rated email app? With 4.5 stars in iTunes, the Yahoo Mail app is the highest rated email app on the market. What are you waiting for? Now you can access all your inboxes (Gmail, Outlook, AOL and more) in one place. Never delete an email again with 1000GB of free cloud storage. ________________________________ VISIT YOUR GROUP [Yahoo! Groups] • Privacy • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use . __,_._,___ _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Mon Nov 6 23:03:29 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2017 23:03:29 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [globenet] U.S., South Korean, and Japanese Civil Society Organizations Call for Bold Shift in Policy to Avert War in Korea References: <7ee9d23d-d61a-42b2-b3d9-afa63bc87795@getmailbird.com> Message-ID: It might have been under Eisenhower using his “Atoms for Peace” Program as the Cover Story—an oxymoron to be sure. fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Monday, November 6, 2017 4:46 PM To: Brussel, Morton K Cc: David Green ; C. G. ESTABROOK ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay ; David Johnson ; Mildred O'brien ; Estabrook, Carl G Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] [globenet] U.S., South Korean, and Japanese Civil Society Organizations Call for Bold Shift in Policy to Avert War in Korea Longer than that. I have not read the article in a while.But I think we gave them the Green Light around 1955 or so. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Brussel, Morton K Sent: Monday, November 6, 2017 4:44 PM To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: David Green >; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; Estabrook, Carl G > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [globenet] U.S., South Korean, and Japanese Civil Society Organizations Call for Bold Shift in Policy to Avert War in Korea Does this mean that Japan has been sitting on their nuclear weapons for 23 years? —mkb On Nov 6, 2017, at 4:37 PM, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: The Nuclear Arming of Japan, by Tsuchida in Evans & Nanda Nuclear Proliferation and the Legality of Nuclear Weapons, UPA, (1995). Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Brussel, Morton K Sent: Monday, November 6, 2017 3:18 PM To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: David Green >; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; Estabrook, Carl G > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [globenet] U.S., South Korean, and Japanese Civil Society Organizations Call for Bold Shift in Policy to Avert War in Korea Would you care to give references for your first sentence, relative to japan having nuclear weapons already.? —mkb On Nov 6, 2017, at 2:30 PM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss > wrote: Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Monday, November 6, 2017 2:26 PM To: 'globenet at yahoogroups.com' > Subject: RE: [globenet] U.S., South Korean, and Japanese Civil Society Organizations Call for Bold Shift in Policy to Avert War in Korea Yeah, it is well known in the Japanese Peace Movement that Japan already has nuclear weapons. So why should DPRK disarm itself after the long history of aggression and occupation and genocide by Japan against Korea? The Warmongering Japanese Militarists under Abe still refuse to accept responsibility for the Korean Sex Slaves. And Japan is still threatening ROK over Dokdo. Besides, in its Advisory Opinion on the Legality of the Threat and Use of Nuclear Weapons, the International Court of Justice intimated that a State can use nuclear weapons when its very existence is at stake. Trump and Mad Dog Mattis have made that perfectly clear to DPRK. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: globenet at yahoogroups.com [mailto:globenet at yahoogroups.com] Sent: Monday, November 6, 2017 2:07 PM To: globenet at yahoogroups.com Subject: [globenet] U.S., South Korean, and Japanese Civil Society Organizations Call for Bold Shift in Policy to Avert War in Korea As Trump Visits Asia, Civil Society in the U.S., South Korea, and Japan Call for Bold Shift in Policy to Avert War in Korea FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Monday, November 6, 2017 Contact: Christine Ahn (310) 482-9333 Jackie Cabasso (510) 306-0119 HONOLULU -- Today, hundreds of national civil society organizations from Japan, South Korea and the United States issued a joint statement calling for a diplomatic resolution of the crisis of belligerent rhetoric between the United States and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea). Based in countries whose populations could greatly suffer in the event of war, they call on their respective governments to take bold action now to safeguard peace and build long-lasting trust in the region. “Washington is forcing a trilateral military alliance and provocative war drills on Tokyo and Seoul that threatens North Korea and the region,” said Christine Ahn, international coordinator of Women Cross DMZ. “The people of Japan, South Korea and United States oppose war. Our demands are an urgent pivot towards peace.” “In Japan, Prime Minister Abe utilizes the U.S.-North Korea crisis to promote public hysteria and fear and encourage right-wing groups that call for Japan’s militarization, including the acquisition of nuclear weapons for itself,” explains Yoshioka Tatsuya, Co-Founder and Director of Peace Boat, Japan’s largest peace organization. “But we really have to understand that the joint military exercises by the U.S., Japan, and South Korea increase the risk of war in this region. Japan has the experience of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. We have to work to abolish nuclear weapons, but it’s unreasonable to demand that North Korea be the only one to give up theirs. All of us, including the U.S. and Japan, must say no to them.” “The South Korean public is highly critical of Trump for making threats of war and dismissing the gravity of its consequences as something ‘over there,’” says Choi Eun-a of the Korean Alliance for Progressive Movements, which is among the 222 South Korean civil society organizations from the Candlelight Revolution that have called for nationwide protest timed with Trump’s visit to South Korea. “The war-threatening, weapons salesman Trump is not welcome here, especially as he demands that South Korea pay more to host U.S. troops and set aside land for useless weapons like the THAAD missile defense system.” “Peace-loving people in the United States, Japan, and South Korea reject the war-mongering policies of our governments and express our friendship and solidarity with the people of North Korea,” said Jackie Cabasso, Executive Director of the Western States Legal Foundation in California, and the National Co-Convener of United for Peace and Justice. “The U.S. government must end its policy of sanctions and military threats against North Korea, cease the deployment of more weapons of mass destruction to the Korean peninsula and the region, and halt large-scale military exercises that impede dialogue with North Korea.” "It's time for peace-makers, for diplomats, and particularly for the people of South Korea, Japan and the U.S. to demand a peaceful resolution from our governments,” noted Kevin Martin, President of Peace Action, the United States' largest grassroots peace and disarmament organization. “While not excusing its behavior, North Korea has legitimate security concerns that need to be addressed in order to move toward an enduring peace on the Korean Peninsula.” On 2 November 2017, American lawmakers announced new bipartisan, bicameral legislation to ensure that President Trump cannot attack North Korea without the consent of Congress. Under this legislation, Congress would be empowered to prohibit any expenditure of funds for such a strike. The No Unconstitutional Strike Against North Korea Act of 2017 prohibits funds available to the Department of Defense or to any other federal department or agency from being used to launch a military strike against North Korea without the prior approval of Congress. The bill reflects the wishes of citizens seen in recent polls, which show that more than two-thirds of Americans oppose military action in dealing with North Korea. Joint Statement U.S., South Korean, and Japanese Civil Society Organizations Call for a Bold Shift in Policy for Peace in Korea and Northeast Asia As U.S. President Trump travels to Asia, we civil society groups from the United States, South Korea, and Japan call for a diplomatic solution to the dangerous conflict between the United States and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea). As those who would be directly impacted by the outbreak of such a conflict, we call on our leaders to take bold steps to ensure lasting peace. Recent events have set the stage for a possible catastrophe on the Korean Peninsula and even throughout the greater Northeast Asian region. Any further escalation of tensions could rapidly degenerate into violence. In its 27 October 2017 report, the U.S. Congressional Research Service estimates that over 300,000 people would die in the opening days of a military conflict on the Korean Peninsula, even without nuclear weapons, and would ultimately claim 25 million lives. Even as President Trump calls his predecessor’s policy of “strategic patience” on North Korea a failure, he continues the same policy, i.e., intensifying U.N. and unilateral sanctions and military threats. Meanwhile, North Korea continues to escalate the pace and scale of its nuclear and missile tests. The Abe government, seizing on the crisis in Korea, has quickened the pace of remilitarization and revision of Article 9 of its constitution. South Korean President Moon Jae-in meanwhile, despite an unambiguous mandate from the South Korean people, who ousted his hawkish predecessor in hopes of a radical transition to harmonious North-South relations, instead continues to do the bidding of the United States as he assumes a hostile posture vis-à-vis North Korea. We therefore demand that: 1. The Trump administration boldly shift to a policy of peace by: • Ending its policy of sanctions and military threats against North Korea; • Ceasing the deployment of more weapons of mass destruction on the Korean peninsula and in the region, and withdrawing the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) missile defense system from South Korea as it only exacerbates tensions in the region; and • Halting large-scale military exercises that impede dialogue with North Korea 2. The administration of President Moon Jae-in of South Korea honor the spirit of past North-South joint declarations for peace and reconciliation by: • Assertively pursuing inter-Korean dialogue and cooperation; • Halting future large-scale U.S.-South Korea combined military exercises to minimize the risk of confrontation ahead of the 2018 Winter Olympics in Pyongchang, South Korea; and • No longer cooperating with investments in costly weapon systems with the United States and Japan, including spending on missile defense, which only exacerbates tensions in the region and diverts precious resources away from human needs. 3. The government of Japan's Prime Minister Shinzo Abe immediately cease all further moves toward military buildup and instead contribute to regional peace by: • Abolishing the controversial "Conspiracy Law" and "State Secrecy Law," as well as the 2015 "Peace and Security Legislation" or war bills which permit the use of the so-called right to collective self-defense; • Pursuing the normalization of relations between Japan and North Korea based upon the principles of the Pyongyang Declaration and the Stockholm Agreement; and • Ceasing moves to change Article 9, the peace clause in its constitution. These are among the hundreds of civil society organizations who have signed on: Japan[1] • Citizens Association against Constitutional Revision (許すな!憲法改悪・市民連絡会) • Femin Women's Democratic Club (ふぇみん婦人民主クラブ) • Japan-Korea People’s Solidarity Network (日韓民衆連帯全国ネットワーク) • Kyoto/Kinki Association against the U.S. X-band Radar Base (米軍Xバンドレーダー基地反対・京都/近畿連絡) • Network of Religious Persons Making Peace (平和を作る宗教者ネット) • Nipponzan-Myōhōji (日本山妙法寺) • Peace Boat (ピースボート) • Veterans for Peace Japan (ベテランズ・フォー・ピース・ジャパン) South Korea • Federation of Korean Trade Unions (한국노동조합총연맹) • Korean Alliance of Progressive Movements (한국진보연대) • Korean Confederation of Trade Unions (전국민주노동조합총연맹) • Korean Peasants League (전국농민회총연맹) • Korean Street Vendors Confederation (전국노점상연합) • Korean Women’s Alliance (전국여성연대) • Korean Women Peasants Alliance (전국여성농민회총연합) • Korean Youth Solidarity (한국청년연대) • National Alliance of Squatters and Evictees (전국철거민연합) United States • Campaign for Peace, Disarmament and Common Security • International Forum on Globalization • Peace Action • Task Force to Stop THAAD in Korea and Militarism in Asia and the Pacific • United for Peace and Justice • Veterans for Peace National • Western States Legal Foundation • Women Cross DMZ ### ________________________________ [1] This is a provisional translation __._,_.___ ________________________________ Posted by: "Jacqueline Cabasso" > ________________________________ Reply via web post • Reply to sender • Reply to group • Start a New Topic • Messages in this topic (1) ________________________________ [https://s.yimg.com/ru/static/images/yg/img/megaphone/1464031581_phpFA8bON] Have you tried the highest rated email app? With 4.5 stars in iTunes, the Yahoo Mail app is the highest rated email app on the market. What are you waiting for? Now you can access all your inboxes (Gmail, Outlook, AOL and more) in one place. Never delete an email again with 1000GB of free cloud storage. ________________________________ VISIT YOUR GROUP [Yahoo! Groups] • Privacy • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use . __,_._,___ _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rwhelbig at gmail.com Tue Nov 7 00:39:37 2017 From: rwhelbig at gmail.com (Roger Helbig) Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2017 16:39:37 -0800 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [globenet] U.S., South Korean, and Japanese Civil Society Organizations Call for Bold Shift in Policy to Avert War in Korea In-Reply-To: References: <7ee9d23d-d61a-42b2-b3d9-afa63bc87795@getmailbird.com> Message-ID: Given that it is against their Constitution - it is highly unlikely - but certainly a lie worth spreading widely - if FAB says it is, it just absolutely must be - he's a lawyer, he always uses fact based evidence not innuendo or conjecture - by the way, all of you should watch the PBS program on the announcement of President Kennedy's death and how it was ground breaking for TV news - I wish I had a transcript - it talks about how Walter Cronkite made sure that President Kennedy had died before telling the nation on the air - *JFK: One PM Central Standard Time* (#1301H) Duration: 56:46 STEREO TVPG (Secondary audio: DVI) Fifty years after the tragic shooting of President John F. Kennedy, this episode chronicles minute-by-minute the assassination as it was revealed in the CBS newsroom from the moment the President was shot until Walter Cronkite's emotional pronouncement of his death, one hour and eight minutes later. The drama of "One P.M. Central Standard Time" -- the episode title is taken from the time President Kennedy was declared dead at Parkland Hospital -- is played out amidst the chaos in Dallas, in the hospital, and in the CBS newsroom in New York. Included in the program will be moving memories from men and women who were there on the day -- in Dallas and New York. - Visit the website for this episode On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 2:37 PM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss < peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > *The Nuclear Arming of Japan**, by Tsuchida in Evans & Nanda Nuclear > Proliferation and the Legality of Nuclear Weapons, UPA, (1995).* > > > > *Francis A. Boyle* > > *Law Building* > > *504 E. Pennsylvania Ave.* > > *Champaign, IL 61820 USA* > > *217-333-7954 <(217)%20333-7954> (phone)* > > *217-244-1478 <(217)%20244-1478> (fax)* > > *(personal comments only)* > > > > *From:* Brussel, Morton K > *Sent:* Monday, November 6, 2017 3:18 PM > *To:* Boyle, Francis A > *Cc:* David Green ; C. G. ESTABROOK < > carl at newsfromneptune.com>; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; > sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; > Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria < > joelauria at gmail.com>; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; > peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron ; > Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram ; > abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne < > lina at worldcantwait.net>; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay < > futureup2us at gmail.com>; David Johnson ; > Mildred O'brien ; Estabrook, Carl G < > galliher at illinois.edu> > *Subject:* Re: [Peace-discuss] [globenet] U.S., South Korean, and > Japanese Civil Society Organizations Call for Bold Shift in Policy to Avert > War in Korea > > > > Would you care to give references for your first sentence, relative to > japan having nuclear weapons already.? > > > > —mkb > > > > On Nov 6, 2017, at 2:30 PM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > *Francis A. Boyle* > > *Law Building* > > *504 E. Pennsylvania Ave.* > > *Champaign, IL 61820 USA* > > *217-333-7954 <(217)%20333-7954> (phone)* > > *217-244-1478 <(217)%20244-1478> (fax)* > > *(personal comments only)* > > > > *From:* Boyle, Francis A > *Sent:* Monday, November 6, 2017 2:26 PM > *To:* 'globenet at yahoogroups.com' > *Subject:* RE: [globenet] U.S., South Korean, and Japanese Civil Society > Organizations Call for Bold Shift in Policy to Avert War in Korea > > > > *Yeah, it is well known in the Japanese Peace Movement that Japan already > has nuclear weapons. So why should DPRK disarm itself after the long > history of aggression and occupation and genocide by Japan against Korea? > The Warmongering Japanese Militarists under Abe still refuse to accept > responsibility for the Korean Sex Slaves. And Japan is still threatening > ROK over Dokdo. Besides, in its Advisory Opinion on the Legality of the > Threat and Use of Nuclear Weapons, the International Court of Justice > intimated that a State can use nuclear weapons when its very existence is > at stake. Trump and Mad Dog Mattis have made that perfectly clear to DPRK. > Fab.* > > > > *Francis A. Boyle* > > *Law Building* > > *504 E. Pennsylvania Ave.* > > *Champaign, IL 61820 USA* > > *217-333-7954 <(217)%20333-7954> (phone)* > > *217-244-1478 <(217)%20244-1478> (fax)* > > *(personal comments only)* > > > > *From:* globenet at yahoogroups.com [mailto:globenet at yahoogroups.com > ] > *Sent:* Monday, November 6, 2017 2:07 PM > *To:* globenet at yahoogroups.com > *Subject:* [globenet] U.S., South Korean, and Japanese Civil Society > Organizations Call for Bold Shift in Policy to Avert War in Korea > > > > > > *As Trump Visits Asia, Civil Society in the U.S., South Korea, and Japan* > > *Call for Bold Shift in Policy to Avert War in Korea* > > *FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Monday, November 6, 2017* > > Contact: Christine Ahn (310) 482-9333 > > Jackie Cabasso (510) 306-0119 > > HONOLULU -- Today, hundreds of national civil society organizations from > Japan, South Korea and the United States issued a joint statement calling > for a diplomatic resolution of the crisis of belligerent rhetoric between > the United States and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North > Korea). Based in countries whose populations could greatly suffer in the > event of war, they call on their respective governments to take bold action > now to safeguard peace and build long-lasting trust in the region. > > “Washington is forcing a trilateral military alliance and provocative war > drills on Tokyo and Seoul that threatens North Korea and the region,” said > Christine Ahn, international coordinator of Women Cross DMZ. “The people of > Japan, South Korea and United States oppose war. Our demands are an urgent > pivot towards peace.” > > “In Japan, Prime Minister Abe utilizes the U.S.-North Korea crisis to > promote public hysteria and fear and encourage right-wing groups that call > for Japan’s militarization, including the acquisition of nuclear weapons > for itself,” explains Yoshioka Tatsuya, Co-Founder and Director of Peace > Boat, Japan’s largest peace organization. “But we really have to understand > that the joint military exercises by the U.S., Japan, and South Korea > increase the risk of war in this region. Japan has the experience of > Hiroshima and Nagasaki. We have to work to abolish nuclear weapons, but > it’s unreasonable to demand that North Korea be the only one to give up > theirs. All of us, including the U.S. and Japan, must say no to them.” > > “The South Korean public is highly critical of Trump for making threats of > war and dismissing the gravity of its consequences as something ‘over > there,’” says Choi Eun-a of the Korean Alliance for Progressive Movements, > which is among the 222 South Korean civil society organizations from the > Candlelight Revolution that have called for nationwide protest timed with > Trump’s visit to South Korea. “The war-threatening, weapons salesman Trump > is not welcome here, especially as he demands that South Korea pay more to > host U.S. troops and set aside land for useless weapons like the THAAD > missile defense system.” > > “Peace-loving people in the United States, Japan, and South Korea reject > the war-mongering policies of our governments and express our friendship > and solidarity with the people of North Korea,” said Jackie Cabasso, > Executive Director of the Western States Legal Foundation in California, > and the National Co-Convener of United for Peace and Justice. “The U.S. > government must end its policy of sanctions and military threats against > North Korea, cease the deployment of more weapons of mass destruction to > the Korean peninsula and the region, and halt large-scale military > exercises that impede dialogue with North Korea.” > > "It's time for peace-makers, for diplomats, and particularly for the > people of South Korea, Japan and the U.S. to demand a peaceful resolution > from our governments,” noted Kevin Martin, President of Peace Action, the > United States' largest grassroots peace and disarmament organization. > “While not excusing its behavior, North Korea has legitimate security > concerns that need to be addressed in order to move toward an enduring > peace on the Korean Peninsula.” > > On 2 November 2017, American lawmakers announced new bipartisan, bicameral > legislation to ensure that President Trump cannot attack North Korea > without the consent of Congress. Under this legislation, Congress would be > empowered to prohibit any expenditure of funds for such a strike. The *No > Unconstitutional Strike Against North Korea Act of 2017* > prohibits > funds available to the Department of Defense or to any other federal > department or agency from being used to launch a military strike against > North Korea without the prior approval of Congress. The bill reflects the > wishes of citizens seen in recent polls, which show that more than > two-thirds of Americans oppose military action in dealing with North Korea. > > *Joint Statement* > > *U.S., South Korean, and Japanese Civil Society Organizations Call for a* > > *Bold Shift in Policy for Peace in Korea and Northeast Asia* > > As U.S. President Trump travels to Asia, we civil society groups from the > United States, South Korea, and Japan call for a diplomatic solution to the > dangerous conflict between the United States and the Democratic People’s > Republic of Korea (North Korea). As those who would be directly impacted by > the outbreak of such a conflict, we call on our leaders to take bold steps > to ensure lasting peace. > > Recent events have set the stage for a possible catastrophe on the Korean > Peninsula and even throughout the greater Northeast Asian region. Any > further escalation of tensions could rapidly degenerate into violence. In > its 27 October 2017 report, the U.S. Congressional Research Service > estimates that over 300,000 people would die in the opening days of a > military conflict on the Korean Peninsula, even without nuclear weapons, > and would ultimately claim 25 million lives. > > Even as President Trump calls his predecessor’s policy of “strategic > patience” on North Korea a failure, he continues the same policy, i.e., > intensifying U.N. and unilateral sanctions and military threats. Meanwhile, > North Korea continues to escalate the pace and scale of its nuclear and > missile tests. The Abe government, seizing on the crisis in Korea, has > quickened the pace of remilitarization and revision of Article 9 of its > constitution. South Korean President Moon Jae-in meanwhile, despite an > unambiguous mandate from the South Korean people, who ousted his hawkish > predecessor in hopes of a radical transition to harmonious North-South > relations, instead continues to do the bidding of the United States as he > assumes a hostile posture vis-à-vis North Korea. We therefore demand that: > > *1. The Trump administration boldly shift to a policy of peace by:* > > · Ending its policy of sanctions and military threats against North > Korea; > > · Ceasing the deployment of more weapons of mass destruction on the > Korean peninsula and in the region, and withdrawing the Terminal High > Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) missile defense system from South Korea as it > only exacerbates tensions in the region; and > > · Halting large-scale military exercises that impede dialogue with > North Korea > > *2. The administration of President Moon Jae-in of South Korea* *honor > the spirit of past North-South joint declarations for peace and > reconciliation by:* > > · Assertively pursuing inter-Korean dialogue and cooperation; > > · Halting future large-scale U.S.-South Korea combined military > exercises to minimize the risk of confrontation ahead of the 2018 Winter > Olympics in Pyongchang, South Korea; and > > · No longer cooperating with investments in costly weapon systems > with the United States and Japan, including spending on missile defense, > which only exacerbates tensions in the region and diverts precious > resources away from human needs. > > *3. *The government of Japan's Prime Minister Shinzo Abe *immediately > cease all further moves toward military buildup and instead contribute to > regional peace by:* > > · Abolishing the controversial "Conspiracy Law" and "State Secrecy > Law," as well as the 2015 "Peace and Security Legislation" or war bills > which permit the use of the so-called right to collective self-defense; > > · Pursuing the normalization of relations between Japan and North > Korea based upon the principles of the Pyongyang Declaration and the > Stockholm Agreement; and > > · Ceasing moves to change Article 9, the peace clause in its > constitution. > > *These are among the hundreds of civil society organizations who have > signed on:* > > *Japan**[1]* > > · Citizens Association against Constitutional Revision ( > 許すな!憲法改悪・市民連絡会) > > · Femin Women's Democratic Club (ふぇみん婦人民主クラブ) > > · Japan-Korea People’s Solidarity Network (日韓民衆連帯全国ネットワーク) > > · Kyoto/Kinki Association against the U.S. X-band Radar Base (米軍X > バンドレーダー基地反対・京都/近畿連絡) > > · Network of Religious Persons Making Peace (平和を作る宗教者ネット) > > · Nipponzan-Myōhōji (日本山妙法寺) > > · Peace Boat (ピースボート) > > · Veterans for Peace Japan (ベテランズ・フォー・ピース・ジャパン) > > *South Korea* > > • Federation of Korean Trade Unions (한국노동조합총연맹) > > • Korean Alliance of Progressive Movements (한국진보연대) > > • Korean Confederation of Trade Unions (전국민주노동조합총연맹) > > • Korean Peasants League (전국농민회총연맹) > > • Korean Street Vendors Confederation (전국노점상연합) > > • Korean Women’s Alliance (전국여성연대) > > • Korean Women Peasants Alliance (전국여성농민회총연합) > > • Korean Youth Solidarity (한국청년연대) > > • National Alliance of Squatters and Evictees (전국철거민연합) > > *United States* > > • Campaign for Peace, Disarmament and Common Security > > • International Forum on Globalization > > • Peace Action > > • Task Force to Stop THAAD in Korea and Militarism in Asia and the > Pacific > > • United for Peace and Justice > > • Veterans for Peace National > > • Western States Legal Foundation > > • Women Cross DMZ > > ### > > > ------------------------------ > > [1] This is a provisional translation > > > > > > __._,_.___ > ------------------------------ > > Posted by: "Jacqueline Cabasso" > ------------------------------ > > *Reply via web post > * > > • > > Reply to sender > > > • > > Reply to group > > > • > > Start a New Topic > > > • > > Messages in this topic > > (1) > ------------------------------ > > Have you tried the highest rated email app? > > > With 4.5 stars in iTunes, the Yahoo Mail app is the highest rated email > app on the market. What are you waiting for? Now you can access all your > inboxes (Gmail, Outlook, AOL and more) in one place. Never delete an email > again with 1000GB of free cloud storage. > ------------------------------ > > *VISIT YOUR GROUP > * > > [image: Yahoo! Groups] > > > • Privacy > > • Unsubscribe > • Terms of Use > > > > > . > > > __,_._,___ > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > > > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brussel at illinois.edu Tue Nov 7 01:55:51 2017 From: brussel at illinois.edu (Brussel, Morton K) Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2017 01:55:51 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: MOX for Bombs in Japan In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I think this is wrong. MOX fuel is mainly used for fuel in nuclear power reactors, not to make bombs. Japan had/has many nuclear reactors. A fairly intelligible discussion is found in wikipedia, under "MOX nuclear”. —mkb On Nov 6, 2017, at 4:40 PM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss > wrote: This was a very lengthy interview I gave in Japan courtesy of their peace and anti-nuclear movement. It was heavily censored. My basic point was that Japan was using MOX to make bombs and that my best estimate was that Japan probably had as many bombs as PRC, which would be in the area of 500. So when the details of the disaster at Fukushima came out, it was clear to me it was one of their leading bomb complexes. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: globenet at yahoogroups.com [mailto:globenet at yahoogroups.com] Sent: Saturday, March 21, 2015 8:10 AM To: globenet at yahoogroups.com Cc: 'Hiroshi Taka'; 'Gensuikyo'; 'Akira Kawasaki'; oheyeran at yahoogroups.com; asia-pacific_demil_mdg-request at lists.riseup.net; 'Coleen Rowley'; 'Douglas Roche' Subject: [globenet] MOX for Bombs in Japan Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (Voice) 217-244-1478 (Fax) (personal comments only) __._,_.___ ________________________________ Posted by: "Boyle, Francis A" > ________________________________ Reply via web post • Reply to sender • Reply to group • Start a New Topic • Messages in this topic (1) VISIT YOUR GROUP [Yahoo! Groups] • Privacy • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use . __,_._,___ _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brussel at illinois.edu Tue Nov 7 01:55:51 2017 From: brussel at illinois.edu (Brussel, Morton K) Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2017 01:55:51 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: MOX for Bombs in Japan In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I think this is wrong. MOX fuel is mainly used for fuel in nuclear power reactors, not to make bombs. Japan had/has many nuclear reactors. A fairly intelligible discussion is found in wikipedia, under "MOX nuclear”. —mkb On Nov 6, 2017, at 4:40 PM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss > wrote: This was a very lengthy interview I gave in Japan courtesy of their peace and anti-nuclear movement. It was heavily censored. My basic point was that Japan was using MOX to make bombs and that my best estimate was that Japan probably had as many bombs as PRC, which would be in the area of 500. So when the details of the disaster at Fukushima came out, it was clear to me it was one of their leading bomb complexes. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: globenet at yahoogroups.com [mailto:globenet at yahoogroups.com] Sent: Saturday, March 21, 2015 8:10 AM To: globenet at yahoogroups.com Cc: 'Hiroshi Taka'; 'Gensuikyo'; 'Akira Kawasaki'; oheyeran at yahoogroups.com; asia-pacific_demil_mdg-request at lists.riseup.net; 'Coleen Rowley'; 'Douglas Roche' Subject: [globenet] MOX for Bombs in Japan Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (Voice) 217-244-1478 (Fax) (personal comments only) __._,_.___ ________________________________ Posted by: "Boyle, Francis A" > ________________________________ Reply via web post • Reply to sender • Reply to group • Start a New Topic • Messages in this topic (1) VISIT YOUR GROUP [Yahoo! Groups] • Privacy • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use . __,_._,___ _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Tue Nov 7 02:38:54 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2017 02:38:54 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: MOX for Bombs in Japan In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Well I have been qualified as an Expert on MOX in United States Federal District Court. And I prohibit my law students from citing Wikipedia to me in any paper and advise them to never cite or quote Wikipedia to a Judge because Wikipedia is filled with so much pure, unadulterated BULL-TWADDLE. Fab. Subject: Nuclear Proliferation/NPT/US Atomic Energy Law/MOX, etc. 1 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 3 SOUTHERN DIVISION 4 5 ALICE HIRT; ANABEL DWYER; CITIZENS FOR ALTERNATIVES 6 TO CHEMICAL CONTAMINATION; KATHRYN CUMBOW; ROBERT 7 ANDERSON; DORIS SCHALLER VERNON; and TERRY MILLER, 8 Plaintiffs, 9 v. CASE NO: 1:99-CV-933 10 BILL RICHARDSON, Secretary, 11 United States Department of Energy; UNITED STATES 12 OF AMERICA; and UNKNOWN PART(Y)(IES), named as 13 "John and Jane Doe" on complaint, 14 Defendants. 15 ____________________________/ 16 * * * * 17 18 TESTIMONY OF GORDON EDWARDS and FRANCIS BOYLE 19 * * * * 20 21 BEFORE: THE HONORABLE RICHARD ALAN ENSLEN United States District Judge 22 Kalamazoo, Michigan April 7, 2000 23 24 25 KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 2 1 APPEARANCES: 2 APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFFS: 3 MR. KARY LOVE 4 977 Butternut Drive PMB 128 5 Holland, Michigan 49424 6 MR. TERRY J. LODGE 316 North Michigan Street, Suite 520 7 Toledo, Ohio 43624-1627 8 APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANTS: 9 MR. ROBERT I. DODGE 10 MR. CHARLES GROSS U.S. Attorney's Office 11 330 Ionia Avenue, N.W., Suite 501 P.O. Box 208 12 Grand Rapids, Michigan 49501-208 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 3 1 INDEX 2 WITNESS: Page 3 GORDON EDWARDS Direct Examination by Mr. Lodge 4 4 Cross Examination by Mr. Dodge 17 Redirect Examination by Mr. Lodge 20 5 6 FRANCIS BOYLE 7 Direct Examination by Mr. Love 21 Cross Examination by Mr. Dodge 67 8 Redirect Examination by Mr. Love 82 9 10 EXHIBITS Rec'd. 11 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 1 87 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 2 87 12 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 3 31 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 5 87 13 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 6 87 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 11 87 14 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 12 87 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 13 87 15 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 14 87 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 4 1 Kalamazoo, Michigan 2 April 7, 2000 3 at approximately 8:50 A.M. 4 EXCERPT OF PROCEEDINGS 5 TESTIMONY OF GORDON EDWARDS 6 MR. LODGE: We waive opening. 7 THE COURT: Okay. Good for you. 8 MR. LODGE: And we would call Gordon Edwards. 9 GORDON EDWARDS - PLAINTIFFS' WITNESS - SWORN. 10 COURT CLERK: Please state and spell your name 11 for the record. 12 THE WITNESS: My name is Gordon Edwards, 13 G-o-r-d-o-n E-d-w-a-r-d-s. 14 DIRECT EXAMINATION 15 BY MR. LODGE: 16 Q. Dr. Edwards, you previously testified in this proceeding 17 in an earlier motion hearing in December, 1999, correct? 18 A. That is correct. 19 Q. And what, just summarize for the Court, to refresh the 20 Court's recollection, what is your occupation or 21 profession? 22 A. I'm a professor of mathematics at Vanier College in 23 Montreal, and I'm also a consultant on nuclear issues for 24 both governmental and nongovernmental agencies. 25 Q. Are you affiliated with any nongovernmental entity in KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 5 1 Canada regarding the purpose of which is to discuss 2 nuclear issues? 3 A. Yes, I'm the president of the Canadian Coalition for 4 Nuclear Responsibility, which is a federally incorporated 5 organization, since 1978. 6 Q. And how long and in what capacities have you served as a 7 consultant on nuclear issues? 8 A. I've served as a consultant since 1977 for a variety of 9 bodies, including Royal Commissions of Inquiry where I 10 have been retained to cross-examine expert witnesses, also 11 the auditor general of Canada when they were doing a 12 comprehensive audit of the Atomic Energy Control Board, 13 and most recently I was invited for January 2000 by the 14 Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs and International 15 Trade to participate in a small expert workshop on nuclear 16 weapons policies in Ottawa. 17 Q. And Dr. Edwards, have you had the occasion to read the 18 environmental assessment promulgated by the Fissile 19 Materials Office of the U.S. Department of Energy for the 20 Parallex Project? 21 A. Yes, I have, and have commented on that as well. 22 Q. We are here today on a proposed shipment of MOX plutonium 23 from Russia to Chalk River, Ontario, you understand that? 24 A. That is correct. 25 Q. What is your understanding as to the amount of the KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 6 1 plutonium content of the MOX fuel rods, pins that would be 2 brought from Russia? 3 A. The MOX fuel contains 135 grams of weapons grade plutonium 4 as compared with the 119 grams that were in the American 5 shipment that proceeded in January. 6 Q. Now, Dr. Edwards, you indicated that the Canadian 7 Coalition was incorporated in approximately 1978? 8 A. That's right. 9 Q. Have you been active in nuclear issues since that time? 10 A. Even before that time, yes. I have been active 11 specifically on proliferation questions and 12 plutonium-related questions since 1975. 13 MR. LODGE: If I may approach. 14 THE COURT: Of course. 15 BY MR. LODGE: 16 Q. Showing you what has been marked for purposes of the 17 supplemental motion hearing as Plaintiff's Exhibit 1, I'm 18 going to also leave Exhibit 2 up here. 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. Have you ever conducted any investigation into the issue 21 of civilian population or work exposures to plutonium? 22 A. Only at the level of potential for damage, potential for 23 harm. 24 Q. What is Exhibit 1? 25 A. Exhibit 1 is a letter from Mary Measures, Ph.D., Director KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 7 1 of the Radiation Environmental Protection Division of the 2 Atomic Energy Control Board of Canada dealing with 3 quantity of plutonium that an atomic radiation worker or a 4 member of the public may inhale to reach their respective 5 maximum limits. 6 Q. And the date of that is September 30, 1999? 7 A. That is correct, about six months ago. 8 Q. And could you summarize what the inhalation, or what the 9 limits are for both workers and for public? 10 A. Yes. The maximum lifetime limit of exposure in the lung 11 for an atomic worker is approximately 1.4 micrograms, and 12 for the member of the public it's 0.1 microgram, and a 13 microgram being one one-millionth of a gram, so if we 14 translate this into grams, it would mean 1.4 grams would 15 be equivalent-- would be enough to give maximum 16 permissible doses to one million workers and ten -- one 17 gram would be enough to give maximum permissible doses to 18 ten million members of the general public. That's just 19 potential. 20 Q. Okay. And is that based on the -- or, I'm sorry. Have 21 you had occasion in connection with the proposed Russian 22 shipment of a 135 grams of plutonium and the American 23 shipment of 119 grams, to perform any computations as to 24 what the potential dispersion or exposure is? 25 A. Well, I would like to emphasize this is just arithmetic KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 8 1 and does not take into account dispersion factors such as 2 wind velocity, any respiration rates, and so on. If we 3 just look at the theoretical potential, then with 119 4 grams, we are talking about the potential for 85 million 5 atomic workers to receive their maximum permissible 6 exposure, if that were able to be disseminated into all of 7 their lungs and 1,000,190,000 members of the general 8 public, so even though this is a very small amount of 9 plutonium, the potential for exposure, harmful exposure is 10 quite significant. 11 Q. All right. But so that implies you would have to have an 12 optimal dispersal? 13 A. This would be an impossibly optimal dispersal. This would 14 be assuming that the plutonium were distributed fully into 15 the lungs of all the people that I've mentioned. 16 Q. Are you aware of whether or not the American shipment was 17 delivered to Chalk River? 18 A. Yes, the American shipment was delivered to Chalk River. 19 It was taken to the border in what I believe was an SST, a 20 truck which was described as silver, and I believe it was 21 probably an SST, although I do not know for absolute 22 certainty about that, and then it was transported to the 23 Sault Ste. Marie airport where it was lifted by helicopter 24 accompanied by two other helicopters, and transported from 25 there to Chalk River. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 9 1 Q. You indicated that you were talking about an impossibly 2 optimal dispersal. Have you had the occasion to perform 3 any computations as to a very conservative prudent factor 4 to start with for dispersal? 5 A. Well, this is beyond my competence to really talk about 6 the details of how it might be dispersed, but if we just 7 assume for example 99.9 percent containment in the event 8 of a serious accident. 9 Q. Are you saying how much? 10 A. Suppose 99.9 percent of the material were successfully 11 contained and not disseminated in the environment and only 12 that small fraction was disseminated. 13 Q. Okay. 14 A. The potential again would correspond to, for atomic 15 workers in the case of the 119 gram shipment from the 16 States, it would be 85,000 maximum exposures and in the 17 case of the public, it would still over a million. Even 18 with 99.9 containment, in the event of an accident, you 19 still have the potential for over a million 20 overexposures. By the way, the 135 grams, the difference 21 between the 119 grams and the 135 grams from Russia 22 corresponds to potentially again 160,000 additional 23 maximum exposures for members of the public. 24 Q. How many for workers? 25 A. 11,428. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 10 1 Q. That's just -- 2 A. That's just the differential between the two shipments, 3 just the added, going from 119 to 135 adds the potential 4 for another 11,000 worker overexposures or 160,000 public 5 overexposures. This, I believe, is why authorities take 6 such great care to emphasize the packaging in transport. 7 They realize that the potential is great for damage. 8 Q. Do your computations reflect an assumption respecting 9 whether or not the dispersion occurs as a result of an 10 accident or an attack? 11 A. No, we are talking about theoretical potential which is 12 the same regardless of how much or whether the material is 13 dispersed. In an accident, for example, we have 14 previously seen accidents that were analyzed for ground 15 transportation. I have not seen any computations or 16 analysis of accidents for air transport either from the 17 American side or from the Canadian side. 18 Q. Are you talking with respect to Parallex? 19 A. I'm talking with respect to Parallex. 20 If you had, for example, a violent crash and 21 fire of an aircraft, including a helicopter, then the 22 dispersal would cause a plume downwind, could cause a 23 plume downwind, and how much of that plutonium would 24 escape would be subject to analysis which is not, to my 25 knowledge, been performed. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 11 1 Q. Dr. Edwards, do you consider the plutonium in MOX fuel 2 form to be a weapons component? 3 A. Well, in the case of the Parallex project, as you know, 4 this 119 grams or 135 grams, there is not enough there to 5 make an atomic bomb. However, it has long been known that 6 you can make a very damaging radiological explosive device 7 which would simply disperse the plutonium in breathable 8 form. That means that if the plutonium were acquired by a 9 criminal organization or terrorist group they could make 10 an incendiary device which would make this available to be 11 breathed by members of the public and also cause very 12 long-lasting contamination of the environs where this 13 exposure would take place. I believe that it would be 14 incorrect to say that these, even this small Parallex 15 shipment, would not be attractive to terrorists or to 16 criminal organizations as a top -- as a target for theft 17 or diversion. It is true, of course, that this is weapons 18 grade material and had one, if one had sufficient weapons 19 grade material, one indeed can make a very powerful atomic 20 bomb from that. 21 Q. Have you seen any literature or other information in or 22 out of the record of this case that discusses the weapons 23 potential for plutonium? 24 A. Well, yes, it's certainly common knowledge that the -- in 25 fact, the U.S. Department of Energy acknowledges as much KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 12 1 when they refer to the Russian plutonium, the Russian 2 weapons grade plutonium is continuing a clear and present 3 danger. It's long been known and recognized that 4 plutonium is the key ingredient of atomic weapons, so if 5 one talks about components of atomic weapons, the 6 plutonium is the essential component. Once you have the 7 plutonium, then you can acquire the other materials on the 8 open market that are necessary to build a bomb. 9 Q. How do you know that? 10 A. Well, it's been well known for a long time. For instance, 11 there was a study done, published in the Harvard Civil 12 Rights and Civil Liberties Law Review -- I could make that 13 available to the Court, if you would like -- in 1975 as 14 long ago as then, which says, "Since all the material 15 other than plutonium needed to build a bomb is available 16 from commercial hardware and chemical suppliers, the 17 present obstacle to the private construction of nuclear 18 weapons is the unavailability of plutonium." 19 But if we just turn to the study that was 20 commissioned and already on file, I believe, here at the 21 Court, a study that was commissioned by the Office of 22 Fissile Materials Management called the Red Team Report, 23 the Red Team Proliferation Vulnerability Report. 24 In their conclusions on Page 6-1, they have a 25 heading called Keeping Plutonium Inaccessible is the Key KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 13 1 to Proliferation Resistance. So what is basically being 2 said here is plutonium is not just a component but the key 3 component of atomic bombs particularly in the context of 4 illicit groups. 5 Q. Dr. Edwards, could you explain for us Canada's role in the 6 reprocessing of plutonium? 7 A. Well, Canada's role in plutonium goes back to the World 8 War II Atomic Bomb Project. We had a secret laboratory in 9 Montreal which was manned by British, French and Canadian 10 scientists dedicated to developing methods for producing 11 and separating plutonium for weapons purposes as well as 12 civilian purposes, because even then it was anticipated 13 plutonium would have some civilian value. At the end of 14 the war -- incidentally, the first reactor in Canada was 15 built according to a military decision taken in 16 Washington, D.C. in 1944, to demonstrate this potential. 17 The reactor called the NRX reactor was built at 18 Chalk River and a plutonium reprocessing plant was built 19 as well. Plutonium was separated and Britain received its 20 first sample of weapons grade plutonium from Canada from 21 Chalk River just months before their first atomic test. 22 There was also an illicit transfer of plutonium 23 from Chalk River to Russia, which was so the first samples 24 of plutonium that both Britain and Russia received were 25 from Chalk River. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 14 1 Since that time, Canada, of course, has taken a 2 policy decision not to pursue a nuclear weapons option 3 itself, but they have, however, looked favorably on the 4 idea of reprocessing plutonium for civilian purposes. 5 They do not have a policy which is against the 6 reprocessing of plutonium in principle and nor do they 7 discourage their clients, their customers overseas from 8 reprocessing plutonium. And in fact, in Canada, there is 9 an open door policy towards reprocessing as a future 10 option. 11 We just concluded recently a ten-year 12 environmental assessment of the problem of high-level 13 radioactive waste disposal, and in all of the documents it 14 begins by saying, in the very first paragraphs, that by 15 nuclear waste disposal, we mean either spent fuel or 16 post-reprocessing waste. So this is very much a 17 theoretical opening and a policy opening for Canada to use 18 plutonium as a fuel. 19 Q. Showing you what has been marked as Supplemental Motion 20 Exhibit 2, can you identify that for the Court, please? 21 A. Yes. This appears to be an exchange from the British 22 Parliament, questions and answers having to do with 23 nuclear fuel, and the Secretary of State for Trade and 24 Industry is being asked about quantities of spent fuel 25 from Canada that have been contracted for reprocessing at KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 15 1 Cello Field in England. 2 Q. And can you summarize your understanding of what the 3 response by the British Government was? 4 A. Yes. The response here is that a certain amount of 5 plutonium, a certain amount of spent fuel from Canada has 6 been reprocessed beginning in 1970, and that the plutonium 7 has been returned to Canada. I have personal knowledge of 8 the fact that at Chalk River they have maintained a pilot 9 plutonium fuel fabrication line since the 1970s, since 10 1970 and before, and that they have processed at Chalk 11 River approximately three tons, more than three tons of 12 MOX fuel from recycled civilian plutonium. This is part 13 of that, the plutonium that is here being referred to as 14 being recycled or reprocessed in Britain, that's part of 15 the total amount of plutonium that Canada has acquired for 16 the purposes of MOX fabrication. 17 I mentioned that Canada also does not discourage 18 client customers from reprocessing. This is in 19 distinction to the American policy. The American policy, 20 since the Carter administration, successive 21 administrations have maintained the policy of not only not 22 allowing reprocessing in the United States, but also 23 discouraging reprocessing in other countries insofar as 24 that is possible. Canada does not share this policy 25 completely. We do not reprocess in Canada but, on the KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 16 1 other hand, we don't hesitate, it seems, to send our spent 2 fuel to other countries to get reprocessed so that we can 3 develop expertise in plutonium recycling. 4 Q. Does Canada have any relationship with the nation of Japan 5 respecting nuclear material? 6 A. Yes. Canada, as is probably known to the Court, is the 7 world's largest exporter of uranium. We are one of the 8 world's largest producers of uranium and the world's 9 largest exporter of uranium. We have bilateral agreements 10 with our customers as to the use of that uranium. Of 11 course, we have requirements that that uranium not be used 12 for military purposes. If a client customer such as Japan 13 who buys a good deal -- Japan purchases a good deal of 14 uranium from Canada. If a client customer wishes to 15 reprocess their spent fuel to recover plutonium, they do 16 have to get prior permission from the Government of 17 Canada, so when plutonium is reprocessed for the Japanese, 18 in the case where uranium from Canada is involved, the 19 Canadian Government gives their permission for that. 20 Q. Even if it is offshore from Canada? 21 A. Yes. 22 MR. LODGE: Thank you. I have nothing further. 23 THE WITNESS: Thank you. 24 Sorry. 25 MR. LODGE: Yes? KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 17 1 THE WITNESS: Excuse me. 2 MR. DODGE: Not quite finished, Dr. Edwards. 3 THE WITNESS: You knew the time was short. I 4 was jumping the gun a little. 5 CROSS EXAMINATION 6 BY MR. DODGE: 7 Q. Good morning, Mr. Edwards. My name is Bob Dodge. We have 8 met once before back in December. 9 A. That's right. 10 Q. Just a few questions. You testified about the quantity of 11 plutonium that would be included in the Russian shipment. 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. Do you recall that? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. You testified that it was 135 grams? 16 A. That's what was announced, yes. 17 Q. And how many ounces is that? 18 A. How many ounces is that? 19 Q. Yes. 20 A. I don't think in terms of ounces. I have to do the 21 conversion. 22 Q. Can you do the conversion? 23 A. I don't have the -- 24 Q. If I told you that one ounce is 28 grams, does that sound 25 about right? KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 18 1 A. I have no reason to doubt it. We are on the metric system 2 in Canada, we don't use ounces anymore. 3 Q. I understand. If I estimated 135 grams was approximately 4 five ounces, would you quarrel with that? 5 A. I would have no reason to quarrel with that. 6 Q. Now, you also testified about the amount of plutonium that 7 would have to be inhaled in order to exceed the maximum 8 permissible dose under Canadian regulations? 9 A. That is correct. 10 Q. And in your testimony, as I understood it, the assumption 11 you were making was that every single molecule of 12 plutonium that was in that sample would end up in 13 somebody's lungs; is that right? 14 A. That's right. It's calculating the theoretical 15 potential. It is not talking about a realistic scenario. 16 Q. Not only would all of the plutonium have to end up in 17 someone's lungs, but the plutonium would have to be evenly 18 divided so that each person got exactly the same amount of 19 plutonium, it's not all concentrated in one person, you 20 would have to take one-millionths of the sample, put it in 21 one person's lungs and put the next one-millionth in the 22 next person's lungs and so on? 23 A. That is correct. 24 Q. Do you have any idea, if you performed the same analysis 25 on this table, what sort of toxicity numbers you would KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 19 1 get? 2 A. I have no idea of what that would be, no. 3 Q. Now you also talked about Canada's policies regarding 4 plutonium reprocessing. 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. Do you recall that? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. Do you have any understanding of whether the plutonium in 9 the Parallex MOX samples will or will not be reprocessed 10 in Canada? 11 A. It will-- to the best of my knowledge, it will not be 12 reprocessed in Canada, although that option apparently is 13 not decided. 14 Q. What is the basis for that last? 15 A. Because Canada has a policy that at sometime in the future 16 they may reprocess. 17 Q. Do you have any understanding whether there is an 18 understanding between the Government of Canada and the 19 Government of United States or the Government of Russia as 20 to whether these particular samples will or will not be 21 reprocessed? 22 A. I do not, no. 23 MR. DODGE: Thank you very much. 24 25 REDIRECT EXAMINATION KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 20 1 BY MR. LODGE: 2 Q. Dr. Edwards, the House of Commons question and answer, do 3 you know of any particular statistics on Canada's shipping 4 of spent fuel to British nuclear fields and fuels at Cello 5 Field? 6 A. I don't have those figures with me, I'm sorry. I could 7 supply them to the Court, if desired. I do have some 8 figures at my office at home, I don't have them here. But 9 we are talking -- if we are talking about three tons of 10 MOX being fabricated at Chalk River, then one could work 11 out approximately how much of that would contain 12 plutonium, how much plutonium would be contained assuming, 13 for example, three percent. 14 Q. Right. 15 A. And then one could reasonably suppose that the lion's 16 share of that would come from Cello Field. Now I have 17 figures on shipments from Cello Field, but I don't have 18 them here. 19 Q. My question is: Would you presume that the Atomic Energy 20 Control Board of Canada, or AECL of Canada, would make 21 public the fact that the spent MOX from Parallex were 22 being shipped to Britain for reprocessing? Would you 23 presume that would become public knowledge? 24 A. No, I would not assume anything related to plutonium would 25 become public knowledge in Canada. Canada has a very KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 21 1 non-public attitude toward plutonium dealings. In fact, 2 the existing plutonium dealings in Canada including the 3 BNFL contracts is not public knowledge other than as it 4 has been raised in foreign countries such as in Britain or 5 by documents that have been leaked to nongovernmental 6 organizations. This is not something which Atomic Energy 7 of Canada Limited makes public. 8 MR. LODGE: Thank you. 9 MR. DODGE: No recross, Your Honor. 10 THE COURT: You may step down, Dr. Edwards. 11 Thank you. 12 MR. LOVE: Your Honor, if it please the Court, 13 the Plaintiffs would call Francis Boyle to the stand 14 FRANCIS BOYLE - PLAINTIFFS' WITNESS - SWORN 15 COURT CLERK: Please be seated and state and 16 spell your name for the record. 17 THE WITNESS: My name is Francis Boyle. 18 F-r-a-n-c-i-s B-o-y-l-e. 19 DIRECT EXAMINATION 20 BY MR. LOVE: 21 Q. Dr. Boyle, are you currently employed? 22 A. Yes, I am a professor of international law at the 23 University of Illinois College of Law in Champaign. 24 Q. How long have you been employed in that capacity? 25 A. 1978. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 22 1 MR. LOVE: Your Honor, may I approach the 2 witness? 3 BY MR. LOVE: 4 Q. Dr. Boyle, I'm showing you what has been marked as 5 Supplemental Preliminary Injunction Hearing Plaintiffs' 6 Exhibit 3 and ask you if you can identify that document. 7 A. It's a copy of my professional resume. 8 Q. Was this resume prepared at or under your direction? 9 A. Yes. I think it's current as of January 28th, 1999. I've 10 been kind of busy in the last year, haven't revised it. 11 Q. To the extent it's current through that date, does that 12 accurately reflect your experience, education, seminars 13 that you participated in, and articles that you've 14 authored? 15 A. Not seminars I've participated in, that would be too many 16 but, you know, the essence of my professional career and 17 articles-- significant teaching, consulting, practice. 18 I'm also a licensed attorney as well. 19 Q. If you would, give us a brief recitation of your 20 educational background? 21 A. I attended the University of Chicago where I studied 22 international relations with Professor Hans Morganthal who 23 is the mentor of Dr. Henry Kissinger at Harvard. I was 24 one of seven students in my class elected to Phi Beta 25 Kappa as a junior. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 23 1 I also did work in mathematical biology, winning 2 the award for the work I did in that area by the world's 3 leading geneticist now at Harvard. 4 I graduated in three years. From there I went 5 to Harvard Law School. I have a J.D. Magna Cum Laude from 6 Harvard Law School specializing in international law. 7 I also entered the Graduate School of Arts and 8 Sciences at Harvard in the Department of Government. I 9 have a Master's degree and a Ph.D. in political science 10 specializing in international relations, international 11 politics. This is the same Ph.D. program that produced 12 Henry Kissinger, Zabanya Brezenski (phonetic) and other 13 high level U.S. Government officials. 14 I was at the Harvard Center for International 15 Affairs for two years. Kissinger and Brezenski had been 16 there before me. 17 I spent two years teaching in the Harvard 18 College undergraduates international law organizations, 19 human rights. I practiced law with a Boston law firm for 20 a year at Bingham, Dana and Gould, where I did 21 international tax, and tax, and then finally in 1978 I 22 came to the University of Illinois. I went up for tenure 23 at the beginning of my third year, which I got, and I've 24 been tenured there since, you know, many years. 25 Q. Since undertaking your position at University of Illinois, KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 24 1 have you specialized in any area with respect to 2 particular research, writing and international law? 3 A. Well, for the purpose of our proceedings today, yes. I 4 have been specializing an enormous amount on the nuclear 5 weapons, nuclear weapons policy, proliferation, arms 6 control. Going back to my studies with Professor 7 Morganthal 30 years ago so I've been involved in these 8 issues starting as a student since 1969 and continuously 9 until today. 10 THE WITNESS: Sorry, Your Honor, I have a bit of 11 laryngitis. 12 THE COURT: That's fine, no problem. 13 BY MR. LOVE: 14 Q. Dr. Boyle, if you would direct your attention to your 15 resume, I would like to touch on a few seminal points. On 16 the first page under teaching, the third entry down talks 17 about being a lecturer in Nuclear Weapons and 18 International Law, 21st Senior Conference on Nuclear 19 Deterrence at U.S. Military Academy at West Point in 20 1983. 21 A. Yes. This is a high level seminar run by the Pentagon, 22 not for the cadets, but for about 200 of the highest level 23 officials of the United States Government dealing with 24 nuclear weapons proliferation, nuclear weapons policies, 25 and I was asked to lecture to this conference, and I won't KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 25 1 go through all the high level officials there, but sitting 2 right in front of me for my lecture was the three star 3 general in charge of war operations at the Pentagon, at 4 that time General Mahaffey. And I also note I had read 5 the independent expert's report on the MOX program 6 U.S./Russia of 1977, one of the U.S. independent experts, 7 Richard Garwin was there with me and he was also a 8 lecturer with me to this group, so I do know that Garwin 9 was involved in the Parallex MOX recommendations. 10 Q. With respect to the second to the last entry on Page 1 of 11 Exhibit 3, talks about "Lecture Tour of the Soviet Union 12 on Nuclear Weapons and International Law for Lawyers' 13 Committee on Nuclear Policy and Association of Soviet 14 Lawyers" in 1986. What was involved with that? 15 A. Yes. The former Soviet Union, their equivalent to the 16 American Bar Association was the Association of Soviet 17 Lawyers, and in conjunction with the Lawyers' Committee on 18 Nuclear Policy headquartered here, they decided to invite 19 one professor to go over to the Soviet Union and lecture 20 around the country for two weeks on various issues related 21 to nuclear weapons and international law, and both 22 organizations selected me for this purpose, so I went over 23 for two weeks and gave several lectures per day, Moscow, 24 Leningrad, Kiev to professors, lawyers, peace people, 25 whoever, news media on various aspects of nuclear weapons KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 26 1 targeting doctrine as they relate to international law 2 and, in general, nuclear policies. 3 Q. If you would direct your attention, Dr. Boyle, to Page 2 4 under Practice, fifth entry down it says "Author, 5 Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989, Public Law 6 Number 101-298 (1990) (adopted unanimously by both Houses 7 of Congress)," could you explain what that means, please? 8 A. Yes. Your Honor, we are dealing here with a treaty, the 9 Nuclear Proliferation Treaty-- Nonproliferation Treaty of 10 1968. That treaty has been implemented by Congress in the 11 Nuclear Nonproliferation Act of 1978, the Nuclear 12 Proliferation Prevention Act of 1994 and also recent 13 amendments in 1998 to deal with the India/Pakistan 14 explosions. I have direct personal experience on how you 15 take a treaty, an international treaty, and implement it 16 as a matter of United States Constitutional law by working 17 with Congress. 18 The Biological Weapons Convention of 1972 is a 19 treaty that is a total, not only arms control reduction 20 and elimination treaty for biological weapons, I gave a 21 lecture on Capitol Hill calling for legislation, domestic 22 legislation to implement this treaty, and this 23 recommendation was taken up by a group I work for called 24 the Council of Responsible Genetics. I'm on their 25 Advisory Board. I also serve as counsel to them, so KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 27 1 pursuant to their request, I drafted the implementing 2 legislation, I authored it, how to implement this treaty. 3 And then we took it to members of the House and the Senate 4 and we shepherded it through the entire process dealing 5 with members of Congress, both Houses, including testimony 6 I prepared. At that point in time, the Reagan 7 administration was opposed to this implementing 8 legislation. I had to deal personally with their position 9 papers against it refuting these things. 10 Finally there was a change of policy when 11 President Bush came into office, to his credit, and they 12 supported the legislation. It finally was approved 13 unanimously by both Houses of Congress and signed into law 14 by President Bush in 1989. This legislation was called 15 the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989. It was 16 later amended in the anti-terrorism and effect Death 17 Penalty Act of 1996. 18 I thought I had drafted the most draconian piece 19 of legislation you could possibly imagine on biological 20 weapons, but there is always a loophole, Your Honor, so 21 Congress revisited this in 1996 to close some of the 22 loopholes that had not been apparent to me and the 23 scientists I worked with back in 19, starting in from '85 24 to about 1989. So I just cite this as having direct 25 personal experience with relationship between arms control KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 28 1 treatise, reduction treatise and then how they are 2 implemented by Congress. I have done this myself. On 3 biological weapons and I'm still involved in that issue. 4 Obviously, I have not been involved in the 5 drafting of the implementing legislation for the Nuclear 6 Proliferation Treaty of 1968, there are three pieces, but 7 I have read and reviewed the implementing legislation. I 8 have an understanding how they relate to the 9 Nonproliferation Treaty and I also teach a course on this 10 subject, that is how international laws related to the 11 United States Constitution is implemented by Congress and 12 also carried out in the courts. I teach an entire course 13 just devoted to this subject. 14 Q. Dr. Boyle, you've had some experience practicing before 15 what was known formerly as the International Court of 16 Justice but currently the World Court; is that correct? 17 A. Yes, I have. 18 Q. Could you relate to the Court a summary of that 19 experience? 20 A. Well, I've advised governments with respect to either 21 actual or potential World Court litigation, some of that 22 is still attorney/client confidence that I'm not prepared 23 to discuss. What I am prepared to discuss are those 24 matters that are in the public record. 25 I did serve as counsel to Libya on the Lockerbie KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 29 1 bombing case. It was my recommendation the-- 2 unfortunately President Bush had about the sixth fleet 3 mobilized off the coast of Libya and was about to bomb 4 Libya that we filed a lawsuit at the World Court to stop 5 the bombing. We filed a lawsuit, Libya was not bombed. 6 Later on, I was General Agent for the Republic 7 in Bosnia of Herzegovina before the International Court of 8 Justice. In other words, I was their first ambassador to 9 the World Court for the Republic of Bosnia, Herzegovina, 10 and I sued Yugoslavia for committing genocide against the 11 Bosnian people. I won two cease and desist orders 12 overwhelmingly in favor of Bosnia against Yugoslavia. 13 Later on, I publicly advised -- I advised the 14 Bosnian Government to sue Britain for aiding and abetting 15 genocide against Bosnia, and President Izetbegovic 16 instructed me to sue Britain for a genocide against 17 Bosnia. That lawsuit was terminated under duress, 18 threatened them, so they withdrew from those proceedings. 19 Q. Dr. Boyle, with respect to your writings, if you would 20 direct your attention to Page 3 of Exhibit 3, the last two 21 entries at the bottom -- excuse me, the second to last 22 entries entitled Nuclear Weapons and International Law: 23 The Arms Control Dimensions, do you see that? 24 A. Yes. This was the lecture I gave to the West Point 25 Military Academy senior conference proceedings, which they KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 30 1 did publish in their proceedings at West Point, and 2 actually under my books, I've just completed work on my 3 sixth book, which is entitled Nuclear Deterrence and 4 International Law. And right now it is sitting at Pluto 5 Press -- I guess that's appropriate for today's 6 proceedings -- Pluto Press in Britain. They have 7 expressed an interest in publishing it. They are 8 currently evaluating it. I do not have a contract on that 9 book, but I did get the e-mail just before I came here, so 10 I'll have to deal with that when I go back. 11 Q. With respect to your other publications, Dr. Boyle, I note 12 that on Page 4 you've got one entitled, about halfway 13 down, The Relevance of International Law to the "Paradox" 14 of Nuclear Deterrence. 15 A. That is correct. 16 Q. Can you tell us briefly what the subject matter is? 17 A. After I made the lecture at West Point, obviously the U.S. 18 military officials and others, we had a fairly vigorous 19 debate, let me put it that way. And that vigorous debate 20 between myself and these others led to this article that 21 was later published here in the United States and also 22 translated into Dutch, because the Dutch lawyers wanted it 23 to be available as part of the debate in Holland over the 24 deployment of the U.S. intermediate nuclear forces under 25 the Reagan administration, so they translated the whole KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 31 1 thing into Dutch and it was published in the Netherlands. 2 MR. LOVE: Your Honor, I have no further 3 questions of Dr. Boyle with respect to qualifications, and 4 I tender him for voir dire to the U.S. Attorney's Office 5 subject to my motion to admit Plaintiff's Exhibit 3 into 6 evidence. 7 MR. DODGE: I have no objection to the admission 8 of the C.V. 9 THE COURT: Exhibit 3? 10 MR. DODGE: Exhibit 3. 11 THE COURT: You have no voir dire questions to 12 ask either? 13 MR. DODGE: Not with respect to that exhibit. I 14 may get into the resume on the cross. 15 THE COURT: That's fair enough. 16 Exhibit 3 is received. 17 MR. DODGE: Thank you, your Honor. 18 BY MR. LOVE: 19 Q. Dr. Boyle, in preparing for your testimony here today, 20 could you please outline for the Court -- I think you have 21 done so somewhat already -- some of the documents that you 22 reviewed and the source materials you looked at in 23 preparing your testimony today? 24 A. I have a pretty detailed knowledge about these things 25 generally. For example, when the Nuclear Nonproliferation KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 32 1 Act first came out in 1978, I did read it, but in 2 preparation for this testimony today, I've gone back and 3 read the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, the Nuclear 4 Nonproliferation Act, the Nuclear Proliferation Prevention 5 Act of 1994, the 1998 amendments. I have read a large 6 quantity of documents produced by the Department of Energy 7 on the Parallex Project. I have read the Environmental 8 Assessment dealing with the aspects of international 9 environmental law that have not been dealt with in the 10 Environmental Assessment, in my opinion, should have been 11 dealt with the Stockholm Declaration, which is not there, 12 and the World Court Advisory Opinion on 1996, I have an 13 article on it that. I didn't go back and read the whole 14 advisory opinion, but I reread the portions of the 15 article, and other scholarly sources that deal with this 16 question. There are other sources I did not have a chance 17 to review not directly related to proliferation per se. 18 But for example, in my opinion the EA should 19 have dealt with the UN Convention on the Law of the Seas. 20 It's not in there. There's been nuclear accidents 21 convention, it's not dealt with in there. There is the 22 Bowel convention on the International Transportation of 23 Hazardous Substance and Toxic Materials, that's not in 24 there. I identified those as further sources that should 25 be analyzed in my opinion, but I haven't had a chance to KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 33 1 go back and review all of those sources. 2 Q. Dr. Boyle, did the types of materials that you've just 3 identified for the Court, are these the types of materials 4 that in your experience are relied upon by experts in the 5 field of international law in forming opinions as to the 6 legitimacy of governmental actions under internationally? 7 A. Yes. I also have experience reading environmental impact 8 statements. When the Pentagon produced the DEIS or the 9 biological defense research program, the Council for 10 Responsible Genetics asked me to evaluate this entire 11 thing -- it was an enormous document -- and submit formal 12 comments on it to the Pentagon, which I did do and they 13 did respond to. So this is the type of sources that 14 experts in my field would normally look at and review in 15 forming an opinion about Government behavior, and I have 16 done this before with respect to biological weapons. 17 Q. Dr. Boyle, I'm going to show you what has been marked for 18 identification as Plaintiff's Exhibit 4. Ask you to take 19 a moment to look at that and let me know when you've had a 20 chance to do so, please. 21 A. Yes. This is the treaty on the nonproliferation of 22 nuclear weapons, and as I've said, it has also been 23 implemented by Congress on the Nuclear Nonproliferation 24 Act of 1978, the Nuclear Proliferation Prevention Act of 25 1994 and also 1998 amendments. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 34 1 The critical point to keep in mind about this 2 treaty, Your Honor, is that Congress has passed 3 legislation expressing its understanding of what this 4 treaty means and what our obligations are under this 5 treaty. And this legislation is binding on the Department 6 of Energy, on the President, on the Department of State 7 and respectfully, Your Honor, on this Court. And what we 8 see, when you read through it all, is Congress has 9 decided, and prior to that the Atomic Energy Act as well, 10 that nuclear power, nuclear weapons, nuclear proliferation 11 is so important to the American people and our republic, 12 that they have decided to engage in micro management of 13 everything related to this subject and have pretty much, I 14 would not say completely eliminated, but whittled down 15 substantially any discretion that the executive branch 16 might have in this area. I have, as I said, I did read 17 the NPA back in 1978, but when you add in everything else, 18 what surprised me was how little discretion was left to 19 the executive branch with respect to nuclear 20 proliferation, nuclear weapons. In this area, they have 21 very little discretion. 22 Q. Professor Boyle, if you could, can you explain to the 23 Court what the implications are for Canada, Russia and the 24 United States under the Nonproliferation Treaty? 25 A. Well, my reading of both the treaty and in light of the KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 35 1 Department of Energy documents describing Parallex and 2 MOX, the Red Team report, many other documents that I've 3 read, in my opinion, there are serious problems, 4 compliance problems for this entire project under Articles 5 I, II and III of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty as 6 interpreted by the United States Congress. 7 The Article I deals with the obligations of the 8 United States and Russia. Each nuclear weapons State 9 Party to the Treaty, i.e. U.S. and Russia, undertakes not 10 to transfer to any recipient whatsoever, i.e. Canada, 11 nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices, and we 12 have a problem here in that Congress has interpreted this 13 to mean components of nuclear weapons or nuclear explosive 14 devices; that is, Congress simply does not interpret this 15 to mean you can't hand over a bomb, but a component for a 16 bomb is prohibited. And here we are dealing with weapons 17 grade plutonium, which Dr. Edwards has already testified 18 can be and indeed is, in his opinion, a component for 19 either a nuclear weapon or a nuclear explosive device. 20 Okay? 21 So when you read the treaty in light of the 22 statutory scheme, in my opinion, there are serious 23 compliance problems here with Article I, which have not 24 been addressed in the EA. The DOE has not dealt with any 25 of these problems at all in the EA, indeed, they have KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 36 1 basically said in one of their comments "Well, once we 2 give it to Canada, it's their problem," and that just is 3 an incorrect statement, in my opinion. 4 And it says "directly or indirectly," which 5 means also we, the United States, directly or indirectly 6 by encouraging and paying for the Russians to do this, you 7 see. So we are accountable for the Russian behavior 8 because we are working with them. And indeed, if we were 9 sued at the International Court of Justice -- let's 10 suppose something went wrong, Your Honor, and there was, 11 as Dr. Edwards testified, an aerial explosion in the 12 latest helicopter shipment and radiological dispersal of 13 plutonium that came across the border, killing Americans, 14 killing Canadians, others, if we were sued in World Court 15 over this, we would be found both jointly and severally 16 liable with Russia, with Canada, for any accident. 17 Likewise, this is followed up by both shipments on the 18 high seas of the plutonium. If there is an accident on 19 high seas, we could be sued at the World Court, the United 20 States, both ourselves and jointly and severally with 21 Russia and Canada over any accident here that might 22 happen. And that substantive liability could be based on 23 the U.N. Law of the Sea Convention. As I said, Your 24 Honor, I haven't had time to go through the environmental 25 provision of the Law of the Sea Convention, the Department KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 37 1 of Energy didn't even bother, and in the EA they did not 2 look at this at all. They did not consider this, but it 3 certainly is something that has to be considered, that 4 they haven't looked at. 5 And then "not in any way to assist, encourage or 6 induce any non-nuclear weapon State to manufacture or 7 otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear 8 explosive devices." Well, the problem here is Canada is 9 supposed to be a non-nuclear weapons state and says 10 "otherwise acquired nuclear explosive devices." Well, we 11 are giving them weapons grade plutonium, which again 12 Dr. Edwards has testified, and he is Canadian, is a 13 component of a nuclear weapons or nuclear explosive 14 device. And again, "or control over such weapons or 15 explosive devices." We are giving them weapons grade 16 plutonium. And if you look at how Congress has 17 interpreted this, they interpret it down to components, 18 they even talk about substances that they are trying to 19 regulate everything, and understand the 1978 legislation 20 was a very strict interpretation of what this treaty means 21 as far as the United States Government is concerned. And 22 I think we really need a comprehensive assessment here by 23 the Department of Energy as to whether or not any of these 24 transfers is consistent with Article I. Under the current 25 circumstances, they haven't bothered to look at any of the KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 38 1 terms as defined by Congress, the applicability of the 2 Congressional legislation to the transfers. 3 Likewise, Article II, Your Honor, Article II 4 deals with the Canadian obligations, "Each 5 non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes 6 not to receive the transfer from any transferor whatsoever 7 of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices." 8 Again, the same analysis here needs to be done. This 9 weapons grade plutonium, in my opinion and Dr. Edwards' 10 opinion, is clearly a component of either a nuclear weapon 11 or nuclear explosive device. And Canada, according to 12 this language, has agreed not to receive this material. 13 And by the way, as Dr. Edwards correctly pointed out, Your 14 Honor, this was consistent United States policy, stopping 15 proliferation of this type of material for any reason 16 going back to the Carter administration. We are seeing a 17 major dramatic change here in United States 18 nonproliferation policy, and that policy, Your Honor, 19 going back to the Carter administration, is enshrined in 20 law by Congress in the Nuclear Nonproliferation Act of 21 1978. So again, in my opinion, I believe these issues 22 likewise need to be addressed by the Department of 23 Energy. They have not been addressed in the environmental 24 assessment at all. 25 "Or control over such weapons or explosive KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 39 1 devices, directly or indirectly." Well, again, we are 2 giving Canada, either ourselves in the first shipment or 3 indirectly by means of the Russians in the second 4 shipment, control over a component for a nuclear weapon or 5 a nuclear explosive device. That's very clear they are 6 getting it. And according to the EA, we are trusting 7 their good intentions. There is no assurance in the EA 8 that this weapons grade plutonium is subject to 9 international safeguards. No. Despite the fact that 10 Congress has made it very clear that any transfer, and 11 Congress also made it clear in the legislation that they 12 are against any transfers of this type of stuff to other 13 States. But if there are any transfers at a minimum there 14 have to be absolute guaranteed protections on 15 international assurances to make sure it is not misused, 16 and you will note in the EA it says nothing about it. 17 There are no assurances about anything. 18 Now, "to manufacture or otherwise acquire 19 nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices; and 20 not to seek or receive any assistance in the manufacture," 21 etcetera, etcetera. 22 Article III then deals with the safeguard 23 requirements; that is, if there are transfers of materials 24 for peaceful purposes, and you know you can obviously, 25 Your Honor, you can read this yourself. There must be KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 40 1 safeguards. Under the supervision of the International 2 Atomic Energy Agency, the Environmental Assessment says 3 nothing at all about these safeguards. Nothing. It isn't 4 in there. 5 Apparently we have to rely on not even 6 statements by Canada that what we are transferring there, 7 what we are encouraging the Russians to transfer are 8 somehow going to be safeguarded despite the fact that 9 Article III says that there must be safeguards, and we 10 simply don't have them. 11 Q. Dr. Boyle, I'm going to show you what's been marked for 12 identification as Plaintiff's Exhibit 5 and ask you to 13 take a look in the upper right-hand corner, and after 14 you've had a moment to review that, let me know, please. 15 A. Yes. This is an article I had read in preparation for my 16 testimony here today, from the Toronto News. 17 Q. Based on your experience and expertise, Dr. Boyle, is this 18 the type of information that an international law scholar 19 could rely on in formulating opinions about the state or 20 nationally? 21 A. Well, here is stating comments by Mr. Tom Clemens, head of 22 the Washington-based Nuclear Control Institute. It's a 23 recognized organization dealing with nuclear policies, and 24 certainly experts in my field would rely upon statements 25 produced by the Nuclear Control Institute and, indeed, KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 41 1 prior to my testimony today, I did read several documents 2 produced by the Nuclear Control Institute just in the 3 normal course of preparing, yes. An expert in my field 4 would rely on this. 5 Q. Dr. Boyle, my recollection is you testified this appeared 6 in the Toronto -- 7 A. News. 8 Q. -- News and it -- 9 A. The Globe and Mail, which is, you know, it's sort of like 10 the New York Times here in the United States, a newspaper 11 of public record, so again, it's not like a tabloid or 12 something like this. 13 Q. Plaintiff's Exhibit 5, Dr. Boyle in the right-hand column 14 attributes some comments to a Sunni Locatelli purportedly 15 a spokeswoman at the Atomic Control Board. Do you see 16 that? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. What if anything is the significance, based on your 19 experience as expertise, of considering published reports 20 attributed to spokespersons for governmental entities in 21 formulating use of international law? 22 A. Yes. There is a decision by the International Court of 23 Justice in the nuclear test cases dealing with nuclear 24 explosions 1974, stating that the Court can rely upon 25 official statements made by Government officials acting KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 42 1 within their scope of authority and certainly Locatelli 2 here is the spokeswoman of the Atomic Energy Control 3 Board. So basically, I would be able to take this 4 statement and file it at the World Court and they would 5 find the statement could be, would be attributable to the 6 Canadian government, and Canada would be bound by this 7 statement. 8 Q. What does that article, Plaintiff's Exhibit 5, attribute 9 to Miss Locatelli? 10 A. She can't reveal how much fissile material Canada has. We 11 aren't able to give out that information under our 12 security regulations. Ms. Locatelli said Canada believes 13 it should come under the IA/EA guidelines because it 14 doesn't operate its own reprocessing facilities. I think 15 Dr. Edwards just pointed out that isn't correct. But even 16 if it were correct, it does come under IA/EA, and we need 17 to know, the United States Government under the NPT, under 18 the Congressional implementing legislation, we have to 19 know how much fissile material Canada has. 20 And basically, we are just taking their, 21 whatever their word is for it, and in my opinion, that's 22 unacceptable. We have to know how much material they have 23 and what they are doing with it, and what she's saying 24 here is "Well, we are just not going to tell you." And 25 you will note in the EA, the Department of Energy has KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 43 1 taken the same position. One of the comments made was 2 "Well, what is Canada doing," and the response of the DOE 3 is well, that is Canada's problem, once it leaves here we 4 are no longer responsible. The treaty and statutory 5 regime make it clear that's not the case. We are 6 responsible for our plutonium, wherever it goes. And 7 Congress has made it clear even if we do give it up, we 8 have to have absolute international safeguards as to what 9 is going to happen with our plutonium. And the same would 10 apply if we are encouraging Russia to ship weapons grade 11 plutonium to Canada. We have an obligation to make sure 12 that it's safeguarded and that it can be accountable and 13 accounted for. And what Ms. Locatelli here is saying 14 "Well, sorry, we are just not going to tell you." Again, 15 this raises serious problems in my mind that have not been 16 dealt with by the Department of Energy as to compliance 17 with the IA/EA safeguards regime, which is absolutely 18 required under Article III of the NPT and also required 19 under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Act. Indeed, if I 20 remember correctly, the 1994 implementation, Your Honor, 21 Congress said that transferring of unsafeguarded plutonium 22 is an act of international terrorism as far as Congress is 23 concerned. 24 So and that would trigger a whole host of other 25 provisions of the federal code dealing with international KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 44 1 terrorism, so we really need to know what is going to 2 happen to our plutonium when it gets up into Canada, and 3 to make sure there are safeguards and it is accountable 4 and there is an explanation here. 5 Now Mr. Clemens then said that, in his opinion, 6 Canada has 40 kilograms of plutonium, it's really not 7 accounted for or accountable for by anyone, and that 8 basically makes Canada a de facto nuclear weapons state. 9 I would agree, assuming that they do have the 40 kilograms 10 of plutonium, and I take it you know Mr. Clemens -- I had 11 e-mail correspondence with Mr. Clemens about this matter. 12 He feels that they do have it and that his group, the 13 Nuclear Control Institute, will be making this evidence 14 available soon. He told me it is not yet -- he is not yet 15 prepared to make it public, but they will be going public 16 with it soon. 17 In my opinion, if that is the case, they have 40 18 kilograms of plutonium, that's enough to make five bombs, 19 and that makes Canada a de facto nuclear weapons state 20 under the NPT and, in my opinion, would be inconsistent 21 with the NPT. There is a potential here for Canada being 22 in violation of the NET. We need to know that. Congress 23 has sanctions in there in the implementing legislation for 24 non-nuclear weapons states being, moving into a position 25 where they are de facto nuclear weapons states in KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 45 1 violation of the NPT. 2 It's clear Congress interprets our obligations 3 under the treaty to mean that a non-nuclear weapons state 4 simply cannot go off, assemble all the components for a 5 bomb, have one here, one there and one there, and then 6 say, oh but we are not a nuclear weapons state because we 7 haven't assembled the bomb. 8 Again, Congress made it very clear, no. Indeed, 9 in one of the pieces of legislation, Congress indicated 10 that it was also concerned with a facto nuclear weapons 11 states that an end run around the NPT, and the 12 Congressional regime applicable to it. Again, I regret to 13 report I haven't seen any of these issues dealt with by 14 the Department of Energy in the Environmental Assessments 15 and, indeed, when they were asked about it, they just said 16 this is now Canada's problem. Wondered-- United States 17 law of the NPT, it is not Canada's problem alone, it is 18 our problem because it's our plutonium and it's Russian 19 plutonium that we are paying to send up to Canada. 20 Q. Professor Boyle, based on the representations of Miss 21 Locatelli on behalf of Atomic Energy Control Board of 22 Canada that they don't believe they are subject to the 23 IA/EA guidelines, what if any impact would that have on 24 the United States' responsibility under the Nuclear 25 Nonproliferation Treaty of 1978? KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 46 1 A. It's very clear, Your Honor, the NPT and the Congressional 2 implementing legislation that we ourselves cannot ship 3 weapons grade plutonium there or engage in the Russians to 4 ship weapons grade plutonium unless there are absolutely 5 safeguards by the IA/EA that, to make sure that there is 6 no diversion. And again, Miss Locatelli is indicating 7 there is a high amount of uncertainty as to what is 8 happening with the Canadian plutonium. We simply don't 9 know. In the EA, there are no guarantees given by the 10 Department of Energy as to what is happening to plutonium 11 up in Canada. 12 Q. You may have testified to this, Dr. Boyle, and I apologize 13 if I missed it, but are Russia, Canada and the United 14 States all signatory partis to the Nonproliferation 15 Treaty? 16 A. Yes. We are all parties. There are about 182 or 183 17 states that are parties. The United States and Russia are 18 nuclear weapon states, parties to the convention, that is, 19 we are permitted to have nuclear weapons and nuclear 20 components, etc. Canada is designated a non-nuclear 21 weapons state. And they are supposed to preserve this 22 stative or statement. Yet according to the Nuclear 23 Control Institute, they have enough plutonium up there to 24 at least manufacture five bombs. So somehow this has to 25 be explained and accounted for in order for them to KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 47 1 continue their non-nuclear weapons state status under the 2 NPT, so again, the Nuclear Control Institute is raising 3 very serious compliance problems and potentially serious 4 violation of the NPT by Canada, and there are severe 5 sanctions in the United States laws enacted by Congress 6 under the Simplemen legislation, Your Honor, in the event 7 a state that is a non-nuclear weapons state moves to 8 become a nuclear weapons state. And again, none of this 9 has been addressed by the Department of Energy in the 10 environmental assessment that I'm aware of, either in the 11 environmental assessment or elsewhere. 12 Q. Dr. Boyle, could you advise the Court, if you would, as to 13 what the ramifications legally are of being a signatory 14 party to an international treaty such as the 15 Nonproliferation Treaty? 16 A. Yes. Your Honor, of course, the basic rule of Pacta Sunt, 17 P-a-c-t-a-s-u-n-t, Servanda, S-e-r-v-a-n-d-a. 18 The other point -- there are two other points, 19 however, that must be kept in mind in interpreting any 20 treaty and especially the NPT. First, the treaty must be 21 interpreted in good faith. And again, the question here 22 with Canada maintaining 40 kilograms of plutonium is 23 whether or not this is a good faith interpretation 24 implementation of the NPT by Canada. 25 Second, the treaty must be interpreted in KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 48 1 accordance with its object and purpose, and that in this 2 case the NPT is to stop nuclear proliferation. And again, 3 this entire program, the Parallex program, in my opinion, 4 seems to defeat the object and purpose of the NPT, which 5 is to stop nuclear proliferation. 6 The third point to keep in mind is that this 7 treaty has already been interpreted by Congress and 8 implemented by Congress. And Congress is agreeing with 9 what I'm saying here, Your Honor, and I'm agreeing with 10 what Congress is saying. Congress has made it very clear 11 that they do not want to see any type of nuclear 12 proliferation or programs that encourage nuclear 13 proliferation. And we are now seeing a drastic departure 14 from the policy enacted in Congress pursuant to the NPC 15 back in -- the NPT back in 1978 in the Nuclear 16 Nonproliferation Act, and we have seen no change in the 17 legislation by Congress to authorize or approve this 18 drastic change. And again, I agree with what Dr. Edwards 19 said from his Canadian perspective, my American 20 perspective, the Parallex MOX project is a drastic change 21 in encouraging proliferation of nuclear weapons components 22 and there has been no direct approval, change of statutes 23 or whatever. So again, this, in my opinion, raises very 24 serious problems under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty 25 as interpreted in good faith and in accordance with its KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 49 1 object and purpose not only for Canada, but the United 2 States and Russia. And in my opinion, we should have a 3 full study of all these issues by the Department of Energy 4 before there is any further movement on this project. 5 The implications here are enormous. They could 6 be catastrophic, and I personally would like to see a full 7 scale investigation analysis so that I could evaluate it 8 myself before anyone goes ahead with this project, but of 9 course that, you know, that's my personal opinion. I know 10 that's for you, Your Honor, to decide. 11 Q. Dr. Boyle, what if anything is the requirement or 12 obligation of the United States to interpret the 13 Nonproliferation Treaty in good faith? I think you 14 testified that Canada has that obligation. Does the 15 United States have a similar obligation? 16 A. Yes. And as a matter of fact, here Congress has 17 interpreted our obligation under the NPT and, in my 18 opinion, Congress has interpreted our obligations under 19 the NPT in good faith and also in accordance with the 20 object and purpose of this treaty. Congress interpreted 21 this by means of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Act of 1978, 22 the Nuclear Proliferation Prevention Act of 1994 and the 23 1998 amendments to do with the India-Pakistani 24 explosions. So in my opinion, Congress did interpret this 25 treaty in good faith and in accordance with its object and KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 50 1 purpose and it appears to me the Department of Energy is 2 off there on their own with no express authorization from 3 Congress pursuing a policy here that defeats the object 4 and purpose of the NPT. 5 Q. By that, you are referring to the Parallex project? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. With respect to the Congressional implementation of the 8 NPT in the '78, '94 and '98 acts, what if anything is the 9 role of the Department of State and/or Department of 10 Energy with respect to interpreting those obligations? 11 A. Yes. Your Honor, it's very clear from the treaty related 12 to the statutory scheme. Treaties deal with international 13 law and foreign relations. Therefore, they are normally 14 negotiated and concluded by the Department of State and 15 then they are handed over to the Senate Foreign Relations 16 to the Senate for advice and consent. It is the State 17 Department that traditionally has always had the sole and 18 exclusive role here in the United States with respect to 19 nonproliferation policy, not the Department of Energy. 20 The Department of Energy has always been treated as a 21 technical agency, technical consultant. The policy is 22 formulated by the State Department. There had been, again 23 going back to the Carter administration, United States 24 Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, Your Honor, set up by 25 Congress to deal precisely with these issues. They were KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 51 1 the ones given the authority to deal with proliferation 2 and nonproliferation policies negotiate these agreements, 3 etcetera. Senator Helms in the latest did not like act, 4 he concluded it was super numerator morgue or something so 5 he passed legislation terminating the Arms Control 6 Disarmament Agency and transferring all functions to the 7 Department of State today. But if you read the 8 Congressional implementing legislation, they make it very 9 clear that the lead role played on proliferation and 10 nonproliferation policy is the Department of State, not 11 the Department of Energy, and the Department of State 12 should consult with the Department of Energy. At times 13 the Department of Energy is given authority to have its 14 input to the Department of State, but it's the Department 15 of State that makes nonproliferation policy, not the 16 Department of Energy. 17 Q. In your review of the environmental assessment prepared by 18 the Department of Energy in January of '99, Dr. Boyle, 19 regarding the Parallex Project, is there any indication 20 that the Department of Energy consulted with the 21 Department of State? And if you don't mind, I direct your 22 attention to Page 41 of Plaintiff's Exhibit 12 previously 23 admitted and ask you to refer to that. 24 A. Yes. They had a list here of agencies consulted. Your 25 Honor, over here on Page 41, it says agencies consulted KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 52 1 during the preparation of this analysis: Atomic Energy of 2 Canada, Canadian Atomic Energy Control Board, U.S. 3 Department of Transportation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 4 Commission. They do not consult with the Department of 5 State and, in my opinion, and also in the opinion of 6 Congress, if you read through all the implementing 7 legislation, I know, Your Honor, as I understand it, you 8 are a conscientious Judge so I'm sure you are going to do 9 this, you'll see that they have to deal with the 10 Department of State. And the main problem with this EA is 11 they have not dealt with the Department of State, they 12 have not dealt with the nonproliferation issues, they have 13 not dealt with the Nonproliferation Treaty, they have not 14 dealt with the 1978 Act, they have not dealt with the 1994 15 Act, they have not dealt with the 1998 Act. All that is 16 expressly required by Congress. So again, in my opinion, 17 for some reason the Department of Energy has just decided 18 to go out there on its own and completely either ignore or 19 violate the Congressional statutes and procedures for 20 dealing with proliferation and nonproliferation issues. 21 Q. Dr. Boyle, to your knowledge, has the Department of State 22 retreated at all from the U.S. commitment to the 23 Nonproliferation Treaty as implemented by Congress through 24 the legislation you've indicated? 25 A. No, and as a matter of fact, Madeline Albright was just KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 53 1 out in India-Pakistan with President Clinton. As you 2 know, President Clinton stated that today India-Pakistan, 3 the Indian subcontinent is the most dangerous place on the 4 face of the earth because of the proliferation problem, 5 and they both have nuclear weapons now, and the dispute 6 over Casmir. 7 President Clinton then was just lectured in the 8 Indian Parliament publicly by the speaker of Parliament 9 for making the statement, but I think it's a fair and 10 accurate statement. Madeline Albright followed this up 11 with another statement reiterating our commitment to 12 nonproliferation and, specifically with respect to India 13 and Pakistan, that this was the policy of the United 14 States Government, and also tying this into the integral 15 importance of safeguards. 16 And again, that is a fair and accurate statement 17 of the policy being pursued by the President and the 18 Secretary of State that is charged under the legislation 19 and the Constitution to deal with these matters. There is 20 a complete and total disconnect here between what the 21 President and Secretary of State are saying and what the 22 Department of Energy is planning to do here in the 23 environmental assessment. 24 Q. Dr. Boyle, I'm going to show you what has been marked as 25 Plaintiff's Exhibit 11 and ask you to take a minute to KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 54 1 review that and let me know when you have had a chance to 2 do so, please. 3 A. Yes. This is an account of the Secretary of State 4 Albright's statement on April 2, as recently as April 2 5 dealing with our proliferation policies. And let me draw 6 a few things to your attention. United States regards 7 proliferation anywhere as our Number 1 security concern. 8 So again, she's pointing this out and she is the cabinet 9 officer with the authority to deal with these matters, not 10 the Secretary of Energy. We continue to seek universal 11 adherence to the NPT neither India nor Pakistan are 12 parties to the NPT. And here is crucial points: The 13 limits in our ability to cooperate with India and Pakistan 14 are a matter of U.S. law, as well as our international 15 obligations, all right? So Secretary Albright is pointing 16 out we have United States law that deals with 17 proliferation and this United States law -- of course, 18 she's not a lawyer -- but the U.S. law is the Nuclear 19 Nonproliferation Act, the Proliferation Prevention Act and 20 the '98 amendments as well as the Atomic Energy Act. So 21 there's a very comprehensive legislative scheme here as 22 well as our international obligation she points out. 23 There are international treaties here, and in particular 24 the most important one being the one she just referred to, 25 the Nonproliferation Treaty, and she is aware of that. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 55 1 Unfortunately, it does not appear that the Department of 2 Energy is aware of it or is concerned about it in the 3 least bit, at least as reflected in the environmental 4 assessment, they have not dealt with any of these issues 5 in environmental assessment nothing, none. 6 Q. Dr. Boyle, based on your experience and investigations 7 study, are you aware of whether or not India and Pakistan 8 have Canadian CANDU reactors? 9 A. As I understand it, they've got reactors from the Indian 10 Nuclear Bomb Project was a serous reactor, Canada, India 11 and United States, right. And Pakistan has a CANDU 12 reactor, right. And just the other day, the New York 13 Times reported the smuggling of substantial quantity of 14 nuclear materials out of the former Soviet Union towards 15 Pakistan that was recently intercepted in Kazakhstan, I 16 think. So I think this is a very serious problem. And I 17 don't see how this Parallex MOX -- it's only going to 18 compound the problem. These countries are doing 19 everything they possibly can. And here I would also add 20 in Israel is not a party to the NPT. There are other 21 states that have CANDU reactors, it has already been 22 reported in the professional literature, Your Honor, that 23 Japan too is a de facto nuclear weapons state in violation 24 of the NPT. And as Dr. Edwards already reported, they 25 have gotten a good deal of their nuclear material from KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 56 1 Canada. 2 So, we see -- Canadian reactors that are what, 3 in South Korea, Taiwan, states that are interested in 4 getting nuclear weapons. Clearly Taiwan wants them, South 5 Korea wants them. And you know, not that I can speak for 6 these governments, but it seems to me they have made a 7 decision the best way to get a weapon is to do it the way 8 the Indians did. We get a Canadian CANDU reactor, then we 9 start getting in whatever material we can get from, for 10 example, this MOX program. They will get plutonium and 11 then they can make a bomb, they can assemble a bomb. 12 As for the ease of assembling a bomb, Your 13 Honor, when I was a student at Harvard there was a very 14 bright student at MIT who, as a class project, assembled a 15 bomb. He had everything there except the plutonium. 16 That's how easy it is to assemble an atomic bottom, and he 17 brought it down there and, if I remember correctly, in 18 central square at MIT, and just showed it to everyone. 19 Even a bright student at MIT can assemble a bomb, that's 20 how easy it is to do. And what we see on these states 21 that say they are non-nuclear weapons states is an effort 22 to get a CANDU reactor and do what the Indians do use the 23 CANDU reactor, then they just need to get hold of the 24 plutonium, and Parallex MOX is going to give them access 25 to this plutonium if it gets in circulation. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 57 1 Q. Dr. Boyle, you've testified in some depth as to the 2 Nonproliferation Treaty and the implementation by Congress 3 indicating Congress' intent to prohibit even components, 4 parts of nuclear weapons to be covered by the U.S.; is 5 that correct? 6 A. Congress has interpreted the NPT, as I said, in good 7 faith, and to achieve its object and purpose and they have 8 interpreted to mean components that is clear of nuclear 9 weapons or nuclear explosive devices and there are other 10 areas in legislation where they even break it down to 11 items or substances that could be used for nuclear weapons 12 or nuclear explosive device, so Congress is aware of this 13 problem of a state becoming a de facto nuclear weapons 14 state and somehow trying to assemble components, items and 15 substances to be used for a nuclear weapon in order to 16 circumvent the treaty. So again Congress has interpreted, 17 I think, the treaty properly. 18 Q. Are you familiar in the course of your research with the 19 DOE's stockpile of stewardship program? 20 A. I am, yes. 21 Q. Are you familiar with their use in that program of 22 subcritical amounts of weapons grade plutonium? 23 A. Yes. Right now the Department of Energy is engaging in 24 what are known as subcritical tests. A subcritical test 25 is using -- they just did one this week, I think I gave KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 58 1 you the press release on it, and they are consistently 2 doing this. 3 A subcritical test uses a subcritical amount of 4 plutonium, which is under the -- it was eight kilograms. 5 And they are exploding it in order to test, verify and 6 develop the next generation of U.S. nuclear weapons. So 7 what we see the Department of Energy doing here is the 8 subcritical tests, in my opinion, would constitute it's 9 not a nuclear weapon, but it is a nuclear explosive 10 device. Now, there is nothing illegal with, under the NPT 11 with us having a nuclear explosive device, because we are 12 a nuclear weapons state party, but again, it creates 13 problems other states are now mimicking our behavior. 14 Russia is doing the same thing, France and Britain say 15 they are going to do the same thing. If we give weapons 16 grade plutonium to Canada, Canada could be doing the same 17 thing. Or the Russians give their weapons grade plutonium 18 to Canada, Canada could be doing the same thing, and other 19 states could be doing the same thing. So again, I think I 20 have serious concerns here, but I want to point out the 21 DOE is already engaged in the subcritical tests which are 22 clearly nuclear explosive devices. So it just doesn't 23 have to be a bomb to be regulated by the NPT. 24 Q. Dr. Boyle, in the scope of your experience and research, 25 have you become acquainted with the International Court of KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 59 1 Justice opinion regarding nuclear weapons in 1996? 2 A. Yes. As a matter of fact, I was part of the effort 3 originally to try to get that advisory opinion from the 4 World Court. 5 Q. If you would explain briefly what the significance, if 6 anything, of that World Court decision on the Parallex 7 project is, in your opinion? 8 A. Well, Your Honor, the World Court was asked by the United 9 Nations general assembly to give an opinion on the entire 10 question of nuclear weapons and international law. It's a 11 very long decision with many separate decisions in the 12 sense I've written an article here, Mr. Love might want to 13 provide it to you, going through all of it. But in this 14 opinion, there are two critical components that are 15 relevant to the Parallex MOX project and, of course, the 16 EA has not dealt with either, let alone the World Court 17 opinion, and the World Court opinion in this area 18 enunciates the rules of international law that are binding 19 on the United States Government, binding on Canada, 20 binding on Russia. The one component of this opinion 21 deals with the environmental-- international environmental 22 law applicable to nuclear weapons, and you will note in 23 the EA, the DOE does absolutely nothing at all with 24 international environmental law applicable to this 25 transaction because it is an international transaction, KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 60 1 they're shipping plutonium from the States up to Canada 2 and from Russia over to Canada. So international 3 environmental law is involved, and the DOE has done 4 nothing at all about it. 5 And Mr. Love, I think you have the exact 6 language there. You want to provide that to me, the exact 7 ruling of the Court on the international environmental law 8 that would apply? 9 MR. LOVE: Your Honor, we have tendered what I'm 10 going to show Dr. Boyle as Plaintiff's Exhibit 14, a copy 11 of the World Court opinion to both the Court and counsel 12 previously. 13 BY MR. LOVE: 14 Q. Dr. Boyle, I'm going to show you what has been marked as 15 Plaintiff's Exhibit 14 and ask you to take a look at that 16 and let us know when you've had a chance to do so and what 17 it is. 18 A. Right, this is the World Court advisory opinion. It's so 19 long, I'm going to have to get my notes on it, excuse me. 20 I think, Mr. Love, I gave you my notes last 21 night on the relevant provisions of the opinion, the 22 relevant paragraphs. 23 Q. While I'm looking for your notes, could you direct your 24 attention to Paragraph 27, please? 25 A. Right. What we need are the paragraphs here. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 61 1 Right. Yes, I have Paragraph 27. 2 Your Honor, here the World Court unanimously 3 adopted Principle 21 of the Stockholm Declaration of 1972, 4 which everyone would say today is a basic principle of 5 international environmental law, which the EA has not 6 bothered to deal with. And it basically says states have 7 a duty "to ensure that activities within their 8 jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to the 9 environment of other states or areas beyond the limits of 10 national jurisdiction." That's a basic principle of 11 international environmental law. It goes back to the 12 Stockholm Declaration of 1972. It has direct relevance 13 here to this entire project. You've got international 14 shipment of plutonium, it's going over the high seas if it 15 goes by boat from Russia. That also triggers the Law of 16 the Sea Convention that they have not dealt with. They 17 haven't dealt with the Stockholm Declaration, and they 18 have not dealt with this recent ruling by the World Court 19 as to obligations under international law. If you read 20 the EA when they are asked this question, they said "Once 21 we give to Canada, that's their problem." Well, again, 22 that isn't a correct statement of international law. It 23 is our problem. 24 The second important point of the ICJ opinion, 25 and there are other sections here dealing with the KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 62 1 environment -- and I know we have a limited amount of 2 time, I'm not going to go through it all -- deals with the 3 interpretation of the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty. 4 This is an international treaty, the World Court 5 also has authority to interpret the Nuclear 6 Nonproliferation Treaty, and they have interpreted the 7 Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. 8 Mr. Love, could you give me -- I identified a 9 paragraph for you, I think it's 102. 10 Q. I believe you are looking for Paragraph 102? 11 A. 102, right. 12 Q. May also want to take a look at Paragraph 99. 13 A. 99 and 102, right. 14 The World Court, in the same advisory opinion, 15 has also dealt with the NPT and the obligation of Article 16 VI of the NPT, "Each of the parties to the treaty 17 undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on 18 effective measures relating to cessation of the" -- "in 19 good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of 20 the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear 21 disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete 22 disarmament under strict and effective international 23 control." And they have interpreted this provision, NPT 24 Article VI, which we are a party to, by the way, to have a 25 dual obligation, two components here: One, we must pursue KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 63 1 negotiations on nuclear disarmament as a matter of good 2 faith. 3 Recently, I regret to report the U.S. Ambassador 4 to the Conference on Nuclear Disarmament sponsored by the 5 United Nations has said "We are not going to pursue 6 nuclear disarmament negotiations." In my opinion, that 7 puts us in breach of NPT Article VI, certainly as 8 interpreted by the World Court. We have an obligation to 9 pursue nuclear disarmament negotiations and we have just 10 said we are not going to do it. The Ambassador said "We 11 are going to pursue instead a treaty on the cutoff of 12 fissile materials such as what is at stake here, but we 13 are not going to pursue nuclear disarmament negotiations." 14 Well, Your Honor, it does seem to me that that is a 15 violation of NPT Article VI and is certainly not meeting 16 the requirements of Article VI as interpreted by the World 17 Court. We must pursue these negotiations in good faith. 18 And then the second component of the obligation 19 is we must achieve a precise result. Nuclear disarmament 20 in all its aspects. And again just recently the U.S. 21 Ambassador to the Council of Nuclear Disarmament under the 22 auspices of the UN said "We are just not going to do it." 23 The reason why this creates serious legal problems is that 24 the non-nuclear weapons states went along with the entire 25 Nuclear Proliferation Treaty on the assumption that the KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 64 1 nuclear weapons states would engage in good faith 2 negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament. If we are 3 not engaging in negotiations leading to nuclear 4 disarmament and publicly say we are not going to do it, 5 this in theory could give the non-nuclear weapons states, 6 all 175 of them, grounds to argue the material breach of 7 the NPT and pull out of the NPT and to engage in nuclear 8 armament. Now I'm not recommending that and indeed I 9 certainly would not recommend that to anyone, but it is a 10 very serious concern if we are not engaging in these 11 nuclear disarmament negotiations, which we are not 12 currently doing. 13 Q. Dr. Boyle, could you briefly summarize for the Court why 14 the International Court of Justice opinions, if at all, 15 are binding on the U.S.? 16 A. This opinion per se is listed as an advisory opinion. So 17 it is -- we are not party to the lawsuit. As you know, 18 some courts can give advisory opinions. Your Honor, you 19 can't give an advisory opinion, but there are courts in 20 the United States that some states courts have authority 21 to give advisory opinions as well as contentious 22 opinions. The World Court has both. They have authority 23 contentious opinion and an advisory opinion. This was not 24 a contentious case. If it were a contentious case, we 25 would be bound by it, like the Lockerbie case, like the KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 65 1 Bosnia cases that I was involved with, those were 2 contentious cases. This was an advisory opinion, however, 3 in this advisory opinion, with these unanimous rulings by 4 the World Court on these points, the World Court made it 5 clear that these rules are customary international law. 6 And rules of customary international law bind the United 7 States Government. The Paquete, P-a-q-u-e-t-e, Habana, 8 H-a-b-a-n-a, decision by the United States Supreme Court 9 customarily international law binds the United States and 10 the United States courts. And technically, this is 11 federal common law. So the, Your Honor, this Court should 12 take into account the World Court rulings on these two 13 points on international environmental law and how the NPT 14 should be interpreted. 15 The rest of the opinion, which is quite lengthy 16 and I had written about elsewhere -- if you are interested 17 in reading my article, you can, but it's not really 18 relevant or terribly germane to the issues here, but 19 certainly, the section on international environmental law 20 and their interpretation of the NPT is relevant. I think 21 they enunciate rules of customary international law. I 22 also have reached the same conclusions myself in my own 23 scholarly research before the World Court did, but I think 24 most experts would agree with the rulings of the World 25 Court on these two points, it's requirements of KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 66 1 international environmental law and the interpretation of 2 the NPT. 3 And again, the DOE's environmental assessment 4 has not taken any of this into account. They have not 5 taken into account the rules of international 6 environmental law, which they should do, and they have not 7 taken into account anything about the NPT. 8 Q. Dr. Boyle, based on your review of the NPT, the Nuclear 9 Nonproliferation Acts of 1978, 1994, and 1998, the 10 International Court of Justice opinion, and the 11 declarations by the Department of State regarding the U.S. 12 position with respect to the Nonproliferation Treaty 13 commitments we have made, do you have an opinion as an 14 expert in international law as to whether the foreign 15 policy of the United States would be violated by the 16 shipment of MOX from Russia to Canada funded by the U.S. 17 DOE? 18 A. Well, again, I agree with everything Dr. Edwards said. 19 Your Honor, this is a major change in United States 20 nonproliferation policy going back at a minimum to the 21 Carter administration and the adoption of the Nuclear 22 Nonproliferation Act, it seems to me completely 23 inconsistent with the treaty, with the Act, the 1978 Act 24 and 1994 Act and the 1998 Act. So yes, this is a major 25 change in policy that potentially is illegal under the KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 67 1 sources. And I would really like to see the Department of 2 Energy comprehensively address all of these issues so we 3 could see what is their authority to do this. Besides 4 their own ipse dixit. I would like to see the authority. 5 I don't see it in any of the sources I've read before for 6 them to unilaterally engage in this major change in policy 7 that seems to be inconsistent with the Treaty, the '78 8 Act, the '94 Act and '98 Act, yes. 9 MR. LOVE: Your Honor, I have no further 10 questions of this witness. Thank you. 11 CROSS EXAMINATION 12 BY MR. DODGE: 13 Q. Morning, Mr. Boyle. 14 A. Morning. 15 Q. I would like to turn your attention back to your C.V., 16 which I think is Exhibit 3. Do you have that in front of 17 you? 18 A. Sure. 19 Q. Just to round out a few items on the second page, about 20 halfway down you testified that you were counsel to Libya 21 in connection with the bombing of the Pan Am flight over 22 Lockerbie, Scotland. 23 A. That is correct. I should point out that matter is being 24 peaceably resolved now by the United States and Libya 25 because of my efforts. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 68 1 Q. And you've also served, going up now the fourth item from 2 the top of that page, since 1987 you served as a legal 3 advisor to the Palestine Liberation Organization? 4 A. That is correct, and I was also the legal advisor to the 5 Palestinian delegation for the Middle East Peace Talks 6 convened under the auspices of President Bush, yes. 7 Q. And two items down from there said you were counsel 8 related to House Resolution 86 in the 102nd Congress 9 dealing with the impeachment of former, then President 10 George Bush? 11 A. Yes. Congressman Henry G. Gonzalez of Texas reached a 12 decision that President Bush going to war violated 13 numerous provisions of the Constitution and international 14 law. You can find them there in House Resolution 86. And 15 he asked me, because of my knowledge and expertise to 16 serve as counsel to them on these matters, and I did serve 17 as counsel free of charge, that is correct. 18 My service to the Palestinian Delegation in the 19 Middle East Peace Negotiations is there in '91 and '93, as 20 I said, President Bush was the one who convened those 21 negotiations, and yes, even though I did set out with 22 Congressman Gonzalez on this issue, President Bush did 23 sign my Biological Weapons Anti-terrorists Act of 1989, 24 which is -- 25 Q. He apparently didn't hold your efforts against you KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 69 1 personally. 2 A. Pardon me? 3 Q. Sounds like he didn't hold it against you personally. 4 A. I don't think he did, no. I'm a lawyer and a law 5 professor and I'm a professional, but he had no problems, 6 President Bush had no problems with my Biological 7 Anti-Terrorism Act. It was approved unanimously by both 8 Houses of Congress. 9 Q. Moving on to the third page, second item from the top of 10 the page, you worked as a consultant in 1993 on 11 Independence for the State of Hawaii. I would assume for 12 Hawaii to become an independent nation? 13 A. That is correct. The State of Hawaii-- the Hawaiian 14 Sovereignty Advisory Commission is an agency of the State 15 of Hawaii. And they were charged under the law by the 16 State of Hawaiian law to investigate all alternatives for 17 the native Hawaiian people. One of the alternatives that 18 needed to be investigated was whether or not the native 19 Hawaiian people should establish their own independent 20 nation state. And I was retained by the State of Hawaii 21 then to advise them on this because of my experience doing 22 the same work with the Palestinians. I advised them on 23 the creation of their state and the peace talks with 24 Israel based on a two-state solution, and the Palestinian 25 state today has diplomatic recognition now by about 125 KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 70 1 states, and currently has de facto UN membership, and I 2 did the legal work on that, so the State of Hawaii 3 retained me to come out and advise on the establishment of 4 an independent nations state, and the State of Hawaii paid 5 my expenses and a modest fee for this work, yes. 6 Q. Moving on to the Nonproliferation Treaty, you testified 7 about Article I. Do you recall that? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. And as I understood your testimony, your view is that the 10 fuel rods at issue in the Parallex Project, in your view, 11 should be treated as components of a nuclear weapon; is 12 that right? Explosive device? 13 A. No. What I said was weapons grade plutonium should be 14 treated as a component of either a nuclear weapon or a 15 nuclear explosive device. 16 Q. What about -- I mean, the Parallex test involves shipment 17 and then irradiation of fuel rods; is that correct? 18 A. Right. 19 Q. And is it your view or is it not your view that those fuel 20 rods constitute components of nuclear weapons or explosive 21 devices? 22 A. My viewpoint is what I said, that weapons grade plutonium 23 is a component of a nuclear weapon or nuclear explosive 24 device. 25 Q. You didn't answer my question. Do you understand the KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 71 1 question? 2 A. Well, I've given my answer. 3 THE COURT: No, you haven't answered his 4 question. He asked you question, if you don't know the 5 answer, say so. He asked you a very specific question 6 about rods. 7 BY MR. DODGE: 8 Q. In fact, the question has to do with your view, if you 9 have one, whether the fuel rods at issue in the Parallex 10 test program constitute components of nuclear weapons or 11 explosive devices. 12 A. If they contain weapons grade plutonium, they would be or 13 could be components of nuclear weapons or nuclear 14 explosive devices. 15 Q. Well, these fuel rods do contain plutonium; is that right? 16 A. As I understand it, it's in there, yep. 17 Q. So in your view, does that make the fuel rods components 18 of nuclear weapons or explosive devices? 19 A. Again, my testimony is that the weapons grade plutonium 20 clearly is either nuclear -- is a component of a nuclear 21 weapon or a nuclear explosive device, and the reason I 22 give that testimony is based on my reading of the 23 Congressional legislation, Congress has taken the position 24 that weapons grade plutonium or plutonium, in general, is 25 a component of a nuclear weapon or nuclear explosive KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 72 1 device. Congress does not deal with the fuel rods, they 2 dealt with the plutonium. 3 Q. I want to make sure I understand your testimony clearly. 4 Is it your testimony, is it your view that any 5 plutonium would qualify as a component of a nuclear 6 weapons or nuclear weapon or explosive device under the 7 treaty? 8 A. My testimony today is the weapons grade plutonium involved 9 in this project is a component of a nuclear weapons or 10 other nuclear explosive device. I believe weapons grade 11 plutonium is what is involved in this project. 12 Q. I asked you a different question. The question was a 13 broader one. Is it your view or not your view that all 14 plutonium would qualify as a component of a nuclear weapon 15 or explosive device under Article I? 16 A. It appears Congress has taken that position, yes, and they 17 have stringently regulated plutonium in all forms. And I 18 also note that the United States Government has exploded a 19 nuclear weapon -- 20 THE COURT: The question is: Is it your 21 opinion? He is asking four or five times now, could you 22 answer that? 23 THE WITNESS: But Your Honor, my opinion is 24 based on -- 25 THE COURT: In courts -- I know you are a KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 73 1 professor -- we answer the questions of the lawyer, not 2 what we want to talk about. He asked you seven or eight 3 questions, none of which you've answered. I would ask you 4 simply listen to the lawyer's question and answer it. 5 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honor. 6 BY MR. DODGE: 7 Q. Do you understand the question? 8 THE COURT: Ask it again for the fifteenth time, 9 ask it again. 10 BY MR. DODGE: 11 Q. Is it your view that all plutonium constitutes a component 12 of nuclear weapon or explosive device under Article I of 13 the treaty? 14 A. It can. 15 Q. It can? 16 A. Yes. Yes. 17 Q. Is it your view across the board that plutonium, whether 18 weapons grade or not, if it's present in a fuel rod for 19 a-- destined for a civilian nuclear reactor would qualify 20 as a component of a nuclear weapon explosive device? 21 A. It could. 22 Q. Do you know whether as a general matter the signatories of 23 the Nonproliferation Treaty have interpreted, whether any 24 signatory has interpreted Article I to ban transport of 25 fuel rods containing plutonium? KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 74 1 A. Congress has strictly regulated plutonium, yes, and there 2 is legislation on the books saying "We, Congress, 3 interpreting our obligations under the NPT, are against 4 international transport of plutonium," yes. 5 Q. Has Congress passed any legislation prohibiting the 6 transport of nuclear fuel rods containing any plutonium? 7 A. In what I have reviewed for my testimony here today, I 8 have not seen in the '78, '94 or '98 Act that Congress has 9 prohibited transport of fuel rods. 10 Q. In fact, fuel rods are transported across national 11 boundaries all the time; is that not correct? 12 A. They are transported. 13 Q. In fact, fuel rods containing plutonium are transported 14 across national boundaries all the time, isn't that 15 correct? 16 A. If they are subject to-- they are supposed to be subject 17 to safeguards, yes. 18 Q. Well, that gets us to another point of your earlier 19 testimony regarding whether the fuel rods particularly at 20 issue in the Parallex Project are or are not subject to 21 IA/EA safeguards in Canada. Do you recall that testimony? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. Do you have personal knowledge whether Canada, the 24 Government of Canada has taken a position on whether the 25 U.S. Parallex fuel rods, which are now in Canada, whether KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 75 1 those fuel rods are now subject to IA/EA safeguards? 2 A. I have not seen any evidence because of the recentness of 3 the movement of the shipments. 4 Q. If I told you that the position of the Government of 5 Canada is that those fuel rods are, in fact, subject to 6 IA/EA safeguards, would you have any basis to quarrel with 7 that? 8 A. The statement by Ms. Locatelli does call into question the 9 validity of these assertions, yes. 10 Q. Miss Locatelli was generally speaking of Parallex fuel 11 rods, was she? 12 A. Speaking about plutonium in general, right. 13 Q. I take it you didn't speak personally to Miss Locatelli? 14 A. No, I did not. 15 Q. About this or any-- 16 A. But I did speak with Mr. Clemens of NCI by e-mail and he 17 has similar concerns to me. 18 Q. Okay. And did you speak to the newspaper reporter, Martin 19 Mittelstaedt, who quoted Ms. Locatelli? 20 A. No, I did not. 21 Q. Whether his quotes accurately reflect what she said or not 22 is not something you would be qualified to testify about; 23 is that right? 24 A. Well, I note The Globe and Mail is a newspaper of public 25 record and I would be able to rely on that in the World KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 76 1 Court for sure, yep. 2 Q. But newspaper reporters are human beings? 3 A. Newspaper reporters make mistakes, sure. But again, the 4 World Court, for example, the nuclear test cases did rely 5 on statements made by Government officials as normally 6 reported in reputable news media sources. They have 7 different standards of evidence, the World Court, than 8 they do here in United States District Court. 9 Q. Now you've also relied on this article, Plaintiff's 10 Exhibit 5, I guess too, in support of your opinion that 11 Canada is in possession of 40 kilograms or up to 40 12 kilograms of plutonium; is that right? 13 A. This is a statement by Mr. Clemens, and I have had e-mail 14 correspondence with him about it. 15 Q. Do you have any personal knowledge whether -- 16 A. No. 17 Q. I'm sorry, I didn't finish my question. 18 A. I did answer your question. 19 THE COURT: He hasn't finished asking it; you 20 couldn't possibly answer his question when he hasn't 21 finished asking it. 22 THE WITNESS: Sorry. 23 BY MR. DODGE: 24 Q. Do you have any personal knowledge of whether Canada, in 25 fact, has 40 kilograms of plutonium? KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 77 1 A. I do not have personal knowledge, no. I'm relying on the 2 statement by Mr. Clemens. 3 Q. Mr. Clemens, does Mr. Clemens have personal knowledge 4 whether Canada has 40-- 5 A. As I understand, Mr. Clemens does. From my e-mail 6 correspondence with him, he does. 7 Q. Has he seen that plutonium? 8 A. Pardon me? 9 Q. Has he seen it? 10 A. He didn't tell me what his sources of evidence are, but he 11 did tell me that they will be making it public soon. 12 Q. So he thinks he has -- he thinks he has evidence to 13 support that conclusion and whether that evidence holds 14 any water or not, we really can't tell, can we? 15 A. Well, again, as an expert, if the NCI is making the 16 statements, I think they are significant and they need to 17 be dealt with, and certainly by the Department of Energy. 18 THE COURT: That was not -- excuse me, that was 19 not his question. 20 Would you repeat your question, please? 21 BY MR. DODGE: 22 Q. The question is: Mr. Clemens believes he has reason or he 23 has evidence to support his conclusion that Canada has 40 24 kilograms of plutonium, but as far as anybody in this 25 courtroom knows, that evidence may or may not hold water, KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 78 1 we just don't know, correct? 2 A. I'm not evaluating the evidence, and Mr. Clemens said the 3 evidence will be produced, so at that point I will review 4 the evidence and formulate a formal opinion. 5 THE COURT: Do you want to ask it again or just 6 want to give up? 7 MR. DODGE: I think that -- I think the point is 8 established to the extent I need to, Your Honor. 9 BY MR. DODGE: 10 Q. Now, you testified earlier that it's up to the State 11 Department, not the Department of Energy to interpret 12 United States treaty obligations; is that right? 13 A. I testified that it is the State Department that is in 14 charge of nuclear proliferation policies, that's what I 15 testified, and not the Department of Energy, yes. 16 Q. Okay. Is it your view that it's -- maybe I misunderstood 17 what you testified earlier. I thought I heard you say 18 that interpreting whether or not the U.S. is complying 19 with Nonproliferation Treaty in particular, that pertinent 20 authority on that would be the State Department, not the 21 Department of Energy; is that a fair statement? 22 A. I've also testified that the State Department has the lead 23 role in the United States Government with respect to 24 interpretation of treatises as well. 25 Q. Do you know what the State Department's position is on KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 79 1 whether the Parallex test program is or is not compliant 2 with Article I of the Nonproliferation Treaty? 3 A. Well, that's why I read the Environmental Assessment, to 4 see if you had talked to the State Department here, and 5 they hadn't, so I have not seen any statement by the State 6 Department as to what their position is, no. 7 Q. The Environmental Assessment is not the only document 8 that's been generated in the course of the Parallex 9 Project, you understand that? 10 A. That is correct, and I have read a good deal of the 11 documentation, but I still have not seen an expression by 12 the Department of State on this issue. 13 Q. Okay. Do you know whether or not the State Department was 14 involved at any level in the Parallex Project? 15 A. There probably were discussions somewhere in there. 16 Q. Do you know? 17 A. Myself personally? 18 Q. Yes. 19 A. I don't know for sure. 20 Q. Do you know one way or the other whether the State 21 Department has a view on whether the Parallex Project is 22 consistent with our treaty obligations under Article I of 23 the NPT? 24 A. I have not seen any expression by the State Department on 25 this issue. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 80 1 Q. If I told you the State Department has taken the view that 2 the Parallex Project is entirely consistent with our 3 obligations under Article I, would you have any basis to 4 quarrel with that? 5 A. I haven't seen it. 6 MR. LODGE: Objection, Your Honor. 7 THE COURT: If he hasn't seen -- 8 MR. DODGE: Withdraw the question, Your Honor. 9 THE WITNESS: I would like to see it and 10 evaluate it myself, sure. 11 BY MR. DODGE: 12 Q. You also testified about dangers of nuclear proliferation 13 relating to countries such as Taiwan and Korea that are 14 not currently nuclear weapons states, but would like to 15 acquire nuclear weapons, do you recall that testimony? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. Is it correct that the MOX program, the Parallex Program 18 does not contemplate the shipment of any fuel rods to any 19 country other than Canada? 20 A. Not at this stage, but eventually it does appear there 21 will be mass circulation of this material, yes, down the 22 line. 23 Q. And the basis for that is what exactly? 24 A. The quantities. If the test works out, the quantity we 25 are talking about coming from Russia. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 81 1 Q. Well, let me be more specific about this. Has the United 2 States, any spokesperson for the United States Government 3 proposed in connection with the Parallex Project to send 4 fuel rods to any country other than Canada? 5 A. The United States? 6 Q. Right. 7 A. No. 8 Q. Has the Government of Russia proposed, in connection with 9 the Parallex Project, to send fuel rods to any country 10 other than Canada? 11 A. Well, they are talking about massive quantities of weapons 12 grade plutonium being circulated into this program and the 13 independent team of experts by Russia and the United 14 States have made that quite clear they are talking tons of 15 this stuff. 16 Q. Well, again, you didn't answer my question there, 17 Professor. I asked you whether the Russian Government has 18 proposed sending fuel rods to any country other than 19 Canada. Your answer only dealt with volumes, it didn't 20 address where. That was my question. 21 A. Right. There might have been discussions on Germany or 22 some of the European states have there -- there have been 23 discussions and proposals, but it's just at that stage 24 now, yes. 25 Q. But Russia has not, to your knowledge, proposed sending KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 82 1 fuel rods to Korea? 2 A. There is an international market here, sure, it could be 3 sold anywhere. 4 THE COURT: No, he didn't say could have. He 5 said: Did they propose it? 6 THE WITNESS: I have not read that right now 7 Russia is proposing sending this to Korea. 8 BY MR. DODGE: 9 Q. Same question with Taiwan. 10 A. I have not read that Russia is proposing to send this to 11 Taiwan. 12 MR. DODGE: No further questions at this time, 13 Your Honor. 14 THE COURT: We will take a 15-minute recess. 15 COURT CLERK: All rise. 16 This court is in recess. 17 (At 10:54 a.m., recess.) 18 THE COURT: Okay. What is next? 19 MR. LOVE: Brief redirect, Your Honor. 20 REDIRECT EXAMINATION 21 BY MR. LOVE: 22 Q. Professor Boyle, did you receive any recognition or 23 rewards from Bosnia for your efforts on their behalf? 24 A. While I was never paid a penny, but President Izetbegovic 25 and Vice President Gonich (phonetic) held a ceremony at KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 83 1 the Bosnian presidency with a-- awarded me full-fledged 2 citizenship in the Republic, a diplomatic passport and 3 visa and a declaration and they put the ceremony on 4 television, so that was very nice. So technically I'm a 5 Bosnian citizen too. 6 Q. Dr. Boyle, with respect to your work on the Hawaiian 7 independence that Mr. Dodge asked you about, has there 8 been any action by the President or Congress, to your 9 knowledge, with respect to that? 10 A. Yes. In 1993 Congress passed a statute signed into law by 11 President Clinton formally apologizing to the native 12 Hawaiian people for destroying their kingdom and stealing 13 their land. The legislation at the end provides for a 14 process of reconciliation and reparations, and how this is 15 going to be dealt with, and I'm still currently involved 16 in those matters. 17 Q. Dr. Boyle, there should be a document up there marked 18 Plaintiff's Exhibit 13. Do you see that? 19 A. Yes, I have it here. 20 Q. Now, this is entitled a Nonproliferation Arms Control 21 Assessment of Weapons Usable Fissile Material Storage and 22 Excess Plutonium Disposition Alternatives, dated January, 23 1997 authored by the United States Department of Energy, 24 correct? 25 A. Yes. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 84 1 Q. Was this among the documents that you reviewed in 2 preparing your testimony? 3 A. I did not have -- I did not get this entire document until 4 Monday, so I did not have a chance to review the entire 5 document, but I have reviewed the excerpts you gave to 6 me. 7 Q. Now Mr. Dodge asked you-- for the record, Your Honor, the 8 excerpt only contains Pages 106 and 107-- Mr. Dodge asked 9 you about your testimony about the possibility of future 10 shipments of MOX to Taiwan and Korea. Do you remember him 11 asking you about that? 12 A. Yes. 13 THE COURT: He didn't ask what the possibility 14 is, he asked if there were plans by Russia or the United 15 States to ship to those two nations. That was the 16 question. 17 MR. LOVE: Okay. 18 THE COURT: And the answer was no. Not are 19 there possibilities. I know the witness thinks there are 20 possibilities, that won't help me any. I understand 21 that. 22 BY MR. LOVE: 23 Q. In fact, Dr. Boyle is it true that in this document the 24 DOE indicates there are possibilities such as you 25 testified about? KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 85 1 A. Yes. 2 THE COURT: I accept that. You are wasting my 3 time. There are possibilities. 4 BY MR. LOVE: 5 Q. Dr. Boyle, if you would, I direct your attention to the 6 large document that's in front of you. This is 7 Proliferation Venerability Red Team Report, Plaintiff's 8 Exhibit 28, and introduced in the prior hearing. 9 A. Yes, and I read this entire report prior to my testimony 10 here today. 11 Q. I'm going to ask you, if you would, to direct your 12 attention to Page 6-1, the conclusions to that report. 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. And again, this is a document that was produced by Sandia 15 Laboratories for the Department of Energy? 16 A. That is correct. 17 Q. Directing your attention to the first conclusion, under 18 the conclusion, keeping plutonium inaccessible is the key 19 to proliferation resistance, do you see that? 20 A. Yes. It says quite clearly, all plutonium from all stages 21 of all alternatives can be made weapons usable should 22 sufficient material be successfully removed. And I should 23 point out that is the position Congress takes under the 24 Nuclear Nonproliferation Act of '78, the Act of '94 and 25 the '98, all plutonium can be made weapons usable. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 86 1 Q. In your view, is that conclusion by the Sandia Lab in this 2 Red Team Report consistent with your testimony? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. Now, Mr. Dodge asked you if there was transport of 5 plutonium across boundaries all the time. My notes 6 reflected you said yes. Do you remember that testimony? 7 A. I said there was some, yes. 8 Q. Is there routinely transportation of weapons grade 9 plutonium shipped across boundaries all the time by the 10 United States? 11 A. No. No. 12 MR. LOVE: No further questions. 13 MR. DODGE: No recross, Your Honor. 14 THE COURT: You may step down. 15 THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honor. 16 Your Honor, did you have any questions? 17 THE COURT: No, I don't. 18 THE WITNESS: Thank you. 19 THE COURT: You've exceeded your time so I take 20 it you have no more witnesses. 21 MR. LOVE: Your Honor, I have no more witnesses 22 but at this time I would like to move our Exhibit 5, 23 Exhibit 7, Exhibit 11, Exhibit 12, Exhibit 13, Exhibit 14 24 and Plaintiff's Exhibit 2 and Exhibit 1 into evidence. 25 MR. DODGE: No objection, Your Honor. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 87 1 THE COURT: 5, 7, 11, 12, 13 and 14, 1 and 2 are 2 received. 3 MR. LOVE: Thank you, Your Honor. We have 4 nothing further. 5 THE WITNESS: Here are the exhibits. Where do 6 you want them? 7 MR. LOVE: I'll take them here. 8 (Hearing continued; reported, not requested 9 transcribed.) 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 88 1 2 3 4 5 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE 6 7 I, Kathleen S. Thomas, Official Court Reporter for the 8 United States District Court for the Western District of 9 Michigan, appointed pursuant to the provisions of Title 28, 10 United States Code, Section 753, do hereby certify that the 11 foregoing is a true and correct transcript of proceedings had 12 in the within-entitled and numbered cause on the date 13 hereinbefore set forth; and I do further certify that the 14 foregoing transcript has been prepared by me or under my 15 direction. 16 17 18 19 20 __________________________________ 21 Kathleen S. Thomas, CSR, RPR-1300 22 U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue 23 Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 24 25 KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (voice) 217-244-1478 (fax) fboyle at law.uiuc.edu (personal comments only) Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Brussel, Morton K Sent: Monday, November 06, 2017 7:56 PM To: Boyle, Francis A Cc: David Green ; C. G. ESTABROOK ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay ; David Johnson ; Mildred O'brien ; Estabrook, Carl G Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] FW: MOX for Bombs in Japan I think this is wrong. MOX fuel is mainly used for fuel in nuclear power reactors, not to make bombs. Japan had/has many nuclear reactors. A fairly intelligible discussion is found in wikipedia, under "MOX nuclear”. —mkb On Nov 6, 2017, at 4:40 PM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss > wrote: This was a very lengthy interview I gave in Japan courtesy of their peace and anti-nuclear movement. It was heavily censored. My basic point was that Japan was using MOX to make bombs and that my best estimate was that Japan probably had as many bombs as PRC, which would be in the area of 500. So when the details of the disaster at Fukushima came out, it was clear to me it was one of their leading bomb complexes. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: globenet at yahoogroups.com [mailto:globenet at yahoogroups.com] Sent: Saturday, March 21, 2015 8:10 AM To: globenet at yahoogroups.com Cc: 'Hiroshi Taka'; 'Gensuikyo'; 'Akira Kawasaki'; oheyeran at yahoogroups.com; asia-pacific_demil_mdg-request at lists.riseup.net; 'Coleen Rowley'; 'Douglas Roche' Subject: [globenet] MOX for Bombs in Japan Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (Voice) 217-244-1478 (Fax) (personal comments only) __._,_.___ ________________________________ Posted by: "Boyle, Francis A" > ________________________________ Reply via web post • Reply to sender • Reply to group • Start a New Topic • Messages in this topic (1) VISIT YOUR GROUP [Yahoo! Groups] • Privacy • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use . __,_._,___ _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Tue Nov 7 02:38:54 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2017 02:38:54 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: MOX for Bombs in Japan In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Well I have been qualified as an Expert on MOX in United States Federal District Court. And I prohibit my law students from citing Wikipedia to me in any paper and advise them to never cite or quote Wikipedia to a Judge because Wikipedia is filled with so much pure, unadulterated BULL-TWADDLE. Fab. Subject: Nuclear Proliferation/NPT/US Atomic Energy Law/MOX, etc. 1 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 3 SOUTHERN DIVISION 4 5 ALICE HIRT; ANABEL DWYER; CITIZENS FOR ALTERNATIVES 6 TO CHEMICAL CONTAMINATION; KATHRYN CUMBOW; ROBERT 7 ANDERSON; DORIS SCHALLER VERNON; and TERRY MILLER, 8 Plaintiffs, 9 v. CASE NO: 1:99-CV-933 10 BILL RICHARDSON, Secretary, 11 United States Department of Energy; UNITED STATES 12 OF AMERICA; and UNKNOWN PART(Y)(IES), named as 13 "John and Jane Doe" on complaint, 14 Defendants. 15 ____________________________/ 16 * * * * 17 18 TESTIMONY OF GORDON EDWARDS and FRANCIS BOYLE 19 * * * * 20 21 BEFORE: THE HONORABLE RICHARD ALAN ENSLEN United States District Judge 22 Kalamazoo, Michigan April 7, 2000 23 24 25 KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 2 1 APPEARANCES: 2 APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFFS: 3 MR. KARY LOVE 4 977 Butternut Drive PMB 128 5 Holland, Michigan 49424 6 MR. TERRY J. LODGE 316 North Michigan Street, Suite 520 7 Toledo, Ohio 43624-1627 8 APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANTS: 9 MR. ROBERT I. DODGE 10 MR. CHARLES GROSS U.S. Attorney's Office 11 330 Ionia Avenue, N.W., Suite 501 P.O. Box 208 12 Grand Rapids, Michigan 49501-208 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 3 1 INDEX 2 WITNESS: Page 3 GORDON EDWARDS Direct Examination by Mr. Lodge 4 4 Cross Examination by Mr. Dodge 17 Redirect Examination by Mr. Lodge 20 5 6 FRANCIS BOYLE 7 Direct Examination by Mr. Love 21 Cross Examination by Mr. Dodge 67 8 Redirect Examination by Mr. Love 82 9 10 EXHIBITS Rec'd. 11 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 1 87 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 2 87 12 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 3 31 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 5 87 13 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 6 87 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 11 87 14 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 12 87 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 13 87 15 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 14 87 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 4 1 Kalamazoo, Michigan 2 April 7, 2000 3 at approximately 8:50 A.M. 4 EXCERPT OF PROCEEDINGS 5 TESTIMONY OF GORDON EDWARDS 6 MR. LODGE: We waive opening. 7 THE COURT: Okay. Good for you. 8 MR. LODGE: And we would call Gordon Edwards. 9 GORDON EDWARDS - PLAINTIFFS' WITNESS - SWORN. 10 COURT CLERK: Please state and spell your name 11 for the record. 12 THE WITNESS: My name is Gordon Edwards, 13 G-o-r-d-o-n E-d-w-a-r-d-s. 14 DIRECT EXAMINATION 15 BY MR. LODGE: 16 Q. Dr. Edwards, you previously testified in this proceeding 17 in an earlier motion hearing in December, 1999, correct? 18 A. That is correct. 19 Q. And what, just summarize for the Court, to refresh the 20 Court's recollection, what is your occupation or 21 profession? 22 A. I'm a professor of mathematics at Vanier College in 23 Montreal, and I'm also a consultant on nuclear issues for 24 both governmental and nongovernmental agencies. 25 Q. Are you affiliated with any nongovernmental entity in KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 5 1 Canada regarding the purpose of which is to discuss 2 nuclear issues? 3 A. Yes, I'm the president of the Canadian Coalition for 4 Nuclear Responsibility, which is a federally incorporated 5 organization, since 1978. 6 Q. And how long and in what capacities have you served as a 7 consultant on nuclear issues? 8 A. I've served as a consultant since 1977 for a variety of 9 bodies, including Royal Commissions of Inquiry where I 10 have been retained to cross-examine expert witnesses, also 11 the auditor general of Canada when they were doing a 12 comprehensive audit of the Atomic Energy Control Board, 13 and most recently I was invited for January 2000 by the 14 Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs and International 15 Trade to participate in a small expert workshop on nuclear 16 weapons policies in Ottawa. 17 Q. And Dr. Edwards, have you had the occasion to read the 18 environmental assessment promulgated by the Fissile 19 Materials Office of the U.S. Department of Energy for the 20 Parallex Project? 21 A. Yes, I have, and have commented on that as well. 22 Q. We are here today on a proposed shipment of MOX plutonium 23 from Russia to Chalk River, Ontario, you understand that? 24 A. That is correct. 25 Q. What is your understanding as to the amount of the KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 6 1 plutonium content of the MOX fuel rods, pins that would be 2 brought from Russia? 3 A. The MOX fuel contains 135 grams of weapons grade plutonium 4 as compared with the 119 grams that were in the American 5 shipment that proceeded in January. 6 Q. Now, Dr. Edwards, you indicated that the Canadian 7 Coalition was incorporated in approximately 1978? 8 A. That's right. 9 Q. Have you been active in nuclear issues since that time? 10 A. Even before that time, yes. I have been active 11 specifically on proliferation questions and 12 plutonium-related questions since 1975. 13 MR. LODGE: If I may approach. 14 THE COURT: Of course. 15 BY MR. LODGE: 16 Q. Showing you what has been marked for purposes of the 17 supplemental motion hearing as Plaintiff's Exhibit 1, I'm 18 going to also leave Exhibit 2 up here. 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. Have you ever conducted any investigation into the issue 21 of civilian population or work exposures to plutonium? 22 A. Only at the level of potential for damage, potential for 23 harm. 24 Q. What is Exhibit 1? 25 A. Exhibit 1 is a letter from Mary Measures, Ph.D., Director KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 7 1 of the Radiation Environmental Protection Division of the 2 Atomic Energy Control Board of Canada dealing with 3 quantity of plutonium that an atomic radiation worker or a 4 member of the public may inhale to reach their respective 5 maximum limits. 6 Q. And the date of that is September 30, 1999? 7 A. That is correct, about six months ago. 8 Q. And could you summarize what the inhalation, or what the 9 limits are for both workers and for public? 10 A. Yes. The maximum lifetime limit of exposure in the lung 11 for an atomic worker is approximately 1.4 micrograms, and 12 for the member of the public it's 0.1 microgram, and a 13 microgram being one one-millionth of a gram, so if we 14 translate this into grams, it would mean 1.4 grams would 15 be equivalent-- would be enough to give maximum 16 permissible doses to one million workers and ten -- one 17 gram would be enough to give maximum permissible doses to 18 ten million members of the general public. That's just 19 potential. 20 Q. Okay. And is that based on the -- or, I'm sorry. Have 21 you had occasion in connection with the proposed Russian 22 shipment of a 135 grams of plutonium and the American 23 shipment of 119 grams, to perform any computations as to 24 what the potential dispersion or exposure is? 25 A. Well, I would like to emphasize this is just arithmetic KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 8 1 and does not take into account dispersion factors such as 2 wind velocity, any respiration rates, and so on. If we 3 just look at the theoretical potential, then with 119 4 grams, we are talking about the potential for 85 million 5 atomic workers to receive their maximum permissible 6 exposure, if that were able to be disseminated into all of 7 their lungs and 1,000,190,000 members of the general 8 public, so even though this is a very small amount of 9 plutonium, the potential for exposure, harmful exposure is 10 quite significant. 11 Q. All right. But so that implies you would have to have an 12 optimal dispersal? 13 A. This would be an impossibly optimal dispersal. This would 14 be assuming that the plutonium were distributed fully into 15 the lungs of all the people that I've mentioned. 16 Q. Are you aware of whether or not the American shipment was 17 delivered to Chalk River? 18 A. Yes, the American shipment was delivered to Chalk River. 19 It was taken to the border in what I believe was an SST, a 20 truck which was described as silver, and I believe it was 21 probably an SST, although I do not know for absolute 22 certainty about that, and then it was transported to the 23 Sault Ste. Marie airport where it was lifted by helicopter 24 accompanied by two other helicopters, and transported from 25 there to Chalk River. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 9 1 Q. You indicated that you were talking about an impossibly 2 optimal dispersal. Have you had the occasion to perform 3 any computations as to a very conservative prudent factor 4 to start with for dispersal? 5 A. Well, this is beyond my competence to really talk about 6 the details of how it might be dispersed, but if we just 7 assume for example 99.9 percent containment in the event 8 of a serious accident. 9 Q. Are you saying how much? 10 A. Suppose 99.9 percent of the material were successfully 11 contained and not disseminated in the environment and only 12 that small fraction was disseminated. 13 Q. Okay. 14 A. The potential again would correspond to, for atomic 15 workers in the case of the 119 gram shipment from the 16 States, it would be 85,000 maximum exposures and in the 17 case of the public, it would still over a million. Even 18 with 99.9 containment, in the event of an accident, you 19 still have the potential for over a million 20 overexposures. By the way, the 135 grams, the difference 21 between the 119 grams and the 135 grams from Russia 22 corresponds to potentially again 160,000 additional 23 maximum exposures for members of the public. 24 Q. How many for workers? 25 A. 11,428. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 10 1 Q. That's just -- 2 A. That's just the differential between the two shipments, 3 just the added, going from 119 to 135 adds the potential 4 for another 11,000 worker overexposures or 160,000 public 5 overexposures. This, I believe, is why authorities take 6 such great care to emphasize the packaging in transport. 7 They realize that the potential is great for damage. 8 Q. Do your computations reflect an assumption respecting 9 whether or not the dispersion occurs as a result of an 10 accident or an attack? 11 A. No, we are talking about theoretical potential which is 12 the same regardless of how much or whether the material is 13 dispersed. In an accident, for example, we have 14 previously seen accidents that were analyzed for ground 15 transportation. I have not seen any computations or 16 analysis of accidents for air transport either from the 17 American side or from the Canadian side. 18 Q. Are you talking with respect to Parallex? 19 A. I'm talking with respect to Parallex. 20 If you had, for example, a violent crash and 21 fire of an aircraft, including a helicopter, then the 22 dispersal would cause a plume downwind, could cause a 23 plume downwind, and how much of that plutonium would 24 escape would be subject to analysis which is not, to my 25 knowledge, been performed. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 11 1 Q. Dr. Edwards, do you consider the plutonium in MOX fuel 2 form to be a weapons component? 3 A. Well, in the case of the Parallex project, as you know, 4 this 119 grams or 135 grams, there is not enough there to 5 make an atomic bomb. However, it has long been known that 6 you can make a very damaging radiological explosive device 7 which would simply disperse the plutonium in breathable 8 form. That means that if the plutonium were acquired by a 9 criminal organization or terrorist group they could make 10 an incendiary device which would make this available to be 11 breathed by members of the public and also cause very 12 long-lasting contamination of the environs where this 13 exposure would take place. I believe that it would be 14 incorrect to say that these, even this small Parallex 15 shipment, would not be attractive to terrorists or to 16 criminal organizations as a top -- as a target for theft 17 or diversion. It is true, of course, that this is weapons 18 grade material and had one, if one had sufficient weapons 19 grade material, one indeed can make a very powerful atomic 20 bomb from that. 21 Q. Have you seen any literature or other information in or 22 out of the record of this case that discusses the weapons 23 potential for plutonium? 24 A. Well, yes, it's certainly common knowledge that the -- in 25 fact, the U.S. Department of Energy acknowledges as much KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 12 1 when they refer to the Russian plutonium, the Russian 2 weapons grade plutonium is continuing a clear and present 3 danger. It's long been known and recognized that 4 plutonium is the key ingredient of atomic weapons, so if 5 one talks about components of atomic weapons, the 6 plutonium is the essential component. Once you have the 7 plutonium, then you can acquire the other materials on the 8 open market that are necessary to build a bomb. 9 Q. How do you know that? 10 A. Well, it's been well known for a long time. For instance, 11 there was a study done, published in the Harvard Civil 12 Rights and Civil Liberties Law Review -- I could make that 13 available to the Court, if you would like -- in 1975 as 14 long ago as then, which says, "Since all the material 15 other than plutonium needed to build a bomb is available 16 from commercial hardware and chemical suppliers, the 17 present obstacle to the private construction of nuclear 18 weapons is the unavailability of plutonium." 19 But if we just turn to the study that was 20 commissioned and already on file, I believe, here at the 21 Court, a study that was commissioned by the Office of 22 Fissile Materials Management called the Red Team Report, 23 the Red Team Proliferation Vulnerability Report. 24 In their conclusions on Page 6-1, they have a 25 heading called Keeping Plutonium Inaccessible is the Key KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 13 1 to Proliferation Resistance. So what is basically being 2 said here is plutonium is not just a component but the key 3 component of atomic bombs particularly in the context of 4 illicit groups. 5 Q. Dr. Edwards, could you explain for us Canada's role in the 6 reprocessing of plutonium? 7 A. Well, Canada's role in plutonium goes back to the World 8 War II Atomic Bomb Project. We had a secret laboratory in 9 Montreal which was manned by British, French and Canadian 10 scientists dedicated to developing methods for producing 11 and separating plutonium for weapons purposes as well as 12 civilian purposes, because even then it was anticipated 13 plutonium would have some civilian value. At the end of 14 the war -- incidentally, the first reactor in Canada was 15 built according to a military decision taken in 16 Washington, D.C. in 1944, to demonstrate this potential. 17 The reactor called the NRX reactor was built at 18 Chalk River and a plutonium reprocessing plant was built 19 as well. Plutonium was separated and Britain received its 20 first sample of weapons grade plutonium from Canada from 21 Chalk River just months before their first atomic test. 22 There was also an illicit transfer of plutonium 23 from Chalk River to Russia, which was so the first samples 24 of plutonium that both Britain and Russia received were 25 from Chalk River. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 14 1 Since that time, Canada, of course, has taken a 2 policy decision not to pursue a nuclear weapons option 3 itself, but they have, however, looked favorably on the 4 idea of reprocessing plutonium for civilian purposes. 5 They do not have a policy which is against the 6 reprocessing of plutonium in principle and nor do they 7 discourage their clients, their customers overseas from 8 reprocessing plutonium. And in fact, in Canada, there is 9 an open door policy towards reprocessing as a future 10 option. 11 We just concluded recently a ten-year 12 environmental assessment of the problem of high-level 13 radioactive waste disposal, and in all of the documents it 14 begins by saying, in the very first paragraphs, that by 15 nuclear waste disposal, we mean either spent fuel or 16 post-reprocessing waste. So this is very much a 17 theoretical opening and a policy opening for Canada to use 18 plutonium as a fuel. 19 Q. Showing you what has been marked as Supplemental Motion 20 Exhibit 2, can you identify that for the Court, please? 21 A. Yes. This appears to be an exchange from the British 22 Parliament, questions and answers having to do with 23 nuclear fuel, and the Secretary of State for Trade and 24 Industry is being asked about quantities of spent fuel 25 from Canada that have been contracted for reprocessing at KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 15 1 Cello Field in England. 2 Q. And can you summarize your understanding of what the 3 response by the British Government was? 4 A. Yes. The response here is that a certain amount of 5 plutonium, a certain amount of spent fuel from Canada has 6 been reprocessed beginning in 1970, and that the plutonium 7 has been returned to Canada. I have personal knowledge of 8 the fact that at Chalk River they have maintained a pilot 9 plutonium fuel fabrication line since the 1970s, since 10 1970 and before, and that they have processed at Chalk 11 River approximately three tons, more than three tons of 12 MOX fuel from recycled civilian plutonium. This is part 13 of that, the plutonium that is here being referred to as 14 being recycled or reprocessed in Britain, that's part of 15 the total amount of plutonium that Canada has acquired for 16 the purposes of MOX fabrication. 17 I mentioned that Canada also does not discourage 18 client customers from reprocessing. This is in 19 distinction to the American policy. The American policy, 20 since the Carter administration, successive 21 administrations have maintained the policy of not only not 22 allowing reprocessing in the United States, but also 23 discouraging reprocessing in other countries insofar as 24 that is possible. Canada does not share this policy 25 completely. We do not reprocess in Canada but, on the KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 16 1 other hand, we don't hesitate, it seems, to send our spent 2 fuel to other countries to get reprocessed so that we can 3 develop expertise in plutonium recycling. 4 Q. Does Canada have any relationship with the nation of Japan 5 respecting nuclear material? 6 A. Yes. Canada, as is probably known to the Court, is the 7 world's largest exporter of uranium. We are one of the 8 world's largest producers of uranium and the world's 9 largest exporter of uranium. We have bilateral agreements 10 with our customers as to the use of that uranium. Of 11 course, we have requirements that that uranium not be used 12 for military purposes. If a client customer such as Japan 13 who buys a good deal -- Japan purchases a good deal of 14 uranium from Canada. If a client customer wishes to 15 reprocess their spent fuel to recover plutonium, they do 16 have to get prior permission from the Government of 17 Canada, so when plutonium is reprocessed for the Japanese, 18 in the case where uranium from Canada is involved, the 19 Canadian Government gives their permission for that. 20 Q. Even if it is offshore from Canada? 21 A. Yes. 22 MR. LODGE: Thank you. I have nothing further. 23 THE WITNESS: Thank you. 24 Sorry. 25 MR. LODGE: Yes? KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 17 1 THE WITNESS: Excuse me. 2 MR. DODGE: Not quite finished, Dr. Edwards. 3 THE WITNESS: You knew the time was short. I 4 was jumping the gun a little. 5 CROSS EXAMINATION 6 BY MR. DODGE: 7 Q. Good morning, Mr. Edwards. My name is Bob Dodge. We have 8 met once before back in December. 9 A. That's right. 10 Q. Just a few questions. You testified about the quantity of 11 plutonium that would be included in the Russian shipment. 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. Do you recall that? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. You testified that it was 135 grams? 16 A. That's what was announced, yes. 17 Q. And how many ounces is that? 18 A. How many ounces is that? 19 Q. Yes. 20 A. I don't think in terms of ounces. I have to do the 21 conversion. 22 Q. Can you do the conversion? 23 A. I don't have the -- 24 Q. If I told you that one ounce is 28 grams, does that sound 25 about right? KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 18 1 A. I have no reason to doubt it. We are on the metric system 2 in Canada, we don't use ounces anymore. 3 Q. I understand. If I estimated 135 grams was approximately 4 five ounces, would you quarrel with that? 5 A. I would have no reason to quarrel with that. 6 Q. Now, you also testified about the amount of plutonium that 7 would have to be inhaled in order to exceed the maximum 8 permissible dose under Canadian regulations? 9 A. That is correct. 10 Q. And in your testimony, as I understood it, the assumption 11 you were making was that every single molecule of 12 plutonium that was in that sample would end up in 13 somebody's lungs; is that right? 14 A. That's right. It's calculating the theoretical 15 potential. It is not talking about a realistic scenario. 16 Q. Not only would all of the plutonium have to end up in 17 someone's lungs, but the plutonium would have to be evenly 18 divided so that each person got exactly the same amount of 19 plutonium, it's not all concentrated in one person, you 20 would have to take one-millionths of the sample, put it in 21 one person's lungs and put the next one-millionth in the 22 next person's lungs and so on? 23 A. That is correct. 24 Q. Do you have any idea, if you performed the same analysis 25 on this table, what sort of toxicity numbers you would KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 19 1 get? 2 A. I have no idea of what that would be, no. 3 Q. Now you also talked about Canada's policies regarding 4 plutonium reprocessing. 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. Do you recall that? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. Do you have any understanding of whether the plutonium in 9 the Parallex MOX samples will or will not be reprocessed 10 in Canada? 11 A. It will-- to the best of my knowledge, it will not be 12 reprocessed in Canada, although that option apparently is 13 not decided. 14 Q. What is the basis for that last? 15 A. Because Canada has a policy that at sometime in the future 16 they may reprocess. 17 Q. Do you have any understanding whether there is an 18 understanding between the Government of Canada and the 19 Government of United States or the Government of Russia as 20 to whether these particular samples will or will not be 21 reprocessed? 22 A. I do not, no. 23 MR. DODGE: Thank you very much. 24 25 REDIRECT EXAMINATION KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 20 1 BY MR. LODGE: 2 Q. Dr. Edwards, the House of Commons question and answer, do 3 you know of any particular statistics on Canada's shipping 4 of spent fuel to British nuclear fields and fuels at Cello 5 Field? 6 A. I don't have those figures with me, I'm sorry. I could 7 supply them to the Court, if desired. I do have some 8 figures at my office at home, I don't have them here. But 9 we are talking -- if we are talking about three tons of 10 MOX being fabricated at Chalk River, then one could work 11 out approximately how much of that would contain 12 plutonium, how much plutonium would be contained assuming, 13 for example, three percent. 14 Q. Right. 15 A. And then one could reasonably suppose that the lion's 16 share of that would come from Cello Field. Now I have 17 figures on shipments from Cello Field, but I don't have 18 them here. 19 Q. My question is: Would you presume that the Atomic Energy 20 Control Board of Canada, or AECL of Canada, would make 21 public the fact that the spent MOX from Parallex were 22 being shipped to Britain for reprocessing? Would you 23 presume that would become public knowledge? 24 A. No, I would not assume anything related to plutonium would 25 become public knowledge in Canada. Canada has a very KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 21 1 non-public attitude toward plutonium dealings. In fact, 2 the existing plutonium dealings in Canada including the 3 BNFL contracts is not public knowledge other than as it 4 has been raised in foreign countries such as in Britain or 5 by documents that have been leaked to nongovernmental 6 organizations. This is not something which Atomic Energy 7 of Canada Limited makes public. 8 MR. LODGE: Thank you. 9 MR. DODGE: No recross, Your Honor. 10 THE COURT: You may step down, Dr. Edwards. 11 Thank you. 12 MR. LOVE: Your Honor, if it please the Court, 13 the Plaintiffs would call Francis Boyle to the stand 14 FRANCIS BOYLE - PLAINTIFFS' WITNESS - SWORN 15 COURT CLERK: Please be seated and state and 16 spell your name for the record. 17 THE WITNESS: My name is Francis Boyle. 18 F-r-a-n-c-i-s B-o-y-l-e. 19 DIRECT EXAMINATION 20 BY MR. LOVE: 21 Q. Dr. Boyle, are you currently employed? 22 A. Yes, I am a professor of international law at the 23 University of Illinois College of Law in Champaign. 24 Q. How long have you been employed in that capacity? 25 A. 1978. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 22 1 MR. LOVE: Your Honor, may I approach the 2 witness? 3 BY MR. LOVE: 4 Q. Dr. Boyle, I'm showing you what has been marked as 5 Supplemental Preliminary Injunction Hearing Plaintiffs' 6 Exhibit 3 and ask you if you can identify that document. 7 A. It's a copy of my professional resume. 8 Q. Was this resume prepared at or under your direction? 9 A. Yes. I think it's current as of January 28th, 1999. I've 10 been kind of busy in the last year, haven't revised it. 11 Q. To the extent it's current through that date, does that 12 accurately reflect your experience, education, seminars 13 that you participated in, and articles that you've 14 authored? 15 A. Not seminars I've participated in, that would be too many 16 but, you know, the essence of my professional career and 17 articles-- significant teaching, consulting, practice. 18 I'm also a licensed attorney as well. 19 Q. If you would, give us a brief recitation of your 20 educational background? 21 A. I attended the University of Chicago where I studied 22 international relations with Professor Hans Morganthal who 23 is the mentor of Dr. Henry Kissinger at Harvard. I was 24 one of seven students in my class elected to Phi Beta 25 Kappa as a junior. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 23 1 I also did work in mathematical biology, winning 2 the award for the work I did in that area by the world's 3 leading geneticist now at Harvard. 4 I graduated in three years. From there I went 5 to Harvard Law School. I have a J.D. Magna Cum Laude from 6 Harvard Law School specializing in international law. 7 I also entered the Graduate School of Arts and 8 Sciences at Harvard in the Department of Government. I 9 have a Master's degree and a Ph.D. in political science 10 specializing in international relations, international 11 politics. This is the same Ph.D. program that produced 12 Henry Kissinger, Zabanya Brezenski (phonetic) and other 13 high level U.S. Government officials. 14 I was at the Harvard Center for International 15 Affairs for two years. Kissinger and Brezenski had been 16 there before me. 17 I spent two years teaching in the Harvard 18 College undergraduates international law organizations, 19 human rights. I practiced law with a Boston law firm for 20 a year at Bingham, Dana and Gould, where I did 21 international tax, and tax, and then finally in 1978 I 22 came to the University of Illinois. I went up for tenure 23 at the beginning of my third year, which I got, and I've 24 been tenured there since, you know, many years. 25 Q. Since undertaking your position at University of Illinois, KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 24 1 have you specialized in any area with respect to 2 particular research, writing and international law? 3 A. Well, for the purpose of our proceedings today, yes. I 4 have been specializing an enormous amount on the nuclear 5 weapons, nuclear weapons policy, proliferation, arms 6 control. Going back to my studies with Professor 7 Morganthal 30 years ago so I've been involved in these 8 issues starting as a student since 1969 and continuously 9 until today. 10 THE WITNESS: Sorry, Your Honor, I have a bit of 11 laryngitis. 12 THE COURT: That's fine, no problem. 13 BY MR. LOVE: 14 Q. Dr. Boyle, if you would direct your attention to your 15 resume, I would like to touch on a few seminal points. On 16 the first page under teaching, the third entry down talks 17 about being a lecturer in Nuclear Weapons and 18 International Law, 21st Senior Conference on Nuclear 19 Deterrence at U.S. Military Academy at West Point in 20 1983. 21 A. Yes. This is a high level seminar run by the Pentagon, 22 not for the cadets, but for about 200 of the highest level 23 officials of the United States Government dealing with 24 nuclear weapons proliferation, nuclear weapons policies, 25 and I was asked to lecture to this conference, and I won't KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 25 1 go through all the high level officials there, but sitting 2 right in front of me for my lecture was the three star 3 general in charge of war operations at the Pentagon, at 4 that time General Mahaffey. And I also note I had read 5 the independent expert's report on the MOX program 6 U.S./Russia of 1977, one of the U.S. independent experts, 7 Richard Garwin was there with me and he was also a 8 lecturer with me to this group, so I do know that Garwin 9 was involved in the Parallex MOX recommendations. 10 Q. With respect to the second to the last entry on Page 1 of 11 Exhibit 3, talks about "Lecture Tour of the Soviet Union 12 on Nuclear Weapons and International Law for Lawyers' 13 Committee on Nuclear Policy and Association of Soviet 14 Lawyers" in 1986. What was involved with that? 15 A. Yes. The former Soviet Union, their equivalent to the 16 American Bar Association was the Association of Soviet 17 Lawyers, and in conjunction with the Lawyers' Committee on 18 Nuclear Policy headquartered here, they decided to invite 19 one professor to go over to the Soviet Union and lecture 20 around the country for two weeks on various issues related 21 to nuclear weapons and international law, and both 22 organizations selected me for this purpose, so I went over 23 for two weeks and gave several lectures per day, Moscow, 24 Leningrad, Kiev to professors, lawyers, peace people, 25 whoever, news media on various aspects of nuclear weapons KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 26 1 targeting doctrine as they relate to international law 2 and, in general, nuclear policies. 3 Q. If you would direct your attention, Dr. Boyle, to Page 2 4 under Practice, fifth entry down it says "Author, 5 Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989, Public Law 6 Number 101-298 (1990) (adopted unanimously by both Houses 7 of Congress)," could you explain what that means, please? 8 A. Yes. Your Honor, we are dealing here with a treaty, the 9 Nuclear Proliferation Treaty-- Nonproliferation Treaty of 10 1968. That treaty has been implemented by Congress in the 11 Nuclear Nonproliferation Act of 1978, the Nuclear 12 Proliferation Prevention Act of 1994 and also recent 13 amendments in 1998 to deal with the India/Pakistan 14 explosions. I have direct personal experience on how you 15 take a treaty, an international treaty, and implement it 16 as a matter of United States Constitutional law by working 17 with Congress. 18 The Biological Weapons Convention of 1972 is a 19 treaty that is a total, not only arms control reduction 20 and elimination treaty for biological weapons, I gave a 21 lecture on Capitol Hill calling for legislation, domestic 22 legislation to implement this treaty, and this 23 recommendation was taken up by a group I work for called 24 the Council of Responsible Genetics. I'm on their 25 Advisory Board. I also serve as counsel to them, so KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 27 1 pursuant to their request, I drafted the implementing 2 legislation, I authored it, how to implement this treaty. 3 And then we took it to members of the House and the Senate 4 and we shepherded it through the entire process dealing 5 with members of Congress, both Houses, including testimony 6 I prepared. At that point in time, the Reagan 7 administration was opposed to this implementing 8 legislation. I had to deal personally with their position 9 papers against it refuting these things. 10 Finally there was a change of policy when 11 President Bush came into office, to his credit, and they 12 supported the legislation. It finally was approved 13 unanimously by both Houses of Congress and signed into law 14 by President Bush in 1989. This legislation was called 15 the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989. It was 16 later amended in the anti-terrorism and effect Death 17 Penalty Act of 1996. 18 I thought I had drafted the most draconian piece 19 of legislation you could possibly imagine on biological 20 weapons, but there is always a loophole, Your Honor, so 21 Congress revisited this in 1996 to close some of the 22 loopholes that had not been apparent to me and the 23 scientists I worked with back in 19, starting in from '85 24 to about 1989. So I just cite this as having direct 25 personal experience with relationship between arms control KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 28 1 treatise, reduction treatise and then how they are 2 implemented by Congress. I have done this myself. On 3 biological weapons and I'm still involved in that issue. 4 Obviously, I have not been involved in the 5 drafting of the implementing legislation for the Nuclear 6 Proliferation Treaty of 1968, there are three pieces, but 7 I have read and reviewed the implementing legislation. I 8 have an understanding how they relate to the 9 Nonproliferation Treaty and I also teach a course on this 10 subject, that is how international laws related to the 11 United States Constitution is implemented by Congress and 12 also carried out in the courts. I teach an entire course 13 just devoted to this subject. 14 Q. Dr. Boyle, you've had some experience practicing before 15 what was known formerly as the International Court of 16 Justice but currently the World Court; is that correct? 17 A. Yes, I have. 18 Q. Could you relate to the Court a summary of that 19 experience? 20 A. Well, I've advised governments with respect to either 21 actual or potential World Court litigation, some of that 22 is still attorney/client confidence that I'm not prepared 23 to discuss. What I am prepared to discuss are those 24 matters that are in the public record. 25 I did serve as counsel to Libya on the Lockerbie KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 29 1 bombing case. It was my recommendation the-- 2 unfortunately President Bush had about the sixth fleet 3 mobilized off the coast of Libya and was about to bomb 4 Libya that we filed a lawsuit at the World Court to stop 5 the bombing. We filed a lawsuit, Libya was not bombed. 6 Later on, I was General Agent for the Republic 7 in Bosnia of Herzegovina before the International Court of 8 Justice. In other words, I was their first ambassador to 9 the World Court for the Republic of Bosnia, Herzegovina, 10 and I sued Yugoslavia for committing genocide against the 11 Bosnian people. I won two cease and desist orders 12 overwhelmingly in favor of Bosnia against Yugoslavia. 13 Later on, I publicly advised -- I advised the 14 Bosnian Government to sue Britain for aiding and abetting 15 genocide against Bosnia, and President Izetbegovic 16 instructed me to sue Britain for a genocide against 17 Bosnia. That lawsuit was terminated under duress, 18 threatened them, so they withdrew from those proceedings. 19 Q. Dr. Boyle, with respect to your writings, if you would 20 direct your attention to Page 3 of Exhibit 3, the last two 21 entries at the bottom -- excuse me, the second to last 22 entries entitled Nuclear Weapons and International Law: 23 The Arms Control Dimensions, do you see that? 24 A. Yes. This was the lecture I gave to the West Point 25 Military Academy senior conference proceedings, which they KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 30 1 did publish in their proceedings at West Point, and 2 actually under my books, I've just completed work on my 3 sixth book, which is entitled Nuclear Deterrence and 4 International Law. And right now it is sitting at Pluto 5 Press -- I guess that's appropriate for today's 6 proceedings -- Pluto Press in Britain. They have 7 expressed an interest in publishing it. They are 8 currently evaluating it. I do not have a contract on that 9 book, but I did get the e-mail just before I came here, so 10 I'll have to deal with that when I go back. 11 Q. With respect to your other publications, Dr. Boyle, I note 12 that on Page 4 you've got one entitled, about halfway 13 down, The Relevance of International Law to the "Paradox" 14 of Nuclear Deterrence. 15 A. That is correct. 16 Q. Can you tell us briefly what the subject matter is? 17 A. After I made the lecture at West Point, obviously the U.S. 18 military officials and others, we had a fairly vigorous 19 debate, let me put it that way. And that vigorous debate 20 between myself and these others led to this article that 21 was later published here in the United States and also 22 translated into Dutch, because the Dutch lawyers wanted it 23 to be available as part of the debate in Holland over the 24 deployment of the U.S. intermediate nuclear forces under 25 the Reagan administration, so they translated the whole KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 31 1 thing into Dutch and it was published in the Netherlands. 2 MR. LOVE: Your Honor, I have no further 3 questions of Dr. Boyle with respect to qualifications, and 4 I tender him for voir dire to the U.S. Attorney's Office 5 subject to my motion to admit Plaintiff's Exhibit 3 into 6 evidence. 7 MR. DODGE: I have no objection to the admission 8 of the C.V. 9 THE COURT: Exhibit 3? 10 MR. DODGE: Exhibit 3. 11 THE COURT: You have no voir dire questions to 12 ask either? 13 MR. DODGE: Not with respect to that exhibit. I 14 may get into the resume on the cross. 15 THE COURT: That's fair enough. 16 Exhibit 3 is received. 17 MR. DODGE: Thank you, your Honor. 18 BY MR. LOVE: 19 Q. Dr. Boyle, in preparing for your testimony here today, 20 could you please outline for the Court -- I think you have 21 done so somewhat already -- some of the documents that you 22 reviewed and the source materials you looked at in 23 preparing your testimony today? 24 A. I have a pretty detailed knowledge about these things 25 generally. For example, when the Nuclear Nonproliferation KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 32 1 Act first came out in 1978, I did read it, but in 2 preparation for this testimony today, I've gone back and 3 read the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, the Nuclear 4 Nonproliferation Act, the Nuclear Proliferation Prevention 5 Act of 1994, the 1998 amendments. I have read a large 6 quantity of documents produced by the Department of Energy 7 on the Parallex Project. I have read the Environmental 8 Assessment dealing with the aspects of international 9 environmental law that have not been dealt with in the 10 Environmental Assessment, in my opinion, should have been 11 dealt with the Stockholm Declaration, which is not there, 12 and the World Court Advisory Opinion on 1996, I have an 13 article on it that. I didn't go back and read the whole 14 advisory opinion, but I reread the portions of the 15 article, and other scholarly sources that deal with this 16 question. There are other sources I did not have a chance 17 to review not directly related to proliferation per se. 18 But for example, in my opinion the EA should 19 have dealt with the UN Convention on the Law of the Seas. 20 It's not in there. There's been nuclear accidents 21 convention, it's not dealt with in there. There is the 22 Bowel convention on the International Transportation of 23 Hazardous Substance and Toxic Materials, that's not in 24 there. I identified those as further sources that should 25 be analyzed in my opinion, but I haven't had a chance to KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 33 1 go back and review all of those sources. 2 Q. Dr. Boyle, did the types of materials that you've just 3 identified for the Court, are these the types of materials 4 that in your experience are relied upon by experts in the 5 field of international law in forming opinions as to the 6 legitimacy of governmental actions under internationally? 7 A. Yes. I also have experience reading environmental impact 8 statements. When the Pentagon produced the DEIS or the 9 biological defense research program, the Council for 10 Responsible Genetics asked me to evaluate this entire 11 thing -- it was an enormous document -- and submit formal 12 comments on it to the Pentagon, which I did do and they 13 did respond to. So this is the type of sources that 14 experts in my field would normally look at and review in 15 forming an opinion about Government behavior, and I have 16 done this before with respect to biological weapons. 17 Q. Dr. Boyle, I'm going to show you what has been marked for 18 identification as Plaintiff's Exhibit 4. Ask you to take 19 a moment to look at that and let me know when you've had a 20 chance to do so, please. 21 A. Yes. This is the treaty on the nonproliferation of 22 nuclear weapons, and as I've said, it has also been 23 implemented by Congress on the Nuclear Nonproliferation 24 Act of 1978, the Nuclear Proliferation Prevention Act of 25 1994 and also 1998 amendments. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 34 1 The critical point to keep in mind about this 2 treaty, Your Honor, is that Congress has passed 3 legislation expressing its understanding of what this 4 treaty means and what our obligations are under this 5 treaty. And this legislation is binding on the Department 6 of Energy, on the President, on the Department of State 7 and respectfully, Your Honor, on this Court. And what we 8 see, when you read through it all, is Congress has 9 decided, and prior to that the Atomic Energy Act as well, 10 that nuclear power, nuclear weapons, nuclear proliferation 11 is so important to the American people and our republic, 12 that they have decided to engage in micro management of 13 everything related to this subject and have pretty much, I 14 would not say completely eliminated, but whittled down 15 substantially any discretion that the executive branch 16 might have in this area. I have, as I said, I did read 17 the NPA back in 1978, but when you add in everything else, 18 what surprised me was how little discretion was left to 19 the executive branch with respect to nuclear 20 proliferation, nuclear weapons. In this area, they have 21 very little discretion. 22 Q. Professor Boyle, if you could, can you explain to the 23 Court what the implications are for Canada, Russia and the 24 United States under the Nonproliferation Treaty? 25 A. Well, my reading of both the treaty and in light of the KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 35 1 Department of Energy documents describing Parallex and 2 MOX, the Red Team report, many other documents that I've 3 read, in my opinion, there are serious problems, 4 compliance problems for this entire project under Articles 5 I, II and III of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty as 6 interpreted by the United States Congress. 7 The Article I deals with the obligations of the 8 United States and Russia. Each nuclear weapons State 9 Party to the Treaty, i.e. U.S. and Russia, undertakes not 10 to transfer to any recipient whatsoever, i.e. Canada, 11 nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices, and we 12 have a problem here in that Congress has interpreted this 13 to mean components of nuclear weapons or nuclear explosive 14 devices; that is, Congress simply does not interpret this 15 to mean you can't hand over a bomb, but a component for a 16 bomb is prohibited. And here we are dealing with weapons 17 grade plutonium, which Dr. Edwards has already testified 18 can be and indeed is, in his opinion, a component for 19 either a nuclear weapon or a nuclear explosive device. 20 Okay? 21 So when you read the treaty in light of the 22 statutory scheme, in my opinion, there are serious 23 compliance problems here with Article I, which have not 24 been addressed in the EA. The DOE has not dealt with any 25 of these problems at all in the EA, indeed, they have KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 36 1 basically said in one of their comments "Well, once we 2 give it to Canada, it's their problem," and that just is 3 an incorrect statement, in my opinion. 4 And it says "directly or indirectly," which 5 means also we, the United States, directly or indirectly 6 by encouraging and paying for the Russians to do this, you 7 see. So we are accountable for the Russian behavior 8 because we are working with them. And indeed, if we were 9 sued at the International Court of Justice -- let's 10 suppose something went wrong, Your Honor, and there was, 11 as Dr. Edwards testified, an aerial explosion in the 12 latest helicopter shipment and radiological dispersal of 13 plutonium that came across the border, killing Americans, 14 killing Canadians, others, if we were sued in World Court 15 over this, we would be found both jointly and severally 16 liable with Russia, with Canada, for any accident. 17 Likewise, this is followed up by both shipments on the 18 high seas of the plutonium. If there is an accident on 19 high seas, we could be sued at the World Court, the United 20 States, both ourselves and jointly and severally with 21 Russia and Canada over any accident here that might 22 happen. And that substantive liability could be based on 23 the U.N. Law of the Sea Convention. As I said, Your 24 Honor, I haven't had time to go through the environmental 25 provision of the Law of the Sea Convention, the Department KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 37 1 of Energy didn't even bother, and in the EA they did not 2 look at this at all. They did not consider this, but it 3 certainly is something that has to be considered, that 4 they haven't looked at. 5 And then "not in any way to assist, encourage or 6 induce any non-nuclear weapon State to manufacture or 7 otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear 8 explosive devices." Well, the problem here is Canada is 9 supposed to be a non-nuclear weapons state and says 10 "otherwise acquired nuclear explosive devices." Well, we 11 are giving them weapons grade plutonium, which again 12 Dr. Edwards has testified, and he is Canadian, is a 13 component of a nuclear weapons or nuclear explosive 14 device. And again, "or control over such weapons or 15 explosive devices." We are giving them weapons grade 16 plutonium. And if you look at how Congress has 17 interpreted this, they interpret it down to components, 18 they even talk about substances that they are trying to 19 regulate everything, and understand the 1978 legislation 20 was a very strict interpretation of what this treaty means 21 as far as the United States Government is concerned. And 22 I think we really need a comprehensive assessment here by 23 the Department of Energy as to whether or not any of these 24 transfers is consistent with Article I. Under the current 25 circumstances, they haven't bothered to look at any of the KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 38 1 terms as defined by Congress, the applicability of the 2 Congressional legislation to the transfers. 3 Likewise, Article II, Your Honor, Article II 4 deals with the Canadian obligations, "Each 5 non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes 6 not to receive the transfer from any transferor whatsoever 7 of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices." 8 Again, the same analysis here needs to be done. This 9 weapons grade plutonium, in my opinion and Dr. Edwards' 10 opinion, is clearly a component of either a nuclear weapon 11 or nuclear explosive device. And Canada, according to 12 this language, has agreed not to receive this material. 13 And by the way, as Dr. Edwards correctly pointed out, Your 14 Honor, this was consistent United States policy, stopping 15 proliferation of this type of material for any reason 16 going back to the Carter administration. We are seeing a 17 major dramatic change here in United States 18 nonproliferation policy, and that policy, Your Honor, 19 going back to the Carter administration, is enshrined in 20 law by Congress in the Nuclear Nonproliferation Act of 21 1978. So again, in my opinion, I believe these issues 22 likewise need to be addressed by the Department of 23 Energy. They have not been addressed in the environmental 24 assessment at all. 25 "Or control over such weapons or explosive KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 39 1 devices, directly or indirectly." Well, again, we are 2 giving Canada, either ourselves in the first shipment or 3 indirectly by means of the Russians in the second 4 shipment, control over a component for a nuclear weapon or 5 a nuclear explosive device. That's very clear they are 6 getting it. And according to the EA, we are trusting 7 their good intentions. There is no assurance in the EA 8 that this weapons grade plutonium is subject to 9 international safeguards. No. Despite the fact that 10 Congress has made it very clear that any transfer, and 11 Congress also made it clear in the legislation that they 12 are against any transfers of this type of stuff to other 13 States. But if there are any transfers at a minimum there 14 have to be absolute guaranteed protections on 15 international assurances to make sure it is not misused, 16 and you will note in the EA it says nothing about it. 17 There are no assurances about anything. 18 Now, "to manufacture or otherwise acquire 19 nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices; and 20 not to seek or receive any assistance in the manufacture," 21 etcetera, etcetera. 22 Article III then deals with the safeguard 23 requirements; that is, if there are transfers of materials 24 for peaceful purposes, and you know you can obviously, 25 Your Honor, you can read this yourself. There must be KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 40 1 safeguards. Under the supervision of the International 2 Atomic Energy Agency, the Environmental Assessment says 3 nothing at all about these safeguards. Nothing. It isn't 4 in there. 5 Apparently we have to rely on not even 6 statements by Canada that what we are transferring there, 7 what we are encouraging the Russians to transfer are 8 somehow going to be safeguarded despite the fact that 9 Article III says that there must be safeguards, and we 10 simply don't have them. 11 Q. Dr. Boyle, I'm going to show you what's been marked for 12 identification as Plaintiff's Exhibit 5 and ask you to 13 take a look in the upper right-hand corner, and after 14 you've had a moment to review that, let me know, please. 15 A. Yes. This is an article I had read in preparation for my 16 testimony here today, from the Toronto News. 17 Q. Based on your experience and expertise, Dr. Boyle, is this 18 the type of information that an international law scholar 19 could rely on in formulating opinions about the state or 20 nationally? 21 A. Well, here is stating comments by Mr. Tom Clemens, head of 22 the Washington-based Nuclear Control Institute. It's a 23 recognized organization dealing with nuclear policies, and 24 certainly experts in my field would rely upon statements 25 produced by the Nuclear Control Institute and, indeed, KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 41 1 prior to my testimony today, I did read several documents 2 produced by the Nuclear Control Institute just in the 3 normal course of preparing, yes. An expert in my field 4 would rely on this. 5 Q. Dr. Boyle, my recollection is you testified this appeared 6 in the Toronto -- 7 A. News. 8 Q. -- News and it -- 9 A. The Globe and Mail, which is, you know, it's sort of like 10 the New York Times here in the United States, a newspaper 11 of public record, so again, it's not like a tabloid or 12 something like this. 13 Q. Plaintiff's Exhibit 5, Dr. Boyle in the right-hand column 14 attributes some comments to a Sunni Locatelli purportedly 15 a spokeswoman at the Atomic Control Board. Do you see 16 that? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. What if anything is the significance, based on your 19 experience as expertise, of considering published reports 20 attributed to spokespersons for governmental entities in 21 formulating use of international law? 22 A. Yes. There is a decision by the International Court of 23 Justice in the nuclear test cases dealing with nuclear 24 explosions 1974, stating that the Court can rely upon 25 official statements made by Government officials acting KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 42 1 within their scope of authority and certainly Locatelli 2 here is the spokeswoman of the Atomic Energy Control 3 Board. So basically, I would be able to take this 4 statement and file it at the World Court and they would 5 find the statement could be, would be attributable to the 6 Canadian government, and Canada would be bound by this 7 statement. 8 Q. What does that article, Plaintiff's Exhibit 5, attribute 9 to Miss Locatelli? 10 A. She can't reveal how much fissile material Canada has. We 11 aren't able to give out that information under our 12 security regulations. Ms. Locatelli said Canada believes 13 it should come under the IA/EA guidelines because it 14 doesn't operate its own reprocessing facilities. I think 15 Dr. Edwards just pointed out that isn't correct. But even 16 if it were correct, it does come under IA/EA, and we need 17 to know, the United States Government under the NPT, under 18 the Congressional implementing legislation, we have to 19 know how much fissile material Canada has. 20 And basically, we are just taking their, 21 whatever their word is for it, and in my opinion, that's 22 unacceptable. We have to know how much material they have 23 and what they are doing with it, and what she's saying 24 here is "Well, we are just not going to tell you." And 25 you will note in the EA, the Department of Energy has KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 43 1 taken the same position. One of the comments made was 2 "Well, what is Canada doing," and the response of the DOE 3 is well, that is Canada's problem, once it leaves here we 4 are no longer responsible. The treaty and statutory 5 regime make it clear that's not the case. We are 6 responsible for our plutonium, wherever it goes. And 7 Congress has made it clear even if we do give it up, we 8 have to have absolute international safeguards as to what 9 is going to happen with our plutonium. And the same would 10 apply if we are encouraging Russia to ship weapons grade 11 plutonium to Canada. We have an obligation to make sure 12 that it's safeguarded and that it can be accountable and 13 accounted for. And what Ms. Locatelli here is saying 14 "Well, sorry, we are just not going to tell you." Again, 15 this raises serious problems in my mind that have not been 16 dealt with by the Department of Energy as to compliance 17 with the IA/EA safeguards regime, which is absolutely 18 required under Article III of the NPT and also required 19 under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Act. Indeed, if I 20 remember correctly, the 1994 implementation, Your Honor, 21 Congress said that transferring of unsafeguarded plutonium 22 is an act of international terrorism as far as Congress is 23 concerned. 24 So and that would trigger a whole host of other 25 provisions of the federal code dealing with international KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 44 1 terrorism, so we really need to know what is going to 2 happen to our plutonium when it gets up into Canada, and 3 to make sure there are safeguards and it is accountable 4 and there is an explanation here. 5 Now Mr. Clemens then said that, in his opinion, 6 Canada has 40 kilograms of plutonium, it's really not 7 accounted for or accountable for by anyone, and that 8 basically makes Canada a de facto nuclear weapons state. 9 I would agree, assuming that they do have the 40 kilograms 10 of plutonium, and I take it you know Mr. Clemens -- I had 11 e-mail correspondence with Mr. Clemens about this matter. 12 He feels that they do have it and that his group, the 13 Nuclear Control Institute, will be making this evidence 14 available soon. He told me it is not yet -- he is not yet 15 prepared to make it public, but they will be going public 16 with it soon. 17 In my opinion, if that is the case, they have 40 18 kilograms of plutonium, that's enough to make five bombs, 19 and that makes Canada a de facto nuclear weapons state 20 under the NPT and, in my opinion, would be inconsistent 21 with the NPT. There is a potential here for Canada being 22 in violation of the NET. We need to know that. Congress 23 has sanctions in there in the implementing legislation for 24 non-nuclear weapons states being, moving into a position 25 where they are de facto nuclear weapons states in KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 45 1 violation of the NPT. 2 It's clear Congress interprets our obligations 3 under the treaty to mean that a non-nuclear weapons state 4 simply cannot go off, assemble all the components for a 5 bomb, have one here, one there and one there, and then 6 say, oh but we are not a nuclear weapons state because we 7 haven't assembled the bomb. 8 Again, Congress made it very clear, no. Indeed, 9 in one of the pieces of legislation, Congress indicated 10 that it was also concerned with a facto nuclear weapons 11 states that an end run around the NPT, and the 12 Congressional regime applicable to it. Again, I regret to 13 report I haven't seen any of these issues dealt with by 14 the Department of Energy in the Environmental Assessments 15 and, indeed, when they were asked about it, they just said 16 this is now Canada's problem. Wondered-- United States 17 law of the NPT, it is not Canada's problem alone, it is 18 our problem because it's our plutonium and it's Russian 19 plutonium that we are paying to send up to Canada. 20 Q. Professor Boyle, based on the representations of Miss 21 Locatelli on behalf of Atomic Energy Control Board of 22 Canada that they don't believe they are subject to the 23 IA/EA guidelines, what if any impact would that have on 24 the United States' responsibility under the Nuclear 25 Nonproliferation Treaty of 1978? KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 46 1 A. It's very clear, Your Honor, the NPT and the Congressional 2 implementing legislation that we ourselves cannot ship 3 weapons grade plutonium there or engage in the Russians to 4 ship weapons grade plutonium unless there are absolutely 5 safeguards by the IA/EA that, to make sure that there is 6 no diversion. And again, Miss Locatelli is indicating 7 there is a high amount of uncertainty as to what is 8 happening with the Canadian plutonium. We simply don't 9 know. In the EA, there are no guarantees given by the 10 Department of Energy as to what is happening to plutonium 11 up in Canada. 12 Q. You may have testified to this, Dr. Boyle, and I apologize 13 if I missed it, but are Russia, Canada and the United 14 States all signatory partis to the Nonproliferation 15 Treaty? 16 A. Yes. We are all parties. There are about 182 or 183 17 states that are parties. The United States and Russia are 18 nuclear weapon states, parties to the convention, that is, 19 we are permitted to have nuclear weapons and nuclear 20 components, etc. Canada is designated a non-nuclear 21 weapons state. And they are supposed to preserve this 22 stative or statement. Yet according to the Nuclear 23 Control Institute, they have enough plutonium up there to 24 at least manufacture five bombs. So somehow this has to 25 be explained and accounted for in order for them to KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 47 1 continue their non-nuclear weapons state status under the 2 NPT, so again, the Nuclear Control Institute is raising 3 very serious compliance problems and potentially serious 4 violation of the NPT by Canada, and there are severe 5 sanctions in the United States laws enacted by Congress 6 under the Simplemen legislation, Your Honor, in the event 7 a state that is a non-nuclear weapons state moves to 8 become a nuclear weapons state. And again, none of this 9 has been addressed by the Department of Energy in the 10 environmental assessment that I'm aware of, either in the 11 environmental assessment or elsewhere. 12 Q. Dr. Boyle, could you advise the Court, if you would, as to 13 what the ramifications legally are of being a signatory 14 party to an international treaty such as the 15 Nonproliferation Treaty? 16 A. Yes. Your Honor, of course, the basic rule of Pacta Sunt, 17 P-a-c-t-a-s-u-n-t, Servanda, S-e-r-v-a-n-d-a. 18 The other point -- there are two other points, 19 however, that must be kept in mind in interpreting any 20 treaty and especially the NPT. First, the treaty must be 21 interpreted in good faith. And again, the question here 22 with Canada maintaining 40 kilograms of plutonium is 23 whether or not this is a good faith interpretation 24 implementation of the NPT by Canada. 25 Second, the treaty must be interpreted in KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 48 1 accordance with its object and purpose, and that in this 2 case the NPT is to stop nuclear proliferation. And again, 3 this entire program, the Parallex program, in my opinion, 4 seems to defeat the object and purpose of the NPT, which 5 is to stop nuclear proliferation. 6 The third point to keep in mind is that this 7 treaty has already been interpreted by Congress and 8 implemented by Congress. And Congress is agreeing with 9 what I'm saying here, Your Honor, and I'm agreeing with 10 what Congress is saying. Congress has made it very clear 11 that they do not want to see any type of nuclear 12 proliferation or programs that encourage nuclear 13 proliferation. And we are now seeing a drastic departure 14 from the policy enacted in Congress pursuant to the NPC 15 back in -- the NPT back in 1978 in the Nuclear 16 Nonproliferation Act, and we have seen no change in the 17 legislation by Congress to authorize or approve this 18 drastic change. And again, I agree with what Dr. Edwards 19 said from his Canadian perspective, my American 20 perspective, the Parallex MOX project is a drastic change 21 in encouraging proliferation of nuclear weapons components 22 and there has been no direct approval, change of statutes 23 or whatever. So again, this, in my opinion, raises very 24 serious problems under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty 25 as interpreted in good faith and in accordance with its KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 49 1 object and purpose not only for Canada, but the United 2 States and Russia. And in my opinion, we should have a 3 full study of all these issues by the Department of Energy 4 before there is any further movement on this project. 5 The implications here are enormous. They could 6 be catastrophic, and I personally would like to see a full 7 scale investigation analysis so that I could evaluate it 8 myself before anyone goes ahead with this project, but of 9 course that, you know, that's my personal opinion. I know 10 that's for you, Your Honor, to decide. 11 Q. Dr. Boyle, what if anything is the requirement or 12 obligation of the United States to interpret the 13 Nonproliferation Treaty in good faith? I think you 14 testified that Canada has that obligation. Does the 15 United States have a similar obligation? 16 A. Yes. And as a matter of fact, here Congress has 17 interpreted our obligation under the NPT and, in my 18 opinion, Congress has interpreted our obligations under 19 the NPT in good faith and also in accordance with the 20 object and purpose of this treaty. Congress interpreted 21 this by means of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Act of 1978, 22 the Nuclear Proliferation Prevention Act of 1994 and the 23 1998 amendments to do with the India-Pakistani 24 explosions. So in my opinion, Congress did interpret this 25 treaty in good faith and in accordance with its object and KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 50 1 purpose and it appears to me the Department of Energy is 2 off there on their own with no express authorization from 3 Congress pursuing a policy here that defeats the object 4 and purpose of the NPT. 5 Q. By that, you are referring to the Parallex project? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. With respect to the Congressional implementation of the 8 NPT in the '78, '94 and '98 acts, what if anything is the 9 role of the Department of State and/or Department of 10 Energy with respect to interpreting those obligations? 11 A. Yes. Your Honor, it's very clear from the treaty related 12 to the statutory scheme. Treaties deal with international 13 law and foreign relations. Therefore, they are normally 14 negotiated and concluded by the Department of State and 15 then they are handed over to the Senate Foreign Relations 16 to the Senate for advice and consent. It is the State 17 Department that traditionally has always had the sole and 18 exclusive role here in the United States with respect to 19 nonproliferation policy, not the Department of Energy. 20 The Department of Energy has always been treated as a 21 technical agency, technical consultant. The policy is 22 formulated by the State Department. There had been, again 23 going back to the Carter administration, United States 24 Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, Your Honor, set up by 25 Congress to deal precisely with these issues. They were KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 51 1 the ones given the authority to deal with proliferation 2 and nonproliferation policies negotiate these agreements, 3 etcetera. Senator Helms in the latest did not like act, 4 he concluded it was super numerator morgue or something so 5 he passed legislation terminating the Arms Control 6 Disarmament Agency and transferring all functions to the 7 Department of State today. But if you read the 8 Congressional implementing legislation, they make it very 9 clear that the lead role played on proliferation and 10 nonproliferation policy is the Department of State, not 11 the Department of Energy, and the Department of State 12 should consult with the Department of Energy. At times 13 the Department of Energy is given authority to have its 14 input to the Department of State, but it's the Department 15 of State that makes nonproliferation policy, not the 16 Department of Energy. 17 Q. In your review of the environmental assessment prepared by 18 the Department of Energy in January of '99, Dr. Boyle, 19 regarding the Parallex Project, is there any indication 20 that the Department of Energy consulted with the 21 Department of State? And if you don't mind, I direct your 22 attention to Page 41 of Plaintiff's Exhibit 12 previously 23 admitted and ask you to refer to that. 24 A. Yes. They had a list here of agencies consulted. Your 25 Honor, over here on Page 41, it says agencies consulted KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 52 1 during the preparation of this analysis: Atomic Energy of 2 Canada, Canadian Atomic Energy Control Board, U.S. 3 Department of Transportation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 4 Commission. They do not consult with the Department of 5 State and, in my opinion, and also in the opinion of 6 Congress, if you read through all the implementing 7 legislation, I know, Your Honor, as I understand it, you 8 are a conscientious Judge so I'm sure you are going to do 9 this, you'll see that they have to deal with the 10 Department of State. And the main problem with this EA is 11 they have not dealt with the Department of State, they 12 have not dealt with the nonproliferation issues, they have 13 not dealt with the Nonproliferation Treaty, they have not 14 dealt with the 1978 Act, they have not dealt with the 1994 15 Act, they have not dealt with the 1998 Act. All that is 16 expressly required by Congress. So again, in my opinion, 17 for some reason the Department of Energy has just decided 18 to go out there on its own and completely either ignore or 19 violate the Congressional statutes and procedures for 20 dealing with proliferation and nonproliferation issues. 21 Q. Dr. Boyle, to your knowledge, has the Department of State 22 retreated at all from the U.S. commitment to the 23 Nonproliferation Treaty as implemented by Congress through 24 the legislation you've indicated? 25 A. No, and as a matter of fact, Madeline Albright was just KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 53 1 out in India-Pakistan with President Clinton. As you 2 know, President Clinton stated that today India-Pakistan, 3 the Indian subcontinent is the most dangerous place on the 4 face of the earth because of the proliferation problem, 5 and they both have nuclear weapons now, and the dispute 6 over Casmir. 7 President Clinton then was just lectured in the 8 Indian Parliament publicly by the speaker of Parliament 9 for making the statement, but I think it's a fair and 10 accurate statement. Madeline Albright followed this up 11 with another statement reiterating our commitment to 12 nonproliferation and, specifically with respect to India 13 and Pakistan, that this was the policy of the United 14 States Government, and also tying this into the integral 15 importance of safeguards. 16 And again, that is a fair and accurate statement 17 of the policy being pursued by the President and the 18 Secretary of State that is charged under the legislation 19 and the Constitution to deal with these matters. There is 20 a complete and total disconnect here between what the 21 President and Secretary of State are saying and what the 22 Department of Energy is planning to do here in the 23 environmental assessment. 24 Q. Dr. Boyle, I'm going to show you what has been marked as 25 Plaintiff's Exhibit 11 and ask you to take a minute to KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 54 1 review that and let me know when you have had a chance to 2 do so, please. 3 A. Yes. This is an account of the Secretary of State 4 Albright's statement on April 2, as recently as April 2 5 dealing with our proliferation policies. And let me draw 6 a few things to your attention. United States regards 7 proliferation anywhere as our Number 1 security concern. 8 So again, she's pointing this out and she is the cabinet 9 officer with the authority to deal with these matters, not 10 the Secretary of Energy. We continue to seek universal 11 adherence to the NPT neither India nor Pakistan are 12 parties to the NPT. And here is crucial points: The 13 limits in our ability to cooperate with India and Pakistan 14 are a matter of U.S. law, as well as our international 15 obligations, all right? So Secretary Albright is pointing 16 out we have United States law that deals with 17 proliferation and this United States law -- of course, 18 she's not a lawyer -- but the U.S. law is the Nuclear 19 Nonproliferation Act, the Proliferation Prevention Act and 20 the '98 amendments as well as the Atomic Energy Act. So 21 there's a very comprehensive legislative scheme here as 22 well as our international obligation she points out. 23 There are international treaties here, and in particular 24 the most important one being the one she just referred to, 25 the Nonproliferation Treaty, and she is aware of that. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 55 1 Unfortunately, it does not appear that the Department of 2 Energy is aware of it or is concerned about it in the 3 least bit, at least as reflected in the environmental 4 assessment, they have not dealt with any of these issues 5 in environmental assessment nothing, none. 6 Q. Dr. Boyle, based on your experience and investigations 7 study, are you aware of whether or not India and Pakistan 8 have Canadian CANDU reactors? 9 A. As I understand it, they've got reactors from the Indian 10 Nuclear Bomb Project was a serous reactor, Canada, India 11 and United States, right. And Pakistan has a CANDU 12 reactor, right. And just the other day, the New York 13 Times reported the smuggling of substantial quantity of 14 nuclear materials out of the former Soviet Union towards 15 Pakistan that was recently intercepted in Kazakhstan, I 16 think. So I think this is a very serious problem. And I 17 don't see how this Parallex MOX -- it's only going to 18 compound the problem. These countries are doing 19 everything they possibly can. And here I would also add 20 in Israel is not a party to the NPT. There are other 21 states that have CANDU reactors, it has already been 22 reported in the professional literature, Your Honor, that 23 Japan too is a de facto nuclear weapons state in violation 24 of the NPT. And as Dr. Edwards already reported, they 25 have gotten a good deal of their nuclear material from KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 56 1 Canada. 2 So, we see -- Canadian reactors that are what, 3 in South Korea, Taiwan, states that are interested in 4 getting nuclear weapons. Clearly Taiwan wants them, South 5 Korea wants them. And you know, not that I can speak for 6 these governments, but it seems to me they have made a 7 decision the best way to get a weapon is to do it the way 8 the Indians did. We get a Canadian CANDU reactor, then we 9 start getting in whatever material we can get from, for 10 example, this MOX program. They will get plutonium and 11 then they can make a bomb, they can assemble a bomb. 12 As for the ease of assembling a bomb, Your 13 Honor, when I was a student at Harvard there was a very 14 bright student at MIT who, as a class project, assembled a 15 bomb. He had everything there except the plutonium. 16 That's how easy it is to assemble an atomic bottom, and he 17 brought it down there and, if I remember correctly, in 18 central square at MIT, and just showed it to everyone. 19 Even a bright student at MIT can assemble a bomb, that's 20 how easy it is to do. And what we see on these states 21 that say they are non-nuclear weapons states is an effort 22 to get a CANDU reactor and do what the Indians do use the 23 CANDU reactor, then they just need to get hold of the 24 plutonium, and Parallex MOX is going to give them access 25 to this plutonium if it gets in circulation. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 57 1 Q. Dr. Boyle, you've testified in some depth as to the 2 Nonproliferation Treaty and the implementation by Congress 3 indicating Congress' intent to prohibit even components, 4 parts of nuclear weapons to be covered by the U.S.; is 5 that correct? 6 A. Congress has interpreted the NPT, as I said, in good 7 faith, and to achieve its object and purpose and they have 8 interpreted to mean components that is clear of nuclear 9 weapons or nuclear explosive devices and there are other 10 areas in legislation where they even break it down to 11 items or substances that could be used for nuclear weapons 12 or nuclear explosive device, so Congress is aware of this 13 problem of a state becoming a de facto nuclear weapons 14 state and somehow trying to assemble components, items and 15 substances to be used for a nuclear weapon in order to 16 circumvent the treaty. So again Congress has interpreted, 17 I think, the treaty properly. 18 Q. Are you familiar in the course of your research with the 19 DOE's stockpile of stewardship program? 20 A. I am, yes. 21 Q. Are you familiar with their use in that program of 22 subcritical amounts of weapons grade plutonium? 23 A. Yes. Right now the Department of Energy is engaging in 24 what are known as subcritical tests. A subcritical test 25 is using -- they just did one this week, I think I gave KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 58 1 you the press release on it, and they are consistently 2 doing this. 3 A subcritical test uses a subcritical amount of 4 plutonium, which is under the -- it was eight kilograms. 5 And they are exploding it in order to test, verify and 6 develop the next generation of U.S. nuclear weapons. So 7 what we see the Department of Energy doing here is the 8 subcritical tests, in my opinion, would constitute it's 9 not a nuclear weapon, but it is a nuclear explosive 10 device. Now, there is nothing illegal with, under the NPT 11 with us having a nuclear explosive device, because we are 12 a nuclear weapons state party, but again, it creates 13 problems other states are now mimicking our behavior. 14 Russia is doing the same thing, France and Britain say 15 they are going to do the same thing. If we give weapons 16 grade plutonium to Canada, Canada could be doing the same 17 thing. Or the Russians give their weapons grade plutonium 18 to Canada, Canada could be doing the same thing, and other 19 states could be doing the same thing. So again, I think I 20 have serious concerns here, but I want to point out the 21 DOE is already engaged in the subcritical tests which are 22 clearly nuclear explosive devices. So it just doesn't 23 have to be a bomb to be regulated by the NPT. 24 Q. Dr. Boyle, in the scope of your experience and research, 25 have you become acquainted with the International Court of KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 59 1 Justice opinion regarding nuclear weapons in 1996? 2 A. Yes. As a matter of fact, I was part of the effort 3 originally to try to get that advisory opinion from the 4 World Court. 5 Q. If you would explain briefly what the significance, if 6 anything, of that World Court decision on the Parallex 7 project is, in your opinion? 8 A. Well, Your Honor, the World Court was asked by the United 9 Nations general assembly to give an opinion on the entire 10 question of nuclear weapons and international law. It's a 11 very long decision with many separate decisions in the 12 sense I've written an article here, Mr. Love might want to 13 provide it to you, going through all of it. But in this 14 opinion, there are two critical components that are 15 relevant to the Parallex MOX project and, of course, the 16 EA has not dealt with either, let alone the World Court 17 opinion, and the World Court opinion in this area 18 enunciates the rules of international law that are binding 19 on the United States Government, binding on Canada, 20 binding on Russia. The one component of this opinion 21 deals with the environmental-- international environmental 22 law applicable to nuclear weapons, and you will note in 23 the EA, the DOE does absolutely nothing at all with 24 international environmental law applicable to this 25 transaction because it is an international transaction, KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 60 1 they're shipping plutonium from the States up to Canada 2 and from Russia over to Canada. So international 3 environmental law is involved, and the DOE has done 4 nothing at all about it. 5 And Mr. Love, I think you have the exact 6 language there. You want to provide that to me, the exact 7 ruling of the Court on the international environmental law 8 that would apply? 9 MR. LOVE: Your Honor, we have tendered what I'm 10 going to show Dr. Boyle as Plaintiff's Exhibit 14, a copy 11 of the World Court opinion to both the Court and counsel 12 previously. 13 BY MR. LOVE: 14 Q. Dr. Boyle, I'm going to show you what has been marked as 15 Plaintiff's Exhibit 14 and ask you to take a look at that 16 and let us know when you've had a chance to do so and what 17 it is. 18 A. Right, this is the World Court advisory opinion. It's so 19 long, I'm going to have to get my notes on it, excuse me. 20 I think, Mr. Love, I gave you my notes last 21 night on the relevant provisions of the opinion, the 22 relevant paragraphs. 23 Q. While I'm looking for your notes, could you direct your 24 attention to Paragraph 27, please? 25 A. Right. What we need are the paragraphs here. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 61 1 Right. Yes, I have Paragraph 27. 2 Your Honor, here the World Court unanimously 3 adopted Principle 21 of the Stockholm Declaration of 1972, 4 which everyone would say today is a basic principle of 5 international environmental law, which the EA has not 6 bothered to deal with. And it basically says states have 7 a duty "to ensure that activities within their 8 jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to the 9 environment of other states or areas beyond the limits of 10 national jurisdiction." That's a basic principle of 11 international environmental law. It goes back to the 12 Stockholm Declaration of 1972. It has direct relevance 13 here to this entire project. You've got international 14 shipment of plutonium, it's going over the high seas if it 15 goes by boat from Russia. That also triggers the Law of 16 the Sea Convention that they have not dealt with. They 17 haven't dealt with the Stockholm Declaration, and they 18 have not dealt with this recent ruling by the World Court 19 as to obligations under international law. If you read 20 the EA when they are asked this question, they said "Once 21 we give to Canada, that's their problem." Well, again, 22 that isn't a correct statement of international law. It 23 is our problem. 24 The second important point of the ICJ opinion, 25 and there are other sections here dealing with the KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 62 1 environment -- and I know we have a limited amount of 2 time, I'm not going to go through it all -- deals with the 3 interpretation of the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty. 4 This is an international treaty, the World Court 5 also has authority to interpret the Nuclear 6 Nonproliferation Treaty, and they have interpreted the 7 Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. 8 Mr. Love, could you give me -- I identified a 9 paragraph for you, I think it's 102. 10 Q. I believe you are looking for Paragraph 102? 11 A. 102, right. 12 Q. May also want to take a look at Paragraph 99. 13 A. 99 and 102, right. 14 The World Court, in the same advisory opinion, 15 has also dealt with the NPT and the obligation of Article 16 VI of the NPT, "Each of the parties to the treaty 17 undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on 18 effective measures relating to cessation of the" -- "in 19 good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of 20 the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear 21 disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete 22 disarmament under strict and effective international 23 control." And they have interpreted this provision, NPT 24 Article VI, which we are a party to, by the way, to have a 25 dual obligation, two components here: One, we must pursue KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 63 1 negotiations on nuclear disarmament as a matter of good 2 faith. 3 Recently, I regret to report the U.S. Ambassador 4 to the Conference on Nuclear Disarmament sponsored by the 5 United Nations has said "We are not going to pursue 6 nuclear disarmament negotiations." In my opinion, that 7 puts us in breach of NPT Article VI, certainly as 8 interpreted by the World Court. We have an obligation to 9 pursue nuclear disarmament negotiations and we have just 10 said we are not going to do it. The Ambassador said "We 11 are going to pursue instead a treaty on the cutoff of 12 fissile materials such as what is at stake here, but we 13 are not going to pursue nuclear disarmament negotiations." 14 Well, Your Honor, it does seem to me that that is a 15 violation of NPT Article VI and is certainly not meeting 16 the requirements of Article VI as interpreted by the World 17 Court. We must pursue these negotiations in good faith. 18 And then the second component of the obligation 19 is we must achieve a precise result. Nuclear disarmament 20 in all its aspects. And again just recently the U.S. 21 Ambassador to the Council of Nuclear Disarmament under the 22 auspices of the UN said "We are just not going to do it." 23 The reason why this creates serious legal problems is that 24 the non-nuclear weapons states went along with the entire 25 Nuclear Proliferation Treaty on the assumption that the KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 64 1 nuclear weapons states would engage in good faith 2 negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament. If we are 3 not engaging in negotiations leading to nuclear 4 disarmament and publicly say we are not going to do it, 5 this in theory could give the non-nuclear weapons states, 6 all 175 of them, grounds to argue the material breach of 7 the NPT and pull out of the NPT and to engage in nuclear 8 armament. Now I'm not recommending that and indeed I 9 certainly would not recommend that to anyone, but it is a 10 very serious concern if we are not engaging in these 11 nuclear disarmament negotiations, which we are not 12 currently doing. 13 Q. Dr. Boyle, could you briefly summarize for the Court why 14 the International Court of Justice opinions, if at all, 15 are binding on the U.S.? 16 A. This opinion per se is listed as an advisory opinion. So 17 it is -- we are not party to the lawsuit. As you know, 18 some courts can give advisory opinions. Your Honor, you 19 can't give an advisory opinion, but there are courts in 20 the United States that some states courts have authority 21 to give advisory opinions as well as contentious 22 opinions. The World Court has both. They have authority 23 contentious opinion and an advisory opinion. This was not 24 a contentious case. If it were a contentious case, we 25 would be bound by it, like the Lockerbie case, like the KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 65 1 Bosnia cases that I was involved with, those were 2 contentious cases. This was an advisory opinion, however, 3 in this advisory opinion, with these unanimous rulings by 4 the World Court on these points, the World Court made it 5 clear that these rules are customary international law. 6 And rules of customary international law bind the United 7 States Government. The Paquete, P-a-q-u-e-t-e, Habana, 8 H-a-b-a-n-a, decision by the United States Supreme Court 9 customarily international law binds the United States and 10 the United States courts. And technically, this is 11 federal common law. So the, Your Honor, this Court should 12 take into account the World Court rulings on these two 13 points on international environmental law and how the NPT 14 should be interpreted. 15 The rest of the opinion, which is quite lengthy 16 and I had written about elsewhere -- if you are interested 17 in reading my article, you can, but it's not really 18 relevant or terribly germane to the issues here, but 19 certainly, the section on international environmental law 20 and their interpretation of the NPT is relevant. I think 21 they enunciate rules of customary international law. I 22 also have reached the same conclusions myself in my own 23 scholarly research before the World Court did, but I think 24 most experts would agree with the rulings of the World 25 Court on these two points, it's requirements of KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 66 1 international environmental law and the interpretation of 2 the NPT. 3 And again, the DOE's environmental assessment 4 has not taken any of this into account. They have not 5 taken into account the rules of international 6 environmental law, which they should do, and they have not 7 taken into account anything about the NPT. 8 Q. Dr. Boyle, based on your review of the NPT, the Nuclear 9 Nonproliferation Acts of 1978, 1994, and 1998, the 10 International Court of Justice opinion, and the 11 declarations by the Department of State regarding the U.S. 12 position with respect to the Nonproliferation Treaty 13 commitments we have made, do you have an opinion as an 14 expert in international law as to whether the foreign 15 policy of the United States would be violated by the 16 shipment of MOX from Russia to Canada funded by the U.S. 17 DOE? 18 A. Well, again, I agree with everything Dr. Edwards said. 19 Your Honor, this is a major change in United States 20 nonproliferation policy going back at a minimum to the 21 Carter administration and the adoption of the Nuclear 22 Nonproliferation Act, it seems to me completely 23 inconsistent with the treaty, with the Act, the 1978 Act 24 and 1994 Act and the 1998 Act. So yes, this is a major 25 change in policy that potentially is illegal under the KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 67 1 sources. And I would really like to see the Department of 2 Energy comprehensively address all of these issues so we 3 could see what is their authority to do this. Besides 4 their own ipse dixit. I would like to see the authority. 5 I don't see it in any of the sources I've read before for 6 them to unilaterally engage in this major change in policy 7 that seems to be inconsistent with the Treaty, the '78 8 Act, the '94 Act and '98 Act, yes. 9 MR. LOVE: Your Honor, I have no further 10 questions of this witness. Thank you. 11 CROSS EXAMINATION 12 BY MR. DODGE: 13 Q. Morning, Mr. Boyle. 14 A. Morning. 15 Q. I would like to turn your attention back to your C.V., 16 which I think is Exhibit 3. Do you have that in front of 17 you? 18 A. Sure. 19 Q. Just to round out a few items on the second page, about 20 halfway down you testified that you were counsel to Libya 21 in connection with the bombing of the Pan Am flight over 22 Lockerbie, Scotland. 23 A. That is correct. I should point out that matter is being 24 peaceably resolved now by the United States and Libya 25 because of my efforts. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 68 1 Q. And you've also served, going up now the fourth item from 2 the top of that page, since 1987 you served as a legal 3 advisor to the Palestine Liberation Organization? 4 A. That is correct, and I was also the legal advisor to the 5 Palestinian delegation for the Middle East Peace Talks 6 convened under the auspices of President Bush, yes. 7 Q. And two items down from there said you were counsel 8 related to House Resolution 86 in the 102nd Congress 9 dealing with the impeachment of former, then President 10 George Bush? 11 A. Yes. Congressman Henry G. Gonzalez of Texas reached a 12 decision that President Bush going to war violated 13 numerous provisions of the Constitution and international 14 law. You can find them there in House Resolution 86. And 15 he asked me, because of my knowledge and expertise to 16 serve as counsel to them on these matters, and I did serve 17 as counsel free of charge, that is correct. 18 My service to the Palestinian Delegation in the 19 Middle East Peace Negotiations is there in '91 and '93, as 20 I said, President Bush was the one who convened those 21 negotiations, and yes, even though I did set out with 22 Congressman Gonzalez on this issue, President Bush did 23 sign my Biological Weapons Anti-terrorists Act of 1989, 24 which is -- 25 Q. He apparently didn't hold your efforts against you KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 69 1 personally. 2 A. Pardon me? 3 Q. Sounds like he didn't hold it against you personally. 4 A. I don't think he did, no. I'm a lawyer and a law 5 professor and I'm a professional, but he had no problems, 6 President Bush had no problems with my Biological 7 Anti-Terrorism Act. It was approved unanimously by both 8 Houses of Congress. 9 Q. Moving on to the third page, second item from the top of 10 the page, you worked as a consultant in 1993 on 11 Independence for the State of Hawaii. I would assume for 12 Hawaii to become an independent nation? 13 A. That is correct. The State of Hawaii-- the Hawaiian 14 Sovereignty Advisory Commission is an agency of the State 15 of Hawaii. And they were charged under the law by the 16 State of Hawaiian law to investigate all alternatives for 17 the native Hawaiian people. One of the alternatives that 18 needed to be investigated was whether or not the native 19 Hawaiian people should establish their own independent 20 nation state. And I was retained by the State of Hawaii 21 then to advise them on this because of my experience doing 22 the same work with the Palestinians. I advised them on 23 the creation of their state and the peace talks with 24 Israel based on a two-state solution, and the Palestinian 25 state today has diplomatic recognition now by about 125 KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 70 1 states, and currently has de facto UN membership, and I 2 did the legal work on that, so the State of Hawaii 3 retained me to come out and advise on the establishment of 4 an independent nations state, and the State of Hawaii paid 5 my expenses and a modest fee for this work, yes. 6 Q. Moving on to the Nonproliferation Treaty, you testified 7 about Article I. Do you recall that? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. And as I understood your testimony, your view is that the 10 fuel rods at issue in the Parallex Project, in your view, 11 should be treated as components of a nuclear weapon; is 12 that right? Explosive device? 13 A. No. What I said was weapons grade plutonium should be 14 treated as a component of either a nuclear weapon or a 15 nuclear explosive device. 16 Q. What about -- I mean, the Parallex test involves shipment 17 and then irradiation of fuel rods; is that correct? 18 A. Right. 19 Q. And is it your view or is it not your view that those fuel 20 rods constitute components of nuclear weapons or explosive 21 devices? 22 A. My viewpoint is what I said, that weapons grade plutonium 23 is a component of a nuclear weapon or nuclear explosive 24 device. 25 Q. You didn't answer my question. Do you understand the KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 71 1 question? 2 A. Well, I've given my answer. 3 THE COURT: No, you haven't answered his 4 question. He asked you question, if you don't know the 5 answer, say so. He asked you a very specific question 6 about rods. 7 BY MR. DODGE: 8 Q. In fact, the question has to do with your view, if you 9 have one, whether the fuel rods at issue in the Parallex 10 test program constitute components of nuclear weapons or 11 explosive devices. 12 A. If they contain weapons grade plutonium, they would be or 13 could be components of nuclear weapons or nuclear 14 explosive devices. 15 Q. Well, these fuel rods do contain plutonium; is that right? 16 A. As I understand it, it's in there, yep. 17 Q. So in your view, does that make the fuel rods components 18 of nuclear weapons or explosive devices? 19 A. Again, my testimony is that the weapons grade plutonium 20 clearly is either nuclear -- is a component of a nuclear 21 weapon or a nuclear explosive device, and the reason I 22 give that testimony is based on my reading of the 23 Congressional legislation, Congress has taken the position 24 that weapons grade plutonium or plutonium, in general, is 25 a component of a nuclear weapon or nuclear explosive KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 72 1 device. Congress does not deal with the fuel rods, they 2 dealt with the plutonium. 3 Q. I want to make sure I understand your testimony clearly. 4 Is it your testimony, is it your view that any 5 plutonium would qualify as a component of a nuclear 6 weapons or nuclear weapon or explosive device under the 7 treaty? 8 A. My testimony today is the weapons grade plutonium involved 9 in this project is a component of a nuclear weapons or 10 other nuclear explosive device. I believe weapons grade 11 plutonium is what is involved in this project. 12 Q. I asked you a different question. The question was a 13 broader one. Is it your view or not your view that all 14 plutonium would qualify as a component of a nuclear weapon 15 or explosive device under Article I? 16 A. It appears Congress has taken that position, yes, and they 17 have stringently regulated plutonium in all forms. And I 18 also note that the United States Government has exploded a 19 nuclear weapon -- 20 THE COURT: The question is: Is it your 21 opinion? He is asking four or five times now, could you 22 answer that? 23 THE WITNESS: But Your Honor, my opinion is 24 based on -- 25 THE COURT: In courts -- I know you are a KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 73 1 professor -- we answer the questions of the lawyer, not 2 what we want to talk about. He asked you seven or eight 3 questions, none of which you've answered. I would ask you 4 simply listen to the lawyer's question and answer it. 5 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honor. 6 BY MR. DODGE: 7 Q. Do you understand the question? 8 THE COURT: Ask it again for the fifteenth time, 9 ask it again. 10 BY MR. DODGE: 11 Q. Is it your view that all plutonium constitutes a component 12 of nuclear weapon or explosive device under Article I of 13 the treaty? 14 A. It can. 15 Q. It can? 16 A. Yes. Yes. 17 Q. Is it your view across the board that plutonium, whether 18 weapons grade or not, if it's present in a fuel rod for 19 a-- destined for a civilian nuclear reactor would qualify 20 as a component of a nuclear weapon explosive device? 21 A. It could. 22 Q. Do you know whether as a general matter the signatories of 23 the Nonproliferation Treaty have interpreted, whether any 24 signatory has interpreted Article I to ban transport of 25 fuel rods containing plutonium? KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 74 1 A. Congress has strictly regulated plutonium, yes, and there 2 is legislation on the books saying "We, Congress, 3 interpreting our obligations under the NPT, are against 4 international transport of plutonium," yes. 5 Q. Has Congress passed any legislation prohibiting the 6 transport of nuclear fuel rods containing any plutonium? 7 A. In what I have reviewed for my testimony here today, I 8 have not seen in the '78, '94 or '98 Act that Congress has 9 prohibited transport of fuel rods. 10 Q. In fact, fuel rods are transported across national 11 boundaries all the time; is that not correct? 12 A. They are transported. 13 Q. In fact, fuel rods containing plutonium are transported 14 across national boundaries all the time, isn't that 15 correct? 16 A. If they are subject to-- they are supposed to be subject 17 to safeguards, yes. 18 Q. Well, that gets us to another point of your earlier 19 testimony regarding whether the fuel rods particularly at 20 issue in the Parallex Project are or are not subject to 21 IA/EA safeguards in Canada. Do you recall that testimony? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. Do you have personal knowledge whether Canada, the 24 Government of Canada has taken a position on whether the 25 U.S. Parallex fuel rods, which are now in Canada, whether KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 75 1 those fuel rods are now subject to IA/EA safeguards? 2 A. I have not seen any evidence because of the recentness of 3 the movement of the shipments. 4 Q. If I told you that the position of the Government of 5 Canada is that those fuel rods are, in fact, subject to 6 IA/EA safeguards, would you have any basis to quarrel with 7 that? 8 A. The statement by Ms. Locatelli does call into question the 9 validity of these assertions, yes. 10 Q. Miss Locatelli was generally speaking of Parallex fuel 11 rods, was she? 12 A. Speaking about plutonium in general, right. 13 Q. I take it you didn't speak personally to Miss Locatelli? 14 A. No, I did not. 15 Q. About this or any-- 16 A. But I did speak with Mr. Clemens of NCI by e-mail and he 17 has similar concerns to me. 18 Q. Okay. And did you speak to the newspaper reporter, Martin 19 Mittelstaedt, who quoted Ms. Locatelli? 20 A. No, I did not. 21 Q. Whether his quotes accurately reflect what she said or not 22 is not something you would be qualified to testify about; 23 is that right? 24 A. Well, I note The Globe and Mail is a newspaper of public 25 record and I would be able to rely on that in the World KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 76 1 Court for sure, yep. 2 Q. But newspaper reporters are human beings? 3 A. Newspaper reporters make mistakes, sure. But again, the 4 World Court, for example, the nuclear test cases did rely 5 on statements made by Government officials as normally 6 reported in reputable news media sources. They have 7 different standards of evidence, the World Court, than 8 they do here in United States District Court. 9 Q. Now you've also relied on this article, Plaintiff's 10 Exhibit 5, I guess too, in support of your opinion that 11 Canada is in possession of 40 kilograms or up to 40 12 kilograms of plutonium; is that right? 13 A. This is a statement by Mr. Clemens, and I have had e-mail 14 correspondence with him about it. 15 Q. Do you have any personal knowledge whether -- 16 A. No. 17 Q. I'm sorry, I didn't finish my question. 18 A. I did answer your question. 19 THE COURT: He hasn't finished asking it; you 20 couldn't possibly answer his question when he hasn't 21 finished asking it. 22 THE WITNESS: Sorry. 23 BY MR. DODGE: 24 Q. Do you have any personal knowledge of whether Canada, in 25 fact, has 40 kilograms of plutonium? KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 77 1 A. I do not have personal knowledge, no. I'm relying on the 2 statement by Mr. Clemens. 3 Q. Mr. Clemens, does Mr. Clemens have personal knowledge 4 whether Canada has 40-- 5 A. As I understand, Mr. Clemens does. From my e-mail 6 correspondence with him, he does. 7 Q. Has he seen that plutonium? 8 A. Pardon me? 9 Q. Has he seen it? 10 A. He didn't tell me what his sources of evidence are, but he 11 did tell me that they will be making it public soon. 12 Q. So he thinks he has -- he thinks he has evidence to 13 support that conclusion and whether that evidence holds 14 any water or not, we really can't tell, can we? 15 A. Well, again, as an expert, if the NCI is making the 16 statements, I think they are significant and they need to 17 be dealt with, and certainly by the Department of Energy. 18 THE COURT: That was not -- excuse me, that was 19 not his question. 20 Would you repeat your question, please? 21 BY MR. DODGE: 22 Q. The question is: Mr. Clemens believes he has reason or he 23 has evidence to support his conclusion that Canada has 40 24 kilograms of plutonium, but as far as anybody in this 25 courtroom knows, that evidence may or may not hold water, KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 78 1 we just don't know, correct? 2 A. I'm not evaluating the evidence, and Mr. Clemens said the 3 evidence will be produced, so at that point I will review 4 the evidence and formulate a formal opinion. 5 THE COURT: Do you want to ask it again or just 6 want to give up? 7 MR. DODGE: I think that -- I think the point is 8 established to the extent I need to, Your Honor. 9 BY MR. DODGE: 10 Q. Now, you testified earlier that it's up to the State 11 Department, not the Department of Energy to interpret 12 United States treaty obligations; is that right? 13 A. I testified that it is the State Department that is in 14 charge of nuclear proliferation policies, that's what I 15 testified, and not the Department of Energy, yes. 16 Q. Okay. Is it your view that it's -- maybe I misunderstood 17 what you testified earlier. I thought I heard you say 18 that interpreting whether or not the U.S. is complying 19 with Nonproliferation Treaty in particular, that pertinent 20 authority on that would be the State Department, not the 21 Department of Energy; is that a fair statement? 22 A. I've also testified that the State Department has the lead 23 role in the United States Government with respect to 24 interpretation of treatises as well. 25 Q. Do you know what the State Department's position is on KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 79 1 whether the Parallex test program is or is not compliant 2 with Article I of the Nonproliferation Treaty? 3 A. Well, that's why I read the Environmental Assessment, to 4 see if you had talked to the State Department here, and 5 they hadn't, so I have not seen any statement by the State 6 Department as to what their position is, no. 7 Q. The Environmental Assessment is not the only document 8 that's been generated in the course of the Parallex 9 Project, you understand that? 10 A. That is correct, and I have read a good deal of the 11 documentation, but I still have not seen an expression by 12 the Department of State on this issue. 13 Q. Okay. Do you know whether or not the State Department was 14 involved at any level in the Parallex Project? 15 A. There probably were discussions somewhere in there. 16 Q. Do you know? 17 A. Myself personally? 18 Q. Yes. 19 A. I don't know for sure. 20 Q. Do you know one way or the other whether the State 21 Department has a view on whether the Parallex Project is 22 consistent with our treaty obligations under Article I of 23 the NPT? 24 A. I have not seen any expression by the State Department on 25 this issue. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 80 1 Q. If I told you the State Department has taken the view that 2 the Parallex Project is entirely consistent with our 3 obligations under Article I, would you have any basis to 4 quarrel with that? 5 A. I haven't seen it. 6 MR. LODGE: Objection, Your Honor. 7 THE COURT: If he hasn't seen -- 8 MR. DODGE: Withdraw the question, Your Honor. 9 THE WITNESS: I would like to see it and 10 evaluate it myself, sure. 11 BY MR. DODGE: 12 Q. You also testified about dangers of nuclear proliferation 13 relating to countries such as Taiwan and Korea that are 14 not currently nuclear weapons states, but would like to 15 acquire nuclear weapons, do you recall that testimony? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. Is it correct that the MOX program, the Parallex Program 18 does not contemplate the shipment of any fuel rods to any 19 country other than Canada? 20 A. Not at this stage, but eventually it does appear there 21 will be mass circulation of this material, yes, down the 22 line. 23 Q. And the basis for that is what exactly? 24 A. The quantities. If the test works out, the quantity we 25 are talking about coming from Russia. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 81 1 Q. Well, let me be more specific about this. Has the United 2 States, any spokesperson for the United States Government 3 proposed in connection with the Parallex Project to send 4 fuel rods to any country other than Canada? 5 A. The United States? 6 Q. Right. 7 A. No. 8 Q. Has the Government of Russia proposed, in connection with 9 the Parallex Project, to send fuel rods to any country 10 other than Canada? 11 A. Well, they are talking about massive quantities of weapons 12 grade plutonium being circulated into this program and the 13 independent team of experts by Russia and the United 14 States have made that quite clear they are talking tons of 15 this stuff. 16 Q. Well, again, you didn't answer my question there, 17 Professor. I asked you whether the Russian Government has 18 proposed sending fuel rods to any country other than 19 Canada. Your answer only dealt with volumes, it didn't 20 address where. That was my question. 21 A. Right. There might have been discussions on Germany or 22 some of the European states have there -- there have been 23 discussions and proposals, but it's just at that stage 24 now, yes. 25 Q. But Russia has not, to your knowledge, proposed sending KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 82 1 fuel rods to Korea? 2 A. There is an international market here, sure, it could be 3 sold anywhere. 4 THE COURT: No, he didn't say could have. He 5 said: Did they propose it? 6 THE WITNESS: I have not read that right now 7 Russia is proposing sending this to Korea. 8 BY MR. DODGE: 9 Q. Same question with Taiwan. 10 A. I have not read that Russia is proposing to send this to 11 Taiwan. 12 MR. DODGE: No further questions at this time, 13 Your Honor. 14 THE COURT: We will take a 15-minute recess. 15 COURT CLERK: All rise. 16 This court is in recess. 17 (At 10:54 a.m., recess.) 18 THE COURT: Okay. What is next? 19 MR. LOVE: Brief redirect, Your Honor. 20 REDIRECT EXAMINATION 21 BY MR. LOVE: 22 Q. Professor Boyle, did you receive any recognition or 23 rewards from Bosnia for your efforts on their behalf? 24 A. While I was never paid a penny, but President Izetbegovic 25 and Vice President Gonich (phonetic) held a ceremony at KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 83 1 the Bosnian presidency with a-- awarded me full-fledged 2 citizenship in the Republic, a diplomatic passport and 3 visa and a declaration and they put the ceremony on 4 television, so that was very nice. So technically I'm a 5 Bosnian citizen too. 6 Q. Dr. Boyle, with respect to your work on the Hawaiian 7 independence that Mr. Dodge asked you about, has there 8 been any action by the President or Congress, to your 9 knowledge, with respect to that? 10 A. Yes. In 1993 Congress passed a statute signed into law by 11 President Clinton formally apologizing to the native 12 Hawaiian people for destroying their kingdom and stealing 13 their land. The legislation at the end provides for a 14 process of reconciliation and reparations, and how this is 15 going to be dealt with, and I'm still currently involved 16 in those matters. 17 Q. Dr. Boyle, there should be a document up there marked 18 Plaintiff's Exhibit 13. Do you see that? 19 A. Yes, I have it here. 20 Q. Now, this is entitled a Nonproliferation Arms Control 21 Assessment of Weapons Usable Fissile Material Storage and 22 Excess Plutonium Disposition Alternatives, dated January, 23 1997 authored by the United States Department of Energy, 24 correct? 25 A. Yes. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 84 1 Q. Was this among the documents that you reviewed in 2 preparing your testimony? 3 A. I did not have -- I did not get this entire document until 4 Monday, so I did not have a chance to review the entire 5 document, but I have reviewed the excerpts you gave to 6 me. 7 Q. Now Mr. Dodge asked you-- for the record, Your Honor, the 8 excerpt only contains Pages 106 and 107-- Mr. Dodge asked 9 you about your testimony about the possibility of future 10 shipments of MOX to Taiwan and Korea. Do you remember him 11 asking you about that? 12 A. Yes. 13 THE COURT: He didn't ask what the possibility 14 is, he asked if there were plans by Russia or the United 15 States to ship to those two nations. That was the 16 question. 17 MR. LOVE: Okay. 18 THE COURT: And the answer was no. Not are 19 there possibilities. I know the witness thinks there are 20 possibilities, that won't help me any. I understand 21 that. 22 BY MR. LOVE: 23 Q. In fact, Dr. Boyle is it true that in this document the 24 DOE indicates there are possibilities such as you 25 testified about? KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 85 1 A. Yes. 2 THE COURT: I accept that. You are wasting my 3 time. There are possibilities. 4 BY MR. LOVE: 5 Q. Dr. Boyle, if you would, I direct your attention to the 6 large document that's in front of you. This is 7 Proliferation Venerability Red Team Report, Plaintiff's 8 Exhibit 28, and introduced in the prior hearing. 9 A. Yes, and I read this entire report prior to my testimony 10 here today. 11 Q. I'm going to ask you, if you would, to direct your 12 attention to Page 6-1, the conclusions to that report. 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. And again, this is a document that was produced by Sandia 15 Laboratories for the Department of Energy? 16 A. That is correct. 17 Q. Directing your attention to the first conclusion, under 18 the conclusion, keeping plutonium inaccessible is the key 19 to proliferation resistance, do you see that? 20 A. Yes. It says quite clearly, all plutonium from all stages 21 of all alternatives can be made weapons usable should 22 sufficient material be successfully removed. And I should 23 point out that is the position Congress takes under the 24 Nuclear Nonproliferation Act of '78, the Act of '94 and 25 the '98, all plutonium can be made weapons usable. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 86 1 Q. In your view, is that conclusion by the Sandia Lab in this 2 Red Team Report consistent with your testimony? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. Now, Mr. Dodge asked you if there was transport of 5 plutonium across boundaries all the time. My notes 6 reflected you said yes. Do you remember that testimony? 7 A. I said there was some, yes. 8 Q. Is there routinely transportation of weapons grade 9 plutonium shipped across boundaries all the time by the 10 United States? 11 A. No. No. 12 MR. LOVE: No further questions. 13 MR. DODGE: No recross, Your Honor. 14 THE COURT: You may step down. 15 THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honor. 16 Your Honor, did you have any questions? 17 THE COURT: No, I don't. 18 THE WITNESS: Thank you. 19 THE COURT: You've exceeded your time so I take 20 it you have no more witnesses. 21 MR. LOVE: Your Honor, I have no more witnesses 22 but at this time I would like to move our Exhibit 5, 23 Exhibit 7, Exhibit 11, Exhibit 12, Exhibit 13, Exhibit 14 24 and Plaintiff's Exhibit 2 and Exhibit 1 into evidence. 25 MR. DODGE: No objection, Your Honor. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 87 1 THE COURT: 5, 7, 11, 12, 13 and 14, 1 and 2 are 2 received. 3 MR. LOVE: Thank you, Your Honor. We have 4 nothing further. 5 THE WITNESS: Here are the exhibits. Where do 6 you want them? 7 MR. LOVE: I'll take them here. 8 (Hearing continued; reported, not requested 9 transcribed.) 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 88 1 2 3 4 5 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE 6 7 I, Kathleen S. Thomas, Official Court Reporter for the 8 United States District Court for the Western District of 9 Michigan, appointed pursuant to the provisions of Title 28, 10 United States Code, Section 753, do hereby certify that the 11 foregoing is a true and correct transcript of proceedings had 12 in the within-entitled and numbered cause on the date 13 hereinbefore set forth; and I do further certify that the 14 foregoing transcript has been prepared by me or under my 15 direction. 16 17 18 19 20 __________________________________ 21 Kathleen S. Thomas, CSR, RPR-1300 22 U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue 23 Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 24 25 KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (voice) 217-244-1478 (fax) fboyle at law.uiuc.edu (personal comments only) Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Brussel, Morton K Sent: Monday, November 06, 2017 7:56 PM To: Boyle, Francis A Cc: David Green ; C. G. ESTABROOK ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay ; David Johnson ; Mildred O'brien ; Estabrook, Carl G Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] FW: MOX for Bombs in Japan I think this is wrong. MOX fuel is mainly used for fuel in nuclear power reactors, not to make bombs. Japan had/has many nuclear reactors. A fairly intelligible discussion is found in wikipedia, under "MOX nuclear”. —mkb On Nov 6, 2017, at 4:40 PM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss > wrote: This was a very lengthy interview I gave in Japan courtesy of their peace and anti-nuclear movement. It was heavily censored. My basic point was that Japan was using MOX to make bombs and that my best estimate was that Japan probably had as many bombs as PRC, which would be in the area of 500. So when the details of the disaster at Fukushima came out, it was clear to me it was one of their leading bomb complexes. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: globenet at yahoogroups.com [mailto:globenet at yahoogroups.com] Sent: Saturday, March 21, 2015 8:10 AM To: globenet at yahoogroups.com Cc: 'Hiroshi Taka'; 'Gensuikyo'; 'Akira Kawasaki'; oheyeran at yahoogroups.com; asia-pacific_demil_mdg-request at lists.riseup.net; 'Coleen Rowley'; 'Douglas Roche' Subject: [globenet] MOX for Bombs in Japan Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (Voice) 217-244-1478 (Fax) (personal comments only) __._,_.___ ________________________________ Posted by: "Boyle, Francis A" > ________________________________ Reply via web post • Reply to sender • Reply to group • Start a New Topic • Messages in this topic (1) VISIT YOUR GROUP [Yahoo! Groups] • Privacy • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use . __,_._,___ _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Tue Nov 7 03:02:24 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2017 03:02:24 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Updated Figures:: AMAR & ILLINIWAKS LAW FACULTY:THE SMELL OF DEATH SURROUNDS YOU! Message-ID: Way to go Amar and Illiniwaks Law Faculty! We now have a fix on how many TPS Refugees will soon be Deported by Trump/Sessions/ICE:437,000. See below. And those from Nicaragua, El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras go back to the Original Sanctuary Movement when Killer Koh was working for Reagan whose Department of Injustice where Killer Koh worked was persecuting and railroading the Founders of the Sanctuary Movement whom CCR and Professor Falk and I tried to defend. All this was explained to Amar and his Illiniwaks Law Faculty when they were to invite Killer Koh to come out and give their endowed lecture on Role Model Excellence for Lawyers in Government Service. As for Amar himself , he has gratuitously aligned himself with Trump/Sessions/ICE against 11 Million Undocumented Migrants; 800,000 DACA Kids; and 437,000 TPS Refugees ; as well as the Families of all these people. But of course Amar and the Illiniwaks Law Faculty could not give diddly-squat about them. I certainly did starting no later than early 1985 when I started to work pro bono publico as Counsel to the Sanctuary Movement. Fab. PROTECTED STATUS FOR MANY REFUGEES SET TO EXPIRE US law provides temporary protected status (TPS) for certain foreign nationals in the United States who are fleeing armed conflict, natural disaster or other extreme circumstances in their native country. But many refugees who have been granted such temporary status may soon have it revoked. "The United States currently provides TPS to approximately 437,000 foreign nationals from 10 countries," according to a newly updated report from the Congressional Research Service. Those countries are: El Salvador, Haiti, Honduras, Nepal, Nicaragua, Somalia, Sudan, South Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. See Temporary Protected Status: Overview and Current Issues, updated November 2, 2017. Unless renewed, TPS for persons from Haiti, Honduras and Nicaragua will expire in January 2018. The Washington Post reported that the Department of Homeland Security is expected to announce today that the expiring protections will not be renewed. * * * Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Monday, November 06, 2017 2:43 PM To: David Green ; C. G. ESTABROOK ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay ; David Johnson ; Mildred O'brien ; Estabrook, Carl G Subject: AMAR & ILLINIWAKS LAW FACULTY:THE SMELL OF DEATH SURROUNDS YOU! I fully explained all of the criminal dirty work Killer Koh had done for Reagan and then Obama/Clinton to Amar and the entire Faculty of the Illiniwaks College of Law. As Amar and the rest of them saw it, that fully qualified Killer Koh to give their special endowed lecture on being a Role Model of Excellence for Lawyers in Government Service. NOT EVEN ONE OF THEM SUPPORTED US AGAINST KILLER KOH! THE SMELL OF DEATH SURROUNDS THEM ALL! Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Monday, November 6, 2017 1:37 PM To: David Green >; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; Estabrook, Carl G > Subject: RE: AMAR:THE SMELL OF DEATH SURROUNDS YOU! Amar’s Good Buddy Killer Koh was working for Reagan’s Department of Injustice that persecuted the Founders of the Sanctuary Movement and subjected them to kangaroo court proceedings in US Federal Court where Falk and I were prevented from testifying on their behalf that could have acquitted them. Amar: The Smell of Death Surrounds You! fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Monday, November 6, 2017 1:05 PM To: David Green >; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; Estabrook, Carl G > Subject: AMAR:THE SMELL OF DEATH SURROUNDS YOU! Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Francis Boyle via YouTube [mailto:noreply at youtube.com] Sent: Monday, November 6, 2017 1:03 PM To: Boyle, Francis A > Subject: Francis Boyle sent you a video: "Lynyrd Skynyrd - That Smell" [http://s.ytimg.com/yt/img/email/digest/email_header.png] [https://yt3.ggpht.com/-w4phvYGWivc/AAAAAAAAAAI/AAAAAAAAAAA/_Vq2X19VNEk/s50-c-k-no-mo-rj-c0xffffff/photo.jpg] Francis Boyle has shared a video with you on YouTube [https://i.ytimg.com/vi/J4j7ggZqbiU/mqdefault.jpg] Lynyrd Skynyrd - That Smell by XMetallicaAXxx Whiskey bottles and brand new cars Oak tree, you're in my way There's too much coke and too much smoke Look what's going on inside you Ooh, that smell Can't you smell that smell? Ooh, that smell The smell of death surrounds you, yeah Angel of darkness is upon you Stuck a needle in your arm (You, fool, you) So take another toke, have a blow for your nose One more drink, fool, would drown you (Hell, yeah) Ooh, that smell Can't you smell that smell? Ooh, that smell The smell of death surrounds you Now, they call you prince charming Can't speak a word when you're full of 'ludes Say you'll be alright come tomorrow But tomorrow might not be here for you (Yeah, you) Ooh, that smell Can't you smell that smell? Ooh, that smell The smell of death surrounds you Aw, you, fool, you You stick them needles In your arm I know, I've been there before One little problem that confronts you Got a monkey on your back Just one more fix, Lord, might do the tr... Help center • Report spam ©2017 YouTube, LLC 901 Cherry Ave, San Bruno, CA 94066, USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Tue Nov 7 03:02:24 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2017 03:02:24 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Updated Figures:: AMAR & ILLINIWAKS LAW FACULTY:THE SMELL OF DEATH SURROUNDS YOU! Message-ID: Way to go Amar and Illiniwaks Law Faculty! We now have a fix on how many TPS Refugees will soon be Deported by Trump/Sessions/ICE:437,000. See below. And those from Nicaragua, El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras go back to the Original Sanctuary Movement when Killer Koh was working for Reagan whose Department of Injustice where Killer Koh worked was persecuting and railroading the Founders of the Sanctuary Movement whom CCR and Professor Falk and I tried to defend. All this was explained to Amar and his Illiniwaks Law Faculty when they were to invite Killer Koh to come out and give their endowed lecture on Role Model Excellence for Lawyers in Government Service. As for Amar himself , he has gratuitously aligned himself with Trump/Sessions/ICE against 11 Million Undocumented Migrants; 800,000 DACA Kids; and 437,000 TPS Refugees ; as well as the Families of all these people. But of course Amar and the Illiniwaks Law Faculty could not give diddly-squat about them. I certainly did starting no later than early 1985 when I started to work pro bono publico as Counsel to the Sanctuary Movement. Fab. PROTECTED STATUS FOR MANY REFUGEES SET TO EXPIRE US law provides temporary protected status (TPS) for certain foreign nationals in the United States who are fleeing armed conflict, natural disaster or other extreme circumstances in their native country. But many refugees who have been granted such temporary status may soon have it revoked. "The United States currently provides TPS to approximately 437,000 foreign nationals from 10 countries," according to a newly updated report from the Congressional Research Service. Those countries are: El Salvador, Haiti, Honduras, Nepal, Nicaragua, Somalia, Sudan, South Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. See Temporary Protected Status: Overview and Current Issues, updated November 2, 2017. Unless renewed, TPS for persons from Haiti, Honduras and Nicaragua will expire in January 2018. The Washington Post reported that the Department of Homeland Security is expected to announce today that the expiring protections will not be renewed. * * * Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Monday, November 06, 2017 2:43 PM To: David Green ; C. G. ESTABROOK ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay ; David Johnson ; Mildred O'brien ; Estabrook, Carl G Subject: AMAR & ILLINIWAKS LAW FACULTY:THE SMELL OF DEATH SURROUNDS YOU! I fully explained all of the criminal dirty work Killer Koh had done for Reagan and then Obama/Clinton to Amar and the entire Faculty of the Illiniwaks College of Law. As Amar and the rest of them saw it, that fully qualified Killer Koh to give their special endowed lecture on being a Role Model of Excellence for Lawyers in Government Service. NOT EVEN ONE OF THEM SUPPORTED US AGAINST KILLER KOH! THE SMELL OF DEATH SURROUNDS THEM ALL! Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Monday, November 6, 2017 1:37 PM To: David Green >; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; Estabrook, Carl G > Subject: RE: AMAR:THE SMELL OF DEATH SURROUNDS YOU! Amar’s Good Buddy Killer Koh was working for Reagan’s Department of Injustice that persecuted the Founders of the Sanctuary Movement and subjected them to kangaroo court proceedings in US Federal Court where Falk and I were prevented from testifying on their behalf that could have acquitted them. Amar: The Smell of Death Surrounds You! fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Monday, November 6, 2017 1:05 PM To: David Green >; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; Estabrook, Carl G > Subject: AMAR:THE SMELL OF DEATH SURROUNDS YOU! Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Francis Boyle via YouTube [mailto:noreply at youtube.com] Sent: Monday, November 6, 2017 1:03 PM To: Boyle, Francis A > Subject: Francis Boyle sent you a video: "Lynyrd Skynyrd - That Smell" [http://s.ytimg.com/yt/img/email/digest/email_header.png] [https://yt3.ggpht.com/-w4phvYGWivc/AAAAAAAAAAI/AAAAAAAAAAA/_Vq2X19VNEk/s50-c-k-no-mo-rj-c0xffffff/photo.jpg] Francis Boyle has shared a video with you on YouTube [https://i.ytimg.com/vi/J4j7ggZqbiU/mqdefault.jpg] Lynyrd Skynyrd - That Smell by XMetallicaAXxx Whiskey bottles and brand new cars Oak tree, you're in my way There's too much coke and too much smoke Look what's going on inside you Ooh, that smell Can't you smell that smell? Ooh, that smell The smell of death surrounds you, yeah Angel of darkness is upon you Stuck a needle in your arm (You, fool, you) So take another toke, have a blow for your nose One more drink, fool, would drown you (Hell, yeah) Ooh, that smell Can't you smell that smell? Ooh, that smell The smell of death surrounds you Now, they call you prince charming Can't speak a word when you're full of 'ludes Say you'll be alright come tomorrow But tomorrow might not be here for you (Yeah, you) Ooh, that smell Can't you smell that smell? Ooh, that smell The smell of death surrounds you Aw, you, fool, you You stick them needles In your arm I know, I've been there before One little problem that confronts you Got a monkey on your back Just one more fix, Lord, might do the tr... Help center • Report spam ©2017 YouTube, LLC 901 Cherry Ave, San Bruno, CA 94066, USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brussel at illinois.edu Tue Nov 7 03:13:29 2017 From: brussel at illinois.edu (Brussel, Morton K) Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2017 03:13:29 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: MOX for Bombs in Japan In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5B253921-B91A-4A46-B18B-A94C48E12123@illinois.edu> I don’t know who qualified you as an expert of nuclear reactors and the nature of their fuels, nuclear physics or nuclear chemistry. Your statements belie that qualification. I hope you don’t expect me, or anyone on this list, to read the transcript you presented, but I did scan it and noted nothing in technical detail there about the properties and use of MOX, certainly not for bombs. Sorry, —mkb On Nov 6, 2017, at 8:38 PM, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: Well I have been qualified as an Expert on MOX in United States Federal District Court. And I prohibit my law students from citing Wikipedia to me in any paper and advise them to never cite or quote Wikipedia to a Judge because Wikipedia is filled with so much pure, unadulterated BULL-TWADDLE. Fab. Subject: Nuclear Proliferation/NPT/US Atomic Energy Law/MOX, etc. 1 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 3 SOUTHERN DIVISION 4 5 ALICE HIRT; ANABEL DWYER; CITIZENS FOR ALTERNATIVES 6 TO CHEMICAL CONTAMINATION; KATHRYN CUMBOW; ROBERT 7 ANDERSON; DORIS SCHALLER VERNON; and TERRY MILLER, 8 Plaintiffs, 9 v. CASE NO: 1:99-CV-933 10 BILL RICHARDSON, Secretary, 11 United States Department of Energy; UNITED STATES 12 OF AMERICA; and UNKNOWN PART(Y)(IES), named as 13 "John and Jane Doe" on complaint, 14 Defendants. 15 ____________________________/ 16 * * * * 17 18 TESTIMONY OF GORDON EDWARDS and FRANCIS BOYLE 19 * * * * 20 21 BEFORE: THE HONORABLE RICHARD ALAN ENSLEN United States District Judge 22 Kalamazoo, Michigan April 7, 2000 23 24 25 KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 2 1 APPEARANCES: 2 APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFFS: 3 MR. KARY LOVE 4 977 Butternut Drive PMB 128 5 Holland, Michigan 49424 6 MR. TERRY J. LODGE 316 North Michigan Street, Suite 520 7 Toledo, Ohio 43624-1627 8 APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANTS: 9 MR. ROBERT I. DODGE 10 MR. CHARLES GROSS U.S. Attorney's Office 11 330 Ionia Avenue, N.W., Suite 501 P.O. Box 208 12 Grand Rapids, Michigan 49501-208 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 3 1 INDEX 2 WITNESS: Page 3 GORDON EDWARDS Direct Examination by Mr. Lodge 4 4 Cross Examination by Mr. Dodge 17 Redirect Examination by Mr. Lodge 20 5 6 FRANCIS BOYLE 7 Direct Examination by Mr. Love 21 Cross Examination by Mr. Dodge 67 8 Redirect Examination by Mr. Love 82 9 10 EXHIBITS Rec'd. 11 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 1 87 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 2 87 12 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 3 31 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 5 87 13 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 6 87 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 11 87 14 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 12 87 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 13 87 15 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 14 87 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 4 1 Kalamazoo, Michigan 2 April 7, 2000 3 at approximately 8:50 A.M. 4 EXCERPT OF PROCEEDINGS 5 TESTIMONY OF GORDON EDWARDS 6 MR. LODGE: We waive opening. 7 THE COURT: Okay. Good for you. 8 MR. LODGE: And we would call Gordon Edwards. 9 GORDON EDWARDS - PLAINTIFFS' WITNESS - SWORN. 10 COURT CLERK: Please state and spell your name 11 for the record. 12 THE WITNESS: My name is Gordon Edwards, 13 G-o-r-d-o-n E-d-w-a-r-d-s. 14 DIRECT EXAMINATION 15 BY MR. LODGE: 16 Q. Dr. Edwards, you previously testified in this proceeding 17 in an earlier motion hearing in December, 1999, correct? 18 A. That is correct. 19 Q. And what, just summarize for the Court, to refresh the 20 Court's recollection, what is your occupation or 21 profession? 22 A. I'm a professor of mathematics at Vanier College in 23 Montreal, and I'm also a consultant on nuclear issues for 24 both governmental and nongovernmental agencies. 25 Q. Are you affiliated with any nongovernmental entity in KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 5 1 Canada regarding the purpose of which is to discuss 2 nuclear issues? 3 A. Yes, I'm the president of the Canadian Coalition for 4 Nuclear Responsibility, which is a federally incorporated 5 organization, since 1978. 6 Q. And how long and in what capacities have you served as a 7 consultant on nuclear issues? 8 A. I've served as a consultant since 1977 for a variety of 9 bodies, including Royal Commissions of Inquiry where I 10 have been retained to cross-examine expert witnesses, also 11 the auditor general of Canada when they were doing a 12 comprehensive audit of the Atomic Energy Control Board, 13 and most recently I was invited for January 2000 by the 14 Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs and International 15 Trade to participate in a small expert workshop on nuclear 16 weapons policies in Ottawa. 17 Q. And Dr. Edwards, have you had the occasion to read the 18 environmental assessment promulgated by the Fissile 19 Materials Office of the U.S. Department of Energy for the 20 Parallex Project? 21 A. Yes, I have, and have commented on that as well. 22 Q. We are here today on a proposed shipment of MOX plutonium 23 from Russia to Chalk River, Ontario, you understand that? 24 A. That is correct. 25 Q. What is your understanding as to the amount of the KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 6 1 plutonium content of the MOX fuel rods, pins that would be 2 brought from Russia? 3 A. The MOX fuel contains 135 grams of weapons grade plutonium 4 as compared with the 119 grams that were in the American 5 shipment that proceeded in January. 6 Q. Now, Dr. Edwards, you indicated that the Canadian 7 Coalition was incorporated in approximately 1978? 8 A. That's right. 9 Q. Have you been active in nuclear issues since that time? 10 A. Even before that time, yes. I have been active 11 specifically on proliferation questions and 12 plutonium-related questions since 1975. 13 MR. LODGE: If I may approach. 14 THE COURT: Of course. 15 BY MR. LODGE: 16 Q. Showing you what has been marked for purposes of the 17 supplemental motion hearing as Plaintiff's Exhibit 1, I'm 18 going to also leave Exhibit 2 up here. 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. Have you ever conducted any investigation into the issue 21 of civilian population or work exposures to plutonium? 22 A. Only at the level of potential for damage, potential for 23 harm. 24 Q. What is Exhibit 1? 25 A. Exhibit 1 is a letter from Mary Measures, Ph.D., Director KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 7 1 of the Radiation Environmental Protection Division of the 2 Atomic Energy Control Board of Canada dealing with 3 quantity of plutonium that an atomic radiation worker or a 4 member of the public may inhale to reach their respective 5 maximum limits. 6 Q. And the date of that is September 30, 1999? 7 A. That is correct, about six months ago. 8 Q. And could you summarize what the inhalation, or what the 9 limits are for both workers and for public? 10 A. Yes. The maximum lifetime limit of exposure in the lung 11 for an atomic worker is approximately 1.4 micrograms, and 12 for the member of the public it's 0.1 microgram, and a 13 microgram being one one-millionth of a gram, so if we 14 translate this into grams, it would mean 1.4 grams would 15 be equivalent-- would be enough to give maximum 16 permissible doses to one million workers and ten -- one 17 gram would be enough to give maximum permissible doses to 18 ten million members of the general public. That's just 19 potential. 20 Q. Okay. And is that based on the -- or, I'm sorry. Have 21 you had occasion in connection with the proposed Russian 22 shipment of a 135 grams of plutonium and the American 23 shipment of 119 grams, to perform any computations as to 24 what the potential dispersion or exposure is? 25 A. Well, I would like to emphasize this is just arithmetic KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 8 1 and does not take into account dispersion factors such as 2 wind velocity, any respiration rates, and so on. If we 3 just look at the theoretical potential, then with 119 4 grams, we are talking about the potential for 85 million 5 atomic workers to receive their maximum permissible 6 exposure, if that were able to be disseminated into all of 7 their lungs and 1,000,190,000 members of the general 8 public, so even though this is a very small amount of 9 plutonium, the potential for exposure, harmful exposure is 10 quite significant. 11 Q. All right. But so that implies you would have to have an 12 optimal dispersal? 13 A. This would be an impossibly optimal dispersal. This would 14 be assuming that the plutonium were distributed fully into 15 the lungs of all the people that I've mentioned. 16 Q. Are you aware of whether or not the American shipment was 17 delivered to Chalk River? 18 A. Yes, the American shipment was delivered to Chalk River. 19 It was taken to the border in what I believe was an SST, a 20 truck which was described as silver, and I believe it was 21 probably an SST, although I do not know for absolute 22 certainty about that, and then it was transported to the 23 Sault Ste. Marie airport where it was lifted by helicopter 24 accompanied by two other helicopters, and transported from 25 there to Chalk River. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 9 1 Q. You indicated that you were talking about an impossibly 2 optimal dispersal. Have you had the occasion to perform 3 any computations as to a very conservative prudent factor 4 to start with for dispersal? 5 A. Well, this is beyond my competence to really talk about 6 the details of how it might be dispersed, but if we just 7 assume for example 99.9 percent containment in the event 8 of a serious accident. 9 Q. Are you saying how much? 10 A. Suppose 99.9 percent of the material were successfully 11 contained and not disseminated in the environment and only 12 that small fraction was disseminated. 13 Q. Okay. 14 A. The potential again would correspond to, for atomic 15 workers in the case of the 119 gram shipment from the 16 States, it would be 85,000 maximum exposures and in the 17 case of the public, it would still over a million. Even 18 with 99.9 containment, in the event of an accident, you 19 still have the potential for over a million 20 overexposures. By the way, the 135 grams, the difference 21 between the 119 grams and the 135 grams from Russia 22 corresponds to potentially again 160,000 additional 23 maximum exposures for members of the public. 24 Q. How many for workers? 25 A. 11,428. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 10 1 Q. That's just -- 2 A. That's just the differential between the two shipments, 3 just the added, going from 119 to 135 adds the potential 4 for another 11,000 worker overexposures or 160,000 public 5 overexposures. This, I believe, is why authorities take 6 such great care to emphasize the packaging in transport. 7 They realize that the potential is great for damage. 8 Q. Do your computations reflect an assumption respecting 9 whether or not the dispersion occurs as a result of an 10 accident or an attack? 11 A. No, we are talking about theoretical potential which is 12 the same regardless of how much or whether the material is 13 dispersed. In an accident, for example, we have 14 previously seen accidents that were analyzed for ground 15 transportation. I have not seen any computations or 16 analysis of accidents for air transport either from the 17 American side or from the Canadian side. 18 Q. Are you talking with respect to Parallex? 19 A. I'm talking with respect to Parallex. 20 If you had, for example, a violent crash and 21 fire of an aircraft, including a helicopter, then the 22 dispersal would cause a plume downwind, could cause a 23 plume downwind, and how much of that plutonium would 24 escape would be subject to analysis which is not, to my 25 knowledge, been performed. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 11 1 Q. Dr. Edwards, do you consider the plutonium in MOX fuel 2 form to be a weapons component? 3 A. Well, in the case of the Parallex project, as you know, 4 this 119 grams or 135 grams, there is not enough there to 5 make an atomic bomb. However, it has long been known that 6 you can make a very damaging radiological explosive device 7 which would simply disperse the plutonium in breathable 8 form. That means that if the plutonium were acquired by a 9 criminal organization or terrorist group they could make 10 an incendiary device which would make this available to be 11 breathed by members of the public and also cause very 12 long-lasting contamination of the environs where this 13 exposure would take place. I believe that it would be 14 incorrect to say that these, even this small Parallex 15 shipment, would not be attractive to terrorists or to 16 criminal organizations as a top -- as a target for theft 17 or diversion. It is true, of course, that this is weapons 18 grade material and had one, if one had sufficient weapons 19 grade material, one indeed can make a very powerful atomic 20 bomb from that. 21 Q. Have you seen any literature or other information in or 22 out of the record of this case that discusses the weapons 23 potential for plutonium? 24 A. Well, yes, it's certainly common knowledge that the -- in 25 fact, the U.S. Department of Energy acknowledges as much KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 12 1 when they refer to the Russian plutonium, the Russian 2 weapons grade plutonium is continuing a clear and present 3 danger. It's long been known and recognized that 4 plutonium is the key ingredient of atomic weapons, so if 5 one talks about components of atomic weapons, the 6 plutonium is the essential component. Once you have the 7 plutonium, then you can acquire the other materials on the 8 open market that are necessary to build a bomb. 9 Q. How do you know that? 10 A. Well, it's been well known for a long time. For instance, 11 there was a study done, published in the Harvard Civil 12 Rights and Civil Liberties Law Review -- I could make that 13 available to the Court, if you would like -- in 1975 as 14 long ago as then, which says, "Since all the material 15 other than plutonium needed to build a bomb is available 16 from commercial hardware and chemical suppliers, the 17 present obstacle to the private construction of nuclear 18 weapons is the unavailability of plutonium." 19 But if we just turn to the study that was 20 commissioned and already on file, I believe, here at the 21 Court, a study that was commissioned by the Office of 22 Fissile Materials Management called the Red Team Report, 23 the Red Team Proliferation Vulnerability Report. 24 In their conclusions on Page 6-1, they have a 25 heading called Keeping Plutonium Inaccessible is the Key KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 13 1 to Proliferation Resistance. So what is basically being 2 said here is plutonium is not just a component but the key 3 component of atomic bombs particularly in the context of 4 illicit groups. 5 Q. Dr. Edwards, could you explain for us Canada's role in the 6 reprocessing of plutonium? 7 A. Well, Canada's role in plutonium goes back to the World 8 War II Atomic Bomb Project. We had a secret laboratory in 9 Montreal which was manned by British, French and Canadian 10 scientists dedicated to developing methods for producing 11 and separating plutonium for weapons purposes as well as 12 civilian purposes, because even then it was anticipated 13 plutonium would have some civilian value. At the end of 14 the war -- incidentally, the first reactor in Canada was 15 built according to a military decision taken in 16 Washington, D.C. in 1944, to demonstrate this potential. 17 The reactor called the NRX reactor was built at 18 Chalk River and a plutonium reprocessing plant was built 19 as well. Plutonium was separated and Britain received its 20 first sample of weapons grade plutonium from Canada from 21 Chalk River just months before their first atomic test. 22 There was also an illicit transfer of plutonium 23 from Chalk River to Russia, which was so the first samples 24 of plutonium that both Britain and Russia received were 25 from Chalk River. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 14 1 Since that time, Canada, of course, has taken a 2 policy decision not to pursue a nuclear weapons option 3 itself, but they have, however, looked favorably on the 4 idea of reprocessing plutonium for civilian purposes. 5 They do not have a policy which is against the 6 reprocessing of plutonium in principle and nor do they 7 discourage their clients, their customers overseas from 8 reprocessing plutonium. And in fact, in Canada, there is 9 an open door policy towards reprocessing as a future 10 option. 11 We just concluded recently a ten-year 12 environmental assessment of the problem of high-level 13 radioactive waste disposal, and in all of the documents it 14 begins by saying, in the very first paragraphs, that by 15 nuclear waste disposal, we mean either spent fuel or 16 post-reprocessing waste. So this is very much a 17 theoretical opening and a policy opening for Canada to use 18 plutonium as a fuel. 19 Q. Showing you what has been marked as Supplemental Motion 20 Exhibit 2, can you identify that for the Court, please? 21 A. Yes. This appears to be an exchange from the British 22 Parliament, questions and answers having to do with 23 nuclear fuel, and the Secretary of State for Trade and 24 Industry is being asked about quantities of spent fuel 25 from Canada that have been contracted for reprocessing at KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 15 1 Cello Field in England. 2 Q. And can you summarize your understanding of what the 3 response by the British Government was? 4 A. Yes. The response here is that a certain amount of 5 plutonium, a certain amount of spent fuel from Canada has 6 been reprocessed beginning in 1970, and that the plutonium 7 has been returned to Canada. I have personal knowledge of 8 the fact that at Chalk River they have maintained a pilot 9 plutonium fuel fabrication line since the 1970s, since 10 1970 and before, and that they have processed at Chalk 11 River approximately three tons, more than three tons of 12 MOX fuel from recycled civilian plutonium. This is part 13 of that, the plutonium that is here being referred to as 14 being recycled or reprocessed in Britain, that's part of 15 the total amount of plutonium that Canada has acquired for 16 the purposes of MOX fabrication. 17 I mentioned that Canada also does not discourage 18 client customers from reprocessing. This is in 19 distinction to the American policy. The American policy, 20 since the Carter administration, successive 21 administrations have maintained the policy of not only not 22 allowing reprocessing in the United States, but also 23 discouraging reprocessing in other countries insofar as 24 that is possible. Canada does not share this policy 25 completely. We do not reprocess in Canada but, on the KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 16 1 other hand, we don't hesitate, it seems, to send our spent 2 fuel to other countries to get reprocessed so that we can 3 develop expertise in plutonium recycling. 4 Q. Does Canada have any relationship with the nation of Japan 5 respecting nuclear material? 6 A. Yes. Canada, as is probably known to the Court, is the 7 world's largest exporter of uranium. We are one of the 8 world's largest producers of uranium and the world's 9 largest exporter of uranium. We have bilateral agreements 10 with our customers as to the use of that uranium. Of 11 course, we have requirements that that uranium not be used 12 for military purposes. If a client customer such as Japan 13 who buys a good deal -- Japan purchases a good deal of 14 uranium from Canada. If a client customer wishes to 15 reprocess their spent fuel to recover plutonium, they do 16 have to get prior permission from the Government of 17 Canada, so when plutonium is reprocessed for the Japanese, 18 in the case where uranium from Canada is involved, the 19 Canadian Government gives their permission for that. 20 Q. Even if it is offshore from Canada? 21 A. Yes. 22 MR. LODGE: Thank you. I have nothing further. 23 THE WITNESS: Thank you. 24 Sorry. 25 MR. LODGE: Yes? KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 17 1 THE WITNESS: Excuse me. 2 MR. DODGE: Not quite finished, Dr. Edwards. 3 THE WITNESS: You knew the time was short. I 4 was jumping the gun a little. 5 CROSS EXAMINATION 6 BY MR. DODGE: 7 Q. Good morning, Mr. Edwards. My name is Bob Dodge. We have 8 met once before back in December. 9 A. That's right. 10 Q. Just a few questions. You testified about the quantity of 11 plutonium that would be included in the Russian shipment. 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. Do you recall that? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. You testified that it was 135 grams? 16 A. That's what was announced, yes. 17 Q. And how many ounces is that? 18 A. How many ounces is that? 19 Q. Yes. 20 A. I don't think in terms of ounces. I have to do the 21 conversion. 22 Q. Can you do the conversion? 23 A. I don't have the -- 24 Q. If I told you that one ounce is 28 grams, does that sound 25 about right? KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 18 1 A. I have no reason to doubt it. We are on the metric system 2 in Canada, we don't use ounces anymore. 3 Q. I understand. If I estimated 135 grams was approximately 4 five ounces, would you quarrel with that? 5 A. I would have no reason to quarrel with that. 6 Q. Now, you also testified about the amount of plutonium that 7 would have to be inhaled in order to exceed the maximum 8 permissible dose under Canadian regulations? 9 A. That is correct. 10 Q. And in your testimony, as I understood it, the assumption 11 you were making was that every single molecule of 12 plutonium that was in that sample would end up in 13 somebody's lungs; is that right? 14 A. That's right. It's calculating the theoretical 15 potential. It is not talking about a realistic scenario. 16 Q. Not only would all of the plutonium have to end up in 17 someone's lungs, but the plutonium would have to be evenly 18 divided so that each person got exactly the same amount of 19 plutonium, it's not all concentrated in one person, you 20 would have to take one-millionths of the sample, put it in 21 one person's lungs and put the next one-millionth in the 22 next person's lungs and so on? 23 A. That is correct. 24 Q. Do you have any idea, if you performed the same analysis 25 on this table, what sort of toxicity numbers you would KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 19 1 get? 2 A. I have no idea of what that would be, no. 3 Q. Now you also talked about Canada's policies regarding 4 plutonium reprocessing. 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. Do you recall that? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. Do you have any understanding of whether the plutonium in 9 the Parallex MOX samples will or will not be reprocessed 10 in Canada? 11 A. It will-- to the best of my knowledge, it will not be 12 reprocessed in Canada, although that option apparently is 13 not decided. 14 Q. What is the basis for that last? 15 A. Because Canada has a policy that at sometime in the future 16 they may reprocess. 17 Q. Do you have any understanding whether there is an 18 understanding between the Government of Canada and the 19 Government of United States or the Government of Russia as 20 to whether these particular samples will or will not be 21 reprocessed? 22 A. I do not, no. 23 MR. DODGE: Thank you very much. 24 25 REDIRECT EXAMINATION KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 20 1 BY MR. LODGE: 2 Q. Dr. Edwards, the House of Commons question and answer, do 3 you know of any particular statistics on Canada's shipping 4 of spent fuel to British nuclear fields and fuels at Cello 5 Field? 6 A. I don't have those figures with me, I'm sorry. I could 7 supply them to the Court, if desired. I do have some 8 figures at my office at home, I don't have them here. But 9 we are talking -- if we are talking about three tons of 10 MOX being fabricated at Chalk River, then one could work 11 out approximately how much of that would contain 12 plutonium, how much plutonium would be contained assuming, 13 for example, three percent. 14 Q. Right. 15 A. And then one could reasonably suppose that the lion's 16 share of that would come from Cello Field. Now I have 17 figures on shipments from Cello Field, but I don't have 18 them here. 19 Q. My question is: Would you presume that the Atomic Energy 20 Control Board of Canada, or AECL of Canada, would make 21 public the fact that the spent MOX from Parallex were 22 being shipped to Britain for reprocessing? Would you 23 presume that would become public knowledge? 24 A. No, I would not assume anything related to plutonium would 25 become public knowledge in Canada. Canada has a very KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 21 1 non-public attitude toward plutonium dealings. In fact, 2 the existing plutonium dealings in Canada including the 3 BNFL contracts is not public knowledge other than as it 4 has been raised in foreign countries such as in Britain or 5 by documents that have been leaked to nongovernmental 6 organizations. This is not something which Atomic Energy 7 of Canada Limited makes public. 8 MR. LODGE: Thank you. 9 MR. DODGE: No recross, Your Honor. 10 THE COURT: You may step down, Dr. Edwards. 11 Thank you. 12 MR. LOVE: Your Honor, if it please the Court, 13 the Plaintiffs would call Francis Boyle to the stand 14 FRANCIS BOYLE - PLAINTIFFS' WITNESS - SWORN 15 COURT CLERK: Please be seated and state and 16 spell your name for the record. 17 THE WITNESS: My name is Francis Boyle. 18 F-r-a-n-c-i-s B-o-y-l-e. 19 DIRECT EXAMINATION 20 BY MR. LOVE: 21 Q. Dr. Boyle, are you currently employed? 22 A. Yes, I am a professor of international law at the 23 University of Illinois College of Law in Champaign. 24 Q. How long have you been employed in that capacity? 25 A. 1978. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 22 1 MR. LOVE: Your Honor, may I approach the 2 witness? 3 BY MR. LOVE: 4 Q. Dr. Boyle, I'm showing you what has been marked as 5 Supplemental Preliminary Injunction Hearing Plaintiffs' 6 Exhibit 3 and ask you if you can identify that document. 7 A. It's a copy of my professional resume. 8 Q. Was this resume prepared at or under your direction? 9 A. Yes. I think it's current as of January 28th, 1999. I've 10 been kind of busy in the last year, haven't revised it. 11 Q. To the extent it's current through that date, does that 12 accurately reflect your experience, education, seminars 13 that you participated in, and articles that you've 14 authored? 15 A. Not seminars I've participated in, that would be too many 16 but, you know, the essence of my professional career and 17 articles-- significant teaching, consulting, practice. 18 I'm also a licensed attorney as well. 19 Q. If you would, give us a brief recitation of your 20 educational background? 21 A. I attended the University of Chicago where I studied 22 international relations with Professor Hans Morganthal who 23 is the mentor of Dr. Henry Kissinger at Harvard. I was 24 one of seven students in my class elected to Phi Beta 25 Kappa as a junior. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 23 1 I also did work in mathematical biology, winning 2 the award for the work I did in that area by the world's 3 leading geneticist now at Harvard. 4 I graduated in three years. From there I went 5 to Harvard Law School. I have a J.D. Magna Cum Laude from 6 Harvard Law School specializing in international law. 7 I also entered the Graduate School of Arts and 8 Sciences at Harvard in the Department of Government. I 9 have a Master's degree and a Ph.D. in political science 10 specializing in international relations, international 11 politics. This is the same Ph.D. program that produced 12 Henry Kissinger, Zabanya Brezenski (phonetic) and other 13 high level U.S. Government officials. 14 I was at the Harvard Center for International 15 Affairs for two years. Kissinger and Brezenski had been 16 there before me. 17 I spent two years teaching in the Harvard 18 College undergraduates international law organizations, 19 human rights. I practiced law with a Boston law firm for 20 a year at Bingham, Dana and Gould, where I did 21 international tax, and tax, and then finally in 1978 I 22 came to the University of Illinois. I went up for tenure 23 at the beginning of my third year, which I got, and I've 24 been tenured there since, you know, many years. 25 Q. Since undertaking your position at University of Illinois, KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 24 1 have you specialized in any area with respect to 2 particular research, writing and international law? 3 A. Well, for the purpose of our proceedings today, yes. I 4 have been specializing an enormous amount on the nuclear 5 weapons, nuclear weapons policy, proliferation, arms 6 control. Going back to my studies with Professor 7 Morganthal 30 years ago so I've been involved in these 8 issues starting as a student since 1969 and continuously 9 until today. 10 THE WITNESS: Sorry, Your Honor, I have a bit of 11 laryngitis. 12 THE COURT: That's fine, no problem. 13 BY MR. LOVE: 14 Q. Dr. Boyle, if you would direct your attention to your 15 resume, I would like to touch on a few seminal points. On 16 the first page under teaching, the third entry down talks 17 about being a lecturer in Nuclear Weapons and 18 International Law, 21st Senior Conference on Nuclear 19 Deterrence at U.S. Military Academy at West Point in 20 1983. 21 A. Yes. This is a high level seminar run by the Pentagon, 22 not for the cadets, but for about 200 of the highest level 23 officials of the United States Government dealing with 24 nuclear weapons proliferation, nuclear weapons policies, 25 and I was asked to lecture to this conference, and I won't KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 25 1 go through all the high level officials there, but sitting 2 right in front of me for my lecture was the three star 3 general in charge of war operations at the Pentagon, at 4 that time General Mahaffey. And I also note I had read 5 the independent expert's report on the MOX program 6 U.S./Russia of 1977, one of the U.S. independent experts, 7 Richard Garwin was there with me and he was also a 8 lecturer with me to this group, so I do know that Garwin 9 was involved in the Parallex MOX recommendations. 10 Q. With respect to the second to the last entry on Page 1 of 11 Exhibit 3, talks about "Lecture Tour of the Soviet Union 12 on Nuclear Weapons and International Law for Lawyers' 13 Committee on Nuclear Policy and Association of Soviet 14 Lawyers" in 1986. What was involved with that? 15 A. Yes. The former Soviet Union, their equivalent to the 16 American Bar Association was the Association of Soviet 17 Lawyers, and in conjunction with the Lawyers' Committee on 18 Nuclear Policy headquartered here, they decided to invite 19 one professor to go over to the Soviet Union and lecture 20 around the country for two weeks on various issues related 21 to nuclear weapons and international law, and both 22 organizations selected me for this purpose, so I went over 23 for two weeks and gave several lectures per day, Moscow, 24 Leningrad, Kiev to professors, lawyers, peace people, 25 whoever, news media on various aspects of nuclear weapons KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 26 1 targeting doctrine as they relate to international law 2 and, in general, nuclear policies. 3 Q. If you would direct your attention, Dr. Boyle, to Page 2 4 under Practice, fifth entry down it says "Author, 5 Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989, Public Law 6 Number 101-298 (1990) (adopted unanimously by both Houses 7 of Congress)," could you explain what that means, please? 8 A. Yes. Your Honor, we are dealing here with a treaty, the 9 Nuclear Proliferation Treaty-- Nonproliferation Treaty of 10 1968. That treaty has been implemented by Congress in the 11 Nuclear Nonproliferation Act of 1978, the Nuclear 12 Proliferation Prevention Act of 1994 and also recent 13 amendments in 1998 to deal with the India/Pakistan 14 explosions. I have direct personal experience on how you 15 take a treaty, an international treaty, and implement it 16 as a matter of United States Constitutional law by working 17 with Congress. 18 The Biological Weapons Convention of 1972 is a 19 treaty that is a total, not only arms control reduction 20 and elimination treaty for biological weapons, I gave a 21 lecture on Capitol Hill calling for legislation, domestic 22 legislation to implement this treaty, and this 23 recommendation was taken up by a group I work for called 24 the Council of Responsible Genetics. I'm on their 25 Advisory Board. I also serve as counsel to them, so KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 27 1 pursuant to their request, I drafted the implementing 2 legislation, I authored it, how to implement this treaty. 3 And then we took it to members of the House and the Senate 4 and we shepherded it through the entire process dealing 5 with members of Congress, both Houses, including testimony 6 I prepared. At that point in time, the Reagan 7 administration was opposed to this implementing 8 legislation. I had to deal personally with their position 9 papers against it refuting these things. 10 Finally there was a change of policy when 11 President Bush came into office, to his credit, and they 12 supported the legislation. It finally was approved 13 unanimously by both Houses of Congress and signed into law 14 by President Bush in 1989. This legislation was called 15 the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989. It was 16 later amended in the anti-terrorism and effect Death 17 Penalty Act of 1996. 18 I thought I had drafted the most draconian piece 19 of legislation you could possibly imagine on biological 20 weapons, but there is always a loophole, Your Honor, so 21 Congress revisited this in 1996 to close some of the 22 loopholes that had not been apparent to me and the 23 scientists I worked with back in 19, starting in from '85 24 to about 1989. So I just cite this as having direct 25 personal experience with relationship between arms control KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 28 1 treatise, reduction treatise and then how they are 2 implemented by Congress. I have done this myself. On 3 biological weapons and I'm still involved in that issue. 4 Obviously, I have not been involved in the 5 drafting of the implementing legislation for the Nuclear 6 Proliferation Treaty of 1968, there are three pieces, but 7 I have read and reviewed the implementing legislation. I 8 have an understanding how they relate to the 9 Nonproliferation Treaty and I also teach a course on this 10 subject, that is how international laws related to the 11 United States Constitution is implemented by Congress and 12 also carried out in the courts. I teach an entire course 13 just devoted to this subject. 14 Q. Dr. Boyle, you've had some experience practicing before 15 what was known formerly as the International Court of 16 Justice but currently the World Court; is that correct? 17 A. Yes, I have. 18 Q. Could you relate to the Court a summary of that 19 experience? 20 A. Well, I've advised governments with respect to either 21 actual or potential World Court litigation, some of that 22 is still attorney/client confidence that I'm not prepared 23 to discuss. What I am prepared to discuss are those 24 matters that are in the public record. 25 I did serve as counsel to Libya on the Lockerbie KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 29 1 bombing case. It was my recommendation the-- 2 unfortunately President Bush had about the sixth fleet 3 mobilized off the coast of Libya and was about to bomb 4 Libya that we filed a lawsuit at the World Court to stop 5 the bombing. We filed a lawsuit, Libya was not bombed. 6 Later on, I was General Agent for the Republic 7 in Bosnia of Herzegovina before the International Court of 8 Justice. In other words, I was their first ambassador to 9 the World Court for the Republic of Bosnia, Herzegovina, 10 and I sued Yugoslavia for committing genocide against the 11 Bosnian people. I won two cease and desist orders 12 overwhelmingly in favor of Bosnia against Yugoslavia. 13 Later on, I publicly advised -- I advised the 14 Bosnian Government to sue Britain for aiding and abetting 15 genocide against Bosnia, and President Izetbegovic 16 instructed me to sue Britain for a genocide against 17 Bosnia. That lawsuit was terminated under duress, 18 threatened them, so they withdrew from those proceedings. 19 Q. Dr. Boyle, with respect to your writings, if you would 20 direct your attention to Page 3 of Exhibit 3, the last two 21 entries at the bottom -- excuse me, the second to last 22 entries entitled Nuclear Weapons and International Law: 23 The Arms Control Dimensions, do you see that? 24 A. Yes. This was the lecture I gave to the West Point 25 Military Academy senior conference proceedings, which they KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 30 1 did publish in their proceedings at West Point, and 2 actually under my books, I've just completed work on my 3 sixth book, which is entitled Nuclear Deterrence and 4 International Law. And right now it is sitting at Pluto 5 Press -- I guess that's appropriate for today's 6 proceedings -- Pluto Press in Britain. They have 7 expressed an interest in publishing it. They are 8 currently evaluating it. I do not have a contract on that 9 book, but I did get the e-mail just before I came here, so 10 I'll have to deal with that when I go back. 11 Q. With respect to your other publications, Dr. Boyle, I note 12 that on Page 4 you've got one entitled, about halfway 13 down, The Relevance of International Law to the "Paradox" 14 of Nuclear Deterrence. 15 A. That is correct. 16 Q. Can you tell us briefly what the subject matter is? 17 A. After I made the lecture at West Point, obviously the U.S. 18 military officials and others, we had a fairly vigorous 19 debate, let me put it that way. And that vigorous debate 20 between myself and these others led to this article that 21 was later published here in the United States and also 22 translated into Dutch, because the Dutch lawyers wanted it 23 to be available as part of the debate in Holland over the 24 deployment of the U.S. intermediate nuclear forces under 25 the Reagan administration, so they translated the whole KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 31 1 thing into Dutch and it was published in the Netherlands. 2 MR. LOVE: Your Honor, I have no further 3 questions of Dr. Boyle with respect to qualifications, and 4 I tender him for voir dire to the U.S. Attorney's Office 5 subject to my motion to admit Plaintiff's Exhibit 3 into 6 evidence. 7 MR. DODGE: I have no objection to the admission 8 of the C.V. 9 THE COURT: Exhibit 3? 10 MR. DODGE: Exhibit 3. 11 THE COURT: You have no voir dire questions to 12 ask either? 13 MR. DODGE: Not with respect to that exhibit. I 14 may get into the resume on the cross. 15 THE COURT: That's fair enough. 16 Exhibit 3 is received. 17 MR. DODGE: Thank you, your Honor. 18 BY MR. LOVE: 19 Q. Dr. Boyle, in preparing for your testimony here today, 20 could you please outline for the Court -- I think you have 21 done so somewhat already -- some of the documents that you 22 reviewed and the source materials you looked at in 23 preparing your testimony today? 24 A. I have a pretty detailed knowledge about these things 25 generally. For example, when the Nuclear Nonproliferation KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 32 1 Act first came out in 1978, I did read it, but in 2 preparation for this testimony today, I've gone back and 3 read the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, the Nuclear 4 Nonproliferation Act, the Nuclear Proliferation Prevention 5 Act of 1994, the 1998 amendments. I have read a large 6 quantity of documents produced by the Department of Energy 7 on the Parallex Project. I have read the Environmental 8 Assessment dealing with the aspects of international 9 environmental law that have not been dealt with in the 10 Environmental Assessment, in my opinion, should have been 11 dealt with the Stockholm Declaration, which is not there, 12 and the World Court Advisory Opinion on 1996, I have an 13 article on it that. I didn't go back and read the whole 14 advisory opinion, but I reread the portions of the 15 article, and other scholarly sources that deal with this 16 question. There are other sources I did not have a chance 17 to review not directly related to proliferation per se. 18 But for example, in my opinion the EA should 19 have dealt with the UN Convention on the Law of the Seas. 20 It's not in there. There's been nuclear accidents 21 convention, it's not dealt with in there. There is the 22 Bowel convention on the International Transportation of 23 Hazardous Substance and Toxic Materials, that's not in 24 there. I identified those as further sources that should 25 be analyzed in my opinion, but I haven't had a chance to KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 33 1 go back and review all of those sources. 2 Q. Dr. Boyle, did the types of materials that you've just 3 identified for the Court, are these the types of materials 4 that in your experience are relied upon by experts in the 5 field of international law in forming opinions as to the 6 legitimacy of governmental actions under internationally? 7 A. Yes. I also have experience reading environmental impact 8 statements. When the Pentagon produced the DEIS or the 9 biological defense research program, the Council for 10 Responsible Genetics asked me to evaluate this entire 11 thing -- it was an enormous document -- and submit formal 12 comments on it to the Pentagon, which I did do and they 13 did respond to. So this is the type of sources that 14 experts in my field would normally look at and review in 15 forming an opinion about Government behavior, and I have 16 done this before with respect to biological weapons. 17 Q. Dr. Boyle, I'm going to show you what has been marked for 18 identification as Plaintiff's Exhibit 4. Ask you to take 19 a moment to look at that and let me know when you've had a 20 chance to do so, please. 21 A. Yes. This is the treaty on the nonproliferation of 22 nuclear weapons, and as I've said, it has also been 23 implemented by Congress on the Nuclear Nonproliferation 24 Act of 1978, the Nuclear Proliferation Prevention Act of 25 1994 and also 1998 amendments. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 34 1 The critical point to keep in mind about this 2 treaty, Your Honor, is that Congress has passed 3 legislation expressing its understanding of what this 4 treaty means and what our obligations are under this 5 treaty. And this legislation is binding on the Department 6 of Energy, on the President, on the Department of State 7 and respectfully, Your Honor, on this Court. And what we 8 see, when you read through it all, is Congress has 9 decided, and prior to that the Atomic Energy Act as well, 10 that nuclear power, nuclear weapons, nuclear proliferation 11 is so important to the American people and our republic, 12 that they have decided to engage in micro management of 13 everything related to this subject and have pretty much, I 14 would not say completely eliminated, but whittled down 15 substantially any discretion that the executive branch 16 might have in this area. I have, as I said, I did read 17 the NPA back in 1978, but when you add in everything else, 18 what surprised me was how little discretion was left to 19 the executive branch with respect to nuclear 20 proliferation, nuclear weapons. In this area, they have 21 very little discretion. 22 Q. Professor Boyle, if you could, can you explain to the 23 Court what the implications are for Canada, Russia and the 24 United States under the Nonproliferation Treaty? 25 A. Well, my reading of both the treaty and in light of the KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 35 1 Department of Energy documents describing Parallex and 2 MOX, the Red Team report, many other documents that I've 3 read, in my opinion, there are serious problems, 4 compliance problems for this entire project under Articles 5 I, II and III of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty as 6 interpreted by the United States Congress. 7 The Article I deals with the obligations of the 8 United States and Russia. Each nuclear weapons State 9 Party to the Treaty, i.e. U.S. and Russia, undertakes not 10 to transfer to any recipient whatsoever, i.e. Canada, 11 nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices, and we 12 have a problem here in that Congress has interpreted this 13 to mean components of nuclear weapons or nuclear explosive 14 devices; that is, Congress simply does not interpret this 15 to mean you can't hand over a bomb, but a component for a 16 bomb is prohibited. And here we are dealing with weapons 17 grade plutonium, which Dr. Edwards has already testified 18 can be and indeed is, in his opinion, a component for 19 either a nuclear weapon or a nuclear explosive device. 20 Okay? 21 So when you read the treaty in light of the 22 statutory scheme, in my opinion, there are serious 23 compliance problems here with Article I, which have not 24 been addressed in the EA. The DOE has not dealt with any 25 of these problems at all in the EA, indeed, they have KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 36 1 basically said in one of their comments "Well, once we 2 give it to Canada, it's their problem," and that just is 3 an incorrect statement, in my opinion. 4 And it says "directly or indirectly," which 5 means also we, the United States, directly or indirectly 6 by encouraging and paying for the Russians to do this, you 7 see. So we are accountable for the Russian behavior 8 because we are working with them. And indeed, if we were 9 sued at the International Court of Justice -- let's 10 suppose something went wrong, Your Honor, and there was, 11 as Dr. Edwards testified, an aerial explosion in the 12 latest helicopter shipment and radiological dispersal of 13 plutonium that came across the border, killing Americans, 14 killing Canadians, others, if we were sued in World Court 15 over this, we would be found both jointly and severally 16 liable with Russia, with Canada, for any accident. 17 Likewise, this is followed up by both shipments on the 18 high seas of the plutonium. If there is an accident on 19 high seas, we could be sued at the World Court, the United 20 States, both ourselves and jointly and severally with 21 Russia and Canada over any accident here that might 22 happen. And that substantive liability could be based on 23 the U.N. Law of the Sea Convention. As I said, Your 24 Honor, I haven't had time to go through the environmental 25 provision of the Law of the Sea Convention, the Department KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 37 1 of Energy didn't even bother, and in the EA they did not 2 look at this at all. They did not consider this, but it 3 certainly is something that has to be considered, that 4 they haven't looked at. 5 And then "not in any way to assist, encourage or 6 induce any non-nuclear weapon State to manufacture or 7 otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear 8 explosive devices." Well, the problem here is Canada is 9 supposed to be a non-nuclear weapons state and says 10 "otherwise acquired nuclear explosive devices." Well, we 11 are giving them weapons grade plutonium, which again 12 Dr. Edwards has testified, and he is Canadian, is a 13 component of a nuclear weapons or nuclear explosive 14 device. And again, "or control over such weapons or 15 explosive devices." We are giving them weapons grade 16 plutonium. And if you look at how Congress has 17 interpreted this, they interpret it down to components, 18 they even talk about substances that they are trying to 19 regulate everything, and understand the 1978 legislation 20 was a very strict interpretation of what this treaty means 21 as far as the United States Government is concerned. And 22 I think we really need a comprehensive assessment here by 23 the Department of Energy as to whether or not any of these 24 transfers is consistent with Article I. Under the current 25 circumstances, they haven't bothered to look at any of the KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 38 1 terms as defined by Congress, the applicability of the 2 Congressional legislation to the transfers. 3 Likewise, Article II, Your Honor, Article II 4 deals with the Canadian obligations, "Each 5 non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes 6 not to receive the transfer from any transferor whatsoever 7 of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices." 8 Again, the same analysis here needs to be done. This 9 weapons grade plutonium, in my opinion and Dr. Edwards' 10 opinion, is clearly a component of either a nuclear weapon 11 or nuclear explosive device. And Canada, according to 12 this language, has agreed not to receive this material. 13 And by the way, as Dr. Edwards correctly pointed out, Your 14 Honor, this was consistent United States policy, stopping 15 proliferation of this type of material for any reason 16 going back to the Carter administration. We are seeing a 17 major dramatic change here in United States 18 nonproliferation policy, and that policy, Your Honor, 19 going back to the Carter administration, is enshrined in 20 law by Congress in the Nuclear Nonproliferation Act of 21 1978. So again, in my opinion, I believe these issues 22 likewise need to be addressed by the Department of 23 Energy. They have not been addressed in the environmental 24 assessment at all. 25 "Or control over such weapons or explosive KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 39 1 devices, directly or indirectly." Well, again, we are 2 giving Canada, either ourselves in the first shipment or 3 indirectly by means of the Russians in the second 4 shipment, control over a component for a nuclear weapon or 5 a nuclear explosive device. That's very clear they are 6 getting it. And according to the EA, we are trusting 7 their good intentions. There is no assurance in the EA 8 that this weapons grade plutonium is subject to 9 international safeguards. No. Despite the fact that 10 Congress has made it very clear that any transfer, and 11 Congress also made it clear in the legislation that they 12 are against any transfers of this type of stuff to other 13 States. But if there are any transfers at a minimum there 14 have to be absolute guaranteed protections on 15 international assurances to make sure it is not misused, 16 and you will note in the EA it says nothing about it. 17 There are no assurances about anything. 18 Now, "to manufacture or otherwise acquire 19 nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices; and 20 not to seek or receive any assistance in the manufacture," 21 etcetera, etcetera. 22 Article III then deals with the safeguard 23 requirements; that is, if there are transfers of materials 24 for peaceful purposes, and you know you can obviously, 25 Your Honor, you can read this yourself. There must be KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 40 1 safeguards. Under the supervision of the International 2 Atomic Energy Agency, the Environmental Assessment says 3 nothing at all about these safeguards. Nothing. It isn't 4 in there. 5 Apparently we have to rely on not even 6 statements by Canada that what we are transferring there, 7 what we are encouraging the Russians to transfer are 8 somehow going to be safeguarded despite the fact that 9 Article III says that there must be safeguards, and we 10 simply don't have them. 11 Q. Dr. Boyle, I'm going to show you what's been marked for 12 identification as Plaintiff's Exhibit 5 and ask you to 13 take a look in the upper right-hand corner, and after 14 you've had a moment to review that, let me know, please. 15 A. Yes. This is an article I had read in preparation for my 16 testimony here today, from the Toronto News. 17 Q. Based on your experience and expertise, Dr. Boyle, is this 18 the type of information that an international law scholar 19 could rely on in formulating opinions about the state or 20 nationally? 21 A. Well, here is stating comments by Mr. Tom Clemens, head of 22 the Washington-based Nuclear Control Institute. It's a 23 recognized organization dealing with nuclear policies, and 24 certainly experts in my field would rely upon statements 25 produced by the Nuclear Control Institute and, indeed, KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 41 1 prior to my testimony today, I did read several documents 2 produced by the Nuclear Control Institute just in the 3 normal course of preparing, yes. An expert in my field 4 would rely on this. 5 Q. Dr. Boyle, my recollection is you testified this appeared 6 in the Toronto -- 7 A. News. 8 Q. -- News and it -- 9 A. The Globe and Mail, which is, you know, it's sort of like 10 the New York Times here in the United States, a newspaper 11 of public record, so again, it's not like a tabloid or 12 something like this. 13 Q. Plaintiff's Exhibit 5, Dr. Boyle in the right-hand column 14 attributes some comments to a Sunni Locatelli purportedly 15 a spokeswoman at the Atomic Control Board. Do you see 16 that? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. What if anything is the significance, based on your 19 experience as expertise, of considering published reports 20 attributed to spokespersons for governmental entities in 21 formulating use of international law? 22 A. Yes. There is a decision by the International Court of 23 Justice in the nuclear test cases dealing with nuclear 24 explosions 1974, stating that the Court can rely upon 25 official statements made by Government officials acting KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 42 1 within their scope of authority and certainly Locatelli 2 here is the spokeswoman of the Atomic Energy Control 3 Board. So basically, I would be able to take this 4 statement and file it at the World Court and they would 5 find the statement could be, would be attributable to the 6 Canadian government, and Canada would be bound by this 7 statement. 8 Q. What does that article, Plaintiff's Exhibit 5, attribute 9 to Miss Locatelli? 10 A. She can't reveal how much fissile material Canada has. We 11 aren't able to give out that information under our 12 security regulations. Ms. Locatelli said Canada believes 13 it should come under the IA/EA guidelines because it 14 doesn't operate its own reprocessing facilities. I think 15 Dr. Edwards just pointed out that isn't correct. But even 16 if it were correct, it does come under IA/EA, and we need 17 to know, the United States Government under the NPT, under 18 the Congressional implementing legislation, we have to 19 know how much fissile material Canada has. 20 And basically, we are just taking their, 21 whatever their word is for it, and in my opinion, that's 22 unacceptable. We have to know how much material they have 23 and what they are doing with it, and what she's saying 24 here is "Well, we are just not going to tell you." And 25 you will note in the EA, the Department of Energy has KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 43 1 taken the same position. One of the comments made was 2 "Well, what is Canada doing," and the response of the DOE 3 is well, that is Canada's problem, once it leaves here we 4 are no longer responsible. The treaty and statutory 5 regime make it clear that's not the case. We are 6 responsible for our plutonium, wherever it goes. And 7 Congress has made it clear even if we do give it up, we 8 have to have absolute international safeguards as to what 9 is going to happen with our plutonium. And the same would 10 apply if we are encouraging Russia to ship weapons grade 11 plutonium to Canada. We have an obligation to make sure 12 that it's safeguarded and that it can be accountable and 13 accounted for. And what Ms. Locatelli here is saying 14 "Well, sorry, we are just not going to tell you." Again, 15 this raises serious problems in my mind that have not been 16 dealt with by the Department of Energy as to compliance 17 with the IA/EA safeguards regime, which is absolutely 18 required under Article III of the NPT and also required 19 under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Act. Indeed, if I 20 remember correctly, the 1994 implementation, Your Honor, 21 Congress said that transferring of unsafeguarded plutonium 22 is an act of international terrorism as far as Congress is 23 concerned. 24 So and that would trigger a whole host of other 25 provisions of the federal code dealing with international KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 44 1 terrorism, so we really need to know what is going to 2 happen to our plutonium when it gets up into Canada, and 3 to make sure there are safeguards and it is accountable 4 and there is an explanation here. 5 Now Mr. Clemens then said that, in his opinion, 6 Canada has 40 kilograms of plutonium, it's really not 7 accounted for or accountable for by anyone, and that 8 basically makes Canada a de facto nuclear weapons state. 9 I would agree, assuming that they do have the 40 kilograms 10 of plutonium, and I take it you know Mr. Clemens -- I had 11 e-mail correspondence with Mr. Clemens about this matter. 12 He feels that they do have it and that his group, the 13 Nuclear Control Institute, will be making this evidence 14 available soon. He told me it is not yet -- he is not yet 15 prepared to make it public, but they will be going public 16 with it soon. 17 In my opinion, if that is the case, they have 40 18 kilograms of plutonium, that's enough to make five bombs, 19 and that makes Canada a de facto nuclear weapons state 20 under the NPT and, in my opinion, would be inconsistent 21 with the NPT. There is a potential here for Canada being 22 in violation of the NET. We need to know that. Congress 23 has sanctions in there in the implementing legislation for 24 non-nuclear weapons states being, moving into a position 25 where they are de facto nuclear weapons states in KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 45 1 violation of the NPT. 2 It's clear Congress interprets our obligations 3 under the treaty to mean that a non-nuclear weapons state 4 simply cannot go off, assemble all the components for a 5 bomb, have one here, one there and one there, and then 6 say, oh but we are not a nuclear weapons state because we 7 haven't assembled the bomb. 8 Again, Congress made it very clear, no. Indeed, 9 in one of the pieces of legislation, Congress indicated 10 that it was also concerned with a facto nuclear weapons 11 states that an end run around the NPT, and the 12 Congressional regime applicable to it. Again, I regret to 13 report I haven't seen any of these issues dealt with by 14 the Department of Energy in the Environmental Assessments 15 and, indeed, when they were asked about it, they just said 16 this is now Canada's problem. Wondered-- United States 17 law of the NPT, it is not Canada's problem alone, it is 18 our problem because it's our plutonium and it's Russian 19 plutonium that we are paying to send up to Canada. 20 Q. Professor Boyle, based on the representations of Miss 21 Locatelli on behalf of Atomic Energy Control Board of 22 Canada that they don't believe they are subject to the 23 IA/EA guidelines, what if any impact would that have on 24 the United States' responsibility under the Nuclear 25 Nonproliferation Treaty of 1978? KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 46 1 A. It's very clear, Your Honor, the NPT and the Congressional 2 implementing legislation that we ourselves cannot ship 3 weapons grade plutonium there or engage in the Russians to 4 ship weapons grade plutonium unless there are absolutely 5 safeguards by the IA/EA that, to make sure that there is 6 no diversion. And again, Miss Locatelli is indicating 7 there is a high amount of uncertainty as to what is 8 happening with the Canadian plutonium. We simply don't 9 know. In the EA, there are no guarantees given by the 10 Department of Energy as to what is happening to plutonium 11 up in Canada. 12 Q. You may have testified to this, Dr. Boyle, and I apologize 13 if I missed it, but are Russia, Canada and the United 14 States all signatory partis to the Nonproliferation 15 Treaty? 16 A. Yes. We are all parties. There are about 182 or 183 17 states that are parties. The United States and Russia are 18 nuclear weapon states, parties to the convention, that is, 19 we are permitted to have nuclear weapons and nuclear 20 components, etc. Canada is designated a non-nuclear 21 weapons state. And they are supposed to preserve this 22 stative or statement. Yet according to the Nuclear 23 Control Institute, they have enough plutonium up there to 24 at least manufacture five bombs. So somehow this has to 25 be explained and accounted for in order for them to KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 47 1 continue their non-nuclear weapons state status under the 2 NPT, so again, the Nuclear Control Institute is raising 3 very serious compliance problems and potentially serious 4 violation of the NPT by Canada, and there are severe 5 sanctions in the United States laws enacted by Congress 6 under the Simplemen legislation, Your Honor, in the event 7 a state that is a non-nuclear weapons state moves to 8 become a nuclear weapons state. And again, none of this 9 has been addressed by the Department of Energy in the 10 environmental assessment that I'm aware of, either in the 11 environmental assessment or elsewhere. 12 Q. Dr. Boyle, could you advise the Court, if you would, as to 13 what the ramifications legally are of being a signatory 14 party to an international treaty such as the 15 Nonproliferation Treaty? 16 A. Yes. Your Honor, of course, the basic rule of Pacta Sunt, 17 P-a-c-t-a-s-u-n-t, Servanda, S-e-r-v-a-n-d-a. 18 The other point -- there are two other points, 19 however, that must be kept in mind in interpreting any 20 treaty and especially the NPT. First, the treaty must be 21 interpreted in good faith. And again, the question here 22 with Canada maintaining 40 kilograms of plutonium is 23 whether or not this is a good faith interpretation 24 implementation of the NPT by Canada. 25 Second, the treaty must be interpreted in KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 48 1 accordance with its object and purpose, and that in this 2 case the NPT is to stop nuclear proliferation. And again, 3 this entire program, the Parallex program, in my opinion, 4 seems to defeat the object and purpose of the NPT, which 5 is to stop nuclear proliferation. 6 The third point to keep in mind is that this 7 treaty has already been interpreted by Congress and 8 implemented by Congress. And Congress is agreeing with 9 what I'm saying here, Your Honor, and I'm agreeing with 10 what Congress is saying. Congress has made it very clear 11 that they do not want to see any type of nuclear 12 proliferation or programs that encourage nuclear 13 proliferation. And we are now seeing a drastic departure 14 from the policy enacted in Congress pursuant to the NPC 15 back in -- the NPT back in 1978 in the Nuclear 16 Nonproliferation Act, and we have seen no change in the 17 legislation by Congress to authorize or approve this 18 drastic change. And again, I agree with what Dr. Edwards 19 said from his Canadian perspective, my American 20 perspective, the Parallex MOX project is a drastic change 21 in encouraging proliferation of nuclear weapons components 22 and there has been no direct approval, change of statutes 23 or whatever. So again, this, in my opinion, raises very 24 serious problems under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty 25 as interpreted in good faith and in accordance with its KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 49 1 object and purpose not only for Canada, but the United 2 States and Russia. And in my opinion, we should have a 3 full study of all these issues by the Department of Energy 4 before there is any further movement on this project. 5 The implications here are enormous. They could 6 be catastrophic, and I personally would like to see a full 7 scale investigation analysis so that I could evaluate it 8 myself before anyone goes ahead with this project, but of 9 course that, you know, that's my personal opinion. I know 10 that's for you, Your Honor, to decide. 11 Q. Dr. Boyle, what if anything is the requirement or 12 obligation of the United States to interpret the 13 Nonproliferation Treaty in good faith? I think you 14 testified that Canada has that obligation. Does the 15 United States have a similar obligation? 16 A. Yes. And as a matter of fact, here Congress has 17 interpreted our obligation under the NPT and, in my 18 opinion, Congress has interpreted our obligations under 19 the NPT in good faith and also in accordance with the 20 object and purpose of this treaty. Congress interpreted 21 this by means of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Act of 1978, 22 the Nuclear Proliferation Prevention Act of 1994 and the 23 1998 amendments to do with the India-Pakistani 24 explosions. So in my opinion, Congress did interpret this 25 treaty in good faith and in accordance with its object and KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 50 1 purpose and it appears to me the Department of Energy is 2 off there on their own with no express authorization from 3 Congress pursuing a policy here that defeats the object 4 and purpose of the NPT. 5 Q. By that, you are referring to the Parallex project? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. With respect to the Congressional implementation of the 8 NPT in the '78, '94 and '98 acts, what if anything is the 9 role of the Department of State and/or Department of 10 Energy with respect to interpreting those obligations? 11 A. Yes. Your Honor, it's very clear from the treaty related 12 to the statutory scheme. Treaties deal with international 13 law and foreign relations. Therefore, they are normally 14 negotiated and concluded by the Department of State and 15 then they are handed over to the Senate Foreign Relations 16 to the Senate for advice and consent. It is the State 17 Department that traditionally has always had the sole and 18 exclusive role here in the United States with respect to 19 nonproliferation policy, not the Department of Energy. 20 The Department of Energy has always been treated as a 21 technical agency, technical consultant. The policy is 22 formulated by the State Department. There had been, again 23 going back to the Carter administration, United States 24 Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, Your Honor, set up by 25 Congress to deal precisely with these issues. They were KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 51 1 the ones given the authority to deal with proliferation 2 and nonproliferation policies negotiate these agreements, 3 etcetera. Senator Helms in the latest did not like act, 4 he concluded it was super numerator morgue or something so 5 he passed legislation terminating the Arms Control 6 Disarmament Agency and transferring all functions to the 7 Department of State today. But if you read the 8 Congressional implementing legislation, they make it very 9 clear that the lead role played on proliferation and 10 nonproliferation policy is the Department of State, not 11 the Department of Energy, and the Department of State 12 should consult with the Department of Energy. At times 13 the Department of Energy is given authority to have its 14 input to the Department of State, but it's the Department 15 of State that makes nonproliferation policy, not the 16 Department of Energy. 17 Q. In your review of the environmental assessment prepared by 18 the Department of Energy in January of '99, Dr. Boyle, 19 regarding the Parallex Project, is there any indication 20 that the Department of Energy consulted with the 21 Department of State? And if you don't mind, I direct your 22 attention to Page 41 of Plaintiff's Exhibit 12 previously 23 admitted and ask you to refer to that. 24 A. Yes. They had a list here of agencies consulted. Your 25 Honor, over here on Page 41, it says agencies consulted KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 52 1 during the preparation of this analysis: Atomic Energy of 2 Canada, Canadian Atomic Energy Control Board, U.S. 3 Department of Transportation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 4 Commission. They do not consult with the Department of 5 State and, in my opinion, and also in the opinion of 6 Congress, if you read through all the implementing 7 legislation, I know, Your Honor, as I understand it, you 8 are a conscientious Judge so I'm sure you are going to do 9 this, you'll see that they have to deal with the 10 Department of State. And the main problem with this EA is 11 they have not dealt with the Department of State, they 12 have not dealt with the nonproliferation issues, they have 13 not dealt with the Nonproliferation Treaty, they have not 14 dealt with the 1978 Act, they have not dealt with the 1994 15 Act, they have not dealt with the 1998 Act. All that is 16 expressly required by Congress. So again, in my opinion, 17 for some reason the Department of Energy has just decided 18 to go out there on its own and completely either ignore or 19 violate the Congressional statutes and procedures for 20 dealing with proliferation and nonproliferation issues. 21 Q. Dr. Boyle, to your knowledge, has the Department of State 22 retreated at all from the U.S. commitment to the 23 Nonproliferation Treaty as implemented by Congress through 24 the legislation you've indicated? 25 A. No, and as a matter of fact, Madeline Albright was just KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 53 1 out in India-Pakistan with President Clinton. As you 2 know, President Clinton stated that today India-Pakistan, 3 the Indian subcontinent is the most dangerous place on the 4 face of the earth because of the proliferation problem, 5 and they both have nuclear weapons now, and the dispute 6 over Casmir. 7 President Clinton then was just lectured in the 8 Indian Parliament publicly by the speaker of Parliament 9 for making the statement, but I think it's a fair and 10 accurate statement. Madeline Albright followed this up 11 with another statement reiterating our commitment to 12 nonproliferation and, specifically with respect to India 13 and Pakistan, that this was the policy of the United 14 States Government, and also tying this into the integral 15 importance of safeguards. 16 And again, that is a fair and accurate statement 17 of the policy being pursued by the President and the 18 Secretary of State that is charged under the legislation 19 and the Constitution to deal with these matters. There is 20 a complete and total disconnect here between what the 21 President and Secretary of State are saying and what the 22 Department of Energy is planning to do here in the 23 environmental assessment. 24 Q. Dr. Boyle, I'm going to show you what has been marked as 25 Plaintiff's Exhibit 11 and ask you to take a minute to KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 54 1 review that and let me know when you have had a chance to 2 do so, please. 3 A. Yes. This is an account of the Secretary of State 4 Albright's statement on April 2, as recently as April 2 5 dealing with our proliferation policies. And let me draw 6 a few things to your attention. United States regards 7 proliferation anywhere as our Number 1 security concern. 8 So again, she's pointing this out and she is the cabinet 9 officer with the authority to deal with these matters, not 10 the Secretary of Energy. We continue to seek universal 11 adherence to the NPT neither India nor Pakistan are 12 parties to the NPT. And here is crucial points: The 13 limits in our ability to cooperate with India and Pakistan 14 are a matter of U.S. law, as well as our international 15 obligations, all right? So Secretary Albright is pointing 16 out we have United States law that deals with 17 proliferation and this United States law -- of course, 18 she's not a lawyer -- but the U.S. law is the Nuclear 19 Nonproliferation Act, the Proliferation Prevention Act and 20 the '98 amendments as well as the Atomic Energy Act. So 21 there's a very comprehensive legislative scheme here as 22 well as our international obligation she points out. 23 There are international treaties here, and in particular 24 the most important one being the one she just referred to, 25 the Nonproliferation Treaty, and she is aware of that. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 55 1 Unfortunately, it does not appear that the Department of 2 Energy is aware of it or is concerned about it in the 3 least bit, at least as reflected in the environmental 4 assessment, they have not dealt with any of these issues 5 in environmental assessment nothing, none. 6 Q. Dr. Boyle, based on your experience and investigations 7 study, are you aware of whether or not India and Pakistan 8 have Canadian CANDU reactors? 9 A. As I understand it, they've got reactors from the Indian 10 Nuclear Bomb Project was a serous reactor, Canada, India 11 and United States, right. And Pakistan has a CANDU 12 reactor, right. And just the other day, the New York 13 Times reported the smuggling of substantial quantity of 14 nuclear materials out of the former Soviet Union towards 15 Pakistan that was recently intercepted in Kazakhstan, I 16 think. So I think this is a very serious problem. And I 17 don't see how this Parallex MOX -- it's only going to 18 compound the problem. These countries are doing 19 everything they possibly can. And here I would also add 20 in Israel is not a party to the NPT. There are other 21 states that have CANDU reactors, it has already been 22 reported in the professional literature, Your Honor, that 23 Japan too is a de facto nuclear weapons state in violation 24 of the NPT. And as Dr. Edwards already reported, they 25 have gotten a good deal of their nuclear material from KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 56 1 Canada. 2 So, we see -- Canadian reactors that are what, 3 in South Korea, Taiwan, states that are interested in 4 getting nuclear weapons. Clearly Taiwan wants them, South 5 Korea wants them. And you know, not that I can speak for 6 these governments, but it seems to me they have made a 7 decision the best way to get a weapon is to do it the way 8 the Indians did. We get a Canadian CANDU reactor, then we 9 start getting in whatever material we can get from, for 10 example, this MOX program. They will get plutonium and 11 then they can make a bomb, they can assemble a bomb. 12 As for the ease of assembling a bomb, Your 13 Honor, when I was a student at Harvard there was a very 14 bright student at MIT who, as a class project, assembled a 15 bomb. He had everything there except the plutonium. 16 That's how easy it is to assemble an atomic bottom, and he 17 brought it down there and, if I remember correctly, in 18 central square at MIT, and just showed it to everyone. 19 Even a bright student at MIT can assemble a bomb, that's 20 how easy it is to do. And what we see on these states 21 that say they are non-nuclear weapons states is an effort 22 to get a CANDU reactor and do what the Indians do use the 23 CANDU reactor, then they just need to get hold of the 24 plutonium, and Parallex MOX is going to give them access 25 to this plutonium if it gets in circulation. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 57 1 Q. Dr. Boyle, you've testified in some depth as to the 2 Nonproliferation Treaty and the implementation by Congress 3 indicating Congress' intent to prohibit even components, 4 parts of nuclear weapons to be covered by the U.S.; is 5 that correct? 6 A. Congress has interpreted the NPT, as I said, in good 7 faith, and to achieve its object and purpose and they have 8 interpreted to mean components that is clear of nuclear 9 weapons or nuclear explosive devices and there are other 10 areas in legislation where they even break it down to 11 items or substances that could be used for nuclear weapons 12 or nuclear explosive device, so Congress is aware of this 13 problem of a state becoming a de facto nuclear weapons 14 state and somehow trying to assemble components, items and 15 substances to be used for a nuclear weapon in order to 16 circumvent the treaty. So again Congress has interpreted, 17 I think, the treaty properly. 18 Q. Are you familiar in the course of your research with the 19 DOE's stockpile of stewardship program? 20 A. I am, yes. 21 Q. Are you familiar with their use in that program of 22 subcritical amounts of weapons grade plutonium? 23 A. Yes. Right now the Department of Energy is engaging in 24 what are known as subcritical tests. A subcritical test 25 is using -- they just did one this week, I think I gave KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 58 1 you the press release on it, and they are consistently 2 doing this. 3 A subcritical test uses a subcritical amount of 4 plutonium, which is under the -- it was eight kilograms. 5 And they are exploding it in order to test, verify and 6 develop the next generation of U.S. nuclear weapons. So 7 what we see the Department of Energy doing here is the 8 subcritical tests, in my opinion, would constitute it's 9 not a nuclear weapon, but it is a nuclear explosive 10 device. Now, there is nothing illegal with, under the NPT 11 with us having a nuclear explosive device, because we are 12 a nuclear weapons state party, but again, it creates 13 problems other states are now mimicking our behavior. 14 Russia is doing the same thing, France and Britain say 15 they are going to do the same thing. If we give weapons 16 grade plutonium to Canada, Canada could be doing the same 17 thing. Or the Russians give their weapons grade plutonium 18 to Canada, Canada could be doing the same thing, and other 19 states could be doing the same thing. So again, I think I 20 have serious concerns here, but I want to point out the 21 DOE is already engaged in the subcritical tests which are 22 clearly nuclear explosive devices. So it just doesn't 23 have to be a bomb to be regulated by the NPT. 24 Q. Dr. Boyle, in the scope of your experience and research, 25 have you become acquainted with the International Court of KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 59 1 Justice opinion regarding nuclear weapons in 1996? 2 A. Yes. As a matter of fact, I was part of the effort 3 originally to try to get that advisory opinion from the 4 World Court. 5 Q. If you would explain briefly what the significance, if 6 anything, of that World Court decision on the Parallex 7 project is, in your opinion? 8 A. Well, Your Honor, the World Court was asked by the United 9 Nations general assembly to give an opinion on the entire 10 question of nuclear weapons and international law. It's a 11 very long decision with many separate decisions in the 12 sense I've written an article here, Mr. Love might want to 13 provide it to you, going through all of it. But in this 14 opinion, there are two critical components that are 15 relevant to the Parallex MOX project and, of course, the 16 EA has not dealt with either, let alone the World Court 17 opinion, and the World Court opinion in this area 18 enunciates the rules of international law that are binding 19 on the United States Government, binding on Canada, 20 binding on Russia. The one component of this opinion 21 deals with the environmental-- international environmental 22 law applicable to nuclear weapons, and you will note in 23 the EA, the DOE does absolutely nothing at all with 24 international environmental law applicable to this 25 transaction because it is an international transaction, KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 60 1 they're shipping plutonium from the States up to Canada 2 and from Russia over to Canada. So international 3 environmental law is involved, and the DOE has done 4 nothing at all about it. 5 And Mr. Love, I think you have the exact 6 language there. You want to provide that to me, the exact 7 ruling of the Court on the international environmental law 8 that would apply? 9 MR. LOVE: Your Honor, we have tendered what I'm 10 going to show Dr. Boyle as Plaintiff's Exhibit 14, a copy 11 of the World Court opinion to both the Court and counsel 12 previously. 13 BY MR. LOVE: 14 Q. Dr. Boyle, I'm going to show you what has been marked as 15 Plaintiff's Exhibit 14 and ask you to take a look at that 16 and let us know when you've had a chance to do so and what 17 it is. 18 A. Right, this is the World Court advisory opinion. It's so 19 long, I'm going to have to get my notes on it, excuse me. 20 I think, Mr. Love, I gave you my notes last 21 night on the relevant provisions of the opinion, the 22 relevant paragraphs. 23 Q. While I'm looking for your notes, could you direct your 24 attention to Paragraph 27, please? 25 A. Right. What we need are the paragraphs here. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 61 1 Right. Yes, I have Paragraph 27. 2 Your Honor, here the World Court unanimously 3 adopted Principle 21 of the Stockholm Declaration of 1972, 4 which everyone would say today is a basic principle of 5 international environmental law, which the EA has not 6 bothered to deal with. And it basically says states have 7 a duty "to ensure that activities within their 8 jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to the 9 environment of other states or areas beyond the limits of 10 national jurisdiction." That's a basic principle of 11 international environmental law. It goes back to the 12 Stockholm Declaration of 1972. It has direct relevance 13 here to this entire project. You've got international 14 shipment of plutonium, it's going over the high seas if it 15 goes by boat from Russia. That also triggers the Law of 16 the Sea Convention that they have not dealt with. They 17 haven't dealt with the Stockholm Declaration, and they 18 have not dealt with this recent ruling by the World Court 19 as to obligations under international law. If you read 20 the EA when they are asked this question, they said "Once 21 we give to Canada, that's their problem." Well, again, 22 that isn't a correct statement of international law. It 23 is our problem. 24 The second important point of the ICJ opinion, 25 and there are other sections here dealing with the KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 62 1 environment -- and I know we have a limited amount of 2 time, I'm not going to go through it all -- deals with the 3 interpretation of the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty. 4 This is an international treaty, the World Court 5 also has authority to interpret the Nuclear 6 Nonproliferation Treaty, and they have interpreted the 7 Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. 8 Mr. Love, could you give me -- I identified a 9 paragraph for you, I think it's 102. 10 Q. I believe you are looking for Paragraph 102? 11 A. 102, right. 12 Q. May also want to take a look at Paragraph 99. 13 A. 99 and 102, right. 14 The World Court, in the same advisory opinion, 15 has also dealt with the NPT and the obligation of Article 16 VI of the NPT, "Each of the parties to the treaty 17 undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on 18 effective measures relating to cessation of the" -- "in 19 good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of 20 the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear 21 disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete 22 disarmament under strict and effective international 23 control." And they have interpreted this provision, NPT 24 Article VI, which we are a party to, by the way, to have a 25 dual obligation, two components here: One, we must pursue KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 63 1 negotiations on nuclear disarmament as a matter of good 2 faith. 3 Recently, I regret to report the U.S. Ambassador 4 to the Conference on Nuclear Disarmament sponsored by the 5 United Nations has said "We are not going to pursue 6 nuclear disarmament negotiations." In my opinion, that 7 puts us in breach of NPT Article VI, certainly as 8 interpreted by the World Court. We have an obligation to 9 pursue nuclear disarmament negotiations and we have just 10 said we are not going to do it. The Ambassador said "We 11 are going to pursue instead a treaty on the cutoff of 12 fissile materials such as what is at stake here, but we 13 are not going to pursue nuclear disarmament negotiations." 14 Well, Your Honor, it does seem to me that that is a 15 violation of NPT Article VI and is certainly not meeting 16 the requirements of Article VI as interpreted by the World 17 Court. We must pursue these negotiations in good faith. 18 And then the second component of the obligation 19 is we must achieve a precise result. Nuclear disarmament 20 in all its aspects. And again just recently the U.S. 21 Ambassador to the Council of Nuclear Disarmament under the 22 auspices of the UN said "We are just not going to do it." 23 The reason why this creates serious legal problems is that 24 the non-nuclear weapons states went along with the entire 25 Nuclear Proliferation Treaty on the assumption that the KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 64 1 nuclear weapons states would engage in good faith 2 negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament. If we are 3 not engaging in negotiations leading to nuclear 4 disarmament and publicly say we are not going to do it, 5 this in theory could give the non-nuclear weapons states, 6 all 175 of them, grounds to argue the material breach of 7 the NPT and pull out of the NPT and to engage in nuclear 8 armament. Now I'm not recommending that and indeed I 9 certainly would not recommend that to anyone, but it is a 10 very serious concern if we are not engaging in these 11 nuclear disarmament negotiations, which we are not 12 currently doing. 13 Q. Dr. Boyle, could you briefly summarize for the Court why 14 the International Court of Justice opinions, if at all, 15 are binding on the U.S.? 16 A. This opinion per se is listed as an advisory opinion. So 17 it is -- we are not party to the lawsuit. As you know, 18 some courts can give advisory opinions. Your Honor, you 19 can't give an advisory opinion, but there are courts in 20 the United States that some states courts have authority 21 to give advisory opinions as well as contentious 22 opinions. The World Court has both. They have authority 23 contentious opinion and an advisory opinion. This was not 24 a contentious case. If it were a contentious case, we 25 would be bound by it, like the Lockerbie case, like the KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 65 1 Bosnia cases that I was involved with, those were 2 contentious cases. This was an advisory opinion, however, 3 in this advisory opinion, with these unanimous rulings by 4 the World Court on these points, the World Court made it 5 clear that these rules are customary international law. 6 And rules of customary international law bind the United 7 States Government. The Paquete, P-a-q-u-e-t-e, Habana, 8 H-a-b-a-n-a, decision by the United States Supreme Court 9 customarily international law binds the United States and 10 the United States courts. And technically, this is 11 federal common law. So the, Your Honor, this Court should 12 take into account the World Court rulings on these two 13 points on international environmental law and how the NPT 14 should be interpreted. 15 The rest of the opinion, which is quite lengthy 16 and I had written about elsewhere -- if you are interested 17 in reading my article, you can, but it's not really 18 relevant or terribly germane to the issues here, but 19 certainly, the section on international environmental law 20 and their interpretation of the NPT is relevant. I think 21 they enunciate rules of customary international law. I 22 also have reached the same conclusions myself in my own 23 scholarly research before the World Court did, but I think 24 most experts would agree with the rulings of the World 25 Court on these two points, it's requirements of KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 66 1 international environmental law and the interpretation of 2 the NPT. 3 And again, the DOE's environmental assessment 4 has not taken any of this into account. They have not 5 taken into account the rules of international 6 environmental law, which they should do, and they have not 7 taken into account anything about the NPT. 8 Q. Dr. Boyle, based on your review of the NPT, the Nuclear 9 Nonproliferation Acts of 1978, 1994, and 1998, the 10 International Court of Justice opinion, and the 11 declarations by the Department of State regarding the U.S. 12 position with respect to the Nonproliferation Treaty 13 commitments we have made, do you have an opinion as an 14 expert in international law as to whether the foreign 15 policy of the United States would be violated by the 16 shipment of MOX from Russia to Canada funded by the U.S. 17 DOE? 18 A. Well, again, I agree with everything Dr. Edwards said. 19 Your Honor, this is a major change in United States 20 nonproliferation policy going back at a minimum to the 21 Carter administration and the adoption of the Nuclear 22 Nonproliferation Act, it seems to me completely 23 inconsistent with the treaty, with the Act, the 1978 Act 24 and 1994 Act and the 1998 Act. So yes, this is a major 25 change in policy that potentially is illegal under the KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 67 1 sources. And I would really like to see the Department of 2 Energy comprehensively address all of these issues so we 3 could see what is their authority to do this. Besides 4 their own ipse dixit. I would like to see the authority. 5 I don't see it in any of the sources I've read before for 6 them to unilaterally engage in this major change in policy 7 that seems to be inconsistent with the Treaty, the '78 8 Act, the '94 Act and '98 Act, yes. 9 MR. LOVE: Your Honor, I have no further 10 questions of this witness. Thank you. 11 CROSS EXAMINATION 12 BY MR. DODGE: 13 Q. Morning, Mr. Boyle. 14 A. Morning. 15 Q. I would like to turn your attention back to your C.V., 16 which I think is Exhibit 3. Do you have that in front of 17 you? 18 A. Sure. 19 Q. Just to round out a few items on the second page, about 20 halfway down you testified that you were counsel to Libya 21 in connection with the bombing of the Pan Am flight over 22 Lockerbie, Scotland. 23 A. That is correct. I should point out that matter is being 24 peaceably resolved now by the United States and Libya 25 because of my efforts. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 68 1 Q. And you've also served, going up now the fourth item from 2 the top of that page, since 1987 you served as a legal 3 advisor to the Palestine Liberation Organization? 4 A. That is correct, and I was also the legal advisor to the 5 Palestinian delegation for the Middle East Peace Talks 6 convened under the auspices of President Bush, yes. 7 Q. And two items down from there said you were counsel 8 related to House Resolution 86 in the 102nd Congress 9 dealing with the impeachment of former, then President 10 George Bush? 11 A. Yes. Congressman Henry G. Gonzalez of Texas reached a 12 decision that President Bush going to war violated 13 numerous provisions of the Constitution and international 14 law. You can find them there in House Resolution 86. And 15 he asked me, because of my knowledge and expertise to 16 serve as counsel to them on these matters, and I did serve 17 as counsel free of charge, that is correct. 18 My service to the Palestinian Delegation in the 19 Middle East Peace Negotiations is there in '91 and '93, as 20 I said, President Bush was the one who convened those 21 negotiations, and yes, even though I did set out with 22 Congressman Gonzalez on this issue, President Bush did 23 sign my Biological Weapons Anti-terrorists Act of 1989, 24 which is -- 25 Q. He apparently didn't hold your efforts against you KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 69 1 personally. 2 A. Pardon me? 3 Q. Sounds like he didn't hold it against you personally. 4 A. I don't think he did, no. I'm a lawyer and a law 5 professor and I'm a professional, but he had no problems, 6 President Bush had no problems with my Biological 7 Anti-Terrorism Act. It was approved unanimously by both 8 Houses of Congress. 9 Q. Moving on to the third page, second item from the top of 10 the page, you worked as a consultant in 1993 on 11 Independence for the State of Hawaii. I would assume for 12 Hawaii to become an independent nation? 13 A. That is correct. The State of Hawaii-- the Hawaiian 14 Sovereignty Advisory Commission is an agency of the State 15 of Hawaii. And they were charged under the law by the 16 State of Hawaiian law to investigate all alternatives for 17 the native Hawaiian people. One of the alternatives that 18 needed to be investigated was whether or not the native 19 Hawaiian people should establish their own independent 20 nation state. And I was retained by the State of Hawaii 21 then to advise them on this because of my experience doing 22 the same work with the Palestinians. I advised them on 23 the creation of their state and the peace talks with 24 Israel based on a two-state solution, and the Palestinian 25 state today has diplomatic recognition now by about 125 KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 70 1 states, and currently has de facto UN membership, and I 2 did the legal work on that, so the State of Hawaii 3 retained me to come out and advise on the establishment of 4 an independent nations state, and the State of Hawaii paid 5 my expenses and a modest fee for this work, yes. 6 Q. Moving on to the Nonproliferation Treaty, you testified 7 about Article I. Do you recall that? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. And as I understood your testimony, your view is that the 10 fuel rods at issue in the Parallex Project, in your view, 11 should be treated as components of a nuclear weapon; is 12 that right? Explosive device? 13 A. No. What I said was weapons grade plutonium should be 14 treated as a component of either a nuclear weapon or a 15 nuclear explosive device. 16 Q. What about -- I mean, the Parallex test involves shipment 17 and then irradiation of fuel rods; is that correct? 18 A. Right. 19 Q. And is it your view or is it not your view that those fuel 20 rods constitute components of nuclear weapons or explosive 21 devices? 22 A. My viewpoint is what I said, that weapons grade plutonium 23 is a component of a nuclear weapon or nuclear explosive 24 device. 25 Q. You didn't answer my question. Do you understand the KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 71 1 question? 2 A. Well, I've given my answer. 3 THE COURT: No, you haven't answered his 4 question. He asked you question, if you don't know the 5 answer, say so. He asked you a very specific question 6 about rods. 7 BY MR. DODGE: 8 Q. In fact, the question has to do with your view, if you 9 have one, whether the fuel rods at issue in the Parallex 10 test program constitute components of nuclear weapons or 11 explosive devices. 12 A. If they contain weapons grade plutonium, they would be or 13 could be components of nuclear weapons or nuclear 14 explosive devices. 15 Q. Well, these fuel rods do contain plutonium; is that right? 16 A. As I understand it, it's in there, yep. 17 Q. So in your view, does that make the fuel rods components 18 of nuclear weapons or explosive devices? 19 A. Again, my testimony is that the weapons grade plutonium 20 clearly is either nuclear -- is a component of a nuclear 21 weapon or a nuclear explosive device, and the reason I 22 give that testimony is based on my reading of the 23 Congressional legislation, Congress has taken the position 24 that weapons grade plutonium or plutonium, in general, is 25 a component of a nuclear weapon or nuclear explosive KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 72 1 device. Congress does not deal with the fuel rods, they 2 dealt with the plutonium. 3 Q. I want to make sure I understand your testimony clearly. 4 Is it your testimony, is it your view that any 5 plutonium would qualify as a component of a nuclear 6 weapons or nuclear weapon or explosive device under the 7 treaty? 8 A. My testimony today is the weapons grade plutonium involved 9 in this project is a component of a nuclear weapons or 10 other nuclear explosive device. I believe weapons grade 11 plutonium is what is involved in this project. 12 Q. I asked you a different question. The question was a 13 broader one. Is it your view or not your view that all 14 plutonium would qualify as a component of a nuclear weapon 15 or explosive device under Article I? 16 A. It appears Congress has taken that position, yes, and they 17 have stringently regulated plutonium in all forms. And I 18 also note that the United States Government has exploded a 19 nuclear weapon -- 20 THE COURT: The question is: Is it your 21 opinion? He is asking four or five times now, could you 22 answer that? 23 THE WITNESS: But Your Honor, my opinion is 24 based on -- 25 THE COURT: In courts -- I know you are a KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 73 1 professor -- we answer the questions of the lawyer, not 2 what we want to talk about. He asked you seven or eight 3 questions, none of which you've answered. I would ask you 4 simply listen to the lawyer's question and answer it. 5 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honor. 6 BY MR. DODGE: 7 Q. Do you understand the question? 8 THE COURT: Ask it again for the fifteenth time, 9 ask it again. 10 BY MR. DODGE: 11 Q. Is it your view that all plutonium constitutes a component 12 of nuclear weapon or explosive device under Article I of 13 the treaty? 14 A. It can. 15 Q. It can? 16 A. Yes. Yes. 17 Q. Is it your view across the board that plutonium, whether 18 weapons grade or not, if it's present in a fuel rod for 19 a-- destined for a civilian nuclear reactor would qualify 20 as a component of a nuclear weapon explosive device? 21 A. It could. 22 Q. Do you know whether as a general matter the signatories of 23 the Nonproliferation Treaty have interpreted, whether any 24 signatory has interpreted Article I to ban transport of 25 fuel rods containing plutonium? KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 74 1 A. Congress has strictly regulated plutonium, yes, and there 2 is legislation on the books saying "We, Congress, 3 interpreting our obligations under the NPT, are against 4 international transport of plutonium," yes. 5 Q. Has Congress passed any legislation prohibiting the 6 transport of nuclear fuel rods containing any plutonium? 7 A. In what I have reviewed for my testimony here today, I 8 have not seen in the '78, '94 or '98 Act that Congress has 9 prohibited transport of fuel rods. 10 Q. In fact, fuel rods are transported across national 11 boundaries all the time; is that not correct? 12 A. They are transported. 13 Q. In fact, fuel rods containing plutonium are transported 14 across national boundaries all the time, isn't that 15 correct? 16 A. If they are subject to-- they are supposed to be subject 17 to safeguards, yes. 18 Q. Well, that gets us to another point of your earlier 19 testimony regarding whether the fuel rods particularly at 20 issue in the Parallex Project are or are not subject to 21 IA/EA safeguards in Canada. Do you recall that testimony? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. Do you have personal knowledge whether Canada, the 24 Government of Canada has taken a position on whether the 25 U.S. Parallex fuel rods, which are now in Canada, whether KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 75 1 those fuel rods are now subject to IA/EA safeguards? 2 A. I have not seen any evidence because of the recentness of 3 the movement of the shipments. 4 Q. If I told you that the position of the Government of 5 Canada is that those fuel rods are, in fact, subject to 6 IA/EA safeguards, would you have any basis to quarrel with 7 that? 8 A. The statement by Ms. Locatelli does call into question the 9 validity of these assertions, yes. 10 Q. Miss Locatelli was generally speaking of Parallex fuel 11 rods, was she? 12 A. Speaking about plutonium in general, right. 13 Q. I take it you didn't speak personally to Miss Locatelli? 14 A. No, I did not. 15 Q. About this or any-- 16 A. But I did speak with Mr. Clemens of NCI by e-mail and he 17 has similar concerns to me. 18 Q. Okay. And did you speak to the newspaper reporter, Martin 19 Mittelstaedt, who quoted Ms. Locatelli? 20 A. No, I did not. 21 Q. Whether his quotes accurately reflect what she said or not 22 is not something you would be qualified to testify about; 23 is that right? 24 A. Well, I note The Globe and Mail is a newspaper of public 25 record and I would be able to rely on that in the World KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 76 1 Court for sure, yep. 2 Q. But newspaper reporters are human beings? 3 A. Newspaper reporters make mistakes, sure. But again, the 4 World Court, for example, the nuclear test cases did rely 5 on statements made by Government officials as normally 6 reported in reputable news media sources. They have 7 different standards of evidence, the World Court, than 8 they do here in United States District Court. 9 Q. Now you've also relied on this article, Plaintiff's 10 Exhibit 5, I guess too, in support of your opinion that 11 Canada is in possession of 40 kilograms or up to 40 12 kilograms of plutonium; is that right? 13 A. This is a statement by Mr. Clemens, and I have had e-mail 14 correspondence with him about it. 15 Q. Do you have any personal knowledge whether -- 16 A. No. 17 Q. I'm sorry, I didn't finish my question. 18 A. I did answer your question. 19 THE COURT: He hasn't finished asking it; you 20 couldn't possibly answer his question when he hasn't 21 finished asking it. 22 THE WITNESS: Sorry. 23 BY MR. DODGE: 24 Q. Do you have any personal knowledge of whether Canada, in 25 fact, has 40 kilograms of plutonium? KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 77 1 A. I do not have personal knowledge, no. I'm relying on the 2 statement by Mr. Clemens. 3 Q. Mr. Clemens, does Mr. Clemens have personal knowledge 4 whether Canada has 40-- 5 A. As I understand, Mr. Clemens does. From my e-mail 6 correspondence with him, he does. 7 Q. Has he seen that plutonium? 8 A. Pardon me? 9 Q. Has he seen it? 10 A. He didn't tell me what his sources of evidence are, but he 11 did tell me that they will be making it public soon. 12 Q. So he thinks he has -- he thinks he has evidence to 13 support that conclusion and whether that evidence holds 14 any water or not, we really can't tell, can we? 15 A. Well, again, as an expert, if the NCI is making the 16 statements, I think they are significant and they need to 17 be dealt with, and certainly by the Department of Energy. 18 THE COURT: That was not -- excuse me, that was 19 not his question. 20 Would you repeat your question, please? 21 BY MR. DODGE: 22 Q. The question is: Mr. Clemens believes he has reason or he 23 has evidence to support his conclusion that Canada has 40 24 kilograms of plutonium, but as far as anybody in this 25 courtroom knows, that evidence may or may not hold water, KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 78 1 we just don't know, correct? 2 A. I'm not evaluating the evidence, and Mr. Clemens said the 3 evidence will be produced, so at that point I will review 4 the evidence and formulate a formal opinion. 5 THE COURT: Do you want to ask it again or just 6 want to give up? 7 MR. DODGE: I think that -- I think the point is 8 established to the extent I need to, Your Honor. 9 BY MR. DODGE: 10 Q. Now, you testified earlier that it's up to the State 11 Department, not the Department of Energy to interpret 12 United States treaty obligations; is that right? 13 A. I testified that it is the State Department that is in 14 charge of nuclear proliferation policies, that's what I 15 testified, and not the Department of Energy, yes. 16 Q. Okay. Is it your view that it's -- maybe I misunderstood 17 what you testified earlier. I thought I heard you say 18 that interpreting whether or not the U.S. is complying 19 with Nonproliferation Treaty in particular, that pertinent 20 authority on that would be the State Department, not the 21 Department of Energy; is that a fair statement? 22 A. I've also testified that the State Department has the lead 23 role in the United States Government with respect to 24 interpretation of treatises as well. 25 Q. Do you know what the State Department's position is on KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 79 1 whether the Parallex test program is or is not compliant 2 with Article I of the Nonproliferation Treaty? 3 A. Well, that's why I read the Environmental Assessment, to 4 see if you had talked to the State Department here, and 5 they hadn't, so I have not seen any statement by the State 6 Department as to what their position is, no. 7 Q. The Environmental Assessment is not the only document 8 that's been generated in the course of the Parallex 9 Project, you understand that? 10 A. That is correct, and I have read a good deal of the 11 documentation, but I still have not seen an expression by 12 the Department of State on this issue. 13 Q. Okay. Do you know whether or not the State Department was 14 involved at any level in the Parallex Project? 15 A. There probably were discussions somewhere in there. 16 Q. Do you know? 17 A. Myself personally? 18 Q. Yes. 19 A. I don't know for sure. 20 Q. Do you know one way or the other whether the State 21 Department has a view on whether the Parallex Project is 22 consistent with our treaty obligations under Article I of 23 the NPT? 24 A. I have not seen any expression by the State Department on 25 this issue. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 80 1 Q. If I told you the State Department has taken the view that 2 the Parallex Project is entirely consistent with our 3 obligations under Article I, would you have any basis to 4 quarrel with that? 5 A. I haven't seen it. 6 MR. LODGE: Objection, Your Honor. 7 THE COURT: If he hasn't seen -- 8 MR. DODGE: Withdraw the question, Your Honor. 9 THE WITNESS: I would like to see it and 10 evaluate it myself, sure. 11 BY MR. DODGE: 12 Q. You also testified about dangers of nuclear proliferation 13 relating to countries such as Taiwan and Korea that are 14 not currently nuclear weapons states, but would like to 15 acquire nuclear weapons, do you recall that testimony? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. Is it correct that the MOX program, the Parallex Program 18 does not contemplate the shipment of any fuel rods to any 19 country other than Canada? 20 A. Not at this stage, but eventually it does appear there 21 will be mass circulation of this material, yes, down the 22 line. 23 Q. And the basis for that is what exactly? 24 A. The quantities. If the test works out, the quantity we 25 are talking about coming from Russia. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 81 1 Q. Well, let me be more specific about this. Has the United 2 States, any spokesperson for the United States Government 3 proposed in connection with the Parallex Project to send 4 fuel rods to any country other than Canada? 5 A. The United States? 6 Q. Right. 7 A. No. 8 Q. Has the Government of Russia proposed, in connection with 9 the Parallex Project, to send fuel rods to any country 10 other than Canada? 11 A. Well, they are talking about massive quantities of weapons 12 grade plutonium being circulated into this program and the 13 independent team of experts by Russia and the United 14 States have made that quite clear they are talking tons of 15 this stuff. 16 Q. Well, again, you didn't answer my question there, 17 Professor. I asked you whether the Russian Government has 18 proposed sending fuel rods to any country other than 19 Canada. Your answer only dealt with volumes, it didn't 20 address where. That was my question. 21 A. Right. There might have been discussions on Germany or 22 some of the European states have there -- there have been 23 discussions and proposals, but it's just at that stage 24 now, yes. 25 Q. But Russia has not, to your knowledge, proposed sending KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 82 1 fuel rods to Korea? 2 A. There is an international market here, sure, it could be 3 sold anywhere. 4 THE COURT: No, he didn't say could have. He 5 said: Did they propose it? 6 THE WITNESS: I have not read that right now 7 Russia is proposing sending this to Korea. 8 BY MR. DODGE: 9 Q. Same question with Taiwan. 10 A. I have not read that Russia is proposing to send this to 11 Taiwan. 12 MR. DODGE: No further questions at this time, 13 Your Honor. 14 THE COURT: We will take a 15-minute recess. 15 COURT CLERK: All rise. 16 This court is in recess. 17 (At 10:54 a.m., recess.) 18 THE COURT: Okay. What is next? 19 MR. LOVE: Brief redirect, Your Honor. 20 REDIRECT EXAMINATION 21 BY MR. LOVE: 22 Q. Professor Boyle, did you receive any recognition or 23 rewards from Bosnia for your efforts on their behalf? 24 A. While I was never paid a penny, but President Izetbegovic 25 and Vice President Gonich (phonetic) held a ceremony at KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 83 1 the Bosnian presidency with a-- awarded me full-fledged 2 citizenship in the Republic, a diplomatic passport and 3 visa and a declaration and they put the ceremony on 4 television, so that was very nice. So technically I'm a 5 Bosnian citizen too. 6 Q. Dr. Boyle, with respect to your work on the Hawaiian 7 independence that Mr. Dodge asked you about, has there 8 been any action by the President or Congress, to your 9 knowledge, with respect to that? 10 A. Yes. In 1993 Congress passed a statute signed into law by 11 President Clinton formally apologizing to the native 12 Hawaiian people for destroying their kingdom and stealing 13 their land. The legislation at the end provides for a 14 process of reconciliation and reparations, and how this is 15 going to be dealt with, and I'm still currently involved 16 in those matters. 17 Q. Dr. Boyle, there should be a document up there marked 18 Plaintiff's Exhibit 13. Do you see that? 19 A. Yes, I have it here. 20 Q. Now, this is entitled a Nonproliferation Arms Control 21 Assessment of Weapons Usable Fissile Material Storage and 22 Excess Plutonium Disposition Alternatives, dated January, 23 1997 authored by the United States Department of Energy, 24 correct? 25 A. Yes. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 84 1 Q. Was this among the documents that you reviewed in 2 preparing your testimony? 3 A. I did not have -- I did not get this entire document until 4 Monday, so I did not have a chance to review the entire 5 document, but I have reviewed the excerpts you gave to 6 me. 7 Q. Now Mr. Dodge asked you-- for the record, Your Honor, the 8 excerpt only contains Pages 106 and 107-- Mr. Dodge asked 9 you about your testimony about the possibility of future 10 shipments of MOX to Taiwan and Korea. Do you remember him 11 asking you about that? 12 A. Yes. 13 THE COURT: He didn't ask what the possibility 14 is, he asked if there were plans by Russia or the United 15 States to ship to those two nations. That was the 16 question. 17 MR. LOVE: Okay. 18 THE COURT: And the answer was no. Not are 19 there possibilities. I know the witness thinks there are 20 possibilities, that won't help me any. I understand 21 that. 22 BY MR. LOVE: 23 Q. In fact, Dr. Boyle is it true that in this document the 24 DOE indicates there are possibilities such as you 25 testified about? KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 85 1 A. Yes. 2 THE COURT: I accept that. You are wasting my 3 time. There are possibilities. 4 BY MR. LOVE: 5 Q. Dr. Boyle, if you would, I direct your attention to the 6 large document that's in front of you. This is 7 Proliferation Venerability Red Team Report, Plaintiff's 8 Exhibit 28, and introduced in the prior hearing. 9 A. Yes, and I read this entire report prior to my testimony 10 here today. 11 Q. I'm going to ask you, if you would, to direct your 12 attention to Page 6-1, the conclusions to that report. 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. And again, this is a document that was produced by Sandia 15 Laboratories for the Department of Energy? 16 A. That is correct. 17 Q. Directing your attention to the first conclusion, under 18 the conclusion, keeping plutonium inaccessible is the key 19 to proliferation resistance, do you see that? 20 A. Yes. It says quite clearly, all plutonium from all stages 21 of all alternatives can be made weapons usable should 22 sufficient material be successfully removed. And I should 23 point out that is the position Congress takes under the 24 Nuclear Nonproliferation Act of '78, the Act of '94 and 25 the '98, all plutonium can be made weapons usable. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 86 1 Q. In your view, is that conclusion by the Sandia Lab in this 2 Red Team Report consistent with your testimony? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. Now, Mr. Dodge asked you if there was transport of 5 plutonium across boundaries all the time. My notes 6 reflected you said yes. Do you remember that testimony? 7 A. I said there was some, yes. 8 Q. Is there routinely transportation of weapons grade 9 plutonium shipped across boundaries all the time by the 10 United States? 11 A. No. No. 12 MR. LOVE: No further questions. 13 MR. DODGE: No recross, Your Honor. 14 THE COURT: You may step down. 15 THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honor. 16 Your Honor, did you have any questions? 17 THE COURT: No, I don't. 18 THE WITNESS: Thank you. 19 THE COURT: You've exceeded your time so I take 20 it you have no more witnesses. 21 MR. LOVE: Your Honor, I have no more witnesses 22 but at this time I would like to move our Exhibit 5, 23 Exhibit 7, Exhibit 11, Exhibit 12, Exhibit 13, Exhibit 14 24 and Plaintiff's Exhibit 2 and Exhibit 1 into evidence. 25 MR. DODGE: No objection, Your Honor. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 87 1 THE COURT: 5, 7, 11, 12, 13 and 14, 1 and 2 are 2 received. 3 MR. LOVE: Thank you, Your Honor. We have 4 nothing further. 5 THE WITNESS: Here are the exhibits. Where do 6 you want them? 7 MR. LOVE: I'll take them here. 8 (Hearing continued; reported, not requested 9 transcribed.) 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 88 1 2 3 4 5 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE 6 7 I, Kathleen S. Thomas, Official Court Reporter for the 8 United States District Court for the Western District of 9 Michigan, appointed pursuant to the provisions of Title 28, 10 United States Code, Section 753, do hereby certify that the 11 foregoing is a true and correct transcript of proceedings had 12 in the within-entitled and numbered cause on the date 13 hereinbefore set forth; and I do further certify that the 14 foregoing transcript has been prepared by me or under my 15 direction. 16 17 18 19 20 __________________________________ 21 Kathleen S. Thomas, CSR, RPR-1300 22 U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue 23 Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 24 25 KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (voice) 217-244-1478 (fax) fboyle at law.uiuc.edu (personal comments only) Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Brussel, Morton K Sent: Monday, November 06, 2017 7:56 PM To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: David Green >; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; Estabrook, Carl G > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] FW: MOX for Bombs in Japan I think this is wrong. MOX fuel is mainly used for fuel in nuclear power reactors, not to make bombs. Japan had/has many nuclear reactors. A fairly intelligible discussion is found in wikipedia, under "MOX nuclear”. —mkb On Nov 6, 2017, at 4:40 PM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss > wrote: This was a very lengthy interview I gave in Japan courtesy of their peace and anti-nuclear movement. It was heavily censored. My basic point was that Japan was using MOX to make bombs and that my best estimate was that Japan probably had as many bombs as PRC, which would be in the area of 500. So when the details of the disaster at Fukushima came out, it was clear to me it was one of their leading bomb complexes. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: globenet at yahoogroups.com [mailto:globenet at yahoogroups.com] Sent: Saturday, March 21, 2015 8:10 AM To: globenet at yahoogroups.com Cc: 'Hiroshi Taka'; 'Gensuikyo'; 'Akira Kawasaki'; oheyeran at yahoogroups.com; asia-pacific_demil_mdg-request at lists.riseup.net; 'Coleen Rowley'; 'Douglas Roche' Subject: [globenet] MOX for Bombs in Japan Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (Voice) 217-244-1478 (Fax) (personal comments only) __._,_.___ ________________________________ Posted by: "Boyle, Francis A" > ________________________________ Reply via web post • Reply to sender • Reply to group • Start a New Topic • Messages in this topic (1) VISIT YOUR GROUP [Yahoo! Groups] • Privacy • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use . __,_._,___ _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brussel at illinois.edu Tue Nov 7 03:13:29 2017 From: brussel at illinois.edu (Brussel, Morton K) Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2017 03:13:29 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: MOX for Bombs in Japan In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5B253921-B91A-4A46-B18B-A94C48E12123@illinois.edu> I don’t know who qualified you as an expert of nuclear reactors and the nature of their fuels, nuclear physics or nuclear chemistry. Your statements belie that qualification. I hope you don’t expect me, or anyone on this list, to read the transcript you presented, but I did scan it and noted nothing in technical detail there about the properties and use of MOX, certainly not for bombs. Sorry, —mkb On Nov 6, 2017, at 8:38 PM, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: Well I have been qualified as an Expert on MOX in United States Federal District Court. And I prohibit my law students from citing Wikipedia to me in any paper and advise them to never cite or quote Wikipedia to a Judge because Wikipedia is filled with so much pure, unadulterated BULL-TWADDLE. Fab. Subject: Nuclear Proliferation/NPT/US Atomic Energy Law/MOX, etc. 1 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 3 SOUTHERN DIVISION 4 5 ALICE HIRT; ANABEL DWYER; CITIZENS FOR ALTERNATIVES 6 TO CHEMICAL CONTAMINATION; KATHRYN CUMBOW; ROBERT 7 ANDERSON; DORIS SCHALLER VERNON; and TERRY MILLER, 8 Plaintiffs, 9 v. CASE NO: 1:99-CV-933 10 BILL RICHARDSON, Secretary, 11 United States Department of Energy; UNITED STATES 12 OF AMERICA; and UNKNOWN PART(Y)(IES), named as 13 "John and Jane Doe" on complaint, 14 Defendants. 15 ____________________________/ 16 * * * * 17 18 TESTIMONY OF GORDON EDWARDS and FRANCIS BOYLE 19 * * * * 20 21 BEFORE: THE HONORABLE RICHARD ALAN ENSLEN United States District Judge 22 Kalamazoo, Michigan April 7, 2000 23 24 25 KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 2 1 APPEARANCES: 2 APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFFS: 3 MR. KARY LOVE 4 977 Butternut Drive PMB 128 5 Holland, Michigan 49424 6 MR. TERRY J. LODGE 316 North Michigan Street, Suite 520 7 Toledo, Ohio 43624-1627 8 APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANTS: 9 MR. ROBERT I. DODGE 10 MR. CHARLES GROSS U.S. Attorney's Office 11 330 Ionia Avenue, N.W., Suite 501 P.O. Box 208 12 Grand Rapids, Michigan 49501-208 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 3 1 INDEX 2 WITNESS: Page 3 GORDON EDWARDS Direct Examination by Mr. Lodge 4 4 Cross Examination by Mr. Dodge 17 Redirect Examination by Mr. Lodge 20 5 6 FRANCIS BOYLE 7 Direct Examination by Mr. Love 21 Cross Examination by Mr. Dodge 67 8 Redirect Examination by Mr. Love 82 9 10 EXHIBITS Rec'd. 11 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 1 87 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 2 87 12 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 3 31 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 5 87 13 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 6 87 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 11 87 14 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 12 87 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 13 87 15 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 14 87 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 4 1 Kalamazoo, Michigan 2 April 7, 2000 3 at approximately 8:50 A.M. 4 EXCERPT OF PROCEEDINGS 5 TESTIMONY OF GORDON EDWARDS 6 MR. LODGE: We waive opening. 7 THE COURT: Okay. Good for you. 8 MR. LODGE: And we would call Gordon Edwards. 9 GORDON EDWARDS - PLAINTIFFS' WITNESS - SWORN. 10 COURT CLERK: Please state and spell your name 11 for the record. 12 THE WITNESS: My name is Gordon Edwards, 13 G-o-r-d-o-n E-d-w-a-r-d-s. 14 DIRECT EXAMINATION 15 BY MR. LODGE: 16 Q. Dr. Edwards, you previously testified in this proceeding 17 in an earlier motion hearing in December, 1999, correct? 18 A. That is correct. 19 Q. And what, just summarize for the Court, to refresh the 20 Court's recollection, what is your occupation or 21 profession? 22 A. I'm a professor of mathematics at Vanier College in 23 Montreal, and I'm also a consultant on nuclear issues for 24 both governmental and nongovernmental agencies. 25 Q. Are you affiliated with any nongovernmental entity in KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 5 1 Canada regarding the purpose of which is to discuss 2 nuclear issues? 3 A. Yes, I'm the president of the Canadian Coalition for 4 Nuclear Responsibility, which is a federally incorporated 5 organization, since 1978. 6 Q. And how long and in what capacities have you served as a 7 consultant on nuclear issues? 8 A. I've served as a consultant since 1977 for a variety of 9 bodies, including Royal Commissions of Inquiry where I 10 have been retained to cross-examine expert witnesses, also 11 the auditor general of Canada when they were doing a 12 comprehensive audit of the Atomic Energy Control Board, 13 and most recently I was invited for January 2000 by the 14 Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs and International 15 Trade to participate in a small expert workshop on nuclear 16 weapons policies in Ottawa. 17 Q. And Dr. Edwards, have you had the occasion to read the 18 environmental assessment promulgated by the Fissile 19 Materials Office of the U.S. Department of Energy for the 20 Parallex Project? 21 A. Yes, I have, and have commented on that as well. 22 Q. We are here today on a proposed shipment of MOX plutonium 23 from Russia to Chalk River, Ontario, you understand that? 24 A. That is correct. 25 Q. What is your understanding as to the amount of the KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 6 1 plutonium content of the MOX fuel rods, pins that would be 2 brought from Russia? 3 A. The MOX fuel contains 135 grams of weapons grade plutonium 4 as compared with the 119 grams that were in the American 5 shipment that proceeded in January. 6 Q. Now, Dr. Edwards, you indicated that the Canadian 7 Coalition was incorporated in approximately 1978? 8 A. That's right. 9 Q. Have you been active in nuclear issues since that time? 10 A. Even before that time, yes. I have been active 11 specifically on proliferation questions and 12 plutonium-related questions since 1975. 13 MR. LODGE: If I may approach. 14 THE COURT: Of course. 15 BY MR. LODGE: 16 Q. Showing you what has been marked for purposes of the 17 supplemental motion hearing as Plaintiff's Exhibit 1, I'm 18 going to also leave Exhibit 2 up here. 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. Have you ever conducted any investigation into the issue 21 of civilian population or work exposures to plutonium? 22 A. Only at the level of potential for damage, potential for 23 harm. 24 Q. What is Exhibit 1? 25 A. Exhibit 1 is a letter from Mary Measures, Ph.D., Director KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 7 1 of the Radiation Environmental Protection Division of the 2 Atomic Energy Control Board of Canada dealing with 3 quantity of plutonium that an atomic radiation worker or a 4 member of the public may inhale to reach their respective 5 maximum limits. 6 Q. And the date of that is September 30, 1999? 7 A. That is correct, about six months ago. 8 Q. And could you summarize what the inhalation, or what the 9 limits are for both workers and for public? 10 A. Yes. The maximum lifetime limit of exposure in the lung 11 for an atomic worker is approximately 1.4 micrograms, and 12 for the member of the public it's 0.1 microgram, and a 13 microgram being one one-millionth of a gram, so if we 14 translate this into grams, it would mean 1.4 grams would 15 be equivalent-- would be enough to give maximum 16 permissible doses to one million workers and ten -- one 17 gram would be enough to give maximum permissible doses to 18 ten million members of the general public. That's just 19 potential. 20 Q. Okay. And is that based on the -- or, I'm sorry. Have 21 you had occasion in connection with the proposed Russian 22 shipment of a 135 grams of plutonium and the American 23 shipment of 119 grams, to perform any computations as to 24 what the potential dispersion or exposure is? 25 A. Well, I would like to emphasize this is just arithmetic KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 8 1 and does not take into account dispersion factors such as 2 wind velocity, any respiration rates, and so on. If we 3 just look at the theoretical potential, then with 119 4 grams, we are talking about the potential for 85 million 5 atomic workers to receive their maximum permissible 6 exposure, if that were able to be disseminated into all of 7 their lungs and 1,000,190,000 members of the general 8 public, so even though this is a very small amount of 9 plutonium, the potential for exposure, harmful exposure is 10 quite significant. 11 Q. All right. But so that implies you would have to have an 12 optimal dispersal? 13 A. This would be an impossibly optimal dispersal. This would 14 be assuming that the plutonium were distributed fully into 15 the lungs of all the people that I've mentioned. 16 Q. Are you aware of whether or not the American shipment was 17 delivered to Chalk River? 18 A. Yes, the American shipment was delivered to Chalk River. 19 It was taken to the border in what I believe was an SST, a 20 truck which was described as silver, and I believe it was 21 probably an SST, although I do not know for absolute 22 certainty about that, and then it was transported to the 23 Sault Ste. Marie airport where it was lifted by helicopter 24 accompanied by two other helicopters, and transported from 25 there to Chalk River. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 9 1 Q. You indicated that you were talking about an impossibly 2 optimal dispersal. Have you had the occasion to perform 3 any computations as to a very conservative prudent factor 4 to start with for dispersal? 5 A. Well, this is beyond my competence to really talk about 6 the details of how it might be dispersed, but if we just 7 assume for example 99.9 percent containment in the event 8 of a serious accident. 9 Q. Are you saying how much? 10 A. Suppose 99.9 percent of the material were successfully 11 contained and not disseminated in the environment and only 12 that small fraction was disseminated. 13 Q. Okay. 14 A. The potential again would correspond to, for atomic 15 workers in the case of the 119 gram shipment from the 16 States, it would be 85,000 maximum exposures and in the 17 case of the public, it would still over a million. Even 18 with 99.9 containment, in the event of an accident, you 19 still have the potential for over a million 20 overexposures. By the way, the 135 grams, the difference 21 between the 119 grams and the 135 grams from Russia 22 corresponds to potentially again 160,000 additional 23 maximum exposures for members of the public. 24 Q. How many for workers? 25 A. 11,428. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 10 1 Q. That's just -- 2 A. That's just the differential between the two shipments, 3 just the added, going from 119 to 135 adds the potential 4 for another 11,000 worker overexposures or 160,000 public 5 overexposures. This, I believe, is why authorities take 6 such great care to emphasize the packaging in transport. 7 They realize that the potential is great for damage. 8 Q. Do your computations reflect an assumption respecting 9 whether or not the dispersion occurs as a result of an 10 accident or an attack? 11 A. No, we are talking about theoretical potential which is 12 the same regardless of how much or whether the material is 13 dispersed. In an accident, for example, we have 14 previously seen accidents that were analyzed for ground 15 transportation. I have not seen any computations or 16 analysis of accidents for air transport either from the 17 American side or from the Canadian side. 18 Q. Are you talking with respect to Parallex? 19 A. I'm talking with respect to Parallex. 20 If you had, for example, a violent crash and 21 fire of an aircraft, including a helicopter, then the 22 dispersal would cause a plume downwind, could cause a 23 plume downwind, and how much of that plutonium would 24 escape would be subject to analysis which is not, to my 25 knowledge, been performed. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 11 1 Q. Dr. Edwards, do you consider the plutonium in MOX fuel 2 form to be a weapons component? 3 A. Well, in the case of the Parallex project, as you know, 4 this 119 grams or 135 grams, there is not enough there to 5 make an atomic bomb. However, it has long been known that 6 you can make a very damaging radiological explosive device 7 which would simply disperse the plutonium in breathable 8 form. That means that if the plutonium were acquired by a 9 criminal organization or terrorist group they could make 10 an incendiary device which would make this available to be 11 breathed by members of the public and also cause very 12 long-lasting contamination of the environs where this 13 exposure would take place. I believe that it would be 14 incorrect to say that these, even this small Parallex 15 shipment, would not be attractive to terrorists or to 16 criminal organizations as a top -- as a target for theft 17 or diversion. It is true, of course, that this is weapons 18 grade material and had one, if one had sufficient weapons 19 grade material, one indeed can make a very powerful atomic 20 bomb from that. 21 Q. Have you seen any literature or other information in or 22 out of the record of this case that discusses the weapons 23 potential for plutonium? 24 A. Well, yes, it's certainly common knowledge that the -- in 25 fact, the U.S. Department of Energy acknowledges as much KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 12 1 when they refer to the Russian plutonium, the Russian 2 weapons grade plutonium is continuing a clear and present 3 danger. It's long been known and recognized that 4 plutonium is the key ingredient of atomic weapons, so if 5 one talks about components of atomic weapons, the 6 plutonium is the essential component. Once you have the 7 plutonium, then you can acquire the other materials on the 8 open market that are necessary to build a bomb. 9 Q. How do you know that? 10 A. Well, it's been well known for a long time. For instance, 11 there was a study done, published in the Harvard Civil 12 Rights and Civil Liberties Law Review -- I could make that 13 available to the Court, if you would like -- in 1975 as 14 long ago as then, which says, "Since all the material 15 other than plutonium needed to build a bomb is available 16 from commercial hardware and chemical suppliers, the 17 present obstacle to the private construction of nuclear 18 weapons is the unavailability of plutonium." 19 But if we just turn to the study that was 20 commissioned and already on file, I believe, here at the 21 Court, a study that was commissioned by the Office of 22 Fissile Materials Management called the Red Team Report, 23 the Red Team Proliferation Vulnerability Report. 24 In their conclusions on Page 6-1, they have a 25 heading called Keeping Plutonium Inaccessible is the Key KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 13 1 to Proliferation Resistance. So what is basically being 2 said here is plutonium is not just a component but the key 3 component of atomic bombs particularly in the context of 4 illicit groups. 5 Q. Dr. Edwards, could you explain for us Canada's role in the 6 reprocessing of plutonium? 7 A. Well, Canada's role in plutonium goes back to the World 8 War II Atomic Bomb Project. We had a secret laboratory in 9 Montreal which was manned by British, French and Canadian 10 scientists dedicated to developing methods for producing 11 and separating plutonium for weapons purposes as well as 12 civilian purposes, because even then it was anticipated 13 plutonium would have some civilian value. At the end of 14 the war -- incidentally, the first reactor in Canada was 15 built according to a military decision taken in 16 Washington, D.C. in 1944, to demonstrate this potential. 17 The reactor called the NRX reactor was built at 18 Chalk River and a plutonium reprocessing plant was built 19 as well. Plutonium was separated and Britain received its 20 first sample of weapons grade plutonium from Canada from 21 Chalk River just months before their first atomic test. 22 There was also an illicit transfer of plutonium 23 from Chalk River to Russia, which was so the first samples 24 of plutonium that both Britain and Russia received were 25 from Chalk River. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 14 1 Since that time, Canada, of course, has taken a 2 policy decision not to pursue a nuclear weapons option 3 itself, but they have, however, looked favorably on the 4 idea of reprocessing plutonium for civilian purposes. 5 They do not have a policy which is against the 6 reprocessing of plutonium in principle and nor do they 7 discourage their clients, their customers overseas from 8 reprocessing plutonium. And in fact, in Canada, there is 9 an open door policy towards reprocessing as a future 10 option. 11 We just concluded recently a ten-year 12 environmental assessment of the problem of high-level 13 radioactive waste disposal, and in all of the documents it 14 begins by saying, in the very first paragraphs, that by 15 nuclear waste disposal, we mean either spent fuel or 16 post-reprocessing waste. So this is very much a 17 theoretical opening and a policy opening for Canada to use 18 plutonium as a fuel. 19 Q. Showing you what has been marked as Supplemental Motion 20 Exhibit 2, can you identify that for the Court, please? 21 A. Yes. This appears to be an exchange from the British 22 Parliament, questions and answers having to do with 23 nuclear fuel, and the Secretary of State for Trade and 24 Industry is being asked about quantities of spent fuel 25 from Canada that have been contracted for reprocessing at KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 15 1 Cello Field in England. 2 Q. And can you summarize your understanding of what the 3 response by the British Government was? 4 A. Yes. The response here is that a certain amount of 5 plutonium, a certain amount of spent fuel from Canada has 6 been reprocessed beginning in 1970, and that the plutonium 7 has been returned to Canada. I have personal knowledge of 8 the fact that at Chalk River they have maintained a pilot 9 plutonium fuel fabrication line since the 1970s, since 10 1970 and before, and that they have processed at Chalk 11 River approximately three tons, more than three tons of 12 MOX fuel from recycled civilian plutonium. This is part 13 of that, the plutonium that is here being referred to as 14 being recycled or reprocessed in Britain, that's part of 15 the total amount of plutonium that Canada has acquired for 16 the purposes of MOX fabrication. 17 I mentioned that Canada also does not discourage 18 client customers from reprocessing. This is in 19 distinction to the American policy. The American policy, 20 since the Carter administration, successive 21 administrations have maintained the policy of not only not 22 allowing reprocessing in the United States, but also 23 discouraging reprocessing in other countries insofar as 24 that is possible. Canada does not share this policy 25 completely. We do not reprocess in Canada but, on the KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 16 1 other hand, we don't hesitate, it seems, to send our spent 2 fuel to other countries to get reprocessed so that we can 3 develop expertise in plutonium recycling. 4 Q. Does Canada have any relationship with the nation of Japan 5 respecting nuclear material? 6 A. Yes. Canada, as is probably known to the Court, is the 7 world's largest exporter of uranium. We are one of the 8 world's largest producers of uranium and the world's 9 largest exporter of uranium. We have bilateral agreements 10 with our customers as to the use of that uranium. Of 11 course, we have requirements that that uranium not be used 12 for military purposes. If a client customer such as Japan 13 who buys a good deal -- Japan purchases a good deal of 14 uranium from Canada. If a client customer wishes to 15 reprocess their spent fuel to recover plutonium, they do 16 have to get prior permission from the Government of 17 Canada, so when plutonium is reprocessed for the Japanese, 18 in the case where uranium from Canada is involved, the 19 Canadian Government gives their permission for that. 20 Q. Even if it is offshore from Canada? 21 A. Yes. 22 MR. LODGE: Thank you. I have nothing further. 23 THE WITNESS: Thank you. 24 Sorry. 25 MR. LODGE: Yes? KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 17 1 THE WITNESS: Excuse me. 2 MR. DODGE: Not quite finished, Dr. Edwards. 3 THE WITNESS: You knew the time was short. I 4 was jumping the gun a little. 5 CROSS EXAMINATION 6 BY MR. DODGE: 7 Q. Good morning, Mr. Edwards. My name is Bob Dodge. We have 8 met once before back in December. 9 A. That's right. 10 Q. Just a few questions. You testified about the quantity of 11 plutonium that would be included in the Russian shipment. 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. Do you recall that? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. You testified that it was 135 grams? 16 A. That's what was announced, yes. 17 Q. And how many ounces is that? 18 A. How many ounces is that? 19 Q. Yes. 20 A. I don't think in terms of ounces. I have to do the 21 conversion. 22 Q. Can you do the conversion? 23 A. I don't have the -- 24 Q. If I told you that one ounce is 28 grams, does that sound 25 about right? KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 18 1 A. I have no reason to doubt it. We are on the metric system 2 in Canada, we don't use ounces anymore. 3 Q. I understand. If I estimated 135 grams was approximately 4 five ounces, would you quarrel with that? 5 A. I would have no reason to quarrel with that. 6 Q. Now, you also testified about the amount of plutonium that 7 would have to be inhaled in order to exceed the maximum 8 permissible dose under Canadian regulations? 9 A. That is correct. 10 Q. And in your testimony, as I understood it, the assumption 11 you were making was that every single molecule of 12 plutonium that was in that sample would end up in 13 somebody's lungs; is that right? 14 A. That's right. It's calculating the theoretical 15 potential. It is not talking about a realistic scenario. 16 Q. Not only would all of the plutonium have to end up in 17 someone's lungs, but the plutonium would have to be evenly 18 divided so that each person got exactly the same amount of 19 plutonium, it's not all concentrated in one person, you 20 would have to take one-millionths of the sample, put it in 21 one person's lungs and put the next one-millionth in the 22 next person's lungs and so on? 23 A. That is correct. 24 Q. Do you have any idea, if you performed the same analysis 25 on this table, what sort of toxicity numbers you would KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 19 1 get? 2 A. I have no idea of what that would be, no. 3 Q. Now you also talked about Canada's policies regarding 4 plutonium reprocessing. 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. Do you recall that? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. Do you have any understanding of whether the plutonium in 9 the Parallex MOX samples will or will not be reprocessed 10 in Canada? 11 A. It will-- to the best of my knowledge, it will not be 12 reprocessed in Canada, although that option apparently is 13 not decided. 14 Q. What is the basis for that last? 15 A. Because Canada has a policy that at sometime in the future 16 they may reprocess. 17 Q. Do you have any understanding whether there is an 18 understanding between the Government of Canada and the 19 Government of United States or the Government of Russia as 20 to whether these particular samples will or will not be 21 reprocessed? 22 A. I do not, no. 23 MR. DODGE: Thank you very much. 24 25 REDIRECT EXAMINATION KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 20 1 BY MR. LODGE: 2 Q. Dr. Edwards, the House of Commons question and answer, do 3 you know of any particular statistics on Canada's shipping 4 of spent fuel to British nuclear fields and fuels at Cello 5 Field? 6 A. I don't have those figures with me, I'm sorry. I could 7 supply them to the Court, if desired. I do have some 8 figures at my office at home, I don't have them here. But 9 we are talking -- if we are talking about three tons of 10 MOX being fabricated at Chalk River, then one could work 11 out approximately how much of that would contain 12 plutonium, how much plutonium would be contained assuming, 13 for example, three percent. 14 Q. Right. 15 A. And then one could reasonably suppose that the lion's 16 share of that would come from Cello Field. Now I have 17 figures on shipments from Cello Field, but I don't have 18 them here. 19 Q. My question is: Would you presume that the Atomic Energy 20 Control Board of Canada, or AECL of Canada, would make 21 public the fact that the spent MOX from Parallex were 22 being shipped to Britain for reprocessing? Would you 23 presume that would become public knowledge? 24 A. No, I would not assume anything related to plutonium would 25 become public knowledge in Canada. Canada has a very KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 21 1 non-public attitude toward plutonium dealings. In fact, 2 the existing plutonium dealings in Canada including the 3 BNFL contracts is not public knowledge other than as it 4 has been raised in foreign countries such as in Britain or 5 by documents that have been leaked to nongovernmental 6 organizations. This is not something which Atomic Energy 7 of Canada Limited makes public. 8 MR. LODGE: Thank you. 9 MR. DODGE: No recross, Your Honor. 10 THE COURT: You may step down, Dr. Edwards. 11 Thank you. 12 MR. LOVE: Your Honor, if it please the Court, 13 the Plaintiffs would call Francis Boyle to the stand 14 FRANCIS BOYLE - PLAINTIFFS' WITNESS - SWORN 15 COURT CLERK: Please be seated and state and 16 spell your name for the record. 17 THE WITNESS: My name is Francis Boyle. 18 F-r-a-n-c-i-s B-o-y-l-e. 19 DIRECT EXAMINATION 20 BY MR. LOVE: 21 Q. Dr. Boyle, are you currently employed? 22 A. Yes, I am a professor of international law at the 23 University of Illinois College of Law in Champaign. 24 Q. How long have you been employed in that capacity? 25 A. 1978. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 22 1 MR. LOVE: Your Honor, may I approach the 2 witness? 3 BY MR. LOVE: 4 Q. Dr. Boyle, I'm showing you what has been marked as 5 Supplemental Preliminary Injunction Hearing Plaintiffs' 6 Exhibit 3 and ask you if you can identify that document. 7 A. It's a copy of my professional resume. 8 Q. Was this resume prepared at or under your direction? 9 A. Yes. I think it's current as of January 28th, 1999. I've 10 been kind of busy in the last year, haven't revised it. 11 Q. To the extent it's current through that date, does that 12 accurately reflect your experience, education, seminars 13 that you participated in, and articles that you've 14 authored? 15 A. Not seminars I've participated in, that would be too many 16 but, you know, the essence of my professional career and 17 articles-- significant teaching, consulting, practice. 18 I'm also a licensed attorney as well. 19 Q. If you would, give us a brief recitation of your 20 educational background? 21 A. I attended the University of Chicago where I studied 22 international relations with Professor Hans Morganthal who 23 is the mentor of Dr. Henry Kissinger at Harvard. I was 24 one of seven students in my class elected to Phi Beta 25 Kappa as a junior. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 23 1 I also did work in mathematical biology, winning 2 the award for the work I did in that area by the world's 3 leading geneticist now at Harvard. 4 I graduated in three years. From there I went 5 to Harvard Law School. I have a J.D. Magna Cum Laude from 6 Harvard Law School specializing in international law. 7 I also entered the Graduate School of Arts and 8 Sciences at Harvard in the Department of Government. I 9 have a Master's degree and a Ph.D. in political science 10 specializing in international relations, international 11 politics. This is the same Ph.D. program that produced 12 Henry Kissinger, Zabanya Brezenski (phonetic) and other 13 high level U.S. Government officials. 14 I was at the Harvard Center for International 15 Affairs for two years. Kissinger and Brezenski had been 16 there before me. 17 I spent two years teaching in the Harvard 18 College undergraduates international law organizations, 19 human rights. I practiced law with a Boston law firm for 20 a year at Bingham, Dana and Gould, where I did 21 international tax, and tax, and then finally in 1978 I 22 came to the University of Illinois. I went up for tenure 23 at the beginning of my third year, which I got, and I've 24 been tenured there since, you know, many years. 25 Q. Since undertaking your position at University of Illinois, KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 24 1 have you specialized in any area with respect to 2 particular research, writing and international law? 3 A. Well, for the purpose of our proceedings today, yes. I 4 have been specializing an enormous amount on the nuclear 5 weapons, nuclear weapons policy, proliferation, arms 6 control. Going back to my studies with Professor 7 Morganthal 30 years ago so I've been involved in these 8 issues starting as a student since 1969 and continuously 9 until today. 10 THE WITNESS: Sorry, Your Honor, I have a bit of 11 laryngitis. 12 THE COURT: That's fine, no problem. 13 BY MR. LOVE: 14 Q. Dr. Boyle, if you would direct your attention to your 15 resume, I would like to touch on a few seminal points. On 16 the first page under teaching, the third entry down talks 17 about being a lecturer in Nuclear Weapons and 18 International Law, 21st Senior Conference on Nuclear 19 Deterrence at U.S. Military Academy at West Point in 20 1983. 21 A. Yes. This is a high level seminar run by the Pentagon, 22 not for the cadets, but for about 200 of the highest level 23 officials of the United States Government dealing with 24 nuclear weapons proliferation, nuclear weapons policies, 25 and I was asked to lecture to this conference, and I won't KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 25 1 go through all the high level officials there, but sitting 2 right in front of me for my lecture was the three star 3 general in charge of war operations at the Pentagon, at 4 that time General Mahaffey. And I also note I had read 5 the independent expert's report on the MOX program 6 U.S./Russia of 1977, one of the U.S. independent experts, 7 Richard Garwin was there with me and he was also a 8 lecturer with me to this group, so I do know that Garwin 9 was involved in the Parallex MOX recommendations. 10 Q. With respect to the second to the last entry on Page 1 of 11 Exhibit 3, talks about "Lecture Tour of the Soviet Union 12 on Nuclear Weapons and International Law for Lawyers' 13 Committee on Nuclear Policy and Association of Soviet 14 Lawyers" in 1986. What was involved with that? 15 A. Yes. The former Soviet Union, their equivalent to the 16 American Bar Association was the Association of Soviet 17 Lawyers, and in conjunction with the Lawyers' Committee on 18 Nuclear Policy headquartered here, they decided to invite 19 one professor to go over to the Soviet Union and lecture 20 around the country for two weeks on various issues related 21 to nuclear weapons and international law, and both 22 organizations selected me for this purpose, so I went over 23 for two weeks and gave several lectures per day, Moscow, 24 Leningrad, Kiev to professors, lawyers, peace people, 25 whoever, news media on various aspects of nuclear weapons KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 26 1 targeting doctrine as they relate to international law 2 and, in general, nuclear policies. 3 Q. If you would direct your attention, Dr. Boyle, to Page 2 4 under Practice, fifth entry down it says "Author, 5 Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989, Public Law 6 Number 101-298 (1990) (adopted unanimously by both Houses 7 of Congress)," could you explain what that means, please? 8 A. Yes. Your Honor, we are dealing here with a treaty, the 9 Nuclear Proliferation Treaty-- Nonproliferation Treaty of 10 1968. That treaty has been implemented by Congress in the 11 Nuclear Nonproliferation Act of 1978, the Nuclear 12 Proliferation Prevention Act of 1994 and also recent 13 amendments in 1998 to deal with the India/Pakistan 14 explosions. I have direct personal experience on how you 15 take a treaty, an international treaty, and implement it 16 as a matter of United States Constitutional law by working 17 with Congress. 18 The Biological Weapons Convention of 1972 is a 19 treaty that is a total, not only arms control reduction 20 and elimination treaty for biological weapons, I gave a 21 lecture on Capitol Hill calling for legislation, domestic 22 legislation to implement this treaty, and this 23 recommendation was taken up by a group I work for called 24 the Council of Responsible Genetics. I'm on their 25 Advisory Board. I also serve as counsel to them, so KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 27 1 pursuant to their request, I drafted the implementing 2 legislation, I authored it, how to implement this treaty. 3 And then we took it to members of the House and the Senate 4 and we shepherded it through the entire process dealing 5 with members of Congress, both Houses, including testimony 6 I prepared. At that point in time, the Reagan 7 administration was opposed to this implementing 8 legislation. I had to deal personally with their position 9 papers against it refuting these things. 10 Finally there was a change of policy when 11 President Bush came into office, to his credit, and they 12 supported the legislation. It finally was approved 13 unanimously by both Houses of Congress and signed into law 14 by President Bush in 1989. This legislation was called 15 the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989. It was 16 later amended in the anti-terrorism and effect Death 17 Penalty Act of 1996. 18 I thought I had drafted the most draconian piece 19 of legislation you could possibly imagine on biological 20 weapons, but there is always a loophole, Your Honor, so 21 Congress revisited this in 1996 to close some of the 22 loopholes that had not been apparent to me and the 23 scientists I worked with back in 19, starting in from '85 24 to about 1989. So I just cite this as having direct 25 personal experience with relationship between arms control KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 28 1 treatise, reduction treatise and then how they are 2 implemented by Congress. I have done this myself. On 3 biological weapons and I'm still involved in that issue. 4 Obviously, I have not been involved in the 5 drafting of the implementing legislation for the Nuclear 6 Proliferation Treaty of 1968, there are three pieces, but 7 I have read and reviewed the implementing legislation. I 8 have an understanding how they relate to the 9 Nonproliferation Treaty and I also teach a course on this 10 subject, that is how international laws related to the 11 United States Constitution is implemented by Congress and 12 also carried out in the courts. I teach an entire course 13 just devoted to this subject. 14 Q. Dr. Boyle, you've had some experience practicing before 15 what was known formerly as the International Court of 16 Justice but currently the World Court; is that correct? 17 A. Yes, I have. 18 Q. Could you relate to the Court a summary of that 19 experience? 20 A. Well, I've advised governments with respect to either 21 actual or potential World Court litigation, some of that 22 is still attorney/client confidence that I'm not prepared 23 to discuss. What I am prepared to discuss are those 24 matters that are in the public record. 25 I did serve as counsel to Libya on the Lockerbie KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 29 1 bombing case. It was my recommendation the-- 2 unfortunately President Bush had about the sixth fleet 3 mobilized off the coast of Libya and was about to bomb 4 Libya that we filed a lawsuit at the World Court to stop 5 the bombing. We filed a lawsuit, Libya was not bombed. 6 Later on, I was General Agent for the Republic 7 in Bosnia of Herzegovina before the International Court of 8 Justice. In other words, I was their first ambassador to 9 the World Court for the Republic of Bosnia, Herzegovina, 10 and I sued Yugoslavia for committing genocide against the 11 Bosnian people. I won two cease and desist orders 12 overwhelmingly in favor of Bosnia against Yugoslavia. 13 Later on, I publicly advised -- I advised the 14 Bosnian Government to sue Britain for aiding and abetting 15 genocide against Bosnia, and President Izetbegovic 16 instructed me to sue Britain for a genocide against 17 Bosnia. That lawsuit was terminated under duress, 18 threatened them, so they withdrew from those proceedings. 19 Q. Dr. Boyle, with respect to your writings, if you would 20 direct your attention to Page 3 of Exhibit 3, the last two 21 entries at the bottom -- excuse me, the second to last 22 entries entitled Nuclear Weapons and International Law: 23 The Arms Control Dimensions, do you see that? 24 A. Yes. This was the lecture I gave to the West Point 25 Military Academy senior conference proceedings, which they KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 30 1 did publish in their proceedings at West Point, and 2 actually under my books, I've just completed work on my 3 sixth book, which is entitled Nuclear Deterrence and 4 International Law. And right now it is sitting at Pluto 5 Press -- I guess that's appropriate for today's 6 proceedings -- Pluto Press in Britain. They have 7 expressed an interest in publishing it. They are 8 currently evaluating it. I do not have a contract on that 9 book, but I did get the e-mail just before I came here, so 10 I'll have to deal with that when I go back. 11 Q. With respect to your other publications, Dr. Boyle, I note 12 that on Page 4 you've got one entitled, about halfway 13 down, The Relevance of International Law to the "Paradox" 14 of Nuclear Deterrence. 15 A. That is correct. 16 Q. Can you tell us briefly what the subject matter is? 17 A. After I made the lecture at West Point, obviously the U.S. 18 military officials and others, we had a fairly vigorous 19 debate, let me put it that way. And that vigorous debate 20 between myself and these others led to this article that 21 was later published here in the United States and also 22 translated into Dutch, because the Dutch lawyers wanted it 23 to be available as part of the debate in Holland over the 24 deployment of the U.S. intermediate nuclear forces under 25 the Reagan administration, so they translated the whole KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 31 1 thing into Dutch and it was published in the Netherlands. 2 MR. LOVE: Your Honor, I have no further 3 questions of Dr. Boyle with respect to qualifications, and 4 I tender him for voir dire to the U.S. Attorney's Office 5 subject to my motion to admit Plaintiff's Exhibit 3 into 6 evidence. 7 MR. DODGE: I have no objection to the admission 8 of the C.V. 9 THE COURT: Exhibit 3? 10 MR. DODGE: Exhibit 3. 11 THE COURT: You have no voir dire questions to 12 ask either? 13 MR. DODGE: Not with respect to that exhibit. I 14 may get into the resume on the cross. 15 THE COURT: That's fair enough. 16 Exhibit 3 is received. 17 MR. DODGE: Thank you, your Honor. 18 BY MR. LOVE: 19 Q. Dr. Boyle, in preparing for your testimony here today, 20 could you please outline for the Court -- I think you have 21 done so somewhat already -- some of the documents that you 22 reviewed and the source materials you looked at in 23 preparing your testimony today? 24 A. I have a pretty detailed knowledge about these things 25 generally. For example, when the Nuclear Nonproliferation KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 32 1 Act first came out in 1978, I did read it, but in 2 preparation for this testimony today, I've gone back and 3 read the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, the Nuclear 4 Nonproliferation Act, the Nuclear Proliferation Prevention 5 Act of 1994, the 1998 amendments. I have read a large 6 quantity of documents produced by the Department of Energy 7 on the Parallex Project. I have read the Environmental 8 Assessment dealing with the aspects of international 9 environmental law that have not been dealt with in the 10 Environmental Assessment, in my opinion, should have been 11 dealt with the Stockholm Declaration, which is not there, 12 and the World Court Advisory Opinion on 1996, I have an 13 article on it that. I didn't go back and read the whole 14 advisory opinion, but I reread the portions of the 15 article, and other scholarly sources that deal with this 16 question. There are other sources I did not have a chance 17 to review not directly related to proliferation per se. 18 But for example, in my opinion the EA should 19 have dealt with the UN Convention on the Law of the Seas. 20 It's not in there. There's been nuclear accidents 21 convention, it's not dealt with in there. There is the 22 Bowel convention on the International Transportation of 23 Hazardous Substance and Toxic Materials, that's not in 24 there. I identified those as further sources that should 25 be analyzed in my opinion, but I haven't had a chance to KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 33 1 go back and review all of those sources. 2 Q. Dr. Boyle, did the types of materials that you've just 3 identified for the Court, are these the types of materials 4 that in your experience are relied upon by experts in the 5 field of international law in forming opinions as to the 6 legitimacy of governmental actions under internationally? 7 A. Yes. I also have experience reading environmental impact 8 statements. When the Pentagon produced the DEIS or the 9 biological defense research program, the Council for 10 Responsible Genetics asked me to evaluate this entire 11 thing -- it was an enormous document -- and submit formal 12 comments on it to the Pentagon, which I did do and they 13 did respond to. So this is the type of sources that 14 experts in my field would normally look at and review in 15 forming an opinion about Government behavior, and I have 16 done this before with respect to biological weapons. 17 Q. Dr. Boyle, I'm going to show you what has been marked for 18 identification as Plaintiff's Exhibit 4. Ask you to take 19 a moment to look at that and let me know when you've had a 20 chance to do so, please. 21 A. Yes. This is the treaty on the nonproliferation of 22 nuclear weapons, and as I've said, it has also been 23 implemented by Congress on the Nuclear Nonproliferation 24 Act of 1978, the Nuclear Proliferation Prevention Act of 25 1994 and also 1998 amendments. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 34 1 The critical point to keep in mind about this 2 treaty, Your Honor, is that Congress has passed 3 legislation expressing its understanding of what this 4 treaty means and what our obligations are under this 5 treaty. And this legislation is binding on the Department 6 of Energy, on the President, on the Department of State 7 and respectfully, Your Honor, on this Court. And what we 8 see, when you read through it all, is Congress has 9 decided, and prior to that the Atomic Energy Act as well, 10 that nuclear power, nuclear weapons, nuclear proliferation 11 is so important to the American people and our republic, 12 that they have decided to engage in micro management of 13 everything related to this subject and have pretty much, I 14 would not say completely eliminated, but whittled down 15 substantially any discretion that the executive branch 16 might have in this area. I have, as I said, I did read 17 the NPA back in 1978, but when you add in everything else, 18 what surprised me was how little discretion was left to 19 the executive branch with respect to nuclear 20 proliferation, nuclear weapons. In this area, they have 21 very little discretion. 22 Q. Professor Boyle, if you could, can you explain to the 23 Court what the implications are for Canada, Russia and the 24 United States under the Nonproliferation Treaty? 25 A. Well, my reading of both the treaty and in light of the KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 35 1 Department of Energy documents describing Parallex and 2 MOX, the Red Team report, many other documents that I've 3 read, in my opinion, there are serious problems, 4 compliance problems for this entire project under Articles 5 I, II and III of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty as 6 interpreted by the United States Congress. 7 The Article I deals with the obligations of the 8 United States and Russia. Each nuclear weapons State 9 Party to the Treaty, i.e. U.S. and Russia, undertakes not 10 to transfer to any recipient whatsoever, i.e. Canada, 11 nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices, and we 12 have a problem here in that Congress has interpreted this 13 to mean components of nuclear weapons or nuclear explosive 14 devices; that is, Congress simply does not interpret this 15 to mean you can't hand over a bomb, but a component for a 16 bomb is prohibited. And here we are dealing with weapons 17 grade plutonium, which Dr. Edwards has already testified 18 can be and indeed is, in his opinion, a component for 19 either a nuclear weapon or a nuclear explosive device. 20 Okay? 21 So when you read the treaty in light of the 22 statutory scheme, in my opinion, there are serious 23 compliance problems here with Article I, which have not 24 been addressed in the EA. The DOE has not dealt with any 25 of these problems at all in the EA, indeed, they have KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 36 1 basically said in one of their comments "Well, once we 2 give it to Canada, it's their problem," and that just is 3 an incorrect statement, in my opinion. 4 And it says "directly or indirectly," which 5 means also we, the United States, directly or indirectly 6 by encouraging and paying for the Russians to do this, you 7 see. So we are accountable for the Russian behavior 8 because we are working with them. And indeed, if we were 9 sued at the International Court of Justice -- let's 10 suppose something went wrong, Your Honor, and there was, 11 as Dr. Edwards testified, an aerial explosion in the 12 latest helicopter shipment and radiological dispersal of 13 plutonium that came across the border, killing Americans, 14 killing Canadians, others, if we were sued in World Court 15 over this, we would be found both jointly and severally 16 liable with Russia, with Canada, for any accident. 17 Likewise, this is followed up by both shipments on the 18 high seas of the plutonium. If there is an accident on 19 high seas, we could be sued at the World Court, the United 20 States, both ourselves and jointly and severally with 21 Russia and Canada over any accident here that might 22 happen. And that substantive liability could be based on 23 the U.N. Law of the Sea Convention. As I said, Your 24 Honor, I haven't had time to go through the environmental 25 provision of the Law of the Sea Convention, the Department KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 37 1 of Energy didn't even bother, and in the EA they did not 2 look at this at all. They did not consider this, but it 3 certainly is something that has to be considered, that 4 they haven't looked at. 5 And then "not in any way to assist, encourage or 6 induce any non-nuclear weapon State to manufacture or 7 otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear 8 explosive devices." Well, the problem here is Canada is 9 supposed to be a non-nuclear weapons state and says 10 "otherwise acquired nuclear explosive devices." Well, we 11 are giving them weapons grade plutonium, which again 12 Dr. Edwards has testified, and he is Canadian, is a 13 component of a nuclear weapons or nuclear explosive 14 device. And again, "or control over such weapons or 15 explosive devices." We are giving them weapons grade 16 plutonium. And if you look at how Congress has 17 interpreted this, they interpret it down to components, 18 they even talk about substances that they are trying to 19 regulate everything, and understand the 1978 legislation 20 was a very strict interpretation of what this treaty means 21 as far as the United States Government is concerned. And 22 I think we really need a comprehensive assessment here by 23 the Department of Energy as to whether or not any of these 24 transfers is consistent with Article I. Under the current 25 circumstances, they haven't bothered to look at any of the KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 38 1 terms as defined by Congress, the applicability of the 2 Congressional legislation to the transfers. 3 Likewise, Article II, Your Honor, Article II 4 deals with the Canadian obligations, "Each 5 non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes 6 not to receive the transfer from any transferor whatsoever 7 of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices." 8 Again, the same analysis here needs to be done. This 9 weapons grade plutonium, in my opinion and Dr. Edwards' 10 opinion, is clearly a component of either a nuclear weapon 11 or nuclear explosive device. And Canada, according to 12 this language, has agreed not to receive this material. 13 And by the way, as Dr. Edwards correctly pointed out, Your 14 Honor, this was consistent United States policy, stopping 15 proliferation of this type of material for any reason 16 going back to the Carter administration. We are seeing a 17 major dramatic change here in United States 18 nonproliferation policy, and that policy, Your Honor, 19 going back to the Carter administration, is enshrined in 20 law by Congress in the Nuclear Nonproliferation Act of 21 1978. So again, in my opinion, I believe these issues 22 likewise need to be addressed by the Department of 23 Energy. They have not been addressed in the environmental 24 assessment at all. 25 "Or control over such weapons or explosive KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 39 1 devices, directly or indirectly." Well, again, we are 2 giving Canada, either ourselves in the first shipment or 3 indirectly by means of the Russians in the second 4 shipment, control over a component for a nuclear weapon or 5 a nuclear explosive device. That's very clear they are 6 getting it. And according to the EA, we are trusting 7 their good intentions. There is no assurance in the EA 8 that this weapons grade plutonium is subject to 9 international safeguards. No. Despite the fact that 10 Congress has made it very clear that any transfer, and 11 Congress also made it clear in the legislation that they 12 are against any transfers of this type of stuff to other 13 States. But if there are any transfers at a minimum there 14 have to be absolute guaranteed protections on 15 international assurances to make sure it is not misused, 16 and you will note in the EA it says nothing about it. 17 There are no assurances about anything. 18 Now, "to manufacture or otherwise acquire 19 nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices; and 20 not to seek or receive any assistance in the manufacture," 21 etcetera, etcetera. 22 Article III then deals with the safeguard 23 requirements; that is, if there are transfers of materials 24 for peaceful purposes, and you know you can obviously, 25 Your Honor, you can read this yourself. There must be KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 40 1 safeguards. Under the supervision of the International 2 Atomic Energy Agency, the Environmental Assessment says 3 nothing at all about these safeguards. Nothing. It isn't 4 in there. 5 Apparently we have to rely on not even 6 statements by Canada that what we are transferring there, 7 what we are encouraging the Russians to transfer are 8 somehow going to be safeguarded despite the fact that 9 Article III says that there must be safeguards, and we 10 simply don't have them. 11 Q. Dr. Boyle, I'm going to show you what's been marked for 12 identification as Plaintiff's Exhibit 5 and ask you to 13 take a look in the upper right-hand corner, and after 14 you've had a moment to review that, let me know, please. 15 A. Yes. This is an article I had read in preparation for my 16 testimony here today, from the Toronto News. 17 Q. Based on your experience and expertise, Dr. Boyle, is this 18 the type of information that an international law scholar 19 could rely on in formulating opinions about the state or 20 nationally? 21 A. Well, here is stating comments by Mr. Tom Clemens, head of 22 the Washington-based Nuclear Control Institute. It's a 23 recognized organization dealing with nuclear policies, and 24 certainly experts in my field would rely upon statements 25 produced by the Nuclear Control Institute and, indeed, KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 41 1 prior to my testimony today, I did read several documents 2 produced by the Nuclear Control Institute just in the 3 normal course of preparing, yes. An expert in my field 4 would rely on this. 5 Q. Dr. Boyle, my recollection is you testified this appeared 6 in the Toronto -- 7 A. News. 8 Q. -- News and it -- 9 A. The Globe and Mail, which is, you know, it's sort of like 10 the New York Times here in the United States, a newspaper 11 of public record, so again, it's not like a tabloid or 12 something like this. 13 Q. Plaintiff's Exhibit 5, Dr. Boyle in the right-hand column 14 attributes some comments to a Sunni Locatelli purportedly 15 a spokeswoman at the Atomic Control Board. Do you see 16 that? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. What if anything is the significance, based on your 19 experience as expertise, of considering published reports 20 attributed to spokespersons for governmental entities in 21 formulating use of international law? 22 A. Yes. There is a decision by the International Court of 23 Justice in the nuclear test cases dealing with nuclear 24 explosions 1974, stating that the Court can rely upon 25 official statements made by Government officials acting KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 42 1 within their scope of authority and certainly Locatelli 2 here is the spokeswoman of the Atomic Energy Control 3 Board. So basically, I would be able to take this 4 statement and file it at the World Court and they would 5 find the statement could be, would be attributable to the 6 Canadian government, and Canada would be bound by this 7 statement. 8 Q. What does that article, Plaintiff's Exhibit 5, attribute 9 to Miss Locatelli? 10 A. She can't reveal how much fissile material Canada has. We 11 aren't able to give out that information under our 12 security regulations. Ms. Locatelli said Canada believes 13 it should come under the IA/EA guidelines because it 14 doesn't operate its own reprocessing facilities. I think 15 Dr. Edwards just pointed out that isn't correct. But even 16 if it were correct, it does come under IA/EA, and we need 17 to know, the United States Government under the NPT, under 18 the Congressional implementing legislation, we have to 19 know how much fissile material Canada has. 20 And basically, we are just taking their, 21 whatever their word is for it, and in my opinion, that's 22 unacceptable. We have to know how much material they have 23 and what they are doing with it, and what she's saying 24 here is "Well, we are just not going to tell you." And 25 you will note in the EA, the Department of Energy has KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 43 1 taken the same position. One of the comments made was 2 "Well, what is Canada doing," and the response of the DOE 3 is well, that is Canada's problem, once it leaves here we 4 are no longer responsible. The treaty and statutory 5 regime make it clear that's not the case. We are 6 responsible for our plutonium, wherever it goes. And 7 Congress has made it clear even if we do give it up, we 8 have to have absolute international safeguards as to what 9 is going to happen with our plutonium. And the same would 10 apply if we are encouraging Russia to ship weapons grade 11 plutonium to Canada. We have an obligation to make sure 12 that it's safeguarded and that it can be accountable and 13 accounted for. And what Ms. Locatelli here is saying 14 "Well, sorry, we are just not going to tell you." Again, 15 this raises serious problems in my mind that have not been 16 dealt with by the Department of Energy as to compliance 17 with the IA/EA safeguards regime, which is absolutely 18 required under Article III of the NPT and also required 19 under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Act. Indeed, if I 20 remember correctly, the 1994 implementation, Your Honor, 21 Congress said that transferring of unsafeguarded plutonium 22 is an act of international terrorism as far as Congress is 23 concerned. 24 So and that would trigger a whole host of other 25 provisions of the federal code dealing with international KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 44 1 terrorism, so we really need to know what is going to 2 happen to our plutonium when it gets up into Canada, and 3 to make sure there are safeguards and it is accountable 4 and there is an explanation here. 5 Now Mr. Clemens then said that, in his opinion, 6 Canada has 40 kilograms of plutonium, it's really not 7 accounted for or accountable for by anyone, and that 8 basically makes Canada a de facto nuclear weapons state. 9 I would agree, assuming that they do have the 40 kilograms 10 of plutonium, and I take it you know Mr. Clemens -- I had 11 e-mail correspondence with Mr. Clemens about this matter. 12 He feels that they do have it and that his group, the 13 Nuclear Control Institute, will be making this evidence 14 available soon. He told me it is not yet -- he is not yet 15 prepared to make it public, but they will be going public 16 with it soon. 17 In my opinion, if that is the case, they have 40 18 kilograms of plutonium, that's enough to make five bombs, 19 and that makes Canada a de facto nuclear weapons state 20 under the NPT and, in my opinion, would be inconsistent 21 with the NPT. There is a potential here for Canada being 22 in violation of the NET. We need to know that. Congress 23 has sanctions in there in the implementing legislation for 24 non-nuclear weapons states being, moving into a position 25 where they are de facto nuclear weapons states in KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 45 1 violation of the NPT. 2 It's clear Congress interprets our obligations 3 under the treaty to mean that a non-nuclear weapons state 4 simply cannot go off, assemble all the components for a 5 bomb, have one here, one there and one there, and then 6 say, oh but we are not a nuclear weapons state because we 7 haven't assembled the bomb. 8 Again, Congress made it very clear, no. Indeed, 9 in one of the pieces of legislation, Congress indicated 10 that it was also concerned with a facto nuclear weapons 11 states that an end run around the NPT, and the 12 Congressional regime applicable to it. Again, I regret to 13 report I haven't seen any of these issues dealt with by 14 the Department of Energy in the Environmental Assessments 15 and, indeed, when they were asked about it, they just said 16 this is now Canada's problem. Wondered-- United States 17 law of the NPT, it is not Canada's problem alone, it is 18 our problem because it's our plutonium and it's Russian 19 plutonium that we are paying to send up to Canada. 20 Q. Professor Boyle, based on the representations of Miss 21 Locatelli on behalf of Atomic Energy Control Board of 22 Canada that they don't believe they are subject to the 23 IA/EA guidelines, what if any impact would that have on 24 the United States' responsibility under the Nuclear 25 Nonproliferation Treaty of 1978? KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 46 1 A. It's very clear, Your Honor, the NPT and the Congressional 2 implementing legislation that we ourselves cannot ship 3 weapons grade plutonium there or engage in the Russians to 4 ship weapons grade plutonium unless there are absolutely 5 safeguards by the IA/EA that, to make sure that there is 6 no diversion. And again, Miss Locatelli is indicating 7 there is a high amount of uncertainty as to what is 8 happening with the Canadian plutonium. We simply don't 9 know. In the EA, there are no guarantees given by the 10 Department of Energy as to what is happening to plutonium 11 up in Canada. 12 Q. You may have testified to this, Dr. Boyle, and I apologize 13 if I missed it, but are Russia, Canada and the United 14 States all signatory partis to the Nonproliferation 15 Treaty? 16 A. Yes. We are all parties. There are about 182 or 183 17 states that are parties. The United States and Russia are 18 nuclear weapon states, parties to the convention, that is, 19 we are permitted to have nuclear weapons and nuclear 20 components, etc. Canada is designated a non-nuclear 21 weapons state. And they are supposed to preserve this 22 stative or statement. Yet according to the Nuclear 23 Control Institute, they have enough plutonium up there to 24 at least manufacture five bombs. So somehow this has to 25 be explained and accounted for in order for them to KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 47 1 continue their non-nuclear weapons state status under the 2 NPT, so again, the Nuclear Control Institute is raising 3 very serious compliance problems and potentially serious 4 violation of the NPT by Canada, and there are severe 5 sanctions in the United States laws enacted by Congress 6 under the Simplemen legislation, Your Honor, in the event 7 a state that is a non-nuclear weapons state moves to 8 become a nuclear weapons state. And again, none of this 9 has been addressed by the Department of Energy in the 10 environmental assessment that I'm aware of, either in the 11 environmental assessment or elsewhere. 12 Q. Dr. Boyle, could you advise the Court, if you would, as to 13 what the ramifications legally are of being a signatory 14 party to an international treaty such as the 15 Nonproliferation Treaty? 16 A. Yes. Your Honor, of course, the basic rule of Pacta Sunt, 17 P-a-c-t-a-s-u-n-t, Servanda, S-e-r-v-a-n-d-a. 18 The other point -- there are two other points, 19 however, that must be kept in mind in interpreting any 20 treaty and especially the NPT. First, the treaty must be 21 interpreted in good faith. And again, the question here 22 with Canada maintaining 40 kilograms of plutonium is 23 whether or not this is a good faith interpretation 24 implementation of the NPT by Canada. 25 Second, the treaty must be interpreted in KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 48 1 accordance with its object and purpose, and that in this 2 case the NPT is to stop nuclear proliferation. And again, 3 this entire program, the Parallex program, in my opinion, 4 seems to defeat the object and purpose of the NPT, which 5 is to stop nuclear proliferation. 6 The third point to keep in mind is that this 7 treaty has already been interpreted by Congress and 8 implemented by Congress. And Congress is agreeing with 9 what I'm saying here, Your Honor, and I'm agreeing with 10 what Congress is saying. Congress has made it very clear 11 that they do not want to see any type of nuclear 12 proliferation or programs that encourage nuclear 13 proliferation. And we are now seeing a drastic departure 14 from the policy enacted in Congress pursuant to the NPC 15 back in -- the NPT back in 1978 in the Nuclear 16 Nonproliferation Act, and we have seen no change in the 17 legislation by Congress to authorize or approve this 18 drastic change. And again, I agree with what Dr. Edwards 19 said from his Canadian perspective, my American 20 perspective, the Parallex MOX project is a drastic change 21 in encouraging proliferation of nuclear weapons components 22 and there has been no direct approval, change of statutes 23 or whatever. So again, this, in my opinion, raises very 24 serious problems under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty 25 as interpreted in good faith and in accordance with its KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 49 1 object and purpose not only for Canada, but the United 2 States and Russia. And in my opinion, we should have a 3 full study of all these issues by the Department of Energy 4 before there is any further movement on this project. 5 The implications here are enormous. They could 6 be catastrophic, and I personally would like to see a full 7 scale investigation analysis so that I could evaluate it 8 myself before anyone goes ahead with this project, but of 9 course that, you know, that's my personal opinion. I know 10 that's for you, Your Honor, to decide. 11 Q. Dr. Boyle, what if anything is the requirement or 12 obligation of the United States to interpret the 13 Nonproliferation Treaty in good faith? I think you 14 testified that Canada has that obligation. Does the 15 United States have a similar obligation? 16 A. Yes. And as a matter of fact, here Congress has 17 interpreted our obligation under the NPT and, in my 18 opinion, Congress has interpreted our obligations under 19 the NPT in good faith and also in accordance with the 20 object and purpose of this treaty. Congress interpreted 21 this by means of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Act of 1978, 22 the Nuclear Proliferation Prevention Act of 1994 and the 23 1998 amendments to do with the India-Pakistani 24 explosions. So in my opinion, Congress did interpret this 25 treaty in good faith and in accordance with its object and KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 50 1 purpose and it appears to me the Department of Energy is 2 off there on their own with no express authorization from 3 Congress pursuing a policy here that defeats the object 4 and purpose of the NPT. 5 Q. By that, you are referring to the Parallex project? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. With respect to the Congressional implementation of the 8 NPT in the '78, '94 and '98 acts, what if anything is the 9 role of the Department of State and/or Department of 10 Energy with respect to interpreting those obligations? 11 A. Yes. Your Honor, it's very clear from the treaty related 12 to the statutory scheme. Treaties deal with international 13 law and foreign relations. Therefore, they are normally 14 negotiated and concluded by the Department of State and 15 then they are handed over to the Senate Foreign Relations 16 to the Senate for advice and consent. It is the State 17 Department that traditionally has always had the sole and 18 exclusive role here in the United States with respect to 19 nonproliferation policy, not the Department of Energy. 20 The Department of Energy has always been treated as a 21 technical agency, technical consultant. The policy is 22 formulated by the State Department. There had been, again 23 going back to the Carter administration, United States 24 Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, Your Honor, set up by 25 Congress to deal precisely with these issues. They were KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 51 1 the ones given the authority to deal with proliferation 2 and nonproliferation policies negotiate these agreements, 3 etcetera. Senator Helms in the latest did not like act, 4 he concluded it was super numerator morgue or something so 5 he passed legislation terminating the Arms Control 6 Disarmament Agency and transferring all functions to the 7 Department of State today. But if you read the 8 Congressional implementing legislation, they make it very 9 clear that the lead role played on proliferation and 10 nonproliferation policy is the Department of State, not 11 the Department of Energy, and the Department of State 12 should consult with the Department of Energy. At times 13 the Department of Energy is given authority to have its 14 input to the Department of State, but it's the Department 15 of State that makes nonproliferation policy, not the 16 Department of Energy. 17 Q. In your review of the environmental assessment prepared by 18 the Department of Energy in January of '99, Dr. Boyle, 19 regarding the Parallex Project, is there any indication 20 that the Department of Energy consulted with the 21 Department of State? And if you don't mind, I direct your 22 attention to Page 41 of Plaintiff's Exhibit 12 previously 23 admitted and ask you to refer to that. 24 A. Yes. They had a list here of agencies consulted. Your 25 Honor, over here on Page 41, it says agencies consulted KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 52 1 during the preparation of this analysis: Atomic Energy of 2 Canada, Canadian Atomic Energy Control Board, U.S. 3 Department of Transportation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 4 Commission. They do not consult with the Department of 5 State and, in my opinion, and also in the opinion of 6 Congress, if you read through all the implementing 7 legislation, I know, Your Honor, as I understand it, you 8 are a conscientious Judge so I'm sure you are going to do 9 this, you'll see that they have to deal with the 10 Department of State. And the main problem with this EA is 11 they have not dealt with the Department of State, they 12 have not dealt with the nonproliferation issues, they have 13 not dealt with the Nonproliferation Treaty, they have not 14 dealt with the 1978 Act, they have not dealt with the 1994 15 Act, they have not dealt with the 1998 Act. All that is 16 expressly required by Congress. So again, in my opinion, 17 for some reason the Department of Energy has just decided 18 to go out there on its own and completely either ignore or 19 violate the Congressional statutes and procedures for 20 dealing with proliferation and nonproliferation issues. 21 Q. Dr. Boyle, to your knowledge, has the Department of State 22 retreated at all from the U.S. commitment to the 23 Nonproliferation Treaty as implemented by Congress through 24 the legislation you've indicated? 25 A. No, and as a matter of fact, Madeline Albright was just KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 53 1 out in India-Pakistan with President Clinton. As you 2 know, President Clinton stated that today India-Pakistan, 3 the Indian subcontinent is the most dangerous place on the 4 face of the earth because of the proliferation problem, 5 and they both have nuclear weapons now, and the dispute 6 over Casmir. 7 President Clinton then was just lectured in the 8 Indian Parliament publicly by the speaker of Parliament 9 for making the statement, but I think it's a fair and 10 accurate statement. Madeline Albright followed this up 11 with another statement reiterating our commitment to 12 nonproliferation and, specifically with respect to India 13 and Pakistan, that this was the policy of the United 14 States Government, and also tying this into the integral 15 importance of safeguards. 16 And again, that is a fair and accurate statement 17 of the policy being pursued by the President and the 18 Secretary of State that is charged under the legislation 19 and the Constitution to deal with these matters. There is 20 a complete and total disconnect here between what the 21 President and Secretary of State are saying and what the 22 Department of Energy is planning to do here in the 23 environmental assessment. 24 Q. Dr. Boyle, I'm going to show you what has been marked as 25 Plaintiff's Exhibit 11 and ask you to take a minute to KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 54 1 review that and let me know when you have had a chance to 2 do so, please. 3 A. Yes. This is an account of the Secretary of State 4 Albright's statement on April 2, as recently as April 2 5 dealing with our proliferation policies. And let me draw 6 a few things to your attention. United States regards 7 proliferation anywhere as our Number 1 security concern. 8 So again, she's pointing this out and she is the cabinet 9 officer with the authority to deal with these matters, not 10 the Secretary of Energy. We continue to seek universal 11 adherence to the NPT neither India nor Pakistan are 12 parties to the NPT. And here is crucial points: The 13 limits in our ability to cooperate with India and Pakistan 14 are a matter of U.S. law, as well as our international 15 obligations, all right? So Secretary Albright is pointing 16 out we have United States law that deals with 17 proliferation and this United States law -- of course, 18 she's not a lawyer -- but the U.S. law is the Nuclear 19 Nonproliferation Act, the Proliferation Prevention Act and 20 the '98 amendments as well as the Atomic Energy Act. So 21 there's a very comprehensive legislative scheme here as 22 well as our international obligation she points out. 23 There are international treaties here, and in particular 24 the most important one being the one she just referred to, 25 the Nonproliferation Treaty, and she is aware of that. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 55 1 Unfortunately, it does not appear that the Department of 2 Energy is aware of it or is concerned about it in the 3 least bit, at least as reflected in the environmental 4 assessment, they have not dealt with any of these issues 5 in environmental assessment nothing, none. 6 Q. Dr. Boyle, based on your experience and investigations 7 study, are you aware of whether or not India and Pakistan 8 have Canadian CANDU reactors? 9 A. As I understand it, they've got reactors from the Indian 10 Nuclear Bomb Project was a serous reactor, Canada, India 11 and United States, right. And Pakistan has a CANDU 12 reactor, right. And just the other day, the New York 13 Times reported the smuggling of substantial quantity of 14 nuclear materials out of the former Soviet Union towards 15 Pakistan that was recently intercepted in Kazakhstan, I 16 think. So I think this is a very serious problem. And I 17 don't see how this Parallex MOX -- it's only going to 18 compound the problem. These countries are doing 19 everything they possibly can. And here I would also add 20 in Israel is not a party to the NPT. There are other 21 states that have CANDU reactors, it has already been 22 reported in the professional literature, Your Honor, that 23 Japan too is a de facto nuclear weapons state in violation 24 of the NPT. And as Dr. Edwards already reported, they 25 have gotten a good deal of their nuclear material from KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 56 1 Canada. 2 So, we see -- Canadian reactors that are what, 3 in South Korea, Taiwan, states that are interested in 4 getting nuclear weapons. Clearly Taiwan wants them, South 5 Korea wants them. And you know, not that I can speak for 6 these governments, but it seems to me they have made a 7 decision the best way to get a weapon is to do it the way 8 the Indians did. We get a Canadian CANDU reactor, then we 9 start getting in whatever material we can get from, for 10 example, this MOX program. They will get plutonium and 11 then they can make a bomb, they can assemble a bomb. 12 As for the ease of assembling a bomb, Your 13 Honor, when I was a student at Harvard there was a very 14 bright student at MIT who, as a class project, assembled a 15 bomb. He had everything there except the plutonium. 16 That's how easy it is to assemble an atomic bottom, and he 17 brought it down there and, if I remember correctly, in 18 central square at MIT, and just showed it to everyone. 19 Even a bright student at MIT can assemble a bomb, that's 20 how easy it is to do. And what we see on these states 21 that say they are non-nuclear weapons states is an effort 22 to get a CANDU reactor and do what the Indians do use the 23 CANDU reactor, then they just need to get hold of the 24 plutonium, and Parallex MOX is going to give them access 25 to this plutonium if it gets in circulation. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 57 1 Q. Dr. Boyle, you've testified in some depth as to the 2 Nonproliferation Treaty and the implementation by Congress 3 indicating Congress' intent to prohibit even components, 4 parts of nuclear weapons to be covered by the U.S.; is 5 that correct? 6 A. Congress has interpreted the NPT, as I said, in good 7 faith, and to achieve its object and purpose and they have 8 interpreted to mean components that is clear of nuclear 9 weapons or nuclear explosive devices and there are other 10 areas in legislation where they even break it down to 11 items or substances that could be used for nuclear weapons 12 or nuclear explosive device, so Congress is aware of this 13 problem of a state becoming a de facto nuclear weapons 14 state and somehow trying to assemble components, items and 15 substances to be used for a nuclear weapon in order to 16 circumvent the treaty. So again Congress has interpreted, 17 I think, the treaty properly. 18 Q. Are you familiar in the course of your research with the 19 DOE's stockpile of stewardship program? 20 A. I am, yes. 21 Q. Are you familiar with their use in that program of 22 subcritical amounts of weapons grade plutonium? 23 A. Yes. Right now the Department of Energy is engaging in 24 what are known as subcritical tests. A subcritical test 25 is using -- they just did one this week, I think I gave KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 58 1 you the press release on it, and they are consistently 2 doing this. 3 A subcritical test uses a subcritical amount of 4 plutonium, which is under the -- it was eight kilograms. 5 And they are exploding it in order to test, verify and 6 develop the next generation of U.S. nuclear weapons. So 7 what we see the Department of Energy doing here is the 8 subcritical tests, in my opinion, would constitute it's 9 not a nuclear weapon, but it is a nuclear explosive 10 device. Now, there is nothing illegal with, under the NPT 11 with us having a nuclear explosive device, because we are 12 a nuclear weapons state party, but again, it creates 13 problems other states are now mimicking our behavior. 14 Russia is doing the same thing, France and Britain say 15 they are going to do the same thing. If we give weapons 16 grade plutonium to Canada, Canada could be doing the same 17 thing. Or the Russians give their weapons grade plutonium 18 to Canada, Canada could be doing the same thing, and other 19 states could be doing the same thing. So again, I think I 20 have serious concerns here, but I want to point out the 21 DOE is already engaged in the subcritical tests which are 22 clearly nuclear explosive devices. So it just doesn't 23 have to be a bomb to be regulated by the NPT. 24 Q. Dr. Boyle, in the scope of your experience and research, 25 have you become acquainted with the International Court of KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 59 1 Justice opinion regarding nuclear weapons in 1996? 2 A. Yes. As a matter of fact, I was part of the effort 3 originally to try to get that advisory opinion from the 4 World Court. 5 Q. If you would explain briefly what the significance, if 6 anything, of that World Court decision on the Parallex 7 project is, in your opinion? 8 A. Well, Your Honor, the World Court was asked by the United 9 Nations general assembly to give an opinion on the entire 10 question of nuclear weapons and international law. It's a 11 very long decision with many separate decisions in the 12 sense I've written an article here, Mr. Love might want to 13 provide it to you, going through all of it. But in this 14 opinion, there are two critical components that are 15 relevant to the Parallex MOX project and, of course, the 16 EA has not dealt with either, let alone the World Court 17 opinion, and the World Court opinion in this area 18 enunciates the rules of international law that are binding 19 on the United States Government, binding on Canada, 20 binding on Russia. The one component of this opinion 21 deals with the environmental-- international environmental 22 law applicable to nuclear weapons, and you will note in 23 the EA, the DOE does absolutely nothing at all with 24 international environmental law applicable to this 25 transaction because it is an international transaction, KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 60 1 they're shipping plutonium from the States up to Canada 2 and from Russia over to Canada. So international 3 environmental law is involved, and the DOE has done 4 nothing at all about it. 5 And Mr. Love, I think you have the exact 6 language there. You want to provide that to me, the exact 7 ruling of the Court on the international environmental law 8 that would apply? 9 MR. LOVE: Your Honor, we have tendered what I'm 10 going to show Dr. Boyle as Plaintiff's Exhibit 14, a copy 11 of the World Court opinion to both the Court and counsel 12 previously. 13 BY MR. LOVE: 14 Q. Dr. Boyle, I'm going to show you what has been marked as 15 Plaintiff's Exhibit 14 and ask you to take a look at that 16 and let us know when you've had a chance to do so and what 17 it is. 18 A. Right, this is the World Court advisory opinion. It's so 19 long, I'm going to have to get my notes on it, excuse me. 20 I think, Mr. Love, I gave you my notes last 21 night on the relevant provisions of the opinion, the 22 relevant paragraphs. 23 Q. While I'm looking for your notes, could you direct your 24 attention to Paragraph 27, please? 25 A. Right. What we need are the paragraphs here. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 61 1 Right. Yes, I have Paragraph 27. 2 Your Honor, here the World Court unanimously 3 adopted Principle 21 of the Stockholm Declaration of 1972, 4 which everyone would say today is a basic principle of 5 international environmental law, which the EA has not 6 bothered to deal with. And it basically says states have 7 a duty "to ensure that activities within their 8 jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to the 9 environment of other states or areas beyond the limits of 10 national jurisdiction." That's a basic principle of 11 international environmental law. It goes back to the 12 Stockholm Declaration of 1972. It has direct relevance 13 here to this entire project. You've got international 14 shipment of plutonium, it's going over the high seas if it 15 goes by boat from Russia. That also triggers the Law of 16 the Sea Convention that they have not dealt with. They 17 haven't dealt with the Stockholm Declaration, and they 18 have not dealt with this recent ruling by the World Court 19 as to obligations under international law. If you read 20 the EA when they are asked this question, they said "Once 21 we give to Canada, that's their problem." Well, again, 22 that isn't a correct statement of international law. It 23 is our problem. 24 The second important point of the ICJ opinion, 25 and there are other sections here dealing with the KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 62 1 environment -- and I know we have a limited amount of 2 time, I'm not going to go through it all -- deals with the 3 interpretation of the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty. 4 This is an international treaty, the World Court 5 also has authority to interpret the Nuclear 6 Nonproliferation Treaty, and they have interpreted the 7 Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. 8 Mr. Love, could you give me -- I identified a 9 paragraph for you, I think it's 102. 10 Q. I believe you are looking for Paragraph 102? 11 A. 102, right. 12 Q. May also want to take a look at Paragraph 99. 13 A. 99 and 102, right. 14 The World Court, in the same advisory opinion, 15 has also dealt with the NPT and the obligation of Article 16 VI of the NPT, "Each of the parties to the treaty 17 undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on 18 effective measures relating to cessation of the" -- "in 19 good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of 20 the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear 21 disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete 22 disarmament under strict and effective international 23 control." And they have interpreted this provision, NPT 24 Article VI, which we are a party to, by the way, to have a 25 dual obligation, two components here: One, we must pursue KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 63 1 negotiations on nuclear disarmament as a matter of good 2 faith. 3 Recently, I regret to report the U.S. Ambassador 4 to the Conference on Nuclear Disarmament sponsored by the 5 United Nations has said "We are not going to pursue 6 nuclear disarmament negotiations." In my opinion, that 7 puts us in breach of NPT Article VI, certainly as 8 interpreted by the World Court. We have an obligation to 9 pursue nuclear disarmament negotiations and we have just 10 said we are not going to do it. The Ambassador said "We 11 are going to pursue instead a treaty on the cutoff of 12 fissile materials such as what is at stake here, but we 13 are not going to pursue nuclear disarmament negotiations." 14 Well, Your Honor, it does seem to me that that is a 15 violation of NPT Article VI and is certainly not meeting 16 the requirements of Article VI as interpreted by the World 17 Court. We must pursue these negotiations in good faith. 18 And then the second component of the obligation 19 is we must achieve a precise result. Nuclear disarmament 20 in all its aspects. And again just recently the U.S. 21 Ambassador to the Council of Nuclear Disarmament under the 22 auspices of the UN said "We are just not going to do it." 23 The reason why this creates serious legal problems is that 24 the non-nuclear weapons states went along with the entire 25 Nuclear Proliferation Treaty on the assumption that the KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 64 1 nuclear weapons states would engage in good faith 2 negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament. If we are 3 not engaging in negotiations leading to nuclear 4 disarmament and publicly say we are not going to do it, 5 this in theory could give the non-nuclear weapons states, 6 all 175 of them, grounds to argue the material breach of 7 the NPT and pull out of the NPT and to engage in nuclear 8 armament. Now I'm not recommending that and indeed I 9 certainly would not recommend that to anyone, but it is a 10 very serious concern if we are not engaging in these 11 nuclear disarmament negotiations, which we are not 12 currently doing. 13 Q. Dr. Boyle, could you briefly summarize for the Court why 14 the International Court of Justice opinions, if at all, 15 are binding on the U.S.? 16 A. This opinion per se is listed as an advisory opinion. So 17 it is -- we are not party to the lawsuit. As you know, 18 some courts can give advisory opinions. Your Honor, you 19 can't give an advisory opinion, but there are courts in 20 the United States that some states courts have authority 21 to give advisory opinions as well as contentious 22 opinions. The World Court has both. They have authority 23 contentious opinion and an advisory opinion. This was not 24 a contentious case. If it were a contentious case, we 25 would be bound by it, like the Lockerbie case, like the KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 65 1 Bosnia cases that I was involved with, those were 2 contentious cases. This was an advisory opinion, however, 3 in this advisory opinion, with these unanimous rulings by 4 the World Court on these points, the World Court made it 5 clear that these rules are customary international law. 6 And rules of customary international law bind the United 7 States Government. The Paquete, P-a-q-u-e-t-e, Habana, 8 H-a-b-a-n-a, decision by the United States Supreme Court 9 customarily international law binds the United States and 10 the United States courts. And technically, this is 11 federal common law. So the, Your Honor, this Court should 12 take into account the World Court rulings on these two 13 points on international environmental law and how the NPT 14 should be interpreted. 15 The rest of the opinion, which is quite lengthy 16 and I had written about elsewhere -- if you are interested 17 in reading my article, you can, but it's not really 18 relevant or terribly germane to the issues here, but 19 certainly, the section on international environmental law 20 and their interpretation of the NPT is relevant. I think 21 they enunciate rules of customary international law. I 22 also have reached the same conclusions myself in my own 23 scholarly research before the World Court did, but I think 24 most experts would agree with the rulings of the World 25 Court on these two points, it's requirements of KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 66 1 international environmental law and the interpretation of 2 the NPT. 3 And again, the DOE's environmental assessment 4 has not taken any of this into account. They have not 5 taken into account the rules of international 6 environmental law, which they should do, and they have not 7 taken into account anything about the NPT. 8 Q. Dr. Boyle, based on your review of the NPT, the Nuclear 9 Nonproliferation Acts of 1978, 1994, and 1998, the 10 International Court of Justice opinion, and the 11 declarations by the Department of State regarding the U.S. 12 position with respect to the Nonproliferation Treaty 13 commitments we have made, do you have an opinion as an 14 expert in international law as to whether the foreign 15 policy of the United States would be violated by the 16 shipment of MOX from Russia to Canada funded by the U.S. 17 DOE? 18 A. Well, again, I agree with everything Dr. Edwards said. 19 Your Honor, this is a major change in United States 20 nonproliferation policy going back at a minimum to the 21 Carter administration and the adoption of the Nuclear 22 Nonproliferation Act, it seems to me completely 23 inconsistent with the treaty, with the Act, the 1978 Act 24 and 1994 Act and the 1998 Act. So yes, this is a major 25 change in policy that potentially is illegal under the KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 67 1 sources. And I would really like to see the Department of 2 Energy comprehensively address all of these issues so we 3 could see what is their authority to do this. Besides 4 their own ipse dixit. I would like to see the authority. 5 I don't see it in any of the sources I've read before for 6 them to unilaterally engage in this major change in policy 7 that seems to be inconsistent with the Treaty, the '78 8 Act, the '94 Act and '98 Act, yes. 9 MR. LOVE: Your Honor, I have no further 10 questions of this witness. Thank you. 11 CROSS EXAMINATION 12 BY MR. DODGE: 13 Q. Morning, Mr. Boyle. 14 A. Morning. 15 Q. I would like to turn your attention back to your C.V., 16 which I think is Exhibit 3. Do you have that in front of 17 you? 18 A. Sure. 19 Q. Just to round out a few items on the second page, about 20 halfway down you testified that you were counsel to Libya 21 in connection with the bombing of the Pan Am flight over 22 Lockerbie, Scotland. 23 A. That is correct. I should point out that matter is being 24 peaceably resolved now by the United States and Libya 25 because of my efforts. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 68 1 Q. And you've also served, going up now the fourth item from 2 the top of that page, since 1987 you served as a legal 3 advisor to the Palestine Liberation Organization? 4 A. That is correct, and I was also the legal advisor to the 5 Palestinian delegation for the Middle East Peace Talks 6 convened under the auspices of President Bush, yes. 7 Q. And two items down from there said you were counsel 8 related to House Resolution 86 in the 102nd Congress 9 dealing with the impeachment of former, then President 10 George Bush? 11 A. Yes. Congressman Henry G. Gonzalez of Texas reached a 12 decision that President Bush going to war violated 13 numerous provisions of the Constitution and international 14 law. You can find them there in House Resolution 86. And 15 he asked me, because of my knowledge and expertise to 16 serve as counsel to them on these matters, and I did serve 17 as counsel free of charge, that is correct. 18 My service to the Palestinian Delegation in the 19 Middle East Peace Negotiations is there in '91 and '93, as 20 I said, President Bush was the one who convened those 21 negotiations, and yes, even though I did set out with 22 Congressman Gonzalez on this issue, President Bush did 23 sign my Biological Weapons Anti-terrorists Act of 1989, 24 which is -- 25 Q. He apparently didn't hold your efforts against you KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 69 1 personally. 2 A. Pardon me? 3 Q. Sounds like he didn't hold it against you personally. 4 A. I don't think he did, no. I'm a lawyer and a law 5 professor and I'm a professional, but he had no problems, 6 President Bush had no problems with my Biological 7 Anti-Terrorism Act. It was approved unanimously by both 8 Houses of Congress. 9 Q. Moving on to the third page, second item from the top of 10 the page, you worked as a consultant in 1993 on 11 Independence for the State of Hawaii. I would assume for 12 Hawaii to become an independent nation? 13 A. That is correct. The State of Hawaii-- the Hawaiian 14 Sovereignty Advisory Commission is an agency of the State 15 of Hawaii. And they were charged under the law by the 16 State of Hawaiian law to investigate all alternatives for 17 the native Hawaiian people. One of the alternatives that 18 needed to be investigated was whether or not the native 19 Hawaiian people should establish their own independent 20 nation state. And I was retained by the State of Hawaii 21 then to advise them on this because of my experience doing 22 the same work with the Palestinians. I advised them on 23 the creation of their state and the peace talks with 24 Israel based on a two-state solution, and the Palestinian 25 state today has diplomatic recognition now by about 125 KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 70 1 states, and currently has de facto UN membership, and I 2 did the legal work on that, so the State of Hawaii 3 retained me to come out and advise on the establishment of 4 an independent nations state, and the State of Hawaii paid 5 my expenses and a modest fee for this work, yes. 6 Q. Moving on to the Nonproliferation Treaty, you testified 7 about Article I. Do you recall that? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. And as I understood your testimony, your view is that the 10 fuel rods at issue in the Parallex Project, in your view, 11 should be treated as components of a nuclear weapon; is 12 that right? Explosive device? 13 A. No. What I said was weapons grade plutonium should be 14 treated as a component of either a nuclear weapon or a 15 nuclear explosive device. 16 Q. What about -- I mean, the Parallex test involves shipment 17 and then irradiation of fuel rods; is that correct? 18 A. Right. 19 Q. And is it your view or is it not your view that those fuel 20 rods constitute components of nuclear weapons or explosive 21 devices? 22 A. My viewpoint is what I said, that weapons grade plutonium 23 is a component of a nuclear weapon or nuclear explosive 24 device. 25 Q. You didn't answer my question. Do you understand the KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 71 1 question? 2 A. Well, I've given my answer. 3 THE COURT: No, you haven't answered his 4 question. He asked you question, if you don't know the 5 answer, say so. He asked you a very specific question 6 about rods. 7 BY MR. DODGE: 8 Q. In fact, the question has to do with your view, if you 9 have one, whether the fuel rods at issue in the Parallex 10 test program constitute components of nuclear weapons or 11 explosive devices. 12 A. If they contain weapons grade plutonium, they would be or 13 could be components of nuclear weapons or nuclear 14 explosive devices. 15 Q. Well, these fuel rods do contain plutonium; is that right? 16 A. As I understand it, it's in there, yep. 17 Q. So in your view, does that make the fuel rods components 18 of nuclear weapons or explosive devices? 19 A. Again, my testimony is that the weapons grade plutonium 20 clearly is either nuclear -- is a component of a nuclear 21 weapon or a nuclear explosive device, and the reason I 22 give that testimony is based on my reading of the 23 Congressional legislation, Congress has taken the position 24 that weapons grade plutonium or plutonium, in general, is 25 a component of a nuclear weapon or nuclear explosive KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 72 1 device. Congress does not deal with the fuel rods, they 2 dealt with the plutonium. 3 Q. I want to make sure I understand your testimony clearly. 4 Is it your testimony, is it your view that any 5 plutonium would qualify as a component of a nuclear 6 weapons or nuclear weapon or explosive device under the 7 treaty? 8 A. My testimony today is the weapons grade plutonium involved 9 in this project is a component of a nuclear weapons or 10 other nuclear explosive device. I believe weapons grade 11 plutonium is what is involved in this project. 12 Q. I asked you a different question. The question was a 13 broader one. Is it your view or not your view that all 14 plutonium would qualify as a component of a nuclear weapon 15 or explosive device under Article I? 16 A. It appears Congress has taken that position, yes, and they 17 have stringently regulated plutonium in all forms. And I 18 also note that the United States Government has exploded a 19 nuclear weapon -- 20 THE COURT: The question is: Is it your 21 opinion? He is asking four or five times now, could you 22 answer that? 23 THE WITNESS: But Your Honor, my opinion is 24 based on -- 25 THE COURT: In courts -- I know you are a KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 73 1 professor -- we answer the questions of the lawyer, not 2 what we want to talk about. He asked you seven or eight 3 questions, none of which you've answered. I would ask you 4 simply listen to the lawyer's question and answer it. 5 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honor. 6 BY MR. DODGE: 7 Q. Do you understand the question? 8 THE COURT: Ask it again for the fifteenth time, 9 ask it again. 10 BY MR. DODGE: 11 Q. Is it your view that all plutonium constitutes a component 12 of nuclear weapon or explosive device under Article I of 13 the treaty? 14 A. It can. 15 Q. It can? 16 A. Yes. Yes. 17 Q. Is it your view across the board that plutonium, whether 18 weapons grade or not, if it's present in a fuel rod for 19 a-- destined for a civilian nuclear reactor would qualify 20 as a component of a nuclear weapon explosive device? 21 A. It could. 22 Q. Do you know whether as a general matter the signatories of 23 the Nonproliferation Treaty have interpreted, whether any 24 signatory has interpreted Article I to ban transport of 25 fuel rods containing plutonium? KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 74 1 A. Congress has strictly regulated plutonium, yes, and there 2 is legislation on the books saying "We, Congress, 3 interpreting our obligations under the NPT, are against 4 international transport of plutonium," yes. 5 Q. Has Congress passed any legislation prohibiting the 6 transport of nuclear fuel rods containing any plutonium? 7 A. In what I have reviewed for my testimony here today, I 8 have not seen in the '78, '94 or '98 Act that Congress has 9 prohibited transport of fuel rods. 10 Q. In fact, fuel rods are transported across national 11 boundaries all the time; is that not correct? 12 A. They are transported. 13 Q. In fact, fuel rods containing plutonium are transported 14 across national boundaries all the time, isn't that 15 correct? 16 A. If they are subject to-- they are supposed to be subject 17 to safeguards, yes. 18 Q. Well, that gets us to another point of your earlier 19 testimony regarding whether the fuel rods particularly at 20 issue in the Parallex Project are or are not subject to 21 IA/EA safeguards in Canada. Do you recall that testimony? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. Do you have personal knowledge whether Canada, the 24 Government of Canada has taken a position on whether the 25 U.S. Parallex fuel rods, which are now in Canada, whether KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 75 1 those fuel rods are now subject to IA/EA safeguards? 2 A. I have not seen any evidence because of the recentness of 3 the movement of the shipments. 4 Q. If I told you that the position of the Government of 5 Canada is that those fuel rods are, in fact, subject to 6 IA/EA safeguards, would you have any basis to quarrel with 7 that? 8 A. The statement by Ms. Locatelli does call into question the 9 validity of these assertions, yes. 10 Q. Miss Locatelli was generally speaking of Parallex fuel 11 rods, was she? 12 A. Speaking about plutonium in general, right. 13 Q. I take it you didn't speak personally to Miss Locatelli? 14 A. No, I did not. 15 Q. About this or any-- 16 A. But I did speak with Mr. Clemens of NCI by e-mail and he 17 has similar concerns to me. 18 Q. Okay. And did you speak to the newspaper reporter, Martin 19 Mittelstaedt, who quoted Ms. Locatelli? 20 A. No, I did not. 21 Q. Whether his quotes accurately reflect what she said or not 22 is not something you would be qualified to testify about; 23 is that right? 24 A. Well, I note The Globe and Mail is a newspaper of public 25 record and I would be able to rely on that in the World KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 76 1 Court for sure, yep. 2 Q. But newspaper reporters are human beings? 3 A. Newspaper reporters make mistakes, sure. But again, the 4 World Court, for example, the nuclear test cases did rely 5 on statements made by Government officials as normally 6 reported in reputable news media sources. They have 7 different standards of evidence, the World Court, than 8 they do here in United States District Court. 9 Q. Now you've also relied on this article, Plaintiff's 10 Exhibit 5, I guess too, in support of your opinion that 11 Canada is in possession of 40 kilograms or up to 40 12 kilograms of plutonium; is that right? 13 A. This is a statement by Mr. Clemens, and I have had e-mail 14 correspondence with him about it. 15 Q. Do you have any personal knowledge whether -- 16 A. No. 17 Q. I'm sorry, I didn't finish my question. 18 A. I did answer your question. 19 THE COURT: He hasn't finished asking it; you 20 couldn't possibly answer his question when he hasn't 21 finished asking it. 22 THE WITNESS: Sorry. 23 BY MR. DODGE: 24 Q. Do you have any personal knowledge of whether Canada, in 25 fact, has 40 kilograms of plutonium? KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 77 1 A. I do not have personal knowledge, no. I'm relying on the 2 statement by Mr. Clemens. 3 Q. Mr. Clemens, does Mr. Clemens have personal knowledge 4 whether Canada has 40-- 5 A. As I understand, Mr. Clemens does. From my e-mail 6 correspondence with him, he does. 7 Q. Has he seen that plutonium? 8 A. Pardon me? 9 Q. Has he seen it? 10 A. He didn't tell me what his sources of evidence are, but he 11 did tell me that they will be making it public soon. 12 Q. So he thinks he has -- he thinks he has evidence to 13 support that conclusion and whether that evidence holds 14 any water or not, we really can't tell, can we? 15 A. Well, again, as an expert, if the NCI is making the 16 statements, I think they are significant and they need to 17 be dealt with, and certainly by the Department of Energy. 18 THE COURT: That was not -- excuse me, that was 19 not his question. 20 Would you repeat your question, please? 21 BY MR. DODGE: 22 Q. The question is: Mr. Clemens believes he has reason or he 23 has evidence to support his conclusion that Canada has 40 24 kilograms of plutonium, but as far as anybody in this 25 courtroom knows, that evidence may or may not hold water, KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 78 1 we just don't know, correct? 2 A. I'm not evaluating the evidence, and Mr. Clemens said the 3 evidence will be produced, so at that point I will review 4 the evidence and formulate a formal opinion. 5 THE COURT: Do you want to ask it again or just 6 want to give up? 7 MR. DODGE: I think that -- I think the point is 8 established to the extent I need to, Your Honor. 9 BY MR. DODGE: 10 Q. Now, you testified earlier that it's up to the State 11 Department, not the Department of Energy to interpret 12 United States treaty obligations; is that right? 13 A. I testified that it is the State Department that is in 14 charge of nuclear proliferation policies, that's what I 15 testified, and not the Department of Energy, yes. 16 Q. Okay. Is it your view that it's -- maybe I misunderstood 17 what you testified earlier. I thought I heard you say 18 that interpreting whether or not the U.S. is complying 19 with Nonproliferation Treaty in particular, that pertinent 20 authority on that would be the State Department, not the 21 Department of Energy; is that a fair statement? 22 A. I've also testified that the State Department has the lead 23 role in the United States Government with respect to 24 interpretation of treatises as well. 25 Q. Do you know what the State Department's position is on KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 79 1 whether the Parallex test program is or is not compliant 2 with Article I of the Nonproliferation Treaty? 3 A. Well, that's why I read the Environmental Assessment, to 4 see if you had talked to the State Department here, and 5 they hadn't, so I have not seen any statement by the State 6 Department as to what their position is, no. 7 Q. The Environmental Assessment is not the only document 8 that's been generated in the course of the Parallex 9 Project, you understand that? 10 A. That is correct, and I have read a good deal of the 11 documentation, but I still have not seen an expression by 12 the Department of State on this issue. 13 Q. Okay. Do you know whether or not the State Department was 14 involved at any level in the Parallex Project? 15 A. There probably were discussions somewhere in there. 16 Q. Do you know? 17 A. Myself personally? 18 Q. Yes. 19 A. I don't know for sure. 20 Q. Do you know one way or the other whether the State 21 Department has a view on whether the Parallex Project is 22 consistent with our treaty obligations under Article I of 23 the NPT? 24 A. I have not seen any expression by the State Department on 25 this issue. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 80 1 Q. If I told you the State Department has taken the view that 2 the Parallex Project is entirely consistent with our 3 obligations under Article I, would you have any basis to 4 quarrel with that? 5 A. I haven't seen it. 6 MR. LODGE: Objection, Your Honor. 7 THE COURT: If he hasn't seen -- 8 MR. DODGE: Withdraw the question, Your Honor. 9 THE WITNESS: I would like to see it and 10 evaluate it myself, sure. 11 BY MR. DODGE: 12 Q. You also testified about dangers of nuclear proliferation 13 relating to countries such as Taiwan and Korea that are 14 not currently nuclear weapons states, but would like to 15 acquire nuclear weapons, do you recall that testimony? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. Is it correct that the MOX program, the Parallex Program 18 does not contemplate the shipment of any fuel rods to any 19 country other than Canada? 20 A. Not at this stage, but eventually it does appear there 21 will be mass circulation of this material, yes, down the 22 line. 23 Q. And the basis for that is what exactly? 24 A. The quantities. If the test works out, the quantity we 25 are talking about coming from Russia. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 81 1 Q. Well, let me be more specific about this. Has the United 2 States, any spokesperson for the United States Government 3 proposed in connection with the Parallex Project to send 4 fuel rods to any country other than Canada? 5 A. The United States? 6 Q. Right. 7 A. No. 8 Q. Has the Government of Russia proposed, in connection with 9 the Parallex Project, to send fuel rods to any country 10 other than Canada? 11 A. Well, they are talking about massive quantities of weapons 12 grade plutonium being circulated into this program and the 13 independent team of experts by Russia and the United 14 States have made that quite clear they are talking tons of 15 this stuff. 16 Q. Well, again, you didn't answer my question there, 17 Professor. I asked you whether the Russian Government has 18 proposed sending fuel rods to any country other than 19 Canada. Your answer only dealt with volumes, it didn't 20 address where. That was my question. 21 A. Right. There might have been discussions on Germany or 22 some of the European states have there -- there have been 23 discussions and proposals, but it's just at that stage 24 now, yes. 25 Q. But Russia has not, to your knowledge, proposed sending KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 82 1 fuel rods to Korea? 2 A. There is an international market here, sure, it could be 3 sold anywhere. 4 THE COURT: No, he didn't say could have. He 5 said: Did they propose it? 6 THE WITNESS: I have not read that right now 7 Russia is proposing sending this to Korea. 8 BY MR. DODGE: 9 Q. Same question with Taiwan. 10 A. I have not read that Russia is proposing to send this to 11 Taiwan. 12 MR. DODGE: No further questions at this time, 13 Your Honor. 14 THE COURT: We will take a 15-minute recess. 15 COURT CLERK: All rise. 16 This court is in recess. 17 (At 10:54 a.m., recess.) 18 THE COURT: Okay. What is next? 19 MR. LOVE: Brief redirect, Your Honor. 20 REDIRECT EXAMINATION 21 BY MR. LOVE: 22 Q. Professor Boyle, did you receive any recognition or 23 rewards from Bosnia for your efforts on their behalf? 24 A. While I was never paid a penny, but President Izetbegovic 25 and Vice President Gonich (phonetic) held a ceremony at KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 83 1 the Bosnian presidency with a-- awarded me full-fledged 2 citizenship in the Republic, a diplomatic passport and 3 visa and a declaration and they put the ceremony on 4 television, so that was very nice. So technically I'm a 5 Bosnian citizen too. 6 Q. Dr. Boyle, with respect to your work on the Hawaiian 7 independence that Mr. Dodge asked you about, has there 8 been any action by the President or Congress, to your 9 knowledge, with respect to that? 10 A. Yes. In 1993 Congress passed a statute signed into law by 11 President Clinton formally apologizing to the native 12 Hawaiian people for destroying their kingdom and stealing 13 their land. The legislation at the end provides for a 14 process of reconciliation and reparations, and how this is 15 going to be dealt with, and I'm still currently involved 16 in those matters. 17 Q. Dr. Boyle, there should be a document up there marked 18 Plaintiff's Exhibit 13. Do you see that? 19 A. Yes, I have it here. 20 Q. Now, this is entitled a Nonproliferation Arms Control 21 Assessment of Weapons Usable Fissile Material Storage and 22 Excess Plutonium Disposition Alternatives, dated January, 23 1997 authored by the United States Department of Energy, 24 correct? 25 A. Yes. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 84 1 Q. Was this among the documents that you reviewed in 2 preparing your testimony? 3 A. I did not have -- I did not get this entire document until 4 Monday, so I did not have a chance to review the entire 5 document, but I have reviewed the excerpts you gave to 6 me. 7 Q. Now Mr. Dodge asked you-- for the record, Your Honor, the 8 excerpt only contains Pages 106 and 107-- Mr. Dodge asked 9 you about your testimony about the possibility of future 10 shipments of MOX to Taiwan and Korea. Do you remember him 11 asking you about that? 12 A. Yes. 13 THE COURT: He didn't ask what the possibility 14 is, he asked if there were plans by Russia or the United 15 States to ship to those two nations. That was the 16 question. 17 MR. LOVE: Okay. 18 THE COURT: And the answer was no. Not are 19 there possibilities. I know the witness thinks there are 20 possibilities, that won't help me any. I understand 21 that. 22 BY MR. LOVE: 23 Q. In fact, Dr. Boyle is it true that in this document the 24 DOE indicates there are possibilities such as you 25 testified about? KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 85 1 A. Yes. 2 THE COURT: I accept that. You are wasting my 3 time. There are possibilities. 4 BY MR. LOVE: 5 Q. Dr. Boyle, if you would, I direct your attention to the 6 large document that's in front of you. This is 7 Proliferation Venerability Red Team Report, Plaintiff's 8 Exhibit 28, and introduced in the prior hearing. 9 A. Yes, and I read this entire report prior to my testimony 10 here today. 11 Q. I'm going to ask you, if you would, to direct your 12 attention to Page 6-1, the conclusions to that report. 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. And again, this is a document that was produced by Sandia 15 Laboratories for the Department of Energy? 16 A. That is correct. 17 Q. Directing your attention to the first conclusion, under 18 the conclusion, keeping plutonium inaccessible is the key 19 to proliferation resistance, do you see that? 20 A. Yes. It says quite clearly, all plutonium from all stages 21 of all alternatives can be made weapons usable should 22 sufficient material be successfully removed. And I should 23 point out that is the position Congress takes under the 24 Nuclear Nonproliferation Act of '78, the Act of '94 and 25 the '98, all plutonium can be made weapons usable. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 86 1 Q. In your view, is that conclusion by the Sandia Lab in this 2 Red Team Report consistent with your testimony? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. Now, Mr. Dodge asked you if there was transport of 5 plutonium across boundaries all the time. My notes 6 reflected you said yes. Do you remember that testimony? 7 A. I said there was some, yes. 8 Q. Is there routinely transportation of weapons grade 9 plutonium shipped across boundaries all the time by the 10 United States? 11 A. No. No. 12 MR. LOVE: No further questions. 13 MR. DODGE: No recross, Your Honor. 14 THE COURT: You may step down. 15 THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honor. 16 Your Honor, did you have any questions? 17 THE COURT: No, I don't. 18 THE WITNESS: Thank you. 19 THE COURT: You've exceeded your time so I take 20 it you have no more witnesses. 21 MR. LOVE: Your Honor, I have no more witnesses 22 but at this time I would like to move our Exhibit 5, 23 Exhibit 7, Exhibit 11, Exhibit 12, Exhibit 13, Exhibit 14 24 and Plaintiff's Exhibit 2 and Exhibit 1 into evidence. 25 MR. DODGE: No objection, Your Honor. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 87 1 THE COURT: 5, 7, 11, 12, 13 and 14, 1 and 2 are 2 received. 3 MR. LOVE: Thank you, Your Honor. We have 4 nothing further. 5 THE WITNESS: Here are the exhibits. Where do 6 you want them? 7 MR. LOVE: I'll take them here. 8 (Hearing continued; reported, not requested 9 transcribed.) 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 88 1 2 3 4 5 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE 6 7 I, Kathleen S. Thomas, Official Court Reporter for the 8 United States District Court for the Western District of 9 Michigan, appointed pursuant to the provisions of Title 28, 10 United States Code, Section 753, do hereby certify that the 11 foregoing is a true and correct transcript of proceedings had 12 in the within-entitled and numbered cause on the date 13 hereinbefore set forth; and I do further certify that the 14 foregoing transcript has been prepared by me or under my 15 direction. 16 17 18 19 20 __________________________________ 21 Kathleen S. Thomas, CSR, RPR-1300 22 U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue 23 Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 24 25 KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (voice) 217-244-1478 (fax) fboyle at law.uiuc.edu (personal comments only) Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Brussel, Morton K Sent: Monday, November 06, 2017 7:56 PM To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: David Green >; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; Estabrook, Carl G > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] FW: MOX for Bombs in Japan I think this is wrong. MOX fuel is mainly used for fuel in nuclear power reactors, not to make bombs. Japan had/has many nuclear reactors. A fairly intelligible discussion is found in wikipedia, under "MOX nuclear”. —mkb On Nov 6, 2017, at 4:40 PM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss > wrote: This was a very lengthy interview I gave in Japan courtesy of their peace and anti-nuclear movement. It was heavily censored. My basic point was that Japan was using MOX to make bombs and that my best estimate was that Japan probably had as many bombs as PRC, which would be in the area of 500. So when the details of the disaster at Fukushima came out, it was clear to me it was one of their leading bomb complexes. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: globenet at yahoogroups.com [mailto:globenet at yahoogroups.com] Sent: Saturday, March 21, 2015 8:10 AM To: globenet at yahoogroups.com Cc: 'Hiroshi Taka'; 'Gensuikyo'; 'Akira Kawasaki'; oheyeran at yahoogroups.com; asia-pacific_demil_mdg-request at lists.riseup.net; 'Coleen Rowley'; 'Douglas Roche' Subject: [globenet] MOX for Bombs in Japan Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (Voice) 217-244-1478 (Fax) (personal comments only) __._,_.___ ________________________________ Posted by: "Boyle, Francis A" > ________________________________ Reply via web post • Reply to sender • Reply to group • Start a New Topic • Messages in this topic (1) VISIT YOUR GROUP [Yahoo! Groups] • Privacy • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use . __,_._,___ _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Tue Nov 7 03:17:18 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2017 03:17:18 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: MOX for Bombs in Japan References: Message-ID: And notice: I testified as an Expert on MOX under oath and subject to cross examination by an Assistant United States Attorney. The Feds could not put a glove on me. The Acid Test of Truth. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Monday, November 06, 2017 8:39 PM To: Brussel, Morton K Cc: David Green ; C. G. ESTABROOK ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay ; David Johnson ; Mildred O'brien ; Estabrook, Carl G Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] FW: MOX for Bombs in Japan Well I have been qualified as an Expert on MOX in United States Federal District Court. And I prohibit my law students from citing Wikipedia to me in any paper and advise them to never cite or quote Wikipedia to a Judge because Wikipedia is filled with so much pure, unadulterated BULL-TWADDLE. Fab. Subject: Nuclear Proliferation/NPT/US Atomic Energy Law/MOX, etc. 1 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 3 SOUTHERN DIVISION 4 5 ALICE HIRT; ANABEL DWYER; CITIZENS FOR ALTERNATIVES 6 TO CHEMICAL CONTAMINATION; KATHRYN CUMBOW; ROBERT 7 ANDERSON; DORIS SCHALLER VERNON; and TERRY MILLER, 8 Plaintiffs, 9 v. CASE NO: 1:99-CV-933 10 BILL RICHARDSON, Secretary, 11 United States Department of Energy; UNITED STATES 12 OF AMERICA; and UNKNOWN PART(Y)(IES), named as 13 "John and Jane Doe" on complaint, 14 Defendants. 15 ____________________________/ 16 * * * * 17 18 TESTIMONY OF GORDON EDWARDS and FRANCIS BOYLE 19 * * * * 20 21 BEFORE: THE HONORABLE RICHARD ALAN ENSLEN United States District Judge 22 Kalamazoo, Michigan April 7, 2000 23 24 25 KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 2 1 APPEARANCES: 2 APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFFS: 3 MR. KARY LOVE 4 977 Butternut Drive PMB 128 5 Holland, Michigan 49424 6 MR. TERRY J. LODGE 316 North Michigan Street, Suite 520 7 Toledo, Ohio 43624-1627 8 APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANTS: 9 MR. ROBERT I. DODGE 10 MR. CHARLES GROSS U.S. Attorney's Office 11 330 Ionia Avenue, N.W., Suite 501 P.O. Box 208 12 Grand Rapids, Michigan 49501-208 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 3 1 INDEX 2 WITNESS: Page 3 GORDON EDWARDS Direct Examination by Mr. Lodge 4 4 Cross Examination by Mr. Dodge 17 Redirect Examination by Mr. Lodge 20 5 6 FRANCIS BOYLE 7 Direct Examination by Mr. Love 21 Cross Examination by Mr. Dodge 67 8 Redirect Examination by Mr. Love 82 9 10 EXHIBITS Rec'd. 11 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 1 87 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 2 87 12 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 3 31 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 5 87 13 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 6 87 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 11 87 14 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 12 87 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 13 87 15 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 14 87 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 4 1 Kalamazoo, Michigan 2 April 7, 2000 3 at approximately 8:50 A.M. 4 EXCERPT OF PROCEEDINGS 5 TESTIMONY OF GORDON EDWARDS 6 MR. LODGE: We waive opening. 7 THE COURT: Okay. Good for you. 8 MR. LODGE: And we would call Gordon Edwards. 9 GORDON EDWARDS - PLAINTIFFS' WITNESS - SWORN. 10 COURT CLERK: Please state and spell your name 11 for the record. 12 THE WITNESS: My name is Gordon Edwards, 13 G-o-r-d-o-n E-d-w-a-r-d-s. 14 DIRECT EXAMINATION 15 BY MR. LODGE: 16 Q. Dr. Edwards, you previously testified in this proceeding 17 in an earlier motion hearing in December, 1999, correct? 18 A. That is correct. 19 Q. And what, just summarize for the Court, to refresh the 20 Court's recollection, what is your occupation or 21 profession? 22 A. I'm a professor of mathematics at Vanier College in 23 Montreal, and I'm also a consultant on nuclear issues for 24 both governmental and nongovernmental agencies. 25 Q. Are you affiliated with any nongovernmental entity in KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 5 1 Canada regarding the purpose of which is to discuss 2 nuclear issues? 3 A. Yes, I'm the president of the Canadian Coalition for 4 Nuclear Responsibility, which is a federally incorporated 5 organization, since 1978. 6 Q. And how long and in what capacities have you served as a 7 consultant on nuclear issues? 8 A. I've served as a consultant since 1977 for a variety of 9 bodies, including Royal Commissions of Inquiry where I 10 have been retained to cross-examine expert witnesses, also 11 the auditor general of Canada when they were doing a 12 comprehensive audit of the Atomic Energy Control Board, 13 and most recently I was invited for January 2000 by the 14 Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs and International 15 Trade to participate in a small expert workshop on nuclear 16 weapons policies in Ottawa. 17 Q. And Dr. Edwards, have you had the occasion to read the 18 environmental assessment promulgated by the Fissile 19 Materials Office of the U.S. Department of Energy for the 20 Parallex Project? 21 A. Yes, I have, and have commented on that as well. 22 Q. We are here today on a proposed shipment of MOX plutonium 23 from Russia to Chalk River, Ontario, you understand that? 24 A. That is correct. 25 Q. What is your understanding as to the amount of the KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 6 1 plutonium content of the MOX fuel rods, pins that would be 2 brought from Russia? 3 A. The MOX fuel contains 135 grams of weapons grade plutonium 4 as compared with the 119 grams that were in the American 5 shipment that proceeded in January. 6 Q. Now, Dr. Edwards, you indicated that the Canadian 7 Coalition was incorporated in approximately 1978? 8 A. That's right. 9 Q. Have you been active in nuclear issues since that time? 10 A. Even before that time, yes. I have been active 11 specifically on proliferation questions and 12 plutonium-related questions since 1975. 13 MR. LODGE: If I may approach. 14 THE COURT: Of course. 15 BY MR. LODGE: 16 Q. Showing you what has been marked for purposes of the 17 supplemental motion hearing as Plaintiff's Exhibit 1, I'm 18 going to also leave Exhibit 2 up here. 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. Have you ever conducted any investigation into the issue 21 of civilian population or work exposures to plutonium? 22 A. Only at the level of potential for damage, potential for 23 harm. 24 Q. What is Exhibit 1? 25 A. Exhibit 1 is a letter from Mary Measures, Ph.D., Director KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 7 1 of the Radiation Environmental Protection Division of the 2 Atomic Energy Control Board of Canada dealing with 3 quantity of plutonium that an atomic radiation worker or a 4 member of the public may inhale to reach their respective 5 maximum limits. 6 Q. And the date of that is September 30, 1999? 7 A. That is correct, about six months ago. 8 Q. And could you summarize what the inhalation, or what the 9 limits are for both workers and for public? 10 A. Yes. The maximum lifetime limit of exposure in the lung 11 for an atomic worker is approximately 1.4 micrograms, and 12 for the member of the public it's 0.1 microgram, and a 13 microgram being one one-millionth of a gram, so if we 14 translate this into grams, it would mean 1.4 grams would 15 be equivalent-- would be enough to give maximum 16 permissible doses to one million workers and ten -- one 17 gram would be enough to give maximum permissible doses to 18 ten million members of the general public. That's just 19 potential. 20 Q. Okay. And is that based on the -- or, I'm sorry. Have 21 you had occasion in connection with the proposed Russian 22 shipment of a 135 grams of plutonium and the American 23 shipment of 119 grams, to perform any computations as to 24 what the potential dispersion or exposure is? 25 A. Well, I would like to emphasize this is just arithmetic KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 8 1 and does not take into account dispersion factors such as 2 wind velocity, any respiration rates, and so on. If we 3 just look at the theoretical potential, then with 119 4 grams, we are talking about the potential for 85 million 5 atomic workers to receive their maximum permissible 6 exposure, if that were able to be disseminated into all of 7 their lungs and 1,000,190,000 members of the general 8 public, so even though this is a very small amount of 9 plutonium, the potential for exposure, harmful exposure is 10 quite significant. 11 Q. All right. But so that implies you would have to have an 12 optimal dispersal? 13 A. This would be an impossibly optimal dispersal. This would 14 be assuming that the plutonium were distributed fully into 15 the lungs of all the people that I've mentioned. 16 Q. Are you aware of whether or not the American shipment was 17 delivered to Chalk River? 18 A. Yes, the American shipment was delivered to Chalk River. 19 It was taken to the border in what I believe was an SST, a 20 truck which was described as silver, and I believe it was 21 probably an SST, although I do not know for absolute 22 certainty about that, and then it was transported to the 23 Sault Ste. Marie airport where it was lifted by helicopter 24 accompanied by two other helicopters, and transported from 25 there to Chalk River. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 9 1 Q. You indicated that you were talking about an impossibly 2 optimal dispersal. Have you had the occasion to perform 3 any computations as to a very conservative prudent factor 4 to start with for dispersal? 5 A. Well, this is beyond my competence to really talk about 6 the details of how it might be dispersed, but if we just 7 assume for example 99.9 percent containment in the event 8 of a serious accident. 9 Q. Are you saying how much? 10 A. Suppose 99.9 percent of the material were successfully 11 contained and not disseminated in the environment and only 12 that small fraction was disseminated. 13 Q. Okay. 14 A. The potential again would correspond to, for atomic 15 workers in the case of the 119 gram shipment from the 16 States, it would be 85,000 maximum exposures and in the 17 case of the public, it would still over a million. Even 18 with 99.9 containment, in the event of an accident, you 19 still have the potential for over a million 20 overexposures. By the way, the 135 grams, the difference 21 between the 119 grams and the 135 grams from Russia 22 corresponds to potentially again 160,000 additional 23 maximum exposures for members of the public. 24 Q. How many for workers? 25 A. 11,428. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 10 1 Q. That's just -- 2 A. That's just the differential between the two shipments, 3 just the added, going from 119 to 135 adds the potential 4 for another 11,000 worker overexposures or 160,000 public 5 overexposures. This, I believe, is why authorities take 6 such great care to emphasize the packaging in transport. 7 They realize that the potential is great for damage. 8 Q. Do your computations reflect an assumption respecting 9 whether or not the dispersion occurs as a result of an 10 accident or an attack? 11 A. No, we are talking about theoretical potential which is 12 the same regardless of how much or whether the material is 13 dispersed. In an accident, for example, we have 14 previously seen accidents that were analyzed for ground 15 transportation. I have not seen any computations or 16 analysis of accidents for air transport either from the 17 American side or from the Canadian side. 18 Q. Are you talking with respect to Parallex? 19 A. I'm talking with respect to Parallex. 20 If you had, for example, a violent crash and 21 fire of an aircraft, including a helicopter, then the 22 dispersal would cause a plume downwind, could cause a 23 plume downwind, and how much of that plutonium would 24 escape would be subject to analysis which is not, to my 25 knowledge, been performed. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 11 1 Q. Dr. Edwards, do you consider the plutonium in MOX fuel 2 form to be a weapons component? 3 A. Well, in the case of the Parallex project, as you know, 4 this 119 grams or 135 grams, there is not enough there to 5 make an atomic bomb. However, it has long been known that 6 you can make a very damaging radiological explosive device 7 which would simply disperse the plutonium in breathable 8 form. That means that if the plutonium were acquired by a 9 criminal organization or terrorist group they could make 10 an incendiary device which would make this available to be 11 breathed by members of the public and also cause very 12 long-lasting contamination of the environs where this 13 exposure would take place. I believe that it would be 14 incorrect to say that these, even this small Parallex 15 shipment, would not be attractive to terrorists or to 16 criminal organizations as a top -- as a target for theft 17 or diversion. It is true, of course, that this is weapons 18 grade material and had one, if one had sufficient weapons 19 grade material, one indeed can make a very powerful atomic 20 bomb from that. 21 Q. Have you seen any literature or other information in or 22 out of the record of this case that discusses the weapons 23 potential for plutonium? 24 A. Well, yes, it's certainly common knowledge that the -- in 25 fact, the U.S. Department of Energy acknowledges as much KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 12 1 when they refer to the Russian plutonium, the Russian 2 weapons grade plutonium is continuing a clear and present 3 danger. It's long been known and recognized that 4 plutonium is the key ingredient of atomic weapons, so if 5 one talks about components of atomic weapons, the 6 plutonium is the essential component. Once you have the 7 plutonium, then you can acquire the other materials on the 8 open market that are necessary to build a bomb. 9 Q. How do you know that? 10 A. Well, it's been well known for a long time. For instance, 11 there was a study done, published in the Harvard Civil 12 Rights and Civil Liberties Law Review -- I could make that 13 available to the Court, if you would like -- in 1975 as 14 long ago as then, which says, "Since all the material 15 other than plutonium needed to build a bomb is available 16 from commercial hardware and chemical suppliers, the 17 present obstacle to the private construction of nuclear 18 weapons is the unavailability of plutonium." 19 But if we just turn to the study that was 20 commissioned and already on file, I believe, here at the 21 Court, a study that was commissioned by the Office of 22 Fissile Materials Management called the Red Team Report, 23 the Red Team Proliferation Vulnerability Report. 24 In their conclusions on Page 6-1, they have a 25 heading called Keeping Plutonium Inaccessible is the Key KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 13 1 to Proliferation Resistance. So what is basically being 2 said here is plutonium is not just a component but the key 3 component of atomic bombs particularly in the context of 4 illicit groups. 5 Q. Dr. Edwards, could you explain for us Canada's role in the 6 reprocessing of plutonium? 7 A. Well, Canada's role in plutonium goes back to the World 8 War II Atomic Bomb Project. We had a secret laboratory in 9 Montreal which was manned by British, French and Canadian 10 scientists dedicated to developing methods for producing 11 and separating plutonium for weapons purposes as well as 12 civilian purposes, because even then it was anticipated 13 plutonium would have some civilian value. At the end of 14 the war -- incidentally, the first reactor in Canada was 15 built according to a military decision taken in 16 Washington, D.C. in 1944, to demonstrate this potential. 17 The reactor called the NRX reactor was built at 18 Chalk River and a plutonium reprocessing plant was built 19 as well. Plutonium was separated and Britain received its 20 first sample of weapons grade plutonium from Canada from 21 Chalk River just months before their first atomic test. 22 There was also an illicit transfer of plutonium 23 from Chalk River to Russia, which was so the first samples 24 of plutonium that both Britain and Russia received were 25 from Chalk River. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 14 1 Since that time, Canada, of course, has taken a 2 policy decision not to pursue a nuclear weapons option 3 itself, but they have, however, looked favorably on the 4 idea of reprocessing plutonium for civilian purposes. 5 They do not have a policy which is against the 6 reprocessing of plutonium in principle and nor do they 7 discourage their clients, their customers overseas from 8 reprocessing plutonium. And in fact, in Canada, there is 9 an open door policy towards reprocessing as a future 10 option. 11 We just concluded recently a ten-year 12 environmental assessment of the problem of high-level 13 radioactive waste disposal, and in all of the documents it 14 begins by saying, in the very first paragraphs, that by 15 nuclear waste disposal, we mean either spent fuel or 16 post-reprocessing waste. So this is very much a 17 theoretical opening and a policy opening for Canada to use 18 plutonium as a fuel. 19 Q. Showing you what has been marked as Supplemental Motion 20 Exhibit 2, can you identify that for the Court, please? 21 A. Yes. This appears to be an exchange from the British 22 Parliament, questions and answers having to do with 23 nuclear fuel, and the Secretary of State for Trade and 24 Industry is being asked about quantities of spent fuel 25 from Canada that have been contracted for reprocessing at KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 15 1 Cello Field in England. 2 Q. And can you summarize your understanding of what the 3 response by the British Government was? 4 A. Yes. The response here is that a certain amount of 5 plutonium, a certain amount of spent fuel from Canada has 6 been reprocessed beginning in 1970, and that the plutonium 7 has been returned to Canada. I have personal knowledge of 8 the fact that at Chalk River they have maintained a pilot 9 plutonium fuel fabrication line since the 1970s, since 10 1970 and before, and that they have processed at Chalk 11 River approximately three tons, more than three tons of 12 MOX fuel from recycled civilian plutonium. This is part 13 of that, the plutonium that is here being referred to as 14 being recycled or reprocessed in Britain, that's part of 15 the total amount of plutonium that Canada has acquired for 16 the purposes of MOX fabrication. 17 I mentioned that Canada also does not discourage 18 client customers from reprocessing. This is in 19 distinction to the American policy. The American policy, 20 since the Carter administration, successive 21 administrations have maintained the policy of not only not 22 allowing reprocessing in the United States, but also 23 discouraging reprocessing in other countries insofar as 24 that is possible. Canada does not share this policy 25 completely. We do not reprocess in Canada but, on the KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 16 1 other hand, we don't hesitate, it seems, to send our spent 2 fuel to other countries to get reprocessed so that we can 3 develop expertise in plutonium recycling. 4 Q. Does Canada have any relationship with the nation of Japan 5 respecting nuclear material? 6 A. Yes. Canada, as is probably known to the Court, is the 7 world's largest exporter of uranium. We are one of the 8 world's largest producers of uranium and the world's 9 largest exporter of uranium. We have bilateral agreements 10 with our customers as to the use of that uranium. Of 11 course, we have requirements that that uranium not be used 12 for military purposes. If a client customer such as Japan 13 who buys a good deal -- Japan purchases a good deal of 14 uranium from Canada. If a client customer wishes to 15 reprocess their spent fuel to recover plutonium, they do 16 have to get prior permission from the Government of 17 Canada, so when plutonium is reprocessed for the Japanese, 18 in the case where uranium from Canada is involved, the 19 Canadian Government gives their permission for that. 20 Q. Even if it is offshore from Canada? 21 A. Yes. 22 MR. LODGE: Thank you. I have nothing further. 23 THE WITNESS: Thank you. 24 Sorry. 25 MR. LODGE: Yes? KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 17 1 THE WITNESS: Excuse me. 2 MR. DODGE: Not quite finished, Dr. Edwards. 3 THE WITNESS: You knew the time was short. I 4 was jumping the gun a little. 5 CROSS EXAMINATION 6 BY MR. DODGE: 7 Q. Good morning, Mr. Edwards. My name is Bob Dodge. We have 8 met once before back in December. 9 A. That's right. 10 Q. Just a few questions. You testified about the quantity of 11 plutonium that would be included in the Russian shipment. 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. Do you recall that? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. You testified that it was 135 grams? 16 A. That's what was announced, yes. 17 Q. And how many ounces is that? 18 A. How many ounces is that? 19 Q. Yes. 20 A. I don't think in terms of ounces. I have to do the 21 conversion. 22 Q. Can you do the conversion? 23 A. I don't have the -- 24 Q. If I told you that one ounce is 28 grams, does that sound 25 about right? KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 18 1 A. I have no reason to doubt it. We are on the metric system 2 in Canada, we don't use ounces anymore. 3 Q. I understand. If I estimated 135 grams was approximately 4 five ounces, would you quarrel with that? 5 A. I would have no reason to quarrel with that. 6 Q. Now, you also testified about the amount of plutonium that 7 would have to be inhaled in order to exceed the maximum 8 permissible dose under Canadian regulations? 9 A. That is correct. 10 Q. And in your testimony, as I understood it, the assumption 11 you were making was that every single molecule of 12 plutonium that was in that sample would end up in 13 somebody's lungs; is that right? 14 A. That's right. It's calculating the theoretical 15 potential. It is not talking about a realistic scenario. 16 Q. Not only would all of the plutonium have to end up in 17 someone's lungs, but the plutonium would have to be evenly 18 divided so that each person got exactly the same amount of 19 plutonium, it's not all concentrated in one person, you 20 would have to take one-millionths of the sample, put it in 21 one person's lungs and put the next one-millionth in the 22 next person's lungs and so on? 23 A. That is correct. 24 Q. Do you have any idea, if you performed the same analysis 25 on this table, what sort of toxicity numbers you would KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 19 1 get? 2 A. I have no idea of what that would be, no. 3 Q. Now you also talked about Canada's policies regarding 4 plutonium reprocessing. 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. Do you recall that? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. Do you have any understanding of whether the plutonium in 9 the Parallex MOX samples will or will not be reprocessed 10 in Canada? 11 A. It will-- to the best of my knowledge, it will not be 12 reprocessed in Canada, although that option apparently is 13 not decided. 14 Q. What is the basis for that last? 15 A. Because Canada has a policy that at sometime in the future 16 they may reprocess. 17 Q. Do you have any understanding whether there is an 18 understanding between the Government of Canada and the 19 Government of United States or the Government of Russia as 20 to whether these particular samples will or will not be 21 reprocessed? 22 A. I do not, no. 23 MR. DODGE: Thank you very much. 24 25 REDIRECT EXAMINATION KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 20 1 BY MR. LODGE: 2 Q. Dr. Edwards, the House of Commons question and answer, do 3 you know of any particular statistics on Canada's shipping 4 of spent fuel to British nuclear fields and fuels at Cello 5 Field? 6 A. I don't have those figures with me, I'm sorry. I could 7 supply them to the Court, if desired. I do have some 8 figures at my office at home, I don't have them here. But 9 we are talking -- if we are talking about three tons of 10 MOX being fabricated at Chalk River, then one could work 11 out approximately how much of that would contain 12 plutonium, how much plutonium would be contained assuming, 13 for example, three percent. 14 Q. Right. 15 A. And then one could reasonably suppose that the lion's 16 share of that would come from Cello Field. Now I have 17 figures on shipments from Cello Field, but I don't have 18 them here. 19 Q. My question is: Would you presume that the Atomic Energy 20 Control Board of Canada, or AECL of Canada, would make 21 public the fact that the spent MOX from Parallex were 22 being shipped to Britain for reprocessing? Would you 23 presume that would become public knowledge? 24 A. No, I would not assume anything related to plutonium would 25 become public knowledge in Canada. Canada has a very KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 21 1 non-public attitude toward plutonium dealings. In fact, 2 the existing plutonium dealings in Canada including the 3 BNFL contracts is not public knowledge other than as it 4 has been raised in foreign countries such as in Britain or 5 by documents that have been leaked to nongovernmental 6 organizations. This is not something which Atomic Energy 7 of Canada Limited makes public. 8 MR. LODGE: Thank you. 9 MR. DODGE: No recross, Your Honor. 10 THE COURT: You may step down, Dr. Edwards. 11 Thank you. 12 MR. LOVE: Your Honor, if it please the Court, 13 the Plaintiffs would call Francis Boyle to the stand 14 FRANCIS BOYLE - PLAINTIFFS' WITNESS - SWORN 15 COURT CLERK: Please be seated and state and 16 spell your name for the record. 17 THE WITNESS: My name is Francis Boyle. 18 F-r-a-n-c-i-s B-o-y-l-e. 19 DIRECT EXAMINATION 20 BY MR. LOVE: 21 Q. Dr. Boyle, are you currently employed? 22 A. Yes, I am a professor of international law at the 23 University of Illinois College of Law in Champaign. 24 Q. How long have you been employed in that capacity? 25 A. 1978. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 22 1 MR. LOVE: Your Honor, may I approach the 2 witness? 3 BY MR. LOVE: 4 Q. Dr. Boyle, I'm showing you what has been marked as 5 Supplemental Preliminary Injunction Hearing Plaintiffs' 6 Exhibit 3 and ask you if you can identify that document. 7 A. It's a copy of my professional resume. 8 Q. Was this resume prepared at or under your direction? 9 A. Yes. I think it's current as of January 28th, 1999. I've 10 been kind of busy in the last year, haven't revised it. 11 Q. To the extent it's current through that date, does that 12 accurately reflect your experience, education, seminars 13 that you participated in, and articles that you've 14 authored? 15 A. Not seminars I've participated in, that would be too many 16 but, you know, the essence of my professional career and 17 articles-- significant teaching, consulting, practice. 18 I'm also a licensed attorney as well. 19 Q. If you would, give us a brief recitation of your 20 educational background? 21 A. I attended the University of Chicago where I studied 22 international relations with Professor Hans Morganthal who 23 is the mentor of Dr. Henry Kissinger at Harvard. I was 24 one of seven students in my class elected to Phi Beta 25 Kappa as a junior. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 23 1 I also did work in mathematical biology, winning 2 the award for the work I did in that area by the world's 3 leading geneticist now at Harvard. 4 I graduated in three years. From there I went 5 to Harvard Law School. I have a J.D. Magna Cum Laude from 6 Harvard Law School specializing in international law. 7 I also entered the Graduate School of Arts and 8 Sciences at Harvard in the Department of Government. I 9 have a Master's degree and a Ph.D. in political science 10 specializing in international relations, international 11 politics. This is the same Ph.D. program that produced 12 Henry Kissinger, Zabanya Brezenski (phonetic) and other 13 high level U.S. Government officials. 14 I was at the Harvard Center for International 15 Affairs for two years. Kissinger and Brezenski had been 16 there before me. 17 I spent two years teaching in the Harvard 18 College undergraduates international law organizations, 19 human rights. I practiced law with a Boston law firm for 20 a year at Bingham, Dana and Gould, where I did 21 international tax, and tax, and then finally in 1978 I 22 came to the University of Illinois. I went up for tenure 23 at the beginning of my third year, which I got, and I've 24 been tenured there since, you know, many years. 25 Q. Since undertaking your position at University of Illinois, KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 24 1 have you specialized in any area with respect to 2 particular research, writing and international law? 3 A. Well, for the purpose of our proceedings today, yes. I 4 have been specializing an enormous amount on the nuclear 5 weapons, nuclear weapons policy, proliferation, arms 6 control. Going back to my studies with Professor 7 Morganthal 30 years ago so I've been involved in these 8 issues starting as a student since 1969 and continuously 9 until today. 10 THE WITNESS: Sorry, Your Honor, I have a bit of 11 laryngitis. 12 THE COURT: That's fine, no problem. 13 BY MR. LOVE: 14 Q. Dr. Boyle, if you would direct your attention to your 15 resume, I would like to touch on a few seminal points. On 16 the first page under teaching, the third entry down talks 17 about being a lecturer in Nuclear Weapons and 18 International Law, 21st Senior Conference on Nuclear 19 Deterrence at U.S. Military Academy at West Point in 20 1983. 21 A. Yes. This is a high level seminar run by the Pentagon, 22 not for the cadets, but for about 200 of the highest level 23 officials of the United States Government dealing with 24 nuclear weapons proliferation, nuclear weapons policies, 25 and I was asked to lecture to this conference, and I won't KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 25 1 go through all the high level officials there, but sitting 2 right in front of me for my lecture was the three star 3 general in charge of war operations at the Pentagon, at 4 that time General Mahaffey. And I also note I had read 5 the independent expert's report on the MOX program 6 U.S./Russia of 1977, one of the U.S. independent experts, 7 Richard Garwin was there with me and he was also a 8 lecturer with me to this group, so I do know that Garwin 9 was involved in the Parallex MOX recommendations. 10 Q. With respect to the second to the last entry on Page 1 of 11 Exhibit 3, talks about "Lecture Tour of the Soviet Union 12 on Nuclear Weapons and International Law for Lawyers' 13 Committee on Nuclear Policy and Association of Soviet 14 Lawyers" in 1986. What was involved with that? 15 A. Yes. The former Soviet Union, their equivalent to the 16 American Bar Association was the Association of Soviet 17 Lawyers, and in conjunction with the Lawyers' Committee on 18 Nuclear Policy headquartered here, they decided to invite 19 one professor to go over to the Soviet Union and lecture 20 around the country for two weeks on various issues related 21 to nuclear weapons and international law, and both 22 organizations selected me for this purpose, so I went over 23 for two weeks and gave several lectures per day, Moscow, 24 Leningrad, Kiev to professors, lawyers, peace people, 25 whoever, news media on various aspects of nuclear weapons KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 26 1 targeting doctrine as they relate to international law 2 and, in general, nuclear policies. 3 Q. If you would direct your attention, Dr. Boyle, to Page 2 4 under Practice, fifth entry down it says "Author, 5 Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989, Public Law 6 Number 101-298 (1990) (adopted unanimously by both Houses 7 of Congress)," could you explain what that means, please? 8 A. Yes. Your Honor, we are dealing here with a treaty, the 9 Nuclear Proliferation Treaty-- Nonproliferation Treaty of 10 1968. That treaty has been implemented by Congress in the 11 Nuclear Nonproliferation Act of 1978, the Nuclear 12 Proliferation Prevention Act of 1994 and also recent 13 amendments in 1998 to deal with the India/Pakistan 14 explosions. I have direct personal experience on how you 15 take a treaty, an international treaty, and implement it 16 as a matter of United States Constitutional law by working 17 with Congress. 18 The Biological Weapons Convention of 1972 is a 19 treaty that is a total, not only arms control reduction 20 and elimination treaty for biological weapons, I gave a 21 lecture on Capitol Hill calling for legislation, domestic 22 legislation to implement this treaty, and this 23 recommendation was taken up by a group I work for called 24 the Council of Responsible Genetics. I'm on their 25 Advisory Board. I also serve as counsel to them, so KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 27 1 pursuant to their request, I drafted the implementing 2 legislation, I authored it, how to implement this treaty. 3 And then we took it to members of the House and the Senate 4 and we shepherded it through the entire process dealing 5 with members of Congress, both Houses, including testimony 6 I prepared. At that point in time, the Reagan 7 administration was opposed to this implementing 8 legislation. I had to deal personally with their position 9 papers against it refuting these things. 10 Finally there was a change of policy when 11 President Bush came into office, to his credit, and they 12 supported the legislation. It finally was approved 13 unanimously by both Houses of Congress and signed into law 14 by President Bush in 1989. This legislation was called 15 the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989. It was 16 later amended in the anti-terrorism and effect Death 17 Penalty Act of 1996. 18 I thought I had drafted the most draconian piece 19 of legislation you could possibly imagine on biological 20 weapons, but there is always a loophole, Your Honor, so 21 Congress revisited this in 1996 to close some of the 22 loopholes that had not been apparent to me and the 23 scientists I worked with back in 19, starting in from '85 24 to about 1989. So I just cite this as having direct 25 personal experience with relationship between arms control KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 28 1 treatise, reduction treatise and then how they are 2 implemented by Congress. I have done this myself. On 3 biological weapons and I'm still involved in that issue. 4 Obviously, I have not been involved in the 5 drafting of the implementing legislation for the Nuclear 6 Proliferation Treaty of 1968, there are three pieces, but 7 I have read and reviewed the implementing legislation. I 8 have an understanding how they relate to the 9 Nonproliferation Treaty and I also teach a course on this 10 subject, that is how international laws related to the 11 United States Constitution is implemented by Congress and 12 also carried out in the courts. I teach an entire course 13 just devoted to this subject. 14 Q. Dr. Boyle, you've had some experience practicing before 15 what was known formerly as the International Court of 16 Justice but currently the World Court; is that correct? 17 A. Yes, I have. 18 Q. Could you relate to the Court a summary of that 19 experience? 20 A. Well, I've advised governments with respect to either 21 actual or potential World Court litigation, some of that 22 is still attorney/client confidence that I'm not prepared 23 to discuss. What I am prepared to discuss are those 24 matters that are in the public record. 25 I did serve as counsel to Libya on the Lockerbie KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 29 1 bombing case. It was my recommendation the-- 2 unfortunately President Bush had about the sixth fleet 3 mobilized off the coast of Libya and was about to bomb 4 Libya that we filed a lawsuit at the World Court to stop 5 the bombing. We filed a lawsuit, Libya was not bombed. 6 Later on, I was General Agent for the Republic 7 in Bosnia of Herzegovina before the International Court of 8 Justice. In other words, I was their first ambassador to 9 the World Court for the Republic of Bosnia, Herzegovina, 10 and I sued Yugoslavia for committing genocide against the 11 Bosnian people. I won two cease and desist orders 12 overwhelmingly in favor of Bosnia against Yugoslavia. 13 Later on, I publicly advised -- I advised the 14 Bosnian Government to sue Britain for aiding and abetting 15 genocide against Bosnia, and President Izetbegovic 16 instructed me to sue Britain for a genocide against 17 Bosnia. That lawsuit was terminated under duress, 18 threatened them, so they withdrew from those proceedings. 19 Q. Dr. Boyle, with respect to your writings, if you would 20 direct your attention to Page 3 of Exhibit 3, the last two 21 entries at the bottom -- excuse me, the second to last 22 entries entitled Nuclear Weapons and International Law: 23 The Arms Control Dimensions, do you see that? 24 A. Yes. This was the lecture I gave to the West Point 25 Military Academy senior conference proceedings, which they KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 30 1 did publish in their proceedings at West Point, and 2 actually under my books, I've just completed work on my 3 sixth book, which is entitled Nuclear Deterrence and 4 International Law. And right now it is sitting at Pluto 5 Press -- I guess that's appropriate for today's 6 proceedings -- Pluto Press in Britain. They have 7 expressed an interest in publishing it. They are 8 currently evaluating it. I do not have a contract on that 9 book, but I did get the e-mail just before I came here, so 10 I'll have to deal with that when I go back. 11 Q. With respect to your other publications, Dr. Boyle, I note 12 that on Page 4 you've got one entitled, about halfway 13 down, The Relevance of International Law to the "Paradox" 14 of Nuclear Deterrence. 15 A. That is correct. 16 Q. Can you tell us briefly what the subject matter is? 17 A. After I made the lecture at West Point, obviously the U.S. 18 military officials and others, we had a fairly vigorous 19 debate, let me put it that way. And that vigorous debate 20 between myself and these others led to this article that 21 was later published here in the United States and also 22 translated into Dutch, because the Dutch lawyers wanted it 23 to be available as part of the debate in Holland over the 24 deployment of the U.S. intermediate nuclear forces under 25 the Reagan administration, so they translated the whole KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 31 1 thing into Dutch and it was published in the Netherlands. 2 MR. LOVE: Your Honor, I have no further 3 questions of Dr. Boyle with respect to qualifications, and 4 I tender him for voir dire to the U.S. Attorney's Office 5 subject to my motion to admit Plaintiff's Exhibit 3 into 6 evidence. 7 MR. DODGE: I have no objection to the admission 8 of the C.V. 9 THE COURT: Exhibit 3? 10 MR. DODGE: Exhibit 3. 11 THE COURT: You have no voir dire questions to 12 ask either? 13 MR. DODGE: Not with respect to that exhibit. I 14 may get into the resume on the cross. 15 THE COURT: That's fair enough. 16 Exhibit 3 is received. 17 MR. DODGE: Thank you, your Honor. 18 BY MR. LOVE: 19 Q. Dr. Boyle, in preparing for your testimony here today, 20 could you please outline for the Court -- I think you have 21 done so somewhat already -- some of the documents that you 22 reviewed and the source materials you looked at in 23 preparing your testimony today? 24 A. I have a pretty detailed knowledge about these things 25 generally. For example, when the Nuclear Nonproliferation KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 32 1 Act first came out in 1978, I did read it, but in 2 preparation for this testimony today, I've gone back and 3 read the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, the Nuclear 4 Nonproliferation Act, the Nuclear Proliferation Prevention 5 Act of 1994, the 1998 amendments. I have read a large 6 quantity of documents produced by the Department of Energy 7 on the Parallex Project. I have read the Environmental 8 Assessment dealing with the aspects of international 9 environmental law that have not been dealt with in the 10 Environmental Assessment, in my opinion, should have been 11 dealt with the Stockholm Declaration, which is not there, 12 and the World Court Advisory Opinion on 1996, I have an 13 article on it that. I didn't go back and read the whole 14 advisory opinion, but I reread the portions of the 15 article, and other scholarly sources that deal with this 16 question. There are other sources I did not have a chance 17 to review not directly related to proliferation per se. 18 But for example, in my opinion the EA should 19 have dealt with the UN Convention on the Law of the Seas. 20 It's not in there. There's been nuclear accidents 21 convention, it's not dealt with in there. There is the 22 Bowel convention on the International Transportation of 23 Hazardous Substance and Toxic Materials, that's not in 24 there. I identified those as further sources that should 25 be analyzed in my opinion, but I haven't had a chance to KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 33 1 go back and review all of those sources. 2 Q. Dr. Boyle, did the types of materials that you've just 3 identified for the Court, are these the types of materials 4 that in your experience are relied upon by experts in the 5 field of international law in forming opinions as to the 6 legitimacy of governmental actions under internationally? 7 A. Yes. I also have experience reading environmental impact 8 statements. When the Pentagon produced the DEIS or the 9 biological defense research program, the Council for 10 Responsible Genetics asked me to evaluate this entire 11 thing -- it was an enormous document -- and submit formal 12 comments on it to the Pentagon, which I did do and they 13 did respond to. So this is the type of sources that 14 experts in my field would normally look at and review in 15 forming an opinion about Government behavior, and I have 16 done this before with respect to biological weapons. 17 Q. Dr. Boyle, I'm going to show you what has been marked for 18 identification as Plaintiff's Exhibit 4. Ask you to take 19 a moment to look at that and let me know when you've had a 20 chance to do so, please. 21 A. Yes. This is the treaty on the nonproliferation of 22 nuclear weapons, and as I've said, it has also been 23 implemented by Congress on the Nuclear Nonproliferation 24 Act of 1978, the Nuclear Proliferation Prevention Act of 25 1994 and also 1998 amendments. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 34 1 The critical point to keep in mind about this 2 treaty, Your Honor, is that Congress has passed 3 legislation expressing its understanding of what this 4 treaty means and what our obligations are under this 5 treaty. And this legislation is binding on the Department 6 of Energy, on the President, on the Department of State 7 and respectfully, Your Honor, on this Court. And what we 8 see, when you read through it all, is Congress has 9 decided, and prior to that the Atomic Energy Act as well, 10 that nuclear power, nuclear weapons, nuclear proliferation 11 is so important to the American people and our republic, 12 that they have decided to engage in micro management of 13 everything related to this subject and have pretty much, I 14 would not say completely eliminated, but whittled down 15 substantially any discretion that the executive branch 16 might have in this area. I have, as I said, I did read 17 the NPA back in 1978, but when you add in everything else, 18 what surprised me was how little discretion was left to 19 the executive branch with respect to nuclear 20 proliferation, nuclear weapons. In this area, they have 21 very little discretion. 22 Q. Professor Boyle, if you could, can you explain to the 23 Court what the implications are for Canada, Russia and the 24 United States under the Nonproliferation Treaty? 25 A. Well, my reading of both the treaty and in light of the KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 35 1 Department of Energy documents describing Parallex and 2 MOX, the Red Team report, many other documents that I've 3 read, in my opinion, there are serious problems, 4 compliance problems for this entire project under Articles 5 I, II and III of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty as 6 interpreted by the United States Congress. 7 The Article I deals with the obligations of the 8 United States and Russia. Each nuclear weapons State 9 Party to the Treaty, i.e. U.S. and Russia, undertakes not 10 to transfer to any recipient whatsoever, i.e. Canada, 11 nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices, and we 12 have a problem here in that Congress has interpreted this 13 to mean components of nuclear weapons or nuclear explosive 14 devices; that is, Congress simply does not interpret this 15 to mean you can't hand over a bomb, but a component for a 16 bomb is prohibited. And here we are dealing with weapons 17 grade plutonium, which Dr. Edwards has already testified 18 can be and indeed is, in his opinion, a component for 19 either a nuclear weapon or a nuclear explosive device. 20 Okay? 21 So when you read the treaty in light of the 22 statutory scheme, in my opinion, there are serious 23 compliance problems here with Article I, which have not 24 been addressed in the EA. The DOE has not dealt with any 25 of these problems at all in the EA, indeed, they have KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 36 1 basically said in one of their comments "Well, once we 2 give it to Canada, it's their problem," and that just is 3 an incorrect statement, in my opinion. 4 And it says "directly or indirectly," which 5 means also we, the United States, directly or indirectly 6 by encouraging and paying for the Russians to do this, you 7 see. So we are accountable for the Russian behavior 8 because we are working with them. And indeed, if we were 9 sued at the International Court of Justice -- let's 10 suppose something went wrong, Your Honor, and there was, 11 as Dr. Edwards testified, an aerial explosion in the 12 latest helicopter shipment and radiological dispersal of 13 plutonium that came across the border, killing Americans, 14 killing Canadians, others, if we were sued in World Court 15 over this, we would be found both jointly and severally 16 liable with Russia, with Canada, for any accident. 17 Likewise, this is followed up by both shipments on the 18 high seas of the plutonium. If there is an accident on 19 high seas, we could be sued at the World Court, the United 20 States, both ourselves and jointly and severally with 21 Russia and Canada over any accident here that might 22 happen. And that substantive liability could be based on 23 the U.N. Law of the Sea Convention. As I said, Your 24 Honor, I haven't had time to go through the environmental 25 provision of the Law of the Sea Convention, the Department KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 37 1 of Energy didn't even bother, and in the EA they did not 2 look at this at all. They did not consider this, but it 3 certainly is something that has to be considered, that 4 they haven't looked at. 5 And then "not in any way to assist, encourage or 6 induce any non-nuclear weapon State to manufacture or 7 otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear 8 explosive devices." Well, the problem here is Canada is 9 supposed to be a non-nuclear weapons state and says 10 "otherwise acquired nuclear explosive devices." Well, we 11 are giving them weapons grade plutonium, which again 12 Dr. Edwards has testified, and he is Canadian, is a 13 component of a nuclear weapons or nuclear explosive 14 device. And again, "or control over such weapons or 15 explosive devices." We are giving them weapons grade 16 plutonium. And if you look at how Congress has 17 interpreted this, they interpret it down to components, 18 they even talk about substances that they are trying to 19 regulate everything, and understand the 1978 legislation 20 was a very strict interpretation of what this treaty means 21 as far as the United States Government is concerned. And 22 I think we really need a comprehensive assessment here by 23 the Department of Energy as to whether or not any of these 24 transfers is consistent with Article I. Under the current 25 circumstances, they haven't bothered to look at any of the KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 38 1 terms as defined by Congress, the applicability of the 2 Congressional legislation to the transfers. 3 Likewise, Article II, Your Honor, Article II 4 deals with the Canadian obligations, "Each 5 non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes 6 not to receive the transfer from any transferor whatsoever 7 of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices." 8 Again, the same analysis here needs to be done. This 9 weapons grade plutonium, in my opinion and Dr. Edwards' 10 opinion, is clearly a component of either a nuclear weapon 11 or nuclear explosive device. And Canada, according to 12 this language, has agreed not to receive this material. 13 And by the way, as Dr. Edwards correctly pointed out, Your 14 Honor, this was consistent United States policy, stopping 15 proliferation of this type of material for any reason 16 going back to the Carter administration. We are seeing a 17 major dramatic change here in United States 18 nonproliferation policy, and that policy, Your Honor, 19 going back to the Carter administration, is enshrined in 20 law by Congress in the Nuclear Nonproliferation Act of 21 1978. So again, in my opinion, I believe these issues 22 likewise need to be addressed by the Department of 23 Energy. They have not been addressed in the environmental 24 assessment at all. 25 "Or control over such weapons or explosive KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 39 1 devices, directly or indirectly." Well, again, we are 2 giving Canada, either ourselves in the first shipment or 3 indirectly by means of the Russians in the second 4 shipment, control over a component for a nuclear weapon or 5 a nuclear explosive device. That's very clear they are 6 getting it. And according to the EA, we are trusting 7 their good intentions. There is no assurance in the EA 8 that this weapons grade plutonium is subject to 9 international safeguards. No. Despite the fact that 10 Congress has made it very clear that any transfer, and 11 Congress also made it clear in the legislation that they 12 are against any transfers of this type of stuff to other 13 States. But if there are any transfers at a minimum there 14 have to be absolute guaranteed protections on 15 international assurances to make sure it is not misused, 16 and you will note in the EA it says nothing about it. 17 There are no assurances about anything. 18 Now, "to manufacture or otherwise acquire 19 nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices; and 20 not to seek or receive any assistance in the manufacture," 21 etcetera, etcetera. 22 Article III then deals with the safeguard 23 requirements; that is, if there are transfers of materials 24 for peaceful purposes, and you know you can obviously, 25 Your Honor, you can read this yourself. There must be KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 40 1 safeguards. Under the supervision of the International 2 Atomic Energy Agency, the Environmental Assessment says 3 nothing at all about these safeguards. Nothing. It isn't 4 in there. 5 Apparently we have to rely on not even 6 statements by Canada that what we are transferring there, 7 what we are encouraging the Russians to transfer are 8 somehow going to be safeguarded despite the fact that 9 Article III says that there must be safeguards, and we 10 simply don't have them. 11 Q. Dr. Boyle, I'm going to show you what's been marked for 12 identification as Plaintiff's Exhibit 5 and ask you to 13 take a look in the upper right-hand corner, and after 14 you've had a moment to review that, let me know, please. 15 A. Yes. This is an article I had read in preparation for my 16 testimony here today, from the Toronto News. 17 Q. Based on your experience and expertise, Dr. Boyle, is this 18 the type of information that an international law scholar 19 could rely on in formulating opinions about the state or 20 nationally? 21 A. Well, here is stating comments by Mr. Tom Clemens, head of 22 the Washington-based Nuclear Control Institute. It's a 23 recognized organization dealing with nuclear policies, and 24 certainly experts in my field would rely upon statements 25 produced by the Nuclear Control Institute and, indeed, KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 41 1 prior to my testimony today, I did read several documents 2 produced by the Nuclear Control Institute just in the 3 normal course of preparing, yes. An expert in my field 4 would rely on this. 5 Q. Dr. Boyle, my recollection is you testified this appeared 6 in the Toronto -- 7 A. News. 8 Q. -- News and it -- 9 A. The Globe and Mail, which is, you know, it's sort of like 10 the New York Times here in the United States, a newspaper 11 of public record, so again, it's not like a tabloid or 12 something like this. 13 Q. Plaintiff's Exhibit 5, Dr. Boyle in the right-hand column 14 attributes some comments to a Sunni Locatelli purportedly 15 a spokeswoman at the Atomic Control Board. Do you see 16 that? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. What if anything is the significance, based on your 19 experience as expertise, of considering published reports 20 attributed to spokespersons for governmental entities in 21 formulating use of international law? 22 A. Yes. There is a decision by the International Court of 23 Justice in the nuclear test cases dealing with nuclear 24 explosions 1974, stating that the Court can rely upon 25 official statements made by Government officials acting KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 42 1 within their scope of authority and certainly Locatelli 2 here is the spokeswoman of the Atomic Energy Control 3 Board. So basically, I would be able to take this 4 statement and file it at the World Court and they would 5 find the statement could be, would be attributable to the 6 Canadian government, and Canada would be bound by this 7 statement. 8 Q. What does that article, Plaintiff's Exhibit 5, attribute 9 to Miss Locatelli? 10 A. She can't reveal how much fissile material Canada has. We 11 aren't able to give out that information under our 12 security regulations. Ms. Locatelli said Canada believes 13 it should come under the IA/EA guidelines because it 14 doesn't operate its own reprocessing facilities. I think 15 Dr. Edwards just pointed out that isn't correct. But even 16 if it were correct, it does come under IA/EA, and we need 17 to know, the United States Government under the NPT, under 18 the Congressional implementing legislation, we have to 19 know how much fissile material Canada has. 20 And basically, we are just taking their, 21 whatever their word is for it, and in my opinion, that's 22 unacceptable. We have to know how much material they have 23 and what they are doing with it, and what she's saying 24 here is "Well, we are just not going to tell you." And 25 you will note in the EA, the Department of Energy has KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 43 1 taken the same position. One of the comments made was 2 "Well, what is Canada doing," and the response of the DOE 3 is well, that is Canada's problem, once it leaves here we 4 are no longer responsible. The treaty and statutory 5 regime make it clear that's not the case. We are 6 responsible for our plutonium, wherever it goes. And 7 Congress has made it clear even if we do give it up, we 8 have to have absolute international safeguards as to what 9 is going to happen with our plutonium. And the same would 10 apply if we are encouraging Russia to ship weapons grade 11 plutonium to Canada. We have an obligation to make sure 12 that it's safeguarded and that it can be accountable and 13 accounted for. And what Ms. Locatelli here is saying 14 "Well, sorry, we are just not going to tell you." Again, 15 this raises serious problems in my mind that have not been 16 dealt with by the Department of Energy as to compliance 17 with the IA/EA safeguards regime, which is absolutely 18 required under Article III of the NPT and also required 19 under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Act. Indeed, if I 20 remember correctly, the 1994 implementation, Your Honor, 21 Congress said that transferring of unsafeguarded plutonium 22 is an act of international terrorism as far as Congress is 23 concerned. 24 So and that would trigger a whole host of other 25 provisions of the federal code dealing with international KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 44 1 terrorism, so we really need to know what is going to 2 happen to our plutonium when it gets up into Canada, and 3 to make sure there are safeguards and it is accountable 4 and there is an explanation here. 5 Now Mr. Clemens then said that, in his opinion, 6 Canada has 40 kilograms of plutonium, it's really not 7 accounted for or accountable for by anyone, and that 8 basically makes Canada a de facto nuclear weapons state. 9 I would agree, assuming that they do have the 40 kilograms 10 of plutonium, and I take it you know Mr. Clemens -- I had 11 e-mail correspondence with Mr. Clemens about this matter. 12 He feels that they do have it and that his group, the 13 Nuclear Control Institute, will be making this evidence 14 available soon. He told me it is not yet -- he is not yet 15 prepared to make it public, but they will be going public 16 with it soon. 17 In my opinion, if that is the case, they have 40 18 kilograms of plutonium, that's enough to make five bombs, 19 and that makes Canada a de facto nuclear weapons state 20 under the NPT and, in my opinion, would be inconsistent 21 with the NPT. There is a potential here for Canada being 22 in violation of the NET. We need to know that. Congress 23 has sanctions in there in the implementing legislation for 24 non-nuclear weapons states being, moving into a position 25 where they are de facto nuclear weapons states in KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 45 1 violation of the NPT. 2 It's clear Congress interprets our obligations 3 under the treaty to mean that a non-nuclear weapons state 4 simply cannot go off, assemble all the components for a 5 bomb, have one here, one there and one there, and then 6 say, oh but we are not a nuclear weapons state because we 7 haven't assembled the bomb. 8 Again, Congress made it very clear, no. Indeed, 9 in one of the pieces of legislation, Congress indicated 10 that it was also concerned with a facto nuclear weapons 11 states that an end run around the NPT, and the 12 Congressional regime applicable to it. Again, I regret to 13 report I haven't seen any of these issues dealt with by 14 the Department of Energy in the Environmental Assessments 15 and, indeed, when they were asked about it, they just said 16 this is now Canada's problem. Wondered-- United States 17 law of the NPT, it is not Canada's problem alone, it is 18 our problem because it's our plutonium and it's Russian 19 plutonium that we are paying to send up to Canada. 20 Q. Professor Boyle, based on the representations of Miss 21 Locatelli on behalf of Atomic Energy Control Board of 22 Canada that they don't believe they are subject to the 23 IA/EA guidelines, what if any impact would that have on 24 the United States' responsibility under the Nuclear 25 Nonproliferation Treaty of 1978? KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 46 1 A. It's very clear, Your Honor, the NPT and the Congressional 2 implementing legislation that we ourselves cannot ship 3 weapons grade plutonium there or engage in the Russians to 4 ship weapons grade plutonium unless there are absolutely 5 safeguards by the IA/EA that, to make sure that there is 6 no diversion. And again, Miss Locatelli is indicating 7 there is a high amount of uncertainty as to what is 8 happening with the Canadian plutonium. We simply don't 9 know. In the EA, there are no guarantees given by the 10 Department of Energy as to what is happening to plutonium 11 up in Canada. 12 Q. You may have testified to this, Dr. Boyle, and I apologize 13 if I missed it, but are Russia, Canada and the United 14 States all signatory partis to the Nonproliferation 15 Treaty? 16 A. Yes. We are all parties. There are about 182 or 183 17 states that are parties. The United States and Russia are 18 nuclear weapon states, parties to the convention, that is, 19 we are permitted to have nuclear weapons and nuclear 20 components, etc. Canada is designated a non-nuclear 21 weapons state. And they are supposed to preserve this 22 stative or statement. Yet according to the Nuclear 23 Control Institute, they have enough plutonium up there to 24 at least manufacture five bombs. So somehow this has to 25 be explained and accounted for in order for them to KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 47 1 continue their non-nuclear weapons state status under the 2 NPT, so again, the Nuclear Control Institute is raising 3 very serious compliance problems and potentially serious 4 violation of the NPT by Canada, and there are severe 5 sanctions in the United States laws enacted by Congress 6 under the Simplemen legislation, Your Honor, in the event 7 a state that is a non-nuclear weapons state moves to 8 become a nuclear weapons state. And again, none of this 9 has been addressed by the Department of Energy in the 10 environmental assessment that I'm aware of, either in the 11 environmental assessment or elsewhere. 12 Q. Dr. Boyle, could you advise the Court, if you would, as to 13 what the ramifications legally are of being a signatory 14 party to an international treaty such as the 15 Nonproliferation Treaty? 16 A. Yes. Your Honor, of course, the basic rule of Pacta Sunt, 17 P-a-c-t-a-s-u-n-t, Servanda, S-e-r-v-a-n-d-a. 18 The other point -- there are two other points, 19 however, that must be kept in mind in interpreting any 20 treaty and especially the NPT. First, the treaty must be 21 interpreted in good faith. And again, the question here 22 with Canada maintaining 40 kilograms of plutonium is 23 whether or not this is a good faith interpretation 24 implementation of the NPT by Canada. 25 Second, the treaty must be interpreted in KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 48 1 accordance with its object and purpose, and that in this 2 case the NPT is to stop nuclear proliferation. And again, 3 this entire program, the Parallex program, in my opinion, 4 seems to defeat the object and purpose of the NPT, which 5 is to stop nuclear proliferation. 6 The third point to keep in mind is that this 7 treaty has already been interpreted by Congress and 8 implemented by Congress. And Congress is agreeing with 9 what I'm saying here, Your Honor, and I'm agreeing with 10 what Congress is saying. Congress has made it very clear 11 that they do not want to see any type of nuclear 12 proliferation or programs that encourage nuclear 13 proliferation. And we are now seeing a drastic departure 14 from the policy enacted in Congress pursuant to the NPC 15 back in -- the NPT back in 1978 in the Nuclear 16 Nonproliferation Act, and we have seen no change in the 17 legislation by Congress to authorize or approve this 18 drastic change. And again, I agree with what Dr. Edwards 19 said from his Canadian perspective, my American 20 perspective, the Parallex MOX project is a drastic change 21 in encouraging proliferation of nuclear weapons components 22 and there has been no direct approval, change of statutes 23 or whatever. So again, this, in my opinion, raises very 24 serious problems under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty 25 as interpreted in good faith and in accordance with its KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 49 1 object and purpose not only for Canada, but the United 2 States and Russia. And in my opinion, we should have a 3 full study of all these issues by the Department of Energy 4 before there is any further movement on this project. 5 The implications here are enormous. They could 6 be catastrophic, and I personally would like to see a full 7 scale investigation analysis so that I could evaluate it 8 myself before anyone goes ahead with this project, but of 9 course that, you know, that's my personal opinion. I know 10 that's for you, Your Honor, to decide. 11 Q. Dr. Boyle, what if anything is the requirement or 12 obligation of the United States to interpret the 13 Nonproliferation Treaty in good faith? I think you 14 testified that Canada has that obligation. Does the 15 United States have a similar obligation? 16 A. Yes. And as a matter of fact, here Congress has 17 interpreted our obligation under the NPT and, in my 18 opinion, Congress has interpreted our obligations under 19 the NPT in good faith and also in accordance with the 20 object and purpose of this treaty. Congress interpreted 21 this by means of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Act of 1978, 22 the Nuclear Proliferation Prevention Act of 1994 and the 23 1998 amendments to do with the India-Pakistani 24 explosions. So in my opinion, Congress did interpret this 25 treaty in good faith and in accordance with its object and KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 50 1 purpose and it appears to me the Department of Energy is 2 off there on their own with no express authorization from 3 Congress pursuing a policy here that defeats the object 4 and purpose of the NPT. 5 Q. By that, you are referring to the Parallex project? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. With respect to the Congressional implementation of the 8 NPT in the '78, '94 and '98 acts, what if anything is the 9 role of the Department of State and/or Department of 10 Energy with respect to interpreting those obligations? 11 A. Yes. Your Honor, it's very clear from the treaty related 12 to the statutory scheme. Treaties deal with international 13 law and foreign relations. Therefore, they are normally 14 negotiated and concluded by the Department of State and 15 then they are handed over to the Senate Foreign Relations 16 to the Senate for advice and consent. It is the State 17 Department that traditionally has always had the sole and 18 exclusive role here in the United States with respect to 19 nonproliferation policy, not the Department of Energy. 20 The Department of Energy has always been treated as a 21 technical agency, technical consultant. The policy is 22 formulated by the State Department. There had been, again 23 going back to the Carter administration, United States 24 Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, Your Honor, set up by 25 Congress to deal precisely with these issues. They were KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 51 1 the ones given the authority to deal with proliferation 2 and nonproliferation policies negotiate these agreements, 3 etcetera. Senator Helms in the latest did not like act, 4 he concluded it was super numerator morgue or something so 5 he passed legislation terminating the Arms Control 6 Disarmament Agency and transferring all functions to the 7 Department of State today. But if you read the 8 Congressional implementing legislation, they make it very 9 clear that the lead role played on proliferation and 10 nonproliferation policy is the Department of State, not 11 the Department of Energy, and the Department of State 12 should consult with the Department of Energy. At times 13 the Department of Energy is given authority to have its 14 input to the Department of State, but it's the Department 15 of State that makes nonproliferation policy, not the 16 Department of Energy. 17 Q. In your review of the environmental assessment prepared by 18 the Department of Energy in January of '99, Dr. Boyle, 19 regarding the Parallex Project, is there any indication 20 that the Department of Energy consulted with the 21 Department of State? And if you don't mind, I direct your 22 attention to Page 41 of Plaintiff's Exhibit 12 previously 23 admitted and ask you to refer to that. 24 A. Yes. They had a list here of agencies consulted. Your 25 Honor, over here on Page 41, it says agencies consulted KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 52 1 during the preparation of this analysis: Atomic Energy of 2 Canada, Canadian Atomic Energy Control Board, U.S. 3 Department of Transportation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 4 Commission. They do not consult with the Department of 5 State and, in my opinion, and also in the opinion of 6 Congress, if you read through all the implementing 7 legislation, I know, Your Honor, as I understand it, you 8 are a conscientious Judge so I'm sure you are going to do 9 this, you'll see that they have to deal with the 10 Department of State. And the main problem with this EA is 11 they have not dealt with the Department of State, they 12 have not dealt with the nonproliferation issues, they have 13 not dealt with the Nonproliferation Treaty, they have not 14 dealt with the 1978 Act, they have not dealt with the 1994 15 Act, they have not dealt with the 1998 Act. All that is 16 expressly required by Congress. So again, in my opinion, 17 for some reason the Department of Energy has just decided 18 to go out there on its own and completely either ignore or 19 violate the Congressional statutes and procedures for 20 dealing with proliferation and nonproliferation issues. 21 Q. Dr. Boyle, to your knowledge, has the Department of State 22 retreated at all from the U.S. commitment to the 23 Nonproliferation Treaty as implemented by Congress through 24 the legislation you've indicated? 25 A. No, and as a matter of fact, Madeline Albright was just KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 53 1 out in India-Pakistan with President Clinton. As you 2 know, President Clinton stated that today India-Pakistan, 3 the Indian subcontinent is the most dangerous place on the 4 face of the earth because of the proliferation problem, 5 and they both have nuclear weapons now, and the dispute 6 over Casmir. 7 President Clinton then was just lectured in the 8 Indian Parliament publicly by the speaker of Parliament 9 for making the statement, but I think it's a fair and 10 accurate statement. Madeline Albright followed this up 11 with another statement reiterating our commitment to 12 nonproliferation and, specifically with respect to India 13 and Pakistan, that this was the policy of the United 14 States Government, and also tying this into the integral 15 importance of safeguards. 16 And again, that is a fair and accurate statement 17 of the policy being pursued by the President and the 18 Secretary of State that is charged under the legislation 19 and the Constitution to deal with these matters. There is 20 a complete and total disconnect here between what the 21 President and Secretary of State are saying and what the 22 Department of Energy is planning to do here in the 23 environmental assessment. 24 Q. Dr. Boyle, I'm going to show you what has been marked as 25 Plaintiff's Exhibit 11 and ask you to take a minute to KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 54 1 review that and let me know when you have had a chance to 2 do so, please. 3 A. Yes. This is an account of the Secretary of State 4 Albright's statement on April 2, as recently as April 2 5 dealing with our proliferation policies. And let me draw 6 a few things to your attention. United States regards 7 proliferation anywhere as our Number 1 security concern. 8 So again, she's pointing this out and she is the cabinet 9 officer with the authority to deal with these matters, not 10 the Secretary of Energy. We continue to seek universal 11 adherence to the NPT neither India nor Pakistan are 12 parties to the NPT. And here is crucial points: The 13 limits in our ability to cooperate with India and Pakistan 14 are a matter of U.S. law, as well as our international 15 obligations, all right? So Secretary Albright is pointing 16 out we have United States law that deals with 17 proliferation and this United States law -- of course, 18 she's not a lawyer -- but the U.S. law is the Nuclear 19 Nonproliferation Act, the Proliferation Prevention Act and 20 the '98 amendments as well as the Atomic Energy Act. So 21 there's a very comprehensive legislative scheme here as 22 well as our international obligation she points out. 23 There are international treaties here, and in particular 24 the most important one being the one she just referred to, 25 the Nonproliferation Treaty, and she is aware of that. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 55 1 Unfortunately, it does not appear that the Department of 2 Energy is aware of it or is concerned about it in the 3 least bit, at least as reflected in the environmental 4 assessment, they have not dealt with any of these issues 5 in environmental assessment nothing, none. 6 Q. Dr. Boyle, based on your experience and investigations 7 study, are you aware of whether or not India and Pakistan 8 have Canadian CANDU reactors? 9 A. As I understand it, they've got reactors from the Indian 10 Nuclear Bomb Project was a serous reactor, Canada, India 11 and United States, right. And Pakistan has a CANDU 12 reactor, right. And just the other day, the New York 13 Times reported the smuggling of substantial quantity of 14 nuclear materials out of the former Soviet Union towards 15 Pakistan that was recently intercepted in Kazakhstan, I 16 think. So I think this is a very serious problem. And I 17 don't see how this Parallex MOX -- it's only going to 18 compound the problem. These countries are doing 19 everything they possibly can. And here I would also add 20 in Israel is not a party to the NPT. There are other 21 states that have CANDU reactors, it has already been 22 reported in the professional literature, Your Honor, that 23 Japan too is a de facto nuclear weapons state in violation 24 of the NPT. And as Dr. Edwards already reported, they 25 have gotten a good deal of their nuclear material from KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 56 1 Canada. 2 So, we see -- Canadian reactors that are what, 3 in South Korea, Taiwan, states that are interested in 4 getting nuclear weapons. Clearly Taiwan wants them, South 5 Korea wants them. And you know, not that I can speak for 6 these governments, but it seems to me they have made a 7 decision the best way to get a weapon is to do it the way 8 the Indians did. We get a Canadian CANDU reactor, then we 9 start getting in whatever material we can get from, for 10 example, this MOX program. They will get plutonium and 11 then they can make a bomb, they can assemble a bomb. 12 As for the ease of assembling a bomb, Your 13 Honor, when I was a student at Harvard there was a very 14 bright student at MIT who, as a class project, assembled a 15 bomb. He had everything there except the plutonium. 16 That's how easy it is to assemble an atomic bottom, and he 17 brought it down there and, if I remember correctly, in 18 central square at MIT, and just showed it to everyone. 19 Even a bright student at MIT can assemble a bomb, that's 20 how easy it is to do. And what we see on these states 21 that say they are non-nuclear weapons states is an effort 22 to get a CANDU reactor and do what the Indians do use the 23 CANDU reactor, then they just need to get hold of the 24 plutonium, and Parallex MOX is going to give them access 25 to this plutonium if it gets in circulation. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 57 1 Q. Dr. Boyle, you've testified in some depth as to the 2 Nonproliferation Treaty and the implementation by Congress 3 indicating Congress' intent to prohibit even components, 4 parts of nuclear weapons to be covered by the U.S.; is 5 that correct? 6 A. Congress has interpreted the NPT, as I said, in good 7 faith, and to achieve its object and purpose and they have 8 interpreted to mean components that is clear of nuclear 9 weapons or nuclear explosive devices and there are other 10 areas in legislation where they even break it down to 11 items or substances that could be used for nuclear weapons 12 or nuclear explosive device, so Congress is aware of this 13 problem of a state becoming a de facto nuclear weapons 14 state and somehow trying to assemble components, items and 15 substances to be used for a nuclear weapon in order to 16 circumvent the treaty. So again Congress has interpreted, 17 I think, the treaty properly. 18 Q. Are you familiar in the course of your research with the 19 DOE's stockpile of stewardship program? 20 A. I am, yes. 21 Q. Are you familiar with their use in that program of 22 subcritical amounts of weapons grade plutonium? 23 A. Yes. Right now the Department of Energy is engaging in 24 what are known as subcritical tests. A subcritical test 25 is using -- they just did one this week, I think I gave KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 58 1 you the press release on it, and they are consistently 2 doing this. 3 A subcritical test uses a subcritical amount of 4 plutonium, which is under the -- it was eight kilograms. 5 And they are exploding it in order to test, verify and 6 develop the next generation of U.S. nuclear weapons. So 7 what we see the Department of Energy doing here is the 8 subcritical tests, in my opinion, would constitute it's 9 not a nuclear weapon, but it is a nuclear explosive 10 device. Now, there is nothing illegal with, under the NPT 11 with us having a nuclear explosive device, because we are 12 a nuclear weapons state party, but again, it creates 13 problems other states are now mimicking our behavior. 14 Russia is doing the same thing, France and Britain say 15 they are going to do the same thing. If we give weapons 16 grade plutonium to Canada, Canada could be doing the same 17 thing. Or the Russians give their weapons grade plutonium 18 to Canada, Canada could be doing the same thing, and other 19 states could be doing the same thing. So again, I think I 20 have serious concerns here, but I want to point out the 21 DOE is already engaged in the subcritical tests which are 22 clearly nuclear explosive devices. So it just doesn't 23 have to be a bomb to be regulated by the NPT. 24 Q. Dr. Boyle, in the scope of your experience and research, 25 have you become acquainted with the International Court of KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 59 1 Justice opinion regarding nuclear weapons in 1996? 2 A. Yes. As a matter of fact, I was part of the effort 3 originally to try to get that advisory opinion from the 4 World Court. 5 Q. If you would explain briefly what the significance, if 6 anything, of that World Court decision on the Parallex 7 project is, in your opinion? 8 A. Well, Your Honor, the World Court was asked by the United 9 Nations general assembly to give an opinion on the entire 10 question of nuclear weapons and international law. It's a 11 very long decision with many separate decisions in the 12 sense I've written an article here, Mr. Love might want to 13 provide it to you, going through all of it. But in this 14 opinion, there are two critical components that are 15 relevant to the Parallex MOX project and, of course, the 16 EA has not dealt with either, let alone the World Court 17 opinion, and the World Court opinion in this area 18 enunciates the rules of international law that are binding 19 on the United States Government, binding on Canada, 20 binding on Russia. The one component of this opinion 21 deals with the environmental-- international environmental 22 law applicable to nuclear weapons, and you will note in 23 the EA, the DOE does absolutely nothing at all with 24 international environmental law applicable to this 25 transaction because it is an international transaction, KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 60 1 they're shipping plutonium from the States up to Canada 2 and from Russia over to Canada. So international 3 environmental law is involved, and the DOE has done 4 nothing at all about it. 5 And Mr. Love, I think you have the exact 6 language there. You want to provide that to me, the exact 7 ruling of the Court on the international environmental law 8 that would apply? 9 MR. LOVE: Your Honor, we have tendered what I'm 10 going to show Dr. Boyle as Plaintiff's Exhibit 14, a copy 11 of the World Court opinion to both the Court and counsel 12 previously. 13 BY MR. LOVE: 14 Q. Dr. Boyle, I'm going to show you what has been marked as 15 Plaintiff's Exhibit 14 and ask you to take a look at that 16 and let us know when you've had a chance to do so and what 17 it is. 18 A. Right, this is the World Court advisory opinion. It's so 19 long, I'm going to have to get my notes on it, excuse me. 20 I think, Mr. Love, I gave you my notes last 21 night on the relevant provisions of the opinion, the 22 relevant paragraphs. 23 Q. While I'm looking for your notes, could you direct your 24 attention to Paragraph 27, please? 25 A. Right. What we need are the paragraphs here. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 61 1 Right. Yes, I have Paragraph 27. 2 Your Honor, here the World Court unanimously 3 adopted Principle 21 of the Stockholm Declaration of 1972, 4 which everyone would say today is a basic principle of 5 international environmental law, which the EA has not 6 bothered to deal with. And it basically says states have 7 a duty "to ensure that activities within their 8 jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to the 9 environment of other states or areas beyond the limits of 10 national jurisdiction." That's a basic principle of 11 international environmental law. It goes back to the 12 Stockholm Declaration of 1972. It has direct relevance 13 here to this entire project. You've got international 14 shipment of plutonium, it's going over the high seas if it 15 goes by boat from Russia. That also triggers the Law of 16 the Sea Convention that they have not dealt with. They 17 haven't dealt with the Stockholm Declaration, and they 18 have not dealt with this recent ruling by the World Court 19 as to obligations under international law. If you read 20 the EA when they are asked this question, they said "Once 21 we give to Canada, that's their problem." Well, again, 22 that isn't a correct statement of international law. It 23 is our problem. 24 The second important point of the ICJ opinion, 25 and there are other sections here dealing with the KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 62 1 environment -- and I know we have a limited amount of 2 time, I'm not going to go through it all -- deals with the 3 interpretation of the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty. 4 This is an international treaty, the World Court 5 also has authority to interpret the Nuclear 6 Nonproliferation Treaty, and they have interpreted the 7 Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. 8 Mr. Love, could you give me -- I identified a 9 paragraph for you, I think it's 102. 10 Q. I believe you are looking for Paragraph 102? 11 A. 102, right. 12 Q. May also want to take a look at Paragraph 99. 13 A. 99 and 102, right. 14 The World Court, in the same advisory opinion, 15 has also dealt with the NPT and the obligation of Article 16 VI of the NPT, "Each of the parties to the treaty 17 undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on 18 effective measures relating to cessation of the" -- "in 19 good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of 20 the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear 21 disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete 22 disarmament under strict and effective international 23 control." And they have interpreted this provision, NPT 24 Article VI, which we are a party to, by the way, to have a 25 dual obligation, two components here: One, we must pursue KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 63 1 negotiations on nuclear disarmament as a matter of good 2 faith. 3 Recently, I regret to report the U.S. Ambassador 4 to the Conference on Nuclear Disarmament sponsored by the 5 United Nations has said "We are not going to pursue 6 nuclear disarmament negotiations." In my opinion, that 7 puts us in breach of NPT Article VI, certainly as 8 interpreted by the World Court. We have an obligation to 9 pursue nuclear disarmament negotiations and we have just 10 said we are not going to do it. The Ambassador said "We 11 are going to pursue instead a treaty on the cutoff of 12 fissile materials such as what is at stake here, but we 13 are not going to pursue nuclear disarmament negotiations." 14 Well, Your Honor, it does seem to me that that is a 15 violation of NPT Article VI and is certainly not meeting 16 the requirements of Article VI as interpreted by the World 17 Court. We must pursue these negotiations in good faith. 18 And then the second component of the obligation 19 is we must achieve a precise result. Nuclear disarmament 20 in all its aspects. And again just recently the U.S. 21 Ambassador to the Council of Nuclear Disarmament under the 22 auspices of the UN said "We are just not going to do it." 23 The reason why this creates serious legal problems is that 24 the non-nuclear weapons states went along with the entire 25 Nuclear Proliferation Treaty on the assumption that the KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 64 1 nuclear weapons states would engage in good faith 2 negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament. If we are 3 not engaging in negotiations leading to nuclear 4 disarmament and publicly say we are not going to do it, 5 this in theory could give the non-nuclear weapons states, 6 all 175 of them, grounds to argue the material breach of 7 the NPT and pull out of the NPT and to engage in nuclear 8 armament. Now I'm not recommending that and indeed I 9 certainly would not recommend that to anyone, but it is a 10 very serious concern if we are not engaging in these 11 nuclear disarmament negotiations, which we are not 12 currently doing. 13 Q. Dr. Boyle, could you briefly summarize for the Court why 14 the International Court of Justice opinions, if at all, 15 are binding on the U.S.? 16 A. This opinion per se is listed as an advisory opinion. So 17 it is -- we are not party to the lawsuit. As you know, 18 some courts can give advisory opinions. Your Honor, you 19 can't give an advisory opinion, but there are courts in 20 the United States that some states courts have authority 21 to give advisory opinions as well as contentious 22 opinions. The World Court has both. They have authority 23 contentious opinion and an advisory opinion. This was not 24 a contentious case. If it were a contentious case, we 25 would be bound by it, like the Lockerbie case, like the KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 65 1 Bosnia cases that I was involved with, those were 2 contentious cases. This was an advisory opinion, however, 3 in this advisory opinion, with these unanimous rulings by 4 the World Court on these points, the World Court made it 5 clear that these rules are customary international law. 6 And rules of customary international law bind the United 7 States Government. The Paquete, P-a-q-u-e-t-e, Habana, 8 H-a-b-a-n-a, decision by the United States Supreme Court 9 customarily international law binds the United States and 10 the United States courts. And technically, this is 11 federal common law. So the, Your Honor, this Court should 12 take into account the World Court rulings on these two 13 points on international environmental law and how the NPT 14 should be interpreted. 15 The rest of the opinion, which is quite lengthy 16 and I had written about elsewhere -- if you are interested 17 in reading my article, you can, but it's not really 18 relevant or terribly germane to the issues here, but 19 certainly, the section on international environmental law 20 and their interpretation of the NPT is relevant. I think 21 they enunciate rules of customary international law. I 22 also have reached the same conclusions myself in my own 23 scholarly research before the World Court did, but I think 24 most experts would agree with the rulings of the World 25 Court on these two points, it's requirements of KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 66 1 international environmental law and the interpretation of 2 the NPT. 3 And again, the DOE's environmental assessment 4 has not taken any of this into account. They have not 5 taken into account the rules of international 6 environmental law, which they should do, and they have not 7 taken into account anything about the NPT. 8 Q. Dr. Boyle, based on your review of the NPT, the Nuclear 9 Nonproliferation Acts of 1978, 1994, and 1998, the 10 International Court of Justice opinion, and the 11 declarations by the Department of State regarding the U.S. 12 position with respect to the Nonproliferation Treaty 13 commitments we have made, do you have an opinion as an 14 expert in international law as to whether the foreign 15 policy of the United States would be violated by the 16 shipment of MOX from Russia to Canada funded by the U.S. 17 DOE? 18 A. Well, again, I agree with everything Dr. Edwards said. 19 Your Honor, this is a major change in United States 20 nonproliferation policy going back at a minimum to the 21 Carter administration and the adoption of the Nuclear 22 Nonproliferation Act, it seems to me completely 23 inconsistent with the treaty, with the Act, the 1978 Act 24 and 1994 Act and the 1998 Act. So yes, this is a major 25 change in policy that potentially is illegal under the KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 67 1 sources. And I would really like to see the Department of 2 Energy comprehensively address all of these issues so we 3 could see what is their authority to do this. Besides 4 their own ipse dixit. I would like to see the authority. 5 I don't see it in any of the sources I've read before for 6 them to unilaterally engage in this major change in policy 7 that seems to be inconsistent with the Treaty, the '78 8 Act, the '94 Act and '98 Act, yes. 9 MR. LOVE: Your Honor, I have no further 10 questions of this witness. Thank you. 11 CROSS EXAMINATION 12 BY MR. DODGE: 13 Q. Morning, Mr. Boyle. 14 A. Morning. 15 Q. I would like to turn your attention back to your C.V., 16 which I think is Exhibit 3. Do you have that in front of 17 you? 18 A. Sure. 19 Q. Just to round out a few items on the second page, about 20 halfway down you testified that you were counsel to Libya 21 in connection with the bombing of the Pan Am flight over 22 Lockerbie, Scotland. 23 A. That is correct. I should point out that matter is being 24 peaceably resolved now by the United States and Libya 25 because of my efforts. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 68 1 Q. And you've also served, going up now the fourth item from 2 the top of that page, since 1987 you served as a legal 3 advisor to the Palestine Liberation Organization? 4 A. That is correct, and I was also the legal advisor to the 5 Palestinian delegation for the Middle East Peace Talks 6 convened under the auspices of President Bush, yes. 7 Q. And two items down from there said you were counsel 8 related to House Resolution 86 in the 102nd Congress 9 dealing with the impeachment of former, then President 10 George Bush? 11 A. Yes. Congressman Henry G. Gonzalez of Texas reached a 12 decision that President Bush going to war violated 13 numerous provisions of the Constitution and international 14 law. You can find them there in House Resolution 86. And 15 he asked me, because of my knowledge and expertise to 16 serve as counsel to them on these matters, and I did serve 17 as counsel free of charge, that is correct. 18 My service to the Palestinian Delegation in the 19 Middle East Peace Negotiations is there in '91 and '93, as 20 I said, President Bush was the one who convened those 21 negotiations, and yes, even though I did set out with 22 Congressman Gonzalez on this issue, President Bush did 23 sign my Biological Weapons Anti-terrorists Act of 1989, 24 which is -- 25 Q. He apparently didn't hold your efforts against you KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 69 1 personally. 2 A. Pardon me? 3 Q. Sounds like he didn't hold it against you personally. 4 A. I don't think he did, no. I'm a lawyer and a law 5 professor and I'm a professional, but he had no problems, 6 President Bush had no problems with my Biological 7 Anti-Terrorism Act. It was approved unanimously by both 8 Houses of Congress. 9 Q. Moving on to the third page, second item from the top of 10 the page, you worked as a consultant in 1993 on 11 Independence for the State of Hawaii. I would assume for 12 Hawaii to become an independent nation? 13 A. That is correct. The State of Hawaii-- the Hawaiian 14 Sovereignty Advisory Commission is an agency of the State 15 of Hawaii. And they were charged under the law by the 16 State of Hawaiian law to investigate all alternatives for 17 the native Hawaiian people. One of the alternatives that 18 needed to be investigated was whether or not the native 19 Hawaiian people should establish their own independent 20 nation state. And I was retained by the State of Hawaii 21 then to advise them on this because of my experience doing 22 the same work with the Palestinians. I advised them on 23 the creation of their state and the peace talks with 24 Israel based on a two-state solution, and the Palestinian 25 state today has diplomatic recognition now by about 125 KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 70 1 states, and currently has de facto UN membership, and I 2 did the legal work on that, so the State of Hawaii 3 retained me to come out and advise on the establishment of 4 an independent nations state, and the State of Hawaii paid 5 my expenses and a modest fee for this work, yes. 6 Q. Moving on to the Nonproliferation Treaty, you testified 7 about Article I. Do you recall that? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. And as I understood your testimony, your view is that the 10 fuel rods at issue in the Parallex Project, in your view, 11 should be treated as components of a nuclear weapon; is 12 that right? Explosive device? 13 A. No. What I said was weapons grade plutonium should be 14 treated as a component of either a nuclear weapon or a 15 nuclear explosive device. 16 Q. What about -- I mean, the Parallex test involves shipment 17 and then irradiation of fuel rods; is that correct? 18 A. Right. 19 Q. And is it your view or is it not your view that those fuel 20 rods constitute components of nuclear weapons or explosive 21 devices? 22 A. My viewpoint is what I said, that weapons grade plutonium 23 is a component of a nuclear weapon or nuclear explosive 24 device. 25 Q. You didn't answer my question. Do you understand the KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 71 1 question? 2 A. Well, I've given my answer. 3 THE COURT: No, you haven't answered his 4 question. He asked you question, if you don't know the 5 answer, say so. He asked you a very specific question 6 about rods. 7 BY MR. DODGE: 8 Q. In fact, the question has to do with your view, if you 9 have one, whether the fuel rods at issue in the Parallex 10 test program constitute components of nuclear weapons or 11 explosive devices. 12 A. If they contain weapons grade plutonium, they would be or 13 could be components of nuclear weapons or nuclear 14 explosive devices. 15 Q. Well, these fuel rods do contain plutonium; is that right? 16 A. As I understand it, it's in there, yep. 17 Q. So in your view, does that make the fuel rods components 18 of nuclear weapons or explosive devices? 19 A. Again, my testimony is that the weapons grade plutonium 20 clearly is either nuclear -- is a component of a nuclear 21 weapon or a nuclear explosive device, and the reason I 22 give that testimony is based on my reading of the 23 Congressional legislation, Congress has taken the position 24 that weapons grade plutonium or plutonium, in general, is 25 a component of a nuclear weapon or nuclear explosive KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 72 1 device. Congress does not deal with the fuel rods, they 2 dealt with the plutonium. 3 Q. I want to make sure I understand your testimony clearly. 4 Is it your testimony, is it your view that any 5 plutonium would qualify as a component of a nuclear 6 weapons or nuclear weapon or explosive device under the 7 treaty? 8 A. My testimony today is the weapons grade plutonium involved 9 in this project is a component of a nuclear weapons or 10 other nuclear explosive device. I believe weapons grade 11 plutonium is what is involved in this project. 12 Q. I asked you a different question. The question was a 13 broader one. Is it your view or not your view that all 14 plutonium would qualify as a component of a nuclear weapon 15 or explosive device under Article I? 16 A. It appears Congress has taken that position, yes, and they 17 have stringently regulated plutonium in all forms. And I 18 also note that the United States Government has exploded a 19 nuclear weapon -- 20 THE COURT: The question is: Is it your 21 opinion? He is asking four or five times now, could you 22 answer that? 23 THE WITNESS: But Your Honor, my opinion is 24 based on -- 25 THE COURT: In courts -- I know you are a KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 73 1 professor -- we answer the questions of the lawyer, not 2 what we want to talk about. He asked you seven or eight 3 questions, none of which you've answered. I would ask you 4 simply listen to the lawyer's question and answer it. 5 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honor. 6 BY MR. DODGE: 7 Q. Do you understand the question? 8 THE COURT: Ask it again for the fifteenth time, 9 ask it again. 10 BY MR. DODGE: 11 Q. Is it your view that all plutonium constitutes a component 12 of nuclear weapon or explosive device under Article I of 13 the treaty? 14 A. It can. 15 Q. It can? 16 A. Yes. Yes. 17 Q. Is it your view across the board that plutonium, whether 18 weapons grade or not, if it's present in a fuel rod for 19 a-- destined for a civilian nuclear reactor would qualify 20 as a component of a nuclear weapon explosive device? 21 A. It could. 22 Q. Do you know whether as a general matter the signatories of 23 the Nonproliferation Treaty have interpreted, whether any 24 signatory has interpreted Article I to ban transport of 25 fuel rods containing plutonium? KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 74 1 A. Congress has strictly regulated plutonium, yes, and there 2 is legislation on the books saying "We, Congress, 3 interpreting our obligations under the NPT, are against 4 international transport of plutonium," yes. 5 Q. Has Congress passed any legislation prohibiting the 6 transport of nuclear fuel rods containing any plutonium? 7 A. In what I have reviewed for my testimony here today, I 8 have not seen in the '78, '94 or '98 Act that Congress has 9 prohibited transport of fuel rods. 10 Q. In fact, fuel rods are transported across national 11 boundaries all the time; is that not correct? 12 A. They are transported. 13 Q. In fact, fuel rods containing plutonium are transported 14 across national boundaries all the time, isn't that 15 correct? 16 A. If they are subject to-- they are supposed to be subject 17 to safeguards, yes. 18 Q. Well, that gets us to another point of your earlier 19 testimony regarding whether the fuel rods particularly at 20 issue in the Parallex Project are or are not subject to 21 IA/EA safeguards in Canada. Do you recall that testimony? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. Do you have personal knowledge whether Canada, the 24 Government of Canada has taken a position on whether the 25 U.S. Parallex fuel rods, which are now in Canada, whether KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 75 1 those fuel rods are now subject to IA/EA safeguards? 2 A. I have not seen any evidence because of the recentness of 3 the movement of the shipments. 4 Q. If I told you that the position of the Government of 5 Canada is that those fuel rods are, in fact, subject to 6 IA/EA safeguards, would you have any basis to quarrel with 7 that? 8 A. The statement by Ms. Locatelli does call into question the 9 validity of these assertions, yes. 10 Q. Miss Locatelli was generally speaking of Parallex fuel 11 rods, was she? 12 A. Speaking about plutonium in general, right. 13 Q. I take it you didn't speak personally to Miss Locatelli? 14 A. No, I did not. 15 Q. About this or any-- 16 A. But I did speak with Mr. Clemens of NCI by e-mail and he 17 has similar concerns to me. 18 Q. Okay. And did you speak to the newspaper reporter, Martin 19 Mittelstaedt, who quoted Ms. Locatelli? 20 A. No, I did not. 21 Q. Whether his quotes accurately reflect what she said or not 22 is not something you would be qualified to testify about; 23 is that right? 24 A. Well, I note The Globe and Mail is a newspaper of public 25 record and I would be able to rely on that in the World KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 76 1 Court for sure, yep. 2 Q. But newspaper reporters are human beings? 3 A. Newspaper reporters make mistakes, sure. But again, the 4 World Court, for example, the nuclear test cases did rely 5 on statements made by Government officials as normally 6 reported in reputable news media sources. They have 7 different standards of evidence, the World Court, than 8 they do here in United States District Court. 9 Q. Now you've also relied on this article, Plaintiff's 10 Exhibit 5, I guess too, in support of your opinion that 11 Canada is in possession of 40 kilograms or up to 40 12 kilograms of plutonium; is that right? 13 A. This is a statement by Mr. Clemens, and I have had e-mail 14 correspondence with him about it. 15 Q. Do you have any personal knowledge whether -- 16 A. No. 17 Q. I'm sorry, I didn't finish my question. 18 A. I did answer your question. 19 THE COURT: He hasn't finished asking it; you 20 couldn't possibly answer his question when he hasn't 21 finished asking it. 22 THE WITNESS: Sorry. 23 BY MR. DODGE: 24 Q. Do you have any personal knowledge of whether Canada, in 25 fact, has 40 kilograms of plutonium? KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 77 1 A. I do not have personal knowledge, no. I'm relying on the 2 statement by Mr. Clemens. 3 Q. Mr. Clemens, does Mr. Clemens have personal knowledge 4 whether Canada has 40-- 5 A. As I understand, Mr. Clemens does. From my e-mail 6 correspondence with him, he does. 7 Q. Has he seen that plutonium? 8 A. Pardon me? 9 Q. Has he seen it? 10 A. He didn't tell me what his sources of evidence are, but he 11 did tell me that they will be making it public soon. 12 Q. So he thinks he has -- he thinks he has evidence to 13 support that conclusion and whether that evidence holds 14 any water or not, we really can't tell, can we? 15 A. Well, again, as an expert, if the NCI is making the 16 statements, I think they are significant and they need to 17 be dealt with, and certainly by the Department of Energy. 18 THE COURT: That was not -- excuse me, that was 19 not his question. 20 Would you repeat your question, please? 21 BY MR. DODGE: 22 Q. The question is: Mr. Clemens believes he has reason or he 23 has evidence to support his conclusion that Canada has 40 24 kilograms of plutonium, but as far as anybody in this 25 courtroom knows, that evidence may or may not hold water, KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 78 1 we just don't know, correct? 2 A. I'm not evaluating the evidence, and Mr. Clemens said the 3 evidence will be produced, so at that point I will review 4 the evidence and formulate a formal opinion. 5 THE COURT: Do you want to ask it again or just 6 want to give up? 7 MR. DODGE: I think that -- I think the point is 8 established to the extent I need to, Your Honor. 9 BY MR. DODGE: 10 Q. Now, you testified earlier that it's up to the State 11 Department, not the Department of Energy to interpret 12 United States treaty obligations; is that right? 13 A. I testified that it is the State Department that is in 14 charge of nuclear proliferation policies, that's what I 15 testified, and not the Department of Energy, yes. 16 Q. Okay. Is it your view that it's -- maybe I misunderstood 17 what you testified earlier. I thought I heard you say 18 that interpreting whether or not the U.S. is complying 19 with Nonproliferation Treaty in particular, that pertinent 20 authority on that would be the State Department, not the 21 Department of Energy; is that a fair statement? 22 A. I've also testified that the State Department has the lead 23 role in the United States Government with respect to 24 interpretation of treatises as well. 25 Q. Do you know what the State Department's position is on KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 79 1 whether the Parallex test program is or is not compliant 2 with Article I of the Nonproliferation Treaty? 3 A. Well, that's why I read the Environmental Assessment, to 4 see if you had talked to the State Department here, and 5 they hadn't, so I have not seen any statement by the State 6 Department as to what their position is, no. 7 Q. The Environmental Assessment is not the only document 8 that's been generated in the course of the Parallex 9 Project, you understand that? 10 A. That is correct, and I have read a good deal of the 11 documentation, but I still have not seen an expression by 12 the Department of State on this issue. 13 Q. Okay. Do you know whether or not the State Department was 14 involved at any level in the Parallex Project? 15 A. There probably were discussions somewhere in there. 16 Q. Do you know? 17 A. Myself personally? 18 Q. Yes. 19 A. I don't know for sure. 20 Q. Do you know one way or the other whether the State 21 Department has a view on whether the Parallex Project is 22 consistent with our treaty obligations under Article I of 23 the NPT? 24 A. I have not seen any expression by the State Department on 25 this issue. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 80 1 Q. If I told you the State Department has taken the view that 2 the Parallex Project is entirely consistent with our 3 obligations under Article I, would you have any basis to 4 quarrel with that? 5 A. I haven't seen it. 6 MR. LODGE: Objection, Your Honor. 7 THE COURT: If he hasn't seen -- 8 MR. DODGE: Withdraw the question, Your Honor. 9 THE WITNESS: I would like to see it and 10 evaluate it myself, sure. 11 BY MR. DODGE: 12 Q. You also testified about dangers of nuclear proliferation 13 relating to countries such as Taiwan and Korea that are 14 not currently nuclear weapons states, but would like to 15 acquire nuclear weapons, do you recall that testimony? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. Is it correct that the MOX program, the Parallex Program 18 does not contemplate the shipment of any fuel rods to any 19 country other than Canada? 20 A. Not at this stage, but eventually it does appear there 21 will be mass circulation of this material, yes, down the 22 line. 23 Q. And the basis for that is what exactly? 24 A. The quantities. If the test works out, the quantity we 25 are talking about coming from Russia. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 81 1 Q. Well, let me be more specific about this. Has the United 2 States, any spokesperson for the United States Government 3 proposed in connection with the Parallex Project to send 4 fuel rods to any country other than Canada? 5 A. The United States? 6 Q. Right. 7 A. No. 8 Q. Has the Government of Russia proposed, in connection with 9 the Parallex Project, to send fuel rods to any country 10 other than Canada? 11 A. Well, they are talking about massive quantities of weapons 12 grade plutonium being circulated into this program and the 13 independent team of experts by Russia and the United 14 States have made that quite clear they are talking tons of 15 this stuff. 16 Q. Well, again, you didn't answer my question there, 17 Professor. I asked you whether the Russian Government has 18 proposed sending fuel rods to any country other than 19 Canada. Your answer only dealt with volumes, it didn't 20 address where. That was my question. 21 A. Right. There might have been discussions on Germany or 22 some of the European states have there -- there have been 23 discussions and proposals, but it's just at that stage 24 now, yes. 25 Q. But Russia has not, to your knowledge, proposed sending KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 82 1 fuel rods to Korea? 2 A. There is an international market here, sure, it could be 3 sold anywhere. 4 THE COURT: No, he didn't say could have. He 5 said: Did they propose it? 6 THE WITNESS: I have not read that right now 7 Russia is proposing sending this to Korea. 8 BY MR. DODGE: 9 Q. Same question with Taiwan. 10 A. I have not read that Russia is proposing to send this to 11 Taiwan. 12 MR. DODGE: No further questions at this time, 13 Your Honor. 14 THE COURT: We will take a 15-minute recess. 15 COURT CLERK: All rise. 16 This court is in recess. 17 (At 10:54 a.m., recess.) 18 THE COURT: Okay. What is next? 19 MR. LOVE: Brief redirect, Your Honor. 20 REDIRECT EXAMINATION 21 BY MR. LOVE: 22 Q. Professor Boyle, did you receive any recognition or 23 rewards from Bosnia for your efforts on their behalf? 24 A. While I was never paid a penny, but President Izetbegovic 25 and Vice President Gonich (phonetic) held a ceremony at KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 83 1 the Bosnian presidency with a-- awarded me full-fledged 2 citizenship in the Republic, a diplomatic passport and 3 visa and a declaration and they put the ceremony on 4 television, so that was very nice. So technically I'm a 5 Bosnian citizen too. 6 Q. Dr. Boyle, with respect to your work on the Hawaiian 7 independence that Mr. Dodge asked you about, has there 8 been any action by the President or Congress, to your 9 knowledge, with respect to that? 10 A. Yes. In 1993 Congress passed a statute signed into law by 11 President Clinton formally apologizing to the native 12 Hawaiian people for destroying their kingdom and stealing 13 their land. The legislation at the end provides for a 14 process of reconciliation and reparations, and how this is 15 going to be dealt with, and I'm still currently involved 16 in those matters. 17 Q. Dr. Boyle, there should be a document up there marked 18 Plaintiff's Exhibit 13. Do you see that? 19 A. Yes, I have it here. 20 Q. Now, this is entitled a Nonproliferation Arms Control 21 Assessment of Weapons Usable Fissile Material Storage and 22 Excess Plutonium Disposition Alternatives, dated January, 23 1997 authored by the United States Department of Energy, 24 correct? 25 A. Yes. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 84 1 Q. Was this among the documents that you reviewed in 2 preparing your testimony? 3 A. I did not have -- I did not get this entire document until 4 Monday, so I did not have a chance to review the entire 5 document, but I have reviewed the excerpts you gave to 6 me. 7 Q. Now Mr. Dodge asked you-- for the record, Your Honor, the 8 excerpt only contains Pages 106 and 107-- Mr. Dodge asked 9 you about your testimony about the possibility of future 10 shipments of MOX to Taiwan and Korea. Do you remember him 11 asking you about that? 12 A. Yes. 13 THE COURT: He didn't ask what the possibility 14 is, he asked if there were plans by Russia or the United 15 States to ship to those two nations. That was the 16 question. 17 MR. LOVE: Okay. 18 THE COURT: And the answer was no. Not are 19 there possibilities. I know the witness thinks there are 20 possibilities, that won't help me any. I understand 21 that. 22 BY MR. LOVE: 23 Q. In fact, Dr. Boyle is it true that in this document the 24 DOE indicates there are possibilities such as you 25 testified about? KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 85 1 A. Yes. 2 THE COURT: I accept that. You are wasting my 3 time. There are possibilities. 4 BY MR. LOVE: 5 Q. Dr. Boyle, if you would, I direct your attention to the 6 large document that's in front of you. This is 7 Proliferation Venerability Red Team Report, Plaintiff's 8 Exhibit 28, and introduced in the prior hearing. 9 A. Yes, and I read this entire report prior to my testimony 10 here today. 11 Q. I'm going to ask you, if you would, to direct your 12 attention to Page 6-1, the conclusions to that report. 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. And again, this is a document that was produced by Sandia 15 Laboratories for the Department of Energy? 16 A. That is correct. 17 Q. Directing your attention to the first conclusion, under 18 the conclusion, keeping plutonium inaccessible is the key 19 to proliferation resistance, do you see that? 20 A. Yes. It says quite clearly, all plutonium from all stages 21 of all alternatives can be made weapons usable should 22 sufficient material be successfully removed. And I should 23 point out that is the position Congress takes under the 24 Nuclear Nonproliferation Act of '78, the Act of '94 and 25 the '98, all plutonium can be made weapons usable. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 86 1 Q. In your view, is that conclusion by the Sandia Lab in this 2 Red Team Report consistent with your testimony? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. Now, Mr. Dodge asked you if there was transport of 5 plutonium across boundaries all the time. My notes 6 reflected you said yes. Do you remember that testimony? 7 A. I said there was some, yes. 8 Q. Is there routinely transportation of weapons grade 9 plutonium shipped across boundaries all the time by the 10 United States? 11 A. No. No. 12 MR. LOVE: No further questions. 13 MR. DODGE: No recross, Your Honor. 14 THE COURT: You may step down. 15 THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honor. 16 Your Honor, did you have any questions? 17 THE COURT: No, I don't. 18 THE WITNESS: Thank you. 19 THE COURT: You've exceeded your time so I take 20 it you have no more witnesses. 21 MR. LOVE: Your Honor, I have no more witnesses 22 but at this time I would like to move our Exhibit 5, 23 Exhibit 7, Exhibit 11, Exhibit 12, Exhibit 13, Exhibit 14 24 and Plaintiff's Exhibit 2 and Exhibit 1 into evidence. 25 MR. DODGE: No objection, Your Honor. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 87 1 THE COURT: 5, 7, 11, 12, 13 and 14, 1 and 2 are 2 received. 3 MR. LOVE: Thank you, Your Honor. We have 4 nothing further. 5 THE WITNESS: Here are the exhibits. Where do 6 you want them? 7 MR. LOVE: I'll take them here. 8 (Hearing continued; reported, not requested 9 transcribed.) 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 88 1 2 3 4 5 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE 6 7 I, Kathleen S. Thomas, Official Court Reporter for the 8 United States District Court for the Western District of 9 Michigan, appointed pursuant to the provisions of Title 28, 10 United States Code, Section 753, do hereby certify that the 11 foregoing is a true and correct transcript of proceedings had 12 in the within-entitled and numbered cause on the date 13 hereinbefore set forth; and I do further certify that the 14 foregoing transcript has been prepared by me or under my 15 direction. 16 17 18 19 20 __________________________________ 21 Kathleen S. Thomas, CSR, RPR-1300 22 U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue 23 Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 24 25 KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (voice) 217-244-1478 (fax) fboyle at law.uiuc.edu (personal comments only) Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Brussel, Morton K Sent: Monday, November 06, 2017 7:56 PM To: Boyle, Francis A Cc: David Green ; C. G. ESTABROOK ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay ; David Johnson ; Mildred O'brien ; Estabrook, Carl G Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] FW: MOX for Bombs in Japan I think this is wrong. MOX fuel is mainly used for fuel in nuclear power reactors, not to make bombs. Japan had/has many nuclear reactors. A fairly intelligible discussion is found in wikipedia, under "MOX nuclear”. —mkb On Nov 6, 2017, at 4:40 PM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss > wrote: This was a very lengthy interview I gave in Japan courtesy of their peace and anti-nuclear movement. It was heavily censored. My basic point was that Japan was using MOX to make bombs and that my best estimate was that Japan probably had as many bombs as PRC, which would be in the area of 500. So when the details of the disaster at Fukushima came out, it was clear to me it was one of their leading bomb complexes. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: globenet at yahoogroups.com [mailto:globenet at yahoogroups.com] Sent: Saturday, March 21, 2015 8:10 AM To: globenet at yahoogroups.com Cc: 'Hiroshi Taka'; 'Gensuikyo'; 'Akira Kawasaki'; oheyeran at yahoogroups.com; asia-pacific_demil_mdg-request at lists.riseup.net; 'Coleen Rowley'; 'Douglas Roche' Subject: [globenet] MOX for Bombs in Japan Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (Voice) 217-244-1478 (Fax) (personal comments only) __._,_.___ ________________________________ Posted by: "Boyle, Francis A" > ________________________________ Reply via web post • Reply to sender • Reply to group • Start a New Topic • Messages in this topic (1) VISIT YOUR GROUP [Yahoo! Groups] • Privacy • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use . __,_._,___ _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Tue Nov 7 03:17:18 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2017 03:17:18 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: MOX for Bombs in Japan References: Message-ID: And notice: I testified as an Expert on MOX under oath and subject to cross examination by an Assistant United States Attorney. The Feds could not put a glove on me. The Acid Test of Truth. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Monday, November 06, 2017 8:39 PM To: Brussel, Morton K Cc: David Green ; C. G. ESTABROOK ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay ; David Johnson ; Mildred O'brien ; Estabrook, Carl G Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] FW: MOX for Bombs in Japan Well I have been qualified as an Expert on MOX in United States Federal District Court. And I prohibit my law students from citing Wikipedia to me in any paper and advise them to never cite or quote Wikipedia to a Judge because Wikipedia is filled with so much pure, unadulterated BULL-TWADDLE. Fab. Subject: Nuclear Proliferation/NPT/US Atomic Energy Law/MOX, etc. 1 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 3 SOUTHERN DIVISION 4 5 ALICE HIRT; ANABEL DWYER; CITIZENS FOR ALTERNATIVES 6 TO CHEMICAL CONTAMINATION; KATHRYN CUMBOW; ROBERT 7 ANDERSON; DORIS SCHALLER VERNON; and TERRY MILLER, 8 Plaintiffs, 9 v. CASE NO: 1:99-CV-933 10 BILL RICHARDSON, Secretary, 11 United States Department of Energy; UNITED STATES 12 OF AMERICA; and UNKNOWN PART(Y)(IES), named as 13 "John and Jane Doe" on complaint, 14 Defendants. 15 ____________________________/ 16 * * * * 17 18 TESTIMONY OF GORDON EDWARDS and FRANCIS BOYLE 19 * * * * 20 21 BEFORE: THE HONORABLE RICHARD ALAN ENSLEN United States District Judge 22 Kalamazoo, Michigan April 7, 2000 23 24 25 KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 2 1 APPEARANCES: 2 APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFFS: 3 MR. KARY LOVE 4 977 Butternut Drive PMB 128 5 Holland, Michigan 49424 6 MR. TERRY J. LODGE 316 North Michigan Street, Suite 520 7 Toledo, Ohio 43624-1627 8 APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANTS: 9 MR. ROBERT I. DODGE 10 MR. CHARLES GROSS U.S. Attorney's Office 11 330 Ionia Avenue, N.W., Suite 501 P.O. Box 208 12 Grand Rapids, Michigan 49501-208 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 3 1 INDEX 2 WITNESS: Page 3 GORDON EDWARDS Direct Examination by Mr. Lodge 4 4 Cross Examination by Mr. Dodge 17 Redirect Examination by Mr. Lodge 20 5 6 FRANCIS BOYLE 7 Direct Examination by Mr. Love 21 Cross Examination by Mr. Dodge 67 8 Redirect Examination by Mr. Love 82 9 10 EXHIBITS Rec'd. 11 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 1 87 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 2 87 12 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 3 31 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 5 87 13 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 6 87 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 11 87 14 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 12 87 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 13 87 15 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 14 87 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 4 1 Kalamazoo, Michigan 2 April 7, 2000 3 at approximately 8:50 A.M. 4 EXCERPT OF PROCEEDINGS 5 TESTIMONY OF GORDON EDWARDS 6 MR. LODGE: We waive opening. 7 THE COURT: Okay. Good for you. 8 MR. LODGE: And we would call Gordon Edwards. 9 GORDON EDWARDS - PLAINTIFFS' WITNESS - SWORN. 10 COURT CLERK: Please state and spell your name 11 for the record. 12 THE WITNESS: My name is Gordon Edwards, 13 G-o-r-d-o-n E-d-w-a-r-d-s. 14 DIRECT EXAMINATION 15 BY MR. LODGE: 16 Q. Dr. Edwards, you previously testified in this proceeding 17 in an earlier motion hearing in December, 1999, correct? 18 A. That is correct. 19 Q. And what, just summarize for the Court, to refresh the 20 Court's recollection, what is your occupation or 21 profession? 22 A. I'm a professor of mathematics at Vanier College in 23 Montreal, and I'm also a consultant on nuclear issues for 24 both governmental and nongovernmental agencies. 25 Q. Are you affiliated with any nongovernmental entity in KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 5 1 Canada regarding the purpose of which is to discuss 2 nuclear issues? 3 A. Yes, I'm the president of the Canadian Coalition for 4 Nuclear Responsibility, which is a federally incorporated 5 organization, since 1978. 6 Q. And how long and in what capacities have you served as a 7 consultant on nuclear issues? 8 A. I've served as a consultant since 1977 for a variety of 9 bodies, including Royal Commissions of Inquiry where I 10 have been retained to cross-examine expert witnesses, also 11 the auditor general of Canada when they were doing a 12 comprehensive audit of the Atomic Energy Control Board, 13 and most recently I was invited for January 2000 by the 14 Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs and International 15 Trade to participate in a small expert workshop on nuclear 16 weapons policies in Ottawa. 17 Q. And Dr. Edwards, have you had the occasion to read the 18 environmental assessment promulgated by the Fissile 19 Materials Office of the U.S. Department of Energy for the 20 Parallex Project? 21 A. Yes, I have, and have commented on that as well. 22 Q. We are here today on a proposed shipment of MOX plutonium 23 from Russia to Chalk River, Ontario, you understand that? 24 A. That is correct. 25 Q. What is your understanding as to the amount of the KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 6 1 plutonium content of the MOX fuel rods, pins that would be 2 brought from Russia? 3 A. The MOX fuel contains 135 grams of weapons grade plutonium 4 as compared with the 119 grams that were in the American 5 shipment that proceeded in January. 6 Q. Now, Dr. Edwards, you indicated that the Canadian 7 Coalition was incorporated in approximately 1978? 8 A. That's right. 9 Q. Have you been active in nuclear issues since that time? 10 A. Even before that time, yes. I have been active 11 specifically on proliferation questions and 12 plutonium-related questions since 1975. 13 MR. LODGE: If I may approach. 14 THE COURT: Of course. 15 BY MR. LODGE: 16 Q. Showing you what has been marked for purposes of the 17 supplemental motion hearing as Plaintiff's Exhibit 1, I'm 18 going to also leave Exhibit 2 up here. 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. Have you ever conducted any investigation into the issue 21 of civilian population or work exposures to plutonium? 22 A. Only at the level of potential for damage, potential for 23 harm. 24 Q. What is Exhibit 1? 25 A. Exhibit 1 is a letter from Mary Measures, Ph.D., Director KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 7 1 of the Radiation Environmental Protection Division of the 2 Atomic Energy Control Board of Canada dealing with 3 quantity of plutonium that an atomic radiation worker or a 4 member of the public may inhale to reach their respective 5 maximum limits. 6 Q. And the date of that is September 30, 1999? 7 A. That is correct, about six months ago. 8 Q. And could you summarize what the inhalation, or what the 9 limits are for both workers and for public? 10 A. Yes. The maximum lifetime limit of exposure in the lung 11 for an atomic worker is approximately 1.4 micrograms, and 12 for the member of the public it's 0.1 microgram, and a 13 microgram being one one-millionth of a gram, so if we 14 translate this into grams, it would mean 1.4 grams would 15 be equivalent-- would be enough to give maximum 16 permissible doses to one million workers and ten -- one 17 gram would be enough to give maximum permissible doses to 18 ten million members of the general public. That's just 19 potential. 20 Q. Okay. And is that based on the -- or, I'm sorry. Have 21 you had occasion in connection with the proposed Russian 22 shipment of a 135 grams of plutonium and the American 23 shipment of 119 grams, to perform any computations as to 24 what the potential dispersion or exposure is? 25 A. Well, I would like to emphasize this is just arithmetic KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 8 1 and does not take into account dispersion factors such as 2 wind velocity, any respiration rates, and so on. If we 3 just look at the theoretical potential, then with 119 4 grams, we are talking about the potential for 85 million 5 atomic workers to receive their maximum permissible 6 exposure, if that were able to be disseminated into all of 7 their lungs and 1,000,190,000 members of the general 8 public, so even though this is a very small amount of 9 plutonium, the potential for exposure, harmful exposure is 10 quite significant. 11 Q. All right. But so that implies you would have to have an 12 optimal dispersal? 13 A. This would be an impossibly optimal dispersal. This would 14 be assuming that the plutonium were distributed fully into 15 the lungs of all the people that I've mentioned. 16 Q. Are you aware of whether or not the American shipment was 17 delivered to Chalk River? 18 A. Yes, the American shipment was delivered to Chalk River. 19 It was taken to the border in what I believe was an SST, a 20 truck which was described as silver, and I believe it was 21 probably an SST, although I do not know for absolute 22 certainty about that, and then it was transported to the 23 Sault Ste. Marie airport where it was lifted by helicopter 24 accompanied by two other helicopters, and transported from 25 there to Chalk River. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 9 1 Q. You indicated that you were talking about an impossibly 2 optimal dispersal. Have you had the occasion to perform 3 any computations as to a very conservative prudent factor 4 to start with for dispersal? 5 A. Well, this is beyond my competence to really talk about 6 the details of how it might be dispersed, but if we just 7 assume for example 99.9 percent containment in the event 8 of a serious accident. 9 Q. Are you saying how much? 10 A. Suppose 99.9 percent of the material were successfully 11 contained and not disseminated in the environment and only 12 that small fraction was disseminated. 13 Q. Okay. 14 A. The potential again would correspond to, for atomic 15 workers in the case of the 119 gram shipment from the 16 States, it would be 85,000 maximum exposures and in the 17 case of the public, it would still over a million. Even 18 with 99.9 containment, in the event of an accident, you 19 still have the potential for over a million 20 overexposures. By the way, the 135 grams, the difference 21 between the 119 grams and the 135 grams from Russia 22 corresponds to potentially again 160,000 additional 23 maximum exposures for members of the public. 24 Q. How many for workers? 25 A. 11,428. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 10 1 Q. That's just -- 2 A. That's just the differential between the two shipments, 3 just the added, going from 119 to 135 adds the potential 4 for another 11,000 worker overexposures or 160,000 public 5 overexposures. This, I believe, is why authorities take 6 such great care to emphasize the packaging in transport. 7 They realize that the potential is great for damage. 8 Q. Do your computations reflect an assumption respecting 9 whether or not the dispersion occurs as a result of an 10 accident or an attack? 11 A. No, we are talking about theoretical potential which is 12 the same regardless of how much or whether the material is 13 dispersed. In an accident, for example, we have 14 previously seen accidents that were analyzed for ground 15 transportation. I have not seen any computations or 16 analysis of accidents for air transport either from the 17 American side or from the Canadian side. 18 Q. Are you talking with respect to Parallex? 19 A. I'm talking with respect to Parallex. 20 If you had, for example, a violent crash and 21 fire of an aircraft, including a helicopter, then the 22 dispersal would cause a plume downwind, could cause a 23 plume downwind, and how much of that plutonium would 24 escape would be subject to analysis which is not, to my 25 knowledge, been performed. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 11 1 Q. Dr. Edwards, do you consider the plutonium in MOX fuel 2 form to be a weapons component? 3 A. Well, in the case of the Parallex project, as you know, 4 this 119 grams or 135 grams, there is not enough there to 5 make an atomic bomb. However, it has long been known that 6 you can make a very damaging radiological explosive device 7 which would simply disperse the plutonium in breathable 8 form. That means that if the plutonium were acquired by a 9 criminal organization or terrorist group they could make 10 an incendiary device which would make this available to be 11 breathed by members of the public and also cause very 12 long-lasting contamination of the environs where this 13 exposure would take place. I believe that it would be 14 incorrect to say that these, even this small Parallex 15 shipment, would not be attractive to terrorists or to 16 criminal organizations as a top -- as a target for theft 17 or diversion. It is true, of course, that this is weapons 18 grade material and had one, if one had sufficient weapons 19 grade material, one indeed can make a very powerful atomic 20 bomb from that. 21 Q. Have you seen any literature or other information in or 22 out of the record of this case that discusses the weapons 23 potential for plutonium? 24 A. Well, yes, it's certainly common knowledge that the -- in 25 fact, the U.S. Department of Energy acknowledges as much KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 12 1 when they refer to the Russian plutonium, the Russian 2 weapons grade plutonium is continuing a clear and present 3 danger. It's long been known and recognized that 4 plutonium is the key ingredient of atomic weapons, so if 5 one talks about components of atomic weapons, the 6 plutonium is the essential component. Once you have the 7 plutonium, then you can acquire the other materials on the 8 open market that are necessary to build a bomb. 9 Q. How do you know that? 10 A. Well, it's been well known for a long time. For instance, 11 there was a study done, published in the Harvard Civil 12 Rights and Civil Liberties Law Review -- I could make that 13 available to the Court, if you would like -- in 1975 as 14 long ago as then, which says, "Since all the material 15 other than plutonium needed to build a bomb is available 16 from commercial hardware and chemical suppliers, the 17 present obstacle to the private construction of nuclear 18 weapons is the unavailability of plutonium." 19 But if we just turn to the study that was 20 commissioned and already on file, I believe, here at the 21 Court, a study that was commissioned by the Office of 22 Fissile Materials Management called the Red Team Report, 23 the Red Team Proliferation Vulnerability Report. 24 In their conclusions on Page 6-1, they have a 25 heading called Keeping Plutonium Inaccessible is the Key KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 13 1 to Proliferation Resistance. So what is basically being 2 said here is plutonium is not just a component but the key 3 component of atomic bombs particularly in the context of 4 illicit groups. 5 Q. Dr. Edwards, could you explain for us Canada's role in the 6 reprocessing of plutonium? 7 A. Well, Canada's role in plutonium goes back to the World 8 War II Atomic Bomb Project. We had a secret laboratory in 9 Montreal which was manned by British, French and Canadian 10 scientists dedicated to developing methods for producing 11 and separating plutonium for weapons purposes as well as 12 civilian purposes, because even then it was anticipated 13 plutonium would have some civilian value. At the end of 14 the war -- incidentally, the first reactor in Canada was 15 built according to a military decision taken in 16 Washington, D.C. in 1944, to demonstrate this potential. 17 The reactor called the NRX reactor was built at 18 Chalk River and a plutonium reprocessing plant was built 19 as well. Plutonium was separated and Britain received its 20 first sample of weapons grade plutonium from Canada from 21 Chalk River just months before their first atomic test. 22 There was also an illicit transfer of plutonium 23 from Chalk River to Russia, which was so the first samples 24 of plutonium that both Britain and Russia received were 25 from Chalk River. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 14 1 Since that time, Canada, of course, has taken a 2 policy decision not to pursue a nuclear weapons option 3 itself, but they have, however, looked favorably on the 4 idea of reprocessing plutonium for civilian purposes. 5 They do not have a policy which is against the 6 reprocessing of plutonium in principle and nor do they 7 discourage their clients, their customers overseas from 8 reprocessing plutonium. And in fact, in Canada, there is 9 an open door policy towards reprocessing as a future 10 option. 11 We just concluded recently a ten-year 12 environmental assessment of the problem of high-level 13 radioactive waste disposal, and in all of the documents it 14 begins by saying, in the very first paragraphs, that by 15 nuclear waste disposal, we mean either spent fuel or 16 post-reprocessing waste. So this is very much a 17 theoretical opening and a policy opening for Canada to use 18 plutonium as a fuel. 19 Q. Showing you what has been marked as Supplemental Motion 20 Exhibit 2, can you identify that for the Court, please? 21 A. Yes. This appears to be an exchange from the British 22 Parliament, questions and answers having to do with 23 nuclear fuel, and the Secretary of State for Trade and 24 Industry is being asked about quantities of spent fuel 25 from Canada that have been contracted for reprocessing at KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 15 1 Cello Field in England. 2 Q. And can you summarize your understanding of what the 3 response by the British Government was? 4 A. Yes. The response here is that a certain amount of 5 plutonium, a certain amount of spent fuel from Canada has 6 been reprocessed beginning in 1970, and that the plutonium 7 has been returned to Canada. I have personal knowledge of 8 the fact that at Chalk River they have maintained a pilot 9 plutonium fuel fabrication line since the 1970s, since 10 1970 and before, and that they have processed at Chalk 11 River approximately three tons, more than three tons of 12 MOX fuel from recycled civilian plutonium. This is part 13 of that, the plutonium that is here being referred to as 14 being recycled or reprocessed in Britain, that's part of 15 the total amount of plutonium that Canada has acquired for 16 the purposes of MOX fabrication. 17 I mentioned that Canada also does not discourage 18 client customers from reprocessing. This is in 19 distinction to the American policy. The American policy, 20 since the Carter administration, successive 21 administrations have maintained the policy of not only not 22 allowing reprocessing in the United States, but also 23 discouraging reprocessing in other countries insofar as 24 that is possible. Canada does not share this policy 25 completely. We do not reprocess in Canada but, on the KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 16 1 other hand, we don't hesitate, it seems, to send our spent 2 fuel to other countries to get reprocessed so that we can 3 develop expertise in plutonium recycling. 4 Q. Does Canada have any relationship with the nation of Japan 5 respecting nuclear material? 6 A. Yes. Canada, as is probably known to the Court, is the 7 world's largest exporter of uranium. We are one of the 8 world's largest producers of uranium and the world's 9 largest exporter of uranium. We have bilateral agreements 10 with our customers as to the use of that uranium. Of 11 course, we have requirements that that uranium not be used 12 for military purposes. If a client customer such as Japan 13 who buys a good deal -- Japan purchases a good deal of 14 uranium from Canada. If a client customer wishes to 15 reprocess their spent fuel to recover plutonium, they do 16 have to get prior permission from the Government of 17 Canada, so when plutonium is reprocessed for the Japanese, 18 in the case where uranium from Canada is involved, the 19 Canadian Government gives their permission for that. 20 Q. Even if it is offshore from Canada? 21 A. Yes. 22 MR. LODGE: Thank you. I have nothing further. 23 THE WITNESS: Thank you. 24 Sorry. 25 MR. LODGE: Yes? KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 17 1 THE WITNESS: Excuse me. 2 MR. DODGE: Not quite finished, Dr. Edwards. 3 THE WITNESS: You knew the time was short. I 4 was jumping the gun a little. 5 CROSS EXAMINATION 6 BY MR. DODGE: 7 Q. Good morning, Mr. Edwards. My name is Bob Dodge. We have 8 met once before back in December. 9 A. That's right. 10 Q. Just a few questions. You testified about the quantity of 11 plutonium that would be included in the Russian shipment. 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. Do you recall that? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. You testified that it was 135 grams? 16 A. That's what was announced, yes. 17 Q. And how many ounces is that? 18 A. How many ounces is that? 19 Q. Yes. 20 A. I don't think in terms of ounces. I have to do the 21 conversion. 22 Q. Can you do the conversion? 23 A. I don't have the -- 24 Q. If I told you that one ounce is 28 grams, does that sound 25 about right? KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 18 1 A. I have no reason to doubt it. We are on the metric system 2 in Canada, we don't use ounces anymore. 3 Q. I understand. If I estimated 135 grams was approximately 4 five ounces, would you quarrel with that? 5 A. I would have no reason to quarrel with that. 6 Q. Now, you also testified about the amount of plutonium that 7 would have to be inhaled in order to exceed the maximum 8 permissible dose under Canadian regulations? 9 A. That is correct. 10 Q. And in your testimony, as I understood it, the assumption 11 you were making was that every single molecule of 12 plutonium that was in that sample would end up in 13 somebody's lungs; is that right? 14 A. That's right. It's calculating the theoretical 15 potential. It is not talking about a realistic scenario. 16 Q. Not only would all of the plutonium have to end up in 17 someone's lungs, but the plutonium would have to be evenly 18 divided so that each person got exactly the same amount of 19 plutonium, it's not all concentrated in one person, you 20 would have to take one-millionths of the sample, put it in 21 one person's lungs and put the next one-millionth in the 22 next person's lungs and so on? 23 A. That is correct. 24 Q. Do you have any idea, if you performed the same analysis 25 on this table, what sort of toxicity numbers you would KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 19 1 get? 2 A. I have no idea of what that would be, no. 3 Q. Now you also talked about Canada's policies regarding 4 plutonium reprocessing. 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. Do you recall that? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. Do you have any understanding of whether the plutonium in 9 the Parallex MOX samples will or will not be reprocessed 10 in Canada? 11 A. It will-- to the best of my knowledge, it will not be 12 reprocessed in Canada, although that option apparently is 13 not decided. 14 Q. What is the basis for that last? 15 A. Because Canada has a policy that at sometime in the future 16 they may reprocess. 17 Q. Do you have any understanding whether there is an 18 understanding between the Government of Canada and the 19 Government of United States or the Government of Russia as 20 to whether these particular samples will or will not be 21 reprocessed? 22 A. I do not, no. 23 MR. DODGE: Thank you very much. 24 25 REDIRECT EXAMINATION KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 20 1 BY MR. LODGE: 2 Q. Dr. Edwards, the House of Commons question and answer, do 3 you know of any particular statistics on Canada's shipping 4 of spent fuel to British nuclear fields and fuels at Cello 5 Field? 6 A. I don't have those figures with me, I'm sorry. I could 7 supply them to the Court, if desired. I do have some 8 figures at my office at home, I don't have them here. But 9 we are talking -- if we are talking about three tons of 10 MOX being fabricated at Chalk River, then one could work 11 out approximately how much of that would contain 12 plutonium, how much plutonium would be contained assuming, 13 for example, three percent. 14 Q. Right. 15 A. And then one could reasonably suppose that the lion's 16 share of that would come from Cello Field. Now I have 17 figures on shipments from Cello Field, but I don't have 18 them here. 19 Q. My question is: Would you presume that the Atomic Energy 20 Control Board of Canada, or AECL of Canada, would make 21 public the fact that the spent MOX from Parallex were 22 being shipped to Britain for reprocessing? Would you 23 presume that would become public knowledge? 24 A. No, I would not assume anything related to plutonium would 25 become public knowledge in Canada. Canada has a very KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 21 1 non-public attitude toward plutonium dealings. In fact, 2 the existing plutonium dealings in Canada including the 3 BNFL contracts is not public knowledge other than as it 4 has been raised in foreign countries such as in Britain or 5 by documents that have been leaked to nongovernmental 6 organizations. This is not something which Atomic Energy 7 of Canada Limited makes public. 8 MR. LODGE: Thank you. 9 MR. DODGE: No recross, Your Honor. 10 THE COURT: You may step down, Dr. Edwards. 11 Thank you. 12 MR. LOVE: Your Honor, if it please the Court, 13 the Plaintiffs would call Francis Boyle to the stand 14 FRANCIS BOYLE - PLAINTIFFS' WITNESS - SWORN 15 COURT CLERK: Please be seated and state and 16 spell your name for the record. 17 THE WITNESS: My name is Francis Boyle. 18 F-r-a-n-c-i-s B-o-y-l-e. 19 DIRECT EXAMINATION 20 BY MR. LOVE: 21 Q. Dr. Boyle, are you currently employed? 22 A. Yes, I am a professor of international law at the 23 University of Illinois College of Law in Champaign. 24 Q. How long have you been employed in that capacity? 25 A. 1978. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 22 1 MR. LOVE: Your Honor, may I approach the 2 witness? 3 BY MR. LOVE: 4 Q. Dr. Boyle, I'm showing you what has been marked as 5 Supplemental Preliminary Injunction Hearing Plaintiffs' 6 Exhibit 3 and ask you if you can identify that document. 7 A. It's a copy of my professional resume. 8 Q. Was this resume prepared at or under your direction? 9 A. Yes. I think it's current as of January 28th, 1999. I've 10 been kind of busy in the last year, haven't revised it. 11 Q. To the extent it's current through that date, does that 12 accurately reflect your experience, education, seminars 13 that you participated in, and articles that you've 14 authored? 15 A. Not seminars I've participated in, that would be too many 16 but, you know, the essence of my professional career and 17 articles-- significant teaching, consulting, practice. 18 I'm also a licensed attorney as well. 19 Q. If you would, give us a brief recitation of your 20 educational background? 21 A. I attended the University of Chicago where I studied 22 international relations with Professor Hans Morganthal who 23 is the mentor of Dr. Henry Kissinger at Harvard. I was 24 one of seven students in my class elected to Phi Beta 25 Kappa as a junior. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 23 1 I also did work in mathematical biology, winning 2 the award for the work I did in that area by the world's 3 leading geneticist now at Harvard. 4 I graduated in three years. From there I went 5 to Harvard Law School. I have a J.D. Magna Cum Laude from 6 Harvard Law School specializing in international law. 7 I also entered the Graduate School of Arts and 8 Sciences at Harvard in the Department of Government. I 9 have a Master's degree and a Ph.D. in political science 10 specializing in international relations, international 11 politics. This is the same Ph.D. program that produced 12 Henry Kissinger, Zabanya Brezenski (phonetic) and other 13 high level U.S. Government officials. 14 I was at the Harvard Center for International 15 Affairs for two years. Kissinger and Brezenski had been 16 there before me. 17 I spent two years teaching in the Harvard 18 College undergraduates international law organizations, 19 human rights. I practiced law with a Boston law firm for 20 a year at Bingham, Dana and Gould, where I did 21 international tax, and tax, and then finally in 1978 I 22 came to the University of Illinois. I went up for tenure 23 at the beginning of my third year, which I got, and I've 24 been tenured there since, you know, many years. 25 Q. Since undertaking your position at University of Illinois, KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 24 1 have you specialized in any area with respect to 2 particular research, writing and international law? 3 A. Well, for the purpose of our proceedings today, yes. I 4 have been specializing an enormous amount on the nuclear 5 weapons, nuclear weapons policy, proliferation, arms 6 control. Going back to my studies with Professor 7 Morganthal 30 years ago so I've been involved in these 8 issues starting as a student since 1969 and continuously 9 until today. 10 THE WITNESS: Sorry, Your Honor, I have a bit of 11 laryngitis. 12 THE COURT: That's fine, no problem. 13 BY MR. LOVE: 14 Q. Dr. Boyle, if you would direct your attention to your 15 resume, I would like to touch on a few seminal points. On 16 the first page under teaching, the third entry down talks 17 about being a lecturer in Nuclear Weapons and 18 International Law, 21st Senior Conference on Nuclear 19 Deterrence at U.S. Military Academy at West Point in 20 1983. 21 A. Yes. This is a high level seminar run by the Pentagon, 22 not for the cadets, but for about 200 of the highest level 23 officials of the United States Government dealing with 24 nuclear weapons proliferation, nuclear weapons policies, 25 and I was asked to lecture to this conference, and I won't KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 25 1 go through all the high level officials there, but sitting 2 right in front of me for my lecture was the three star 3 general in charge of war operations at the Pentagon, at 4 that time General Mahaffey. And I also note I had read 5 the independent expert's report on the MOX program 6 U.S./Russia of 1977, one of the U.S. independent experts, 7 Richard Garwin was there with me and he was also a 8 lecturer with me to this group, so I do know that Garwin 9 was involved in the Parallex MOX recommendations. 10 Q. With respect to the second to the last entry on Page 1 of 11 Exhibit 3, talks about "Lecture Tour of the Soviet Union 12 on Nuclear Weapons and International Law for Lawyers' 13 Committee on Nuclear Policy and Association of Soviet 14 Lawyers" in 1986. What was involved with that? 15 A. Yes. The former Soviet Union, their equivalent to the 16 American Bar Association was the Association of Soviet 17 Lawyers, and in conjunction with the Lawyers' Committee on 18 Nuclear Policy headquartered here, they decided to invite 19 one professor to go over to the Soviet Union and lecture 20 around the country for two weeks on various issues related 21 to nuclear weapons and international law, and both 22 organizations selected me for this purpose, so I went over 23 for two weeks and gave several lectures per day, Moscow, 24 Leningrad, Kiev to professors, lawyers, peace people, 25 whoever, news media on various aspects of nuclear weapons KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 26 1 targeting doctrine as they relate to international law 2 and, in general, nuclear policies. 3 Q. If you would direct your attention, Dr. Boyle, to Page 2 4 under Practice, fifth entry down it says "Author, 5 Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989, Public Law 6 Number 101-298 (1990) (adopted unanimously by both Houses 7 of Congress)," could you explain what that means, please? 8 A. Yes. Your Honor, we are dealing here with a treaty, the 9 Nuclear Proliferation Treaty-- Nonproliferation Treaty of 10 1968. That treaty has been implemented by Congress in the 11 Nuclear Nonproliferation Act of 1978, the Nuclear 12 Proliferation Prevention Act of 1994 and also recent 13 amendments in 1998 to deal with the India/Pakistan 14 explosions. I have direct personal experience on how you 15 take a treaty, an international treaty, and implement it 16 as a matter of United States Constitutional law by working 17 with Congress. 18 The Biological Weapons Convention of 1972 is a 19 treaty that is a total, not only arms control reduction 20 and elimination treaty for biological weapons, I gave a 21 lecture on Capitol Hill calling for legislation, domestic 22 legislation to implement this treaty, and this 23 recommendation was taken up by a group I work for called 24 the Council of Responsible Genetics. I'm on their 25 Advisory Board. I also serve as counsel to them, so KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 27 1 pursuant to their request, I drafted the implementing 2 legislation, I authored it, how to implement this treaty. 3 And then we took it to members of the House and the Senate 4 and we shepherded it through the entire process dealing 5 with members of Congress, both Houses, including testimony 6 I prepared. At that point in time, the Reagan 7 administration was opposed to this implementing 8 legislation. I had to deal personally with their position 9 papers against it refuting these things. 10 Finally there was a change of policy when 11 President Bush came into office, to his credit, and they 12 supported the legislation. It finally was approved 13 unanimously by both Houses of Congress and signed into law 14 by President Bush in 1989. This legislation was called 15 the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989. It was 16 later amended in the anti-terrorism and effect Death 17 Penalty Act of 1996. 18 I thought I had drafted the most draconian piece 19 of legislation you could possibly imagine on biological 20 weapons, but there is always a loophole, Your Honor, so 21 Congress revisited this in 1996 to close some of the 22 loopholes that had not been apparent to me and the 23 scientists I worked with back in 19, starting in from '85 24 to about 1989. So I just cite this as having direct 25 personal experience with relationship between arms control KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 28 1 treatise, reduction treatise and then how they are 2 implemented by Congress. I have done this myself. On 3 biological weapons and I'm still involved in that issue. 4 Obviously, I have not been involved in the 5 drafting of the implementing legislation for the Nuclear 6 Proliferation Treaty of 1968, there are three pieces, but 7 I have read and reviewed the implementing legislation. I 8 have an understanding how they relate to the 9 Nonproliferation Treaty and I also teach a course on this 10 subject, that is how international laws related to the 11 United States Constitution is implemented by Congress and 12 also carried out in the courts. I teach an entire course 13 just devoted to this subject. 14 Q. Dr. Boyle, you've had some experience practicing before 15 what was known formerly as the International Court of 16 Justice but currently the World Court; is that correct? 17 A. Yes, I have. 18 Q. Could you relate to the Court a summary of that 19 experience? 20 A. Well, I've advised governments with respect to either 21 actual or potential World Court litigation, some of that 22 is still attorney/client confidence that I'm not prepared 23 to discuss. What I am prepared to discuss are those 24 matters that are in the public record. 25 I did serve as counsel to Libya on the Lockerbie KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 29 1 bombing case. It was my recommendation the-- 2 unfortunately President Bush had about the sixth fleet 3 mobilized off the coast of Libya and was about to bomb 4 Libya that we filed a lawsuit at the World Court to stop 5 the bombing. We filed a lawsuit, Libya was not bombed. 6 Later on, I was General Agent for the Republic 7 in Bosnia of Herzegovina before the International Court of 8 Justice. In other words, I was their first ambassador to 9 the World Court for the Republic of Bosnia, Herzegovina, 10 and I sued Yugoslavia for committing genocide against the 11 Bosnian people. I won two cease and desist orders 12 overwhelmingly in favor of Bosnia against Yugoslavia. 13 Later on, I publicly advised -- I advised the 14 Bosnian Government to sue Britain for aiding and abetting 15 genocide against Bosnia, and President Izetbegovic 16 instructed me to sue Britain for a genocide against 17 Bosnia. That lawsuit was terminated under duress, 18 threatened them, so they withdrew from those proceedings. 19 Q. Dr. Boyle, with respect to your writings, if you would 20 direct your attention to Page 3 of Exhibit 3, the last two 21 entries at the bottom -- excuse me, the second to last 22 entries entitled Nuclear Weapons and International Law: 23 The Arms Control Dimensions, do you see that? 24 A. Yes. This was the lecture I gave to the West Point 25 Military Academy senior conference proceedings, which they KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 30 1 did publish in their proceedings at West Point, and 2 actually under my books, I've just completed work on my 3 sixth book, which is entitled Nuclear Deterrence and 4 International Law. And right now it is sitting at Pluto 5 Press -- I guess that's appropriate for today's 6 proceedings -- Pluto Press in Britain. They have 7 expressed an interest in publishing it. They are 8 currently evaluating it. I do not have a contract on that 9 book, but I did get the e-mail just before I came here, so 10 I'll have to deal with that when I go back. 11 Q. With respect to your other publications, Dr. Boyle, I note 12 that on Page 4 you've got one entitled, about halfway 13 down, The Relevance of International Law to the "Paradox" 14 of Nuclear Deterrence. 15 A. That is correct. 16 Q. Can you tell us briefly what the subject matter is? 17 A. After I made the lecture at West Point, obviously the U.S. 18 military officials and others, we had a fairly vigorous 19 debate, let me put it that way. And that vigorous debate 20 between myself and these others led to this article that 21 was later published here in the United States and also 22 translated into Dutch, because the Dutch lawyers wanted it 23 to be available as part of the debate in Holland over the 24 deployment of the U.S. intermediate nuclear forces under 25 the Reagan administration, so they translated the whole KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 31 1 thing into Dutch and it was published in the Netherlands. 2 MR. LOVE: Your Honor, I have no further 3 questions of Dr. Boyle with respect to qualifications, and 4 I tender him for voir dire to the U.S. Attorney's Office 5 subject to my motion to admit Plaintiff's Exhibit 3 into 6 evidence. 7 MR. DODGE: I have no objection to the admission 8 of the C.V. 9 THE COURT: Exhibit 3? 10 MR. DODGE: Exhibit 3. 11 THE COURT: You have no voir dire questions to 12 ask either? 13 MR. DODGE: Not with respect to that exhibit. I 14 may get into the resume on the cross. 15 THE COURT: That's fair enough. 16 Exhibit 3 is received. 17 MR. DODGE: Thank you, your Honor. 18 BY MR. LOVE: 19 Q. Dr. Boyle, in preparing for your testimony here today, 20 could you please outline for the Court -- I think you have 21 done so somewhat already -- some of the documents that you 22 reviewed and the source materials you looked at in 23 preparing your testimony today? 24 A. I have a pretty detailed knowledge about these things 25 generally. For example, when the Nuclear Nonproliferation KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 32 1 Act first came out in 1978, I did read it, but in 2 preparation for this testimony today, I've gone back and 3 read the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, the Nuclear 4 Nonproliferation Act, the Nuclear Proliferation Prevention 5 Act of 1994, the 1998 amendments. I have read a large 6 quantity of documents produced by the Department of Energy 7 on the Parallex Project. I have read the Environmental 8 Assessment dealing with the aspects of international 9 environmental law that have not been dealt with in the 10 Environmental Assessment, in my opinion, should have been 11 dealt with the Stockholm Declaration, which is not there, 12 and the World Court Advisory Opinion on 1996, I have an 13 article on it that. I didn't go back and read the whole 14 advisory opinion, but I reread the portions of the 15 article, and other scholarly sources that deal with this 16 question. There are other sources I did not have a chance 17 to review not directly related to proliferation per se. 18 But for example, in my opinion the EA should 19 have dealt with the UN Convention on the Law of the Seas. 20 It's not in there. There's been nuclear accidents 21 convention, it's not dealt with in there. There is the 22 Bowel convention on the International Transportation of 23 Hazardous Substance and Toxic Materials, that's not in 24 there. I identified those as further sources that should 25 be analyzed in my opinion, but I haven't had a chance to KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 33 1 go back and review all of those sources. 2 Q. Dr. Boyle, did the types of materials that you've just 3 identified for the Court, are these the types of materials 4 that in your experience are relied upon by experts in the 5 field of international law in forming opinions as to the 6 legitimacy of governmental actions under internationally? 7 A. Yes. I also have experience reading environmental impact 8 statements. When the Pentagon produced the DEIS or the 9 biological defense research program, the Council for 10 Responsible Genetics asked me to evaluate this entire 11 thing -- it was an enormous document -- and submit formal 12 comments on it to the Pentagon, which I did do and they 13 did respond to. So this is the type of sources that 14 experts in my field would normally look at and review in 15 forming an opinion about Government behavior, and I have 16 done this before with respect to biological weapons. 17 Q. Dr. Boyle, I'm going to show you what has been marked for 18 identification as Plaintiff's Exhibit 4. Ask you to take 19 a moment to look at that and let me know when you've had a 20 chance to do so, please. 21 A. Yes. This is the treaty on the nonproliferation of 22 nuclear weapons, and as I've said, it has also been 23 implemented by Congress on the Nuclear Nonproliferation 24 Act of 1978, the Nuclear Proliferation Prevention Act of 25 1994 and also 1998 amendments. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 34 1 The critical point to keep in mind about this 2 treaty, Your Honor, is that Congress has passed 3 legislation expressing its understanding of what this 4 treaty means and what our obligations are under this 5 treaty. And this legislation is binding on the Department 6 of Energy, on the President, on the Department of State 7 and respectfully, Your Honor, on this Court. And what we 8 see, when you read through it all, is Congress has 9 decided, and prior to that the Atomic Energy Act as well, 10 that nuclear power, nuclear weapons, nuclear proliferation 11 is so important to the American people and our republic, 12 that they have decided to engage in micro management of 13 everything related to this subject and have pretty much, I 14 would not say completely eliminated, but whittled down 15 substantially any discretion that the executive branch 16 might have in this area. I have, as I said, I did read 17 the NPA back in 1978, but when you add in everything else, 18 what surprised me was how little discretion was left to 19 the executive branch with respect to nuclear 20 proliferation, nuclear weapons. In this area, they have 21 very little discretion. 22 Q. Professor Boyle, if you could, can you explain to the 23 Court what the implications are for Canada, Russia and the 24 United States under the Nonproliferation Treaty? 25 A. Well, my reading of both the treaty and in light of the KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 35 1 Department of Energy documents describing Parallex and 2 MOX, the Red Team report, many other documents that I've 3 read, in my opinion, there are serious problems, 4 compliance problems for this entire project under Articles 5 I, II and III of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty as 6 interpreted by the United States Congress. 7 The Article I deals with the obligations of the 8 United States and Russia. Each nuclear weapons State 9 Party to the Treaty, i.e. U.S. and Russia, undertakes not 10 to transfer to any recipient whatsoever, i.e. Canada, 11 nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices, and we 12 have a problem here in that Congress has interpreted this 13 to mean components of nuclear weapons or nuclear explosive 14 devices; that is, Congress simply does not interpret this 15 to mean you can't hand over a bomb, but a component for a 16 bomb is prohibited. And here we are dealing with weapons 17 grade plutonium, which Dr. Edwards has already testified 18 can be and indeed is, in his opinion, a component for 19 either a nuclear weapon or a nuclear explosive device. 20 Okay? 21 So when you read the treaty in light of the 22 statutory scheme, in my opinion, there are serious 23 compliance problems here with Article I, which have not 24 been addressed in the EA. The DOE has not dealt with any 25 of these problems at all in the EA, indeed, they have KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 36 1 basically said in one of their comments "Well, once we 2 give it to Canada, it's their problem," and that just is 3 an incorrect statement, in my opinion. 4 And it says "directly or indirectly," which 5 means also we, the United States, directly or indirectly 6 by encouraging and paying for the Russians to do this, you 7 see. So we are accountable for the Russian behavior 8 because we are working with them. And indeed, if we were 9 sued at the International Court of Justice -- let's 10 suppose something went wrong, Your Honor, and there was, 11 as Dr. Edwards testified, an aerial explosion in the 12 latest helicopter shipment and radiological dispersal of 13 plutonium that came across the border, killing Americans, 14 killing Canadians, others, if we were sued in World Court 15 over this, we would be found both jointly and severally 16 liable with Russia, with Canada, for any accident. 17 Likewise, this is followed up by both shipments on the 18 high seas of the plutonium. If there is an accident on 19 high seas, we could be sued at the World Court, the United 20 States, both ourselves and jointly and severally with 21 Russia and Canada over any accident here that might 22 happen. And that substantive liability could be based on 23 the U.N. Law of the Sea Convention. As I said, Your 24 Honor, I haven't had time to go through the environmental 25 provision of the Law of the Sea Convention, the Department KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 37 1 of Energy didn't even bother, and in the EA they did not 2 look at this at all. They did not consider this, but it 3 certainly is something that has to be considered, that 4 they haven't looked at. 5 And then "not in any way to assist, encourage or 6 induce any non-nuclear weapon State to manufacture or 7 otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear 8 explosive devices." Well, the problem here is Canada is 9 supposed to be a non-nuclear weapons state and says 10 "otherwise acquired nuclear explosive devices." Well, we 11 are giving them weapons grade plutonium, which again 12 Dr. Edwards has testified, and he is Canadian, is a 13 component of a nuclear weapons or nuclear explosive 14 device. And again, "or control over such weapons or 15 explosive devices." We are giving them weapons grade 16 plutonium. And if you look at how Congress has 17 interpreted this, they interpret it down to components, 18 they even talk about substances that they are trying to 19 regulate everything, and understand the 1978 legislation 20 was a very strict interpretation of what this treaty means 21 as far as the United States Government is concerned. And 22 I think we really need a comprehensive assessment here by 23 the Department of Energy as to whether or not any of these 24 transfers is consistent with Article I. Under the current 25 circumstances, they haven't bothered to look at any of the KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 38 1 terms as defined by Congress, the applicability of the 2 Congressional legislation to the transfers. 3 Likewise, Article II, Your Honor, Article II 4 deals with the Canadian obligations, "Each 5 non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes 6 not to receive the transfer from any transferor whatsoever 7 of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices." 8 Again, the same analysis here needs to be done. This 9 weapons grade plutonium, in my opinion and Dr. Edwards' 10 opinion, is clearly a component of either a nuclear weapon 11 or nuclear explosive device. And Canada, according to 12 this language, has agreed not to receive this material. 13 And by the way, as Dr. Edwards correctly pointed out, Your 14 Honor, this was consistent United States policy, stopping 15 proliferation of this type of material for any reason 16 going back to the Carter administration. We are seeing a 17 major dramatic change here in United States 18 nonproliferation policy, and that policy, Your Honor, 19 going back to the Carter administration, is enshrined in 20 law by Congress in the Nuclear Nonproliferation Act of 21 1978. So again, in my opinion, I believe these issues 22 likewise need to be addressed by the Department of 23 Energy. They have not been addressed in the environmental 24 assessment at all. 25 "Or control over such weapons or explosive KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 39 1 devices, directly or indirectly." Well, again, we are 2 giving Canada, either ourselves in the first shipment or 3 indirectly by means of the Russians in the second 4 shipment, control over a component for a nuclear weapon or 5 a nuclear explosive device. That's very clear they are 6 getting it. And according to the EA, we are trusting 7 their good intentions. There is no assurance in the EA 8 that this weapons grade plutonium is subject to 9 international safeguards. No. Despite the fact that 10 Congress has made it very clear that any transfer, and 11 Congress also made it clear in the legislation that they 12 are against any transfers of this type of stuff to other 13 States. But if there are any transfers at a minimum there 14 have to be absolute guaranteed protections on 15 international assurances to make sure it is not misused, 16 and you will note in the EA it says nothing about it. 17 There are no assurances about anything. 18 Now, "to manufacture or otherwise acquire 19 nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices; and 20 not to seek or receive any assistance in the manufacture," 21 etcetera, etcetera. 22 Article III then deals with the safeguard 23 requirements; that is, if there are transfers of materials 24 for peaceful purposes, and you know you can obviously, 25 Your Honor, you can read this yourself. There must be KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 40 1 safeguards. Under the supervision of the International 2 Atomic Energy Agency, the Environmental Assessment says 3 nothing at all about these safeguards. Nothing. It isn't 4 in there. 5 Apparently we have to rely on not even 6 statements by Canada that what we are transferring there, 7 what we are encouraging the Russians to transfer are 8 somehow going to be safeguarded despite the fact that 9 Article III says that there must be safeguards, and we 10 simply don't have them. 11 Q. Dr. Boyle, I'm going to show you what's been marked for 12 identification as Plaintiff's Exhibit 5 and ask you to 13 take a look in the upper right-hand corner, and after 14 you've had a moment to review that, let me know, please. 15 A. Yes. This is an article I had read in preparation for my 16 testimony here today, from the Toronto News. 17 Q. Based on your experience and expertise, Dr. Boyle, is this 18 the type of information that an international law scholar 19 could rely on in formulating opinions about the state or 20 nationally? 21 A. Well, here is stating comments by Mr. Tom Clemens, head of 22 the Washington-based Nuclear Control Institute. It's a 23 recognized organization dealing with nuclear policies, and 24 certainly experts in my field would rely upon statements 25 produced by the Nuclear Control Institute and, indeed, KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 41 1 prior to my testimony today, I did read several documents 2 produced by the Nuclear Control Institute just in the 3 normal course of preparing, yes. An expert in my field 4 would rely on this. 5 Q. Dr. Boyle, my recollection is you testified this appeared 6 in the Toronto -- 7 A. News. 8 Q. -- News and it -- 9 A. The Globe and Mail, which is, you know, it's sort of like 10 the New York Times here in the United States, a newspaper 11 of public record, so again, it's not like a tabloid or 12 something like this. 13 Q. Plaintiff's Exhibit 5, Dr. Boyle in the right-hand column 14 attributes some comments to a Sunni Locatelli purportedly 15 a spokeswoman at the Atomic Control Board. Do you see 16 that? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. What if anything is the significance, based on your 19 experience as expertise, of considering published reports 20 attributed to spokespersons for governmental entities in 21 formulating use of international law? 22 A. Yes. There is a decision by the International Court of 23 Justice in the nuclear test cases dealing with nuclear 24 explosions 1974, stating that the Court can rely upon 25 official statements made by Government officials acting KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 42 1 within their scope of authority and certainly Locatelli 2 here is the spokeswoman of the Atomic Energy Control 3 Board. So basically, I would be able to take this 4 statement and file it at the World Court and they would 5 find the statement could be, would be attributable to the 6 Canadian government, and Canada would be bound by this 7 statement. 8 Q. What does that article, Plaintiff's Exhibit 5, attribute 9 to Miss Locatelli? 10 A. She can't reveal how much fissile material Canada has. We 11 aren't able to give out that information under our 12 security regulations. Ms. Locatelli said Canada believes 13 it should come under the IA/EA guidelines because it 14 doesn't operate its own reprocessing facilities. I think 15 Dr. Edwards just pointed out that isn't correct. But even 16 if it were correct, it does come under IA/EA, and we need 17 to know, the United States Government under the NPT, under 18 the Congressional implementing legislation, we have to 19 know how much fissile material Canada has. 20 And basically, we are just taking their, 21 whatever their word is for it, and in my opinion, that's 22 unacceptable. We have to know how much material they have 23 and what they are doing with it, and what she's saying 24 here is "Well, we are just not going to tell you." And 25 you will note in the EA, the Department of Energy has KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 43 1 taken the same position. One of the comments made was 2 "Well, what is Canada doing," and the response of the DOE 3 is well, that is Canada's problem, once it leaves here we 4 are no longer responsible. The treaty and statutory 5 regime make it clear that's not the case. We are 6 responsible for our plutonium, wherever it goes. And 7 Congress has made it clear even if we do give it up, we 8 have to have absolute international safeguards as to what 9 is going to happen with our plutonium. And the same would 10 apply if we are encouraging Russia to ship weapons grade 11 plutonium to Canada. We have an obligation to make sure 12 that it's safeguarded and that it can be accountable and 13 accounted for. And what Ms. Locatelli here is saying 14 "Well, sorry, we are just not going to tell you." Again, 15 this raises serious problems in my mind that have not been 16 dealt with by the Department of Energy as to compliance 17 with the IA/EA safeguards regime, which is absolutely 18 required under Article III of the NPT and also required 19 under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Act. Indeed, if I 20 remember correctly, the 1994 implementation, Your Honor, 21 Congress said that transferring of unsafeguarded plutonium 22 is an act of international terrorism as far as Congress is 23 concerned. 24 So and that would trigger a whole host of other 25 provisions of the federal code dealing with international KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 44 1 terrorism, so we really need to know what is going to 2 happen to our plutonium when it gets up into Canada, and 3 to make sure there are safeguards and it is accountable 4 and there is an explanation here. 5 Now Mr. Clemens then said that, in his opinion, 6 Canada has 40 kilograms of plutonium, it's really not 7 accounted for or accountable for by anyone, and that 8 basically makes Canada a de facto nuclear weapons state. 9 I would agree, assuming that they do have the 40 kilograms 10 of plutonium, and I take it you know Mr. Clemens -- I had 11 e-mail correspondence with Mr. Clemens about this matter. 12 He feels that they do have it and that his group, the 13 Nuclear Control Institute, will be making this evidence 14 available soon. He told me it is not yet -- he is not yet 15 prepared to make it public, but they will be going public 16 with it soon. 17 In my opinion, if that is the case, they have 40 18 kilograms of plutonium, that's enough to make five bombs, 19 and that makes Canada a de facto nuclear weapons state 20 under the NPT and, in my opinion, would be inconsistent 21 with the NPT. There is a potential here for Canada being 22 in violation of the NET. We need to know that. Congress 23 has sanctions in there in the implementing legislation for 24 non-nuclear weapons states being, moving into a position 25 where they are de facto nuclear weapons states in KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 45 1 violation of the NPT. 2 It's clear Congress interprets our obligations 3 under the treaty to mean that a non-nuclear weapons state 4 simply cannot go off, assemble all the components for a 5 bomb, have one here, one there and one there, and then 6 say, oh but we are not a nuclear weapons state because we 7 haven't assembled the bomb. 8 Again, Congress made it very clear, no. Indeed, 9 in one of the pieces of legislation, Congress indicated 10 that it was also concerned with a facto nuclear weapons 11 states that an end run around the NPT, and the 12 Congressional regime applicable to it. Again, I regret to 13 report I haven't seen any of these issues dealt with by 14 the Department of Energy in the Environmental Assessments 15 and, indeed, when they were asked about it, they just said 16 this is now Canada's problem. Wondered-- United States 17 law of the NPT, it is not Canada's problem alone, it is 18 our problem because it's our plutonium and it's Russian 19 plutonium that we are paying to send up to Canada. 20 Q. Professor Boyle, based on the representations of Miss 21 Locatelli on behalf of Atomic Energy Control Board of 22 Canada that they don't believe they are subject to the 23 IA/EA guidelines, what if any impact would that have on 24 the United States' responsibility under the Nuclear 25 Nonproliferation Treaty of 1978? KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 46 1 A. It's very clear, Your Honor, the NPT and the Congressional 2 implementing legislation that we ourselves cannot ship 3 weapons grade plutonium there or engage in the Russians to 4 ship weapons grade plutonium unless there are absolutely 5 safeguards by the IA/EA that, to make sure that there is 6 no diversion. And again, Miss Locatelli is indicating 7 there is a high amount of uncertainty as to what is 8 happening with the Canadian plutonium. We simply don't 9 know. In the EA, there are no guarantees given by the 10 Department of Energy as to what is happening to plutonium 11 up in Canada. 12 Q. You may have testified to this, Dr. Boyle, and I apologize 13 if I missed it, but are Russia, Canada and the United 14 States all signatory partis to the Nonproliferation 15 Treaty? 16 A. Yes. We are all parties. There are about 182 or 183 17 states that are parties. The United States and Russia are 18 nuclear weapon states, parties to the convention, that is, 19 we are permitted to have nuclear weapons and nuclear 20 components, etc. Canada is designated a non-nuclear 21 weapons state. And they are supposed to preserve this 22 stative or statement. Yet according to the Nuclear 23 Control Institute, they have enough plutonium up there to 24 at least manufacture five bombs. So somehow this has to 25 be explained and accounted for in order for them to KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 47 1 continue their non-nuclear weapons state status under the 2 NPT, so again, the Nuclear Control Institute is raising 3 very serious compliance problems and potentially serious 4 violation of the NPT by Canada, and there are severe 5 sanctions in the United States laws enacted by Congress 6 under the Simplemen legislation, Your Honor, in the event 7 a state that is a non-nuclear weapons state moves to 8 become a nuclear weapons state. And again, none of this 9 has been addressed by the Department of Energy in the 10 environmental assessment that I'm aware of, either in the 11 environmental assessment or elsewhere. 12 Q. Dr. Boyle, could you advise the Court, if you would, as to 13 what the ramifications legally are of being a signatory 14 party to an international treaty such as the 15 Nonproliferation Treaty? 16 A. Yes. Your Honor, of course, the basic rule of Pacta Sunt, 17 P-a-c-t-a-s-u-n-t, Servanda, S-e-r-v-a-n-d-a. 18 The other point -- there are two other points, 19 however, that must be kept in mind in interpreting any 20 treaty and especially the NPT. First, the treaty must be 21 interpreted in good faith. And again, the question here 22 with Canada maintaining 40 kilograms of plutonium is 23 whether or not this is a good faith interpretation 24 implementation of the NPT by Canada. 25 Second, the treaty must be interpreted in KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 48 1 accordance with its object and purpose, and that in this 2 case the NPT is to stop nuclear proliferation. And again, 3 this entire program, the Parallex program, in my opinion, 4 seems to defeat the object and purpose of the NPT, which 5 is to stop nuclear proliferation. 6 The third point to keep in mind is that this 7 treaty has already been interpreted by Congress and 8 implemented by Congress. And Congress is agreeing with 9 what I'm saying here, Your Honor, and I'm agreeing with 10 what Congress is saying. Congress has made it very clear 11 that they do not want to see any type of nuclear 12 proliferation or programs that encourage nuclear 13 proliferation. And we are now seeing a drastic departure 14 from the policy enacted in Congress pursuant to the NPC 15 back in -- the NPT back in 1978 in the Nuclear 16 Nonproliferation Act, and we have seen no change in the 17 legislation by Congress to authorize or approve this 18 drastic change. And again, I agree with what Dr. Edwards 19 said from his Canadian perspective, my American 20 perspective, the Parallex MOX project is a drastic change 21 in encouraging proliferation of nuclear weapons components 22 and there has been no direct approval, change of statutes 23 or whatever. So again, this, in my opinion, raises very 24 serious problems under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty 25 as interpreted in good faith and in accordance with its KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 49 1 object and purpose not only for Canada, but the United 2 States and Russia. And in my opinion, we should have a 3 full study of all these issues by the Department of Energy 4 before there is any further movement on this project. 5 The implications here are enormous. They could 6 be catastrophic, and I personally would like to see a full 7 scale investigation analysis so that I could evaluate it 8 myself before anyone goes ahead with this project, but of 9 course that, you know, that's my personal opinion. I know 10 that's for you, Your Honor, to decide. 11 Q. Dr. Boyle, what if anything is the requirement or 12 obligation of the United States to interpret the 13 Nonproliferation Treaty in good faith? I think you 14 testified that Canada has that obligation. Does the 15 United States have a similar obligation? 16 A. Yes. And as a matter of fact, here Congress has 17 interpreted our obligation under the NPT and, in my 18 opinion, Congress has interpreted our obligations under 19 the NPT in good faith and also in accordance with the 20 object and purpose of this treaty. Congress interpreted 21 this by means of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Act of 1978, 22 the Nuclear Proliferation Prevention Act of 1994 and the 23 1998 amendments to do with the India-Pakistani 24 explosions. So in my opinion, Congress did interpret this 25 treaty in good faith and in accordance with its object and KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 50 1 purpose and it appears to me the Department of Energy is 2 off there on their own with no express authorization from 3 Congress pursuing a policy here that defeats the object 4 and purpose of the NPT. 5 Q. By that, you are referring to the Parallex project? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. With respect to the Congressional implementation of the 8 NPT in the '78, '94 and '98 acts, what if anything is the 9 role of the Department of State and/or Department of 10 Energy with respect to interpreting those obligations? 11 A. Yes. Your Honor, it's very clear from the treaty related 12 to the statutory scheme. Treaties deal with international 13 law and foreign relations. Therefore, they are normally 14 negotiated and concluded by the Department of State and 15 then they are handed over to the Senate Foreign Relations 16 to the Senate for advice and consent. It is the State 17 Department that traditionally has always had the sole and 18 exclusive role here in the United States with respect to 19 nonproliferation policy, not the Department of Energy. 20 The Department of Energy has always been treated as a 21 technical agency, technical consultant. The policy is 22 formulated by the State Department. There had been, again 23 going back to the Carter administration, United States 24 Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, Your Honor, set up by 25 Congress to deal precisely with these issues. They were KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 51 1 the ones given the authority to deal with proliferation 2 and nonproliferation policies negotiate these agreements, 3 etcetera. Senator Helms in the latest did not like act, 4 he concluded it was super numerator morgue or something so 5 he passed legislation terminating the Arms Control 6 Disarmament Agency and transferring all functions to the 7 Department of State today. But if you read the 8 Congressional implementing legislation, they make it very 9 clear that the lead role played on proliferation and 10 nonproliferation policy is the Department of State, not 11 the Department of Energy, and the Department of State 12 should consult with the Department of Energy. At times 13 the Department of Energy is given authority to have its 14 input to the Department of State, but it's the Department 15 of State that makes nonproliferation policy, not the 16 Department of Energy. 17 Q. In your review of the environmental assessment prepared by 18 the Department of Energy in January of '99, Dr. Boyle, 19 regarding the Parallex Project, is there any indication 20 that the Department of Energy consulted with the 21 Department of State? And if you don't mind, I direct your 22 attention to Page 41 of Plaintiff's Exhibit 12 previously 23 admitted and ask you to refer to that. 24 A. Yes. They had a list here of agencies consulted. Your 25 Honor, over here on Page 41, it says agencies consulted KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 52 1 during the preparation of this analysis: Atomic Energy of 2 Canada, Canadian Atomic Energy Control Board, U.S. 3 Department of Transportation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 4 Commission. They do not consult with the Department of 5 State and, in my opinion, and also in the opinion of 6 Congress, if you read through all the implementing 7 legislation, I know, Your Honor, as I understand it, you 8 are a conscientious Judge so I'm sure you are going to do 9 this, you'll see that they have to deal with the 10 Department of State. And the main problem with this EA is 11 they have not dealt with the Department of State, they 12 have not dealt with the nonproliferation issues, they have 13 not dealt with the Nonproliferation Treaty, they have not 14 dealt with the 1978 Act, they have not dealt with the 1994 15 Act, they have not dealt with the 1998 Act. All that is 16 expressly required by Congress. So again, in my opinion, 17 for some reason the Department of Energy has just decided 18 to go out there on its own and completely either ignore or 19 violate the Congressional statutes and procedures for 20 dealing with proliferation and nonproliferation issues. 21 Q. Dr. Boyle, to your knowledge, has the Department of State 22 retreated at all from the U.S. commitment to the 23 Nonproliferation Treaty as implemented by Congress through 24 the legislation you've indicated? 25 A. No, and as a matter of fact, Madeline Albright was just KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 53 1 out in India-Pakistan with President Clinton. As you 2 know, President Clinton stated that today India-Pakistan, 3 the Indian subcontinent is the most dangerous place on the 4 face of the earth because of the proliferation problem, 5 and they both have nuclear weapons now, and the dispute 6 over Casmir. 7 President Clinton then was just lectured in the 8 Indian Parliament publicly by the speaker of Parliament 9 for making the statement, but I think it's a fair and 10 accurate statement. Madeline Albright followed this up 11 with another statement reiterating our commitment to 12 nonproliferation and, specifically with respect to India 13 and Pakistan, that this was the policy of the United 14 States Government, and also tying this into the integral 15 importance of safeguards. 16 And again, that is a fair and accurate statement 17 of the policy being pursued by the President and the 18 Secretary of State that is charged under the legislation 19 and the Constitution to deal with these matters. There is 20 a complete and total disconnect here between what the 21 President and Secretary of State are saying and what the 22 Department of Energy is planning to do here in the 23 environmental assessment. 24 Q. Dr. Boyle, I'm going to show you what has been marked as 25 Plaintiff's Exhibit 11 and ask you to take a minute to KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 54 1 review that and let me know when you have had a chance to 2 do so, please. 3 A. Yes. This is an account of the Secretary of State 4 Albright's statement on April 2, as recently as April 2 5 dealing with our proliferation policies. And let me draw 6 a few things to your attention. United States regards 7 proliferation anywhere as our Number 1 security concern. 8 So again, she's pointing this out and she is the cabinet 9 officer with the authority to deal with these matters, not 10 the Secretary of Energy. We continue to seek universal 11 adherence to the NPT neither India nor Pakistan are 12 parties to the NPT. And here is crucial points: The 13 limits in our ability to cooperate with India and Pakistan 14 are a matter of U.S. law, as well as our international 15 obligations, all right? So Secretary Albright is pointing 16 out we have United States law that deals with 17 proliferation and this United States law -- of course, 18 she's not a lawyer -- but the U.S. law is the Nuclear 19 Nonproliferation Act, the Proliferation Prevention Act and 20 the '98 amendments as well as the Atomic Energy Act. So 21 there's a very comprehensive legislative scheme here as 22 well as our international obligation she points out. 23 There are international treaties here, and in particular 24 the most important one being the one she just referred to, 25 the Nonproliferation Treaty, and she is aware of that. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 55 1 Unfortunately, it does not appear that the Department of 2 Energy is aware of it or is concerned about it in the 3 least bit, at least as reflected in the environmental 4 assessment, they have not dealt with any of these issues 5 in environmental assessment nothing, none. 6 Q. Dr. Boyle, based on your experience and investigations 7 study, are you aware of whether or not India and Pakistan 8 have Canadian CANDU reactors? 9 A. As I understand it, they've got reactors from the Indian 10 Nuclear Bomb Project was a serous reactor, Canada, India 11 and United States, right. And Pakistan has a CANDU 12 reactor, right. And just the other day, the New York 13 Times reported the smuggling of substantial quantity of 14 nuclear materials out of the former Soviet Union towards 15 Pakistan that was recently intercepted in Kazakhstan, I 16 think. So I think this is a very serious problem. And I 17 don't see how this Parallex MOX -- it's only going to 18 compound the problem. These countries are doing 19 everything they possibly can. And here I would also add 20 in Israel is not a party to the NPT. There are other 21 states that have CANDU reactors, it has already been 22 reported in the professional literature, Your Honor, that 23 Japan too is a de facto nuclear weapons state in violation 24 of the NPT. And as Dr. Edwards already reported, they 25 have gotten a good deal of their nuclear material from KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 56 1 Canada. 2 So, we see -- Canadian reactors that are what, 3 in South Korea, Taiwan, states that are interested in 4 getting nuclear weapons. Clearly Taiwan wants them, South 5 Korea wants them. And you know, not that I can speak for 6 these governments, but it seems to me they have made a 7 decision the best way to get a weapon is to do it the way 8 the Indians did. We get a Canadian CANDU reactor, then we 9 start getting in whatever material we can get from, for 10 example, this MOX program. They will get plutonium and 11 then they can make a bomb, they can assemble a bomb. 12 As for the ease of assembling a bomb, Your 13 Honor, when I was a student at Harvard there was a very 14 bright student at MIT who, as a class project, assembled a 15 bomb. He had everything there except the plutonium. 16 That's how easy it is to assemble an atomic bottom, and he 17 brought it down there and, if I remember correctly, in 18 central square at MIT, and just showed it to everyone. 19 Even a bright student at MIT can assemble a bomb, that's 20 how easy it is to do. And what we see on these states 21 that say they are non-nuclear weapons states is an effort 22 to get a CANDU reactor and do what the Indians do use the 23 CANDU reactor, then they just need to get hold of the 24 plutonium, and Parallex MOX is going to give them access 25 to this plutonium if it gets in circulation. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 57 1 Q. Dr. Boyle, you've testified in some depth as to the 2 Nonproliferation Treaty and the implementation by Congress 3 indicating Congress' intent to prohibit even components, 4 parts of nuclear weapons to be covered by the U.S.; is 5 that correct? 6 A. Congress has interpreted the NPT, as I said, in good 7 faith, and to achieve its object and purpose and they have 8 interpreted to mean components that is clear of nuclear 9 weapons or nuclear explosive devices and there are other 10 areas in legislation where they even break it down to 11 items or substances that could be used for nuclear weapons 12 or nuclear explosive device, so Congress is aware of this 13 problem of a state becoming a de facto nuclear weapons 14 state and somehow trying to assemble components, items and 15 substances to be used for a nuclear weapon in order to 16 circumvent the treaty. So again Congress has interpreted, 17 I think, the treaty properly. 18 Q. Are you familiar in the course of your research with the 19 DOE's stockpile of stewardship program? 20 A. I am, yes. 21 Q. Are you familiar with their use in that program of 22 subcritical amounts of weapons grade plutonium? 23 A. Yes. Right now the Department of Energy is engaging in 24 what are known as subcritical tests. A subcritical test 25 is using -- they just did one this week, I think I gave KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 58 1 you the press release on it, and they are consistently 2 doing this. 3 A subcritical test uses a subcritical amount of 4 plutonium, which is under the -- it was eight kilograms. 5 And they are exploding it in order to test, verify and 6 develop the next generation of U.S. nuclear weapons. So 7 what we see the Department of Energy doing here is the 8 subcritical tests, in my opinion, would constitute it's 9 not a nuclear weapon, but it is a nuclear explosive 10 device. Now, there is nothing illegal with, under the NPT 11 with us having a nuclear explosive device, because we are 12 a nuclear weapons state party, but again, it creates 13 problems other states are now mimicking our behavior. 14 Russia is doing the same thing, France and Britain say 15 they are going to do the same thing. If we give weapons 16 grade plutonium to Canada, Canada could be doing the same 17 thing. Or the Russians give their weapons grade plutonium 18 to Canada, Canada could be doing the same thing, and other 19 states could be doing the same thing. So again, I think I 20 have serious concerns here, but I want to point out the 21 DOE is already engaged in the subcritical tests which are 22 clearly nuclear explosive devices. So it just doesn't 23 have to be a bomb to be regulated by the NPT. 24 Q. Dr. Boyle, in the scope of your experience and research, 25 have you become acquainted with the International Court of KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 59 1 Justice opinion regarding nuclear weapons in 1996? 2 A. Yes. As a matter of fact, I was part of the effort 3 originally to try to get that advisory opinion from the 4 World Court. 5 Q. If you would explain briefly what the significance, if 6 anything, of that World Court decision on the Parallex 7 project is, in your opinion? 8 A. Well, Your Honor, the World Court was asked by the United 9 Nations general assembly to give an opinion on the entire 10 question of nuclear weapons and international law. It's a 11 very long decision with many separate decisions in the 12 sense I've written an article here, Mr. Love might want to 13 provide it to you, going through all of it. But in this 14 opinion, there are two critical components that are 15 relevant to the Parallex MOX project and, of course, the 16 EA has not dealt with either, let alone the World Court 17 opinion, and the World Court opinion in this area 18 enunciates the rules of international law that are binding 19 on the United States Government, binding on Canada, 20 binding on Russia. The one component of this opinion 21 deals with the environmental-- international environmental 22 law applicable to nuclear weapons, and you will note in 23 the EA, the DOE does absolutely nothing at all with 24 international environmental law applicable to this 25 transaction because it is an international transaction, KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 60 1 they're shipping plutonium from the States up to Canada 2 and from Russia over to Canada. So international 3 environmental law is involved, and the DOE has done 4 nothing at all about it. 5 And Mr. Love, I think you have the exact 6 language there. You want to provide that to me, the exact 7 ruling of the Court on the international environmental law 8 that would apply? 9 MR. LOVE: Your Honor, we have tendered what I'm 10 going to show Dr. Boyle as Plaintiff's Exhibit 14, a copy 11 of the World Court opinion to both the Court and counsel 12 previously. 13 BY MR. LOVE: 14 Q. Dr. Boyle, I'm going to show you what has been marked as 15 Plaintiff's Exhibit 14 and ask you to take a look at that 16 and let us know when you've had a chance to do so and what 17 it is. 18 A. Right, this is the World Court advisory opinion. It's so 19 long, I'm going to have to get my notes on it, excuse me. 20 I think, Mr. Love, I gave you my notes last 21 night on the relevant provisions of the opinion, the 22 relevant paragraphs. 23 Q. While I'm looking for your notes, could you direct your 24 attention to Paragraph 27, please? 25 A. Right. What we need are the paragraphs here. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 61 1 Right. Yes, I have Paragraph 27. 2 Your Honor, here the World Court unanimously 3 adopted Principle 21 of the Stockholm Declaration of 1972, 4 which everyone would say today is a basic principle of 5 international environmental law, which the EA has not 6 bothered to deal with. And it basically says states have 7 a duty "to ensure that activities within their 8 jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to the 9 environment of other states or areas beyond the limits of 10 national jurisdiction." That's a basic principle of 11 international environmental law. It goes back to the 12 Stockholm Declaration of 1972. It has direct relevance 13 here to this entire project. You've got international 14 shipment of plutonium, it's going over the high seas if it 15 goes by boat from Russia. That also triggers the Law of 16 the Sea Convention that they have not dealt with. They 17 haven't dealt with the Stockholm Declaration, and they 18 have not dealt with this recent ruling by the World Court 19 as to obligations under international law. If you read 20 the EA when they are asked this question, they said "Once 21 we give to Canada, that's their problem." Well, again, 22 that isn't a correct statement of international law. It 23 is our problem. 24 The second important point of the ICJ opinion, 25 and there are other sections here dealing with the KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 62 1 environment -- and I know we have a limited amount of 2 time, I'm not going to go through it all -- deals with the 3 interpretation of the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty. 4 This is an international treaty, the World Court 5 also has authority to interpret the Nuclear 6 Nonproliferation Treaty, and they have interpreted the 7 Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. 8 Mr. Love, could you give me -- I identified a 9 paragraph for you, I think it's 102. 10 Q. I believe you are looking for Paragraph 102? 11 A. 102, right. 12 Q. May also want to take a look at Paragraph 99. 13 A. 99 and 102, right. 14 The World Court, in the same advisory opinion, 15 has also dealt with the NPT and the obligation of Article 16 VI of the NPT, "Each of the parties to the treaty 17 undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on 18 effective measures relating to cessation of the" -- "in 19 good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of 20 the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear 21 disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete 22 disarmament under strict and effective international 23 control." And they have interpreted this provision, NPT 24 Article VI, which we are a party to, by the way, to have a 25 dual obligation, two components here: One, we must pursue KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 63 1 negotiations on nuclear disarmament as a matter of good 2 faith. 3 Recently, I regret to report the U.S. Ambassador 4 to the Conference on Nuclear Disarmament sponsored by the 5 United Nations has said "We are not going to pursue 6 nuclear disarmament negotiations." In my opinion, that 7 puts us in breach of NPT Article VI, certainly as 8 interpreted by the World Court. We have an obligation to 9 pursue nuclear disarmament negotiations and we have just 10 said we are not going to do it. The Ambassador said "We 11 are going to pursue instead a treaty on the cutoff of 12 fissile materials such as what is at stake here, but we 13 are not going to pursue nuclear disarmament negotiations." 14 Well, Your Honor, it does seem to me that that is a 15 violation of NPT Article VI and is certainly not meeting 16 the requirements of Article VI as interpreted by the World 17 Court. We must pursue these negotiations in good faith. 18 And then the second component of the obligation 19 is we must achieve a precise result. Nuclear disarmament 20 in all its aspects. And again just recently the U.S. 21 Ambassador to the Council of Nuclear Disarmament under the 22 auspices of the UN said "We are just not going to do it." 23 The reason why this creates serious legal problems is that 24 the non-nuclear weapons states went along with the entire 25 Nuclear Proliferation Treaty on the assumption that the KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 64 1 nuclear weapons states would engage in good faith 2 negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament. If we are 3 not engaging in negotiations leading to nuclear 4 disarmament and publicly say we are not going to do it, 5 this in theory could give the non-nuclear weapons states, 6 all 175 of them, grounds to argue the material breach of 7 the NPT and pull out of the NPT and to engage in nuclear 8 armament. Now I'm not recommending that and indeed I 9 certainly would not recommend that to anyone, but it is a 10 very serious concern if we are not engaging in these 11 nuclear disarmament negotiations, which we are not 12 currently doing. 13 Q. Dr. Boyle, could you briefly summarize for the Court why 14 the International Court of Justice opinions, if at all, 15 are binding on the U.S.? 16 A. This opinion per se is listed as an advisory opinion. So 17 it is -- we are not party to the lawsuit. As you know, 18 some courts can give advisory opinions. Your Honor, you 19 can't give an advisory opinion, but there are courts in 20 the United States that some states courts have authority 21 to give advisory opinions as well as contentious 22 opinions. The World Court has both. They have authority 23 contentious opinion and an advisory opinion. This was not 24 a contentious case. If it were a contentious case, we 25 would be bound by it, like the Lockerbie case, like the KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 65 1 Bosnia cases that I was involved with, those were 2 contentious cases. This was an advisory opinion, however, 3 in this advisory opinion, with these unanimous rulings by 4 the World Court on these points, the World Court made it 5 clear that these rules are customary international law. 6 And rules of customary international law bind the United 7 States Government. The Paquete, P-a-q-u-e-t-e, Habana, 8 H-a-b-a-n-a, decision by the United States Supreme Court 9 customarily international law binds the United States and 10 the United States courts. And technically, this is 11 federal common law. So the, Your Honor, this Court should 12 take into account the World Court rulings on these two 13 points on international environmental law and how the NPT 14 should be interpreted. 15 The rest of the opinion, which is quite lengthy 16 and I had written about elsewhere -- if you are interested 17 in reading my article, you can, but it's not really 18 relevant or terribly germane to the issues here, but 19 certainly, the section on international environmental law 20 and their interpretation of the NPT is relevant. I think 21 they enunciate rules of customary international law. I 22 also have reached the same conclusions myself in my own 23 scholarly research before the World Court did, but I think 24 most experts would agree with the rulings of the World 25 Court on these two points, it's requirements of KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 66 1 international environmental law and the interpretation of 2 the NPT. 3 And again, the DOE's environmental assessment 4 has not taken any of this into account. They have not 5 taken into account the rules of international 6 environmental law, which they should do, and they have not 7 taken into account anything about the NPT. 8 Q. Dr. Boyle, based on your review of the NPT, the Nuclear 9 Nonproliferation Acts of 1978, 1994, and 1998, the 10 International Court of Justice opinion, and the 11 declarations by the Department of State regarding the U.S. 12 position with respect to the Nonproliferation Treaty 13 commitments we have made, do you have an opinion as an 14 expert in international law as to whether the foreign 15 policy of the United States would be violated by the 16 shipment of MOX from Russia to Canada funded by the U.S. 17 DOE? 18 A. Well, again, I agree with everything Dr. Edwards said. 19 Your Honor, this is a major change in United States 20 nonproliferation policy going back at a minimum to the 21 Carter administration and the adoption of the Nuclear 22 Nonproliferation Act, it seems to me completely 23 inconsistent with the treaty, with the Act, the 1978 Act 24 and 1994 Act and the 1998 Act. So yes, this is a major 25 change in policy that potentially is illegal under the KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 67 1 sources. And I would really like to see the Department of 2 Energy comprehensively address all of these issues so we 3 could see what is their authority to do this. Besides 4 their own ipse dixit. I would like to see the authority. 5 I don't see it in any of the sources I've read before for 6 them to unilaterally engage in this major change in policy 7 that seems to be inconsistent with the Treaty, the '78 8 Act, the '94 Act and '98 Act, yes. 9 MR. LOVE: Your Honor, I have no further 10 questions of this witness. Thank you. 11 CROSS EXAMINATION 12 BY MR. DODGE: 13 Q. Morning, Mr. Boyle. 14 A. Morning. 15 Q. I would like to turn your attention back to your C.V., 16 which I think is Exhibit 3. Do you have that in front of 17 you? 18 A. Sure. 19 Q. Just to round out a few items on the second page, about 20 halfway down you testified that you were counsel to Libya 21 in connection with the bombing of the Pan Am flight over 22 Lockerbie, Scotland. 23 A. That is correct. I should point out that matter is being 24 peaceably resolved now by the United States and Libya 25 because of my efforts. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 68 1 Q. And you've also served, going up now the fourth item from 2 the top of that page, since 1987 you served as a legal 3 advisor to the Palestine Liberation Organization? 4 A. That is correct, and I was also the legal advisor to the 5 Palestinian delegation for the Middle East Peace Talks 6 convened under the auspices of President Bush, yes. 7 Q. And two items down from there said you were counsel 8 related to House Resolution 86 in the 102nd Congress 9 dealing with the impeachment of former, then President 10 George Bush? 11 A. Yes. Congressman Henry G. Gonzalez of Texas reached a 12 decision that President Bush going to war violated 13 numerous provisions of the Constitution and international 14 law. You can find them there in House Resolution 86. And 15 he asked me, because of my knowledge and expertise to 16 serve as counsel to them on these matters, and I did serve 17 as counsel free of charge, that is correct. 18 My service to the Palestinian Delegation in the 19 Middle East Peace Negotiations is there in '91 and '93, as 20 I said, President Bush was the one who convened those 21 negotiations, and yes, even though I did set out with 22 Congressman Gonzalez on this issue, President Bush did 23 sign my Biological Weapons Anti-terrorists Act of 1989, 24 which is -- 25 Q. He apparently didn't hold your efforts against you KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 69 1 personally. 2 A. Pardon me? 3 Q. Sounds like he didn't hold it against you personally. 4 A. I don't think he did, no. I'm a lawyer and a law 5 professor and I'm a professional, but he had no problems, 6 President Bush had no problems with my Biological 7 Anti-Terrorism Act. It was approved unanimously by both 8 Houses of Congress. 9 Q. Moving on to the third page, second item from the top of 10 the page, you worked as a consultant in 1993 on 11 Independence for the State of Hawaii. I would assume for 12 Hawaii to become an independent nation? 13 A. That is correct. The State of Hawaii-- the Hawaiian 14 Sovereignty Advisory Commission is an agency of the State 15 of Hawaii. And they were charged under the law by the 16 State of Hawaiian law to investigate all alternatives for 17 the native Hawaiian people. One of the alternatives that 18 needed to be investigated was whether or not the native 19 Hawaiian people should establish their own independent 20 nation state. And I was retained by the State of Hawaii 21 then to advise them on this because of my experience doing 22 the same work with the Palestinians. I advised them on 23 the creation of their state and the peace talks with 24 Israel based on a two-state solution, and the Palestinian 25 state today has diplomatic recognition now by about 125 KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 70 1 states, and currently has de facto UN membership, and I 2 did the legal work on that, so the State of Hawaii 3 retained me to come out and advise on the establishment of 4 an independent nations state, and the State of Hawaii paid 5 my expenses and a modest fee for this work, yes. 6 Q. Moving on to the Nonproliferation Treaty, you testified 7 about Article I. Do you recall that? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. And as I understood your testimony, your view is that the 10 fuel rods at issue in the Parallex Project, in your view, 11 should be treated as components of a nuclear weapon; is 12 that right? Explosive device? 13 A. No. What I said was weapons grade plutonium should be 14 treated as a component of either a nuclear weapon or a 15 nuclear explosive device. 16 Q. What about -- I mean, the Parallex test involves shipment 17 and then irradiation of fuel rods; is that correct? 18 A. Right. 19 Q. And is it your view or is it not your view that those fuel 20 rods constitute components of nuclear weapons or explosive 21 devices? 22 A. My viewpoint is what I said, that weapons grade plutonium 23 is a component of a nuclear weapon or nuclear explosive 24 device. 25 Q. You didn't answer my question. Do you understand the KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 71 1 question? 2 A. Well, I've given my answer. 3 THE COURT: No, you haven't answered his 4 question. He asked you question, if you don't know the 5 answer, say so. He asked you a very specific question 6 about rods. 7 BY MR. DODGE: 8 Q. In fact, the question has to do with your view, if you 9 have one, whether the fuel rods at issue in the Parallex 10 test program constitute components of nuclear weapons or 11 explosive devices. 12 A. If they contain weapons grade plutonium, they would be or 13 could be components of nuclear weapons or nuclear 14 explosive devices. 15 Q. Well, these fuel rods do contain plutonium; is that right? 16 A. As I understand it, it's in there, yep. 17 Q. So in your view, does that make the fuel rods components 18 of nuclear weapons or explosive devices? 19 A. Again, my testimony is that the weapons grade plutonium 20 clearly is either nuclear -- is a component of a nuclear 21 weapon or a nuclear explosive device, and the reason I 22 give that testimony is based on my reading of the 23 Congressional legislation, Congress has taken the position 24 that weapons grade plutonium or plutonium, in general, is 25 a component of a nuclear weapon or nuclear explosive KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 72 1 device. Congress does not deal with the fuel rods, they 2 dealt with the plutonium. 3 Q. I want to make sure I understand your testimony clearly. 4 Is it your testimony, is it your view that any 5 plutonium would qualify as a component of a nuclear 6 weapons or nuclear weapon or explosive device under the 7 treaty? 8 A. My testimony today is the weapons grade plutonium involved 9 in this project is a component of a nuclear weapons or 10 other nuclear explosive device. I believe weapons grade 11 plutonium is what is involved in this project. 12 Q. I asked you a different question. The question was a 13 broader one. Is it your view or not your view that all 14 plutonium would qualify as a component of a nuclear weapon 15 or explosive device under Article I? 16 A. It appears Congress has taken that position, yes, and they 17 have stringently regulated plutonium in all forms. And I 18 also note that the United States Government has exploded a 19 nuclear weapon -- 20 THE COURT: The question is: Is it your 21 opinion? He is asking four or five times now, could you 22 answer that? 23 THE WITNESS: But Your Honor, my opinion is 24 based on -- 25 THE COURT: In courts -- I know you are a KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 73 1 professor -- we answer the questions of the lawyer, not 2 what we want to talk about. He asked you seven or eight 3 questions, none of which you've answered. I would ask you 4 simply listen to the lawyer's question and answer it. 5 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honor. 6 BY MR. DODGE: 7 Q. Do you understand the question? 8 THE COURT: Ask it again for the fifteenth time, 9 ask it again. 10 BY MR. DODGE: 11 Q. Is it your view that all plutonium constitutes a component 12 of nuclear weapon or explosive device under Article I of 13 the treaty? 14 A. It can. 15 Q. It can? 16 A. Yes. Yes. 17 Q. Is it your view across the board that plutonium, whether 18 weapons grade or not, if it's present in a fuel rod for 19 a-- destined for a civilian nuclear reactor would qualify 20 as a component of a nuclear weapon explosive device? 21 A. It could. 22 Q. Do you know whether as a general matter the signatories of 23 the Nonproliferation Treaty have interpreted, whether any 24 signatory has interpreted Article I to ban transport of 25 fuel rods containing plutonium? KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 74 1 A. Congress has strictly regulated plutonium, yes, and there 2 is legislation on the books saying "We, Congress, 3 interpreting our obligations under the NPT, are against 4 international transport of plutonium," yes. 5 Q. Has Congress passed any legislation prohibiting the 6 transport of nuclear fuel rods containing any plutonium? 7 A. In what I have reviewed for my testimony here today, I 8 have not seen in the '78, '94 or '98 Act that Congress has 9 prohibited transport of fuel rods. 10 Q. In fact, fuel rods are transported across national 11 boundaries all the time; is that not correct? 12 A. They are transported. 13 Q. In fact, fuel rods containing plutonium are transported 14 across national boundaries all the time, isn't that 15 correct? 16 A. If they are subject to-- they are supposed to be subject 17 to safeguards, yes. 18 Q. Well, that gets us to another point of your earlier 19 testimony regarding whether the fuel rods particularly at 20 issue in the Parallex Project are or are not subject to 21 IA/EA safeguards in Canada. Do you recall that testimony? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. Do you have personal knowledge whether Canada, the 24 Government of Canada has taken a position on whether the 25 U.S. Parallex fuel rods, which are now in Canada, whether KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 75 1 those fuel rods are now subject to IA/EA safeguards? 2 A. I have not seen any evidence because of the recentness of 3 the movement of the shipments. 4 Q. If I told you that the position of the Government of 5 Canada is that those fuel rods are, in fact, subject to 6 IA/EA safeguards, would you have any basis to quarrel with 7 that? 8 A. The statement by Ms. Locatelli does call into question the 9 validity of these assertions, yes. 10 Q. Miss Locatelli was generally speaking of Parallex fuel 11 rods, was she? 12 A. Speaking about plutonium in general, right. 13 Q. I take it you didn't speak personally to Miss Locatelli? 14 A. No, I did not. 15 Q. About this or any-- 16 A. But I did speak with Mr. Clemens of NCI by e-mail and he 17 has similar concerns to me. 18 Q. Okay. And did you speak to the newspaper reporter, Martin 19 Mittelstaedt, who quoted Ms. Locatelli? 20 A. No, I did not. 21 Q. Whether his quotes accurately reflect what she said or not 22 is not something you would be qualified to testify about; 23 is that right? 24 A. Well, I note The Globe and Mail is a newspaper of public 25 record and I would be able to rely on that in the World KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 76 1 Court for sure, yep. 2 Q. But newspaper reporters are human beings? 3 A. Newspaper reporters make mistakes, sure. But again, the 4 World Court, for example, the nuclear test cases did rely 5 on statements made by Government officials as normally 6 reported in reputable news media sources. They have 7 different standards of evidence, the World Court, than 8 they do here in United States District Court. 9 Q. Now you've also relied on this article, Plaintiff's 10 Exhibit 5, I guess too, in support of your opinion that 11 Canada is in possession of 40 kilograms or up to 40 12 kilograms of plutonium; is that right? 13 A. This is a statement by Mr. Clemens, and I have had e-mail 14 correspondence with him about it. 15 Q. Do you have any personal knowledge whether -- 16 A. No. 17 Q. I'm sorry, I didn't finish my question. 18 A. I did answer your question. 19 THE COURT: He hasn't finished asking it; you 20 couldn't possibly answer his question when he hasn't 21 finished asking it. 22 THE WITNESS: Sorry. 23 BY MR. DODGE: 24 Q. Do you have any personal knowledge of whether Canada, in 25 fact, has 40 kilograms of plutonium? KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 77 1 A. I do not have personal knowledge, no. I'm relying on the 2 statement by Mr. Clemens. 3 Q. Mr. Clemens, does Mr. Clemens have personal knowledge 4 whether Canada has 40-- 5 A. As I understand, Mr. Clemens does. From my e-mail 6 correspondence with him, he does. 7 Q. Has he seen that plutonium? 8 A. Pardon me? 9 Q. Has he seen it? 10 A. He didn't tell me what his sources of evidence are, but he 11 did tell me that they will be making it public soon. 12 Q. So he thinks he has -- he thinks he has evidence to 13 support that conclusion and whether that evidence holds 14 any water or not, we really can't tell, can we? 15 A. Well, again, as an expert, if the NCI is making the 16 statements, I think they are significant and they need to 17 be dealt with, and certainly by the Department of Energy. 18 THE COURT: That was not -- excuse me, that was 19 not his question. 20 Would you repeat your question, please? 21 BY MR. DODGE: 22 Q. The question is: Mr. Clemens believes he has reason or he 23 has evidence to support his conclusion that Canada has 40 24 kilograms of plutonium, but as far as anybody in this 25 courtroom knows, that evidence may or may not hold water, KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 78 1 we just don't know, correct? 2 A. I'm not evaluating the evidence, and Mr. Clemens said the 3 evidence will be produced, so at that point I will review 4 the evidence and formulate a formal opinion. 5 THE COURT: Do you want to ask it again or just 6 want to give up? 7 MR. DODGE: I think that -- I think the point is 8 established to the extent I need to, Your Honor. 9 BY MR. DODGE: 10 Q. Now, you testified earlier that it's up to the State 11 Department, not the Department of Energy to interpret 12 United States treaty obligations; is that right? 13 A. I testified that it is the State Department that is in 14 charge of nuclear proliferation policies, that's what I 15 testified, and not the Department of Energy, yes. 16 Q. Okay. Is it your view that it's -- maybe I misunderstood 17 what you testified earlier. I thought I heard you say 18 that interpreting whether or not the U.S. is complying 19 with Nonproliferation Treaty in particular, that pertinent 20 authority on that would be the State Department, not the 21 Department of Energy; is that a fair statement? 22 A. I've also testified that the State Department has the lead 23 role in the United States Government with respect to 24 interpretation of treatises as well. 25 Q. Do you know what the State Department's position is on KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 79 1 whether the Parallex test program is or is not compliant 2 with Article I of the Nonproliferation Treaty? 3 A. Well, that's why I read the Environmental Assessment, to 4 see if you had talked to the State Department here, and 5 they hadn't, so I have not seen any statement by the State 6 Department as to what their position is, no. 7 Q. The Environmental Assessment is not the only document 8 that's been generated in the course of the Parallex 9 Project, you understand that? 10 A. That is correct, and I have read a good deal of the 11 documentation, but I still have not seen an expression by 12 the Department of State on this issue. 13 Q. Okay. Do you know whether or not the State Department was 14 involved at any level in the Parallex Project? 15 A. There probably were discussions somewhere in there. 16 Q. Do you know? 17 A. Myself personally? 18 Q. Yes. 19 A. I don't know for sure. 20 Q. Do you know one way or the other whether the State 21 Department has a view on whether the Parallex Project is 22 consistent with our treaty obligations under Article I of 23 the NPT? 24 A. I have not seen any expression by the State Department on 25 this issue. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 80 1 Q. If I told you the State Department has taken the view that 2 the Parallex Project is entirely consistent with our 3 obligations under Article I, would you have any basis to 4 quarrel with that? 5 A. I haven't seen it. 6 MR. LODGE: Objection, Your Honor. 7 THE COURT: If he hasn't seen -- 8 MR. DODGE: Withdraw the question, Your Honor. 9 THE WITNESS: I would like to see it and 10 evaluate it myself, sure. 11 BY MR. DODGE: 12 Q. You also testified about dangers of nuclear proliferation 13 relating to countries such as Taiwan and Korea that are 14 not currently nuclear weapons states, but would like to 15 acquire nuclear weapons, do you recall that testimony? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. Is it correct that the MOX program, the Parallex Program 18 does not contemplate the shipment of any fuel rods to any 19 country other than Canada? 20 A. Not at this stage, but eventually it does appear there 21 will be mass circulation of this material, yes, down the 22 line. 23 Q. And the basis for that is what exactly? 24 A. The quantities. If the test works out, the quantity we 25 are talking about coming from Russia. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 81 1 Q. Well, let me be more specific about this. Has the United 2 States, any spokesperson for the United States Government 3 proposed in connection with the Parallex Project to send 4 fuel rods to any country other than Canada? 5 A. The United States? 6 Q. Right. 7 A. No. 8 Q. Has the Government of Russia proposed, in connection with 9 the Parallex Project, to send fuel rods to any country 10 other than Canada? 11 A. Well, they are talking about massive quantities of weapons 12 grade plutonium being circulated into this program and the 13 independent team of experts by Russia and the United 14 States have made that quite clear they are talking tons of 15 this stuff. 16 Q. Well, again, you didn't answer my question there, 17 Professor. I asked you whether the Russian Government has 18 proposed sending fuel rods to any country other than 19 Canada. Your answer only dealt with volumes, it didn't 20 address where. That was my question. 21 A. Right. There might have been discussions on Germany or 22 some of the European states have there -- there have been 23 discussions and proposals, but it's just at that stage 24 now, yes. 25 Q. But Russia has not, to your knowledge, proposed sending KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 82 1 fuel rods to Korea? 2 A. There is an international market here, sure, it could be 3 sold anywhere. 4 THE COURT: No, he didn't say could have. He 5 said: Did they propose it? 6 THE WITNESS: I have not read that right now 7 Russia is proposing sending this to Korea. 8 BY MR. DODGE: 9 Q. Same question with Taiwan. 10 A. I have not read that Russia is proposing to send this to 11 Taiwan. 12 MR. DODGE: No further questions at this time, 13 Your Honor. 14 THE COURT: We will take a 15-minute recess. 15 COURT CLERK: All rise. 16 This court is in recess. 17 (At 10:54 a.m., recess.) 18 THE COURT: Okay. What is next? 19 MR. LOVE: Brief redirect, Your Honor. 20 REDIRECT EXAMINATION 21 BY MR. LOVE: 22 Q. Professor Boyle, did you receive any recognition or 23 rewards from Bosnia for your efforts on their behalf? 24 A. While I was never paid a penny, but President Izetbegovic 25 and Vice President Gonich (phonetic) held a ceremony at KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 83 1 the Bosnian presidency with a-- awarded me full-fledged 2 citizenship in the Republic, a diplomatic passport and 3 visa and a declaration and they put the ceremony on 4 television, so that was very nice. So technically I'm a 5 Bosnian citizen too. 6 Q. Dr. Boyle, with respect to your work on the Hawaiian 7 independence that Mr. Dodge asked you about, has there 8 been any action by the President or Congress, to your 9 knowledge, with respect to that? 10 A. Yes. In 1993 Congress passed a statute signed into law by 11 President Clinton formally apologizing to the native 12 Hawaiian people for destroying their kingdom and stealing 13 their land. The legislation at the end provides for a 14 process of reconciliation and reparations, and how this is 15 going to be dealt with, and I'm still currently involved 16 in those matters. 17 Q. Dr. Boyle, there should be a document up there marked 18 Plaintiff's Exhibit 13. Do you see that? 19 A. Yes, I have it here. 20 Q. Now, this is entitled a Nonproliferation Arms Control 21 Assessment of Weapons Usable Fissile Material Storage and 22 Excess Plutonium Disposition Alternatives, dated January, 23 1997 authored by the United States Department of Energy, 24 correct? 25 A. Yes. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 84 1 Q. Was this among the documents that you reviewed in 2 preparing your testimony? 3 A. I did not have -- I did not get this entire document until 4 Monday, so I did not have a chance to review the entire 5 document, but I have reviewed the excerpts you gave to 6 me. 7 Q. Now Mr. Dodge asked you-- for the record, Your Honor, the 8 excerpt only contains Pages 106 and 107-- Mr. Dodge asked 9 you about your testimony about the possibility of future 10 shipments of MOX to Taiwan and Korea. Do you remember him 11 asking you about that? 12 A. Yes. 13 THE COURT: He didn't ask what the possibility 14 is, he asked if there were plans by Russia or the United 15 States to ship to those two nations. That was the 16 question. 17 MR. LOVE: Okay. 18 THE COURT: And the answer was no. Not are 19 there possibilities. I know the witness thinks there are 20 possibilities, that won't help me any. I understand 21 that. 22 BY MR. LOVE: 23 Q. In fact, Dr. Boyle is it true that in this document the 24 DOE indicates there are possibilities such as you 25 testified about? KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 85 1 A. Yes. 2 THE COURT: I accept that. You are wasting my 3 time. There are possibilities. 4 BY MR. LOVE: 5 Q. Dr. Boyle, if you would, I direct your attention to the 6 large document that's in front of you. This is 7 Proliferation Venerability Red Team Report, Plaintiff's 8 Exhibit 28, and introduced in the prior hearing. 9 A. Yes, and I read this entire report prior to my testimony 10 here today. 11 Q. I'm going to ask you, if you would, to direct your 12 attention to Page 6-1, the conclusions to that report. 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. And again, this is a document that was produced by Sandia 15 Laboratories for the Department of Energy? 16 A. That is correct. 17 Q. Directing your attention to the first conclusion, under 18 the conclusion, keeping plutonium inaccessible is the key 19 to proliferation resistance, do you see that? 20 A. Yes. It says quite clearly, all plutonium from all stages 21 of all alternatives can be made weapons usable should 22 sufficient material be successfully removed. And I should 23 point out that is the position Congress takes under the 24 Nuclear Nonproliferation Act of '78, the Act of '94 and 25 the '98, all plutonium can be made weapons usable. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 86 1 Q. In your view, is that conclusion by the Sandia Lab in this 2 Red Team Report consistent with your testimony? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. Now, Mr. Dodge asked you if there was transport of 5 plutonium across boundaries all the time. My notes 6 reflected you said yes. Do you remember that testimony? 7 A. I said there was some, yes. 8 Q. Is there routinely transportation of weapons grade 9 plutonium shipped across boundaries all the time by the 10 United States? 11 A. No. No. 12 MR. LOVE: No further questions. 13 MR. DODGE: No recross, Your Honor. 14 THE COURT: You may step down. 15 THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honor. 16 Your Honor, did you have any questions? 17 THE COURT: No, I don't. 18 THE WITNESS: Thank you. 19 THE COURT: You've exceeded your time so I take 20 it you have no more witnesses. 21 MR. LOVE: Your Honor, I have no more witnesses 22 but at this time I would like to move our Exhibit 5, 23 Exhibit 7, Exhibit 11, Exhibit 12, Exhibit 13, Exhibit 14 24 and Plaintiff's Exhibit 2 and Exhibit 1 into evidence. 25 MR. DODGE: No objection, Your Honor. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 87 1 THE COURT: 5, 7, 11, 12, 13 and 14, 1 and 2 are 2 received. 3 MR. LOVE: Thank you, Your Honor. We have 4 nothing further. 5 THE WITNESS: Here are the exhibits. Where do 6 you want them? 7 MR. LOVE: I'll take them here. 8 (Hearing continued; reported, not requested 9 transcribed.) 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 88 1 2 3 4 5 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE 6 7 I, Kathleen S. Thomas, Official Court Reporter for the 8 United States District Court for the Western District of 9 Michigan, appointed pursuant to the provisions of Title 28, 10 United States Code, Section 753, do hereby certify that the 11 foregoing is a true and correct transcript of proceedings had 12 in the within-entitled and numbered cause on the date 13 hereinbefore set forth; and I do further certify that the 14 foregoing transcript has been prepared by me or under my 15 direction. 16 17 18 19 20 __________________________________ 21 Kathleen S. Thomas, CSR, RPR-1300 22 U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue 23 Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 24 25 KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (voice) 217-244-1478 (fax) fboyle at law.uiuc.edu (personal comments only) Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Brussel, Morton K Sent: Monday, November 06, 2017 7:56 PM To: Boyle, Francis A Cc: David Green ; C. G. ESTABROOK ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay ; David Johnson ; Mildred O'brien ; Estabrook, Carl G Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] FW: MOX for Bombs in Japan I think this is wrong. MOX fuel is mainly used for fuel in nuclear power reactors, not to make bombs. Japan had/has many nuclear reactors. A fairly intelligible discussion is found in wikipedia, under "MOX nuclear”. —mkb On Nov 6, 2017, at 4:40 PM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss > wrote: This was a very lengthy interview I gave in Japan courtesy of their peace and anti-nuclear movement. It was heavily censored. My basic point was that Japan was using MOX to make bombs and that my best estimate was that Japan probably had as many bombs as PRC, which would be in the area of 500. So when the details of the disaster at Fukushima came out, it was clear to me it was one of their leading bomb complexes. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: globenet at yahoogroups.com [mailto:globenet at yahoogroups.com] Sent: Saturday, March 21, 2015 8:10 AM To: globenet at yahoogroups.com Cc: 'Hiroshi Taka'; 'Gensuikyo'; 'Akira Kawasaki'; oheyeran at yahoogroups.com; asia-pacific_demil_mdg-request at lists.riseup.net; 'Coleen Rowley'; 'Douglas Roche' Subject: [globenet] MOX for Bombs in Japan Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (Voice) 217-244-1478 (Fax) (personal comments only) __._,_.___ ________________________________ Posted by: "Boyle, Francis A" > ________________________________ Reply via web post • Reply to sender • Reply to group • Start a New Topic • Messages in this topic (1) VISIT YOUR GROUP [Yahoo! Groups] • Privacy • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use . __,_._,___ _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Tue Nov 7 03:30:24 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2017 03:30:24 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: MOX for Bombs in Japan In-Reply-To: <5B253921-B91A-4A46-B18B-A94C48E12123@illinois.edu> References: <5B253921-B91A-4A46-B18B-A94C48E12123@illinois.edu> Message-ID: If you are not going to take the time to read these two Testimonies under oath and subject to cross-examination by the Feds of two Experts on MOX in United States Federal District, then you should stop impugning my integrity in favor of Wikipedia—pure guttersnipe! fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Brussel, Morton K Sent: Monday, November 06, 2017 9:13 PM To: Boyle, Francis A Cc: David Green ; C. G. ESTABROOK ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay ; David Johnson ; Mildred O'brien ; Estabrook, Carl G Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] FW: MOX for Bombs in Japan I don’t know who qualified you as an expert of nuclear reactors and the nature of their fuels, nuclear physics or nuclear chemistry. Your statements belie that qualification. I hope you don’t expect me, or anyone on this list, to read the transcript you presented, but I did scan it and noted nothing in technical detail there about the properties and use of MOX, certainly not for bombs. Sorry, —mkb On Nov 6, 2017, at 8:38 PM, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: Well I have been qualified as an Expert on MOX in United States Federal District Court. And I prohibit my law students from citing Wikipedia to me in any paper and advise them to never cite or quote Wikipedia to a Judge because Wikipedia is filled with so much pure, unadulterated BULL-TWADDLE. Fab. Subject: Nuclear Proliferation/NPT/US Atomic Energy Law/MOX, etc. 1 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 3 SOUTHERN DIVISION 4 5 ALICE HIRT; ANABEL DWYER; CITIZENS FOR ALTERNATIVES 6 TO CHEMICAL CONTAMINATION; KATHRYN CUMBOW; ROBERT 7 ANDERSON; DORIS SCHALLER VERNON; and TERRY MILLER, 8 Plaintiffs, 9 v. CASE NO: 1:99-CV-933 10 BILL RICHARDSON, Secretary, 11 United States Department of Energy; UNITED STATES 12 OF AMERICA; and UNKNOWN PART(Y)(IES), named as 13 "John and Jane Doe" on complaint, 14 Defendants. 15 ____________________________/ 16 * * * * 17 18 TESTIMONY OF GORDON EDWARDS and FRANCIS BOYLE 19 * * * * 20 21 BEFORE: THE HONORABLE RICHARD ALAN ENSLEN United States District Judge 22 Kalamazoo, Michigan April 7, 2000 23 24 25 KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 2 1 APPEARANCES: 2 APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFFS: 3 MR. KARY LOVE 4 977 Butternut Drive PMB 128 5 Holland, Michigan 49424 6 MR. TERRY J. LODGE 316 North Michigan Street, Suite 520 7 Toledo, Ohio 43624-1627 8 APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANTS: 9 MR. ROBERT I. DODGE 10 MR. CHARLES GROSS U.S. Attorney's Office 11 330 Ionia Avenue, N.W., Suite 501 P.O. Box 208 12 Grand Rapids, Michigan 49501-208 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 3 1 INDEX 2 WITNESS: Page 3 GORDON EDWARDS Direct Examination by Mr. Lodge 4 4 Cross Examination by Mr. Dodge 17 Redirect Examination by Mr. Lodge 20 5 6 FRANCIS BOYLE 7 Direct Examination by Mr. Love 21 Cross Examination by Mr. Dodge 67 8 Redirect Examination by Mr. Love 82 9 10 EXHIBITS Rec'd. 11 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 1 87 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 2 87 12 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 3 31 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 5 87 13 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 6 87 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 11 87 14 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 12 87 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 13 87 15 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 14 87 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 4 1 Kalamazoo, Michigan 2 April 7, 2000 3 at approximately 8:50 A.M. 4 EXCERPT OF PROCEEDINGS 5 TESTIMONY OF GORDON EDWARDS 6 MR. LODGE: We waive opening. 7 THE COURT: Okay. Good for you. 8 MR. LODGE: And we would call Gordon Edwards. 9 GORDON EDWARDS - PLAINTIFFS' WITNESS - SWORN. 10 COURT CLERK: Please state and spell your name 11 for the record. 12 THE WITNESS: My name is Gordon Edwards, 13 G-o-r-d-o-n E-d-w-a-r-d-s. 14 DIRECT EXAMINATION 15 BY MR. LODGE: 16 Q. Dr. Edwards, you previously testified in this proceeding 17 in an earlier motion hearing in December, 1999, correct? 18 A. That is correct. 19 Q. And what, just summarize for the Court, to refresh the 20 Court's recollection, what is your occupation or 21 profession? 22 A. I'm a professor of mathematics at Vanier College in 23 Montreal, and I'm also a consultant on nuclear issues for 24 both governmental and nongovernmental agencies. 25 Q. Are you affiliated with any nongovernmental entity in KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 5 1 Canada regarding the purpose of which is to discuss 2 nuclear issues? 3 A. Yes, I'm the president of the Canadian Coalition for 4 Nuclear Responsibility, which is a federally incorporated 5 organization, since 1978. 6 Q. And how long and in what capacities have you served as a 7 consultant on nuclear issues? 8 A. I've served as a consultant since 1977 for a variety of 9 bodies, including Royal Commissions of Inquiry where I 10 have been retained to cross-examine expert witnesses, also 11 the auditor general of Canada when they were doing a 12 comprehensive audit of the Atomic Energy Control Board, 13 and most recently I was invited for January 2000 by the 14 Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs and International 15 Trade to participate in a small expert workshop on nuclear 16 weapons policies in Ottawa. 17 Q. And Dr. Edwards, have you had the occasion to read the 18 environmental assessment promulgated by the Fissile 19 Materials Office of the U.S. Department of Energy for the 20 Parallex Project? 21 A. Yes, I have, and have commented on that as well. 22 Q. We are here today on a proposed shipment of MOX plutonium 23 from Russia to Chalk River, Ontario, you understand that? 24 A. That is correct. 25 Q. What is your understanding as to the amount of the KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 6 1 plutonium content of the MOX fuel rods, pins that would be 2 brought from Russia? 3 A. The MOX fuel contains 135 grams of weapons grade plutonium 4 as compared with the 119 grams that were in the American 5 shipment that proceeded in January. 6 Q. Now, Dr. Edwards, you indicated that the Canadian 7 Coalition was incorporated in approximately 1978? 8 A. That's right. 9 Q. Have you been active in nuclear issues since that time? 10 A. Even before that time, yes. I have been active 11 specifically on proliferation questions and 12 plutonium-related questions since 1975. 13 MR. LODGE: If I may approach. 14 THE COURT: Of course. 15 BY MR. LODGE: 16 Q. Showing you what has been marked for purposes of the 17 supplemental motion hearing as Plaintiff's Exhibit 1, I'm 18 going to also leave Exhibit 2 up here. 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. Have you ever conducted any investigation into the issue 21 of civilian population or work exposures to plutonium? 22 A. Only at the level of potential for damage, potential for 23 harm. 24 Q. What is Exhibit 1? 25 A. Exhibit 1 is a letter from Mary Measures, Ph.D., Director KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 7 1 of the Radiation Environmental Protection Division of the 2 Atomic Energy Control Board of Canada dealing with 3 quantity of plutonium that an atomic radiation worker or a 4 member of the public may inhale to reach their respective 5 maximum limits. 6 Q. And the date of that is September 30, 1999? 7 A. That is correct, about six months ago. 8 Q. And could you summarize what the inhalation, or what the 9 limits are for both workers and for public? 10 A. Yes. The maximum lifetime limit of exposure in the lung 11 for an atomic worker is approximately 1.4 micrograms, and 12 for the member of the public it's 0.1 microgram, and a 13 microgram being one one-millionth of a gram, so if we 14 translate this into grams, it would mean 1.4 grams would 15 be equivalent-- would be enough to give maximum 16 permissible doses to one million workers and ten -- one 17 gram would be enough to give maximum permissible doses to 18 ten million members of the general public. That's just 19 potential. 20 Q. Okay. And is that based on the -- or, I'm sorry. Have 21 you had occasion in connection with the proposed Russian 22 shipment of a 135 grams of plutonium and the American 23 shipment of 119 grams, to perform any computations as to 24 what the potential dispersion or exposure is? 25 A. Well, I would like to emphasize this is just arithmetic KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 8 1 and does not take into account dispersion factors such as 2 wind velocity, any respiration rates, and so on. If we 3 just look at the theoretical potential, then with 119 4 grams, we are talking about the potential for 85 million 5 atomic workers to receive their maximum permissible 6 exposure, if that were able to be disseminated into all of 7 their lungs and 1,000,190,000 members of the general 8 public, so even though this is a very small amount of 9 plutonium, the potential for exposure, harmful exposure is 10 quite significant. 11 Q. All right. But so that implies you would have to have an 12 optimal dispersal? 13 A. This would be an impossibly optimal dispersal. This would 14 be assuming that the plutonium were distributed fully into 15 the lungs of all the people that I've mentioned. 16 Q. Are you aware of whether or not the American shipment was 17 delivered to Chalk River? 18 A. Yes, the American shipment was delivered to Chalk River. 19 It was taken to the border in what I believe was an SST, a 20 truck which was described as silver, and I believe it was 21 probably an SST, although I do not know for absolute 22 certainty about that, and then it was transported to the 23 Sault Ste. Marie airport where it was lifted by helicopter 24 accompanied by two other helicopters, and transported from 25 there to Chalk River. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 9 1 Q. You indicated that you were talking about an impossibly 2 optimal dispersal. Have you had the occasion to perform 3 any computations as to a very conservative prudent factor 4 to start with for dispersal? 5 A. Well, this is beyond my competence to really talk about 6 the details of how it might be dispersed, but if we just 7 assume for example 99.9 percent containment in the event 8 of a serious accident. 9 Q. Are you saying how much? 10 A. Suppose 99.9 percent of the material were successfully 11 contained and not disseminated in the environment and only 12 that small fraction was disseminated. 13 Q. Okay. 14 A. The potential again would correspond to, for atomic 15 workers in the case of the 119 gram shipment from the 16 States, it would be 85,000 maximum exposures and in the 17 case of the public, it would still over a million. Even 18 with 99.9 containment, in the event of an accident, you 19 still have the potential for over a million 20 overexposures. By the way, the 135 grams, the difference 21 between the 119 grams and the 135 grams from Russia 22 corresponds to potentially again 160,000 additional 23 maximum exposures for members of the public. 24 Q. How many for workers? 25 A. 11,428. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 10 1 Q. That's just -- 2 A. That's just the differential between the two shipments, 3 just the added, going from 119 to 135 adds the potential 4 for another 11,000 worker overexposures or 160,000 public 5 overexposures. This, I believe, is why authorities take 6 such great care to emphasize the packaging in transport. 7 They realize that the potential is great for damage. 8 Q. Do your computations reflect an assumption respecting 9 whether or not the dispersion occurs as a result of an 10 accident or an attack? 11 A. No, we are talking about theoretical potential which is 12 the same regardless of how much or whether the material is 13 dispersed. In an accident, for example, we have 14 previously seen accidents that were analyzed for ground 15 transportation. I have not seen any computations or 16 analysis of accidents for air transport either from the 17 American side or from the Canadian side. 18 Q. Are you talking with respect to Parallex? 19 A. I'm talking with respect to Parallex. 20 If you had, for example, a violent crash and 21 fire of an aircraft, including a helicopter, then the 22 dispersal would cause a plume downwind, could cause a 23 plume downwind, and how much of that plutonium would 24 escape would be subject to analysis which is not, to my 25 knowledge, been performed. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 11 1 Q. Dr. Edwards, do you consider the plutonium in MOX fuel 2 form to be a weapons component? 3 A. Well, in the case of the Parallex project, as you know, 4 this 119 grams or 135 grams, there is not enough there to 5 make an atomic bomb. However, it has long been known that 6 you can make a very damaging radiological explosive device 7 which would simply disperse the plutonium in breathable 8 form. That means that if the plutonium were acquired by a 9 criminal organization or terrorist group they could make 10 an incendiary device which would make this available to be 11 breathed by members of the public and also cause very 12 long-lasting contamination of the environs where this 13 exposure would take place. I believe that it would be 14 incorrect to say that these, even this small Parallex 15 shipment, would not be attractive to terrorists or to 16 criminal organizations as a top -- as a target for theft 17 or diversion. It is true, of course, that this is weapons 18 grade material and had one, if one had sufficient weapons 19 grade material, one indeed can make a very powerful atomic 20 bomb from that. 21 Q. Have you seen any literature or other information in or 22 out of the record of this case that discusses the weapons 23 potential for plutonium? 24 A. Well, yes, it's certainly common knowledge that the -- in 25 fact, the U.S. Department of Energy acknowledges as much KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 12 1 when they refer to the Russian plutonium, the Russian 2 weapons grade plutonium is continuing a clear and present 3 danger. It's long been known and recognized that 4 plutonium is the key ingredient of atomic weapons, so if 5 one talks about components of atomic weapons, the 6 plutonium is the essential component. Once you have the 7 plutonium, then you can acquire the other materials on the 8 open market that are necessary to build a bomb. 9 Q. How do you know that? 10 A. Well, it's been well known for a long time. For instance, 11 there was a study done, published in the Harvard Civil 12 Rights and Civil Liberties Law Review -- I could make that 13 available to the Court, if you would like -- in 1975 as 14 long ago as then, which says, "Since all the material 15 other than plutonium needed to build a bomb is available 16 from commercial hardware and chemical suppliers, the 17 present obstacle to the private construction of nuclear 18 weapons is the unavailability of plutonium." 19 But if we just turn to the study that was 20 commissioned and already on file, I believe, here at the 21 Court, a study that was commissioned by the Office of 22 Fissile Materials Management called the Red Team Report, 23 the Red Team Proliferation Vulnerability Report. 24 In their conclusions on Page 6-1, they have a 25 heading called Keeping Plutonium Inaccessible is the Key KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 13 1 to Proliferation Resistance. So what is basically being 2 said here is plutonium is not just a component but the key 3 component of atomic bombs particularly in the context of 4 illicit groups. 5 Q. Dr. Edwards, could you explain for us Canada's role in the 6 reprocessing of plutonium? 7 A. Well, Canada's role in plutonium goes back to the World 8 War II Atomic Bomb Project. We had a secret laboratory in 9 Montreal which was manned by British, French and Canadian 10 scientists dedicated to developing methods for producing 11 and separating plutonium for weapons purposes as well as 12 civilian purposes, because even then it was anticipated 13 plutonium would have some civilian value. At the end of 14 the war -- incidentally, the first reactor in Canada was 15 built according to a military decision taken in 16 Washington, D.C. in 1944, to demonstrate this potential. 17 The reactor called the NRX reactor was built at 18 Chalk River and a plutonium reprocessing plant was built 19 as well. Plutonium was separated and Britain received its 20 first sample of weapons grade plutonium from Canada from 21 Chalk River just months before their first atomic test. 22 There was also an illicit transfer of plutonium 23 from Chalk River to Russia, which was so the first samples 24 of plutonium that both Britain and Russia received were 25 from Chalk River. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 14 1 Since that time, Canada, of course, has taken a 2 policy decision not to pursue a nuclear weapons option 3 itself, but they have, however, looked favorably on the 4 idea of reprocessing plutonium for civilian purposes. 5 They do not have a policy which is against the 6 reprocessing of plutonium in principle and nor do they 7 discourage their clients, their customers overseas from 8 reprocessing plutonium. And in fact, in Canada, there is 9 an open door policy towards reprocessing as a future 10 option. 11 We just concluded recently a ten-year 12 environmental assessment of the problem of high-level 13 radioactive waste disposal, and in all of the documents it 14 begins by saying, in the very first paragraphs, that by 15 nuclear waste disposal, we mean either spent fuel or 16 post-reprocessing waste. So this is very much a 17 theoretical opening and a policy opening for Canada to use 18 plutonium as a fuel. 19 Q. Showing you what has been marked as Supplemental Motion 20 Exhibit 2, can you identify that for the Court, please? 21 A. Yes. This appears to be an exchange from the British 22 Parliament, questions and answers having to do with 23 nuclear fuel, and the Secretary of State for Trade and 24 Industry is being asked about quantities of spent fuel 25 from Canada that have been contracted for reprocessing at KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 15 1 Cello Field in England. 2 Q. And can you summarize your understanding of what the 3 response by the British Government was? 4 A. Yes. The response here is that a certain amount of 5 plutonium, a certain amount of spent fuel from Canada has 6 been reprocessed beginning in 1970, and that the plutonium 7 has been returned to Canada. I have personal knowledge of 8 the fact that at Chalk River they have maintained a pilot 9 plutonium fuel fabrication line since the 1970s, since 10 1970 and before, and that they have processed at Chalk 11 River approximately three tons, more than three tons of 12 MOX fuel from recycled civilian plutonium. This is part 13 of that, the plutonium that is here being referred to as 14 being recycled or reprocessed in Britain, that's part of 15 the total amount of plutonium that Canada has acquired for 16 the purposes of MOX fabrication. 17 I mentioned that Canada also does not discourage 18 client customers from reprocessing. This is in 19 distinction to the American policy. The American policy, 20 since the Carter administration, successive 21 administrations have maintained the policy of not only not 22 allowing reprocessing in the United States, but also 23 discouraging reprocessing in other countries insofar as 24 that is possible. Canada does not share this policy 25 completely. We do not reprocess in Canada but, on the KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 16 1 other hand, we don't hesitate, it seems, to send our spent 2 fuel to other countries to get reprocessed so that we can 3 develop expertise in plutonium recycling. 4 Q. Does Canada have any relationship with the nation of Japan 5 respecting nuclear material? 6 A. Yes. Canada, as is probably known to the Court, is the 7 world's largest exporter of uranium. We are one of the 8 world's largest producers of uranium and the world's 9 largest exporter of uranium. We have bilateral agreements 10 with our customers as to the use of that uranium. Of 11 course, we have requirements that that uranium not be used 12 for military purposes. If a client customer such as Japan 13 who buys a good deal -- Japan purchases a good deal of 14 uranium from Canada. If a client customer wishes to 15 reprocess their spent fuel to recover plutonium, they do 16 have to get prior permission from the Government of 17 Canada, so when plutonium is reprocessed for the Japanese, 18 in the case where uranium from Canada is involved, the 19 Canadian Government gives their permission for that. 20 Q. Even if it is offshore from Canada? 21 A. Yes. 22 MR. LODGE: Thank you. I have nothing further. 23 THE WITNESS: Thank you. 24 Sorry. 25 MR. LODGE: Yes? KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 17 1 THE WITNESS: Excuse me. 2 MR. DODGE: Not quite finished, Dr. Edwards. 3 THE WITNESS: You knew the time was short. I 4 was jumping the gun a little. 5 CROSS EXAMINATION 6 BY MR. DODGE: 7 Q. Good morning, Mr. Edwards. My name is Bob Dodge. We have 8 met once before back in December. 9 A. That's right. 10 Q. Just a few questions. You testified about the quantity of 11 plutonium that would be included in the Russian shipment. 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. Do you recall that? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. You testified that it was 135 grams? 16 A. That's what was announced, yes. 17 Q. And how many ounces is that? 18 A. How many ounces is that? 19 Q. Yes. 20 A. I don't think in terms of ounces. I have to do the 21 conversion. 22 Q. Can you do the conversion? 23 A. I don't have the -- 24 Q. If I told you that one ounce is 28 grams, does that sound 25 about right? KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 18 1 A. I have no reason to doubt it. We are on the metric system 2 in Canada, we don't use ounces anymore. 3 Q. I understand. If I estimated 135 grams was approximately 4 five ounces, would you quarrel with that? 5 A. I would have no reason to quarrel with that. 6 Q. Now, you also testified about the amount of plutonium that 7 would have to be inhaled in order to exceed the maximum 8 permissible dose under Canadian regulations? 9 A. That is correct. 10 Q. And in your testimony, as I understood it, the assumption 11 you were making was that every single molecule of 12 plutonium that was in that sample would end up in 13 somebody's lungs; is that right? 14 A. That's right. It's calculating the theoretical 15 potential. It is not talking about a realistic scenario. 16 Q. Not only would all of the plutonium have to end up in 17 someone's lungs, but the plutonium would have to be evenly 18 divided so that each person got exactly the same amount of 19 plutonium, it's not all concentrated in one person, you 20 would have to take one-millionths of the sample, put it in 21 one person's lungs and put the next one-millionth in the 22 next person's lungs and so on? 23 A. That is correct. 24 Q. Do you have any idea, if you performed the same analysis 25 on this table, what sort of toxicity numbers you would KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 19 1 get? 2 A. I have no idea of what that would be, no. 3 Q. Now you also talked about Canada's policies regarding 4 plutonium reprocessing. 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. Do you recall that? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. Do you have any understanding of whether the plutonium in 9 the Parallex MOX samples will or will not be reprocessed 10 in Canada? 11 A. It will-- to the best of my knowledge, it will not be 12 reprocessed in Canada, although that option apparently is 13 not decided. 14 Q. What is the basis for that last? 15 A. Because Canada has a policy that at sometime in the future 16 they may reprocess. 17 Q. Do you have any understanding whether there is an 18 understanding between the Government of Canada and the 19 Government of United States or the Government of Russia as 20 to whether these particular samples will or will not be 21 reprocessed? 22 A. I do not, no. 23 MR. DODGE: Thank you very much. 24 25 REDIRECT EXAMINATION KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 20 1 BY MR. LODGE: 2 Q. Dr. Edwards, the House of Commons question and answer, do 3 you know of any particular statistics on Canada's shipping 4 of spent fuel to British nuclear fields and fuels at Cello 5 Field? 6 A. I don't have those figures with me, I'm sorry. I could 7 supply them to the Court, if desired. I do have some 8 figures at my office at home, I don't have them here. But 9 we are talking -- if we are talking about three tons of 10 MOX being fabricated at Chalk River, then one could work 11 out approximately how much of that would contain 12 plutonium, how much plutonium would be contained assuming, 13 for example, three percent. 14 Q. Right. 15 A. And then one could reasonably suppose that the lion's 16 share of that would come from Cello Field. Now I have 17 figures on shipments from Cello Field, but I don't have 18 them here. 19 Q. My question is: Would you presume that the Atomic Energy 20 Control Board of Canada, or AECL of Canada, would make 21 public the fact that the spent MOX from Parallex were 22 being shipped to Britain for reprocessing? Would you 23 presume that would become public knowledge? 24 A. No, I would not assume anything related to plutonium would 25 become public knowledge in Canada. Canada has a very KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 21 1 non-public attitude toward plutonium dealings. In fact, 2 the existing plutonium dealings in Canada including the 3 BNFL contracts is not public knowledge other than as it 4 has been raised in foreign countries such as in Britain or 5 by documents that have been leaked to nongovernmental 6 organizations. This is not something which Atomic Energy 7 of Canada Limited makes public. 8 MR. LODGE: Thank you. 9 MR. DODGE: No recross, Your Honor. 10 THE COURT: You may step down, Dr. Edwards. 11 Thank you. 12 MR. LOVE: Your Honor, if it please the Court, 13 the Plaintiffs would call Francis Boyle to the stand 14 FRANCIS BOYLE - PLAINTIFFS' WITNESS - SWORN 15 COURT CLERK: Please be seated and state and 16 spell your name for the record. 17 THE WITNESS: My name is Francis Boyle. 18 F-r-a-n-c-i-s B-o-y-l-e. 19 DIRECT EXAMINATION 20 BY MR. LOVE: 21 Q. Dr. Boyle, are you currently employed? 22 A. Yes, I am a professor of international law at the 23 University of Illinois College of Law in Champaign. 24 Q. How long have you been employed in that capacity? 25 A. 1978. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 22 1 MR. LOVE: Your Honor, may I approach the 2 witness? 3 BY MR. LOVE: 4 Q. Dr. Boyle, I'm showing you what has been marked as 5 Supplemental Preliminary Injunction Hearing Plaintiffs' 6 Exhibit 3 and ask you if you can identify that document. 7 A. It's a copy of my professional resume. 8 Q. Was this resume prepared at or under your direction? 9 A. Yes. I think it's current as of January 28th, 1999. I've 10 been kind of busy in the last year, haven't revised it. 11 Q. To the extent it's current through that date, does that 12 accurately reflect your experience, education, seminars 13 that you participated in, and articles that you've 14 authored? 15 A. Not seminars I've participated in, that would be too many 16 but, you know, the essence of my professional career and 17 articles-- significant teaching, consulting, practice. 18 I'm also a licensed attorney as well. 19 Q. If you would, give us a brief recitation of your 20 educational background? 21 A. I attended the University of Chicago where I studied 22 international relations with Professor Hans Morganthal who 23 is the mentor of Dr. Henry Kissinger at Harvard. I was 24 one of seven students in my class elected to Phi Beta 25 Kappa as a junior. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 23 1 I also did work in mathematical biology, winning 2 the award for the work I did in that area by the world's 3 leading geneticist now at Harvard. 4 I graduated in three years. From there I went 5 to Harvard Law School. I have a J.D. Magna Cum Laude from 6 Harvard Law School specializing in international law. 7 I also entered the Graduate School of Arts and 8 Sciences at Harvard in the Department of Government. I 9 have a Master's degree and a Ph.D. in political science 10 specializing in international relations, international 11 politics. This is the same Ph.D. program that produced 12 Henry Kissinger, Zabanya Brezenski (phonetic) and other 13 high level U.S. Government officials. 14 I was at the Harvard Center for International 15 Affairs for two years. Kissinger and Brezenski had been 16 there before me. 17 I spent two years teaching in the Harvard 18 College undergraduates international law organizations, 19 human rights. I practiced law with a Boston law firm for 20 a year at Bingham, Dana and Gould, where I did 21 international tax, and tax, and then finally in 1978 I 22 came to the University of Illinois. I went up for tenure 23 at the beginning of my third year, which I got, and I've 24 been tenured there since, you know, many years. 25 Q. Since undertaking your position at University of Illinois, KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 24 1 have you specialized in any area with respect to 2 particular research, writing and international law? 3 A. Well, for the purpose of our proceedings today, yes. I 4 have been specializing an enormous amount on the nuclear 5 weapons, nuclear weapons policy, proliferation, arms 6 control. Going back to my studies with Professor 7 Morganthal 30 years ago so I've been involved in these 8 issues starting as a student since 1969 and continuously 9 until today. 10 THE WITNESS: Sorry, Your Honor, I have a bit of 11 laryngitis. 12 THE COURT: That's fine, no problem. 13 BY MR. LOVE: 14 Q. Dr. Boyle, if you would direct your attention to your 15 resume, I would like to touch on a few seminal points. On 16 the first page under teaching, the third entry down talks 17 about being a lecturer in Nuclear Weapons and 18 International Law, 21st Senior Conference on Nuclear 19 Deterrence at U.S. Military Academy at West Point in 20 1983. 21 A. Yes. This is a high level seminar run by the Pentagon, 22 not for the cadets, but for about 200 of the highest level 23 officials of the United States Government dealing with 24 nuclear weapons proliferation, nuclear weapons policies, 25 and I was asked to lecture to this conference, and I won't KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 25 1 go through all the high level officials there, but sitting 2 right in front of me for my lecture was the three star 3 general in charge of war operations at the Pentagon, at 4 that time General Mahaffey. And I also note I had read 5 the independent expert's report on the MOX program 6 U.S./Russia of 1977, one of the U.S. independent experts, 7 Richard Garwin was there with me and he was also a 8 lecturer with me to this group, so I do know that Garwin 9 was involved in the Parallex MOX recommendations. 10 Q. With respect to the second to the last entry on Page 1 of 11 Exhibit 3, talks about "Lecture Tour of the Soviet Union 12 on Nuclear Weapons and International Law for Lawyers' 13 Committee on Nuclear Policy and Association of Soviet 14 Lawyers" in 1986. What was involved with that? 15 A. Yes. The former Soviet Union, their equivalent to the 16 American Bar Association was the Association of Soviet 17 Lawyers, and in conjunction with the Lawyers' Committee on 18 Nuclear Policy headquartered here, they decided to invite 19 one professor to go over to the Soviet Union and lecture 20 around the country for two weeks on various issues related 21 to nuclear weapons and international law, and both 22 organizations selected me for this purpose, so I went over 23 for two weeks and gave several lectures per day, Moscow, 24 Leningrad, Kiev to professors, lawyers, peace people, 25 whoever, news media on various aspects of nuclear weapons KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 26 1 targeting doctrine as they relate to international law 2 and, in general, nuclear policies. 3 Q. If you would direct your attention, Dr. Boyle, to Page 2 4 under Practice, fifth entry down it says "Author, 5 Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989, Public Law 6 Number 101-298 (1990) (adopted unanimously by both Houses 7 of Congress)," could you explain what that means, please? 8 A. Yes. Your Honor, we are dealing here with a treaty, the 9 Nuclear Proliferation Treaty-- Nonproliferation Treaty of 10 1968. That treaty has been implemented by Congress in the 11 Nuclear Nonproliferation Act of 1978, the Nuclear 12 Proliferation Prevention Act of 1994 and also recent 13 amendments in 1998 to deal with the India/Pakistan 14 explosions. I have direct personal experience on how you 15 take a treaty, an international treaty, and implement it 16 as a matter of United States Constitutional law by working 17 with Congress. 18 The Biological Weapons Convention of 1972 is a 19 treaty that is a total, not only arms control reduction 20 and elimination treaty for biological weapons, I gave a 21 lecture on Capitol Hill calling for legislation, domestic 22 legislation to implement this treaty, and this 23 recommendation was taken up by a group I work for called 24 the Council of Responsible Genetics. I'm on their 25 Advisory Board. I also serve as counsel to them, so KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 27 1 pursuant to their request, I drafted the implementing 2 legislation, I authored it, how to implement this treaty. 3 And then we took it to members of the House and the Senate 4 and we shepherded it through the entire process dealing 5 with members of Congress, both Houses, including testimony 6 I prepared. At that point in time, the Reagan 7 administration was opposed to this implementing 8 legislation. I had to deal personally with their position 9 papers against it refuting these things. 10 Finally there was a change of policy when 11 President Bush came into office, to his credit, and they 12 supported the legislation. It finally was approved 13 unanimously by both Houses of Congress and signed into law 14 by President Bush in 1989. This legislation was called 15 the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989. It was 16 later amended in the anti-terrorism and effect Death 17 Penalty Act of 1996. 18 I thought I had drafted the most draconian piece 19 of legislation you could possibly imagine on biological 20 weapons, but there is always a loophole, Your Honor, so 21 Congress revisited this in 1996 to close some of the 22 loopholes that had not been apparent to me and the 23 scientists I worked with back in 19, starting in from '85 24 to about 1989. So I just cite this as having direct 25 personal experience with relationship between arms control KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 28 1 treatise, reduction treatise and then how they are 2 implemented by Congress. I have done this myself. On 3 biological weapons and I'm still involved in that issue. 4 Obviously, I have not been involved in the 5 drafting of the implementing legislation for the Nuclear 6 Proliferation Treaty of 1968, there are three pieces, but 7 I have read and reviewed the implementing legislation. I 8 have an understanding how they relate to the 9 Nonproliferation Treaty and I also teach a course on this 10 subject, that is how international laws related to the 11 United States Constitution is implemented by Congress and 12 also carried out in the courts. I teach an entire course 13 just devoted to this subject. 14 Q. Dr. Boyle, you've had some experience practicing before 15 what was known formerly as the International Court of 16 Justice but currently the World Court; is that correct? 17 A. Yes, I have. 18 Q. Could you relate to the Court a summary of that 19 experience? 20 A. Well, I've advised governments with respect to either 21 actual or potential World Court litigation, some of that 22 is still attorney/client confidence that I'm not prepared 23 to discuss. What I am prepared to discuss are those 24 matters that are in the public record. 25 I did serve as counsel to Libya on the Lockerbie KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 29 1 bombing case. It was my recommendation the-- 2 unfortunately President Bush had about the sixth fleet 3 mobilized off the coast of Libya and was about to bomb 4 Libya that we filed a lawsuit at the World Court to stop 5 the bombing. We filed a lawsuit, Libya was not bombed. 6 Later on, I was General Agent for the Republic 7 in Bosnia of Herzegovina before the International Court of 8 Justice. In other words, I was their first ambassador to 9 the World Court for the Republic of Bosnia, Herzegovina, 10 and I sued Yugoslavia for committing genocide against the 11 Bosnian people. I won two cease and desist orders 12 overwhelmingly in favor of Bosnia against Yugoslavia. 13 Later on, I publicly advised -- I advised the 14 Bosnian Government to sue Britain for aiding and abetting 15 genocide against Bosnia, and President Izetbegovic 16 instructed me to sue Britain for a genocide against 17 Bosnia. That lawsuit was terminated under duress, 18 threatened them, so they withdrew from those proceedings. 19 Q. Dr. Boyle, with respect to your writings, if you would 20 direct your attention to Page 3 of Exhibit 3, the last two 21 entries at the bottom -- excuse me, the second to last 22 entries entitled Nuclear Weapons and International Law: 23 The Arms Control Dimensions, do you see that? 24 A. Yes. This was the lecture I gave to the West Point 25 Military Academy senior conference proceedings, which they KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 30 1 did publish in their proceedings at West Point, and 2 actually under my books, I've just completed work on my 3 sixth book, which is entitled Nuclear Deterrence and 4 International Law. And right now it is sitting at Pluto 5 Press -- I guess that's appropriate for today's 6 proceedings -- Pluto Press in Britain. They have 7 expressed an interest in publishing it. They are 8 currently evaluating it. I do not have a contract on that 9 book, but I did get the e-mail just before I came here, so 10 I'll have to deal with that when I go back. 11 Q. With respect to your other publications, Dr. Boyle, I note 12 that on Page 4 you've got one entitled, about halfway 13 down, The Relevance of International Law to the "Paradox" 14 of Nuclear Deterrence. 15 A. That is correct. 16 Q. Can you tell us briefly what the subject matter is? 17 A. After I made the lecture at West Point, obviously the U.S. 18 military officials and others, we had a fairly vigorous 19 debate, let me put it that way. And that vigorous debate 20 between myself and these others led to this article that 21 was later published here in the United States and also 22 translated into Dutch, because the Dutch lawyers wanted it 23 to be available as part of the debate in Holland over the 24 deployment of the U.S. intermediate nuclear forces under 25 the Reagan administration, so they translated the whole KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 31 1 thing into Dutch and it was published in the Netherlands. 2 MR. LOVE: Your Honor, I have no further 3 questions of Dr. Boyle with respect to qualifications, and 4 I tender him for voir dire to the U.S. Attorney's Office 5 subject to my motion to admit Plaintiff's Exhibit 3 into 6 evidence. 7 MR. DODGE: I have no objection to the admission 8 of the C.V. 9 THE COURT: Exhibit 3? 10 MR. DODGE: Exhibit 3. 11 THE COURT: You have no voir dire questions to 12 ask either? 13 MR. DODGE: Not with respect to that exhibit. I 14 may get into the resume on the cross. 15 THE COURT: That's fair enough. 16 Exhibit 3 is received. 17 MR. DODGE: Thank you, your Honor. 18 BY MR. LOVE: 19 Q. Dr. Boyle, in preparing for your testimony here today, 20 could you please outline for the Court -- I think you have 21 done so somewhat already -- some of the documents that you 22 reviewed and the source materials you looked at in 23 preparing your testimony today? 24 A. I have a pretty detailed knowledge about these things 25 generally. For example, when the Nuclear Nonproliferation KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 32 1 Act first came out in 1978, I did read it, but in 2 preparation for this testimony today, I've gone back and 3 read the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, the Nuclear 4 Nonproliferation Act, the Nuclear Proliferation Prevention 5 Act of 1994, the 1998 amendments. I have read a large 6 quantity of documents produced by the Department of Energy 7 on the Parallex Project. I have read the Environmental 8 Assessment dealing with the aspects of international 9 environmental law that have not been dealt with in the 10 Environmental Assessment, in my opinion, should have been 11 dealt with the Stockholm Declaration, which is not there, 12 and the World Court Advisory Opinion on 1996, I have an 13 article on it that. I didn't go back and read the whole 14 advisory opinion, but I reread the portions of the 15 article, and other scholarly sources that deal with this 16 question. There are other sources I did not have a chance 17 to review not directly related to proliferation per se. 18 But for example, in my opinion the EA should 19 have dealt with the UN Convention on the Law of the Seas. 20 It's not in there. There's been nuclear accidents 21 convention, it's not dealt with in there. There is the 22 Bowel convention on the International Transportation of 23 Hazardous Substance and Toxic Materials, that's not in 24 there. I identified those as further sources that should 25 be analyzed in my opinion, but I haven't had a chance to KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 33 1 go back and review all of those sources. 2 Q. Dr. Boyle, did the types of materials that you've just 3 identified for the Court, are these the types of materials 4 that in your experience are relied upon by experts in the 5 field of international law in forming opinions as to the 6 legitimacy of governmental actions under internationally? 7 A. Yes. I also have experience reading environmental impact 8 statements. When the Pentagon produced the DEIS or the 9 biological defense research program, the Council for 10 Responsible Genetics asked me to evaluate this entire 11 thing -- it was an enormous document -- and submit formal 12 comments on it to the Pentagon, which I did do and they 13 did respond to. So this is the type of sources that 14 experts in my field would normally look at and review in 15 forming an opinion about Government behavior, and I have 16 done this before with respect to biological weapons. 17 Q. Dr. Boyle, I'm going to show you what has been marked for 18 identification as Plaintiff's Exhibit 4. Ask you to take 19 a moment to look at that and let me know when you've had a 20 chance to do so, please. 21 A. Yes. This is the treaty on the nonproliferation of 22 nuclear weapons, and as I've said, it has also been 23 implemented by Congress on the Nuclear Nonproliferation 24 Act of 1978, the Nuclear Proliferation Prevention Act of 25 1994 and also 1998 amendments. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 34 1 The critical point to keep in mind about this 2 treaty, Your Honor, is that Congress has passed 3 legislation expressing its understanding of what this 4 treaty means and what our obligations are under this 5 treaty. And this legislation is binding on the Department 6 of Energy, on the President, on the Department of State 7 and respectfully, Your Honor, on this Court. And what we 8 see, when you read through it all, is Congress has 9 decided, and prior to that the Atomic Energy Act as well, 10 that nuclear power, nuclear weapons, nuclear proliferation 11 is so important to the American people and our republic, 12 that they have decided to engage in micro management of 13 everything related to this subject and have pretty much, I 14 would not say completely eliminated, but whittled down 15 substantially any discretion that the executive branch 16 might have in this area. I have, as I said, I did read 17 the NPA back in 1978, but when you add in everything else, 18 what surprised me was how little discretion was left to 19 the executive branch with respect to nuclear 20 proliferation, nuclear weapons. In this area, they have 21 very little discretion. 22 Q. Professor Boyle, if you could, can you explain to the 23 Court what the implications are for Canada, Russia and the 24 United States under the Nonproliferation Treaty? 25 A. Well, my reading of both the treaty and in light of the KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 35 1 Department of Energy documents describing Parallex and 2 MOX, the Red Team report, many other documents that I've 3 read, in my opinion, there are serious problems, 4 compliance problems for this entire project under Articles 5 I, II and III of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty as 6 interpreted by the United States Congress. 7 The Article I deals with the obligations of the 8 United States and Russia. Each nuclear weapons State 9 Party to the Treaty, i.e. U.S. and Russia, undertakes not 10 to transfer to any recipient whatsoever, i.e. Canada, 11 nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices, and we 12 have a problem here in that Congress has interpreted this 13 to mean components of nuclear weapons or nuclear explosive 14 devices; that is, Congress simply does not interpret this 15 to mean you can't hand over a bomb, but a component for a 16 bomb is prohibited. And here we are dealing with weapons 17 grade plutonium, which Dr. Edwards has already testified 18 can be and indeed is, in his opinion, a component for 19 either a nuclear weapon or a nuclear explosive device. 20 Okay? 21 So when you read the treaty in light of the 22 statutory scheme, in my opinion, there are serious 23 compliance problems here with Article I, which have not 24 been addressed in the EA. The DOE has not dealt with any 25 of these problems at all in the EA, indeed, they have KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 36 1 basically said in one of their comments "Well, once we 2 give it to Canada, it's their problem," and that just is 3 an incorrect statement, in my opinion. 4 And it says "directly or indirectly," which 5 means also we, the United States, directly or indirectly 6 by encouraging and paying for the Russians to do this, you 7 see. So we are accountable for the Russian behavior 8 because we are working with them. And indeed, if we were 9 sued at the International Court of Justice -- let's 10 suppose something went wrong, Your Honor, and there was, 11 as Dr. Edwards testified, an aerial explosion in the 12 latest helicopter shipment and radiological dispersal of 13 plutonium that came across the border, killing Americans, 14 killing Canadians, others, if we were sued in World Court 15 over this, we would be found both jointly and severally 16 liable with Russia, with Canada, for any accident. 17 Likewise, this is followed up by both shipments on the 18 high seas of the plutonium. If there is an accident on 19 high seas, we could be sued at the World Court, the United 20 States, both ourselves and jointly and severally with 21 Russia and Canada over any accident here that might 22 happen. And that substantive liability could be based on 23 the U.N. Law of the Sea Convention. As I said, Your 24 Honor, I haven't had time to go through the environmental 25 provision of the Law of the Sea Convention, the Department KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 37 1 of Energy didn't even bother, and in the EA they did not 2 look at this at all. They did not consider this, but it 3 certainly is something that has to be considered, that 4 they haven't looked at. 5 And then "not in any way to assist, encourage or 6 induce any non-nuclear weapon State to manufacture or 7 otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear 8 explosive devices." Well, the problem here is Canada is 9 supposed to be a non-nuclear weapons state and says 10 "otherwise acquired nuclear explosive devices." Well, we 11 are giving them weapons grade plutonium, which again 12 Dr. Edwards has testified, and he is Canadian, is a 13 component of a nuclear weapons or nuclear explosive 14 device. And again, "or control over such weapons or 15 explosive devices." We are giving them weapons grade 16 plutonium. And if you look at how Congress has 17 interpreted this, they interpret it down to components, 18 they even talk about substances that they are trying to 19 regulate everything, and understand the 1978 legislation 20 was a very strict interpretation of what this treaty means 21 as far as the United States Government is concerned. And 22 I think we really need a comprehensive assessment here by 23 the Department of Energy as to whether or not any of these 24 transfers is consistent with Article I. Under the current 25 circumstances, they haven't bothered to look at any of the KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 38 1 terms as defined by Congress, the applicability of the 2 Congressional legislation to the transfers. 3 Likewise, Article II, Your Honor, Article II 4 deals with the Canadian obligations, "Each 5 non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes 6 not to receive the transfer from any transferor whatsoever 7 of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices." 8 Again, the same analysis here needs to be done. This 9 weapons grade plutonium, in my opinion and Dr. Edwards' 10 opinion, is clearly a component of either a nuclear weapon 11 or nuclear explosive device. And Canada, according to 12 this language, has agreed not to receive this material. 13 And by the way, as Dr. Edwards correctly pointed out, Your 14 Honor, this was consistent United States policy, stopping 15 proliferation of this type of material for any reason 16 going back to the Carter administration. We are seeing a 17 major dramatic change here in United States 18 nonproliferation policy, and that policy, Your Honor, 19 going back to the Carter administration, is enshrined in 20 law by Congress in the Nuclear Nonproliferation Act of 21 1978. So again, in my opinion, I believe these issues 22 likewise need to be addressed by the Department of 23 Energy. They have not been addressed in the environmental 24 assessment at all. 25 "Or control over such weapons or explosive KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 39 1 devices, directly or indirectly." Well, again, we are 2 giving Canada, either ourselves in the first shipment or 3 indirectly by means of the Russians in the second 4 shipment, control over a component for a nuclear weapon or 5 a nuclear explosive device. That's very clear they are 6 getting it. And according to the EA, we are trusting 7 their good intentions. There is no assurance in the EA 8 that this weapons grade plutonium is subject to 9 international safeguards. No. Despite the fact that 10 Congress has made it very clear that any transfer, and 11 Congress also made it clear in the legislation that they 12 are against any transfers of this type of stuff to other 13 States. But if there are any transfers at a minimum there 14 have to be absolute guaranteed protections on 15 international assurances to make sure it is not misused, 16 and you will note in the EA it says nothing about it. 17 There are no assurances about anything. 18 Now, "to manufacture or otherwise acquire 19 nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices; and 20 not to seek or receive any assistance in the manufacture," 21 etcetera, etcetera. 22 Article III then deals with the safeguard 23 requirements; that is, if there are transfers of materials 24 for peaceful purposes, and you know you can obviously, 25 Your Honor, you can read this yourself. There must be KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 40 1 safeguards. Under the supervision of the International 2 Atomic Energy Agency, the Environmental Assessment says 3 nothing at all about these safeguards. Nothing. It isn't 4 in there. 5 Apparently we have to rely on not even 6 statements by Canada that what we are transferring there, 7 what we are encouraging the Russians to transfer are 8 somehow going to be safeguarded despite the fact that 9 Article III says that there must be safeguards, and we 10 simply don't have them. 11 Q. Dr. Boyle, I'm going to show you what's been marked for 12 identification as Plaintiff's Exhibit 5 and ask you to 13 take a look in the upper right-hand corner, and after 14 you've had a moment to review that, let me know, please. 15 A. Yes. This is an article I had read in preparation for my 16 testimony here today, from the Toronto News. 17 Q. Based on your experience and expertise, Dr. Boyle, is this 18 the type of information that an international law scholar 19 could rely on in formulating opinions about the state or 20 nationally? 21 A. Well, here is stating comments by Mr. Tom Clemens, head of 22 the Washington-based Nuclear Control Institute. It's a 23 recognized organization dealing with nuclear policies, and 24 certainly experts in my field would rely upon statements 25 produced by the Nuclear Control Institute and, indeed, KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 41 1 prior to my testimony today, I did read several documents 2 produced by the Nuclear Control Institute just in the 3 normal course of preparing, yes. An expert in my field 4 would rely on this. 5 Q. Dr. Boyle, my recollection is you testified this appeared 6 in the Toronto -- 7 A. News. 8 Q. -- News and it -- 9 A. The Globe and Mail, which is, you know, it's sort of like 10 the New York Times here in the United States, a newspaper 11 of public record, so again, it's not like a tabloid or 12 something like this. 13 Q. Plaintiff's Exhibit 5, Dr. Boyle in the right-hand column 14 attributes some comments to a Sunni Locatelli purportedly 15 a spokeswoman at the Atomic Control Board. Do you see 16 that? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. What if anything is the significance, based on your 19 experience as expertise, of considering published reports 20 attributed to spokespersons for governmental entities in 21 formulating use of international law? 22 A. Yes. There is a decision by the International Court of 23 Justice in the nuclear test cases dealing with nuclear 24 explosions 1974, stating that the Court can rely upon 25 official statements made by Government officials acting KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 42 1 within their scope of authority and certainly Locatelli 2 here is the spokeswoman of the Atomic Energy Control 3 Board. So basically, I would be able to take this 4 statement and file it at the World Court and they would 5 find the statement could be, would be attributable to the 6 Canadian government, and Canada would be bound by this 7 statement. 8 Q. What does that article, Plaintiff's Exhibit 5, attribute 9 to Miss Locatelli? 10 A. She can't reveal how much fissile material Canada has. We 11 aren't able to give out that information under our 12 security regulations. Ms. Locatelli said Canada believes 13 it should come under the IA/EA guidelines because it 14 doesn't operate its own reprocessing facilities. I think 15 Dr. Edwards just pointed out that isn't correct. But even 16 if it were correct, it does come under IA/EA, and we need 17 to know, the United States Government under the NPT, under 18 the Congressional implementing legislation, we have to 19 know how much fissile material Canada has. 20 And basically, we are just taking their, 21 whatever their word is for it, and in my opinion, that's 22 unacceptable. We have to know how much material they have 23 and what they are doing with it, and what she's saying 24 here is "Well, we are just not going to tell you." And 25 you will note in the EA, the Department of Energy has KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 43 1 taken the same position. One of the comments made was 2 "Well, what is Canada doing," and the response of the DOE 3 is well, that is Canada's problem, once it leaves here we 4 are no longer responsible. The treaty and statutory 5 regime make it clear that's not the case. We are 6 responsible for our plutonium, wherever it goes. And 7 Congress has made it clear even if we do give it up, we 8 have to have absolute international safeguards as to what 9 is going to happen with our plutonium. And the same would 10 apply if we are encouraging Russia to ship weapons grade 11 plutonium to Canada. We have an obligation to make sure 12 that it's safeguarded and that it can be accountable and 13 accounted for. And what Ms. Locatelli here is saying 14 "Well, sorry, we are just not going to tell you." Again, 15 this raises serious problems in my mind that have not been 16 dealt with by the Department of Energy as to compliance 17 with the IA/EA safeguards regime, which is absolutely 18 required under Article III of the NPT and also required 19 under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Act. Indeed, if I 20 remember correctly, the 1994 implementation, Your Honor, 21 Congress said that transferring of unsafeguarded plutonium 22 is an act of international terrorism as far as Congress is 23 concerned. 24 So and that would trigger a whole host of other 25 provisions of the federal code dealing with international KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 44 1 terrorism, so we really need to know what is going to 2 happen to our plutonium when it gets up into Canada, and 3 to make sure there are safeguards and it is accountable 4 and there is an explanation here. 5 Now Mr. Clemens then said that, in his opinion, 6 Canada has 40 kilograms of plutonium, it's really not 7 accounted for or accountable for by anyone, and that 8 basically makes Canada a de facto nuclear weapons state. 9 I would agree, assuming that they do have the 40 kilograms 10 of plutonium, and I take it you know Mr. Clemens -- I had 11 e-mail correspondence with Mr. Clemens about this matter. 12 He feels that they do have it and that his group, the 13 Nuclear Control Institute, will be making this evidence 14 available soon. He told me it is not yet -- he is not yet 15 prepared to make it public, but they will be going public 16 with it soon. 17 In my opinion, if that is the case, they have 40 18 kilograms of plutonium, that's enough to make five bombs, 19 and that makes Canada a de facto nuclear weapons state 20 under the NPT and, in my opinion, would be inconsistent 21 with the NPT. There is a potential here for Canada being 22 in violation of the NET. We need to know that. Congress 23 has sanctions in there in the implementing legislation for 24 non-nuclear weapons states being, moving into a position 25 where they are de facto nuclear weapons states in KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 45 1 violation of the NPT. 2 It's clear Congress interprets our obligations 3 under the treaty to mean that a non-nuclear weapons state 4 simply cannot go off, assemble all the components for a 5 bomb, have one here, one there and one there, and then 6 say, oh but we are not a nuclear weapons state because we 7 haven't assembled the bomb. 8 Again, Congress made it very clear, no. Indeed, 9 in one of the pieces of legislation, Congress indicated 10 that it was also concerned with a facto nuclear weapons 11 states that an end run around the NPT, and the 12 Congressional regime applicable to it. Again, I regret to 13 report I haven't seen any of these issues dealt with by 14 the Department of Energy in the Environmental Assessments 15 and, indeed, when they were asked about it, they just said 16 this is now Canada's problem. Wondered-- United States 17 law of the NPT, it is not Canada's problem alone, it is 18 our problem because it's our plutonium and it's Russian 19 plutonium that we are paying to send up to Canada. 20 Q. Professor Boyle, based on the representations of Miss 21 Locatelli on behalf of Atomic Energy Control Board of 22 Canada that they don't believe they are subject to the 23 IA/EA guidelines, what if any impact would that have on 24 the United States' responsibility under the Nuclear 25 Nonproliferation Treaty of 1978? KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 46 1 A. It's very clear, Your Honor, the NPT and the Congressional 2 implementing legislation that we ourselves cannot ship 3 weapons grade plutonium there or engage in the Russians to 4 ship weapons grade plutonium unless there are absolutely 5 safeguards by the IA/EA that, to make sure that there is 6 no diversion. And again, Miss Locatelli is indicating 7 there is a high amount of uncertainty as to what is 8 happening with the Canadian plutonium. We simply don't 9 know. In the EA, there are no guarantees given by the 10 Department of Energy as to what is happening to plutonium 11 up in Canada. 12 Q. You may have testified to this, Dr. Boyle, and I apologize 13 if I missed it, but are Russia, Canada and the United 14 States all signatory partis to the Nonproliferation 15 Treaty? 16 A. Yes. We are all parties. There are about 182 or 183 17 states that are parties. The United States and Russia are 18 nuclear weapon states, parties to the convention, that is, 19 we are permitted to have nuclear weapons and nuclear 20 components, etc. Canada is designated a non-nuclear 21 weapons state. And they are supposed to preserve this 22 stative or statement. Yet according to the Nuclear 23 Control Institute, they have enough plutonium up there to 24 at least manufacture five bombs. So somehow this has to 25 be explained and accounted for in order for them to KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 47 1 continue their non-nuclear weapons state status under the 2 NPT, so again, the Nuclear Control Institute is raising 3 very serious compliance problems and potentially serious 4 violation of the NPT by Canada, and there are severe 5 sanctions in the United States laws enacted by Congress 6 under the Simplemen legislation, Your Honor, in the event 7 a state that is a non-nuclear weapons state moves to 8 become a nuclear weapons state. And again, none of this 9 has been addressed by the Department of Energy in the 10 environmental assessment that I'm aware of, either in the 11 environmental assessment or elsewhere. 12 Q. Dr. Boyle, could you advise the Court, if you would, as to 13 what the ramifications legally are of being a signatory 14 party to an international treaty such as the 15 Nonproliferation Treaty? 16 A. Yes. Your Honor, of course, the basic rule of Pacta Sunt, 17 P-a-c-t-a-s-u-n-t, Servanda, S-e-r-v-a-n-d-a. 18 The other point -- there are two other points, 19 however, that must be kept in mind in interpreting any 20 treaty and especially the NPT. First, the treaty must be 21 interpreted in good faith. And again, the question here 22 with Canada maintaining 40 kilograms of plutonium is 23 whether or not this is a good faith interpretation 24 implementation of the NPT by Canada. 25 Second, the treaty must be interpreted in KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 48 1 accordance with its object and purpose, and that in this 2 case the NPT is to stop nuclear proliferation. And again, 3 this entire program, the Parallex program, in my opinion, 4 seems to defeat the object and purpose of the NPT, which 5 is to stop nuclear proliferation. 6 The third point to keep in mind is that this 7 treaty has already been interpreted by Congress and 8 implemented by Congress. And Congress is agreeing with 9 what I'm saying here, Your Honor, and I'm agreeing with 10 what Congress is saying. Congress has made it very clear 11 that they do not want to see any type of nuclear 12 proliferation or programs that encourage nuclear 13 proliferation. And we are now seeing a drastic departure 14 from the policy enacted in Congress pursuant to the NPC 15 back in -- the NPT back in 1978 in the Nuclear 16 Nonproliferation Act, and we have seen no change in the 17 legislation by Congress to authorize or approve this 18 drastic change. And again, I agree with what Dr. Edwards 19 said from his Canadian perspective, my American 20 perspective, the Parallex MOX project is a drastic change 21 in encouraging proliferation of nuclear weapons components 22 and there has been no direct approval, change of statutes 23 or whatever. So again, this, in my opinion, raises very 24 serious problems under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty 25 as interpreted in good faith and in accordance with its KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 49 1 object and purpose not only for Canada, but the United 2 States and Russia. And in my opinion, we should have a 3 full study of all these issues by the Department of Energy 4 before there is any further movement on this project. 5 The implications here are enormous. They could 6 be catastrophic, and I personally would like to see a full 7 scale investigation analysis so that I could evaluate it 8 myself before anyone goes ahead with this project, but of 9 course that, you know, that's my personal opinion. I know 10 that's for you, Your Honor, to decide. 11 Q. Dr. Boyle, what if anything is the requirement or 12 obligation of the United States to interpret the 13 Nonproliferation Treaty in good faith? I think you 14 testified that Canada has that obligation. Does the 15 United States have a similar obligation? 16 A. Yes. And as a matter of fact, here Congress has 17 interpreted our obligation under the NPT and, in my 18 opinion, Congress has interpreted our obligations under 19 the NPT in good faith and also in accordance with the 20 object and purpose of this treaty. Congress interpreted 21 this by means of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Act of 1978, 22 the Nuclear Proliferation Prevention Act of 1994 and the 23 1998 amendments to do with the India-Pakistani 24 explosions. So in my opinion, Congress did interpret this 25 treaty in good faith and in accordance with its object and KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 50 1 purpose and it appears to me the Department of Energy is 2 off there on their own with no express authorization from 3 Congress pursuing a policy here that defeats the object 4 and purpose of the NPT. 5 Q. By that, you are referring to the Parallex project? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. With respect to the Congressional implementation of the 8 NPT in the '78, '94 and '98 acts, what if anything is the 9 role of the Department of State and/or Department of 10 Energy with respect to interpreting those obligations? 11 A. Yes. Your Honor, it's very clear from the treaty related 12 to the statutory scheme. Treaties deal with international 13 law and foreign relations. Therefore, they are normally 14 negotiated and concluded by the Department of State and 15 then they are handed over to the Senate Foreign Relations 16 to the Senate for advice and consent. It is the State 17 Department that traditionally has always had the sole and 18 exclusive role here in the United States with respect to 19 nonproliferation policy, not the Department of Energy. 20 The Department of Energy has always been treated as a 21 technical agency, technical consultant. The policy is 22 formulated by the State Department. There had been, again 23 going back to the Carter administration, United States 24 Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, Your Honor, set up by 25 Congress to deal precisely with these issues. They were KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 51 1 the ones given the authority to deal with proliferation 2 and nonproliferation policies negotiate these agreements, 3 etcetera. Senator Helms in the latest did not like act, 4 he concluded it was super numerator morgue or something so 5 he passed legislation terminating the Arms Control 6 Disarmament Agency and transferring all functions to the 7 Department of State today. But if you read the 8 Congressional implementing legislation, they make it very 9 clear that the lead role played on proliferation and 10 nonproliferation policy is the Department of State, not 11 the Department of Energy, and the Department of State 12 should consult with the Department of Energy. At times 13 the Department of Energy is given authority to have its 14 input to the Department of State, but it's the Department 15 of State that makes nonproliferation policy, not the 16 Department of Energy. 17 Q. In your review of the environmental assessment prepared by 18 the Department of Energy in January of '99, Dr. Boyle, 19 regarding the Parallex Project, is there any indication 20 that the Department of Energy consulted with the 21 Department of State? And if you don't mind, I direct your 22 attention to Page 41 of Plaintiff's Exhibit 12 previously 23 admitted and ask you to refer to that. 24 A. Yes. They had a list here of agencies consulted. Your 25 Honor, over here on Page 41, it says agencies consulted KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 52 1 during the preparation of this analysis: Atomic Energy of 2 Canada, Canadian Atomic Energy Control Board, U.S. 3 Department of Transportation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 4 Commission. They do not consult with the Department of 5 State and, in my opinion, and also in the opinion of 6 Congress, if you read through all the implementing 7 legislation, I know, Your Honor, as I understand it, you 8 are a conscientious Judge so I'm sure you are going to do 9 this, you'll see that they have to deal with the 10 Department of State. And the main problem with this EA is 11 they have not dealt with the Department of State, they 12 have not dealt with the nonproliferation issues, they have 13 not dealt with the Nonproliferation Treaty, they have not 14 dealt with the 1978 Act, they have not dealt with the 1994 15 Act, they have not dealt with the 1998 Act. All that is 16 expressly required by Congress. So again, in my opinion, 17 for some reason the Department of Energy has just decided 18 to go out there on its own and completely either ignore or 19 violate the Congressional statutes and procedures for 20 dealing with proliferation and nonproliferation issues. 21 Q. Dr. Boyle, to your knowledge, has the Department of State 22 retreated at all from the U.S. commitment to the 23 Nonproliferation Treaty as implemented by Congress through 24 the legislation you've indicated? 25 A. No, and as a matter of fact, Madeline Albright was just KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 53 1 out in India-Pakistan with President Clinton. As you 2 know, President Clinton stated that today India-Pakistan, 3 the Indian subcontinent is the most dangerous place on the 4 face of the earth because of the proliferation problem, 5 and they both have nuclear weapons now, and the dispute 6 over Casmir. 7 President Clinton then was just lectured in the 8 Indian Parliament publicly by the speaker of Parliament 9 for making the statement, but I think it's a fair and 10 accurate statement. Madeline Albright followed this up 11 with another statement reiterating our commitment to 12 nonproliferation and, specifically with respect to India 13 and Pakistan, that this was the policy of the United 14 States Government, and also tying this into the integral 15 importance of safeguards. 16 And again, that is a fair and accurate statement 17 of the policy being pursued by the President and the 18 Secretary of State that is charged under the legislation 19 and the Constitution to deal with these matters. There is 20 a complete and total disconnect here between what the 21 President and Secretary of State are saying and what the 22 Department of Energy is planning to do here in the 23 environmental assessment. 24 Q. Dr. Boyle, I'm going to show you what has been marked as 25 Plaintiff's Exhibit 11 and ask you to take a minute to KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 54 1 review that and let me know when you have had a chance to 2 do so, please. 3 A. Yes. This is an account of the Secretary of State 4 Albright's statement on April 2, as recently as April 2 5 dealing with our proliferation policies. And let me draw 6 a few things to your attention. United States regards 7 proliferation anywhere as our Number 1 security concern. 8 So again, she's pointing this out and she is the cabinet 9 officer with the authority to deal with these matters, not 10 the Secretary of Energy. We continue to seek universal 11 adherence to the NPT neither India nor Pakistan are 12 parties to the NPT. And here is crucial points: The 13 limits in our ability to cooperate with India and Pakistan 14 are a matter of U.S. law, as well as our international 15 obligations, all right? So Secretary Albright is pointing 16 out we have United States law that deals with 17 proliferation and this United States law -- of course, 18 she's not a lawyer -- but the U.S. law is the Nuclear 19 Nonproliferation Act, the Proliferation Prevention Act and 20 the '98 amendments as well as the Atomic Energy Act. So 21 there's a very comprehensive legislative scheme here as 22 well as our international obligation she points out. 23 There are international treaties here, and in particular 24 the most important one being the one she just referred to, 25 the Nonproliferation Treaty, and she is aware of that. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 55 1 Unfortunately, it does not appear that the Department of 2 Energy is aware of it or is concerned about it in the 3 least bit, at least as reflected in the environmental 4 assessment, they have not dealt with any of these issues 5 in environmental assessment nothing, none. 6 Q. Dr. Boyle, based on your experience and investigations 7 study, are you aware of whether or not India and Pakistan 8 have Canadian CANDU reactors? 9 A. As I understand it, they've got reactors from the Indian 10 Nuclear Bomb Project was a serous reactor, Canada, India 11 and United States, right. And Pakistan has a CANDU 12 reactor, right. And just the other day, the New York 13 Times reported the smuggling of substantial quantity of 14 nuclear materials out of the former Soviet Union towards 15 Pakistan that was recently intercepted in Kazakhstan, I 16 think. So I think this is a very serious problem. And I 17 don't see how this Parallex MOX -- it's only going to 18 compound the problem. These countries are doing 19 everything they possibly can. And here I would also add 20 in Israel is not a party to the NPT. There are other 21 states that have CANDU reactors, it has already been 22 reported in the professional literature, Your Honor, that 23 Japan too is a de facto nuclear weapons state in violation 24 of the NPT. And as Dr. Edwards already reported, they 25 have gotten a good deal of their nuclear material from KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 56 1 Canada. 2 So, we see -- Canadian reactors that are what, 3 in South Korea, Taiwan, states that are interested in 4 getting nuclear weapons. Clearly Taiwan wants them, South 5 Korea wants them. And you know, not that I can speak for 6 these governments, but it seems to me they have made a 7 decision the best way to get a weapon is to do it the way 8 the Indians did. We get a Canadian CANDU reactor, then we 9 start getting in whatever material we can get from, for 10 example, this MOX program. They will get plutonium and 11 then they can make a bomb, they can assemble a bomb. 12 As for the ease of assembling a bomb, Your 13 Honor, when I was a student at Harvard there was a very 14 bright student at MIT who, as a class project, assembled a 15 bomb. He had everything there except the plutonium. 16 That's how easy it is to assemble an atomic bottom, and he 17 brought it down there and, if I remember correctly, in 18 central square at MIT, and just showed it to everyone. 19 Even a bright student at MIT can assemble a bomb, that's 20 how easy it is to do. And what we see on these states 21 that say they are non-nuclear weapons states is an effort 22 to get a CANDU reactor and do what the Indians do use the 23 CANDU reactor, then they just need to get hold of the 24 plutonium, and Parallex MOX is going to give them access 25 to this plutonium if it gets in circulation. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 57 1 Q. Dr. Boyle, you've testified in some depth as to the 2 Nonproliferation Treaty and the implementation by Congress 3 indicating Congress' intent to prohibit even components, 4 parts of nuclear weapons to be covered by the U.S.; is 5 that correct? 6 A. Congress has interpreted the NPT, as I said, in good 7 faith, and to achieve its object and purpose and they have 8 interpreted to mean components that is clear of nuclear 9 weapons or nuclear explosive devices and there are other 10 areas in legislation where they even break it down to 11 items or substances that could be used for nuclear weapons 12 or nuclear explosive device, so Congress is aware of this 13 problem of a state becoming a de facto nuclear weapons 14 state and somehow trying to assemble components, items and 15 substances to be used for a nuclear weapon in order to 16 circumvent the treaty. So again Congress has interpreted, 17 I think, the treaty properly. 18 Q. Are you familiar in the course of your research with the 19 DOE's stockpile of stewardship program? 20 A. I am, yes. 21 Q. Are you familiar with their use in that program of 22 subcritical amounts of weapons grade plutonium? 23 A. Yes. Right now the Department of Energy is engaging in 24 what are known as subcritical tests. A subcritical test 25 is using -- they just did one this week, I think I gave KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 58 1 you the press release on it, and they are consistently 2 doing this. 3 A subcritical test uses a subcritical amount of 4 plutonium, which is under the -- it was eight kilograms. 5 And they are exploding it in order to test, verify and 6 develop the next generation of U.S. nuclear weapons. So 7 what we see the Department of Energy doing here is the 8 subcritical tests, in my opinion, would constitute it's 9 not a nuclear weapon, but it is a nuclear explosive 10 device. Now, there is nothing illegal with, under the NPT 11 with us having a nuclear explosive device, because we are 12 a nuclear weapons state party, but again, it creates 13 problems other states are now mimicking our behavior. 14 Russia is doing the same thing, France and Britain say 15 they are going to do the same thing. If we give weapons 16 grade plutonium to Canada, Canada could be doing the same 17 thing. Or the Russians give their weapons grade plutonium 18 to Canada, Canada could be doing the same thing, and other 19 states could be doing the same thing. So again, I think I 20 have serious concerns here, but I want to point out the 21 DOE is already engaged in the subcritical tests which are 22 clearly nuclear explosive devices. So it just doesn't 23 have to be a bomb to be regulated by the NPT. 24 Q. Dr. Boyle, in the scope of your experience and research, 25 have you become acquainted with the International Court of KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 59 1 Justice opinion regarding nuclear weapons in 1996? 2 A. Yes. As a matter of fact, I was part of the effort 3 originally to try to get that advisory opinion from the 4 World Court. 5 Q. If you would explain briefly what the significance, if 6 anything, of that World Court decision on the Parallex 7 project is, in your opinion? 8 A. Well, Your Honor, the World Court was asked by the United 9 Nations general assembly to give an opinion on the entire 10 question of nuclear weapons and international law. It's a 11 very long decision with many separate decisions in the 12 sense I've written an article here, Mr. Love might want to 13 provide it to you, going through all of it. But in this 14 opinion, there are two critical components that are 15 relevant to the Parallex MOX project and, of course, the 16 EA has not dealt with either, let alone the World Court 17 opinion, and the World Court opinion in this area 18 enunciates the rules of international law that are binding 19 on the United States Government, binding on Canada, 20 binding on Russia. The one component of this opinion 21 deals with the environmental-- international environmental 22 law applicable to nuclear weapons, and you will note in 23 the EA, the DOE does absolutely nothing at all with 24 international environmental law applicable to this 25 transaction because it is an international transaction, KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 60 1 they're shipping plutonium from the States up to Canada 2 and from Russia over to Canada. So international 3 environmental law is involved, and the DOE has done 4 nothing at all about it. 5 And Mr. Love, I think you have the exact 6 language there. You want to provide that to me, the exact 7 ruling of the Court on the international environmental law 8 that would apply? 9 MR. LOVE: Your Honor, we have tendered what I'm 10 going to show Dr. Boyle as Plaintiff's Exhibit 14, a copy 11 of the World Court opinion to both the Court and counsel 12 previously. 13 BY MR. LOVE: 14 Q. Dr. Boyle, I'm going to show you what has been marked as 15 Plaintiff's Exhibit 14 and ask you to take a look at that 16 and let us know when you've had a chance to do so and what 17 it is. 18 A. Right, this is the World Court advisory opinion. It's so 19 long, I'm going to have to get my notes on it, excuse me. 20 I think, Mr. Love, I gave you my notes last 21 night on the relevant provisions of the opinion, the 22 relevant paragraphs. 23 Q. While I'm looking for your notes, could you direct your 24 attention to Paragraph 27, please? 25 A. Right. What we need are the paragraphs here. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 61 1 Right. Yes, I have Paragraph 27. 2 Your Honor, here the World Court unanimously 3 adopted Principle 21 of the Stockholm Declaration of 1972, 4 which everyone would say today is a basic principle of 5 international environmental law, which the EA has not 6 bothered to deal with. And it basically says states have 7 a duty "to ensure that activities within their 8 jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to the 9 environment of other states or areas beyond the limits of 10 national jurisdiction." That's a basic principle of 11 international environmental law. It goes back to the 12 Stockholm Declaration of 1972. It has direct relevance 13 here to this entire project. You've got international 14 shipment of plutonium, it's going over the high seas if it 15 goes by boat from Russia. That also triggers the Law of 16 the Sea Convention that they have not dealt with. They 17 haven't dealt with the Stockholm Declaration, and they 18 have not dealt with this recent ruling by the World Court 19 as to obligations under international law. If you read 20 the EA when they are asked this question, they said "Once 21 we give to Canada, that's their problem." Well, again, 22 that isn't a correct statement of international law. It 23 is our problem. 24 The second important point of the ICJ opinion, 25 and there are other sections here dealing with the KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 62 1 environment -- and I know we have a limited amount of 2 time, I'm not going to go through it all -- deals with the 3 interpretation of the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty. 4 This is an international treaty, the World Court 5 also has authority to interpret the Nuclear 6 Nonproliferation Treaty, and they have interpreted the 7 Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. 8 Mr. Love, could you give me -- I identified a 9 paragraph for you, I think it's 102. 10 Q. I believe you are looking for Paragraph 102? 11 A. 102, right. 12 Q. May also want to take a look at Paragraph 99. 13 A. 99 and 102, right. 14 The World Court, in the same advisory opinion, 15 has also dealt with the NPT and the obligation of Article 16 VI of the NPT, "Each of the parties to the treaty 17 undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on 18 effective measures relating to cessation of the" -- "in 19 good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of 20 the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear 21 disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete 22 disarmament under strict and effective international 23 control." And they have interpreted this provision, NPT 24 Article VI, which we are a party to, by the way, to have a 25 dual obligation, two components here: One, we must pursue KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 63 1 negotiations on nuclear disarmament as a matter of good 2 faith. 3 Recently, I regret to report the U.S. Ambassador 4 to the Conference on Nuclear Disarmament sponsored by the 5 United Nations has said "We are not going to pursue 6 nuclear disarmament negotiations." In my opinion, that 7 puts us in breach of NPT Article VI, certainly as 8 interpreted by the World Court. We have an obligation to 9 pursue nuclear disarmament negotiations and we have just 10 said we are not going to do it. The Ambassador said "We 11 are going to pursue instead a treaty on the cutoff of 12 fissile materials such as what is at stake here, but we 13 are not going to pursue nuclear disarmament negotiations." 14 Well, Your Honor, it does seem to me that that is a 15 violation of NPT Article VI and is certainly not meeting 16 the requirements of Article VI as interpreted by the World 17 Court. We must pursue these negotiations in good faith. 18 And then the second component of the obligation 19 is we must achieve a precise result. Nuclear disarmament 20 in all its aspects. And again just recently the U.S. 21 Ambassador to the Council of Nuclear Disarmament under the 22 auspices of the UN said "We are just not going to do it." 23 The reason why this creates serious legal problems is that 24 the non-nuclear weapons states went along with the entire 25 Nuclear Proliferation Treaty on the assumption that the KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 64 1 nuclear weapons states would engage in good faith 2 negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament. If we are 3 not engaging in negotiations leading to nuclear 4 disarmament and publicly say we are not going to do it, 5 this in theory could give the non-nuclear weapons states, 6 all 175 of them, grounds to argue the material breach of 7 the NPT and pull out of the NPT and to engage in nuclear 8 armament. Now I'm not recommending that and indeed I 9 certainly would not recommend that to anyone, but it is a 10 very serious concern if we are not engaging in these 11 nuclear disarmament negotiations, which we are not 12 currently doing. 13 Q. Dr. Boyle, could you briefly summarize for the Court why 14 the International Court of Justice opinions, if at all, 15 are binding on the U.S.? 16 A. This opinion per se is listed as an advisory opinion. So 17 it is -- we are not party to the lawsuit. As you know, 18 some courts can give advisory opinions. Your Honor, you 19 can't give an advisory opinion, but there are courts in 20 the United States that some states courts have authority 21 to give advisory opinions as well as contentious 22 opinions. The World Court has both. They have authority 23 contentious opinion and an advisory opinion. This was not 24 a contentious case. If it were a contentious case, we 25 would be bound by it, like the Lockerbie case, like the KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 65 1 Bosnia cases that I was involved with, those were 2 contentious cases. This was an advisory opinion, however, 3 in this advisory opinion, with these unanimous rulings by 4 the World Court on these points, the World Court made it 5 clear that these rules are customary international law. 6 And rules of customary international law bind the United 7 States Government. The Paquete, P-a-q-u-e-t-e, Habana, 8 H-a-b-a-n-a, decision by the United States Supreme Court 9 customarily international law binds the United States and 10 the United States courts. And technically, this is 11 federal common law. So the, Your Honor, this Court should 12 take into account the World Court rulings on these two 13 points on international environmental law and how the NPT 14 should be interpreted. 15 The rest of the opinion, which is quite lengthy 16 and I had written about elsewhere -- if you are interested 17 in reading my article, you can, but it's not really 18 relevant or terribly germane to the issues here, but 19 certainly, the section on international environmental law 20 and their interpretation of the NPT is relevant. I think 21 they enunciate rules of customary international law. I 22 also have reached the same conclusions myself in my own 23 scholarly research before the World Court did, but I think 24 most experts would agree with the rulings of the World 25 Court on these two points, it's requirements of KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 66 1 international environmental law and the interpretation of 2 the NPT. 3 And again, the DOE's environmental assessment 4 has not taken any of this into account. They have not 5 taken into account the rules of international 6 environmental law, which they should do, and they have not 7 taken into account anything about the NPT. 8 Q. Dr. Boyle, based on your review of the NPT, the Nuclear 9 Nonproliferation Acts of 1978, 1994, and 1998, the 10 International Court of Justice opinion, and the 11 declarations by the Department of State regarding the U.S. 12 position with respect to the Nonproliferation Treaty 13 commitments we have made, do you have an opinion as an 14 expert in international law as to whether the foreign 15 policy of the United States would be violated by the 16 shipment of MOX from Russia to Canada funded by the U.S. 17 DOE? 18 A. Well, again, I agree with everything Dr. Edwards said. 19 Your Honor, this is a major change in United States 20 nonproliferation policy going back at a minimum to the 21 Carter administration and the adoption of the Nuclear 22 Nonproliferation Act, it seems to me completely 23 inconsistent with the treaty, with the Act, the 1978 Act 24 and 1994 Act and the 1998 Act. So yes, this is a major 25 change in policy that potentially is illegal under the KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 67 1 sources. And I would really like to see the Department of 2 Energy comprehensively address all of these issues so we 3 could see what is their authority to do this. Besides 4 their own ipse dixit. I would like to see the authority. 5 I don't see it in any of the sources I've read before for 6 them to unilaterally engage in this major change in policy 7 that seems to be inconsistent with the Treaty, the '78 8 Act, the '94 Act and '98 Act, yes. 9 MR. LOVE: Your Honor, I have no further 10 questions of this witness. Thank you. 11 CROSS EXAMINATION 12 BY MR. DODGE: 13 Q. Morning, Mr. Boyle. 14 A. Morning. 15 Q. I would like to turn your attention back to your C.V., 16 which I think is Exhibit 3. Do you have that in front of 17 you? 18 A. Sure. 19 Q. Just to round out a few items on the second page, about 20 halfway down you testified that you were counsel to Libya 21 in connection with the bombing of the Pan Am flight over 22 Lockerbie, Scotland. 23 A. That is correct. I should point out that matter is being 24 peaceably resolved now by the United States and Libya 25 because of my efforts. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 68 1 Q. And you've also served, going up now the fourth item from 2 the top of that page, since 1987 you served as a legal 3 advisor to the Palestine Liberation Organization? 4 A. That is correct, and I was also the legal advisor to the 5 Palestinian delegation for the Middle East Peace Talks 6 convened under the auspices of President Bush, yes. 7 Q. And two items down from there said you were counsel 8 related to House Resolution 86 in the 102nd Congress 9 dealing with the impeachment of former, then President 10 George Bush? 11 A. Yes. Congressman Henry G. Gonzalez of Texas reached a 12 decision that President Bush going to war violated 13 numerous provisions of the Constitution and international 14 law. You can find them there in House Resolution 86. And 15 he asked me, because of my knowledge and expertise to 16 serve as counsel to them on these matters, and I did serve 17 as counsel free of charge, that is correct. 18 My service to the Palestinian Delegation in the 19 Middle East Peace Negotiations is there in '91 and '93, as 20 I said, President Bush was the one who convened those 21 negotiations, and yes, even though I did set out with 22 Congressman Gonzalez on this issue, President Bush did 23 sign my Biological Weapons Anti-terrorists Act of 1989, 24 which is -- 25 Q. He apparently didn't hold your efforts against you KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 69 1 personally. 2 A. Pardon me? 3 Q. Sounds like he didn't hold it against you personally. 4 A. I don't think he did, no. I'm a lawyer and a law 5 professor and I'm a professional, but he had no problems, 6 President Bush had no problems with my Biological 7 Anti-Terrorism Act. It was approved unanimously by both 8 Houses of Congress. 9 Q. Moving on to the third page, second item from the top of 10 the page, you worked as a consultant in 1993 on 11 Independence for the State of Hawaii. I would assume for 12 Hawaii to become an independent nation? 13 A. That is correct. The State of Hawaii-- the Hawaiian 14 Sovereignty Advisory Commission is an agency of the State 15 of Hawaii. And they were charged under the law by the 16 State of Hawaiian law to investigate all alternatives for 17 the native Hawaiian people. One of the alternatives that 18 needed to be investigated was whether or not the native 19 Hawaiian people should establish their own independent 20 nation state. And I was retained by the State of Hawaii 21 then to advise them on this because of my experience doing 22 the same work with the Palestinians. I advised them on 23 the creation of their state and the peace talks with 24 Israel based on a two-state solution, and the Palestinian 25 state today has diplomatic recognition now by about 125 KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 70 1 states, and currently has de facto UN membership, and I 2 did the legal work on that, so the State of Hawaii 3 retained me to come out and advise on the establishment of 4 an independent nations state, and the State of Hawaii paid 5 my expenses and a modest fee for this work, yes. 6 Q. Moving on to the Nonproliferation Treaty, you testified 7 about Article I. Do you recall that? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. And as I understood your testimony, your view is that the 10 fuel rods at issue in the Parallex Project, in your view, 11 should be treated as components of a nuclear weapon; is 12 that right? Explosive device? 13 A. No. What I said was weapons grade plutonium should be 14 treated as a component of either a nuclear weapon or a 15 nuclear explosive device. 16 Q. What about -- I mean, the Parallex test involves shipment 17 and then irradiation of fuel rods; is that correct? 18 A. Right. 19 Q. And is it your view or is it not your view that those fuel 20 rods constitute components of nuclear weapons or explosive 21 devices? 22 A. My viewpoint is what I said, that weapons grade plutonium 23 is a component of a nuclear weapon or nuclear explosive 24 device. 25 Q. You didn't answer my question. Do you understand the KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 71 1 question? 2 A. Well, I've given my answer. 3 THE COURT: No, you haven't answered his 4 question. He asked you question, if you don't know the 5 answer, say so. He asked you a very specific question 6 about rods. 7 BY MR. DODGE: 8 Q. In fact, the question has to do with your view, if you 9 have one, whether the fuel rods at issue in the Parallex 10 test program constitute components of nuclear weapons or 11 explosive devices. 12 A. If they contain weapons grade plutonium, they would be or 13 could be components of nuclear weapons or nuclear 14 explosive devices. 15 Q. Well, these fuel rods do contain plutonium; is that right? 16 A. As I understand it, it's in there, yep. 17 Q. So in your view, does that make the fuel rods components 18 of nuclear weapons or explosive devices? 19 A. Again, my testimony is that the weapons grade plutonium 20 clearly is either nuclear -- is a component of a nuclear 21 weapon or a nuclear explosive device, and the reason I 22 give that testimony is based on my reading of the 23 Congressional legislation, Congress has taken the position 24 that weapons grade plutonium or plutonium, in general, is 25 a component of a nuclear weapon or nuclear explosive KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 72 1 device. Congress does not deal with the fuel rods, they 2 dealt with the plutonium. 3 Q. I want to make sure I understand your testimony clearly. 4 Is it your testimony, is it your view that any 5 plutonium would qualify as a component of a nuclear 6 weapons or nuclear weapon or explosive device under the 7 treaty? 8 A. My testimony today is the weapons grade plutonium involved 9 in this project is a component of a nuclear weapons or 10 other nuclear explosive device. I believe weapons grade 11 plutonium is what is involved in this project. 12 Q. I asked you a different question. The question was a 13 broader one. Is it your view or not your view that all 14 plutonium would qualify as a component of a nuclear weapon 15 or explosive device under Article I? 16 A. It appears Congress has taken that position, yes, and they 17 have stringently regulated plutonium in all forms. And I 18 also note that the United States Government has exploded a 19 nuclear weapon -- 20 THE COURT: The question is: Is it your 21 opinion? He is asking four or five times now, could you 22 answer that? 23 THE WITNESS: But Your Honor, my opinion is 24 based on -- 25 THE COURT: In courts -- I know you are a KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 73 1 professor -- we answer the questions of the lawyer, not 2 what we want to talk about. He asked you seven or eight 3 questions, none of which you've answered. I would ask you 4 simply listen to the lawyer's question and answer it. 5 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honor. 6 BY MR. DODGE: 7 Q. Do you understand the question? 8 THE COURT: Ask it again for the fifteenth time, 9 ask it again. 10 BY MR. DODGE: 11 Q. Is it your view that all plutonium constitutes a component 12 of nuclear weapon or explosive device under Article I of 13 the treaty? 14 A. It can. 15 Q. It can? 16 A. Yes. Yes. 17 Q. Is it your view across the board that plutonium, whether 18 weapons grade or not, if it's present in a fuel rod for 19 a-- destined for a civilian nuclear reactor would qualify 20 as a component of a nuclear weapon explosive device? 21 A. It could. 22 Q. Do you know whether as a general matter the signatories of 23 the Nonproliferation Treaty have interpreted, whether any 24 signatory has interpreted Article I to ban transport of 25 fuel rods containing plutonium? KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 74 1 A. Congress has strictly regulated plutonium, yes, and there 2 is legislation on the books saying "We, Congress, 3 interpreting our obligations under the NPT, are against 4 international transport of plutonium," yes. 5 Q. Has Congress passed any legislation prohibiting the 6 transport of nuclear fuel rods containing any plutonium? 7 A. In what I have reviewed for my testimony here today, I 8 have not seen in the '78, '94 or '98 Act that Congress has 9 prohibited transport of fuel rods. 10 Q. In fact, fuel rods are transported across national 11 boundaries all the time; is that not correct? 12 A. They are transported. 13 Q. In fact, fuel rods containing plutonium are transported 14 across national boundaries all the time, isn't that 15 correct? 16 A. If they are subject to-- they are supposed to be subject 17 to safeguards, yes. 18 Q. Well, that gets us to another point of your earlier 19 testimony regarding whether the fuel rods particularly at 20 issue in the Parallex Project are or are not subject to 21 IA/EA safeguards in Canada. Do you recall that testimony? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. Do you have personal knowledge whether Canada, the 24 Government of Canada has taken a position on whether the 25 U.S. Parallex fuel rods, which are now in Canada, whether KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 75 1 those fuel rods are now subject to IA/EA safeguards? 2 A. I have not seen any evidence because of the recentness of 3 the movement of the shipments. 4 Q. If I told you that the position of the Government of 5 Canada is that those fuel rods are, in fact, subject to 6 IA/EA safeguards, would you have any basis to quarrel with 7 that? 8 A. The statement by Ms. Locatelli does call into question the 9 validity of these assertions, yes. 10 Q. Miss Locatelli was generally speaking of Parallex fuel 11 rods, was she? 12 A. Speaking about plutonium in general, right. 13 Q. I take it you didn't speak personally to Miss Locatelli? 14 A. No, I did not. 15 Q. About this or any-- 16 A. But I did speak with Mr. Clemens of NCI by e-mail and he 17 has similar concerns to me. 18 Q. Okay. And did you speak to the newspaper reporter, Martin 19 Mittelstaedt, who quoted Ms. Locatelli? 20 A. No, I did not. 21 Q. Whether his quotes accurately reflect what she said or not 22 is not something you would be qualified to testify about; 23 is that right? 24 A. Well, I note The Globe and Mail is a newspaper of public 25 record and I would be able to rely on that in the World KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 76 1 Court for sure, yep. 2 Q. But newspaper reporters are human beings? 3 A. Newspaper reporters make mistakes, sure. But again, the 4 World Court, for example, the nuclear test cases did rely 5 on statements made by Government officials as normally 6 reported in reputable news media sources. They have 7 different standards of evidence, the World Court, than 8 they do here in United States District Court. 9 Q. Now you've also relied on this article, Plaintiff's 10 Exhibit 5, I guess too, in support of your opinion that 11 Canada is in possession of 40 kilograms or up to 40 12 kilograms of plutonium; is that right? 13 A. This is a statement by Mr. Clemens, and I have had e-mail 14 correspondence with him about it. 15 Q. Do you have any personal knowledge whether -- 16 A. No. 17 Q. I'm sorry, I didn't finish my question. 18 A. I did answer your question. 19 THE COURT: He hasn't finished asking it; you 20 couldn't possibly answer his question when he hasn't 21 finished asking it. 22 THE WITNESS: Sorry. 23 BY MR. DODGE: 24 Q. Do you have any personal knowledge of whether Canada, in 25 fact, has 40 kilograms of plutonium? KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 77 1 A. I do not have personal knowledge, no. I'm relying on the 2 statement by Mr. Clemens. 3 Q. Mr. Clemens, does Mr. Clemens have personal knowledge 4 whether Canada has 40-- 5 A. As I understand, Mr. Clemens does. From my e-mail 6 correspondence with him, he does. 7 Q. Has he seen that plutonium? 8 A. Pardon me? 9 Q. Has he seen it? 10 A. He didn't tell me what his sources of evidence are, but he 11 did tell me that they will be making it public soon. 12 Q. So he thinks he has -- he thinks he has evidence to 13 support that conclusion and whether that evidence holds 14 any water or not, we really can't tell, can we? 15 A. Well, again, as an expert, if the NCI is making the 16 statements, I think they are significant and they need to 17 be dealt with, and certainly by the Department of Energy. 18 THE COURT: That was not -- excuse me, that was 19 not his question. 20 Would you repeat your question, please? 21 BY MR. DODGE: 22 Q. The question is: Mr. Clemens believes he has reason or he 23 has evidence to support his conclusion that Canada has 40 24 kilograms of plutonium, but as far as anybody in this 25 courtroom knows, that evidence may or may not hold water, KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 78 1 we just don't know, correct? 2 A. I'm not evaluating the evidence, and Mr. Clemens said the 3 evidence will be produced, so at that point I will review 4 the evidence and formulate a formal opinion. 5 THE COURT: Do you want to ask it again or just 6 want to give up? 7 MR. DODGE: I think that -- I think the point is 8 established to the extent I need to, Your Honor. 9 BY MR. DODGE: 10 Q. Now, you testified earlier that it's up to the State 11 Department, not the Department of Energy to interpret 12 United States treaty obligations; is that right? 13 A. I testified that it is the State Department that is in 14 charge of nuclear proliferation policies, that's what I 15 testified, and not the Department of Energy, yes. 16 Q. Okay. Is it your view that it's -- maybe I misunderstood 17 what you testified earlier. I thought I heard you say 18 that interpreting whether or not the U.S. is complying 19 with Nonproliferation Treaty in particular, that pertinent 20 authority on that would be the State Department, not the 21 Department of Energy; is that a fair statement? 22 A. I've also testified that the State Department has the lead 23 role in the United States Government with respect to 24 interpretation of treatises as well. 25 Q. Do you know what the State Department's position is on KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 79 1 whether the Parallex test program is or is not compliant 2 with Article I of the Nonproliferation Treaty? 3 A. Well, that's why I read the Environmental Assessment, to 4 see if you had talked to the State Department here, and 5 they hadn't, so I have not seen any statement by the State 6 Department as to what their position is, no. 7 Q. The Environmental Assessment is not the only document 8 that's been generated in the course of the Parallex 9 Project, you understand that? 10 A. That is correct, and I have read a good deal of the 11 documentation, but I still have not seen an expression by 12 the Department of State on this issue. 13 Q. Okay. Do you know whether or not the State Department was 14 involved at any level in the Parallex Project? 15 A. There probably were discussions somewhere in there. 16 Q. Do you know? 17 A. Myself personally? 18 Q. Yes. 19 A. I don't know for sure. 20 Q. Do you know one way or the other whether the State 21 Department has a view on whether the Parallex Project is 22 consistent with our treaty obligations under Article I of 23 the NPT? 24 A. I have not seen any expression by the State Department on 25 this issue. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 80 1 Q. If I told you the State Department has taken the view that 2 the Parallex Project is entirely consistent with our 3 obligations under Article I, would you have any basis to 4 quarrel with that? 5 A. I haven't seen it. 6 MR. LODGE: Objection, Your Honor. 7 THE COURT: If he hasn't seen -- 8 MR. DODGE: Withdraw the question, Your Honor. 9 THE WITNESS: I would like to see it and 10 evaluate it myself, sure. 11 BY MR. DODGE: 12 Q. You also testified about dangers of nuclear proliferation 13 relating to countries such as Taiwan and Korea that are 14 not currently nuclear weapons states, but would like to 15 acquire nuclear weapons, do you recall that testimony? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. Is it correct that the MOX program, the Parallex Program 18 does not contemplate the shipment of any fuel rods to any 19 country other than Canada? 20 A. Not at this stage, but eventually it does appear there 21 will be mass circulation of this material, yes, down the 22 line. 23 Q. And the basis for that is what exactly? 24 A. The quantities. If the test works out, the quantity we 25 are talking about coming from Russia. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 81 1 Q. Well, let me be more specific about this. Has the United 2 States, any spokesperson for the United States Government 3 proposed in connection with the Parallex Project to send 4 fuel rods to any country other than Canada? 5 A. The United States? 6 Q. Right. 7 A. No. 8 Q. Has the Government of Russia proposed, in connection with 9 the Parallex Project, to send fuel rods to any country 10 other than Canada? 11 A. Well, they are talking about massive quantities of weapons 12 grade plutonium being circulated into this program and the 13 independent team of experts by Russia and the United 14 States have made that quite clear they are talking tons of 15 this stuff. 16 Q. Well, again, you didn't answer my question there, 17 Professor. I asked you whether the Russian Government has 18 proposed sending fuel rods to any country other than 19 Canada. Your answer only dealt with volumes, it didn't 20 address where. That was my question. 21 A. Right. There might have been discussions on Germany or 22 some of the European states have there -- there have been 23 discussions and proposals, but it's just at that stage 24 now, yes. 25 Q. But Russia has not, to your knowledge, proposed sending KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 82 1 fuel rods to Korea? 2 A. There is an international market here, sure, it could be 3 sold anywhere. 4 THE COURT: No, he didn't say could have. He 5 said: Did they propose it? 6 THE WITNESS: I have not read that right now 7 Russia is proposing sending this to Korea. 8 BY MR. DODGE: 9 Q. Same question with Taiwan. 10 A. I have not read that Russia is proposing to send this to 11 Taiwan. 12 MR. DODGE: No further questions at this time, 13 Your Honor. 14 THE COURT: We will take a 15-minute recess. 15 COURT CLERK: All rise. 16 This court is in recess. 17 (At 10:54 a.m., recess.) 18 THE COURT: Okay. What is next? 19 MR. LOVE: Brief redirect, Your Honor. 20 REDIRECT EXAMINATION 21 BY MR. LOVE: 22 Q. Professor Boyle, did you receive any recognition or 23 rewards from Bosnia for your efforts on their behalf? 24 A. While I was never paid a penny, but President Izetbegovic 25 and Vice President Gonich (phonetic) held a ceremony at KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 83 1 the Bosnian presidency with a-- awarded me full-fledged 2 citizenship in the Republic, a diplomatic passport and 3 visa and a declaration and they put the ceremony on 4 television, so that was very nice. So technically I'm a 5 Bosnian citizen too. 6 Q. Dr. Boyle, with respect to your work on the Hawaiian 7 independence that Mr. Dodge asked you about, has there 8 been any action by the President or Congress, to your 9 knowledge, with respect to that? 10 A. Yes. In 1993 Congress passed a statute signed into law by 11 President Clinton formally apologizing to the native 12 Hawaiian people for destroying their kingdom and stealing 13 their land. The legislation at the end provides for a 14 process of reconciliation and reparations, and how this is 15 going to be dealt with, and I'm still currently involved 16 in those matters. 17 Q. Dr. Boyle, there should be a document up there marked 18 Plaintiff's Exhibit 13. Do you see that? 19 A. Yes, I have it here. 20 Q. Now, this is entitled a Nonproliferation Arms Control 21 Assessment of Weapons Usable Fissile Material Storage and 22 Excess Plutonium Disposition Alternatives, dated January, 23 1997 authored by the United States Department of Energy, 24 correct? 25 A. Yes. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 84 1 Q. Was this among the documents that you reviewed in 2 preparing your testimony? 3 A. I did not have -- I did not get this entire document until 4 Monday, so I did not have a chance to review the entire 5 document, but I have reviewed the excerpts you gave to 6 me. 7 Q. Now Mr. Dodge asked you-- for the record, Your Honor, the 8 excerpt only contains Pages 106 and 107-- Mr. Dodge asked 9 you about your testimony about the possibility of future 10 shipments of MOX to Taiwan and Korea. Do you remember him 11 asking you about that? 12 A. Yes. 13 THE COURT: He didn't ask what the possibility 14 is, he asked if there were plans by Russia or the United 15 States to ship to those two nations. That was the 16 question. 17 MR. LOVE: Okay. 18 THE COURT: And the answer was no. Not are 19 there possibilities. I know the witness thinks there are 20 possibilities, that won't help me any. I understand 21 that. 22 BY MR. LOVE: 23 Q. In fact, Dr. Boyle is it true that in this document the 24 DOE indicates there are possibilities such as you 25 testified about? KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 85 1 A. Yes. 2 THE COURT: I accept that. You are wasting my 3 time. There are possibilities. 4 BY MR. LOVE: 5 Q. Dr. Boyle, if you would, I direct your attention to the 6 large document that's in front of you. This is 7 Proliferation Venerability Red Team Report, Plaintiff's 8 Exhibit 28, and introduced in the prior hearing. 9 A. Yes, and I read this entire report prior to my testimony 10 here today. 11 Q. I'm going to ask you, if you would, to direct your 12 attention to Page 6-1, the conclusions to that report. 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. And again, this is a document that was produced by Sandia 15 Laboratories for the Department of Energy? 16 A. That is correct. 17 Q. Directing your attention to the first conclusion, under 18 the conclusion, keeping plutonium inaccessible is the key 19 to proliferation resistance, do you see that? 20 A. Yes. It says quite clearly, all plutonium from all stages 21 of all alternatives can be made weapons usable should 22 sufficient material be successfully removed. And I should 23 point out that is the position Congress takes under the 24 Nuclear Nonproliferation Act of '78, the Act of '94 and 25 the '98, all plutonium can be made weapons usable. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 86 1 Q. In your view, is that conclusion by the Sandia Lab in this 2 Red Team Report consistent with your testimony? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. Now, Mr. Dodge asked you if there was transport of 5 plutonium across boundaries all the time. My notes 6 reflected you said yes. Do you remember that testimony? 7 A. I said there was some, yes. 8 Q. Is there routinely transportation of weapons grade 9 plutonium shipped across boundaries all the time by the 10 United States? 11 A. No. No. 12 MR. LOVE: No further questions. 13 MR. DODGE: No recross, Your Honor. 14 THE COURT: You may step down. 15 THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honor. 16 Your Honor, did you have any questions? 17 THE COURT: No, I don't. 18 THE WITNESS: Thank you. 19 THE COURT: You've exceeded your time so I take 20 it you have no more witnesses. 21 MR. LOVE: Your Honor, I have no more witnesses 22 but at this time I would like to move our Exhibit 5, 23 Exhibit 7, Exhibit 11, Exhibit 12, Exhibit 13, Exhibit 14 24 and Plaintiff's Exhibit 2 and Exhibit 1 into evidence. 25 MR. DODGE: No objection, Your Honor. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 87 1 THE COURT: 5, 7, 11, 12, 13 and 14, 1 and 2 are 2 received. 3 MR. LOVE: Thank you, Your Honor. We have 4 nothing further. 5 THE WITNESS: Here are the exhibits. Where do 6 you want them? 7 MR. LOVE: I'll take them here. 8 (Hearing continued; reported, not requested 9 transcribed.) 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 88 1 2 3 4 5 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE 6 7 I, Kathleen S. Thomas, Official Court Reporter for the 8 United States District Court for the Western District of 9 Michigan, appointed pursuant to the provisions of Title 28, 10 United States Code, Section 753, do hereby certify that the 11 foregoing is a true and correct transcript of proceedings had 12 in the within-entitled and numbered cause on the date 13 hereinbefore set forth; and I do further certify that the 14 foregoing transcript has been prepared by me or under my 15 direction. 16 17 18 19 20 __________________________________ 21 Kathleen S. Thomas, CSR, RPR-1300 22 U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue 23 Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 24 25 KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (voice) 217-244-1478 (fax) fboyle at law.uiuc.edu (personal comments only) Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Brussel, Morton K Sent: Monday, November 06, 2017 7:56 PM To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: David Green >; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; Estabrook, Carl G > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] FW: MOX for Bombs in Japan I think this is wrong. MOX fuel is mainly used for fuel in nuclear power reactors, not to make bombs. Japan had/has many nuclear reactors. A fairly intelligible discussion is found in wikipedia, under "MOX nuclear”. —mkb On Nov 6, 2017, at 4:40 PM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss > wrote: This was a very lengthy interview I gave in Japan courtesy of their peace and anti-nuclear movement. It was heavily censored. My basic point was that Japan was using MOX to make bombs and that my best estimate was that Japan probably had as many bombs as PRC, which would be in the area of 500. So when the details of the disaster at Fukushima came out, it was clear to me it was one of their leading bomb complexes. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: globenet at yahoogroups.com [mailto:globenet at yahoogroups.com] Sent: Saturday, March 21, 2015 8:10 AM To: globenet at yahoogroups.com Cc: 'Hiroshi Taka'; 'Gensuikyo'; 'Akira Kawasaki'; oheyeran at yahoogroups.com; asia-pacific_demil_mdg-request at lists.riseup.net; 'Coleen Rowley'; 'Douglas Roche' Subject: [globenet] MOX for Bombs in Japan Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (Voice) 217-244-1478 (Fax) (personal comments only) __._,_.___ ________________________________ Posted by: "Boyle, Francis A" > ________________________________ Reply via web post • Reply to sender • Reply to group • Start a New Topic • Messages in this topic (1) VISIT YOUR GROUP [Yahoo! Groups] • Privacy • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use . __,_._,___ _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Tue Nov 7 03:30:24 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2017 03:30:24 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: MOX for Bombs in Japan In-Reply-To: <5B253921-B91A-4A46-B18B-A94C48E12123@illinois.edu> References: <5B253921-B91A-4A46-B18B-A94C48E12123@illinois.edu> Message-ID: If you are not going to take the time to read these two Testimonies under oath and subject to cross-examination by the Feds of two Experts on MOX in United States Federal District, then you should stop impugning my integrity in favor of Wikipedia—pure guttersnipe! fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Brussel, Morton K Sent: Monday, November 06, 2017 9:13 PM To: Boyle, Francis A Cc: David Green ; C. G. ESTABROOK ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay ; David Johnson ; Mildred O'brien ; Estabrook, Carl G Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] FW: MOX for Bombs in Japan I don’t know who qualified you as an expert of nuclear reactors and the nature of their fuels, nuclear physics or nuclear chemistry. Your statements belie that qualification. I hope you don’t expect me, or anyone on this list, to read the transcript you presented, but I did scan it and noted nothing in technical detail there about the properties and use of MOX, certainly not for bombs. Sorry, —mkb On Nov 6, 2017, at 8:38 PM, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: Well I have been qualified as an Expert on MOX in United States Federal District Court. And I prohibit my law students from citing Wikipedia to me in any paper and advise them to never cite or quote Wikipedia to a Judge because Wikipedia is filled with so much pure, unadulterated BULL-TWADDLE. Fab. Subject: Nuclear Proliferation/NPT/US Atomic Energy Law/MOX, etc. 1 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 3 SOUTHERN DIVISION 4 5 ALICE HIRT; ANABEL DWYER; CITIZENS FOR ALTERNATIVES 6 TO CHEMICAL CONTAMINATION; KATHRYN CUMBOW; ROBERT 7 ANDERSON; DORIS SCHALLER VERNON; and TERRY MILLER, 8 Plaintiffs, 9 v. CASE NO: 1:99-CV-933 10 BILL RICHARDSON, Secretary, 11 United States Department of Energy; UNITED STATES 12 OF AMERICA; and UNKNOWN PART(Y)(IES), named as 13 "John and Jane Doe" on complaint, 14 Defendants. 15 ____________________________/ 16 * * * * 17 18 TESTIMONY OF GORDON EDWARDS and FRANCIS BOYLE 19 * * * * 20 21 BEFORE: THE HONORABLE RICHARD ALAN ENSLEN United States District Judge 22 Kalamazoo, Michigan April 7, 2000 23 24 25 KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 2 1 APPEARANCES: 2 APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFFS: 3 MR. KARY LOVE 4 977 Butternut Drive PMB 128 5 Holland, Michigan 49424 6 MR. TERRY J. LODGE 316 North Michigan Street, Suite 520 7 Toledo, Ohio 43624-1627 8 APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANTS: 9 MR. ROBERT I. DODGE 10 MR. CHARLES GROSS U.S. Attorney's Office 11 330 Ionia Avenue, N.W., Suite 501 P.O. Box 208 12 Grand Rapids, Michigan 49501-208 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 3 1 INDEX 2 WITNESS: Page 3 GORDON EDWARDS Direct Examination by Mr. Lodge 4 4 Cross Examination by Mr. Dodge 17 Redirect Examination by Mr. Lodge 20 5 6 FRANCIS BOYLE 7 Direct Examination by Mr. Love 21 Cross Examination by Mr. Dodge 67 8 Redirect Examination by Mr. Love 82 9 10 EXHIBITS Rec'd. 11 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 1 87 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 2 87 12 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 3 31 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 5 87 13 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 6 87 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 11 87 14 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 12 87 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 13 87 15 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 14 87 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 4 1 Kalamazoo, Michigan 2 April 7, 2000 3 at approximately 8:50 A.M. 4 EXCERPT OF PROCEEDINGS 5 TESTIMONY OF GORDON EDWARDS 6 MR. LODGE: We waive opening. 7 THE COURT: Okay. Good for you. 8 MR. LODGE: And we would call Gordon Edwards. 9 GORDON EDWARDS - PLAINTIFFS' WITNESS - SWORN. 10 COURT CLERK: Please state and spell your name 11 for the record. 12 THE WITNESS: My name is Gordon Edwards, 13 G-o-r-d-o-n E-d-w-a-r-d-s. 14 DIRECT EXAMINATION 15 BY MR. LODGE: 16 Q. Dr. Edwards, you previously testified in this proceeding 17 in an earlier motion hearing in December, 1999, correct? 18 A. That is correct. 19 Q. And what, just summarize for the Court, to refresh the 20 Court's recollection, what is your occupation or 21 profession? 22 A. I'm a professor of mathematics at Vanier College in 23 Montreal, and I'm also a consultant on nuclear issues for 24 both governmental and nongovernmental agencies. 25 Q. Are you affiliated with any nongovernmental entity in KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 5 1 Canada regarding the purpose of which is to discuss 2 nuclear issues? 3 A. Yes, I'm the president of the Canadian Coalition for 4 Nuclear Responsibility, which is a federally incorporated 5 organization, since 1978. 6 Q. And how long and in what capacities have you served as a 7 consultant on nuclear issues? 8 A. I've served as a consultant since 1977 for a variety of 9 bodies, including Royal Commissions of Inquiry where I 10 have been retained to cross-examine expert witnesses, also 11 the auditor general of Canada when they were doing a 12 comprehensive audit of the Atomic Energy Control Board, 13 and most recently I was invited for January 2000 by the 14 Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs and International 15 Trade to participate in a small expert workshop on nuclear 16 weapons policies in Ottawa. 17 Q. And Dr. Edwards, have you had the occasion to read the 18 environmental assessment promulgated by the Fissile 19 Materials Office of the U.S. Department of Energy for the 20 Parallex Project? 21 A. Yes, I have, and have commented on that as well. 22 Q. We are here today on a proposed shipment of MOX plutonium 23 from Russia to Chalk River, Ontario, you understand that? 24 A. That is correct. 25 Q. What is your understanding as to the amount of the KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 6 1 plutonium content of the MOX fuel rods, pins that would be 2 brought from Russia? 3 A. The MOX fuel contains 135 grams of weapons grade plutonium 4 as compared with the 119 grams that were in the American 5 shipment that proceeded in January. 6 Q. Now, Dr. Edwards, you indicated that the Canadian 7 Coalition was incorporated in approximately 1978? 8 A. That's right. 9 Q. Have you been active in nuclear issues since that time? 10 A. Even before that time, yes. I have been active 11 specifically on proliferation questions and 12 plutonium-related questions since 1975. 13 MR. LODGE: If I may approach. 14 THE COURT: Of course. 15 BY MR. LODGE: 16 Q. Showing you what has been marked for purposes of the 17 supplemental motion hearing as Plaintiff's Exhibit 1, I'm 18 going to also leave Exhibit 2 up here. 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. Have you ever conducted any investigation into the issue 21 of civilian population or work exposures to plutonium? 22 A. Only at the level of potential for damage, potential for 23 harm. 24 Q. What is Exhibit 1? 25 A. Exhibit 1 is a letter from Mary Measures, Ph.D., Director KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 7 1 of the Radiation Environmental Protection Division of the 2 Atomic Energy Control Board of Canada dealing with 3 quantity of plutonium that an atomic radiation worker or a 4 member of the public may inhale to reach their respective 5 maximum limits. 6 Q. And the date of that is September 30, 1999? 7 A. That is correct, about six months ago. 8 Q. And could you summarize what the inhalation, or what the 9 limits are for both workers and for public? 10 A. Yes. The maximum lifetime limit of exposure in the lung 11 for an atomic worker is approximately 1.4 micrograms, and 12 for the member of the public it's 0.1 microgram, and a 13 microgram being one one-millionth of a gram, so if we 14 translate this into grams, it would mean 1.4 grams would 15 be equivalent-- would be enough to give maximum 16 permissible doses to one million workers and ten -- one 17 gram would be enough to give maximum permissible doses to 18 ten million members of the general public. That's just 19 potential. 20 Q. Okay. And is that based on the -- or, I'm sorry. Have 21 you had occasion in connection with the proposed Russian 22 shipment of a 135 grams of plutonium and the American 23 shipment of 119 grams, to perform any computations as to 24 what the potential dispersion or exposure is? 25 A. Well, I would like to emphasize this is just arithmetic KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 8 1 and does not take into account dispersion factors such as 2 wind velocity, any respiration rates, and so on. If we 3 just look at the theoretical potential, then with 119 4 grams, we are talking about the potential for 85 million 5 atomic workers to receive their maximum permissible 6 exposure, if that were able to be disseminated into all of 7 their lungs and 1,000,190,000 members of the general 8 public, so even though this is a very small amount of 9 plutonium, the potential for exposure, harmful exposure is 10 quite significant. 11 Q. All right. But so that implies you would have to have an 12 optimal dispersal? 13 A. This would be an impossibly optimal dispersal. This would 14 be assuming that the plutonium were distributed fully into 15 the lungs of all the people that I've mentioned. 16 Q. Are you aware of whether or not the American shipment was 17 delivered to Chalk River? 18 A. Yes, the American shipment was delivered to Chalk River. 19 It was taken to the border in what I believe was an SST, a 20 truck which was described as silver, and I believe it was 21 probably an SST, although I do not know for absolute 22 certainty about that, and then it was transported to the 23 Sault Ste. Marie airport where it was lifted by helicopter 24 accompanied by two other helicopters, and transported from 25 there to Chalk River. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 9 1 Q. You indicated that you were talking about an impossibly 2 optimal dispersal. Have you had the occasion to perform 3 any computations as to a very conservative prudent factor 4 to start with for dispersal? 5 A. Well, this is beyond my competence to really talk about 6 the details of how it might be dispersed, but if we just 7 assume for example 99.9 percent containment in the event 8 of a serious accident. 9 Q. Are you saying how much? 10 A. Suppose 99.9 percent of the material were successfully 11 contained and not disseminated in the environment and only 12 that small fraction was disseminated. 13 Q. Okay. 14 A. The potential again would correspond to, for atomic 15 workers in the case of the 119 gram shipment from the 16 States, it would be 85,000 maximum exposures and in the 17 case of the public, it would still over a million. Even 18 with 99.9 containment, in the event of an accident, you 19 still have the potential for over a million 20 overexposures. By the way, the 135 grams, the difference 21 between the 119 grams and the 135 grams from Russia 22 corresponds to potentially again 160,000 additional 23 maximum exposures for members of the public. 24 Q. How many for workers? 25 A. 11,428. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 10 1 Q. That's just -- 2 A. That's just the differential between the two shipments, 3 just the added, going from 119 to 135 adds the potential 4 for another 11,000 worker overexposures or 160,000 public 5 overexposures. This, I believe, is why authorities take 6 such great care to emphasize the packaging in transport. 7 They realize that the potential is great for damage. 8 Q. Do your computations reflect an assumption respecting 9 whether or not the dispersion occurs as a result of an 10 accident or an attack? 11 A. No, we are talking about theoretical potential which is 12 the same regardless of how much or whether the material is 13 dispersed. In an accident, for example, we have 14 previously seen accidents that were analyzed for ground 15 transportation. I have not seen any computations or 16 analysis of accidents for air transport either from the 17 American side or from the Canadian side. 18 Q. Are you talking with respect to Parallex? 19 A. I'm talking with respect to Parallex. 20 If you had, for example, a violent crash and 21 fire of an aircraft, including a helicopter, then the 22 dispersal would cause a plume downwind, could cause a 23 plume downwind, and how much of that plutonium would 24 escape would be subject to analysis which is not, to my 25 knowledge, been performed. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 11 1 Q. Dr. Edwards, do you consider the plutonium in MOX fuel 2 form to be a weapons component? 3 A. Well, in the case of the Parallex project, as you know, 4 this 119 grams or 135 grams, there is not enough there to 5 make an atomic bomb. However, it has long been known that 6 you can make a very damaging radiological explosive device 7 which would simply disperse the plutonium in breathable 8 form. That means that if the plutonium were acquired by a 9 criminal organization or terrorist group they could make 10 an incendiary device which would make this available to be 11 breathed by members of the public and also cause very 12 long-lasting contamination of the environs where this 13 exposure would take place. I believe that it would be 14 incorrect to say that these, even this small Parallex 15 shipment, would not be attractive to terrorists or to 16 criminal organizations as a top -- as a target for theft 17 or diversion. It is true, of course, that this is weapons 18 grade material and had one, if one had sufficient weapons 19 grade material, one indeed can make a very powerful atomic 20 bomb from that. 21 Q. Have you seen any literature or other information in or 22 out of the record of this case that discusses the weapons 23 potential for plutonium? 24 A. Well, yes, it's certainly common knowledge that the -- in 25 fact, the U.S. Department of Energy acknowledges as much KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 12 1 when they refer to the Russian plutonium, the Russian 2 weapons grade plutonium is continuing a clear and present 3 danger. It's long been known and recognized that 4 plutonium is the key ingredient of atomic weapons, so if 5 one talks about components of atomic weapons, the 6 plutonium is the essential component. Once you have the 7 plutonium, then you can acquire the other materials on the 8 open market that are necessary to build a bomb. 9 Q. How do you know that? 10 A. Well, it's been well known for a long time. For instance, 11 there was a study done, published in the Harvard Civil 12 Rights and Civil Liberties Law Review -- I could make that 13 available to the Court, if you would like -- in 1975 as 14 long ago as then, which says, "Since all the material 15 other than plutonium needed to build a bomb is available 16 from commercial hardware and chemical suppliers, the 17 present obstacle to the private construction of nuclear 18 weapons is the unavailability of plutonium." 19 But if we just turn to the study that was 20 commissioned and already on file, I believe, here at the 21 Court, a study that was commissioned by the Office of 22 Fissile Materials Management called the Red Team Report, 23 the Red Team Proliferation Vulnerability Report. 24 In their conclusions on Page 6-1, they have a 25 heading called Keeping Plutonium Inaccessible is the Key KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 13 1 to Proliferation Resistance. So what is basically being 2 said here is plutonium is not just a component but the key 3 component of atomic bombs particularly in the context of 4 illicit groups. 5 Q. Dr. Edwards, could you explain for us Canada's role in the 6 reprocessing of plutonium? 7 A. Well, Canada's role in plutonium goes back to the World 8 War II Atomic Bomb Project. We had a secret laboratory in 9 Montreal which was manned by British, French and Canadian 10 scientists dedicated to developing methods for producing 11 and separating plutonium for weapons purposes as well as 12 civilian purposes, because even then it was anticipated 13 plutonium would have some civilian value. At the end of 14 the war -- incidentally, the first reactor in Canada was 15 built according to a military decision taken in 16 Washington, D.C. in 1944, to demonstrate this potential. 17 The reactor called the NRX reactor was built at 18 Chalk River and a plutonium reprocessing plant was built 19 as well. Plutonium was separated and Britain received its 20 first sample of weapons grade plutonium from Canada from 21 Chalk River just months before their first atomic test. 22 There was also an illicit transfer of plutonium 23 from Chalk River to Russia, which was so the first samples 24 of plutonium that both Britain and Russia received were 25 from Chalk River. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 14 1 Since that time, Canada, of course, has taken a 2 policy decision not to pursue a nuclear weapons option 3 itself, but they have, however, looked favorably on the 4 idea of reprocessing plutonium for civilian purposes. 5 They do not have a policy which is against the 6 reprocessing of plutonium in principle and nor do they 7 discourage their clients, their customers overseas from 8 reprocessing plutonium. And in fact, in Canada, there is 9 an open door policy towards reprocessing as a future 10 option. 11 We just concluded recently a ten-year 12 environmental assessment of the problem of high-level 13 radioactive waste disposal, and in all of the documents it 14 begins by saying, in the very first paragraphs, that by 15 nuclear waste disposal, we mean either spent fuel or 16 post-reprocessing waste. So this is very much a 17 theoretical opening and a policy opening for Canada to use 18 plutonium as a fuel. 19 Q. Showing you what has been marked as Supplemental Motion 20 Exhibit 2, can you identify that for the Court, please? 21 A. Yes. This appears to be an exchange from the British 22 Parliament, questions and answers having to do with 23 nuclear fuel, and the Secretary of State for Trade and 24 Industry is being asked about quantities of spent fuel 25 from Canada that have been contracted for reprocessing at KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 15 1 Cello Field in England. 2 Q. And can you summarize your understanding of what the 3 response by the British Government was? 4 A. Yes. The response here is that a certain amount of 5 plutonium, a certain amount of spent fuel from Canada has 6 been reprocessed beginning in 1970, and that the plutonium 7 has been returned to Canada. I have personal knowledge of 8 the fact that at Chalk River they have maintained a pilot 9 plutonium fuel fabrication line since the 1970s, since 10 1970 and before, and that they have processed at Chalk 11 River approximately three tons, more than three tons of 12 MOX fuel from recycled civilian plutonium. This is part 13 of that, the plutonium that is here being referred to as 14 being recycled or reprocessed in Britain, that's part of 15 the total amount of plutonium that Canada has acquired for 16 the purposes of MOX fabrication. 17 I mentioned that Canada also does not discourage 18 client customers from reprocessing. This is in 19 distinction to the American policy. The American policy, 20 since the Carter administration, successive 21 administrations have maintained the policy of not only not 22 allowing reprocessing in the United States, but also 23 discouraging reprocessing in other countries insofar as 24 that is possible. Canada does not share this policy 25 completely. We do not reprocess in Canada but, on the KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 16 1 other hand, we don't hesitate, it seems, to send our spent 2 fuel to other countries to get reprocessed so that we can 3 develop expertise in plutonium recycling. 4 Q. Does Canada have any relationship with the nation of Japan 5 respecting nuclear material? 6 A. Yes. Canada, as is probably known to the Court, is the 7 world's largest exporter of uranium. We are one of the 8 world's largest producers of uranium and the world's 9 largest exporter of uranium. We have bilateral agreements 10 with our customers as to the use of that uranium. Of 11 course, we have requirements that that uranium not be used 12 for military purposes. If a client customer such as Japan 13 who buys a good deal -- Japan purchases a good deal of 14 uranium from Canada. If a client customer wishes to 15 reprocess their spent fuel to recover plutonium, they do 16 have to get prior permission from the Government of 17 Canada, so when plutonium is reprocessed for the Japanese, 18 in the case where uranium from Canada is involved, the 19 Canadian Government gives their permission for that. 20 Q. Even if it is offshore from Canada? 21 A. Yes. 22 MR. LODGE: Thank you. I have nothing further. 23 THE WITNESS: Thank you. 24 Sorry. 25 MR. LODGE: Yes? KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 17 1 THE WITNESS: Excuse me. 2 MR. DODGE: Not quite finished, Dr. Edwards. 3 THE WITNESS: You knew the time was short. I 4 was jumping the gun a little. 5 CROSS EXAMINATION 6 BY MR. DODGE: 7 Q. Good morning, Mr. Edwards. My name is Bob Dodge. We have 8 met once before back in December. 9 A. That's right. 10 Q. Just a few questions. You testified about the quantity of 11 plutonium that would be included in the Russian shipment. 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. Do you recall that? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. You testified that it was 135 grams? 16 A. That's what was announced, yes. 17 Q. And how many ounces is that? 18 A. How many ounces is that? 19 Q. Yes. 20 A. I don't think in terms of ounces. I have to do the 21 conversion. 22 Q. Can you do the conversion? 23 A. I don't have the -- 24 Q. If I told you that one ounce is 28 grams, does that sound 25 about right? KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 18 1 A. I have no reason to doubt it. We are on the metric system 2 in Canada, we don't use ounces anymore. 3 Q. I understand. If I estimated 135 grams was approximately 4 five ounces, would you quarrel with that? 5 A. I would have no reason to quarrel with that. 6 Q. Now, you also testified about the amount of plutonium that 7 would have to be inhaled in order to exceed the maximum 8 permissible dose under Canadian regulations? 9 A. That is correct. 10 Q. And in your testimony, as I understood it, the assumption 11 you were making was that every single molecule of 12 plutonium that was in that sample would end up in 13 somebody's lungs; is that right? 14 A. That's right. It's calculating the theoretical 15 potential. It is not talking about a realistic scenario. 16 Q. Not only would all of the plutonium have to end up in 17 someone's lungs, but the plutonium would have to be evenly 18 divided so that each person got exactly the same amount of 19 plutonium, it's not all concentrated in one person, you 20 would have to take one-millionths of the sample, put it in 21 one person's lungs and put the next one-millionth in the 22 next person's lungs and so on? 23 A. That is correct. 24 Q. Do you have any idea, if you performed the same analysis 25 on this table, what sort of toxicity numbers you would KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 19 1 get? 2 A. I have no idea of what that would be, no. 3 Q. Now you also talked about Canada's policies regarding 4 plutonium reprocessing. 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. Do you recall that? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. Do you have any understanding of whether the plutonium in 9 the Parallex MOX samples will or will not be reprocessed 10 in Canada? 11 A. It will-- to the best of my knowledge, it will not be 12 reprocessed in Canada, although that option apparently is 13 not decided. 14 Q. What is the basis for that last? 15 A. Because Canada has a policy that at sometime in the future 16 they may reprocess. 17 Q. Do you have any understanding whether there is an 18 understanding between the Government of Canada and the 19 Government of United States or the Government of Russia as 20 to whether these particular samples will or will not be 21 reprocessed? 22 A. I do not, no. 23 MR. DODGE: Thank you very much. 24 25 REDIRECT EXAMINATION KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 20 1 BY MR. LODGE: 2 Q. Dr. Edwards, the House of Commons question and answer, do 3 you know of any particular statistics on Canada's shipping 4 of spent fuel to British nuclear fields and fuels at Cello 5 Field? 6 A. I don't have those figures with me, I'm sorry. I could 7 supply them to the Court, if desired. I do have some 8 figures at my office at home, I don't have them here. But 9 we are talking -- if we are talking about three tons of 10 MOX being fabricated at Chalk River, then one could work 11 out approximately how much of that would contain 12 plutonium, how much plutonium would be contained assuming, 13 for example, three percent. 14 Q. Right. 15 A. And then one could reasonably suppose that the lion's 16 share of that would come from Cello Field. Now I have 17 figures on shipments from Cello Field, but I don't have 18 them here. 19 Q. My question is: Would you presume that the Atomic Energy 20 Control Board of Canada, or AECL of Canada, would make 21 public the fact that the spent MOX from Parallex were 22 being shipped to Britain for reprocessing? Would you 23 presume that would become public knowledge? 24 A. No, I would not assume anything related to plutonium would 25 become public knowledge in Canada. Canada has a very KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 21 1 non-public attitude toward plutonium dealings. In fact, 2 the existing plutonium dealings in Canada including the 3 BNFL contracts is not public knowledge other than as it 4 has been raised in foreign countries such as in Britain or 5 by documents that have been leaked to nongovernmental 6 organizations. This is not something which Atomic Energy 7 of Canada Limited makes public. 8 MR. LODGE: Thank you. 9 MR. DODGE: No recross, Your Honor. 10 THE COURT: You may step down, Dr. Edwards. 11 Thank you. 12 MR. LOVE: Your Honor, if it please the Court, 13 the Plaintiffs would call Francis Boyle to the stand 14 FRANCIS BOYLE - PLAINTIFFS' WITNESS - SWORN 15 COURT CLERK: Please be seated and state and 16 spell your name for the record. 17 THE WITNESS: My name is Francis Boyle. 18 F-r-a-n-c-i-s B-o-y-l-e. 19 DIRECT EXAMINATION 20 BY MR. LOVE: 21 Q. Dr. Boyle, are you currently employed? 22 A. Yes, I am a professor of international law at the 23 University of Illinois College of Law in Champaign. 24 Q. How long have you been employed in that capacity? 25 A. 1978. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 22 1 MR. LOVE: Your Honor, may I approach the 2 witness? 3 BY MR. LOVE: 4 Q. Dr. Boyle, I'm showing you what has been marked as 5 Supplemental Preliminary Injunction Hearing Plaintiffs' 6 Exhibit 3 and ask you if you can identify that document. 7 A. It's a copy of my professional resume. 8 Q. Was this resume prepared at or under your direction? 9 A. Yes. I think it's current as of January 28th, 1999. I've 10 been kind of busy in the last year, haven't revised it. 11 Q. To the extent it's current through that date, does that 12 accurately reflect your experience, education, seminars 13 that you participated in, and articles that you've 14 authored? 15 A. Not seminars I've participated in, that would be too many 16 but, you know, the essence of my professional career and 17 articles-- significant teaching, consulting, practice. 18 I'm also a licensed attorney as well. 19 Q. If you would, give us a brief recitation of your 20 educational background? 21 A. I attended the University of Chicago where I studied 22 international relations with Professor Hans Morganthal who 23 is the mentor of Dr. Henry Kissinger at Harvard. I was 24 one of seven students in my class elected to Phi Beta 25 Kappa as a junior. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 23 1 I also did work in mathematical biology, winning 2 the award for the work I did in that area by the world's 3 leading geneticist now at Harvard. 4 I graduated in three years. From there I went 5 to Harvard Law School. I have a J.D. Magna Cum Laude from 6 Harvard Law School specializing in international law. 7 I also entered the Graduate School of Arts and 8 Sciences at Harvard in the Department of Government. I 9 have a Master's degree and a Ph.D. in political science 10 specializing in international relations, international 11 politics. This is the same Ph.D. program that produced 12 Henry Kissinger, Zabanya Brezenski (phonetic) and other 13 high level U.S. Government officials. 14 I was at the Harvard Center for International 15 Affairs for two years. Kissinger and Brezenski had been 16 there before me. 17 I spent two years teaching in the Harvard 18 College undergraduates international law organizations, 19 human rights. I practiced law with a Boston law firm for 20 a year at Bingham, Dana and Gould, where I did 21 international tax, and tax, and then finally in 1978 I 22 came to the University of Illinois. I went up for tenure 23 at the beginning of my third year, which I got, and I've 24 been tenured there since, you know, many years. 25 Q. Since undertaking your position at University of Illinois, KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 24 1 have you specialized in any area with respect to 2 particular research, writing and international law? 3 A. Well, for the purpose of our proceedings today, yes. I 4 have been specializing an enormous amount on the nuclear 5 weapons, nuclear weapons policy, proliferation, arms 6 control. Going back to my studies with Professor 7 Morganthal 30 years ago so I've been involved in these 8 issues starting as a student since 1969 and continuously 9 until today. 10 THE WITNESS: Sorry, Your Honor, I have a bit of 11 laryngitis. 12 THE COURT: That's fine, no problem. 13 BY MR. LOVE: 14 Q. Dr. Boyle, if you would direct your attention to your 15 resume, I would like to touch on a few seminal points. On 16 the first page under teaching, the third entry down talks 17 about being a lecturer in Nuclear Weapons and 18 International Law, 21st Senior Conference on Nuclear 19 Deterrence at U.S. Military Academy at West Point in 20 1983. 21 A. Yes. This is a high level seminar run by the Pentagon, 22 not for the cadets, but for about 200 of the highest level 23 officials of the United States Government dealing with 24 nuclear weapons proliferation, nuclear weapons policies, 25 and I was asked to lecture to this conference, and I won't KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 25 1 go through all the high level officials there, but sitting 2 right in front of me for my lecture was the three star 3 general in charge of war operations at the Pentagon, at 4 that time General Mahaffey. And I also note I had read 5 the independent expert's report on the MOX program 6 U.S./Russia of 1977, one of the U.S. independent experts, 7 Richard Garwin was there with me and he was also a 8 lecturer with me to this group, so I do know that Garwin 9 was involved in the Parallex MOX recommendations. 10 Q. With respect to the second to the last entry on Page 1 of 11 Exhibit 3, talks about "Lecture Tour of the Soviet Union 12 on Nuclear Weapons and International Law for Lawyers' 13 Committee on Nuclear Policy and Association of Soviet 14 Lawyers" in 1986. What was involved with that? 15 A. Yes. The former Soviet Union, their equivalent to the 16 American Bar Association was the Association of Soviet 17 Lawyers, and in conjunction with the Lawyers' Committee on 18 Nuclear Policy headquartered here, they decided to invite 19 one professor to go over to the Soviet Union and lecture 20 around the country for two weeks on various issues related 21 to nuclear weapons and international law, and both 22 organizations selected me for this purpose, so I went over 23 for two weeks and gave several lectures per day, Moscow, 24 Leningrad, Kiev to professors, lawyers, peace people, 25 whoever, news media on various aspects of nuclear weapons KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 26 1 targeting doctrine as they relate to international law 2 and, in general, nuclear policies. 3 Q. If you would direct your attention, Dr. Boyle, to Page 2 4 under Practice, fifth entry down it says "Author, 5 Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989, Public Law 6 Number 101-298 (1990) (adopted unanimously by both Houses 7 of Congress)," could you explain what that means, please? 8 A. Yes. Your Honor, we are dealing here with a treaty, the 9 Nuclear Proliferation Treaty-- Nonproliferation Treaty of 10 1968. That treaty has been implemented by Congress in the 11 Nuclear Nonproliferation Act of 1978, the Nuclear 12 Proliferation Prevention Act of 1994 and also recent 13 amendments in 1998 to deal with the India/Pakistan 14 explosions. I have direct personal experience on how you 15 take a treaty, an international treaty, and implement it 16 as a matter of United States Constitutional law by working 17 with Congress. 18 The Biological Weapons Convention of 1972 is a 19 treaty that is a total, not only arms control reduction 20 and elimination treaty for biological weapons, I gave a 21 lecture on Capitol Hill calling for legislation, domestic 22 legislation to implement this treaty, and this 23 recommendation was taken up by a group I work for called 24 the Council of Responsible Genetics. I'm on their 25 Advisory Board. I also serve as counsel to them, so KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 27 1 pursuant to their request, I drafted the implementing 2 legislation, I authored it, how to implement this treaty. 3 And then we took it to members of the House and the Senate 4 and we shepherded it through the entire process dealing 5 with members of Congress, both Houses, including testimony 6 I prepared. At that point in time, the Reagan 7 administration was opposed to this implementing 8 legislation. I had to deal personally with their position 9 papers against it refuting these things. 10 Finally there was a change of policy when 11 President Bush came into office, to his credit, and they 12 supported the legislation. It finally was approved 13 unanimously by both Houses of Congress and signed into law 14 by President Bush in 1989. This legislation was called 15 the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989. It was 16 later amended in the anti-terrorism and effect Death 17 Penalty Act of 1996. 18 I thought I had drafted the most draconian piece 19 of legislation you could possibly imagine on biological 20 weapons, but there is always a loophole, Your Honor, so 21 Congress revisited this in 1996 to close some of the 22 loopholes that had not been apparent to me and the 23 scientists I worked with back in 19, starting in from '85 24 to about 1989. So I just cite this as having direct 25 personal experience with relationship between arms control KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 28 1 treatise, reduction treatise and then how they are 2 implemented by Congress. I have done this myself. On 3 biological weapons and I'm still involved in that issue. 4 Obviously, I have not been involved in the 5 drafting of the implementing legislation for the Nuclear 6 Proliferation Treaty of 1968, there are three pieces, but 7 I have read and reviewed the implementing legislation. I 8 have an understanding how they relate to the 9 Nonproliferation Treaty and I also teach a course on this 10 subject, that is how international laws related to the 11 United States Constitution is implemented by Congress and 12 also carried out in the courts. I teach an entire course 13 just devoted to this subject. 14 Q. Dr. Boyle, you've had some experience practicing before 15 what was known formerly as the International Court of 16 Justice but currently the World Court; is that correct? 17 A. Yes, I have. 18 Q. Could you relate to the Court a summary of that 19 experience? 20 A. Well, I've advised governments with respect to either 21 actual or potential World Court litigation, some of that 22 is still attorney/client confidence that I'm not prepared 23 to discuss. What I am prepared to discuss are those 24 matters that are in the public record. 25 I did serve as counsel to Libya on the Lockerbie KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 29 1 bombing case. It was my recommendation the-- 2 unfortunately President Bush had about the sixth fleet 3 mobilized off the coast of Libya and was about to bomb 4 Libya that we filed a lawsuit at the World Court to stop 5 the bombing. We filed a lawsuit, Libya was not bombed. 6 Later on, I was General Agent for the Republic 7 in Bosnia of Herzegovina before the International Court of 8 Justice. In other words, I was their first ambassador to 9 the World Court for the Republic of Bosnia, Herzegovina, 10 and I sued Yugoslavia for committing genocide against the 11 Bosnian people. I won two cease and desist orders 12 overwhelmingly in favor of Bosnia against Yugoslavia. 13 Later on, I publicly advised -- I advised the 14 Bosnian Government to sue Britain for aiding and abetting 15 genocide against Bosnia, and President Izetbegovic 16 instructed me to sue Britain for a genocide against 17 Bosnia. That lawsuit was terminated under duress, 18 threatened them, so they withdrew from those proceedings. 19 Q. Dr. Boyle, with respect to your writings, if you would 20 direct your attention to Page 3 of Exhibit 3, the last two 21 entries at the bottom -- excuse me, the second to last 22 entries entitled Nuclear Weapons and International Law: 23 The Arms Control Dimensions, do you see that? 24 A. Yes. This was the lecture I gave to the West Point 25 Military Academy senior conference proceedings, which they KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 30 1 did publish in their proceedings at West Point, and 2 actually under my books, I've just completed work on my 3 sixth book, which is entitled Nuclear Deterrence and 4 International Law. And right now it is sitting at Pluto 5 Press -- I guess that's appropriate for today's 6 proceedings -- Pluto Press in Britain. They have 7 expressed an interest in publishing it. They are 8 currently evaluating it. I do not have a contract on that 9 book, but I did get the e-mail just before I came here, so 10 I'll have to deal with that when I go back. 11 Q. With respect to your other publications, Dr. Boyle, I note 12 that on Page 4 you've got one entitled, about halfway 13 down, The Relevance of International Law to the "Paradox" 14 of Nuclear Deterrence. 15 A. That is correct. 16 Q. Can you tell us briefly what the subject matter is? 17 A. After I made the lecture at West Point, obviously the U.S. 18 military officials and others, we had a fairly vigorous 19 debate, let me put it that way. And that vigorous debate 20 between myself and these others led to this article that 21 was later published here in the United States and also 22 translated into Dutch, because the Dutch lawyers wanted it 23 to be available as part of the debate in Holland over the 24 deployment of the U.S. intermediate nuclear forces under 25 the Reagan administration, so they translated the whole KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 31 1 thing into Dutch and it was published in the Netherlands. 2 MR. LOVE: Your Honor, I have no further 3 questions of Dr. Boyle with respect to qualifications, and 4 I tender him for voir dire to the U.S. Attorney's Office 5 subject to my motion to admit Plaintiff's Exhibit 3 into 6 evidence. 7 MR. DODGE: I have no objection to the admission 8 of the C.V. 9 THE COURT: Exhibit 3? 10 MR. DODGE: Exhibit 3. 11 THE COURT: You have no voir dire questions to 12 ask either? 13 MR. DODGE: Not with respect to that exhibit. I 14 may get into the resume on the cross. 15 THE COURT: That's fair enough. 16 Exhibit 3 is received. 17 MR. DODGE: Thank you, your Honor. 18 BY MR. LOVE: 19 Q. Dr. Boyle, in preparing for your testimony here today, 20 could you please outline for the Court -- I think you have 21 done so somewhat already -- some of the documents that you 22 reviewed and the source materials you looked at in 23 preparing your testimony today? 24 A. I have a pretty detailed knowledge about these things 25 generally. For example, when the Nuclear Nonproliferation KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 32 1 Act first came out in 1978, I did read it, but in 2 preparation for this testimony today, I've gone back and 3 read the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, the Nuclear 4 Nonproliferation Act, the Nuclear Proliferation Prevention 5 Act of 1994, the 1998 amendments. I have read a large 6 quantity of documents produced by the Department of Energy 7 on the Parallex Project. I have read the Environmental 8 Assessment dealing with the aspects of international 9 environmental law that have not been dealt with in the 10 Environmental Assessment, in my opinion, should have been 11 dealt with the Stockholm Declaration, which is not there, 12 and the World Court Advisory Opinion on 1996, I have an 13 article on it that. I didn't go back and read the whole 14 advisory opinion, but I reread the portions of the 15 article, and other scholarly sources that deal with this 16 question. There are other sources I did not have a chance 17 to review not directly related to proliferation per se. 18 But for example, in my opinion the EA should 19 have dealt with the UN Convention on the Law of the Seas. 20 It's not in there. There's been nuclear accidents 21 convention, it's not dealt with in there. There is the 22 Bowel convention on the International Transportation of 23 Hazardous Substance and Toxic Materials, that's not in 24 there. I identified those as further sources that should 25 be analyzed in my opinion, but I haven't had a chance to KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 33 1 go back and review all of those sources. 2 Q. Dr. Boyle, did the types of materials that you've just 3 identified for the Court, are these the types of materials 4 that in your experience are relied upon by experts in the 5 field of international law in forming opinions as to the 6 legitimacy of governmental actions under internationally? 7 A. Yes. I also have experience reading environmental impact 8 statements. When the Pentagon produced the DEIS or the 9 biological defense research program, the Council for 10 Responsible Genetics asked me to evaluate this entire 11 thing -- it was an enormous document -- and submit formal 12 comments on it to the Pentagon, which I did do and they 13 did respond to. So this is the type of sources that 14 experts in my field would normally look at and review in 15 forming an opinion about Government behavior, and I have 16 done this before with respect to biological weapons. 17 Q. Dr. Boyle, I'm going to show you what has been marked for 18 identification as Plaintiff's Exhibit 4. Ask you to take 19 a moment to look at that and let me know when you've had a 20 chance to do so, please. 21 A. Yes. This is the treaty on the nonproliferation of 22 nuclear weapons, and as I've said, it has also been 23 implemented by Congress on the Nuclear Nonproliferation 24 Act of 1978, the Nuclear Proliferation Prevention Act of 25 1994 and also 1998 amendments. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 34 1 The critical point to keep in mind about this 2 treaty, Your Honor, is that Congress has passed 3 legislation expressing its understanding of what this 4 treaty means and what our obligations are under this 5 treaty. And this legislation is binding on the Department 6 of Energy, on the President, on the Department of State 7 and respectfully, Your Honor, on this Court. And what we 8 see, when you read through it all, is Congress has 9 decided, and prior to that the Atomic Energy Act as well, 10 that nuclear power, nuclear weapons, nuclear proliferation 11 is so important to the American people and our republic, 12 that they have decided to engage in micro management of 13 everything related to this subject and have pretty much, I 14 would not say completely eliminated, but whittled down 15 substantially any discretion that the executive branch 16 might have in this area. I have, as I said, I did read 17 the NPA back in 1978, but when you add in everything else, 18 what surprised me was how little discretion was left to 19 the executive branch with respect to nuclear 20 proliferation, nuclear weapons. In this area, they have 21 very little discretion. 22 Q. Professor Boyle, if you could, can you explain to the 23 Court what the implications are for Canada, Russia and the 24 United States under the Nonproliferation Treaty? 25 A. Well, my reading of both the treaty and in light of the KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 35 1 Department of Energy documents describing Parallex and 2 MOX, the Red Team report, many other documents that I've 3 read, in my opinion, there are serious problems, 4 compliance problems for this entire project under Articles 5 I, II and III of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty as 6 interpreted by the United States Congress. 7 The Article I deals with the obligations of the 8 United States and Russia. Each nuclear weapons State 9 Party to the Treaty, i.e. U.S. and Russia, undertakes not 10 to transfer to any recipient whatsoever, i.e. Canada, 11 nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices, and we 12 have a problem here in that Congress has interpreted this 13 to mean components of nuclear weapons or nuclear explosive 14 devices; that is, Congress simply does not interpret this 15 to mean you can't hand over a bomb, but a component for a 16 bomb is prohibited. And here we are dealing with weapons 17 grade plutonium, which Dr. Edwards has already testified 18 can be and indeed is, in his opinion, a component for 19 either a nuclear weapon or a nuclear explosive device. 20 Okay? 21 So when you read the treaty in light of the 22 statutory scheme, in my opinion, there are serious 23 compliance problems here with Article I, which have not 24 been addressed in the EA. The DOE has not dealt with any 25 of these problems at all in the EA, indeed, they have KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 36 1 basically said in one of their comments "Well, once we 2 give it to Canada, it's their problem," and that just is 3 an incorrect statement, in my opinion. 4 And it says "directly or indirectly," which 5 means also we, the United States, directly or indirectly 6 by encouraging and paying for the Russians to do this, you 7 see. So we are accountable for the Russian behavior 8 because we are working with them. And indeed, if we were 9 sued at the International Court of Justice -- let's 10 suppose something went wrong, Your Honor, and there was, 11 as Dr. Edwards testified, an aerial explosion in the 12 latest helicopter shipment and radiological dispersal of 13 plutonium that came across the border, killing Americans, 14 killing Canadians, others, if we were sued in World Court 15 over this, we would be found both jointly and severally 16 liable with Russia, with Canada, for any accident. 17 Likewise, this is followed up by both shipments on the 18 high seas of the plutonium. If there is an accident on 19 high seas, we could be sued at the World Court, the United 20 States, both ourselves and jointly and severally with 21 Russia and Canada over any accident here that might 22 happen. And that substantive liability could be based on 23 the U.N. Law of the Sea Convention. As I said, Your 24 Honor, I haven't had time to go through the environmental 25 provision of the Law of the Sea Convention, the Department KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 37 1 of Energy didn't even bother, and in the EA they did not 2 look at this at all. They did not consider this, but it 3 certainly is something that has to be considered, that 4 they haven't looked at. 5 And then "not in any way to assist, encourage or 6 induce any non-nuclear weapon State to manufacture or 7 otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear 8 explosive devices." Well, the problem here is Canada is 9 supposed to be a non-nuclear weapons state and says 10 "otherwise acquired nuclear explosive devices." Well, we 11 are giving them weapons grade plutonium, which again 12 Dr. Edwards has testified, and he is Canadian, is a 13 component of a nuclear weapons or nuclear explosive 14 device. And again, "or control over such weapons or 15 explosive devices." We are giving them weapons grade 16 plutonium. And if you look at how Congress has 17 interpreted this, they interpret it down to components, 18 they even talk about substances that they are trying to 19 regulate everything, and understand the 1978 legislation 20 was a very strict interpretation of what this treaty means 21 as far as the United States Government is concerned. And 22 I think we really need a comprehensive assessment here by 23 the Department of Energy as to whether or not any of these 24 transfers is consistent with Article I. Under the current 25 circumstances, they haven't bothered to look at any of the KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 38 1 terms as defined by Congress, the applicability of the 2 Congressional legislation to the transfers. 3 Likewise, Article II, Your Honor, Article II 4 deals with the Canadian obligations, "Each 5 non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes 6 not to receive the transfer from any transferor whatsoever 7 of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices." 8 Again, the same analysis here needs to be done. This 9 weapons grade plutonium, in my opinion and Dr. Edwards' 10 opinion, is clearly a component of either a nuclear weapon 11 or nuclear explosive device. And Canada, according to 12 this language, has agreed not to receive this material. 13 And by the way, as Dr. Edwards correctly pointed out, Your 14 Honor, this was consistent United States policy, stopping 15 proliferation of this type of material for any reason 16 going back to the Carter administration. We are seeing a 17 major dramatic change here in United States 18 nonproliferation policy, and that policy, Your Honor, 19 going back to the Carter administration, is enshrined in 20 law by Congress in the Nuclear Nonproliferation Act of 21 1978. So again, in my opinion, I believe these issues 22 likewise need to be addressed by the Department of 23 Energy. They have not been addressed in the environmental 24 assessment at all. 25 "Or control over such weapons or explosive KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 39 1 devices, directly or indirectly." Well, again, we are 2 giving Canada, either ourselves in the first shipment or 3 indirectly by means of the Russians in the second 4 shipment, control over a component for a nuclear weapon or 5 a nuclear explosive device. That's very clear they are 6 getting it. And according to the EA, we are trusting 7 their good intentions. There is no assurance in the EA 8 that this weapons grade plutonium is subject to 9 international safeguards. No. Despite the fact that 10 Congress has made it very clear that any transfer, and 11 Congress also made it clear in the legislation that they 12 are against any transfers of this type of stuff to other 13 States. But if there are any transfers at a minimum there 14 have to be absolute guaranteed protections on 15 international assurances to make sure it is not misused, 16 and you will note in the EA it says nothing about it. 17 There are no assurances about anything. 18 Now, "to manufacture or otherwise acquire 19 nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices; and 20 not to seek or receive any assistance in the manufacture," 21 etcetera, etcetera. 22 Article III then deals with the safeguard 23 requirements; that is, if there are transfers of materials 24 for peaceful purposes, and you know you can obviously, 25 Your Honor, you can read this yourself. There must be KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 40 1 safeguards. Under the supervision of the International 2 Atomic Energy Agency, the Environmental Assessment says 3 nothing at all about these safeguards. Nothing. It isn't 4 in there. 5 Apparently we have to rely on not even 6 statements by Canada that what we are transferring there, 7 what we are encouraging the Russians to transfer are 8 somehow going to be safeguarded despite the fact that 9 Article III says that there must be safeguards, and we 10 simply don't have them. 11 Q. Dr. Boyle, I'm going to show you what's been marked for 12 identification as Plaintiff's Exhibit 5 and ask you to 13 take a look in the upper right-hand corner, and after 14 you've had a moment to review that, let me know, please. 15 A. Yes. This is an article I had read in preparation for my 16 testimony here today, from the Toronto News. 17 Q. Based on your experience and expertise, Dr. Boyle, is this 18 the type of information that an international law scholar 19 could rely on in formulating opinions about the state or 20 nationally? 21 A. Well, here is stating comments by Mr. Tom Clemens, head of 22 the Washington-based Nuclear Control Institute. It's a 23 recognized organization dealing with nuclear policies, and 24 certainly experts in my field would rely upon statements 25 produced by the Nuclear Control Institute and, indeed, KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 41 1 prior to my testimony today, I did read several documents 2 produced by the Nuclear Control Institute just in the 3 normal course of preparing, yes. An expert in my field 4 would rely on this. 5 Q. Dr. Boyle, my recollection is you testified this appeared 6 in the Toronto -- 7 A. News. 8 Q. -- News and it -- 9 A. The Globe and Mail, which is, you know, it's sort of like 10 the New York Times here in the United States, a newspaper 11 of public record, so again, it's not like a tabloid or 12 something like this. 13 Q. Plaintiff's Exhibit 5, Dr. Boyle in the right-hand column 14 attributes some comments to a Sunni Locatelli purportedly 15 a spokeswoman at the Atomic Control Board. Do you see 16 that? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. What if anything is the significance, based on your 19 experience as expertise, of considering published reports 20 attributed to spokespersons for governmental entities in 21 formulating use of international law? 22 A. Yes. There is a decision by the International Court of 23 Justice in the nuclear test cases dealing with nuclear 24 explosions 1974, stating that the Court can rely upon 25 official statements made by Government officials acting KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 42 1 within their scope of authority and certainly Locatelli 2 here is the spokeswoman of the Atomic Energy Control 3 Board. So basically, I would be able to take this 4 statement and file it at the World Court and they would 5 find the statement could be, would be attributable to the 6 Canadian government, and Canada would be bound by this 7 statement. 8 Q. What does that article, Plaintiff's Exhibit 5, attribute 9 to Miss Locatelli? 10 A. She can't reveal how much fissile material Canada has. We 11 aren't able to give out that information under our 12 security regulations. Ms. Locatelli said Canada believes 13 it should come under the IA/EA guidelines because it 14 doesn't operate its own reprocessing facilities. I think 15 Dr. Edwards just pointed out that isn't correct. But even 16 if it were correct, it does come under IA/EA, and we need 17 to know, the United States Government under the NPT, under 18 the Congressional implementing legislation, we have to 19 know how much fissile material Canada has. 20 And basically, we are just taking their, 21 whatever their word is for it, and in my opinion, that's 22 unacceptable. We have to know how much material they have 23 and what they are doing with it, and what she's saying 24 here is "Well, we are just not going to tell you." And 25 you will note in the EA, the Department of Energy has KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 43 1 taken the same position. One of the comments made was 2 "Well, what is Canada doing," and the response of the DOE 3 is well, that is Canada's problem, once it leaves here we 4 are no longer responsible. The treaty and statutory 5 regime make it clear that's not the case. We are 6 responsible for our plutonium, wherever it goes. And 7 Congress has made it clear even if we do give it up, we 8 have to have absolute international safeguards as to what 9 is going to happen with our plutonium. And the same would 10 apply if we are encouraging Russia to ship weapons grade 11 plutonium to Canada. We have an obligation to make sure 12 that it's safeguarded and that it can be accountable and 13 accounted for. And what Ms. Locatelli here is saying 14 "Well, sorry, we are just not going to tell you." Again, 15 this raises serious problems in my mind that have not been 16 dealt with by the Department of Energy as to compliance 17 with the IA/EA safeguards regime, which is absolutely 18 required under Article III of the NPT and also required 19 under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Act. Indeed, if I 20 remember correctly, the 1994 implementation, Your Honor, 21 Congress said that transferring of unsafeguarded plutonium 22 is an act of international terrorism as far as Congress is 23 concerned. 24 So and that would trigger a whole host of other 25 provisions of the federal code dealing with international KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 44 1 terrorism, so we really need to know what is going to 2 happen to our plutonium when it gets up into Canada, and 3 to make sure there are safeguards and it is accountable 4 and there is an explanation here. 5 Now Mr. Clemens then said that, in his opinion, 6 Canada has 40 kilograms of plutonium, it's really not 7 accounted for or accountable for by anyone, and that 8 basically makes Canada a de facto nuclear weapons state. 9 I would agree, assuming that they do have the 40 kilograms 10 of plutonium, and I take it you know Mr. Clemens -- I had 11 e-mail correspondence with Mr. Clemens about this matter. 12 He feels that they do have it and that his group, the 13 Nuclear Control Institute, will be making this evidence 14 available soon. He told me it is not yet -- he is not yet 15 prepared to make it public, but they will be going public 16 with it soon. 17 In my opinion, if that is the case, they have 40 18 kilograms of plutonium, that's enough to make five bombs, 19 and that makes Canada a de facto nuclear weapons state 20 under the NPT and, in my opinion, would be inconsistent 21 with the NPT. There is a potential here for Canada being 22 in violation of the NET. We need to know that. Congress 23 has sanctions in there in the implementing legislation for 24 non-nuclear weapons states being, moving into a position 25 where they are de facto nuclear weapons states in KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 45 1 violation of the NPT. 2 It's clear Congress interprets our obligations 3 under the treaty to mean that a non-nuclear weapons state 4 simply cannot go off, assemble all the components for a 5 bomb, have one here, one there and one there, and then 6 say, oh but we are not a nuclear weapons state because we 7 haven't assembled the bomb. 8 Again, Congress made it very clear, no. Indeed, 9 in one of the pieces of legislation, Congress indicated 10 that it was also concerned with a facto nuclear weapons 11 states that an end run around the NPT, and the 12 Congressional regime applicable to it. Again, I regret to 13 report I haven't seen any of these issues dealt with by 14 the Department of Energy in the Environmental Assessments 15 and, indeed, when they were asked about it, they just said 16 this is now Canada's problem. Wondered-- United States 17 law of the NPT, it is not Canada's problem alone, it is 18 our problem because it's our plutonium and it's Russian 19 plutonium that we are paying to send up to Canada. 20 Q. Professor Boyle, based on the representations of Miss 21 Locatelli on behalf of Atomic Energy Control Board of 22 Canada that they don't believe they are subject to the 23 IA/EA guidelines, what if any impact would that have on 24 the United States' responsibility under the Nuclear 25 Nonproliferation Treaty of 1978? KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 46 1 A. It's very clear, Your Honor, the NPT and the Congressional 2 implementing legislation that we ourselves cannot ship 3 weapons grade plutonium there or engage in the Russians to 4 ship weapons grade plutonium unless there are absolutely 5 safeguards by the IA/EA that, to make sure that there is 6 no diversion. And again, Miss Locatelli is indicating 7 there is a high amount of uncertainty as to what is 8 happening with the Canadian plutonium. We simply don't 9 know. In the EA, there are no guarantees given by the 10 Department of Energy as to what is happening to plutonium 11 up in Canada. 12 Q. You may have testified to this, Dr. Boyle, and I apologize 13 if I missed it, but are Russia, Canada and the United 14 States all signatory partis to the Nonproliferation 15 Treaty? 16 A. Yes. We are all parties. There are about 182 or 183 17 states that are parties. The United States and Russia are 18 nuclear weapon states, parties to the convention, that is, 19 we are permitted to have nuclear weapons and nuclear 20 components, etc. Canada is designated a non-nuclear 21 weapons state. And they are supposed to preserve this 22 stative or statement. Yet according to the Nuclear 23 Control Institute, they have enough plutonium up there to 24 at least manufacture five bombs. So somehow this has to 25 be explained and accounted for in order for them to KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 47 1 continue their non-nuclear weapons state status under the 2 NPT, so again, the Nuclear Control Institute is raising 3 very serious compliance problems and potentially serious 4 violation of the NPT by Canada, and there are severe 5 sanctions in the United States laws enacted by Congress 6 under the Simplemen legislation, Your Honor, in the event 7 a state that is a non-nuclear weapons state moves to 8 become a nuclear weapons state. And again, none of this 9 has been addressed by the Department of Energy in the 10 environmental assessment that I'm aware of, either in the 11 environmental assessment or elsewhere. 12 Q. Dr. Boyle, could you advise the Court, if you would, as to 13 what the ramifications legally are of being a signatory 14 party to an international treaty such as the 15 Nonproliferation Treaty? 16 A. Yes. Your Honor, of course, the basic rule of Pacta Sunt, 17 P-a-c-t-a-s-u-n-t, Servanda, S-e-r-v-a-n-d-a. 18 The other point -- there are two other points, 19 however, that must be kept in mind in interpreting any 20 treaty and especially the NPT. First, the treaty must be 21 interpreted in good faith. And again, the question here 22 with Canada maintaining 40 kilograms of plutonium is 23 whether or not this is a good faith interpretation 24 implementation of the NPT by Canada. 25 Second, the treaty must be interpreted in KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 48 1 accordance with its object and purpose, and that in this 2 case the NPT is to stop nuclear proliferation. And again, 3 this entire program, the Parallex program, in my opinion, 4 seems to defeat the object and purpose of the NPT, which 5 is to stop nuclear proliferation. 6 The third point to keep in mind is that this 7 treaty has already been interpreted by Congress and 8 implemented by Congress. And Congress is agreeing with 9 what I'm saying here, Your Honor, and I'm agreeing with 10 what Congress is saying. Congress has made it very clear 11 that they do not want to see any type of nuclear 12 proliferation or programs that encourage nuclear 13 proliferation. And we are now seeing a drastic departure 14 from the policy enacted in Congress pursuant to the NPC 15 back in -- the NPT back in 1978 in the Nuclear 16 Nonproliferation Act, and we have seen no change in the 17 legislation by Congress to authorize or approve this 18 drastic change. And again, I agree with what Dr. Edwards 19 said from his Canadian perspective, my American 20 perspective, the Parallex MOX project is a drastic change 21 in encouraging proliferation of nuclear weapons components 22 and there has been no direct approval, change of statutes 23 or whatever. So again, this, in my opinion, raises very 24 serious problems under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty 25 as interpreted in good faith and in accordance with its KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 49 1 object and purpose not only for Canada, but the United 2 States and Russia. And in my opinion, we should have a 3 full study of all these issues by the Department of Energy 4 before there is any further movement on this project. 5 The implications here are enormous. They could 6 be catastrophic, and I personally would like to see a full 7 scale investigation analysis so that I could evaluate it 8 myself before anyone goes ahead with this project, but of 9 course that, you know, that's my personal opinion. I know 10 that's for you, Your Honor, to decide. 11 Q. Dr. Boyle, what if anything is the requirement or 12 obligation of the United States to interpret the 13 Nonproliferation Treaty in good faith? I think you 14 testified that Canada has that obligation. Does the 15 United States have a similar obligation? 16 A. Yes. And as a matter of fact, here Congress has 17 interpreted our obligation under the NPT and, in my 18 opinion, Congress has interpreted our obligations under 19 the NPT in good faith and also in accordance with the 20 object and purpose of this treaty. Congress interpreted 21 this by means of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Act of 1978, 22 the Nuclear Proliferation Prevention Act of 1994 and the 23 1998 amendments to do with the India-Pakistani 24 explosions. So in my opinion, Congress did interpret this 25 treaty in good faith and in accordance with its object and KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 50 1 purpose and it appears to me the Department of Energy is 2 off there on their own with no express authorization from 3 Congress pursuing a policy here that defeats the object 4 and purpose of the NPT. 5 Q. By that, you are referring to the Parallex project? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. With respect to the Congressional implementation of the 8 NPT in the '78, '94 and '98 acts, what if anything is the 9 role of the Department of State and/or Department of 10 Energy with respect to interpreting those obligations? 11 A. Yes. Your Honor, it's very clear from the treaty related 12 to the statutory scheme. Treaties deal with international 13 law and foreign relations. Therefore, they are normally 14 negotiated and concluded by the Department of State and 15 then they are handed over to the Senate Foreign Relations 16 to the Senate for advice and consent. It is the State 17 Department that traditionally has always had the sole and 18 exclusive role here in the United States with respect to 19 nonproliferation policy, not the Department of Energy. 20 The Department of Energy has always been treated as a 21 technical agency, technical consultant. The policy is 22 formulated by the State Department. There had been, again 23 going back to the Carter administration, United States 24 Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, Your Honor, set up by 25 Congress to deal precisely with these issues. They were KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 51 1 the ones given the authority to deal with proliferation 2 and nonproliferation policies negotiate these agreements, 3 etcetera. Senator Helms in the latest did not like act, 4 he concluded it was super numerator morgue or something so 5 he passed legislation terminating the Arms Control 6 Disarmament Agency and transferring all functions to the 7 Department of State today. But if you read the 8 Congressional implementing legislation, they make it very 9 clear that the lead role played on proliferation and 10 nonproliferation policy is the Department of State, not 11 the Department of Energy, and the Department of State 12 should consult with the Department of Energy. At times 13 the Department of Energy is given authority to have its 14 input to the Department of State, but it's the Department 15 of State that makes nonproliferation policy, not the 16 Department of Energy. 17 Q. In your review of the environmental assessment prepared by 18 the Department of Energy in January of '99, Dr. Boyle, 19 regarding the Parallex Project, is there any indication 20 that the Department of Energy consulted with the 21 Department of State? And if you don't mind, I direct your 22 attention to Page 41 of Plaintiff's Exhibit 12 previously 23 admitted and ask you to refer to that. 24 A. Yes. They had a list here of agencies consulted. Your 25 Honor, over here on Page 41, it says agencies consulted KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 52 1 during the preparation of this analysis: Atomic Energy of 2 Canada, Canadian Atomic Energy Control Board, U.S. 3 Department of Transportation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 4 Commission. They do not consult with the Department of 5 State and, in my opinion, and also in the opinion of 6 Congress, if you read through all the implementing 7 legislation, I know, Your Honor, as I understand it, you 8 are a conscientious Judge so I'm sure you are going to do 9 this, you'll see that they have to deal with the 10 Department of State. And the main problem with this EA is 11 they have not dealt with the Department of State, they 12 have not dealt with the nonproliferation issues, they have 13 not dealt with the Nonproliferation Treaty, they have not 14 dealt with the 1978 Act, they have not dealt with the 1994 15 Act, they have not dealt with the 1998 Act. All that is 16 expressly required by Congress. So again, in my opinion, 17 for some reason the Department of Energy has just decided 18 to go out there on its own and completely either ignore or 19 violate the Congressional statutes and procedures for 20 dealing with proliferation and nonproliferation issues. 21 Q. Dr. Boyle, to your knowledge, has the Department of State 22 retreated at all from the U.S. commitment to the 23 Nonproliferation Treaty as implemented by Congress through 24 the legislation you've indicated? 25 A. No, and as a matter of fact, Madeline Albright was just KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 53 1 out in India-Pakistan with President Clinton. As you 2 know, President Clinton stated that today India-Pakistan, 3 the Indian subcontinent is the most dangerous place on the 4 face of the earth because of the proliferation problem, 5 and they both have nuclear weapons now, and the dispute 6 over Casmir. 7 President Clinton then was just lectured in the 8 Indian Parliament publicly by the speaker of Parliament 9 for making the statement, but I think it's a fair and 10 accurate statement. Madeline Albright followed this up 11 with another statement reiterating our commitment to 12 nonproliferation and, specifically with respect to India 13 and Pakistan, that this was the policy of the United 14 States Government, and also tying this into the integral 15 importance of safeguards. 16 And again, that is a fair and accurate statement 17 of the policy being pursued by the President and the 18 Secretary of State that is charged under the legislation 19 and the Constitution to deal with these matters. There is 20 a complete and total disconnect here between what the 21 President and Secretary of State are saying and what the 22 Department of Energy is planning to do here in the 23 environmental assessment. 24 Q. Dr. Boyle, I'm going to show you what has been marked as 25 Plaintiff's Exhibit 11 and ask you to take a minute to KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 54 1 review that and let me know when you have had a chance to 2 do so, please. 3 A. Yes. This is an account of the Secretary of State 4 Albright's statement on April 2, as recently as April 2 5 dealing with our proliferation policies. And let me draw 6 a few things to your attention. United States regards 7 proliferation anywhere as our Number 1 security concern. 8 So again, she's pointing this out and she is the cabinet 9 officer with the authority to deal with these matters, not 10 the Secretary of Energy. We continue to seek universal 11 adherence to the NPT neither India nor Pakistan are 12 parties to the NPT. And here is crucial points: The 13 limits in our ability to cooperate with India and Pakistan 14 are a matter of U.S. law, as well as our international 15 obligations, all right? So Secretary Albright is pointing 16 out we have United States law that deals with 17 proliferation and this United States law -- of course, 18 she's not a lawyer -- but the U.S. law is the Nuclear 19 Nonproliferation Act, the Proliferation Prevention Act and 20 the '98 amendments as well as the Atomic Energy Act. So 21 there's a very comprehensive legislative scheme here as 22 well as our international obligation she points out. 23 There are international treaties here, and in particular 24 the most important one being the one she just referred to, 25 the Nonproliferation Treaty, and she is aware of that. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 55 1 Unfortunately, it does not appear that the Department of 2 Energy is aware of it or is concerned about it in the 3 least bit, at least as reflected in the environmental 4 assessment, they have not dealt with any of these issues 5 in environmental assessment nothing, none. 6 Q. Dr. Boyle, based on your experience and investigations 7 study, are you aware of whether or not India and Pakistan 8 have Canadian CANDU reactors? 9 A. As I understand it, they've got reactors from the Indian 10 Nuclear Bomb Project was a serous reactor, Canada, India 11 and United States, right. And Pakistan has a CANDU 12 reactor, right. And just the other day, the New York 13 Times reported the smuggling of substantial quantity of 14 nuclear materials out of the former Soviet Union towards 15 Pakistan that was recently intercepted in Kazakhstan, I 16 think. So I think this is a very serious problem. And I 17 don't see how this Parallex MOX -- it's only going to 18 compound the problem. These countries are doing 19 everything they possibly can. And here I would also add 20 in Israel is not a party to the NPT. There are other 21 states that have CANDU reactors, it has already been 22 reported in the professional literature, Your Honor, that 23 Japan too is a de facto nuclear weapons state in violation 24 of the NPT. And as Dr. Edwards already reported, they 25 have gotten a good deal of their nuclear material from KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 56 1 Canada. 2 So, we see -- Canadian reactors that are what, 3 in South Korea, Taiwan, states that are interested in 4 getting nuclear weapons. Clearly Taiwan wants them, South 5 Korea wants them. And you know, not that I can speak for 6 these governments, but it seems to me they have made a 7 decision the best way to get a weapon is to do it the way 8 the Indians did. We get a Canadian CANDU reactor, then we 9 start getting in whatever material we can get from, for 10 example, this MOX program. They will get plutonium and 11 then they can make a bomb, they can assemble a bomb. 12 As for the ease of assembling a bomb, Your 13 Honor, when I was a student at Harvard there was a very 14 bright student at MIT who, as a class project, assembled a 15 bomb. He had everything there except the plutonium. 16 That's how easy it is to assemble an atomic bottom, and he 17 brought it down there and, if I remember correctly, in 18 central square at MIT, and just showed it to everyone. 19 Even a bright student at MIT can assemble a bomb, that's 20 how easy it is to do. And what we see on these states 21 that say they are non-nuclear weapons states is an effort 22 to get a CANDU reactor and do what the Indians do use the 23 CANDU reactor, then they just need to get hold of the 24 plutonium, and Parallex MOX is going to give them access 25 to this plutonium if it gets in circulation. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 57 1 Q. Dr. Boyle, you've testified in some depth as to the 2 Nonproliferation Treaty and the implementation by Congress 3 indicating Congress' intent to prohibit even components, 4 parts of nuclear weapons to be covered by the U.S.; is 5 that correct? 6 A. Congress has interpreted the NPT, as I said, in good 7 faith, and to achieve its object and purpose and they have 8 interpreted to mean components that is clear of nuclear 9 weapons or nuclear explosive devices and there are other 10 areas in legislation where they even break it down to 11 items or substances that could be used for nuclear weapons 12 or nuclear explosive device, so Congress is aware of this 13 problem of a state becoming a de facto nuclear weapons 14 state and somehow trying to assemble components, items and 15 substances to be used for a nuclear weapon in order to 16 circumvent the treaty. So again Congress has interpreted, 17 I think, the treaty properly. 18 Q. Are you familiar in the course of your research with the 19 DOE's stockpile of stewardship program? 20 A. I am, yes. 21 Q. Are you familiar with their use in that program of 22 subcritical amounts of weapons grade plutonium? 23 A. Yes. Right now the Department of Energy is engaging in 24 what are known as subcritical tests. A subcritical test 25 is using -- they just did one this week, I think I gave KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 58 1 you the press release on it, and they are consistently 2 doing this. 3 A subcritical test uses a subcritical amount of 4 plutonium, which is under the -- it was eight kilograms. 5 And they are exploding it in order to test, verify and 6 develop the next generation of U.S. nuclear weapons. So 7 what we see the Department of Energy doing here is the 8 subcritical tests, in my opinion, would constitute it's 9 not a nuclear weapon, but it is a nuclear explosive 10 device. Now, there is nothing illegal with, under the NPT 11 with us having a nuclear explosive device, because we are 12 a nuclear weapons state party, but again, it creates 13 problems other states are now mimicking our behavior. 14 Russia is doing the same thing, France and Britain say 15 they are going to do the same thing. If we give weapons 16 grade plutonium to Canada, Canada could be doing the same 17 thing. Or the Russians give their weapons grade plutonium 18 to Canada, Canada could be doing the same thing, and other 19 states could be doing the same thing. So again, I think I 20 have serious concerns here, but I want to point out the 21 DOE is already engaged in the subcritical tests which are 22 clearly nuclear explosive devices. So it just doesn't 23 have to be a bomb to be regulated by the NPT. 24 Q. Dr. Boyle, in the scope of your experience and research, 25 have you become acquainted with the International Court of KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 59 1 Justice opinion regarding nuclear weapons in 1996? 2 A. Yes. As a matter of fact, I was part of the effort 3 originally to try to get that advisory opinion from the 4 World Court. 5 Q. If you would explain briefly what the significance, if 6 anything, of that World Court decision on the Parallex 7 project is, in your opinion? 8 A. Well, Your Honor, the World Court was asked by the United 9 Nations general assembly to give an opinion on the entire 10 question of nuclear weapons and international law. It's a 11 very long decision with many separate decisions in the 12 sense I've written an article here, Mr. Love might want to 13 provide it to you, going through all of it. But in this 14 opinion, there are two critical components that are 15 relevant to the Parallex MOX project and, of course, the 16 EA has not dealt with either, let alone the World Court 17 opinion, and the World Court opinion in this area 18 enunciates the rules of international law that are binding 19 on the United States Government, binding on Canada, 20 binding on Russia. The one component of this opinion 21 deals with the environmental-- international environmental 22 law applicable to nuclear weapons, and you will note in 23 the EA, the DOE does absolutely nothing at all with 24 international environmental law applicable to this 25 transaction because it is an international transaction, KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 60 1 they're shipping plutonium from the States up to Canada 2 and from Russia over to Canada. So international 3 environmental law is involved, and the DOE has done 4 nothing at all about it. 5 And Mr. Love, I think you have the exact 6 language there. You want to provide that to me, the exact 7 ruling of the Court on the international environmental law 8 that would apply? 9 MR. LOVE: Your Honor, we have tendered what I'm 10 going to show Dr. Boyle as Plaintiff's Exhibit 14, a copy 11 of the World Court opinion to both the Court and counsel 12 previously. 13 BY MR. LOVE: 14 Q. Dr. Boyle, I'm going to show you what has been marked as 15 Plaintiff's Exhibit 14 and ask you to take a look at that 16 and let us know when you've had a chance to do so and what 17 it is. 18 A. Right, this is the World Court advisory opinion. It's so 19 long, I'm going to have to get my notes on it, excuse me. 20 I think, Mr. Love, I gave you my notes last 21 night on the relevant provisions of the opinion, the 22 relevant paragraphs. 23 Q. While I'm looking for your notes, could you direct your 24 attention to Paragraph 27, please? 25 A. Right. What we need are the paragraphs here. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 61 1 Right. Yes, I have Paragraph 27. 2 Your Honor, here the World Court unanimously 3 adopted Principle 21 of the Stockholm Declaration of 1972, 4 which everyone would say today is a basic principle of 5 international environmental law, which the EA has not 6 bothered to deal with. And it basically says states have 7 a duty "to ensure that activities within their 8 jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to the 9 environment of other states or areas beyond the limits of 10 national jurisdiction." That's a basic principle of 11 international environmental law. It goes back to the 12 Stockholm Declaration of 1972. It has direct relevance 13 here to this entire project. You've got international 14 shipment of plutonium, it's going over the high seas if it 15 goes by boat from Russia. That also triggers the Law of 16 the Sea Convention that they have not dealt with. They 17 haven't dealt with the Stockholm Declaration, and they 18 have not dealt with this recent ruling by the World Court 19 as to obligations under international law. If you read 20 the EA when they are asked this question, they said "Once 21 we give to Canada, that's their problem." Well, again, 22 that isn't a correct statement of international law. It 23 is our problem. 24 The second important point of the ICJ opinion, 25 and there are other sections here dealing with the KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 62 1 environment -- and I know we have a limited amount of 2 time, I'm not going to go through it all -- deals with the 3 interpretation of the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty. 4 This is an international treaty, the World Court 5 also has authority to interpret the Nuclear 6 Nonproliferation Treaty, and they have interpreted the 7 Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. 8 Mr. Love, could you give me -- I identified a 9 paragraph for you, I think it's 102. 10 Q. I believe you are looking for Paragraph 102? 11 A. 102, right. 12 Q. May also want to take a look at Paragraph 99. 13 A. 99 and 102, right. 14 The World Court, in the same advisory opinion, 15 has also dealt with the NPT and the obligation of Article 16 VI of the NPT, "Each of the parties to the treaty 17 undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on 18 effective measures relating to cessation of the" -- "in 19 good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of 20 the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear 21 disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete 22 disarmament under strict and effective international 23 control." And they have interpreted this provision, NPT 24 Article VI, which we are a party to, by the way, to have a 25 dual obligation, two components here: One, we must pursue KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 63 1 negotiations on nuclear disarmament as a matter of good 2 faith. 3 Recently, I regret to report the U.S. Ambassador 4 to the Conference on Nuclear Disarmament sponsored by the 5 United Nations has said "We are not going to pursue 6 nuclear disarmament negotiations." In my opinion, that 7 puts us in breach of NPT Article VI, certainly as 8 interpreted by the World Court. We have an obligation to 9 pursue nuclear disarmament negotiations and we have just 10 said we are not going to do it. The Ambassador said "We 11 are going to pursue instead a treaty on the cutoff of 12 fissile materials such as what is at stake here, but we 13 are not going to pursue nuclear disarmament negotiations." 14 Well, Your Honor, it does seem to me that that is a 15 violation of NPT Article VI and is certainly not meeting 16 the requirements of Article VI as interpreted by the World 17 Court. We must pursue these negotiations in good faith. 18 And then the second component of the obligation 19 is we must achieve a precise result. Nuclear disarmament 20 in all its aspects. And again just recently the U.S. 21 Ambassador to the Council of Nuclear Disarmament under the 22 auspices of the UN said "We are just not going to do it." 23 The reason why this creates serious legal problems is that 24 the non-nuclear weapons states went along with the entire 25 Nuclear Proliferation Treaty on the assumption that the KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 64 1 nuclear weapons states would engage in good faith 2 negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament. If we are 3 not engaging in negotiations leading to nuclear 4 disarmament and publicly say we are not going to do it, 5 this in theory could give the non-nuclear weapons states, 6 all 175 of them, grounds to argue the material breach of 7 the NPT and pull out of the NPT and to engage in nuclear 8 armament. Now I'm not recommending that and indeed I 9 certainly would not recommend that to anyone, but it is a 10 very serious concern if we are not engaging in these 11 nuclear disarmament negotiations, which we are not 12 currently doing. 13 Q. Dr. Boyle, could you briefly summarize for the Court why 14 the International Court of Justice opinions, if at all, 15 are binding on the U.S.? 16 A. This opinion per se is listed as an advisory opinion. So 17 it is -- we are not party to the lawsuit. As you know, 18 some courts can give advisory opinions. Your Honor, you 19 can't give an advisory opinion, but there are courts in 20 the United States that some states courts have authority 21 to give advisory opinions as well as contentious 22 opinions. The World Court has both. They have authority 23 contentious opinion and an advisory opinion. This was not 24 a contentious case. If it were a contentious case, we 25 would be bound by it, like the Lockerbie case, like the KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 65 1 Bosnia cases that I was involved with, those were 2 contentious cases. This was an advisory opinion, however, 3 in this advisory opinion, with these unanimous rulings by 4 the World Court on these points, the World Court made it 5 clear that these rules are customary international law. 6 And rules of customary international law bind the United 7 States Government. The Paquete, P-a-q-u-e-t-e, Habana, 8 H-a-b-a-n-a, decision by the United States Supreme Court 9 customarily international law binds the United States and 10 the United States courts. And technically, this is 11 federal common law. So the, Your Honor, this Court should 12 take into account the World Court rulings on these two 13 points on international environmental law and how the NPT 14 should be interpreted. 15 The rest of the opinion, which is quite lengthy 16 and I had written about elsewhere -- if you are interested 17 in reading my article, you can, but it's not really 18 relevant or terribly germane to the issues here, but 19 certainly, the section on international environmental law 20 and their interpretation of the NPT is relevant. I think 21 they enunciate rules of customary international law. I 22 also have reached the same conclusions myself in my own 23 scholarly research before the World Court did, but I think 24 most experts would agree with the rulings of the World 25 Court on these two points, it's requirements of KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 66 1 international environmental law and the interpretation of 2 the NPT. 3 And again, the DOE's environmental assessment 4 has not taken any of this into account. They have not 5 taken into account the rules of international 6 environmental law, which they should do, and they have not 7 taken into account anything about the NPT. 8 Q. Dr. Boyle, based on your review of the NPT, the Nuclear 9 Nonproliferation Acts of 1978, 1994, and 1998, the 10 International Court of Justice opinion, and the 11 declarations by the Department of State regarding the U.S. 12 position with respect to the Nonproliferation Treaty 13 commitments we have made, do you have an opinion as an 14 expert in international law as to whether the foreign 15 policy of the United States would be violated by the 16 shipment of MOX from Russia to Canada funded by the U.S. 17 DOE? 18 A. Well, again, I agree with everything Dr. Edwards said. 19 Your Honor, this is a major change in United States 20 nonproliferation policy going back at a minimum to the 21 Carter administration and the adoption of the Nuclear 22 Nonproliferation Act, it seems to me completely 23 inconsistent with the treaty, with the Act, the 1978 Act 24 and 1994 Act and the 1998 Act. So yes, this is a major 25 change in policy that potentially is illegal under the KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 67 1 sources. And I would really like to see the Department of 2 Energy comprehensively address all of these issues so we 3 could see what is their authority to do this. Besides 4 their own ipse dixit. I would like to see the authority. 5 I don't see it in any of the sources I've read before for 6 them to unilaterally engage in this major change in policy 7 that seems to be inconsistent with the Treaty, the '78 8 Act, the '94 Act and '98 Act, yes. 9 MR. LOVE: Your Honor, I have no further 10 questions of this witness. Thank you. 11 CROSS EXAMINATION 12 BY MR. DODGE: 13 Q. Morning, Mr. Boyle. 14 A. Morning. 15 Q. I would like to turn your attention back to your C.V., 16 which I think is Exhibit 3. Do you have that in front of 17 you? 18 A. Sure. 19 Q. Just to round out a few items on the second page, about 20 halfway down you testified that you were counsel to Libya 21 in connection with the bombing of the Pan Am flight over 22 Lockerbie, Scotland. 23 A. That is correct. I should point out that matter is being 24 peaceably resolved now by the United States and Libya 25 because of my efforts. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 68 1 Q. And you've also served, going up now the fourth item from 2 the top of that page, since 1987 you served as a legal 3 advisor to the Palestine Liberation Organization? 4 A. That is correct, and I was also the legal advisor to the 5 Palestinian delegation for the Middle East Peace Talks 6 convened under the auspices of President Bush, yes. 7 Q. And two items down from there said you were counsel 8 related to House Resolution 86 in the 102nd Congress 9 dealing with the impeachment of former, then President 10 George Bush? 11 A. Yes. Congressman Henry G. Gonzalez of Texas reached a 12 decision that President Bush going to war violated 13 numerous provisions of the Constitution and international 14 law. You can find them there in House Resolution 86. And 15 he asked me, because of my knowledge and expertise to 16 serve as counsel to them on these matters, and I did serve 17 as counsel free of charge, that is correct. 18 My service to the Palestinian Delegation in the 19 Middle East Peace Negotiations is there in '91 and '93, as 20 I said, President Bush was the one who convened those 21 negotiations, and yes, even though I did set out with 22 Congressman Gonzalez on this issue, President Bush did 23 sign my Biological Weapons Anti-terrorists Act of 1989, 24 which is -- 25 Q. He apparently didn't hold your efforts against you KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 69 1 personally. 2 A. Pardon me? 3 Q. Sounds like he didn't hold it against you personally. 4 A. I don't think he did, no. I'm a lawyer and a law 5 professor and I'm a professional, but he had no problems, 6 President Bush had no problems with my Biological 7 Anti-Terrorism Act. It was approved unanimously by both 8 Houses of Congress. 9 Q. Moving on to the third page, second item from the top of 10 the page, you worked as a consultant in 1993 on 11 Independence for the State of Hawaii. I would assume for 12 Hawaii to become an independent nation? 13 A. That is correct. The State of Hawaii-- the Hawaiian 14 Sovereignty Advisory Commission is an agency of the State 15 of Hawaii. And they were charged under the law by the 16 State of Hawaiian law to investigate all alternatives for 17 the native Hawaiian people. One of the alternatives that 18 needed to be investigated was whether or not the native 19 Hawaiian people should establish their own independent 20 nation state. And I was retained by the State of Hawaii 21 then to advise them on this because of my experience doing 22 the same work with the Palestinians. I advised them on 23 the creation of their state and the peace talks with 24 Israel based on a two-state solution, and the Palestinian 25 state today has diplomatic recognition now by about 125 KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 70 1 states, and currently has de facto UN membership, and I 2 did the legal work on that, so the State of Hawaii 3 retained me to come out and advise on the establishment of 4 an independent nations state, and the State of Hawaii paid 5 my expenses and a modest fee for this work, yes. 6 Q. Moving on to the Nonproliferation Treaty, you testified 7 about Article I. Do you recall that? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. And as I understood your testimony, your view is that the 10 fuel rods at issue in the Parallex Project, in your view, 11 should be treated as components of a nuclear weapon; is 12 that right? Explosive device? 13 A. No. What I said was weapons grade plutonium should be 14 treated as a component of either a nuclear weapon or a 15 nuclear explosive device. 16 Q. What about -- I mean, the Parallex test involves shipment 17 and then irradiation of fuel rods; is that correct? 18 A. Right. 19 Q. And is it your view or is it not your view that those fuel 20 rods constitute components of nuclear weapons or explosive 21 devices? 22 A. My viewpoint is what I said, that weapons grade plutonium 23 is a component of a nuclear weapon or nuclear explosive 24 device. 25 Q. You didn't answer my question. Do you understand the KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 71 1 question? 2 A. Well, I've given my answer. 3 THE COURT: No, you haven't answered his 4 question. He asked you question, if you don't know the 5 answer, say so. He asked you a very specific question 6 about rods. 7 BY MR. DODGE: 8 Q. In fact, the question has to do with your view, if you 9 have one, whether the fuel rods at issue in the Parallex 10 test program constitute components of nuclear weapons or 11 explosive devices. 12 A. If they contain weapons grade plutonium, they would be or 13 could be components of nuclear weapons or nuclear 14 explosive devices. 15 Q. Well, these fuel rods do contain plutonium; is that right? 16 A. As I understand it, it's in there, yep. 17 Q. So in your view, does that make the fuel rods components 18 of nuclear weapons or explosive devices? 19 A. Again, my testimony is that the weapons grade plutonium 20 clearly is either nuclear -- is a component of a nuclear 21 weapon or a nuclear explosive device, and the reason I 22 give that testimony is based on my reading of the 23 Congressional legislation, Congress has taken the position 24 that weapons grade plutonium or plutonium, in general, is 25 a component of a nuclear weapon or nuclear explosive KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 72 1 device. Congress does not deal with the fuel rods, they 2 dealt with the plutonium. 3 Q. I want to make sure I understand your testimony clearly. 4 Is it your testimony, is it your view that any 5 plutonium would qualify as a component of a nuclear 6 weapons or nuclear weapon or explosive device under the 7 treaty? 8 A. My testimony today is the weapons grade plutonium involved 9 in this project is a component of a nuclear weapons or 10 other nuclear explosive device. I believe weapons grade 11 plutonium is what is involved in this project. 12 Q. I asked you a different question. The question was a 13 broader one. Is it your view or not your view that all 14 plutonium would qualify as a component of a nuclear weapon 15 or explosive device under Article I? 16 A. It appears Congress has taken that position, yes, and they 17 have stringently regulated plutonium in all forms. And I 18 also note that the United States Government has exploded a 19 nuclear weapon -- 20 THE COURT: The question is: Is it your 21 opinion? He is asking four or five times now, could you 22 answer that? 23 THE WITNESS: But Your Honor, my opinion is 24 based on -- 25 THE COURT: In courts -- I know you are a KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 73 1 professor -- we answer the questions of the lawyer, not 2 what we want to talk about. He asked you seven or eight 3 questions, none of which you've answered. I would ask you 4 simply listen to the lawyer's question and answer it. 5 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honor. 6 BY MR. DODGE: 7 Q. Do you understand the question? 8 THE COURT: Ask it again for the fifteenth time, 9 ask it again. 10 BY MR. DODGE: 11 Q. Is it your view that all plutonium constitutes a component 12 of nuclear weapon or explosive device under Article I of 13 the treaty? 14 A. It can. 15 Q. It can? 16 A. Yes. Yes. 17 Q. Is it your view across the board that plutonium, whether 18 weapons grade or not, if it's present in a fuel rod for 19 a-- destined for a civilian nuclear reactor would qualify 20 as a component of a nuclear weapon explosive device? 21 A. It could. 22 Q. Do you know whether as a general matter the signatories of 23 the Nonproliferation Treaty have interpreted, whether any 24 signatory has interpreted Article I to ban transport of 25 fuel rods containing plutonium? KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 74 1 A. Congress has strictly regulated plutonium, yes, and there 2 is legislation on the books saying "We, Congress, 3 interpreting our obligations under the NPT, are against 4 international transport of plutonium," yes. 5 Q. Has Congress passed any legislation prohibiting the 6 transport of nuclear fuel rods containing any plutonium? 7 A. In what I have reviewed for my testimony here today, I 8 have not seen in the '78, '94 or '98 Act that Congress has 9 prohibited transport of fuel rods. 10 Q. In fact, fuel rods are transported across national 11 boundaries all the time; is that not correct? 12 A. They are transported. 13 Q. In fact, fuel rods containing plutonium are transported 14 across national boundaries all the time, isn't that 15 correct? 16 A. If they are subject to-- they are supposed to be subject 17 to safeguards, yes. 18 Q. Well, that gets us to another point of your earlier 19 testimony regarding whether the fuel rods particularly at 20 issue in the Parallex Project are or are not subject to 21 IA/EA safeguards in Canada. Do you recall that testimony? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. Do you have personal knowledge whether Canada, the 24 Government of Canada has taken a position on whether the 25 U.S. Parallex fuel rods, which are now in Canada, whether KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 75 1 those fuel rods are now subject to IA/EA safeguards? 2 A. I have not seen any evidence because of the recentness of 3 the movement of the shipments. 4 Q. If I told you that the position of the Government of 5 Canada is that those fuel rods are, in fact, subject to 6 IA/EA safeguards, would you have any basis to quarrel with 7 that? 8 A. The statement by Ms. Locatelli does call into question the 9 validity of these assertions, yes. 10 Q. Miss Locatelli was generally speaking of Parallex fuel 11 rods, was she? 12 A. Speaking about plutonium in general, right. 13 Q. I take it you didn't speak personally to Miss Locatelli? 14 A. No, I did not. 15 Q. About this or any-- 16 A. But I did speak with Mr. Clemens of NCI by e-mail and he 17 has similar concerns to me. 18 Q. Okay. And did you speak to the newspaper reporter, Martin 19 Mittelstaedt, who quoted Ms. Locatelli? 20 A. No, I did not. 21 Q. Whether his quotes accurately reflect what she said or not 22 is not something you would be qualified to testify about; 23 is that right? 24 A. Well, I note The Globe and Mail is a newspaper of public 25 record and I would be able to rely on that in the World KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 76 1 Court for sure, yep. 2 Q. But newspaper reporters are human beings? 3 A. Newspaper reporters make mistakes, sure. But again, the 4 World Court, for example, the nuclear test cases did rely 5 on statements made by Government officials as normally 6 reported in reputable news media sources. They have 7 different standards of evidence, the World Court, than 8 they do here in United States District Court. 9 Q. Now you've also relied on this article, Plaintiff's 10 Exhibit 5, I guess too, in support of your opinion that 11 Canada is in possession of 40 kilograms or up to 40 12 kilograms of plutonium; is that right? 13 A. This is a statement by Mr. Clemens, and I have had e-mail 14 correspondence with him about it. 15 Q. Do you have any personal knowledge whether -- 16 A. No. 17 Q. I'm sorry, I didn't finish my question. 18 A. I did answer your question. 19 THE COURT: He hasn't finished asking it; you 20 couldn't possibly answer his question when he hasn't 21 finished asking it. 22 THE WITNESS: Sorry. 23 BY MR. DODGE: 24 Q. Do you have any personal knowledge of whether Canada, in 25 fact, has 40 kilograms of plutonium? KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 77 1 A. I do not have personal knowledge, no. I'm relying on the 2 statement by Mr. Clemens. 3 Q. Mr. Clemens, does Mr. Clemens have personal knowledge 4 whether Canada has 40-- 5 A. As I understand, Mr. Clemens does. From my e-mail 6 correspondence with him, he does. 7 Q. Has he seen that plutonium? 8 A. Pardon me? 9 Q. Has he seen it? 10 A. He didn't tell me what his sources of evidence are, but he 11 did tell me that they will be making it public soon. 12 Q. So he thinks he has -- he thinks he has evidence to 13 support that conclusion and whether that evidence holds 14 any water or not, we really can't tell, can we? 15 A. Well, again, as an expert, if the NCI is making the 16 statements, I think they are significant and they need to 17 be dealt with, and certainly by the Department of Energy. 18 THE COURT: That was not -- excuse me, that was 19 not his question. 20 Would you repeat your question, please? 21 BY MR. DODGE: 22 Q. The question is: Mr. Clemens believes he has reason or he 23 has evidence to support his conclusion that Canada has 40 24 kilograms of plutonium, but as far as anybody in this 25 courtroom knows, that evidence may or may not hold water, KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 78 1 we just don't know, correct? 2 A. I'm not evaluating the evidence, and Mr. Clemens said the 3 evidence will be produced, so at that point I will review 4 the evidence and formulate a formal opinion. 5 THE COURT: Do you want to ask it again or just 6 want to give up? 7 MR. DODGE: I think that -- I think the point is 8 established to the extent I need to, Your Honor. 9 BY MR. DODGE: 10 Q. Now, you testified earlier that it's up to the State 11 Department, not the Department of Energy to interpret 12 United States treaty obligations; is that right? 13 A. I testified that it is the State Department that is in 14 charge of nuclear proliferation policies, that's what I 15 testified, and not the Department of Energy, yes. 16 Q. Okay. Is it your view that it's -- maybe I misunderstood 17 what you testified earlier. I thought I heard you say 18 that interpreting whether or not the U.S. is complying 19 with Nonproliferation Treaty in particular, that pertinent 20 authority on that would be the State Department, not the 21 Department of Energy; is that a fair statement? 22 A. I've also testified that the State Department has the lead 23 role in the United States Government with respect to 24 interpretation of treatises as well. 25 Q. Do you know what the State Department's position is on KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 79 1 whether the Parallex test program is or is not compliant 2 with Article I of the Nonproliferation Treaty? 3 A. Well, that's why I read the Environmental Assessment, to 4 see if you had talked to the State Department here, and 5 they hadn't, so I have not seen any statement by the State 6 Department as to what their position is, no. 7 Q. The Environmental Assessment is not the only document 8 that's been generated in the course of the Parallex 9 Project, you understand that? 10 A. That is correct, and I have read a good deal of the 11 documentation, but I still have not seen an expression by 12 the Department of State on this issue. 13 Q. Okay. Do you know whether or not the State Department was 14 involved at any level in the Parallex Project? 15 A. There probably were discussions somewhere in there. 16 Q. Do you know? 17 A. Myself personally? 18 Q. Yes. 19 A. I don't know for sure. 20 Q. Do you know one way or the other whether the State 21 Department has a view on whether the Parallex Project is 22 consistent with our treaty obligations under Article I of 23 the NPT? 24 A. I have not seen any expression by the State Department on 25 this issue. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 80 1 Q. If I told you the State Department has taken the view that 2 the Parallex Project is entirely consistent with our 3 obligations under Article I, would you have any basis to 4 quarrel with that? 5 A. I haven't seen it. 6 MR. LODGE: Objection, Your Honor. 7 THE COURT: If he hasn't seen -- 8 MR. DODGE: Withdraw the question, Your Honor. 9 THE WITNESS: I would like to see it and 10 evaluate it myself, sure. 11 BY MR. DODGE: 12 Q. You also testified about dangers of nuclear proliferation 13 relating to countries such as Taiwan and Korea that are 14 not currently nuclear weapons states, but would like to 15 acquire nuclear weapons, do you recall that testimony? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. Is it correct that the MOX program, the Parallex Program 18 does not contemplate the shipment of any fuel rods to any 19 country other than Canada? 20 A. Not at this stage, but eventually it does appear there 21 will be mass circulation of this material, yes, down the 22 line. 23 Q. And the basis for that is what exactly? 24 A. The quantities. If the test works out, the quantity we 25 are talking about coming from Russia. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 81 1 Q. Well, let me be more specific about this. Has the United 2 States, any spokesperson for the United States Government 3 proposed in connection with the Parallex Project to send 4 fuel rods to any country other than Canada? 5 A. The United States? 6 Q. Right. 7 A. No. 8 Q. Has the Government of Russia proposed, in connection with 9 the Parallex Project, to send fuel rods to any country 10 other than Canada? 11 A. Well, they are talking about massive quantities of weapons 12 grade plutonium being circulated into this program and the 13 independent team of experts by Russia and the United 14 States have made that quite clear they are talking tons of 15 this stuff. 16 Q. Well, again, you didn't answer my question there, 17 Professor. I asked you whether the Russian Government has 18 proposed sending fuel rods to any country other than 19 Canada. Your answer only dealt with volumes, it didn't 20 address where. That was my question. 21 A. Right. There might have been discussions on Germany or 22 some of the European states have there -- there have been 23 discussions and proposals, but it's just at that stage 24 now, yes. 25 Q. But Russia has not, to your knowledge, proposed sending KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 82 1 fuel rods to Korea? 2 A. There is an international market here, sure, it could be 3 sold anywhere. 4 THE COURT: No, he didn't say could have. He 5 said: Did they propose it? 6 THE WITNESS: I have not read that right now 7 Russia is proposing sending this to Korea. 8 BY MR. DODGE: 9 Q. Same question with Taiwan. 10 A. I have not read that Russia is proposing to send this to 11 Taiwan. 12 MR. DODGE: No further questions at this time, 13 Your Honor. 14 THE COURT: We will take a 15-minute recess. 15 COURT CLERK: All rise. 16 This court is in recess. 17 (At 10:54 a.m., recess.) 18 THE COURT: Okay. What is next? 19 MR. LOVE: Brief redirect, Your Honor. 20 REDIRECT EXAMINATION 21 BY MR. LOVE: 22 Q. Professor Boyle, did you receive any recognition or 23 rewards from Bosnia for your efforts on their behalf? 24 A. While I was never paid a penny, but President Izetbegovic 25 and Vice President Gonich (phonetic) held a ceremony at KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 83 1 the Bosnian presidency with a-- awarded me full-fledged 2 citizenship in the Republic, a diplomatic passport and 3 visa and a declaration and they put the ceremony on 4 television, so that was very nice. So technically I'm a 5 Bosnian citizen too. 6 Q. Dr. Boyle, with respect to your work on the Hawaiian 7 independence that Mr. Dodge asked you about, has there 8 been any action by the President or Congress, to your 9 knowledge, with respect to that? 10 A. Yes. In 1993 Congress passed a statute signed into law by 11 President Clinton formally apologizing to the native 12 Hawaiian people for destroying their kingdom and stealing 13 their land. The legislation at the end provides for a 14 process of reconciliation and reparations, and how this is 15 going to be dealt with, and I'm still currently involved 16 in those matters. 17 Q. Dr. Boyle, there should be a document up there marked 18 Plaintiff's Exhibit 13. Do you see that? 19 A. Yes, I have it here. 20 Q. Now, this is entitled a Nonproliferation Arms Control 21 Assessment of Weapons Usable Fissile Material Storage and 22 Excess Plutonium Disposition Alternatives, dated January, 23 1997 authored by the United States Department of Energy, 24 correct? 25 A. Yes. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 84 1 Q. Was this among the documents that you reviewed in 2 preparing your testimony? 3 A. I did not have -- I did not get this entire document until 4 Monday, so I did not have a chance to review the entire 5 document, but I have reviewed the excerpts you gave to 6 me. 7 Q. Now Mr. Dodge asked you-- for the record, Your Honor, the 8 excerpt only contains Pages 106 and 107-- Mr. Dodge asked 9 you about your testimony about the possibility of future 10 shipments of MOX to Taiwan and Korea. Do you remember him 11 asking you about that? 12 A. Yes. 13 THE COURT: He didn't ask what the possibility 14 is, he asked if there were plans by Russia or the United 15 States to ship to those two nations. That was the 16 question. 17 MR. LOVE: Okay. 18 THE COURT: And the answer was no. Not are 19 there possibilities. I know the witness thinks there are 20 possibilities, that won't help me any. I understand 21 that. 22 BY MR. LOVE: 23 Q. In fact, Dr. Boyle is it true that in this document the 24 DOE indicates there are possibilities such as you 25 testified about? KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 85 1 A. Yes. 2 THE COURT: I accept that. You are wasting my 3 time. There are possibilities. 4 BY MR. LOVE: 5 Q. Dr. Boyle, if you would, I direct your attention to the 6 large document that's in front of you. This is 7 Proliferation Venerability Red Team Report, Plaintiff's 8 Exhibit 28, and introduced in the prior hearing. 9 A. Yes, and I read this entire report prior to my testimony 10 here today. 11 Q. I'm going to ask you, if you would, to direct your 12 attention to Page 6-1, the conclusions to that report. 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. And again, this is a document that was produced by Sandia 15 Laboratories for the Department of Energy? 16 A. That is correct. 17 Q. Directing your attention to the first conclusion, under 18 the conclusion, keeping plutonium inaccessible is the key 19 to proliferation resistance, do you see that? 20 A. Yes. It says quite clearly, all plutonium from all stages 21 of all alternatives can be made weapons usable should 22 sufficient material be successfully removed. And I should 23 point out that is the position Congress takes under the 24 Nuclear Nonproliferation Act of '78, the Act of '94 and 25 the '98, all plutonium can be made weapons usable. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 86 1 Q. In your view, is that conclusion by the Sandia Lab in this 2 Red Team Report consistent with your testimony? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. Now, Mr. Dodge asked you if there was transport of 5 plutonium across boundaries all the time. My notes 6 reflected you said yes. Do you remember that testimony? 7 A. I said there was some, yes. 8 Q. Is there routinely transportation of weapons grade 9 plutonium shipped across boundaries all the time by the 10 United States? 11 A. No. No. 12 MR. LOVE: No further questions. 13 MR. DODGE: No recross, Your Honor. 14 THE COURT: You may step down. 15 THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honor. 16 Your Honor, did you have any questions? 17 THE COURT: No, I don't. 18 THE WITNESS: Thank you. 19 THE COURT: You've exceeded your time so I take 20 it you have no more witnesses. 21 MR. LOVE: Your Honor, I have no more witnesses 22 but at this time I would like to move our Exhibit 5, 23 Exhibit 7, Exhibit 11, Exhibit 12, Exhibit 13, Exhibit 14 24 and Plaintiff's Exhibit 2 and Exhibit 1 into evidence. 25 MR. DODGE: No objection, Your Honor. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 87 1 THE COURT: 5, 7, 11, 12, 13 and 14, 1 and 2 are 2 received. 3 MR. LOVE: Thank you, Your Honor. We have 4 nothing further. 5 THE WITNESS: Here are the exhibits. Where do 6 you want them? 7 MR. LOVE: I'll take them here. 8 (Hearing continued; reported, not requested 9 transcribed.) 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 88 1 2 3 4 5 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE 6 7 I, Kathleen S. Thomas, Official Court Reporter for the 8 United States District Court for the Western District of 9 Michigan, appointed pursuant to the provisions of Title 28, 10 United States Code, Section 753, do hereby certify that the 11 foregoing is a true and correct transcript of proceedings had 12 in the within-entitled and numbered cause on the date 13 hereinbefore set forth; and I do further certify that the 14 foregoing transcript has been prepared by me or under my 15 direction. 16 17 18 19 20 __________________________________ 21 Kathleen S. Thomas, CSR, RPR-1300 22 U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue 23 Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 24 25 KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (voice) 217-244-1478 (fax) fboyle at law.uiuc.edu (personal comments only) Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Brussel, Morton K Sent: Monday, November 06, 2017 7:56 PM To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: David Green >; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; Estabrook, Carl G > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] FW: MOX for Bombs in Japan I think this is wrong. MOX fuel is mainly used for fuel in nuclear power reactors, not to make bombs. Japan had/has many nuclear reactors. A fairly intelligible discussion is found in wikipedia, under "MOX nuclear”. —mkb On Nov 6, 2017, at 4:40 PM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss > wrote: This was a very lengthy interview I gave in Japan courtesy of their peace and anti-nuclear movement. It was heavily censored. My basic point was that Japan was using MOX to make bombs and that my best estimate was that Japan probably had as many bombs as PRC, which would be in the area of 500. So when the details of the disaster at Fukushima came out, it was clear to me it was one of their leading bomb complexes. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: globenet at yahoogroups.com [mailto:globenet at yahoogroups.com] Sent: Saturday, March 21, 2015 8:10 AM To: globenet at yahoogroups.com Cc: 'Hiroshi Taka'; 'Gensuikyo'; 'Akira Kawasaki'; oheyeran at yahoogroups.com; asia-pacific_demil_mdg-request at lists.riseup.net; 'Coleen Rowley'; 'Douglas Roche' Subject: [globenet] MOX for Bombs in Japan Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (Voice) 217-244-1478 (Fax) (personal comments only) __._,_.___ ________________________________ Posted by: "Boyle, Francis A" > ________________________________ Reply via web post • Reply to sender • Reply to group • Start a New Topic • Messages in this topic (1) VISIT YOUR GROUP [Yahoo! Groups] • Privacy • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use . __,_._,___ _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Tue Nov 7 03:39:26 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2017 03:39:26 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: MOX for Bombs in Japan References: <5B253921-B91A-4A46-B18B-A94C48E12123@illinois.edu> Message-ID: And by the way, the reason Japanese Peace Movement had me interviewed is because they know full well that their MOX Stockpile is used for weapons purposes. fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Monday, November 06, 2017 9:30 PM To: Brussel, Morton K Cc: David Green ; C. G. ESTABROOK ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay ; David Johnson ; Mildred O'brien ; Estabrook, Carl G Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] FW: MOX for Bombs in Japan If you are not going to take the time to read these two Testimonies under oath and subject to cross-examination by the Feds of two Experts on MOX in United States Federal District, then you should stop impugning my integrity in favor of Wikipedia—pure guttersnipe! fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Brussel, Morton K Sent: Monday, November 06, 2017 9:13 PM To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: David Green >; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; Estabrook, Carl G > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] FW: MOX for Bombs in Japan I don’t know who qualified you as an expert of nuclear reactors and the nature of their fuels, nuclear physics or nuclear chemistry. Your statements belie that qualification. I hope you don’t expect me, or anyone on this list, to read the transcript you presented, but I did scan it and noted nothing in technical detail there about the properties and use of MOX, certainly not for bombs. Sorry, —mkb On Nov 6, 2017, at 8:38 PM, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: Well I have been qualified as an Expert on MOX in United States Federal District Court. And I prohibit my law students from citing Wikipedia to me in any paper and advise them to never cite or quote Wikipedia to a Judge because Wikipedia is filled with so much pure, unadulterated BULL-TWADDLE. Fab. Subject: Nuclear Proliferation/NPT/US Atomic Energy Law/MOX, etc. 1 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 3 SOUTHERN DIVISION 4 5 ALICE HIRT; ANABEL DWYER; CITIZENS FOR ALTERNATIVES 6 TO CHEMICAL CONTAMINATION; KATHRYN CUMBOW; ROBERT 7 ANDERSON; DORIS SCHALLER VERNON; and TERRY MILLER, 8 Plaintiffs, 9 v. CASE NO: 1:99-CV-933 10 BILL RICHARDSON, Secretary, 11 United States Department of Energy; UNITED STATES 12 OF AMERICA; and UNKNOWN PART(Y)(IES), named as 13 "John and Jane Doe" on complaint, 14 Defendants. 15 ____________________________/ 16 * * * * 17 18 TESTIMONY OF GORDON EDWARDS and FRANCIS BOYLE 19 * * * * 20 21 BEFORE: THE HONORABLE RICHARD ALAN ENSLEN United States District Judge 22 Kalamazoo, Michigan April 7, 2000 23 24 25 KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 2 1 APPEARANCES: 2 APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFFS: 3 MR. KARY LOVE 4 977 Butternut Drive PMB 128 5 Holland, Michigan 49424 6 MR. TERRY J. LODGE 316 North Michigan Street, Suite 520 7 Toledo, Ohio 43624-1627 8 APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANTS: 9 MR. ROBERT I. DODGE 10 MR. CHARLES GROSS U.S. Attorney's Office 11 330 Ionia Avenue, N.W., Suite 501 P.O. Box 208 12 Grand Rapids, Michigan 49501-208 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 3 1 INDEX 2 WITNESS: Page 3 GORDON EDWARDS Direct Examination by Mr. Lodge 4 4 Cross Examination by Mr. Dodge 17 Redirect Examination by Mr. Lodge 20 5 6 FRANCIS BOYLE 7 Direct Examination by Mr. Love 21 Cross Examination by Mr. Dodge 67 8 Redirect Examination by Mr. Love 82 9 10 EXHIBITS Rec'd. 11 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 1 87 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 2 87 12 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 3 31 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 5 87 13 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 6 87 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 11 87 14 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 12 87 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 13 87 15 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 14 87 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 4 1 Kalamazoo, Michigan 2 April 7, 2000 3 at approximately 8:50 A.M. 4 EXCERPT OF PROCEEDINGS 5 TESTIMONY OF GORDON EDWARDS 6 MR. LODGE: We waive opening. 7 THE COURT: Okay. Good for you. 8 MR. LODGE: And we would call Gordon Edwards. 9 GORDON EDWARDS - PLAINTIFFS' WITNESS - SWORN. 10 COURT CLERK: Please state and spell your name 11 for the record. 12 THE WITNESS: My name is Gordon Edwards, 13 G-o-r-d-o-n E-d-w-a-r-d-s. 14 DIRECT EXAMINATION 15 BY MR. LODGE: 16 Q. Dr. Edwards, you previously testified in this proceeding 17 in an earlier motion hearing in December, 1999, correct? 18 A. That is correct. 19 Q. And what, just summarize for the Court, to refresh the 20 Court's recollection, what is your occupation or 21 profession? 22 A. I'm a professor of mathematics at Vanier College in 23 Montreal, and I'm also a consultant on nuclear issues for 24 both governmental and nongovernmental agencies. 25 Q. Are you affiliated with any nongovernmental entity in KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 5 1 Canada regarding the purpose of which is to discuss 2 nuclear issues? 3 A. Yes, I'm the president of the Canadian Coalition for 4 Nuclear Responsibility, which is a federally incorporated 5 organization, since 1978. 6 Q. And how long and in what capacities have you served as a 7 consultant on nuclear issues? 8 A. I've served as a consultant since 1977 for a variety of 9 bodies, including Royal Commissions of Inquiry where I 10 have been retained to cross-examine expert witnesses, also 11 the auditor general of Canada when they were doing a 12 comprehensive audit of the Atomic Energy Control Board, 13 and most recently I was invited for January 2000 by the 14 Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs and International 15 Trade to participate in a small expert workshop on nuclear 16 weapons policies in Ottawa. 17 Q. And Dr. Edwards, have you had the occasion to read the 18 environmental assessment promulgated by the Fissile 19 Materials Office of the U.S. Department of Energy for the 20 Parallex Project? 21 A. Yes, I have, and have commented on that as well. 22 Q. We are here today on a proposed shipment of MOX plutonium 23 from Russia to Chalk River, Ontario, you understand that? 24 A. That is correct. 25 Q. What is your understanding as to the amount of the KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 6 1 plutonium content of the MOX fuel rods, pins that would be 2 brought from Russia? 3 A. The MOX fuel contains 135 grams of weapons grade plutonium 4 as compared with the 119 grams that were in the American 5 shipment that proceeded in January. 6 Q. Now, Dr. Edwards, you indicated that the Canadian 7 Coalition was incorporated in approximately 1978? 8 A. That's right. 9 Q. Have you been active in nuclear issues since that time? 10 A. Even before that time, yes. I have been active 11 specifically on proliferation questions and 12 plutonium-related questions since 1975. 13 MR. LODGE: If I may approach. 14 THE COURT: Of course. 15 BY MR. LODGE: 16 Q. Showing you what has been marked for purposes of the 17 supplemental motion hearing as Plaintiff's Exhibit 1, I'm 18 going to also leave Exhibit 2 up here. 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. Have you ever conducted any investigation into the issue 21 of civilian population or work exposures to plutonium? 22 A. Only at the level of potential for damage, potential for 23 harm. 24 Q. What is Exhibit 1? 25 A. Exhibit 1 is a letter from Mary Measures, Ph.D., Director KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 7 1 of the Radiation Environmental Protection Division of the 2 Atomic Energy Control Board of Canada dealing with 3 quantity of plutonium that an atomic radiation worker or a 4 member of the public may inhale to reach their respective 5 maximum limits. 6 Q. And the date of that is September 30, 1999? 7 A. That is correct, about six months ago. 8 Q. And could you summarize what the inhalation, or what the 9 limits are for both workers and for public? 10 A. Yes. The maximum lifetime limit of exposure in the lung 11 for an atomic worker is approximately 1.4 micrograms, and 12 for the member of the public it's 0.1 microgram, and a 13 microgram being one one-millionth of a gram, so if we 14 translate this into grams, it would mean 1.4 grams would 15 be equivalent-- would be enough to give maximum 16 permissible doses to one million workers and ten -- one 17 gram would be enough to give maximum permissible doses to 18 ten million members of the general public. That's just 19 potential. 20 Q. Okay. And is that based on the -- or, I'm sorry. Have 21 you had occasion in connection with the proposed Russian 22 shipment of a 135 grams of plutonium and the American 23 shipment of 119 grams, to perform any computations as to 24 what the potential dispersion or exposure is? 25 A. Well, I would like to emphasize this is just arithmetic KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 8 1 and does not take into account dispersion factors such as 2 wind velocity, any respiration rates, and so on. If we 3 just look at the theoretical potential, then with 119 4 grams, we are talking about the potential for 85 million 5 atomic workers to receive their maximum permissible 6 exposure, if that were able to be disseminated into all of 7 their lungs and 1,000,190,000 members of the general 8 public, so even though this is a very small amount of 9 plutonium, the potential for exposure, harmful exposure is 10 quite significant. 11 Q. All right. But so that implies you would have to have an 12 optimal dispersal? 13 A. This would be an impossibly optimal dispersal. This would 14 be assuming that the plutonium were distributed fully into 15 the lungs of all the people that I've mentioned. 16 Q. Are you aware of whether or not the American shipment was 17 delivered to Chalk River? 18 A. Yes, the American shipment was delivered to Chalk River. 19 It was taken to the border in what I believe was an SST, a 20 truck which was described as silver, and I believe it was 21 probably an SST, although I do not know for absolute 22 certainty about that, and then it was transported to the 23 Sault Ste. Marie airport where it was lifted by helicopter 24 accompanied by two other helicopters, and transported from 25 there to Chalk River. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 9 1 Q. You indicated that you were talking about an impossibly 2 optimal dispersal. Have you had the occasion to perform 3 any computations as to a very conservative prudent factor 4 to start with for dispersal? 5 A. Well, this is beyond my competence to really talk about 6 the details of how it might be dispersed, but if we just 7 assume for example 99.9 percent containment in the event 8 of a serious accident. 9 Q. Are you saying how much? 10 A. Suppose 99.9 percent of the material were successfully 11 contained and not disseminated in the environment and only 12 that small fraction was disseminated. 13 Q. Okay. 14 A. The potential again would correspond to, for atomic 15 workers in the case of the 119 gram shipment from the 16 States, it would be 85,000 maximum exposures and in the 17 case of the public, it would still over a million. Even 18 with 99.9 containment, in the event of an accident, you 19 still have the potential for over a million 20 overexposures. By the way, the 135 grams, the difference 21 between the 119 grams and the 135 grams from Russia 22 corresponds to potentially again 160,000 additional 23 maximum exposures for members of the public. 24 Q. How many for workers? 25 A. 11,428. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 10 1 Q. That's just -- 2 A. That's just the differential between the two shipments, 3 just the added, going from 119 to 135 adds the potential 4 for another 11,000 worker overexposures or 160,000 public 5 overexposures. This, I believe, is why authorities take 6 such great care to emphasize the packaging in transport. 7 They realize that the potential is great for damage. 8 Q. Do your computations reflect an assumption respecting 9 whether or not the dispersion occurs as a result of an 10 accident or an attack? 11 A. No, we are talking about theoretical potential which is 12 the same regardless of how much or whether the material is 13 dispersed. In an accident, for example, we have 14 previously seen accidents that were analyzed for ground 15 transportation. I have not seen any computations or 16 analysis of accidents for air transport either from the 17 American side or from the Canadian side. 18 Q. Are you talking with respect to Parallex? 19 A. I'm talking with respect to Parallex. 20 If you had, for example, a violent crash and 21 fire of an aircraft, including a helicopter, then the 22 dispersal would cause a plume downwind, could cause a 23 plume downwind, and how much of that plutonium would 24 escape would be subject to analysis which is not, to my 25 knowledge, been performed. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 11 1 Q. Dr. Edwards, do you consider the plutonium in MOX fuel 2 form to be a weapons component? 3 A. Well, in the case of the Parallex project, as you know, 4 this 119 grams or 135 grams, there is not enough there to 5 make an atomic bomb. However, it has long been known that 6 you can make a very damaging radiological explosive device 7 which would simply disperse the plutonium in breathable 8 form. That means that if the plutonium were acquired by a 9 criminal organization or terrorist group they could make 10 an incendiary device which would make this available to be 11 breathed by members of the public and also cause very 12 long-lasting contamination of the environs where this 13 exposure would take place. I believe that it would be 14 incorrect to say that these, even this small Parallex 15 shipment, would not be attractive to terrorists or to 16 criminal organizations as a top -- as a target for theft 17 or diversion. It is true, of course, that this is weapons 18 grade material and had one, if one had sufficient weapons 19 grade material, one indeed can make a very powerful atomic 20 bomb from that. 21 Q. Have you seen any literature or other information in or 22 out of the record of this case that discusses the weapons 23 potential for plutonium? 24 A. Well, yes, it's certainly common knowledge that the -- in 25 fact, the U.S. Department of Energy acknowledges as much KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 12 1 when they refer to the Russian plutonium, the Russian 2 weapons grade plutonium is continuing a clear and present 3 danger. It's long been known and recognized that 4 plutonium is the key ingredient of atomic weapons, so if 5 one talks about components of atomic weapons, the 6 plutonium is the essential component. Once you have the 7 plutonium, then you can acquire the other materials on the 8 open market that are necessary to build a bomb. 9 Q. How do you know that? 10 A. Well, it's been well known for a long time. For instance, 11 there was a study done, published in the Harvard Civil 12 Rights and Civil Liberties Law Review -- I could make that 13 available to the Court, if you would like -- in 1975 as 14 long ago as then, which says, "Since all the material 15 other than plutonium needed to build a bomb is available 16 from commercial hardware and chemical suppliers, the 17 present obstacle to the private construction of nuclear 18 weapons is the unavailability of plutonium." 19 But if we just turn to the study that was 20 commissioned and already on file, I believe, here at the 21 Court, a study that was commissioned by the Office of 22 Fissile Materials Management called the Red Team Report, 23 the Red Team Proliferation Vulnerability Report. 24 In their conclusions on Page 6-1, they have a 25 heading called Keeping Plutonium Inaccessible is the Key KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 13 1 to Proliferation Resistance. So what is basically being 2 said here is plutonium is not just a component but the key 3 component of atomic bombs particularly in the context of 4 illicit groups. 5 Q. Dr. Edwards, could you explain for us Canada's role in the 6 reprocessing of plutonium? 7 A. Well, Canada's role in plutonium goes back to the World 8 War II Atomic Bomb Project. We had a secret laboratory in 9 Montreal which was manned by British, French and Canadian 10 scientists dedicated to developing methods for producing 11 and separating plutonium for weapons purposes as well as 12 civilian purposes, because even then it was anticipated 13 plutonium would have some civilian value. At the end of 14 the war -- incidentally, the first reactor in Canada was 15 built according to a military decision taken in 16 Washington, D.C. in 1944, to demonstrate this potential. 17 The reactor called the NRX reactor was built at 18 Chalk River and a plutonium reprocessing plant was built 19 as well. Plutonium was separated and Britain received its 20 first sample of weapons grade plutonium from Canada from 21 Chalk River just months before their first atomic test. 22 There was also an illicit transfer of plutonium 23 from Chalk River to Russia, which was so the first samples 24 of plutonium that both Britain and Russia received were 25 from Chalk River. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 14 1 Since that time, Canada, of course, has taken a 2 policy decision not to pursue a nuclear weapons option 3 itself, but they have, however, looked favorably on the 4 idea of reprocessing plutonium for civilian purposes. 5 They do not have a policy which is against the 6 reprocessing of plutonium in principle and nor do they 7 discourage their clients, their customers overseas from 8 reprocessing plutonium. And in fact, in Canada, there is 9 an open door policy towards reprocessing as a future 10 option. 11 We just concluded recently a ten-year 12 environmental assessment of the problem of high-level 13 radioactive waste disposal, and in all of the documents it 14 begins by saying, in the very first paragraphs, that by 15 nuclear waste disposal, we mean either spent fuel or 16 post-reprocessing waste. So this is very much a 17 theoretical opening and a policy opening for Canada to use 18 plutonium as a fuel. 19 Q. Showing you what has been marked as Supplemental Motion 20 Exhibit 2, can you identify that for the Court, please? 21 A. Yes. This appears to be an exchange from the British 22 Parliament, questions and answers having to do with 23 nuclear fuel, and the Secretary of State for Trade and 24 Industry is being asked about quantities of spent fuel 25 from Canada that have been contracted for reprocessing at KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 15 1 Cello Field in England. 2 Q. And can you summarize your understanding of what the 3 response by the British Government was? 4 A. Yes. The response here is that a certain amount of 5 plutonium, a certain amount of spent fuel from Canada has 6 been reprocessed beginning in 1970, and that the plutonium 7 has been returned to Canada. I have personal knowledge of 8 the fact that at Chalk River they have maintained a pilot 9 plutonium fuel fabrication line since the 1970s, since 10 1970 and before, and that they have processed at Chalk 11 River approximately three tons, more than three tons of 12 MOX fuel from recycled civilian plutonium. This is part 13 of that, the plutonium that is here being referred to as 14 being recycled or reprocessed in Britain, that's part of 15 the total amount of plutonium that Canada has acquired for 16 the purposes of MOX fabrication. 17 I mentioned that Canada also does not discourage 18 client customers from reprocessing. This is in 19 distinction to the American policy. The American policy, 20 since the Carter administration, successive 21 administrations have maintained the policy of not only not 22 allowing reprocessing in the United States, but also 23 discouraging reprocessing in other countries insofar as 24 that is possible. Canada does not share this policy 25 completely. We do not reprocess in Canada but, on the KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 16 1 other hand, we don't hesitate, it seems, to send our spent 2 fuel to other countries to get reprocessed so that we can 3 develop expertise in plutonium recycling. 4 Q. Does Canada have any relationship with the nation of Japan 5 respecting nuclear material? 6 A. Yes. Canada, as is probably known to the Court, is the 7 world's largest exporter of uranium. We are one of the 8 world's largest producers of uranium and the world's 9 largest exporter of uranium. We have bilateral agreements 10 with our customers as to the use of that uranium. Of 11 course, we have requirements that that uranium not be used 12 for military purposes. If a client customer such as Japan 13 who buys a good deal -- Japan purchases a good deal of 14 uranium from Canada. If a client customer wishes to 15 reprocess their spent fuel to recover plutonium, they do 16 have to get prior permission from the Government of 17 Canada, so when plutonium is reprocessed for the Japanese, 18 in the case where uranium from Canada is involved, the 19 Canadian Government gives their permission for that. 20 Q. Even if it is offshore from Canada? 21 A. Yes. 22 MR. LODGE: Thank you. I have nothing further. 23 THE WITNESS: Thank you. 24 Sorry. 25 MR. LODGE: Yes? KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 17 1 THE WITNESS: Excuse me. 2 MR. DODGE: Not quite finished, Dr. Edwards. 3 THE WITNESS: You knew the time was short. I 4 was jumping the gun a little. 5 CROSS EXAMINATION 6 BY MR. DODGE: 7 Q. Good morning, Mr. Edwards. My name is Bob Dodge. We have 8 met once before back in December. 9 A. That's right. 10 Q. Just a few questions. You testified about the quantity of 11 plutonium that would be included in the Russian shipment. 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. Do you recall that? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. You testified that it was 135 grams? 16 A. That's what was announced, yes. 17 Q. And how many ounces is that? 18 A. How many ounces is that? 19 Q. Yes. 20 A. I don't think in terms of ounces. I have to do the 21 conversion. 22 Q. Can you do the conversion? 23 A. I don't have the -- 24 Q. If I told you that one ounce is 28 grams, does that sound 25 about right? KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 18 1 A. I have no reason to doubt it. We are on the metric system 2 in Canada, we don't use ounces anymore. 3 Q. I understand. If I estimated 135 grams was approximately 4 five ounces, would you quarrel with that? 5 A. I would have no reason to quarrel with that. 6 Q. Now, you also testified about the amount of plutonium that 7 would have to be inhaled in order to exceed the maximum 8 permissible dose under Canadian regulations? 9 A. That is correct. 10 Q. And in your testimony, as I understood it, the assumption 11 you were making was that every single molecule of 12 plutonium that was in that sample would end up in 13 somebody's lungs; is that right? 14 A. That's right. It's calculating the theoretical 15 potential. It is not talking about a realistic scenario. 16 Q. Not only would all of the plutonium have to end up in 17 someone's lungs, but the plutonium would have to be evenly 18 divided so that each person got exactly the same amount of 19 plutonium, it's not all concentrated in one person, you 20 would have to take one-millionths of the sample, put it in 21 one person's lungs and put the next one-millionth in the 22 next person's lungs and so on? 23 A. That is correct. 24 Q. Do you have any idea, if you performed the same analysis 25 on this table, what sort of toxicity numbers you would KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 19 1 get? 2 A. I have no idea of what that would be, no. 3 Q. Now you also talked about Canada's policies regarding 4 plutonium reprocessing. 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. Do you recall that? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. Do you have any understanding of whether the plutonium in 9 the Parallex MOX samples will or will not be reprocessed 10 in Canada? 11 A. It will-- to the best of my knowledge, it will not be 12 reprocessed in Canada, although that option apparently is 13 not decided. 14 Q. What is the basis for that last? 15 A. Because Canada has a policy that at sometime in the future 16 they may reprocess. 17 Q. Do you have any understanding whether there is an 18 understanding between the Government of Canada and the 19 Government of United States or the Government of Russia as 20 to whether these particular samples will or will not be 21 reprocessed? 22 A. I do not, no. 23 MR. DODGE: Thank you very much. 24 25 REDIRECT EXAMINATION KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 20 1 BY MR. LODGE: 2 Q. Dr. Edwards, the House of Commons question and answer, do 3 you know of any particular statistics on Canada's shipping 4 of spent fuel to British nuclear fields and fuels at Cello 5 Field? 6 A. I don't have those figures with me, I'm sorry. I could 7 supply them to the Court, if desired. I do have some 8 figures at my office at home, I don't have them here. But 9 we are talking -- if we are talking about three tons of 10 MOX being fabricated at Chalk River, then one could work 11 out approximately how much of that would contain 12 plutonium, how much plutonium would be contained assuming, 13 for example, three percent. 14 Q. Right. 15 A. And then one could reasonably suppose that the lion's 16 share of that would come from Cello Field. Now I have 17 figures on shipments from Cello Field, but I don't have 18 them here. 19 Q. My question is: Would you presume that the Atomic Energy 20 Control Board of Canada, or AECL of Canada, would make 21 public the fact that the spent MOX from Parallex were 22 being shipped to Britain for reprocessing? Would you 23 presume that would become public knowledge? 24 A. No, I would not assume anything related to plutonium would 25 become public knowledge in Canada. Canada has a very KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 21 1 non-public attitude toward plutonium dealings. In fact, 2 the existing plutonium dealings in Canada including the 3 BNFL contracts is not public knowledge other than as it 4 has been raised in foreign countries such as in Britain or 5 by documents that have been leaked to nongovernmental 6 organizations. This is not something which Atomic Energy 7 of Canada Limited makes public. 8 MR. LODGE: Thank you. 9 MR. DODGE: No recross, Your Honor. 10 THE COURT: You may step down, Dr. Edwards. 11 Thank you. 12 MR. LOVE: Your Honor, if it please the Court, 13 the Plaintiffs would call Francis Boyle to the stand 14 FRANCIS BOYLE - PLAINTIFFS' WITNESS - SWORN 15 COURT CLERK: Please be seated and state and 16 spell your name for the record. 17 THE WITNESS: My name is Francis Boyle. 18 F-r-a-n-c-i-s B-o-y-l-e. 19 DIRECT EXAMINATION 20 BY MR. LOVE: 21 Q. Dr. Boyle, are you currently employed? 22 A. Yes, I am a professor of international law at the 23 University of Illinois College of Law in Champaign. 24 Q. How long have you been employed in that capacity? 25 A. 1978. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 22 1 MR. LOVE: Your Honor, may I approach the 2 witness? 3 BY MR. LOVE: 4 Q. Dr. Boyle, I'm showing you what has been marked as 5 Supplemental Preliminary Injunction Hearing Plaintiffs' 6 Exhibit 3 and ask you if you can identify that document. 7 A. It's a copy of my professional resume. 8 Q. Was this resume prepared at or under your direction? 9 A. Yes. I think it's current as of January 28th, 1999. I've 10 been kind of busy in the last year, haven't revised it. 11 Q. To the extent it's current through that date, does that 12 accurately reflect your experience, education, seminars 13 that you participated in, and articles that you've 14 authored? 15 A. Not seminars I've participated in, that would be too many 16 but, you know, the essence of my professional career and 17 articles-- significant teaching, consulting, practice. 18 I'm also a licensed attorney as well. 19 Q. If you would, give us a brief recitation of your 20 educational background? 21 A. I attended the University of Chicago where I studied 22 international relations with Professor Hans Morganthal who 23 is the mentor of Dr. Henry Kissinger at Harvard. I was 24 one of seven students in my class elected to Phi Beta 25 Kappa as a junior. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 23 1 I also did work in mathematical biology, winning 2 the award for the work I did in that area by the world's 3 leading geneticist now at Harvard. 4 I graduated in three years. From there I went 5 to Harvard Law School. I have a J.D. Magna Cum Laude from 6 Harvard Law School specializing in international law. 7 I also entered the Graduate School of Arts and 8 Sciences at Harvard in the Department of Government. I 9 have a Master's degree and a Ph.D. in political science 10 specializing in international relations, international 11 politics. This is the same Ph.D. program that produced 12 Henry Kissinger, Zabanya Brezenski (phonetic) and other 13 high level U.S. Government officials. 14 I was at the Harvard Center for International 15 Affairs for two years. Kissinger and Brezenski had been 16 there before me. 17 I spent two years teaching in the Harvard 18 College undergraduates international law organizations, 19 human rights. I practiced law with a Boston law firm for 20 a year at Bingham, Dana and Gould, where I did 21 international tax, and tax, and then finally in 1978 I 22 came to the University of Illinois. I went up for tenure 23 at the beginning of my third year, which I got, and I've 24 been tenured there since, you know, many years. 25 Q. Since undertaking your position at University of Illinois, KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 24 1 have you specialized in any area with respect to 2 particular research, writing and international law? 3 A. Well, for the purpose of our proceedings today, yes. I 4 have been specializing an enormous amount on the nuclear 5 weapons, nuclear weapons policy, proliferation, arms 6 control. Going back to my studies with Professor 7 Morganthal 30 years ago so I've been involved in these 8 issues starting as a student since 1969 and continuously 9 until today. 10 THE WITNESS: Sorry, Your Honor, I have a bit of 11 laryngitis. 12 THE COURT: That's fine, no problem. 13 BY MR. LOVE: 14 Q. Dr. Boyle, if you would direct your attention to your 15 resume, I would like to touch on a few seminal points. On 16 the first page under teaching, the third entry down talks 17 about being a lecturer in Nuclear Weapons and 18 International Law, 21st Senior Conference on Nuclear 19 Deterrence at U.S. Military Academy at West Point in 20 1983. 21 A. Yes. This is a high level seminar run by the Pentagon, 22 not for the cadets, but for about 200 of the highest level 23 officials of the United States Government dealing with 24 nuclear weapons proliferation, nuclear weapons policies, 25 and I was asked to lecture to this conference, and I won't KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 25 1 go through all the high level officials there, but sitting 2 right in front of me for my lecture was the three star 3 general in charge of war operations at the Pentagon, at 4 that time General Mahaffey. And I also note I had read 5 the independent expert's report on the MOX program 6 U.S./Russia of 1977, one of the U.S. independent experts, 7 Richard Garwin was there with me and he was also a 8 lecturer with me to this group, so I do know that Garwin 9 was involved in the Parallex MOX recommendations. 10 Q. With respect to the second to the last entry on Page 1 of 11 Exhibit 3, talks about "Lecture Tour of the Soviet Union 12 on Nuclear Weapons and International Law for Lawyers' 13 Committee on Nuclear Policy and Association of Soviet 14 Lawyers" in 1986. What was involved with that? 15 A. Yes. The former Soviet Union, their equivalent to the 16 American Bar Association was the Association of Soviet 17 Lawyers, and in conjunction with the Lawyers' Committee on 18 Nuclear Policy headquartered here, they decided to invite 19 one professor to go over to the Soviet Union and lecture 20 around the country for two weeks on various issues related 21 to nuclear weapons and international law, and both 22 organizations selected me for this purpose, so I went over 23 for two weeks and gave several lectures per day, Moscow, 24 Leningrad, Kiev to professors, lawyers, peace people, 25 whoever, news media on various aspects of nuclear weapons KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 26 1 targeting doctrine as they relate to international law 2 and, in general, nuclear policies. 3 Q. If you would direct your attention, Dr. Boyle, to Page 2 4 under Practice, fifth entry down it says "Author, 5 Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989, Public Law 6 Number 101-298 (1990) (adopted unanimously by both Houses 7 of Congress)," could you explain what that means, please? 8 A. Yes. Your Honor, we are dealing here with a treaty, the 9 Nuclear Proliferation Treaty-- Nonproliferation Treaty of 10 1968. That treaty has been implemented by Congress in the 11 Nuclear Nonproliferation Act of 1978, the Nuclear 12 Proliferation Prevention Act of 1994 and also recent 13 amendments in 1998 to deal with the India/Pakistan 14 explosions. I have direct personal experience on how you 15 take a treaty, an international treaty, and implement it 16 as a matter of United States Constitutional law by working 17 with Congress. 18 The Biological Weapons Convention of 1972 is a 19 treaty that is a total, not only arms control reduction 20 and elimination treaty for biological weapons, I gave a 21 lecture on Capitol Hill calling for legislation, domestic 22 legislation to implement this treaty, and this 23 recommendation was taken up by a group I work for called 24 the Council of Responsible Genetics. I'm on their 25 Advisory Board. I also serve as counsel to them, so KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 27 1 pursuant to their request, I drafted the implementing 2 legislation, I authored it, how to implement this treaty. 3 And then we took it to members of the House and the Senate 4 and we shepherded it through the entire process dealing 5 with members of Congress, both Houses, including testimony 6 I prepared. At that point in time, the Reagan 7 administration was opposed to this implementing 8 legislation. I had to deal personally with their position 9 papers against it refuting these things. 10 Finally there was a change of policy when 11 President Bush came into office, to his credit, and they 12 supported the legislation. It finally was approved 13 unanimously by both Houses of Congress and signed into law 14 by President Bush in 1989. This legislation was called 15 the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989. It was 16 later amended in the anti-terrorism and effect Death 17 Penalty Act of 1996. 18 I thought I had drafted the most draconian piece 19 of legislation you could possibly imagine on biological 20 weapons, but there is always a loophole, Your Honor, so 21 Congress revisited this in 1996 to close some of the 22 loopholes that had not been apparent to me and the 23 scientists I worked with back in 19, starting in from '85 24 to about 1989. So I just cite this as having direct 25 personal experience with relationship between arms control KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 28 1 treatise, reduction treatise and then how they are 2 implemented by Congress. I have done this myself. On 3 biological weapons and I'm still involved in that issue. 4 Obviously, I have not been involved in the 5 drafting of the implementing legislation for the Nuclear 6 Proliferation Treaty of 1968, there are three pieces, but 7 I have read and reviewed the implementing legislation. I 8 have an understanding how they relate to the 9 Nonproliferation Treaty and I also teach a course on this 10 subject, that is how international laws related to the 11 United States Constitution is implemented by Congress and 12 also carried out in the courts. I teach an entire course 13 just devoted to this subject. 14 Q. Dr. Boyle, you've had some experience practicing before 15 what was known formerly as the International Court of 16 Justice but currently the World Court; is that correct? 17 A. Yes, I have. 18 Q. Could you relate to the Court a summary of that 19 experience? 20 A. Well, I've advised governments with respect to either 21 actual or potential World Court litigation, some of that 22 is still attorney/client confidence that I'm not prepared 23 to discuss. What I am prepared to discuss are those 24 matters that are in the public record. 25 I did serve as counsel to Libya on the Lockerbie KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 29 1 bombing case. It was my recommendation the-- 2 unfortunately President Bush had about the sixth fleet 3 mobilized off the coast of Libya and was about to bomb 4 Libya that we filed a lawsuit at the World Court to stop 5 the bombing. We filed a lawsuit, Libya was not bombed. 6 Later on, I was General Agent for the Republic 7 in Bosnia of Herzegovina before the International Court of 8 Justice. In other words, I was their first ambassador to 9 the World Court for the Republic of Bosnia, Herzegovina, 10 and I sued Yugoslavia for committing genocide against the 11 Bosnian people. I won two cease and desist orders 12 overwhelmingly in favor of Bosnia against Yugoslavia. 13 Later on, I publicly advised -- I advised the 14 Bosnian Government to sue Britain for aiding and abetting 15 genocide against Bosnia, and President Izetbegovic 16 instructed me to sue Britain for a genocide against 17 Bosnia. That lawsuit was terminated under duress, 18 threatened them, so they withdrew from those proceedings. 19 Q. Dr. Boyle, with respect to your writings, if you would 20 direct your attention to Page 3 of Exhibit 3, the last two 21 entries at the bottom -- excuse me, the second to last 22 entries entitled Nuclear Weapons and International Law: 23 The Arms Control Dimensions, do you see that? 24 A. Yes. This was the lecture I gave to the West Point 25 Military Academy senior conference proceedings, which they KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 30 1 did publish in their proceedings at West Point, and 2 actually under my books, I've just completed work on my 3 sixth book, which is entitled Nuclear Deterrence and 4 International Law. And right now it is sitting at Pluto 5 Press -- I guess that's appropriate for today's 6 proceedings -- Pluto Press in Britain. They have 7 expressed an interest in publishing it. They are 8 currently evaluating it. I do not have a contract on that 9 book, but I did get the e-mail just before I came here, so 10 I'll have to deal with that when I go back. 11 Q. With respect to your other publications, Dr. Boyle, I note 12 that on Page 4 you've got one entitled, about halfway 13 down, The Relevance of International Law to the "Paradox" 14 of Nuclear Deterrence. 15 A. That is correct. 16 Q. Can you tell us briefly what the subject matter is? 17 A. After I made the lecture at West Point, obviously the U.S. 18 military officials and others, we had a fairly vigorous 19 debate, let me put it that way. And that vigorous debate 20 between myself and these others led to this article that 21 was later published here in the United States and also 22 translated into Dutch, because the Dutch lawyers wanted it 23 to be available as part of the debate in Holland over the 24 deployment of the U.S. intermediate nuclear forces under 25 the Reagan administration, so they translated the whole KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 31 1 thing into Dutch and it was published in the Netherlands. 2 MR. LOVE: Your Honor, I have no further 3 questions of Dr. Boyle with respect to qualifications, and 4 I tender him for voir dire to the U.S. Attorney's Office 5 subject to my motion to admit Plaintiff's Exhibit 3 into 6 evidence. 7 MR. DODGE: I have no objection to the admission 8 of the C.V. 9 THE COURT: Exhibit 3? 10 MR. DODGE: Exhibit 3. 11 THE COURT: You have no voir dire questions to 12 ask either? 13 MR. DODGE: Not with respect to that exhibit. I 14 may get into the resume on the cross. 15 THE COURT: That's fair enough. 16 Exhibit 3 is received. 17 MR. DODGE: Thank you, your Honor. 18 BY MR. LOVE: 19 Q. Dr. Boyle, in preparing for your testimony here today, 20 could you please outline for the Court -- I think you have 21 done so somewhat already -- some of the documents that you 22 reviewed and the source materials you looked at in 23 preparing your testimony today? 24 A. I have a pretty detailed knowledge about these things 25 generally. For example, when the Nuclear Nonproliferation KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 32 1 Act first came out in 1978, I did read it, but in 2 preparation for this testimony today, I've gone back and 3 read the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, the Nuclear 4 Nonproliferation Act, the Nuclear Proliferation Prevention 5 Act of 1994, the 1998 amendments. I have read a large 6 quantity of documents produced by the Department of Energy 7 on the Parallex Project. I have read the Environmental 8 Assessment dealing with the aspects of international 9 environmental law that have not been dealt with in the 10 Environmental Assessment, in my opinion, should have been 11 dealt with the Stockholm Declaration, which is not there, 12 and the World Court Advisory Opinion on 1996, I have an 13 article on it that. I didn't go back and read the whole 14 advisory opinion, but I reread the portions of the 15 article, and other scholarly sources that deal with this 16 question. There are other sources I did not have a chance 17 to review not directly related to proliferation per se. 18 But for example, in my opinion the EA should 19 have dealt with the UN Convention on the Law of the Seas. 20 It's not in there. There's been nuclear accidents 21 convention, it's not dealt with in there. There is the 22 Bowel convention on the International Transportation of 23 Hazardous Substance and Toxic Materials, that's not in 24 there. I identified those as further sources that should 25 be analyzed in my opinion, but I haven't had a chance to KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 33 1 go back and review all of those sources. 2 Q. Dr. Boyle, did the types of materials that you've just 3 identified for the Court, are these the types of materials 4 that in your experience are relied upon by experts in the 5 field of international law in forming opinions as to the 6 legitimacy of governmental actions under internationally? 7 A. Yes. I also have experience reading environmental impact 8 statements. When the Pentagon produced the DEIS or the 9 biological defense research program, the Council for 10 Responsible Genetics asked me to evaluate this entire 11 thing -- it was an enormous document -- and submit formal 12 comments on it to the Pentagon, which I did do and they 13 did respond to. So this is the type of sources that 14 experts in my field would normally look at and review in 15 forming an opinion about Government behavior, and I have 16 done this before with respect to biological weapons. 17 Q. Dr. Boyle, I'm going to show you what has been marked for 18 identification as Plaintiff's Exhibit 4. Ask you to take 19 a moment to look at that and let me know when you've had a 20 chance to do so, please. 21 A. Yes. This is the treaty on the nonproliferation of 22 nuclear weapons, and as I've said, it has also been 23 implemented by Congress on the Nuclear Nonproliferation 24 Act of 1978, the Nuclear Proliferation Prevention Act of 25 1994 and also 1998 amendments. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 34 1 The critical point to keep in mind about this 2 treaty, Your Honor, is that Congress has passed 3 legislation expressing its understanding of what this 4 treaty means and what our obligations are under this 5 treaty. And this legislation is binding on the Department 6 of Energy, on the President, on the Department of State 7 and respectfully, Your Honor, on this Court. And what we 8 see, when you read through it all, is Congress has 9 decided, and prior to that the Atomic Energy Act as well, 10 that nuclear power, nuclear weapons, nuclear proliferation 11 is so important to the American people and our republic, 12 that they have decided to engage in micro management of 13 everything related to this subject and have pretty much, I 14 would not say completely eliminated, but whittled down 15 substantially any discretion that the executive branch 16 might have in this area. I have, as I said, I did read 17 the NPA back in 1978, but when you add in everything else, 18 what surprised me was how little discretion was left to 19 the executive branch with respect to nuclear 20 proliferation, nuclear weapons. In this area, they have 21 very little discretion. 22 Q. Professor Boyle, if you could, can you explain to the 23 Court what the implications are for Canada, Russia and the 24 United States under the Nonproliferation Treaty? 25 A. Well, my reading of both the treaty and in light of the KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 35 1 Department of Energy documents describing Parallex and 2 MOX, the Red Team report, many other documents that I've 3 read, in my opinion, there are serious problems, 4 compliance problems for this entire project under Articles 5 I, II and III of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty as 6 interpreted by the United States Congress. 7 The Article I deals with the obligations of the 8 United States and Russia. Each nuclear weapons State 9 Party to the Treaty, i.e. U.S. and Russia, undertakes not 10 to transfer to any recipient whatsoever, i.e. Canada, 11 nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices, and we 12 have a problem here in that Congress has interpreted this 13 to mean components of nuclear weapons or nuclear explosive 14 devices; that is, Congress simply does not interpret this 15 to mean you can't hand over a bomb, but a component for a 16 bomb is prohibited. And here we are dealing with weapons 17 grade plutonium, which Dr. Edwards has already testified 18 can be and indeed is, in his opinion, a component for 19 either a nuclear weapon or a nuclear explosive device. 20 Okay? 21 So when you read the treaty in light of the 22 statutory scheme, in my opinion, there are serious 23 compliance problems here with Article I, which have not 24 been addressed in the EA. The DOE has not dealt with any 25 of these problems at all in the EA, indeed, they have KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 36 1 basically said in one of their comments "Well, once we 2 give it to Canada, it's their problem," and that just is 3 an incorrect statement, in my opinion. 4 And it says "directly or indirectly," which 5 means also we, the United States, directly or indirectly 6 by encouraging and paying for the Russians to do this, you 7 see. So we are accountable for the Russian behavior 8 because we are working with them. And indeed, if we were 9 sued at the International Court of Justice -- let's 10 suppose something went wrong, Your Honor, and there was, 11 as Dr. Edwards testified, an aerial explosion in the 12 latest helicopter shipment and radiological dispersal of 13 plutonium that came across the border, killing Americans, 14 killing Canadians, others, if we were sued in World Court 15 over this, we would be found both jointly and severally 16 liable with Russia, with Canada, for any accident. 17 Likewise, this is followed up by both shipments on the 18 high seas of the plutonium. If there is an accident on 19 high seas, we could be sued at the World Court, the United 20 States, both ourselves and jointly and severally with 21 Russia and Canada over any accident here that might 22 happen. And that substantive liability could be based on 23 the U.N. Law of the Sea Convention. As I said, Your 24 Honor, I haven't had time to go through the environmental 25 provision of the Law of the Sea Convention, the Department KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 37 1 of Energy didn't even bother, and in the EA they did not 2 look at this at all. They did not consider this, but it 3 certainly is something that has to be considered, that 4 they haven't looked at. 5 And then "not in any way to assist, encourage or 6 induce any non-nuclear weapon State to manufacture or 7 otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear 8 explosive devices." Well, the problem here is Canada is 9 supposed to be a non-nuclear weapons state and says 10 "otherwise acquired nuclear explosive devices." Well, we 11 are giving them weapons grade plutonium, which again 12 Dr. Edwards has testified, and he is Canadian, is a 13 component of a nuclear weapons or nuclear explosive 14 device. And again, "or control over such weapons or 15 explosive devices." We are giving them weapons grade 16 plutonium. And if you look at how Congress has 17 interpreted this, they interpret it down to components, 18 they even talk about substances that they are trying to 19 regulate everything, and understand the 1978 legislation 20 was a very strict interpretation of what this treaty means 21 as far as the United States Government is concerned. And 22 I think we really need a comprehensive assessment here by 23 the Department of Energy as to whether or not any of these 24 transfers is consistent with Article I. Under the current 25 circumstances, they haven't bothered to look at any of the KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 38 1 terms as defined by Congress, the applicability of the 2 Congressional legislation to the transfers. 3 Likewise, Article II, Your Honor, Article II 4 deals with the Canadian obligations, "Each 5 non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes 6 not to receive the transfer from any transferor whatsoever 7 of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices." 8 Again, the same analysis here needs to be done. This 9 weapons grade plutonium, in my opinion and Dr. Edwards' 10 opinion, is clearly a component of either a nuclear weapon 11 or nuclear explosive device. And Canada, according to 12 this language, has agreed not to receive this material. 13 And by the way, as Dr. Edwards correctly pointed out, Your 14 Honor, this was consistent United States policy, stopping 15 proliferation of this type of material for any reason 16 going back to the Carter administration. We are seeing a 17 major dramatic change here in United States 18 nonproliferation policy, and that policy, Your Honor, 19 going back to the Carter administration, is enshrined in 20 law by Congress in the Nuclear Nonproliferation Act of 21 1978. So again, in my opinion, I believe these issues 22 likewise need to be addressed by the Department of 23 Energy. They have not been addressed in the environmental 24 assessment at all. 25 "Or control over such weapons or explosive KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 39 1 devices, directly or indirectly." Well, again, we are 2 giving Canada, either ourselves in the first shipment or 3 indirectly by means of the Russians in the second 4 shipment, control over a component for a nuclear weapon or 5 a nuclear explosive device. That's very clear they are 6 getting it. And according to the EA, we are trusting 7 their good intentions. There is no assurance in the EA 8 that this weapons grade plutonium is subject to 9 international safeguards. No. Despite the fact that 10 Congress has made it very clear that any transfer, and 11 Congress also made it clear in the legislation that they 12 are against any transfers of this type of stuff to other 13 States. But if there are any transfers at a minimum there 14 have to be absolute guaranteed protections on 15 international assurances to make sure it is not misused, 16 and you will note in the EA it says nothing about it. 17 There are no assurances about anything. 18 Now, "to manufacture or otherwise acquire 19 nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices; and 20 not to seek or receive any assistance in the manufacture," 21 etcetera, etcetera. 22 Article III then deals with the safeguard 23 requirements; that is, if there are transfers of materials 24 for peaceful purposes, and you know you can obviously, 25 Your Honor, you can read this yourself. There must be KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 40 1 safeguards. Under the supervision of the International 2 Atomic Energy Agency, the Environmental Assessment says 3 nothing at all about these safeguards. Nothing. It isn't 4 in there. 5 Apparently we have to rely on not even 6 statements by Canada that what we are transferring there, 7 what we are encouraging the Russians to transfer are 8 somehow going to be safeguarded despite the fact that 9 Article III says that there must be safeguards, and we 10 simply don't have them. 11 Q. Dr. Boyle, I'm going to show you what's been marked for 12 identification as Plaintiff's Exhibit 5 and ask you to 13 take a look in the upper right-hand corner, and after 14 you've had a moment to review that, let me know, please. 15 A. Yes. This is an article I had read in preparation for my 16 testimony here today, from the Toronto News. 17 Q. Based on your experience and expertise, Dr. Boyle, is this 18 the type of information that an international law scholar 19 could rely on in formulating opinions about the state or 20 nationally? 21 A. Well, here is stating comments by Mr. Tom Clemens, head of 22 the Washington-based Nuclear Control Institute. It's a 23 recognized organization dealing with nuclear policies, and 24 certainly experts in my field would rely upon statements 25 produced by the Nuclear Control Institute and, indeed, KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 41 1 prior to my testimony today, I did read several documents 2 produced by the Nuclear Control Institute just in the 3 normal course of preparing, yes. An expert in my field 4 would rely on this. 5 Q. Dr. Boyle, my recollection is you testified this appeared 6 in the Toronto -- 7 A. News. 8 Q. -- News and it -- 9 A. The Globe and Mail, which is, you know, it's sort of like 10 the New York Times here in the United States, a newspaper 11 of public record, so again, it's not like a tabloid or 12 something like this. 13 Q. Plaintiff's Exhibit 5, Dr. Boyle in the right-hand column 14 attributes some comments to a Sunni Locatelli purportedly 15 a spokeswoman at the Atomic Control Board. Do you see 16 that? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. What if anything is the significance, based on your 19 experience as expertise, of considering published reports 20 attributed to spokespersons for governmental entities in 21 formulating use of international law? 22 A. Yes. There is a decision by the International Court of 23 Justice in the nuclear test cases dealing with nuclear 24 explosions 1974, stating that the Court can rely upon 25 official statements made by Government officials acting KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 42 1 within their scope of authority and certainly Locatelli 2 here is the spokeswoman of the Atomic Energy Control 3 Board. So basically, I would be able to take this 4 statement and file it at the World Court and they would 5 find the statement could be, would be attributable to the 6 Canadian government, and Canada would be bound by this 7 statement. 8 Q. What does that article, Plaintiff's Exhibit 5, attribute 9 to Miss Locatelli? 10 A. She can't reveal how much fissile material Canada has. We 11 aren't able to give out that information under our 12 security regulations. Ms. Locatelli said Canada believes 13 it should come under the IA/EA guidelines because it 14 doesn't operate its own reprocessing facilities. I think 15 Dr. Edwards just pointed out that isn't correct. But even 16 if it were correct, it does come under IA/EA, and we need 17 to know, the United States Government under the NPT, under 18 the Congressional implementing legislation, we have to 19 know how much fissile material Canada has. 20 And basically, we are just taking their, 21 whatever their word is for it, and in my opinion, that's 22 unacceptable. We have to know how much material they have 23 and what they are doing with it, and what she's saying 24 here is "Well, we are just not going to tell you." And 25 you will note in the EA, the Department of Energy has KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 43 1 taken the same position. One of the comments made was 2 "Well, what is Canada doing," and the response of the DOE 3 is well, that is Canada's problem, once it leaves here we 4 are no longer responsible. The treaty and statutory 5 regime make it clear that's not the case. We are 6 responsible for our plutonium, wherever it goes. And 7 Congress has made it clear even if we do give it up, we 8 have to have absolute international safeguards as to what 9 is going to happen with our plutonium. And the same would 10 apply if we are encouraging Russia to ship weapons grade 11 plutonium to Canada. We have an obligation to make sure 12 that it's safeguarded and that it can be accountable and 13 accounted for. And what Ms. Locatelli here is saying 14 "Well, sorry, we are just not going to tell you." Again, 15 this raises serious problems in my mind that have not been 16 dealt with by the Department of Energy as to compliance 17 with the IA/EA safeguards regime, which is absolutely 18 required under Article III of the NPT and also required 19 under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Act. Indeed, if I 20 remember correctly, the 1994 implementation, Your Honor, 21 Congress said that transferring of unsafeguarded plutonium 22 is an act of international terrorism as far as Congress is 23 concerned. 24 So and that would trigger a whole host of other 25 provisions of the federal code dealing with international KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 44 1 terrorism, so we really need to know what is going to 2 happen to our plutonium when it gets up into Canada, and 3 to make sure there are safeguards and it is accountable 4 and there is an explanation here. 5 Now Mr. Clemens then said that, in his opinion, 6 Canada has 40 kilograms of plutonium, it's really not 7 accounted for or accountable for by anyone, and that 8 basically makes Canada a de facto nuclear weapons state. 9 I would agree, assuming that they do have the 40 kilograms 10 of plutonium, and I take it you know Mr. Clemens -- I had 11 e-mail correspondence with Mr. Clemens about this matter. 12 He feels that they do have it and that his group, the 13 Nuclear Control Institute, will be making this evidence 14 available soon. He told me it is not yet -- he is not yet 15 prepared to make it public, but they will be going public 16 with it soon. 17 In my opinion, if that is the case, they have 40 18 kilograms of plutonium, that's enough to make five bombs, 19 and that makes Canada a de facto nuclear weapons state 20 under the NPT and, in my opinion, would be inconsistent 21 with the NPT. There is a potential here for Canada being 22 in violation of the NET. We need to know that. Congress 23 has sanctions in there in the implementing legislation for 24 non-nuclear weapons states being, moving into a position 25 where they are de facto nuclear weapons states in KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 45 1 violation of the NPT. 2 It's clear Congress interprets our obligations 3 under the treaty to mean that a non-nuclear weapons state 4 simply cannot go off, assemble all the components for a 5 bomb, have one here, one there and one there, and then 6 say, oh but we are not a nuclear weapons state because we 7 haven't assembled the bomb. 8 Again, Congress made it very clear, no. Indeed, 9 in one of the pieces of legislation, Congress indicated 10 that it was also concerned with a facto nuclear weapons 11 states that an end run around the NPT, and the 12 Congressional regime applicable to it. Again, I regret to 13 report I haven't seen any of these issues dealt with by 14 the Department of Energy in the Environmental Assessments 15 and, indeed, when they were asked about it, they just said 16 this is now Canada's problem. Wondered-- United States 17 law of the NPT, it is not Canada's problem alone, it is 18 our problem because it's our plutonium and it's Russian 19 plutonium that we are paying to send up to Canada. 20 Q. Professor Boyle, based on the representations of Miss 21 Locatelli on behalf of Atomic Energy Control Board of 22 Canada that they don't believe they are subject to the 23 IA/EA guidelines, what if any impact would that have on 24 the United States' responsibility under the Nuclear 25 Nonproliferation Treaty of 1978? KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 46 1 A. It's very clear, Your Honor, the NPT and the Congressional 2 implementing legislation that we ourselves cannot ship 3 weapons grade plutonium there or engage in the Russians to 4 ship weapons grade plutonium unless there are absolutely 5 safeguards by the IA/EA that, to make sure that there is 6 no diversion. And again, Miss Locatelli is indicating 7 there is a high amount of uncertainty as to what is 8 happening with the Canadian plutonium. We simply don't 9 know. In the EA, there are no guarantees given by the 10 Department of Energy as to what is happening to plutonium 11 up in Canada. 12 Q. You may have testified to this, Dr. Boyle, and I apologize 13 if I missed it, but are Russia, Canada and the United 14 States all signatory partis to the Nonproliferation 15 Treaty? 16 A. Yes. We are all parties. There are about 182 or 183 17 states that are parties. The United States and Russia are 18 nuclear weapon states, parties to the convention, that is, 19 we are permitted to have nuclear weapons and nuclear 20 components, etc. Canada is designated a non-nuclear 21 weapons state. And they are supposed to preserve this 22 stative or statement. Yet according to the Nuclear 23 Control Institute, they have enough plutonium up there to 24 at least manufacture five bombs. So somehow this has to 25 be explained and accounted for in order for them to KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 47 1 continue their non-nuclear weapons state status under the 2 NPT, so again, the Nuclear Control Institute is raising 3 very serious compliance problems and potentially serious 4 violation of the NPT by Canada, and there are severe 5 sanctions in the United States laws enacted by Congress 6 under the Simplemen legislation, Your Honor, in the event 7 a state that is a non-nuclear weapons state moves to 8 become a nuclear weapons state. And again, none of this 9 has been addressed by the Department of Energy in the 10 environmental assessment that I'm aware of, either in the 11 environmental assessment or elsewhere. 12 Q. Dr. Boyle, could you advise the Court, if you would, as to 13 what the ramifications legally are of being a signatory 14 party to an international treaty such as the 15 Nonproliferation Treaty? 16 A. Yes. Your Honor, of course, the basic rule of Pacta Sunt, 17 P-a-c-t-a-s-u-n-t, Servanda, S-e-r-v-a-n-d-a. 18 The other point -- there are two other points, 19 however, that must be kept in mind in interpreting any 20 treaty and especially the NPT. First, the treaty must be 21 interpreted in good faith. And again, the question here 22 with Canada maintaining 40 kilograms of plutonium is 23 whether or not this is a good faith interpretation 24 implementation of the NPT by Canada. 25 Second, the treaty must be interpreted in KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 48 1 accordance with its object and purpose, and that in this 2 case the NPT is to stop nuclear proliferation. And again, 3 this entire program, the Parallex program, in my opinion, 4 seems to defeat the object and purpose of the NPT, which 5 is to stop nuclear proliferation. 6 The third point to keep in mind is that this 7 treaty has already been interpreted by Congress and 8 implemented by Congress. And Congress is agreeing with 9 what I'm saying here, Your Honor, and I'm agreeing with 10 what Congress is saying. Congress has made it very clear 11 that they do not want to see any type of nuclear 12 proliferation or programs that encourage nuclear 13 proliferation. And we are now seeing a drastic departure 14 from the policy enacted in Congress pursuant to the NPC 15 back in -- the NPT back in 1978 in the Nuclear 16 Nonproliferation Act, and we have seen no change in the 17 legislation by Congress to authorize or approve this 18 drastic change. And again, I agree with what Dr. Edwards 19 said from his Canadian perspective, my American 20 perspective, the Parallex MOX project is a drastic change 21 in encouraging proliferation of nuclear weapons components 22 and there has been no direct approval, change of statutes 23 or whatever. So again, this, in my opinion, raises very 24 serious problems under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty 25 as interpreted in good faith and in accordance with its KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 49 1 object and purpose not only for Canada, but the United 2 States and Russia. And in my opinion, we should have a 3 full study of all these issues by the Department of Energy 4 before there is any further movement on this project. 5 The implications here are enormous. They could 6 be catastrophic, and I personally would like to see a full 7 scale investigation analysis so that I could evaluate it 8 myself before anyone goes ahead with this project, but of 9 course that, you know, that's my personal opinion. I know 10 that's for you, Your Honor, to decide. 11 Q. Dr. Boyle, what if anything is the requirement or 12 obligation of the United States to interpret the 13 Nonproliferation Treaty in good faith? I think you 14 testified that Canada has that obligation. Does the 15 United States have a similar obligation? 16 A. Yes. And as a matter of fact, here Congress has 17 interpreted our obligation under the NPT and, in my 18 opinion, Congress has interpreted our obligations under 19 the NPT in good faith and also in accordance with the 20 object and purpose of this treaty. Congress interpreted 21 this by means of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Act of 1978, 22 the Nuclear Proliferation Prevention Act of 1994 and the 23 1998 amendments to do with the India-Pakistani 24 explosions. So in my opinion, Congress did interpret this 25 treaty in good faith and in accordance with its object and KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 50 1 purpose and it appears to me the Department of Energy is 2 off there on their own with no express authorization from 3 Congress pursuing a policy here that defeats the object 4 and purpose of the NPT. 5 Q. By that, you are referring to the Parallex project? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. With respect to the Congressional implementation of the 8 NPT in the '78, '94 and '98 acts, what if anything is the 9 role of the Department of State and/or Department of 10 Energy with respect to interpreting those obligations? 11 A. Yes. Your Honor, it's very clear from the treaty related 12 to the statutory scheme. Treaties deal with international 13 law and foreign relations. Therefore, they are normally 14 negotiated and concluded by the Department of State and 15 then they are handed over to the Senate Foreign Relations 16 to the Senate for advice and consent. It is the State 17 Department that traditionally has always had the sole and 18 exclusive role here in the United States with respect to 19 nonproliferation policy, not the Department of Energy. 20 The Department of Energy has always been treated as a 21 technical agency, technical consultant. The policy is 22 formulated by the State Department. There had been, again 23 going back to the Carter administration, United States 24 Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, Your Honor, set up by 25 Congress to deal precisely with these issues. They were KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 51 1 the ones given the authority to deal with proliferation 2 and nonproliferation policies negotiate these agreements, 3 etcetera. Senator Helms in the latest did not like act, 4 he concluded it was super numerator morgue or something so 5 he passed legislation terminating the Arms Control 6 Disarmament Agency and transferring all functions to the 7 Department of State today. But if you read the 8 Congressional implementing legislation, they make it very 9 clear that the lead role played on proliferation and 10 nonproliferation policy is the Department of State, not 11 the Department of Energy, and the Department of State 12 should consult with the Department of Energy. At times 13 the Department of Energy is given authority to have its 14 input to the Department of State, but it's the Department 15 of State that makes nonproliferation policy, not the 16 Department of Energy. 17 Q. In your review of the environmental assessment prepared by 18 the Department of Energy in January of '99, Dr. Boyle, 19 regarding the Parallex Project, is there any indication 20 that the Department of Energy consulted with the 21 Department of State? And if you don't mind, I direct your 22 attention to Page 41 of Plaintiff's Exhibit 12 previously 23 admitted and ask you to refer to that. 24 A. Yes. They had a list here of agencies consulted. Your 25 Honor, over here on Page 41, it says agencies consulted KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 52 1 during the preparation of this analysis: Atomic Energy of 2 Canada, Canadian Atomic Energy Control Board, U.S. 3 Department of Transportation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 4 Commission. They do not consult with the Department of 5 State and, in my opinion, and also in the opinion of 6 Congress, if you read through all the implementing 7 legislation, I know, Your Honor, as I understand it, you 8 are a conscientious Judge so I'm sure you are going to do 9 this, you'll see that they have to deal with the 10 Department of State. And the main problem with this EA is 11 they have not dealt with the Department of State, they 12 have not dealt with the nonproliferation issues, they have 13 not dealt with the Nonproliferation Treaty, they have not 14 dealt with the 1978 Act, they have not dealt with the 1994 15 Act, they have not dealt with the 1998 Act. All that is 16 expressly required by Congress. So again, in my opinion, 17 for some reason the Department of Energy has just decided 18 to go out there on its own and completely either ignore or 19 violate the Congressional statutes and procedures for 20 dealing with proliferation and nonproliferation issues. 21 Q. Dr. Boyle, to your knowledge, has the Department of State 22 retreated at all from the U.S. commitment to the 23 Nonproliferation Treaty as implemented by Congress through 24 the legislation you've indicated? 25 A. No, and as a matter of fact, Madeline Albright was just KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 53 1 out in India-Pakistan with President Clinton. As you 2 know, President Clinton stated that today India-Pakistan, 3 the Indian subcontinent is the most dangerous place on the 4 face of the earth because of the proliferation problem, 5 and they both have nuclear weapons now, and the dispute 6 over Casmir. 7 President Clinton then was just lectured in the 8 Indian Parliament publicly by the speaker of Parliament 9 for making the statement, but I think it's a fair and 10 accurate statement. Madeline Albright followed this up 11 with another statement reiterating our commitment to 12 nonproliferation and, specifically with respect to India 13 and Pakistan, that this was the policy of the United 14 States Government, and also tying this into the integral 15 importance of safeguards. 16 And again, that is a fair and accurate statement 17 of the policy being pursued by the President and the 18 Secretary of State that is charged under the legislation 19 and the Constitution to deal with these matters. There is 20 a complete and total disconnect here between what the 21 President and Secretary of State are saying and what the 22 Department of Energy is planning to do here in the 23 environmental assessment. 24 Q. Dr. Boyle, I'm going to show you what has been marked as 25 Plaintiff's Exhibit 11 and ask you to take a minute to KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 54 1 review that and let me know when you have had a chance to 2 do so, please. 3 A. Yes. This is an account of the Secretary of State 4 Albright's statement on April 2, as recently as April 2 5 dealing with our proliferation policies. And let me draw 6 a few things to your attention. United States regards 7 proliferation anywhere as our Number 1 security concern. 8 So again, she's pointing this out and she is the cabinet 9 officer with the authority to deal with these matters, not 10 the Secretary of Energy. We continue to seek universal 11 adherence to the NPT neither India nor Pakistan are 12 parties to the NPT. And here is crucial points: The 13 limits in our ability to cooperate with India and Pakistan 14 are a matter of U.S. law, as well as our international 15 obligations, all right? So Secretary Albright is pointing 16 out we have United States law that deals with 17 proliferation and this United States law -- of course, 18 she's not a lawyer -- but the U.S. law is the Nuclear 19 Nonproliferation Act, the Proliferation Prevention Act and 20 the '98 amendments as well as the Atomic Energy Act. So 21 there's a very comprehensive legislative scheme here as 22 well as our international obligation she points out. 23 There are international treaties here, and in particular 24 the most important one being the one she just referred to, 25 the Nonproliferation Treaty, and she is aware of that. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 55 1 Unfortunately, it does not appear that the Department of 2 Energy is aware of it or is concerned about it in the 3 least bit, at least as reflected in the environmental 4 assessment, they have not dealt with any of these issues 5 in environmental assessment nothing, none. 6 Q. Dr. Boyle, based on your experience and investigations 7 study, are you aware of whether or not India and Pakistan 8 have Canadian CANDU reactors? 9 A. As I understand it, they've got reactors from the Indian 10 Nuclear Bomb Project was a serous reactor, Canada, India 11 and United States, right. And Pakistan has a CANDU 12 reactor, right. And just the other day, the New York 13 Times reported the smuggling of substantial quantity of 14 nuclear materials out of the former Soviet Union towards 15 Pakistan that was recently intercepted in Kazakhstan, I 16 think. So I think this is a very serious problem. And I 17 don't see how this Parallex MOX -- it's only going to 18 compound the problem. These countries are doing 19 everything they possibly can. And here I would also add 20 in Israel is not a party to the NPT. There are other 21 states that have CANDU reactors, it has already been 22 reported in the professional literature, Your Honor, that 23 Japan too is a de facto nuclear weapons state in violation 24 of the NPT. And as Dr. Edwards already reported, they 25 have gotten a good deal of their nuclear material from KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 56 1 Canada. 2 So, we see -- Canadian reactors that are what, 3 in South Korea, Taiwan, states that are interested in 4 getting nuclear weapons. Clearly Taiwan wants them, South 5 Korea wants them. And you know, not that I can speak for 6 these governments, but it seems to me they have made a 7 decision the best way to get a weapon is to do it the way 8 the Indians did. We get a Canadian CANDU reactor, then we 9 start getting in whatever material we can get from, for 10 example, this MOX program. They will get plutonium and 11 then they can make a bomb, they can assemble a bomb. 12 As for the ease of assembling a bomb, Your 13 Honor, when I was a student at Harvard there was a very 14 bright student at MIT who, as a class project, assembled a 15 bomb. He had everything there except the plutonium. 16 That's how easy it is to assemble an atomic bottom, and he 17 brought it down there and, if I remember correctly, in 18 central square at MIT, and just showed it to everyone. 19 Even a bright student at MIT can assemble a bomb, that's 20 how easy it is to do. And what we see on these states 21 that say they are non-nuclear weapons states is an effort 22 to get a CANDU reactor and do what the Indians do use the 23 CANDU reactor, then they just need to get hold of the 24 plutonium, and Parallex MOX is going to give them access 25 to this plutonium if it gets in circulation. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 57 1 Q. Dr. Boyle, you've testified in some depth as to the 2 Nonproliferation Treaty and the implementation by Congress 3 indicating Congress' intent to prohibit even components, 4 parts of nuclear weapons to be covered by the U.S.; is 5 that correct? 6 A. Congress has interpreted the NPT, as I said, in good 7 faith, and to achieve its object and purpose and they have 8 interpreted to mean components that is clear of nuclear 9 weapons or nuclear explosive devices and there are other 10 areas in legislation where they even break it down to 11 items or substances that could be used for nuclear weapons 12 or nuclear explosive device, so Congress is aware of this 13 problem of a state becoming a de facto nuclear weapons 14 state and somehow trying to assemble components, items and 15 substances to be used for a nuclear weapon in order to 16 circumvent the treaty. So again Congress has interpreted, 17 I think, the treaty properly. 18 Q. Are you familiar in the course of your research with the 19 DOE's stockpile of stewardship program? 20 A. I am, yes. 21 Q. Are you familiar with their use in that program of 22 subcritical amounts of weapons grade plutonium? 23 A. Yes. Right now the Department of Energy is engaging in 24 what are known as subcritical tests. A subcritical test 25 is using -- they just did one this week, I think I gave KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 58 1 you the press release on it, and they are consistently 2 doing this. 3 A subcritical test uses a subcritical amount of 4 plutonium, which is under the -- it was eight kilograms. 5 And they are exploding it in order to test, verify and 6 develop the next generation of U.S. nuclear weapons. So 7 what we see the Department of Energy doing here is the 8 subcritical tests, in my opinion, would constitute it's 9 not a nuclear weapon, but it is a nuclear explosive 10 device. Now, there is nothing illegal with, under the NPT 11 with us having a nuclear explosive device, because we are 12 a nuclear weapons state party, but again, it creates 13 problems other states are now mimicking our behavior. 14 Russia is doing the same thing, France and Britain say 15 they are going to do the same thing. If we give weapons 16 grade plutonium to Canada, Canada could be doing the same 17 thing. Or the Russians give their weapons grade plutonium 18 to Canada, Canada could be doing the same thing, and other 19 states could be doing the same thing. So again, I think I 20 have serious concerns here, but I want to point out the 21 DOE is already engaged in the subcritical tests which are 22 clearly nuclear explosive devices. So it just doesn't 23 have to be a bomb to be regulated by the NPT. 24 Q. Dr. Boyle, in the scope of your experience and research, 25 have you become acquainted with the International Court of KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 59 1 Justice opinion regarding nuclear weapons in 1996? 2 A. Yes. As a matter of fact, I was part of the effort 3 originally to try to get that advisory opinion from the 4 World Court. 5 Q. If you would explain briefly what the significance, if 6 anything, of that World Court decision on the Parallex 7 project is, in your opinion? 8 A. Well, Your Honor, the World Court was asked by the United 9 Nations general assembly to give an opinion on the entire 10 question of nuclear weapons and international law. It's a 11 very long decision with many separate decisions in the 12 sense I've written an article here, Mr. Love might want to 13 provide it to you, going through all of it. But in this 14 opinion, there are two critical components that are 15 relevant to the Parallex MOX project and, of course, the 16 EA has not dealt with either, let alone the World Court 17 opinion, and the World Court opinion in this area 18 enunciates the rules of international law that are binding 19 on the United States Government, binding on Canada, 20 binding on Russia. The one component of this opinion 21 deals with the environmental-- international environmental 22 law applicable to nuclear weapons, and you will note in 23 the EA, the DOE does absolutely nothing at all with 24 international environmental law applicable to this 25 transaction because it is an international transaction, KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 60 1 they're shipping plutonium from the States up to Canada 2 and from Russia over to Canada. So international 3 environmental law is involved, and the DOE has done 4 nothing at all about it. 5 And Mr. Love, I think you have the exact 6 language there. You want to provide that to me, the exact 7 ruling of the Court on the international environmental law 8 that would apply? 9 MR. LOVE: Your Honor, we have tendered what I'm 10 going to show Dr. Boyle as Plaintiff's Exhibit 14, a copy 11 of the World Court opinion to both the Court and counsel 12 previously. 13 BY MR. LOVE: 14 Q. Dr. Boyle, I'm going to show you what has been marked as 15 Plaintiff's Exhibit 14 and ask you to take a look at that 16 and let us know when you've had a chance to do so and what 17 it is. 18 A. Right, this is the World Court advisory opinion. It's so 19 long, I'm going to have to get my notes on it, excuse me. 20 I think, Mr. Love, I gave you my notes last 21 night on the relevant provisions of the opinion, the 22 relevant paragraphs. 23 Q. While I'm looking for your notes, could you direct your 24 attention to Paragraph 27, please? 25 A. Right. What we need are the paragraphs here. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 61 1 Right. Yes, I have Paragraph 27. 2 Your Honor, here the World Court unanimously 3 adopted Principle 21 of the Stockholm Declaration of 1972, 4 which everyone would say today is a basic principle of 5 international environmental law, which the EA has not 6 bothered to deal with. And it basically says states have 7 a duty "to ensure that activities within their 8 jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to the 9 environment of other states or areas beyond the limits of 10 national jurisdiction." That's a basic principle of 11 international environmental law. It goes back to the 12 Stockholm Declaration of 1972. It has direct relevance 13 here to this entire project. You've got international 14 shipment of plutonium, it's going over the high seas if it 15 goes by boat from Russia. That also triggers the Law of 16 the Sea Convention that they have not dealt with. They 17 haven't dealt with the Stockholm Declaration, and they 18 have not dealt with this recent ruling by the World Court 19 as to obligations under international law. If you read 20 the EA when they are asked this question, they said "Once 21 we give to Canada, that's their problem." Well, again, 22 that isn't a correct statement of international law. It 23 is our problem. 24 The second important point of the ICJ opinion, 25 and there are other sections here dealing with the KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 62 1 environment -- and I know we have a limited amount of 2 time, I'm not going to go through it all -- deals with the 3 interpretation of the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty. 4 This is an international treaty, the World Court 5 also has authority to interpret the Nuclear 6 Nonproliferation Treaty, and they have interpreted the 7 Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. 8 Mr. Love, could you give me -- I identified a 9 paragraph for you, I think it's 102. 10 Q. I believe you are looking for Paragraph 102? 11 A. 102, right. 12 Q. May also want to take a look at Paragraph 99. 13 A. 99 and 102, right. 14 The World Court, in the same advisory opinion, 15 has also dealt with the NPT and the obligation of Article 16 VI of the NPT, "Each of the parties to the treaty 17 undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on 18 effective measures relating to cessation of the" -- "in 19 good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of 20 the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear 21 disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete 22 disarmament under strict and effective international 23 control." And they have interpreted this provision, NPT 24 Article VI, which we are a party to, by the way, to have a 25 dual obligation, two components here: One, we must pursue KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 63 1 negotiations on nuclear disarmament as a matter of good 2 faith. 3 Recently, I regret to report the U.S. Ambassador 4 to the Conference on Nuclear Disarmament sponsored by the 5 United Nations has said "We are not going to pursue 6 nuclear disarmament negotiations." In my opinion, that 7 puts us in breach of NPT Article VI, certainly as 8 interpreted by the World Court. We have an obligation to 9 pursue nuclear disarmament negotiations and we have just 10 said we are not going to do it. The Ambassador said "We 11 are going to pursue instead a treaty on the cutoff of 12 fissile materials such as what is at stake here, but we 13 are not going to pursue nuclear disarmament negotiations." 14 Well, Your Honor, it does seem to me that that is a 15 violation of NPT Article VI and is certainly not meeting 16 the requirements of Article VI as interpreted by the World 17 Court. We must pursue these negotiations in good faith. 18 And then the second component of the obligation 19 is we must achieve a precise result. Nuclear disarmament 20 in all its aspects. And again just recently the U.S. 21 Ambassador to the Council of Nuclear Disarmament under the 22 auspices of the UN said "We are just not going to do it." 23 The reason why this creates serious legal problems is that 24 the non-nuclear weapons states went along with the entire 25 Nuclear Proliferation Treaty on the assumption that the KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 64 1 nuclear weapons states would engage in good faith 2 negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament. If we are 3 not engaging in negotiations leading to nuclear 4 disarmament and publicly say we are not going to do it, 5 this in theory could give the non-nuclear weapons states, 6 all 175 of them, grounds to argue the material breach of 7 the NPT and pull out of the NPT and to engage in nuclear 8 armament. Now I'm not recommending that and indeed I 9 certainly would not recommend that to anyone, but it is a 10 very serious concern if we are not engaging in these 11 nuclear disarmament negotiations, which we are not 12 currently doing. 13 Q. Dr. Boyle, could you briefly summarize for the Court why 14 the International Court of Justice opinions, if at all, 15 are binding on the U.S.? 16 A. This opinion per se is listed as an advisory opinion. So 17 it is -- we are not party to the lawsuit. As you know, 18 some courts can give advisory opinions. Your Honor, you 19 can't give an advisory opinion, but there are courts in 20 the United States that some states courts have authority 21 to give advisory opinions as well as contentious 22 opinions. The World Court has both. They have authority 23 contentious opinion and an advisory opinion. This was not 24 a contentious case. If it were a contentious case, we 25 would be bound by it, like the Lockerbie case, like the KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 65 1 Bosnia cases that I was involved with, those were 2 contentious cases. This was an advisory opinion, however, 3 in this advisory opinion, with these unanimous rulings by 4 the World Court on these points, the World Court made it 5 clear that these rules are customary international law. 6 And rules of customary international law bind the United 7 States Government. The Paquete, P-a-q-u-e-t-e, Habana, 8 H-a-b-a-n-a, decision by the United States Supreme Court 9 customarily international law binds the United States and 10 the United States courts. And technically, this is 11 federal common law. So the, Your Honor, this Court should 12 take into account the World Court rulings on these two 13 points on international environmental law and how the NPT 14 should be interpreted. 15 The rest of the opinion, which is quite lengthy 16 and I had written about elsewhere -- if you are interested 17 in reading my article, you can, but it's not really 18 relevant or terribly germane to the issues here, but 19 certainly, the section on international environmental law 20 and their interpretation of the NPT is relevant. I think 21 they enunciate rules of customary international law. I 22 also have reached the same conclusions myself in my own 23 scholarly research before the World Court did, but I think 24 most experts would agree with the rulings of the World 25 Court on these two points, it's requirements of KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 66 1 international environmental law and the interpretation of 2 the NPT. 3 And again, the DOE's environmental assessment 4 has not taken any of this into account. They have not 5 taken into account the rules of international 6 environmental law, which they should do, and they have not 7 taken into account anything about the NPT. 8 Q. Dr. Boyle, based on your review of the NPT, the Nuclear 9 Nonproliferation Acts of 1978, 1994, and 1998, the 10 International Court of Justice opinion, and the 11 declarations by the Department of State regarding the U.S. 12 position with respect to the Nonproliferation Treaty 13 commitments we have made, do you have an opinion as an 14 expert in international law as to whether the foreign 15 policy of the United States would be violated by the 16 shipment of MOX from Russia to Canada funded by the U.S. 17 DOE? 18 A. Well, again, I agree with everything Dr. Edwards said. 19 Your Honor, this is a major change in United States 20 nonproliferation policy going back at a minimum to the 21 Carter administration and the adoption of the Nuclear 22 Nonproliferation Act, it seems to me completely 23 inconsistent with the treaty, with the Act, the 1978 Act 24 and 1994 Act and the 1998 Act. So yes, this is a major 25 change in policy that potentially is illegal under the KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 67 1 sources. And I would really like to see the Department of 2 Energy comprehensively address all of these issues so we 3 could see what is their authority to do this. Besides 4 their own ipse dixit. I would like to see the authority. 5 I don't see it in any of the sources I've read before for 6 them to unilaterally engage in this major change in policy 7 that seems to be inconsistent with the Treaty, the '78 8 Act, the '94 Act and '98 Act, yes. 9 MR. LOVE: Your Honor, I have no further 10 questions of this witness. Thank you. 11 CROSS EXAMINATION 12 BY MR. DODGE: 13 Q. Morning, Mr. Boyle. 14 A. Morning. 15 Q. I would like to turn your attention back to your C.V., 16 which I think is Exhibit 3. Do you have that in front of 17 you? 18 A. Sure. 19 Q. Just to round out a few items on the second page, about 20 halfway down you testified that you were counsel to Libya 21 in connection with the bombing of the Pan Am flight over 22 Lockerbie, Scotland. 23 A. That is correct. I should point out that matter is being 24 peaceably resolved now by the United States and Libya 25 because of my efforts. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 68 1 Q. And you've also served, going up now the fourth item from 2 the top of that page, since 1987 you served as a legal 3 advisor to the Palestine Liberation Organization? 4 A. That is correct, and I was also the legal advisor to the 5 Palestinian delegation for the Middle East Peace Talks 6 convened under the auspices of President Bush, yes. 7 Q. And two items down from there said you were counsel 8 related to House Resolution 86 in the 102nd Congress 9 dealing with the impeachment of former, then President 10 George Bush? 11 A. Yes. Congressman Henry G. Gonzalez of Texas reached a 12 decision that President Bush going to war violated 13 numerous provisions of the Constitution and international 14 law. You can find them there in House Resolution 86. And 15 he asked me, because of my knowledge and expertise to 16 serve as counsel to them on these matters, and I did serve 17 as counsel free of charge, that is correct. 18 My service to the Palestinian Delegation in the 19 Middle East Peace Negotiations is there in '91 and '93, as 20 I said, President Bush was the one who convened those 21 negotiations, and yes, even though I did set out with 22 Congressman Gonzalez on this issue, President Bush did 23 sign my Biological Weapons Anti-terrorists Act of 1989, 24 which is -- 25 Q. He apparently didn't hold your efforts against you KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 69 1 personally. 2 A. Pardon me? 3 Q. Sounds like he didn't hold it against you personally. 4 A. I don't think he did, no. I'm a lawyer and a law 5 professor and I'm a professional, but he had no problems, 6 President Bush had no problems with my Biological 7 Anti-Terrorism Act. It was approved unanimously by both 8 Houses of Congress. 9 Q. Moving on to the third page, second item from the top of 10 the page, you worked as a consultant in 1993 on 11 Independence for the State of Hawaii. I would assume for 12 Hawaii to become an independent nation? 13 A. That is correct. The State of Hawaii-- the Hawaiian 14 Sovereignty Advisory Commission is an agency of the State 15 of Hawaii. And they were charged under the law by the 16 State of Hawaiian law to investigate all alternatives for 17 the native Hawaiian people. One of the alternatives that 18 needed to be investigated was whether or not the native 19 Hawaiian people should establish their own independent 20 nation state. And I was retained by the State of Hawaii 21 then to advise them on this because of my experience doing 22 the same work with the Palestinians. I advised them on 23 the creation of their state and the peace talks with 24 Israel based on a two-state solution, and the Palestinian 25 state today has diplomatic recognition now by about 125 KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 70 1 states, and currently has de facto UN membership, and I 2 did the legal work on that, so the State of Hawaii 3 retained me to come out and advise on the establishment of 4 an independent nations state, and the State of Hawaii paid 5 my expenses and a modest fee for this work, yes. 6 Q. Moving on to the Nonproliferation Treaty, you testified 7 about Article I. Do you recall that? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. And as I understood your testimony, your view is that the 10 fuel rods at issue in the Parallex Project, in your view, 11 should be treated as components of a nuclear weapon; is 12 that right? Explosive device? 13 A. No. What I said was weapons grade plutonium should be 14 treated as a component of either a nuclear weapon or a 15 nuclear explosive device. 16 Q. What about -- I mean, the Parallex test involves shipment 17 and then irradiation of fuel rods; is that correct? 18 A. Right. 19 Q. And is it your view or is it not your view that those fuel 20 rods constitute components of nuclear weapons or explosive 21 devices? 22 A. My viewpoint is what I said, that weapons grade plutonium 23 is a component of a nuclear weapon or nuclear explosive 24 device. 25 Q. You didn't answer my question. Do you understand the KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 71 1 question? 2 A. Well, I've given my answer. 3 THE COURT: No, you haven't answered his 4 question. He asked you question, if you don't know the 5 answer, say so. He asked you a very specific question 6 about rods. 7 BY MR. DODGE: 8 Q. In fact, the question has to do with your view, if you 9 have one, whether the fuel rods at issue in the Parallex 10 test program constitute components of nuclear weapons or 11 explosive devices. 12 A. If they contain weapons grade plutonium, they would be or 13 could be components of nuclear weapons or nuclear 14 explosive devices. 15 Q. Well, these fuel rods do contain plutonium; is that right? 16 A. As I understand it, it's in there, yep. 17 Q. So in your view, does that make the fuel rods components 18 of nuclear weapons or explosive devices? 19 A. Again, my testimony is that the weapons grade plutonium 20 clearly is either nuclear -- is a component of a nuclear 21 weapon or a nuclear explosive device, and the reason I 22 give that testimony is based on my reading of the 23 Congressional legislation, Congress has taken the position 24 that weapons grade plutonium or plutonium, in general, is 25 a component of a nuclear weapon or nuclear explosive KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 72 1 device. Congress does not deal with the fuel rods, they 2 dealt with the plutonium. 3 Q. I want to make sure I understand your testimony clearly. 4 Is it your testimony, is it your view that any 5 plutonium would qualify as a component of a nuclear 6 weapons or nuclear weapon or explosive device under the 7 treaty? 8 A. My testimony today is the weapons grade plutonium involved 9 in this project is a component of a nuclear weapons or 10 other nuclear explosive device. I believe weapons grade 11 plutonium is what is involved in this project. 12 Q. I asked you a different question. The question was a 13 broader one. Is it your view or not your view that all 14 plutonium would qualify as a component of a nuclear weapon 15 or explosive device under Article I? 16 A. It appears Congress has taken that position, yes, and they 17 have stringently regulated plutonium in all forms. And I 18 also note that the United States Government has exploded a 19 nuclear weapon -- 20 THE COURT: The question is: Is it your 21 opinion? He is asking four or five times now, could you 22 answer that? 23 THE WITNESS: But Your Honor, my opinion is 24 based on -- 25 THE COURT: In courts -- I know you are a KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 73 1 professor -- we answer the questions of the lawyer, not 2 what we want to talk about. He asked you seven or eight 3 questions, none of which you've answered. I would ask you 4 simply listen to the lawyer's question and answer it. 5 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honor. 6 BY MR. DODGE: 7 Q. Do you understand the question? 8 THE COURT: Ask it again for the fifteenth time, 9 ask it again. 10 BY MR. DODGE: 11 Q. Is it your view that all plutonium constitutes a component 12 of nuclear weapon or explosive device under Article I of 13 the treaty? 14 A. It can. 15 Q. It can? 16 A. Yes. Yes. 17 Q. Is it your view across the board that plutonium, whether 18 weapons grade or not, if it's present in a fuel rod for 19 a-- destined for a civilian nuclear reactor would qualify 20 as a component of a nuclear weapon explosive device? 21 A. It could. 22 Q. Do you know whether as a general matter the signatories of 23 the Nonproliferation Treaty have interpreted, whether any 24 signatory has interpreted Article I to ban transport of 25 fuel rods containing plutonium? KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 74 1 A. Congress has strictly regulated plutonium, yes, and there 2 is legislation on the books saying "We, Congress, 3 interpreting our obligations under the NPT, are against 4 international transport of plutonium," yes. 5 Q. Has Congress passed any legislation prohibiting the 6 transport of nuclear fuel rods containing any plutonium? 7 A. In what I have reviewed for my testimony here today, I 8 have not seen in the '78, '94 or '98 Act that Congress has 9 prohibited transport of fuel rods. 10 Q. In fact, fuel rods are transported across national 11 boundaries all the time; is that not correct? 12 A. They are transported. 13 Q. In fact, fuel rods containing plutonium are transported 14 across national boundaries all the time, isn't that 15 correct? 16 A. If they are subject to-- they are supposed to be subject 17 to safeguards, yes. 18 Q. Well, that gets us to another point of your earlier 19 testimony regarding whether the fuel rods particularly at 20 issue in the Parallex Project are or are not subject to 21 IA/EA safeguards in Canada. Do you recall that testimony? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. Do you have personal knowledge whether Canada, the 24 Government of Canada has taken a position on whether the 25 U.S. Parallex fuel rods, which are now in Canada, whether KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 75 1 those fuel rods are now subject to IA/EA safeguards? 2 A. I have not seen any evidence because of the recentness of 3 the movement of the shipments. 4 Q. If I told you that the position of the Government of 5 Canada is that those fuel rods are, in fact, subject to 6 IA/EA safeguards, would you have any basis to quarrel with 7 that? 8 A. The statement by Ms. Locatelli does call into question the 9 validity of these assertions, yes. 10 Q. Miss Locatelli was generally speaking of Parallex fuel 11 rods, was she? 12 A. Speaking about plutonium in general, right. 13 Q. I take it you didn't speak personally to Miss Locatelli? 14 A. No, I did not. 15 Q. About this or any-- 16 A. But I did speak with Mr. Clemens of NCI by e-mail and he 17 has similar concerns to me. 18 Q. Okay. And did you speak to the newspaper reporter, Martin 19 Mittelstaedt, who quoted Ms. Locatelli? 20 A. No, I did not. 21 Q. Whether his quotes accurately reflect what she said or not 22 is not something you would be qualified to testify about; 23 is that right? 24 A. Well, I note The Globe and Mail is a newspaper of public 25 record and I would be able to rely on that in the World KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 76 1 Court for sure, yep. 2 Q. But newspaper reporters are human beings? 3 A. Newspaper reporters make mistakes, sure. But again, the 4 World Court, for example, the nuclear test cases did rely 5 on statements made by Government officials as normally 6 reported in reputable news media sources. They have 7 different standards of evidence, the World Court, than 8 they do here in United States District Court. 9 Q. Now you've also relied on this article, Plaintiff's 10 Exhibit 5, I guess too, in support of your opinion that 11 Canada is in possession of 40 kilograms or up to 40 12 kilograms of plutonium; is that right? 13 A. This is a statement by Mr. Clemens, and I have had e-mail 14 correspondence with him about it. 15 Q. Do you have any personal knowledge whether -- 16 A. No. 17 Q. I'm sorry, I didn't finish my question. 18 A. I did answer your question. 19 THE COURT: He hasn't finished asking it; you 20 couldn't possibly answer his question when he hasn't 21 finished asking it. 22 THE WITNESS: Sorry. 23 BY MR. DODGE: 24 Q. Do you have any personal knowledge of whether Canada, in 25 fact, has 40 kilograms of plutonium? KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 77 1 A. I do not have personal knowledge, no. I'm relying on the 2 statement by Mr. Clemens. 3 Q. Mr. Clemens, does Mr. Clemens have personal knowledge 4 whether Canada has 40-- 5 A. As I understand, Mr. Clemens does. From my e-mail 6 correspondence with him, he does. 7 Q. Has he seen that plutonium? 8 A. Pardon me? 9 Q. Has he seen it? 10 A. He didn't tell me what his sources of evidence are, but he 11 did tell me that they will be making it public soon. 12 Q. So he thinks he has -- he thinks he has evidence to 13 support that conclusion and whether that evidence holds 14 any water or not, we really can't tell, can we? 15 A. Well, again, as an expert, if the NCI is making the 16 statements, I think they are significant and they need to 17 be dealt with, and certainly by the Department of Energy. 18 THE COURT: That was not -- excuse me, that was 19 not his question. 20 Would you repeat your question, please? 21 BY MR. DODGE: 22 Q. The question is: Mr. Clemens believes he has reason or he 23 has evidence to support his conclusion that Canada has 40 24 kilograms of plutonium, but as far as anybody in this 25 courtroom knows, that evidence may or may not hold water, KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 78 1 we just don't know, correct? 2 A. I'm not evaluating the evidence, and Mr. Clemens said the 3 evidence will be produced, so at that point I will review 4 the evidence and formulate a formal opinion. 5 THE COURT: Do you want to ask it again or just 6 want to give up? 7 MR. DODGE: I think that -- I think the point is 8 established to the extent I need to, Your Honor. 9 BY MR. DODGE: 10 Q. Now, you testified earlier that it's up to the State 11 Department, not the Department of Energy to interpret 12 United States treaty obligations; is that right? 13 A. I testified that it is the State Department that is in 14 charge of nuclear proliferation policies, that's what I 15 testified, and not the Department of Energy, yes. 16 Q. Okay. Is it your view that it's -- maybe I misunderstood 17 what you testified earlier. I thought I heard you say 18 that interpreting whether or not the U.S. is complying 19 with Nonproliferation Treaty in particular, that pertinent 20 authority on that would be the State Department, not the 21 Department of Energy; is that a fair statement? 22 A. I've also testified that the State Department has the lead 23 role in the United States Government with respect to 24 interpretation of treatises as well. 25 Q. Do you know what the State Department's position is on KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 79 1 whether the Parallex test program is or is not compliant 2 with Article I of the Nonproliferation Treaty? 3 A. Well, that's why I read the Environmental Assessment, to 4 see if you had talked to the State Department here, and 5 they hadn't, so I have not seen any statement by the State 6 Department as to what their position is, no. 7 Q. The Environmental Assessment is not the only document 8 that's been generated in the course of the Parallex 9 Project, you understand that? 10 A. That is correct, and I have read a good deal of the 11 documentation, but I still have not seen an expression by 12 the Department of State on this issue. 13 Q. Okay. Do you know whether or not the State Department was 14 involved at any level in the Parallex Project? 15 A. There probably were discussions somewhere in there. 16 Q. Do you know? 17 A. Myself personally? 18 Q. Yes. 19 A. I don't know for sure. 20 Q. Do you know one way or the other whether the State 21 Department has a view on whether the Parallex Project is 22 consistent with our treaty obligations under Article I of 23 the NPT? 24 A. I have not seen any expression by the State Department on 25 this issue. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 80 1 Q. If I told you the State Department has taken the view that 2 the Parallex Project is entirely consistent with our 3 obligations under Article I, would you have any basis to 4 quarrel with that? 5 A. I haven't seen it. 6 MR. LODGE: Objection, Your Honor. 7 THE COURT: If he hasn't seen -- 8 MR. DODGE: Withdraw the question, Your Honor. 9 THE WITNESS: I would like to see it and 10 evaluate it myself, sure. 11 BY MR. DODGE: 12 Q. You also testified about dangers of nuclear proliferation 13 relating to countries such as Taiwan and Korea that are 14 not currently nuclear weapons states, but would like to 15 acquire nuclear weapons, do you recall that testimony? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. Is it correct that the MOX program, the Parallex Program 18 does not contemplate the shipment of any fuel rods to any 19 country other than Canada? 20 A. Not at this stage, but eventually it does appear there 21 will be mass circulation of this material, yes, down the 22 line. 23 Q. And the basis for that is what exactly? 24 A. The quantities. If the test works out, the quantity we 25 are talking about coming from Russia. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 81 1 Q. Well, let me be more specific about this. Has the United 2 States, any spokesperson for the United States Government 3 proposed in connection with the Parallex Project to send 4 fuel rods to any country other than Canada? 5 A. The United States? 6 Q. Right. 7 A. No. 8 Q. Has the Government of Russia proposed, in connection with 9 the Parallex Project, to send fuel rods to any country 10 other than Canada? 11 A. Well, they are talking about massive quantities of weapons 12 grade plutonium being circulated into this program and the 13 independent team of experts by Russia and the United 14 States have made that quite clear they are talking tons of 15 this stuff. 16 Q. Well, again, you didn't answer my question there, 17 Professor. I asked you whether the Russian Government has 18 proposed sending fuel rods to any country other than 19 Canada. Your answer only dealt with volumes, it didn't 20 address where. That was my question. 21 A. Right. There might have been discussions on Germany or 22 some of the European states have there -- there have been 23 discussions and proposals, but it's just at that stage 24 now, yes. 25 Q. But Russia has not, to your knowledge, proposed sending KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 82 1 fuel rods to Korea? 2 A. There is an international market here, sure, it could be 3 sold anywhere. 4 THE COURT: No, he didn't say could have. He 5 said: Did they propose it? 6 THE WITNESS: I have not read that right now 7 Russia is proposing sending this to Korea. 8 BY MR. DODGE: 9 Q. Same question with Taiwan. 10 A. I have not read that Russia is proposing to send this to 11 Taiwan. 12 MR. DODGE: No further questions at this time, 13 Your Honor. 14 THE COURT: We will take a 15-minute recess. 15 COURT CLERK: All rise. 16 This court is in recess. 17 (At 10:54 a.m., recess.) 18 THE COURT: Okay. What is next? 19 MR. LOVE: Brief redirect, Your Honor. 20 REDIRECT EXAMINATION 21 BY MR. LOVE: 22 Q. Professor Boyle, did you receive any recognition or 23 rewards from Bosnia for your efforts on their behalf? 24 A. While I was never paid a penny, but President Izetbegovic 25 and Vice President Gonich (phonetic) held a ceremony at KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 83 1 the Bosnian presidency with a-- awarded me full-fledged 2 citizenship in the Republic, a diplomatic passport and 3 visa and a declaration and they put the ceremony on 4 television, so that was very nice. So technically I'm a 5 Bosnian citizen too. 6 Q. Dr. Boyle, with respect to your work on the Hawaiian 7 independence that Mr. Dodge asked you about, has there 8 been any action by the President or Congress, to your 9 knowledge, with respect to that? 10 A. Yes. In 1993 Congress passed a statute signed into law by 11 President Clinton formally apologizing to the native 12 Hawaiian people for destroying their kingdom and stealing 13 their land. The legislation at the end provides for a 14 process of reconciliation and reparations, and how this is 15 going to be dealt with, and I'm still currently involved 16 in those matters. 17 Q. Dr. Boyle, there should be a document up there marked 18 Plaintiff's Exhibit 13. Do you see that? 19 A. Yes, I have it here. 20 Q. Now, this is entitled a Nonproliferation Arms Control 21 Assessment of Weapons Usable Fissile Material Storage and 22 Excess Plutonium Disposition Alternatives, dated January, 23 1997 authored by the United States Department of Energy, 24 correct? 25 A. Yes. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 84 1 Q. Was this among the documents that you reviewed in 2 preparing your testimony? 3 A. I did not have -- I did not get this entire document until 4 Monday, so I did not have a chance to review the entire 5 document, but I have reviewed the excerpts you gave to 6 me. 7 Q. Now Mr. Dodge asked you-- for the record, Your Honor, the 8 excerpt only contains Pages 106 and 107-- Mr. Dodge asked 9 you about your testimony about the possibility of future 10 shipments of MOX to Taiwan and Korea. Do you remember him 11 asking you about that? 12 A. Yes. 13 THE COURT: He didn't ask what the possibility 14 is, he asked if there were plans by Russia or the United 15 States to ship to those two nations. That was the 16 question. 17 MR. LOVE: Okay. 18 THE COURT: And the answer was no. Not are 19 there possibilities. I know the witness thinks there are 20 possibilities, that won't help me any. I understand 21 that. 22 BY MR. LOVE: 23 Q. In fact, Dr. Boyle is it true that in this document the 24 DOE indicates there are possibilities such as you 25 testified about? KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 85 1 A. Yes. 2 THE COURT: I accept that. You are wasting my 3 time. There are possibilities. 4 BY MR. LOVE: 5 Q. Dr. Boyle, if you would, I direct your attention to the 6 large document that's in front of you. This is 7 Proliferation Venerability Red Team Report, Plaintiff's 8 Exhibit 28, and introduced in the prior hearing. 9 A. Yes, and I read this entire report prior to my testimony 10 here today. 11 Q. I'm going to ask you, if you would, to direct your 12 attention to Page 6-1, the conclusions to that report. 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. And again, this is a document that was produced by Sandia 15 Laboratories for the Department of Energy? 16 A. That is correct. 17 Q. Directing your attention to the first conclusion, under 18 the conclusion, keeping plutonium inaccessible is the key 19 to proliferation resistance, do you see that? 20 A. Yes. It says quite clearly, all plutonium from all stages 21 of all alternatives can be made weapons usable should 22 sufficient material be successfully removed. And I should 23 point out that is the position Congress takes under the 24 Nuclear Nonproliferation Act of '78, the Act of '94 and 25 the '98, all plutonium can be made weapons usable. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 86 1 Q. In your view, is that conclusion by the Sandia Lab in this 2 Red Team Report consistent with your testimony? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. Now, Mr. Dodge asked you if there was transport of 5 plutonium across boundaries all the time. My notes 6 reflected you said yes. Do you remember that testimony? 7 A. I said there was some, yes. 8 Q. Is there routinely transportation of weapons grade 9 plutonium shipped across boundaries all the time by the 10 United States? 11 A. No. No. 12 MR. LOVE: No further questions. 13 MR. DODGE: No recross, Your Honor. 14 THE COURT: You may step down. 15 THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honor. 16 Your Honor, did you have any questions? 17 THE COURT: No, I don't. 18 THE WITNESS: Thank you. 19 THE COURT: You've exceeded your time so I take 20 it you have no more witnesses. 21 MR. LOVE: Your Honor, I have no more witnesses 22 but at this time I would like to move our Exhibit 5, 23 Exhibit 7, Exhibit 11, Exhibit 12, Exhibit 13, Exhibit 14 24 and Plaintiff's Exhibit 2 and Exhibit 1 into evidence. 25 MR. DODGE: No objection, Your Honor. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 87 1 THE COURT: 5, 7, 11, 12, 13 and 14, 1 and 2 are 2 received. 3 MR. LOVE: Thank you, Your Honor. We have 4 nothing further. 5 THE WITNESS: Here are the exhibits. Where do 6 you want them? 7 MR. LOVE: I'll take them here. 8 (Hearing continued; reported, not requested 9 transcribed.) 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 88 1 2 3 4 5 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE 6 7 I, Kathleen S. Thomas, Official Court Reporter for the 8 United States District Court for the Western District of 9 Michigan, appointed pursuant to the provisions of Title 28, 10 United States Code, Section 753, do hereby certify that the 11 foregoing is a true and correct transcript of proceedings had 12 in the within-entitled and numbered cause on the date 13 hereinbefore set forth; and I do further certify that the 14 foregoing transcript has been prepared by me or under my 15 direction. 16 17 18 19 20 __________________________________ 21 Kathleen S. Thomas, CSR, RPR-1300 22 U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue 23 Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 24 25 KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (voice) 217-244-1478 (fax) fboyle at law.uiuc.edu (personal comments only) Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Brussel, Morton K Sent: Monday, November 06, 2017 7:56 PM To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: David Green >; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; Estabrook, Carl G > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] FW: MOX for Bombs in Japan I think this is wrong. MOX fuel is mainly used for fuel in nuclear power reactors, not to make bombs. Japan had/has many nuclear reactors. A fairly intelligible discussion is found in wikipedia, under "MOX nuclear”. —mkb On Nov 6, 2017, at 4:40 PM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss > wrote: This was a very lengthy interview I gave in Japan courtesy of their peace and anti-nuclear movement. It was heavily censored. My basic point was that Japan was using MOX to make bombs and that my best estimate was that Japan probably had as many bombs as PRC, which would be in the area of 500. So when the details of the disaster at Fukushima came out, it was clear to me it was one of their leading bomb complexes. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: globenet at yahoogroups.com [mailto:globenet at yahoogroups.com] Sent: Saturday, March 21, 2015 8:10 AM To: globenet at yahoogroups.com Cc: 'Hiroshi Taka'; 'Gensuikyo'; 'Akira Kawasaki'; oheyeran at yahoogroups.com; asia-pacific_demil_mdg-request at lists.riseup.net; 'Coleen Rowley'; 'Douglas Roche' Subject: [globenet] MOX for Bombs in Japan Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (Voice) 217-244-1478 (Fax) (personal comments only) __._,_.___ ________________________________ Posted by: "Boyle, Francis A" > ________________________________ Reply via web post • Reply to sender • Reply to group • Start a New Topic • Messages in this topic (1) VISIT YOUR GROUP [Yahoo! Groups] • Privacy • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use . __,_._,___ _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Tue Nov 7 03:39:26 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2017 03:39:26 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: MOX for Bombs in Japan References: <5B253921-B91A-4A46-B18B-A94C48E12123@illinois.edu> Message-ID: And by the way, the reason Japanese Peace Movement had me interviewed is because they know full well that their MOX Stockpile is used for weapons purposes. fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Monday, November 06, 2017 9:30 PM To: Brussel, Morton K Cc: David Green ; C. G. ESTABROOK ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay ; David Johnson ; Mildred O'brien ; Estabrook, Carl G Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] FW: MOX for Bombs in Japan If you are not going to take the time to read these two Testimonies under oath and subject to cross-examination by the Feds of two Experts on MOX in United States Federal District, then you should stop impugning my integrity in favor of Wikipedia—pure guttersnipe! fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Brussel, Morton K Sent: Monday, November 06, 2017 9:13 PM To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: David Green >; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; Estabrook, Carl G > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] FW: MOX for Bombs in Japan I don’t know who qualified you as an expert of nuclear reactors and the nature of their fuels, nuclear physics or nuclear chemistry. Your statements belie that qualification. I hope you don’t expect me, or anyone on this list, to read the transcript you presented, but I did scan it and noted nothing in technical detail there about the properties and use of MOX, certainly not for bombs. Sorry, —mkb On Nov 6, 2017, at 8:38 PM, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: Well I have been qualified as an Expert on MOX in United States Federal District Court. And I prohibit my law students from citing Wikipedia to me in any paper and advise them to never cite or quote Wikipedia to a Judge because Wikipedia is filled with so much pure, unadulterated BULL-TWADDLE. Fab. Subject: Nuclear Proliferation/NPT/US Atomic Energy Law/MOX, etc. 1 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 3 SOUTHERN DIVISION 4 5 ALICE HIRT; ANABEL DWYER; CITIZENS FOR ALTERNATIVES 6 TO CHEMICAL CONTAMINATION; KATHRYN CUMBOW; ROBERT 7 ANDERSON; DORIS SCHALLER VERNON; and TERRY MILLER, 8 Plaintiffs, 9 v. CASE NO: 1:99-CV-933 10 BILL RICHARDSON, Secretary, 11 United States Department of Energy; UNITED STATES 12 OF AMERICA; and UNKNOWN PART(Y)(IES), named as 13 "John and Jane Doe" on complaint, 14 Defendants. 15 ____________________________/ 16 * * * * 17 18 TESTIMONY OF GORDON EDWARDS and FRANCIS BOYLE 19 * * * * 20 21 BEFORE: THE HONORABLE RICHARD ALAN ENSLEN United States District Judge 22 Kalamazoo, Michigan April 7, 2000 23 24 25 KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 2 1 APPEARANCES: 2 APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFFS: 3 MR. KARY LOVE 4 977 Butternut Drive PMB 128 5 Holland, Michigan 49424 6 MR. TERRY J. LODGE 316 North Michigan Street, Suite 520 7 Toledo, Ohio 43624-1627 8 APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANTS: 9 MR. ROBERT I. DODGE 10 MR. CHARLES GROSS U.S. Attorney's Office 11 330 Ionia Avenue, N.W., Suite 501 P.O. Box 208 12 Grand Rapids, Michigan 49501-208 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 3 1 INDEX 2 WITNESS: Page 3 GORDON EDWARDS Direct Examination by Mr. Lodge 4 4 Cross Examination by Mr. Dodge 17 Redirect Examination by Mr. Lodge 20 5 6 FRANCIS BOYLE 7 Direct Examination by Mr. Love 21 Cross Examination by Mr. Dodge 67 8 Redirect Examination by Mr. Love 82 9 10 EXHIBITS Rec'd. 11 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 1 87 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 2 87 12 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 3 31 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 5 87 13 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 6 87 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 11 87 14 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 12 87 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 13 87 15 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 14 87 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 4 1 Kalamazoo, Michigan 2 April 7, 2000 3 at approximately 8:50 A.M. 4 EXCERPT OF PROCEEDINGS 5 TESTIMONY OF GORDON EDWARDS 6 MR. LODGE: We waive opening. 7 THE COURT: Okay. Good for you. 8 MR. LODGE: And we would call Gordon Edwards. 9 GORDON EDWARDS - PLAINTIFFS' WITNESS - SWORN. 10 COURT CLERK: Please state and spell your name 11 for the record. 12 THE WITNESS: My name is Gordon Edwards, 13 G-o-r-d-o-n E-d-w-a-r-d-s. 14 DIRECT EXAMINATION 15 BY MR. LODGE: 16 Q. Dr. Edwards, you previously testified in this proceeding 17 in an earlier motion hearing in December, 1999, correct? 18 A. That is correct. 19 Q. And what, just summarize for the Court, to refresh the 20 Court's recollection, what is your occupation or 21 profession? 22 A. I'm a professor of mathematics at Vanier College in 23 Montreal, and I'm also a consultant on nuclear issues for 24 both governmental and nongovernmental agencies. 25 Q. Are you affiliated with any nongovernmental entity in KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 5 1 Canada regarding the purpose of which is to discuss 2 nuclear issues? 3 A. Yes, I'm the president of the Canadian Coalition for 4 Nuclear Responsibility, which is a federally incorporated 5 organization, since 1978. 6 Q. And how long and in what capacities have you served as a 7 consultant on nuclear issues? 8 A. I've served as a consultant since 1977 for a variety of 9 bodies, including Royal Commissions of Inquiry where I 10 have been retained to cross-examine expert witnesses, also 11 the auditor general of Canada when they were doing a 12 comprehensive audit of the Atomic Energy Control Board, 13 and most recently I was invited for January 2000 by the 14 Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs and International 15 Trade to participate in a small expert workshop on nuclear 16 weapons policies in Ottawa. 17 Q. And Dr. Edwards, have you had the occasion to read the 18 environmental assessment promulgated by the Fissile 19 Materials Office of the U.S. Department of Energy for the 20 Parallex Project? 21 A. Yes, I have, and have commented on that as well. 22 Q. We are here today on a proposed shipment of MOX plutonium 23 from Russia to Chalk River, Ontario, you understand that? 24 A. That is correct. 25 Q. What is your understanding as to the amount of the KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 6 1 plutonium content of the MOX fuel rods, pins that would be 2 brought from Russia? 3 A. The MOX fuel contains 135 grams of weapons grade plutonium 4 as compared with the 119 grams that were in the American 5 shipment that proceeded in January. 6 Q. Now, Dr. Edwards, you indicated that the Canadian 7 Coalition was incorporated in approximately 1978? 8 A. That's right. 9 Q. Have you been active in nuclear issues since that time? 10 A. Even before that time, yes. I have been active 11 specifically on proliferation questions and 12 plutonium-related questions since 1975. 13 MR. LODGE: If I may approach. 14 THE COURT: Of course. 15 BY MR. LODGE: 16 Q. Showing you what has been marked for purposes of the 17 supplemental motion hearing as Plaintiff's Exhibit 1, I'm 18 going to also leave Exhibit 2 up here. 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. Have you ever conducted any investigation into the issue 21 of civilian population or work exposures to plutonium? 22 A. Only at the level of potential for damage, potential for 23 harm. 24 Q. What is Exhibit 1? 25 A. Exhibit 1 is a letter from Mary Measures, Ph.D., Director KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 7 1 of the Radiation Environmental Protection Division of the 2 Atomic Energy Control Board of Canada dealing with 3 quantity of plutonium that an atomic radiation worker or a 4 member of the public may inhale to reach their respective 5 maximum limits. 6 Q. And the date of that is September 30, 1999? 7 A. That is correct, about six months ago. 8 Q. And could you summarize what the inhalation, or what the 9 limits are for both workers and for public? 10 A. Yes. The maximum lifetime limit of exposure in the lung 11 for an atomic worker is approximately 1.4 micrograms, and 12 for the member of the public it's 0.1 microgram, and a 13 microgram being one one-millionth of a gram, so if we 14 translate this into grams, it would mean 1.4 grams would 15 be equivalent-- would be enough to give maximum 16 permissible doses to one million workers and ten -- one 17 gram would be enough to give maximum permissible doses to 18 ten million members of the general public. That's just 19 potential. 20 Q. Okay. And is that based on the -- or, I'm sorry. Have 21 you had occasion in connection with the proposed Russian 22 shipment of a 135 grams of plutonium and the American 23 shipment of 119 grams, to perform any computations as to 24 what the potential dispersion or exposure is? 25 A. Well, I would like to emphasize this is just arithmetic KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 8 1 and does not take into account dispersion factors such as 2 wind velocity, any respiration rates, and so on. If we 3 just look at the theoretical potential, then with 119 4 grams, we are talking about the potential for 85 million 5 atomic workers to receive their maximum permissible 6 exposure, if that were able to be disseminated into all of 7 their lungs and 1,000,190,000 members of the general 8 public, so even though this is a very small amount of 9 plutonium, the potential for exposure, harmful exposure is 10 quite significant. 11 Q. All right. But so that implies you would have to have an 12 optimal dispersal? 13 A. This would be an impossibly optimal dispersal. This would 14 be assuming that the plutonium were distributed fully into 15 the lungs of all the people that I've mentioned. 16 Q. Are you aware of whether or not the American shipment was 17 delivered to Chalk River? 18 A. Yes, the American shipment was delivered to Chalk River. 19 It was taken to the border in what I believe was an SST, a 20 truck which was described as silver, and I believe it was 21 probably an SST, although I do not know for absolute 22 certainty about that, and then it was transported to the 23 Sault Ste. Marie airport where it was lifted by helicopter 24 accompanied by two other helicopters, and transported from 25 there to Chalk River. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 9 1 Q. You indicated that you were talking about an impossibly 2 optimal dispersal. Have you had the occasion to perform 3 any computations as to a very conservative prudent factor 4 to start with for dispersal? 5 A. Well, this is beyond my competence to really talk about 6 the details of how it might be dispersed, but if we just 7 assume for example 99.9 percent containment in the event 8 of a serious accident. 9 Q. Are you saying how much? 10 A. Suppose 99.9 percent of the material were successfully 11 contained and not disseminated in the environment and only 12 that small fraction was disseminated. 13 Q. Okay. 14 A. The potential again would correspond to, for atomic 15 workers in the case of the 119 gram shipment from the 16 States, it would be 85,000 maximum exposures and in the 17 case of the public, it would still over a million. Even 18 with 99.9 containment, in the event of an accident, you 19 still have the potential for over a million 20 overexposures. By the way, the 135 grams, the difference 21 between the 119 grams and the 135 grams from Russia 22 corresponds to potentially again 160,000 additional 23 maximum exposures for members of the public. 24 Q. How many for workers? 25 A. 11,428. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 10 1 Q. That's just -- 2 A. That's just the differential between the two shipments, 3 just the added, going from 119 to 135 adds the potential 4 for another 11,000 worker overexposures or 160,000 public 5 overexposures. This, I believe, is why authorities take 6 such great care to emphasize the packaging in transport. 7 They realize that the potential is great for damage. 8 Q. Do your computations reflect an assumption respecting 9 whether or not the dispersion occurs as a result of an 10 accident or an attack? 11 A. No, we are talking about theoretical potential which is 12 the same regardless of how much or whether the material is 13 dispersed. In an accident, for example, we have 14 previously seen accidents that were analyzed for ground 15 transportation. I have not seen any computations or 16 analysis of accidents for air transport either from the 17 American side or from the Canadian side. 18 Q. Are you talking with respect to Parallex? 19 A. I'm talking with respect to Parallex. 20 If you had, for example, a violent crash and 21 fire of an aircraft, including a helicopter, then the 22 dispersal would cause a plume downwind, could cause a 23 plume downwind, and how much of that plutonium would 24 escape would be subject to analysis which is not, to my 25 knowledge, been performed. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 11 1 Q. Dr. Edwards, do you consider the plutonium in MOX fuel 2 form to be a weapons component? 3 A. Well, in the case of the Parallex project, as you know, 4 this 119 grams or 135 grams, there is not enough there to 5 make an atomic bomb. However, it has long been known that 6 you can make a very damaging radiological explosive device 7 which would simply disperse the plutonium in breathable 8 form. That means that if the plutonium were acquired by a 9 criminal organization or terrorist group they could make 10 an incendiary device which would make this available to be 11 breathed by members of the public and also cause very 12 long-lasting contamination of the environs where this 13 exposure would take place. I believe that it would be 14 incorrect to say that these, even this small Parallex 15 shipment, would not be attractive to terrorists or to 16 criminal organizations as a top -- as a target for theft 17 or diversion. It is true, of course, that this is weapons 18 grade material and had one, if one had sufficient weapons 19 grade material, one indeed can make a very powerful atomic 20 bomb from that. 21 Q. Have you seen any literature or other information in or 22 out of the record of this case that discusses the weapons 23 potential for plutonium? 24 A. Well, yes, it's certainly common knowledge that the -- in 25 fact, the U.S. Department of Energy acknowledges as much KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 12 1 when they refer to the Russian plutonium, the Russian 2 weapons grade plutonium is continuing a clear and present 3 danger. It's long been known and recognized that 4 plutonium is the key ingredient of atomic weapons, so if 5 one talks about components of atomic weapons, the 6 plutonium is the essential component. Once you have the 7 plutonium, then you can acquire the other materials on the 8 open market that are necessary to build a bomb. 9 Q. How do you know that? 10 A. Well, it's been well known for a long time. For instance, 11 there was a study done, published in the Harvard Civil 12 Rights and Civil Liberties Law Review -- I could make that 13 available to the Court, if you would like -- in 1975 as 14 long ago as then, which says, "Since all the material 15 other than plutonium needed to build a bomb is available 16 from commercial hardware and chemical suppliers, the 17 present obstacle to the private construction of nuclear 18 weapons is the unavailability of plutonium." 19 But if we just turn to the study that was 20 commissioned and already on file, I believe, here at the 21 Court, a study that was commissioned by the Office of 22 Fissile Materials Management called the Red Team Report, 23 the Red Team Proliferation Vulnerability Report. 24 In their conclusions on Page 6-1, they have a 25 heading called Keeping Plutonium Inaccessible is the Key KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 13 1 to Proliferation Resistance. So what is basically being 2 said here is plutonium is not just a component but the key 3 component of atomic bombs particularly in the context of 4 illicit groups. 5 Q. Dr. Edwards, could you explain for us Canada's role in the 6 reprocessing of plutonium? 7 A. Well, Canada's role in plutonium goes back to the World 8 War II Atomic Bomb Project. We had a secret laboratory in 9 Montreal which was manned by British, French and Canadian 10 scientists dedicated to developing methods for producing 11 and separating plutonium for weapons purposes as well as 12 civilian purposes, because even then it was anticipated 13 plutonium would have some civilian value. At the end of 14 the war -- incidentally, the first reactor in Canada was 15 built according to a military decision taken in 16 Washington, D.C. in 1944, to demonstrate this potential. 17 The reactor called the NRX reactor was built at 18 Chalk River and a plutonium reprocessing plant was built 19 as well. Plutonium was separated and Britain received its 20 first sample of weapons grade plutonium from Canada from 21 Chalk River just months before their first atomic test. 22 There was also an illicit transfer of plutonium 23 from Chalk River to Russia, which was so the first samples 24 of plutonium that both Britain and Russia received were 25 from Chalk River. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 14 1 Since that time, Canada, of course, has taken a 2 policy decision not to pursue a nuclear weapons option 3 itself, but they have, however, looked favorably on the 4 idea of reprocessing plutonium for civilian purposes. 5 They do not have a policy which is against the 6 reprocessing of plutonium in principle and nor do they 7 discourage their clients, their customers overseas from 8 reprocessing plutonium. And in fact, in Canada, there is 9 an open door policy towards reprocessing as a future 10 option. 11 We just concluded recently a ten-year 12 environmental assessment of the problem of high-level 13 radioactive waste disposal, and in all of the documents it 14 begins by saying, in the very first paragraphs, that by 15 nuclear waste disposal, we mean either spent fuel or 16 post-reprocessing waste. So this is very much a 17 theoretical opening and a policy opening for Canada to use 18 plutonium as a fuel. 19 Q. Showing you what has been marked as Supplemental Motion 20 Exhibit 2, can you identify that for the Court, please? 21 A. Yes. This appears to be an exchange from the British 22 Parliament, questions and answers having to do with 23 nuclear fuel, and the Secretary of State for Trade and 24 Industry is being asked about quantities of spent fuel 25 from Canada that have been contracted for reprocessing at KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 15 1 Cello Field in England. 2 Q. And can you summarize your understanding of what the 3 response by the British Government was? 4 A. Yes. The response here is that a certain amount of 5 plutonium, a certain amount of spent fuel from Canada has 6 been reprocessed beginning in 1970, and that the plutonium 7 has been returned to Canada. I have personal knowledge of 8 the fact that at Chalk River they have maintained a pilot 9 plutonium fuel fabrication line since the 1970s, since 10 1970 and before, and that they have processed at Chalk 11 River approximately three tons, more than three tons of 12 MOX fuel from recycled civilian plutonium. This is part 13 of that, the plutonium that is here being referred to as 14 being recycled or reprocessed in Britain, that's part of 15 the total amount of plutonium that Canada has acquired for 16 the purposes of MOX fabrication. 17 I mentioned that Canada also does not discourage 18 client customers from reprocessing. This is in 19 distinction to the American policy. The American policy, 20 since the Carter administration, successive 21 administrations have maintained the policy of not only not 22 allowing reprocessing in the United States, but also 23 discouraging reprocessing in other countries insofar as 24 that is possible. Canada does not share this policy 25 completely. We do not reprocess in Canada but, on the KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 16 1 other hand, we don't hesitate, it seems, to send our spent 2 fuel to other countries to get reprocessed so that we can 3 develop expertise in plutonium recycling. 4 Q. Does Canada have any relationship with the nation of Japan 5 respecting nuclear material? 6 A. Yes. Canada, as is probably known to the Court, is the 7 world's largest exporter of uranium. We are one of the 8 world's largest producers of uranium and the world's 9 largest exporter of uranium. We have bilateral agreements 10 with our customers as to the use of that uranium. Of 11 course, we have requirements that that uranium not be used 12 for military purposes. If a client customer such as Japan 13 who buys a good deal -- Japan purchases a good deal of 14 uranium from Canada. If a client customer wishes to 15 reprocess their spent fuel to recover plutonium, they do 16 have to get prior permission from the Government of 17 Canada, so when plutonium is reprocessed for the Japanese, 18 in the case where uranium from Canada is involved, the 19 Canadian Government gives their permission for that. 20 Q. Even if it is offshore from Canada? 21 A. Yes. 22 MR. LODGE: Thank you. I have nothing further. 23 THE WITNESS: Thank you. 24 Sorry. 25 MR. LODGE: Yes? KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 17 1 THE WITNESS: Excuse me. 2 MR. DODGE: Not quite finished, Dr. Edwards. 3 THE WITNESS: You knew the time was short. I 4 was jumping the gun a little. 5 CROSS EXAMINATION 6 BY MR. DODGE: 7 Q. Good morning, Mr. Edwards. My name is Bob Dodge. We have 8 met once before back in December. 9 A. That's right. 10 Q. Just a few questions. You testified about the quantity of 11 plutonium that would be included in the Russian shipment. 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. Do you recall that? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. You testified that it was 135 grams? 16 A. That's what was announced, yes. 17 Q. And how many ounces is that? 18 A. How many ounces is that? 19 Q. Yes. 20 A. I don't think in terms of ounces. I have to do the 21 conversion. 22 Q. Can you do the conversion? 23 A. I don't have the -- 24 Q. If I told you that one ounce is 28 grams, does that sound 25 about right? KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 18 1 A. I have no reason to doubt it. We are on the metric system 2 in Canada, we don't use ounces anymore. 3 Q. I understand. If I estimated 135 grams was approximately 4 five ounces, would you quarrel with that? 5 A. I would have no reason to quarrel with that. 6 Q. Now, you also testified about the amount of plutonium that 7 would have to be inhaled in order to exceed the maximum 8 permissible dose under Canadian regulations? 9 A. That is correct. 10 Q. And in your testimony, as I understood it, the assumption 11 you were making was that every single molecule of 12 plutonium that was in that sample would end up in 13 somebody's lungs; is that right? 14 A. That's right. It's calculating the theoretical 15 potential. It is not talking about a realistic scenario. 16 Q. Not only would all of the plutonium have to end up in 17 someone's lungs, but the plutonium would have to be evenly 18 divided so that each person got exactly the same amount of 19 plutonium, it's not all concentrated in one person, you 20 would have to take one-millionths of the sample, put it in 21 one person's lungs and put the next one-millionth in the 22 next person's lungs and so on? 23 A. That is correct. 24 Q. Do you have any idea, if you performed the same analysis 25 on this table, what sort of toxicity numbers you would KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 19 1 get? 2 A. I have no idea of what that would be, no. 3 Q. Now you also talked about Canada's policies regarding 4 plutonium reprocessing. 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. Do you recall that? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. Do you have any understanding of whether the plutonium in 9 the Parallex MOX samples will or will not be reprocessed 10 in Canada? 11 A. It will-- to the best of my knowledge, it will not be 12 reprocessed in Canada, although that option apparently is 13 not decided. 14 Q. What is the basis for that last? 15 A. Because Canada has a policy that at sometime in the future 16 they may reprocess. 17 Q. Do you have any understanding whether there is an 18 understanding between the Government of Canada and the 19 Government of United States or the Government of Russia as 20 to whether these particular samples will or will not be 21 reprocessed? 22 A. I do not, no. 23 MR. DODGE: Thank you very much. 24 25 REDIRECT EXAMINATION KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 20 1 BY MR. LODGE: 2 Q. Dr. Edwards, the House of Commons question and answer, do 3 you know of any particular statistics on Canada's shipping 4 of spent fuel to British nuclear fields and fuels at Cello 5 Field? 6 A. I don't have those figures with me, I'm sorry. I could 7 supply them to the Court, if desired. I do have some 8 figures at my office at home, I don't have them here. But 9 we are talking -- if we are talking about three tons of 10 MOX being fabricated at Chalk River, then one could work 11 out approximately how much of that would contain 12 plutonium, how much plutonium would be contained assuming, 13 for example, three percent. 14 Q. Right. 15 A. And then one could reasonably suppose that the lion's 16 share of that would come from Cello Field. Now I have 17 figures on shipments from Cello Field, but I don't have 18 them here. 19 Q. My question is: Would you presume that the Atomic Energy 20 Control Board of Canada, or AECL of Canada, would make 21 public the fact that the spent MOX from Parallex were 22 being shipped to Britain for reprocessing? Would you 23 presume that would become public knowledge? 24 A. No, I would not assume anything related to plutonium would 25 become public knowledge in Canada. Canada has a very KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 21 1 non-public attitude toward plutonium dealings. In fact, 2 the existing plutonium dealings in Canada including the 3 BNFL contracts is not public knowledge other than as it 4 has been raised in foreign countries such as in Britain or 5 by documents that have been leaked to nongovernmental 6 organizations. This is not something which Atomic Energy 7 of Canada Limited makes public. 8 MR. LODGE: Thank you. 9 MR. DODGE: No recross, Your Honor. 10 THE COURT: You may step down, Dr. Edwards. 11 Thank you. 12 MR. LOVE: Your Honor, if it please the Court, 13 the Plaintiffs would call Francis Boyle to the stand 14 FRANCIS BOYLE - PLAINTIFFS' WITNESS - SWORN 15 COURT CLERK: Please be seated and state and 16 spell your name for the record. 17 THE WITNESS: My name is Francis Boyle. 18 F-r-a-n-c-i-s B-o-y-l-e. 19 DIRECT EXAMINATION 20 BY MR. LOVE: 21 Q. Dr. Boyle, are you currently employed? 22 A. Yes, I am a professor of international law at the 23 University of Illinois College of Law in Champaign. 24 Q. How long have you been employed in that capacity? 25 A. 1978. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 22 1 MR. LOVE: Your Honor, may I approach the 2 witness? 3 BY MR. LOVE: 4 Q. Dr. Boyle, I'm showing you what has been marked as 5 Supplemental Preliminary Injunction Hearing Plaintiffs' 6 Exhibit 3 and ask you if you can identify that document. 7 A. It's a copy of my professional resume. 8 Q. Was this resume prepared at or under your direction? 9 A. Yes. I think it's current as of January 28th, 1999. I've 10 been kind of busy in the last year, haven't revised it. 11 Q. To the extent it's current through that date, does that 12 accurately reflect your experience, education, seminars 13 that you participated in, and articles that you've 14 authored? 15 A. Not seminars I've participated in, that would be too many 16 but, you know, the essence of my professional career and 17 articles-- significant teaching, consulting, practice. 18 I'm also a licensed attorney as well. 19 Q. If you would, give us a brief recitation of your 20 educational background? 21 A. I attended the University of Chicago where I studied 22 international relations with Professor Hans Morganthal who 23 is the mentor of Dr. Henry Kissinger at Harvard. I was 24 one of seven students in my class elected to Phi Beta 25 Kappa as a junior. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 23 1 I also did work in mathematical biology, winning 2 the award for the work I did in that area by the world's 3 leading geneticist now at Harvard. 4 I graduated in three years. From there I went 5 to Harvard Law School. I have a J.D. Magna Cum Laude from 6 Harvard Law School specializing in international law. 7 I also entered the Graduate School of Arts and 8 Sciences at Harvard in the Department of Government. I 9 have a Master's degree and a Ph.D. in political science 10 specializing in international relations, international 11 politics. This is the same Ph.D. program that produced 12 Henry Kissinger, Zabanya Brezenski (phonetic) and other 13 high level U.S. Government officials. 14 I was at the Harvard Center for International 15 Affairs for two years. Kissinger and Brezenski had been 16 there before me. 17 I spent two years teaching in the Harvard 18 College undergraduates international law organizations, 19 human rights. I practiced law with a Boston law firm for 20 a year at Bingham, Dana and Gould, where I did 21 international tax, and tax, and then finally in 1978 I 22 came to the University of Illinois. I went up for tenure 23 at the beginning of my third year, which I got, and I've 24 been tenured there since, you know, many years. 25 Q. Since undertaking your position at University of Illinois, KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 24 1 have you specialized in any area with respect to 2 particular research, writing and international law? 3 A. Well, for the purpose of our proceedings today, yes. I 4 have been specializing an enormous amount on the nuclear 5 weapons, nuclear weapons policy, proliferation, arms 6 control. Going back to my studies with Professor 7 Morganthal 30 years ago so I've been involved in these 8 issues starting as a student since 1969 and continuously 9 until today. 10 THE WITNESS: Sorry, Your Honor, I have a bit of 11 laryngitis. 12 THE COURT: That's fine, no problem. 13 BY MR. LOVE: 14 Q. Dr. Boyle, if you would direct your attention to your 15 resume, I would like to touch on a few seminal points. On 16 the first page under teaching, the third entry down talks 17 about being a lecturer in Nuclear Weapons and 18 International Law, 21st Senior Conference on Nuclear 19 Deterrence at U.S. Military Academy at West Point in 20 1983. 21 A. Yes. This is a high level seminar run by the Pentagon, 22 not for the cadets, but for about 200 of the highest level 23 officials of the United States Government dealing with 24 nuclear weapons proliferation, nuclear weapons policies, 25 and I was asked to lecture to this conference, and I won't KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 25 1 go through all the high level officials there, but sitting 2 right in front of me for my lecture was the three star 3 general in charge of war operations at the Pentagon, at 4 that time General Mahaffey. And I also note I had read 5 the independent expert's report on the MOX program 6 U.S./Russia of 1977, one of the U.S. independent experts, 7 Richard Garwin was there with me and he was also a 8 lecturer with me to this group, so I do know that Garwin 9 was involved in the Parallex MOX recommendations. 10 Q. With respect to the second to the last entry on Page 1 of 11 Exhibit 3, talks about "Lecture Tour of the Soviet Union 12 on Nuclear Weapons and International Law for Lawyers' 13 Committee on Nuclear Policy and Association of Soviet 14 Lawyers" in 1986. What was involved with that? 15 A. Yes. The former Soviet Union, their equivalent to the 16 American Bar Association was the Association of Soviet 17 Lawyers, and in conjunction with the Lawyers' Committee on 18 Nuclear Policy headquartered here, they decided to invite 19 one professor to go over to the Soviet Union and lecture 20 around the country for two weeks on various issues related 21 to nuclear weapons and international law, and both 22 organizations selected me for this purpose, so I went over 23 for two weeks and gave several lectures per day, Moscow, 24 Leningrad, Kiev to professors, lawyers, peace people, 25 whoever, news media on various aspects of nuclear weapons KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 26 1 targeting doctrine as they relate to international law 2 and, in general, nuclear policies. 3 Q. If you would direct your attention, Dr. Boyle, to Page 2 4 under Practice, fifth entry down it says "Author, 5 Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989, Public Law 6 Number 101-298 (1990) (adopted unanimously by both Houses 7 of Congress)," could you explain what that means, please? 8 A. Yes. Your Honor, we are dealing here with a treaty, the 9 Nuclear Proliferation Treaty-- Nonproliferation Treaty of 10 1968. That treaty has been implemented by Congress in the 11 Nuclear Nonproliferation Act of 1978, the Nuclear 12 Proliferation Prevention Act of 1994 and also recent 13 amendments in 1998 to deal with the India/Pakistan 14 explosions. I have direct personal experience on how you 15 take a treaty, an international treaty, and implement it 16 as a matter of United States Constitutional law by working 17 with Congress. 18 The Biological Weapons Convention of 1972 is a 19 treaty that is a total, not only arms control reduction 20 and elimination treaty for biological weapons, I gave a 21 lecture on Capitol Hill calling for legislation, domestic 22 legislation to implement this treaty, and this 23 recommendation was taken up by a group I work for called 24 the Council of Responsible Genetics. I'm on their 25 Advisory Board. I also serve as counsel to them, so KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 27 1 pursuant to their request, I drafted the implementing 2 legislation, I authored it, how to implement this treaty. 3 And then we took it to members of the House and the Senate 4 and we shepherded it through the entire process dealing 5 with members of Congress, both Houses, including testimony 6 I prepared. At that point in time, the Reagan 7 administration was opposed to this implementing 8 legislation. I had to deal personally with their position 9 papers against it refuting these things. 10 Finally there was a change of policy when 11 President Bush came into office, to his credit, and they 12 supported the legislation. It finally was approved 13 unanimously by both Houses of Congress and signed into law 14 by President Bush in 1989. This legislation was called 15 the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989. It was 16 later amended in the anti-terrorism and effect Death 17 Penalty Act of 1996. 18 I thought I had drafted the most draconian piece 19 of legislation you could possibly imagine on biological 20 weapons, but there is always a loophole, Your Honor, so 21 Congress revisited this in 1996 to close some of the 22 loopholes that had not been apparent to me and the 23 scientists I worked with back in 19, starting in from '85 24 to about 1989. So I just cite this as having direct 25 personal experience with relationship between arms control KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 28 1 treatise, reduction treatise and then how they are 2 implemented by Congress. I have done this myself. On 3 biological weapons and I'm still involved in that issue. 4 Obviously, I have not been involved in the 5 drafting of the implementing legislation for the Nuclear 6 Proliferation Treaty of 1968, there are three pieces, but 7 I have read and reviewed the implementing legislation. I 8 have an understanding how they relate to the 9 Nonproliferation Treaty and I also teach a course on this 10 subject, that is how international laws related to the 11 United States Constitution is implemented by Congress and 12 also carried out in the courts. I teach an entire course 13 just devoted to this subject. 14 Q. Dr. Boyle, you've had some experience practicing before 15 what was known formerly as the International Court of 16 Justice but currently the World Court; is that correct? 17 A. Yes, I have. 18 Q. Could you relate to the Court a summary of that 19 experience? 20 A. Well, I've advised governments with respect to either 21 actual or potential World Court litigation, some of that 22 is still attorney/client confidence that I'm not prepared 23 to discuss. What I am prepared to discuss are those 24 matters that are in the public record. 25 I did serve as counsel to Libya on the Lockerbie KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 29 1 bombing case. It was my recommendation the-- 2 unfortunately President Bush had about the sixth fleet 3 mobilized off the coast of Libya and was about to bomb 4 Libya that we filed a lawsuit at the World Court to stop 5 the bombing. We filed a lawsuit, Libya was not bombed. 6 Later on, I was General Agent for the Republic 7 in Bosnia of Herzegovina before the International Court of 8 Justice. In other words, I was their first ambassador to 9 the World Court for the Republic of Bosnia, Herzegovina, 10 and I sued Yugoslavia for committing genocide against the 11 Bosnian people. I won two cease and desist orders 12 overwhelmingly in favor of Bosnia against Yugoslavia. 13 Later on, I publicly advised -- I advised the 14 Bosnian Government to sue Britain for aiding and abetting 15 genocide against Bosnia, and President Izetbegovic 16 instructed me to sue Britain for a genocide against 17 Bosnia. That lawsuit was terminated under duress, 18 threatened them, so they withdrew from those proceedings. 19 Q. Dr. Boyle, with respect to your writings, if you would 20 direct your attention to Page 3 of Exhibit 3, the last two 21 entries at the bottom -- excuse me, the second to last 22 entries entitled Nuclear Weapons and International Law: 23 The Arms Control Dimensions, do you see that? 24 A. Yes. This was the lecture I gave to the West Point 25 Military Academy senior conference proceedings, which they KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 30 1 did publish in their proceedings at West Point, and 2 actually under my books, I've just completed work on my 3 sixth book, which is entitled Nuclear Deterrence and 4 International Law. And right now it is sitting at Pluto 5 Press -- I guess that's appropriate for today's 6 proceedings -- Pluto Press in Britain. They have 7 expressed an interest in publishing it. They are 8 currently evaluating it. I do not have a contract on that 9 book, but I did get the e-mail just before I came here, so 10 I'll have to deal with that when I go back. 11 Q. With respect to your other publications, Dr. Boyle, I note 12 that on Page 4 you've got one entitled, about halfway 13 down, The Relevance of International Law to the "Paradox" 14 of Nuclear Deterrence. 15 A. That is correct. 16 Q. Can you tell us briefly what the subject matter is? 17 A. After I made the lecture at West Point, obviously the U.S. 18 military officials and others, we had a fairly vigorous 19 debate, let me put it that way. And that vigorous debate 20 between myself and these others led to this article that 21 was later published here in the United States and also 22 translated into Dutch, because the Dutch lawyers wanted it 23 to be available as part of the debate in Holland over the 24 deployment of the U.S. intermediate nuclear forces under 25 the Reagan administration, so they translated the whole KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 31 1 thing into Dutch and it was published in the Netherlands. 2 MR. LOVE: Your Honor, I have no further 3 questions of Dr. Boyle with respect to qualifications, and 4 I tender him for voir dire to the U.S. Attorney's Office 5 subject to my motion to admit Plaintiff's Exhibit 3 into 6 evidence. 7 MR. DODGE: I have no objection to the admission 8 of the C.V. 9 THE COURT: Exhibit 3? 10 MR. DODGE: Exhibit 3. 11 THE COURT: You have no voir dire questions to 12 ask either? 13 MR. DODGE: Not with respect to that exhibit. I 14 may get into the resume on the cross. 15 THE COURT: That's fair enough. 16 Exhibit 3 is received. 17 MR. DODGE: Thank you, your Honor. 18 BY MR. LOVE: 19 Q. Dr. Boyle, in preparing for your testimony here today, 20 could you please outline for the Court -- I think you have 21 done so somewhat already -- some of the documents that you 22 reviewed and the source materials you looked at in 23 preparing your testimony today? 24 A. I have a pretty detailed knowledge about these things 25 generally. For example, when the Nuclear Nonproliferation KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 32 1 Act first came out in 1978, I did read it, but in 2 preparation for this testimony today, I've gone back and 3 read the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, the Nuclear 4 Nonproliferation Act, the Nuclear Proliferation Prevention 5 Act of 1994, the 1998 amendments. I have read a large 6 quantity of documents produced by the Department of Energy 7 on the Parallex Project. I have read the Environmental 8 Assessment dealing with the aspects of international 9 environmental law that have not been dealt with in the 10 Environmental Assessment, in my opinion, should have been 11 dealt with the Stockholm Declaration, which is not there, 12 and the World Court Advisory Opinion on 1996, I have an 13 article on it that. I didn't go back and read the whole 14 advisory opinion, but I reread the portions of the 15 article, and other scholarly sources that deal with this 16 question. There are other sources I did not have a chance 17 to review not directly related to proliferation per se. 18 But for example, in my opinion the EA should 19 have dealt with the UN Convention on the Law of the Seas. 20 It's not in there. There's been nuclear accidents 21 convention, it's not dealt with in there. There is the 22 Bowel convention on the International Transportation of 23 Hazardous Substance and Toxic Materials, that's not in 24 there. I identified those as further sources that should 25 be analyzed in my opinion, but I haven't had a chance to KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 33 1 go back and review all of those sources. 2 Q. Dr. Boyle, did the types of materials that you've just 3 identified for the Court, are these the types of materials 4 that in your experience are relied upon by experts in the 5 field of international law in forming opinions as to the 6 legitimacy of governmental actions under internationally? 7 A. Yes. I also have experience reading environmental impact 8 statements. When the Pentagon produced the DEIS or the 9 biological defense research program, the Council for 10 Responsible Genetics asked me to evaluate this entire 11 thing -- it was an enormous document -- and submit formal 12 comments on it to the Pentagon, which I did do and they 13 did respond to. So this is the type of sources that 14 experts in my field would normally look at and review in 15 forming an opinion about Government behavior, and I have 16 done this before with respect to biological weapons. 17 Q. Dr. Boyle, I'm going to show you what has been marked for 18 identification as Plaintiff's Exhibit 4. Ask you to take 19 a moment to look at that and let me know when you've had a 20 chance to do so, please. 21 A. Yes. This is the treaty on the nonproliferation of 22 nuclear weapons, and as I've said, it has also been 23 implemented by Congress on the Nuclear Nonproliferation 24 Act of 1978, the Nuclear Proliferation Prevention Act of 25 1994 and also 1998 amendments. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 34 1 The critical point to keep in mind about this 2 treaty, Your Honor, is that Congress has passed 3 legislation expressing its understanding of what this 4 treaty means and what our obligations are under this 5 treaty. And this legislation is binding on the Department 6 of Energy, on the President, on the Department of State 7 and respectfully, Your Honor, on this Court. And what we 8 see, when you read through it all, is Congress has 9 decided, and prior to that the Atomic Energy Act as well, 10 that nuclear power, nuclear weapons, nuclear proliferation 11 is so important to the American people and our republic, 12 that they have decided to engage in micro management of 13 everything related to this subject and have pretty much, I 14 would not say completely eliminated, but whittled down 15 substantially any discretion that the executive branch 16 might have in this area. I have, as I said, I did read 17 the NPA back in 1978, but when you add in everything else, 18 what surprised me was how little discretion was left to 19 the executive branch with respect to nuclear 20 proliferation, nuclear weapons. In this area, they have 21 very little discretion. 22 Q. Professor Boyle, if you could, can you explain to the 23 Court what the implications are for Canada, Russia and the 24 United States under the Nonproliferation Treaty? 25 A. Well, my reading of both the treaty and in light of the KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 35 1 Department of Energy documents describing Parallex and 2 MOX, the Red Team report, many other documents that I've 3 read, in my opinion, there are serious problems, 4 compliance problems for this entire project under Articles 5 I, II and III of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty as 6 interpreted by the United States Congress. 7 The Article I deals with the obligations of the 8 United States and Russia. Each nuclear weapons State 9 Party to the Treaty, i.e. U.S. and Russia, undertakes not 10 to transfer to any recipient whatsoever, i.e. Canada, 11 nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices, and we 12 have a problem here in that Congress has interpreted this 13 to mean components of nuclear weapons or nuclear explosive 14 devices; that is, Congress simply does not interpret this 15 to mean you can't hand over a bomb, but a component for a 16 bomb is prohibited. And here we are dealing with weapons 17 grade plutonium, which Dr. Edwards has already testified 18 can be and indeed is, in his opinion, a component for 19 either a nuclear weapon or a nuclear explosive device. 20 Okay? 21 So when you read the treaty in light of the 22 statutory scheme, in my opinion, there are serious 23 compliance problems here with Article I, which have not 24 been addressed in the EA. The DOE has not dealt with any 25 of these problems at all in the EA, indeed, they have KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 36 1 basically said in one of their comments "Well, once we 2 give it to Canada, it's their problem," and that just is 3 an incorrect statement, in my opinion. 4 And it says "directly or indirectly," which 5 means also we, the United States, directly or indirectly 6 by encouraging and paying for the Russians to do this, you 7 see. So we are accountable for the Russian behavior 8 because we are working with them. And indeed, if we were 9 sued at the International Court of Justice -- let's 10 suppose something went wrong, Your Honor, and there was, 11 as Dr. Edwards testified, an aerial explosion in the 12 latest helicopter shipment and radiological dispersal of 13 plutonium that came across the border, killing Americans, 14 killing Canadians, others, if we were sued in World Court 15 over this, we would be found both jointly and severally 16 liable with Russia, with Canada, for any accident. 17 Likewise, this is followed up by both shipments on the 18 high seas of the plutonium. If there is an accident on 19 high seas, we could be sued at the World Court, the United 20 States, both ourselves and jointly and severally with 21 Russia and Canada over any accident here that might 22 happen. And that substantive liability could be based on 23 the U.N. Law of the Sea Convention. As I said, Your 24 Honor, I haven't had time to go through the environmental 25 provision of the Law of the Sea Convention, the Department KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 37 1 of Energy didn't even bother, and in the EA they did not 2 look at this at all. They did not consider this, but it 3 certainly is something that has to be considered, that 4 they haven't looked at. 5 And then "not in any way to assist, encourage or 6 induce any non-nuclear weapon State to manufacture or 7 otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear 8 explosive devices." Well, the problem here is Canada is 9 supposed to be a non-nuclear weapons state and says 10 "otherwise acquired nuclear explosive devices." Well, we 11 are giving them weapons grade plutonium, which again 12 Dr. Edwards has testified, and he is Canadian, is a 13 component of a nuclear weapons or nuclear explosive 14 device. And again, "or control over such weapons or 15 explosive devices." We are giving them weapons grade 16 plutonium. And if you look at how Congress has 17 interpreted this, they interpret it down to components, 18 they even talk about substances that they are trying to 19 regulate everything, and understand the 1978 legislation 20 was a very strict interpretation of what this treaty means 21 as far as the United States Government is concerned. And 22 I think we really need a comprehensive assessment here by 23 the Department of Energy as to whether or not any of these 24 transfers is consistent with Article I. Under the current 25 circumstances, they haven't bothered to look at any of the KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 38 1 terms as defined by Congress, the applicability of the 2 Congressional legislation to the transfers. 3 Likewise, Article II, Your Honor, Article II 4 deals with the Canadian obligations, "Each 5 non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes 6 not to receive the transfer from any transferor whatsoever 7 of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices." 8 Again, the same analysis here needs to be done. This 9 weapons grade plutonium, in my opinion and Dr. Edwards' 10 opinion, is clearly a component of either a nuclear weapon 11 or nuclear explosive device. And Canada, according to 12 this language, has agreed not to receive this material. 13 And by the way, as Dr. Edwards correctly pointed out, Your 14 Honor, this was consistent United States policy, stopping 15 proliferation of this type of material for any reason 16 going back to the Carter administration. We are seeing a 17 major dramatic change here in United States 18 nonproliferation policy, and that policy, Your Honor, 19 going back to the Carter administration, is enshrined in 20 law by Congress in the Nuclear Nonproliferation Act of 21 1978. So again, in my opinion, I believe these issues 22 likewise need to be addressed by the Department of 23 Energy. They have not been addressed in the environmental 24 assessment at all. 25 "Or control over such weapons or explosive KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 39 1 devices, directly or indirectly." Well, again, we are 2 giving Canada, either ourselves in the first shipment or 3 indirectly by means of the Russians in the second 4 shipment, control over a component for a nuclear weapon or 5 a nuclear explosive device. That's very clear they are 6 getting it. And according to the EA, we are trusting 7 their good intentions. There is no assurance in the EA 8 that this weapons grade plutonium is subject to 9 international safeguards. No. Despite the fact that 10 Congress has made it very clear that any transfer, and 11 Congress also made it clear in the legislation that they 12 are against any transfers of this type of stuff to other 13 States. But if there are any transfers at a minimum there 14 have to be absolute guaranteed protections on 15 international assurances to make sure it is not misused, 16 and you will note in the EA it says nothing about it. 17 There are no assurances about anything. 18 Now, "to manufacture or otherwise acquire 19 nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices; and 20 not to seek or receive any assistance in the manufacture," 21 etcetera, etcetera. 22 Article III then deals with the safeguard 23 requirements; that is, if there are transfers of materials 24 for peaceful purposes, and you know you can obviously, 25 Your Honor, you can read this yourself. There must be KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 40 1 safeguards. Under the supervision of the International 2 Atomic Energy Agency, the Environmental Assessment says 3 nothing at all about these safeguards. Nothing. It isn't 4 in there. 5 Apparently we have to rely on not even 6 statements by Canada that what we are transferring there, 7 what we are encouraging the Russians to transfer are 8 somehow going to be safeguarded despite the fact that 9 Article III says that there must be safeguards, and we 10 simply don't have them. 11 Q. Dr. Boyle, I'm going to show you what's been marked for 12 identification as Plaintiff's Exhibit 5 and ask you to 13 take a look in the upper right-hand corner, and after 14 you've had a moment to review that, let me know, please. 15 A. Yes. This is an article I had read in preparation for my 16 testimony here today, from the Toronto News. 17 Q. Based on your experience and expertise, Dr. Boyle, is this 18 the type of information that an international law scholar 19 could rely on in formulating opinions about the state or 20 nationally? 21 A. Well, here is stating comments by Mr. Tom Clemens, head of 22 the Washington-based Nuclear Control Institute. It's a 23 recognized organization dealing with nuclear policies, and 24 certainly experts in my field would rely upon statements 25 produced by the Nuclear Control Institute and, indeed, KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 41 1 prior to my testimony today, I did read several documents 2 produced by the Nuclear Control Institute just in the 3 normal course of preparing, yes. An expert in my field 4 would rely on this. 5 Q. Dr. Boyle, my recollection is you testified this appeared 6 in the Toronto -- 7 A. News. 8 Q. -- News and it -- 9 A. The Globe and Mail, which is, you know, it's sort of like 10 the New York Times here in the United States, a newspaper 11 of public record, so again, it's not like a tabloid or 12 something like this. 13 Q. Plaintiff's Exhibit 5, Dr. Boyle in the right-hand column 14 attributes some comments to a Sunni Locatelli purportedly 15 a spokeswoman at the Atomic Control Board. Do you see 16 that? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. What if anything is the significance, based on your 19 experience as expertise, of considering published reports 20 attributed to spokespersons for governmental entities in 21 formulating use of international law? 22 A. Yes. There is a decision by the International Court of 23 Justice in the nuclear test cases dealing with nuclear 24 explosions 1974, stating that the Court can rely upon 25 official statements made by Government officials acting KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 42 1 within their scope of authority and certainly Locatelli 2 here is the spokeswoman of the Atomic Energy Control 3 Board. So basically, I would be able to take this 4 statement and file it at the World Court and they would 5 find the statement could be, would be attributable to the 6 Canadian government, and Canada would be bound by this 7 statement. 8 Q. What does that article, Plaintiff's Exhibit 5, attribute 9 to Miss Locatelli? 10 A. She can't reveal how much fissile material Canada has. We 11 aren't able to give out that information under our 12 security regulations. Ms. Locatelli said Canada believes 13 it should come under the IA/EA guidelines because it 14 doesn't operate its own reprocessing facilities. I think 15 Dr. Edwards just pointed out that isn't correct. But even 16 if it were correct, it does come under IA/EA, and we need 17 to know, the United States Government under the NPT, under 18 the Congressional implementing legislation, we have to 19 know how much fissile material Canada has. 20 And basically, we are just taking their, 21 whatever their word is for it, and in my opinion, that's 22 unacceptable. We have to know how much material they have 23 and what they are doing with it, and what she's saying 24 here is "Well, we are just not going to tell you." And 25 you will note in the EA, the Department of Energy has KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 43 1 taken the same position. One of the comments made was 2 "Well, what is Canada doing," and the response of the DOE 3 is well, that is Canada's problem, once it leaves here we 4 are no longer responsible. The treaty and statutory 5 regime make it clear that's not the case. We are 6 responsible for our plutonium, wherever it goes. And 7 Congress has made it clear even if we do give it up, we 8 have to have absolute international safeguards as to what 9 is going to happen with our plutonium. And the same would 10 apply if we are encouraging Russia to ship weapons grade 11 plutonium to Canada. We have an obligation to make sure 12 that it's safeguarded and that it can be accountable and 13 accounted for. And what Ms. Locatelli here is saying 14 "Well, sorry, we are just not going to tell you." Again, 15 this raises serious problems in my mind that have not been 16 dealt with by the Department of Energy as to compliance 17 with the IA/EA safeguards regime, which is absolutely 18 required under Article III of the NPT and also required 19 under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Act. Indeed, if I 20 remember correctly, the 1994 implementation, Your Honor, 21 Congress said that transferring of unsafeguarded plutonium 22 is an act of international terrorism as far as Congress is 23 concerned. 24 So and that would trigger a whole host of other 25 provisions of the federal code dealing with international KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 44 1 terrorism, so we really need to know what is going to 2 happen to our plutonium when it gets up into Canada, and 3 to make sure there are safeguards and it is accountable 4 and there is an explanation here. 5 Now Mr. Clemens then said that, in his opinion, 6 Canada has 40 kilograms of plutonium, it's really not 7 accounted for or accountable for by anyone, and that 8 basically makes Canada a de facto nuclear weapons state. 9 I would agree, assuming that they do have the 40 kilograms 10 of plutonium, and I take it you know Mr. Clemens -- I had 11 e-mail correspondence with Mr. Clemens about this matter. 12 He feels that they do have it and that his group, the 13 Nuclear Control Institute, will be making this evidence 14 available soon. He told me it is not yet -- he is not yet 15 prepared to make it public, but they will be going public 16 with it soon. 17 In my opinion, if that is the case, they have 40 18 kilograms of plutonium, that's enough to make five bombs, 19 and that makes Canada a de facto nuclear weapons state 20 under the NPT and, in my opinion, would be inconsistent 21 with the NPT. There is a potential here for Canada being 22 in violation of the NET. We need to know that. Congress 23 has sanctions in there in the implementing legislation for 24 non-nuclear weapons states being, moving into a position 25 where they are de facto nuclear weapons states in KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 45 1 violation of the NPT. 2 It's clear Congress interprets our obligations 3 under the treaty to mean that a non-nuclear weapons state 4 simply cannot go off, assemble all the components for a 5 bomb, have one here, one there and one there, and then 6 say, oh but we are not a nuclear weapons state because we 7 haven't assembled the bomb. 8 Again, Congress made it very clear, no. Indeed, 9 in one of the pieces of legislation, Congress indicated 10 that it was also concerned with a facto nuclear weapons 11 states that an end run around the NPT, and the 12 Congressional regime applicable to it. Again, I regret to 13 report I haven't seen any of these issues dealt with by 14 the Department of Energy in the Environmental Assessments 15 and, indeed, when they were asked about it, they just said 16 this is now Canada's problem. Wondered-- United States 17 law of the NPT, it is not Canada's problem alone, it is 18 our problem because it's our plutonium and it's Russian 19 plutonium that we are paying to send up to Canada. 20 Q. Professor Boyle, based on the representations of Miss 21 Locatelli on behalf of Atomic Energy Control Board of 22 Canada that they don't believe they are subject to the 23 IA/EA guidelines, what if any impact would that have on 24 the United States' responsibility under the Nuclear 25 Nonproliferation Treaty of 1978? KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 46 1 A. It's very clear, Your Honor, the NPT and the Congressional 2 implementing legislation that we ourselves cannot ship 3 weapons grade plutonium there or engage in the Russians to 4 ship weapons grade plutonium unless there are absolutely 5 safeguards by the IA/EA that, to make sure that there is 6 no diversion. And again, Miss Locatelli is indicating 7 there is a high amount of uncertainty as to what is 8 happening with the Canadian plutonium. We simply don't 9 know. In the EA, there are no guarantees given by the 10 Department of Energy as to what is happening to plutonium 11 up in Canada. 12 Q. You may have testified to this, Dr. Boyle, and I apologize 13 if I missed it, but are Russia, Canada and the United 14 States all signatory partis to the Nonproliferation 15 Treaty? 16 A. Yes. We are all parties. There are about 182 or 183 17 states that are parties. The United States and Russia are 18 nuclear weapon states, parties to the convention, that is, 19 we are permitted to have nuclear weapons and nuclear 20 components, etc. Canada is designated a non-nuclear 21 weapons state. And they are supposed to preserve this 22 stative or statement. Yet according to the Nuclear 23 Control Institute, they have enough plutonium up there to 24 at least manufacture five bombs. So somehow this has to 25 be explained and accounted for in order for them to KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 47 1 continue their non-nuclear weapons state status under the 2 NPT, so again, the Nuclear Control Institute is raising 3 very serious compliance problems and potentially serious 4 violation of the NPT by Canada, and there are severe 5 sanctions in the United States laws enacted by Congress 6 under the Simplemen legislation, Your Honor, in the event 7 a state that is a non-nuclear weapons state moves to 8 become a nuclear weapons state. And again, none of this 9 has been addressed by the Department of Energy in the 10 environmental assessment that I'm aware of, either in the 11 environmental assessment or elsewhere. 12 Q. Dr. Boyle, could you advise the Court, if you would, as to 13 what the ramifications legally are of being a signatory 14 party to an international treaty such as the 15 Nonproliferation Treaty? 16 A. Yes. Your Honor, of course, the basic rule of Pacta Sunt, 17 P-a-c-t-a-s-u-n-t, Servanda, S-e-r-v-a-n-d-a. 18 The other point -- there are two other points, 19 however, that must be kept in mind in interpreting any 20 treaty and especially the NPT. First, the treaty must be 21 interpreted in good faith. And again, the question here 22 with Canada maintaining 40 kilograms of plutonium is 23 whether or not this is a good faith interpretation 24 implementation of the NPT by Canada. 25 Second, the treaty must be interpreted in KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 48 1 accordance with its object and purpose, and that in this 2 case the NPT is to stop nuclear proliferation. And again, 3 this entire program, the Parallex program, in my opinion, 4 seems to defeat the object and purpose of the NPT, which 5 is to stop nuclear proliferation. 6 The third point to keep in mind is that this 7 treaty has already been interpreted by Congress and 8 implemented by Congress. And Congress is agreeing with 9 what I'm saying here, Your Honor, and I'm agreeing with 10 what Congress is saying. Congress has made it very clear 11 that they do not want to see any type of nuclear 12 proliferation or programs that encourage nuclear 13 proliferation. And we are now seeing a drastic departure 14 from the policy enacted in Congress pursuant to the NPC 15 back in -- the NPT back in 1978 in the Nuclear 16 Nonproliferation Act, and we have seen no change in the 17 legislation by Congress to authorize or approve this 18 drastic change. And again, I agree with what Dr. Edwards 19 said from his Canadian perspective, my American 20 perspective, the Parallex MOX project is a drastic change 21 in encouraging proliferation of nuclear weapons components 22 and there has been no direct approval, change of statutes 23 or whatever. So again, this, in my opinion, raises very 24 serious problems under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty 25 as interpreted in good faith and in accordance with its KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 49 1 object and purpose not only for Canada, but the United 2 States and Russia. And in my opinion, we should have a 3 full study of all these issues by the Department of Energy 4 before there is any further movement on this project. 5 The implications here are enormous. They could 6 be catastrophic, and I personally would like to see a full 7 scale investigation analysis so that I could evaluate it 8 myself before anyone goes ahead with this project, but of 9 course that, you know, that's my personal opinion. I know 10 that's for you, Your Honor, to decide. 11 Q. Dr. Boyle, what if anything is the requirement or 12 obligation of the United States to interpret the 13 Nonproliferation Treaty in good faith? I think you 14 testified that Canada has that obligation. Does the 15 United States have a similar obligation? 16 A. Yes. And as a matter of fact, here Congress has 17 interpreted our obligation under the NPT and, in my 18 opinion, Congress has interpreted our obligations under 19 the NPT in good faith and also in accordance with the 20 object and purpose of this treaty. Congress interpreted 21 this by means of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Act of 1978, 22 the Nuclear Proliferation Prevention Act of 1994 and the 23 1998 amendments to do with the India-Pakistani 24 explosions. So in my opinion, Congress did interpret this 25 treaty in good faith and in accordance with its object and KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 50 1 purpose and it appears to me the Department of Energy is 2 off there on their own with no express authorization from 3 Congress pursuing a policy here that defeats the object 4 and purpose of the NPT. 5 Q. By that, you are referring to the Parallex project? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. With respect to the Congressional implementation of the 8 NPT in the '78, '94 and '98 acts, what if anything is the 9 role of the Department of State and/or Department of 10 Energy with respect to interpreting those obligations? 11 A. Yes. Your Honor, it's very clear from the treaty related 12 to the statutory scheme. Treaties deal with international 13 law and foreign relations. Therefore, they are normally 14 negotiated and concluded by the Department of State and 15 then they are handed over to the Senate Foreign Relations 16 to the Senate for advice and consent. It is the State 17 Department that traditionally has always had the sole and 18 exclusive role here in the United States with respect to 19 nonproliferation policy, not the Department of Energy. 20 The Department of Energy has always been treated as a 21 technical agency, technical consultant. The policy is 22 formulated by the State Department. There had been, again 23 going back to the Carter administration, United States 24 Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, Your Honor, set up by 25 Congress to deal precisely with these issues. They were KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 51 1 the ones given the authority to deal with proliferation 2 and nonproliferation policies negotiate these agreements, 3 etcetera. Senator Helms in the latest did not like act, 4 he concluded it was super numerator morgue or something so 5 he passed legislation terminating the Arms Control 6 Disarmament Agency and transferring all functions to the 7 Department of State today. But if you read the 8 Congressional implementing legislation, they make it very 9 clear that the lead role played on proliferation and 10 nonproliferation policy is the Department of State, not 11 the Department of Energy, and the Department of State 12 should consult with the Department of Energy. At times 13 the Department of Energy is given authority to have its 14 input to the Department of State, but it's the Department 15 of State that makes nonproliferation policy, not the 16 Department of Energy. 17 Q. In your review of the environmental assessment prepared by 18 the Department of Energy in January of '99, Dr. Boyle, 19 regarding the Parallex Project, is there any indication 20 that the Department of Energy consulted with the 21 Department of State? And if you don't mind, I direct your 22 attention to Page 41 of Plaintiff's Exhibit 12 previously 23 admitted and ask you to refer to that. 24 A. Yes. They had a list here of agencies consulted. Your 25 Honor, over here on Page 41, it says agencies consulted KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 52 1 during the preparation of this analysis: Atomic Energy of 2 Canada, Canadian Atomic Energy Control Board, U.S. 3 Department of Transportation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 4 Commission. They do not consult with the Department of 5 State and, in my opinion, and also in the opinion of 6 Congress, if you read through all the implementing 7 legislation, I know, Your Honor, as I understand it, you 8 are a conscientious Judge so I'm sure you are going to do 9 this, you'll see that they have to deal with the 10 Department of State. And the main problem with this EA is 11 they have not dealt with the Department of State, they 12 have not dealt with the nonproliferation issues, they have 13 not dealt with the Nonproliferation Treaty, they have not 14 dealt with the 1978 Act, they have not dealt with the 1994 15 Act, they have not dealt with the 1998 Act. All that is 16 expressly required by Congress. So again, in my opinion, 17 for some reason the Department of Energy has just decided 18 to go out there on its own and completely either ignore or 19 violate the Congressional statutes and procedures for 20 dealing with proliferation and nonproliferation issues. 21 Q. Dr. Boyle, to your knowledge, has the Department of State 22 retreated at all from the U.S. commitment to the 23 Nonproliferation Treaty as implemented by Congress through 24 the legislation you've indicated? 25 A. No, and as a matter of fact, Madeline Albright was just KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 53 1 out in India-Pakistan with President Clinton. As you 2 know, President Clinton stated that today India-Pakistan, 3 the Indian subcontinent is the most dangerous place on the 4 face of the earth because of the proliferation problem, 5 and they both have nuclear weapons now, and the dispute 6 over Casmir. 7 President Clinton then was just lectured in the 8 Indian Parliament publicly by the speaker of Parliament 9 for making the statement, but I think it's a fair and 10 accurate statement. Madeline Albright followed this up 11 with another statement reiterating our commitment to 12 nonproliferation and, specifically with respect to India 13 and Pakistan, that this was the policy of the United 14 States Government, and also tying this into the integral 15 importance of safeguards. 16 And again, that is a fair and accurate statement 17 of the policy being pursued by the President and the 18 Secretary of State that is charged under the legislation 19 and the Constitution to deal with these matters. There is 20 a complete and total disconnect here between what the 21 President and Secretary of State are saying and what the 22 Department of Energy is planning to do here in the 23 environmental assessment. 24 Q. Dr. Boyle, I'm going to show you what has been marked as 25 Plaintiff's Exhibit 11 and ask you to take a minute to KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 54 1 review that and let me know when you have had a chance to 2 do so, please. 3 A. Yes. This is an account of the Secretary of State 4 Albright's statement on April 2, as recently as April 2 5 dealing with our proliferation policies. And let me draw 6 a few things to your attention. United States regards 7 proliferation anywhere as our Number 1 security concern. 8 So again, she's pointing this out and she is the cabinet 9 officer with the authority to deal with these matters, not 10 the Secretary of Energy. We continue to seek universal 11 adherence to the NPT neither India nor Pakistan are 12 parties to the NPT. And here is crucial points: The 13 limits in our ability to cooperate with India and Pakistan 14 are a matter of U.S. law, as well as our international 15 obligations, all right? So Secretary Albright is pointing 16 out we have United States law that deals with 17 proliferation and this United States law -- of course, 18 she's not a lawyer -- but the U.S. law is the Nuclear 19 Nonproliferation Act, the Proliferation Prevention Act and 20 the '98 amendments as well as the Atomic Energy Act. So 21 there's a very comprehensive legislative scheme here as 22 well as our international obligation she points out. 23 There are international treaties here, and in particular 24 the most important one being the one she just referred to, 25 the Nonproliferation Treaty, and she is aware of that. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 55 1 Unfortunately, it does not appear that the Department of 2 Energy is aware of it or is concerned about it in the 3 least bit, at least as reflected in the environmental 4 assessment, they have not dealt with any of these issues 5 in environmental assessment nothing, none. 6 Q. Dr. Boyle, based on your experience and investigations 7 study, are you aware of whether or not India and Pakistan 8 have Canadian CANDU reactors? 9 A. As I understand it, they've got reactors from the Indian 10 Nuclear Bomb Project was a serous reactor, Canada, India 11 and United States, right. And Pakistan has a CANDU 12 reactor, right. And just the other day, the New York 13 Times reported the smuggling of substantial quantity of 14 nuclear materials out of the former Soviet Union towards 15 Pakistan that was recently intercepted in Kazakhstan, I 16 think. So I think this is a very serious problem. And I 17 don't see how this Parallex MOX -- it's only going to 18 compound the problem. These countries are doing 19 everything they possibly can. And here I would also add 20 in Israel is not a party to the NPT. There are other 21 states that have CANDU reactors, it has already been 22 reported in the professional literature, Your Honor, that 23 Japan too is a de facto nuclear weapons state in violation 24 of the NPT. And as Dr. Edwards already reported, they 25 have gotten a good deal of their nuclear material from KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 56 1 Canada. 2 So, we see -- Canadian reactors that are what, 3 in South Korea, Taiwan, states that are interested in 4 getting nuclear weapons. Clearly Taiwan wants them, South 5 Korea wants them. And you know, not that I can speak for 6 these governments, but it seems to me they have made a 7 decision the best way to get a weapon is to do it the way 8 the Indians did. We get a Canadian CANDU reactor, then we 9 start getting in whatever material we can get from, for 10 example, this MOX program. They will get plutonium and 11 then they can make a bomb, they can assemble a bomb. 12 As for the ease of assembling a bomb, Your 13 Honor, when I was a student at Harvard there was a very 14 bright student at MIT who, as a class project, assembled a 15 bomb. He had everything there except the plutonium. 16 That's how easy it is to assemble an atomic bottom, and he 17 brought it down there and, if I remember correctly, in 18 central square at MIT, and just showed it to everyone. 19 Even a bright student at MIT can assemble a bomb, that's 20 how easy it is to do. And what we see on these states 21 that say they are non-nuclear weapons states is an effort 22 to get a CANDU reactor and do what the Indians do use the 23 CANDU reactor, then they just need to get hold of the 24 plutonium, and Parallex MOX is going to give them access 25 to this plutonium if it gets in circulation. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 57 1 Q. Dr. Boyle, you've testified in some depth as to the 2 Nonproliferation Treaty and the implementation by Congress 3 indicating Congress' intent to prohibit even components, 4 parts of nuclear weapons to be covered by the U.S.; is 5 that correct? 6 A. Congress has interpreted the NPT, as I said, in good 7 faith, and to achieve its object and purpose and they have 8 interpreted to mean components that is clear of nuclear 9 weapons or nuclear explosive devices and there are other 10 areas in legislation where they even break it down to 11 items or substances that could be used for nuclear weapons 12 or nuclear explosive device, so Congress is aware of this 13 problem of a state becoming a de facto nuclear weapons 14 state and somehow trying to assemble components, items and 15 substances to be used for a nuclear weapon in order to 16 circumvent the treaty. So again Congress has interpreted, 17 I think, the treaty properly. 18 Q. Are you familiar in the course of your research with the 19 DOE's stockpile of stewardship program? 20 A. I am, yes. 21 Q. Are you familiar with their use in that program of 22 subcritical amounts of weapons grade plutonium? 23 A. Yes. Right now the Department of Energy is engaging in 24 what are known as subcritical tests. A subcritical test 25 is using -- they just did one this week, I think I gave KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 58 1 you the press release on it, and they are consistently 2 doing this. 3 A subcritical test uses a subcritical amount of 4 plutonium, which is under the -- it was eight kilograms. 5 And they are exploding it in order to test, verify and 6 develop the next generation of U.S. nuclear weapons. So 7 what we see the Department of Energy doing here is the 8 subcritical tests, in my opinion, would constitute it's 9 not a nuclear weapon, but it is a nuclear explosive 10 device. Now, there is nothing illegal with, under the NPT 11 with us having a nuclear explosive device, because we are 12 a nuclear weapons state party, but again, it creates 13 problems other states are now mimicking our behavior. 14 Russia is doing the same thing, France and Britain say 15 they are going to do the same thing. If we give weapons 16 grade plutonium to Canada, Canada could be doing the same 17 thing. Or the Russians give their weapons grade plutonium 18 to Canada, Canada could be doing the same thing, and other 19 states could be doing the same thing. So again, I think I 20 have serious concerns here, but I want to point out the 21 DOE is already engaged in the subcritical tests which are 22 clearly nuclear explosive devices. So it just doesn't 23 have to be a bomb to be regulated by the NPT. 24 Q. Dr. Boyle, in the scope of your experience and research, 25 have you become acquainted with the International Court of KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 59 1 Justice opinion regarding nuclear weapons in 1996? 2 A. Yes. As a matter of fact, I was part of the effort 3 originally to try to get that advisory opinion from the 4 World Court. 5 Q. If you would explain briefly what the significance, if 6 anything, of that World Court decision on the Parallex 7 project is, in your opinion? 8 A. Well, Your Honor, the World Court was asked by the United 9 Nations general assembly to give an opinion on the entire 10 question of nuclear weapons and international law. It's a 11 very long decision with many separate decisions in the 12 sense I've written an article here, Mr. Love might want to 13 provide it to you, going through all of it. But in this 14 opinion, there are two critical components that are 15 relevant to the Parallex MOX project and, of course, the 16 EA has not dealt with either, let alone the World Court 17 opinion, and the World Court opinion in this area 18 enunciates the rules of international law that are binding 19 on the United States Government, binding on Canada, 20 binding on Russia. The one component of this opinion 21 deals with the environmental-- international environmental 22 law applicable to nuclear weapons, and you will note in 23 the EA, the DOE does absolutely nothing at all with 24 international environmental law applicable to this 25 transaction because it is an international transaction, KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 60 1 they're shipping plutonium from the States up to Canada 2 and from Russia over to Canada. So international 3 environmental law is involved, and the DOE has done 4 nothing at all about it. 5 And Mr. Love, I think you have the exact 6 language there. You want to provide that to me, the exact 7 ruling of the Court on the international environmental law 8 that would apply? 9 MR. LOVE: Your Honor, we have tendered what I'm 10 going to show Dr. Boyle as Plaintiff's Exhibit 14, a copy 11 of the World Court opinion to both the Court and counsel 12 previously. 13 BY MR. LOVE: 14 Q. Dr. Boyle, I'm going to show you what has been marked as 15 Plaintiff's Exhibit 14 and ask you to take a look at that 16 and let us know when you've had a chance to do so and what 17 it is. 18 A. Right, this is the World Court advisory opinion. It's so 19 long, I'm going to have to get my notes on it, excuse me. 20 I think, Mr. Love, I gave you my notes last 21 night on the relevant provisions of the opinion, the 22 relevant paragraphs. 23 Q. While I'm looking for your notes, could you direct your 24 attention to Paragraph 27, please? 25 A. Right. What we need are the paragraphs here. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 61 1 Right. Yes, I have Paragraph 27. 2 Your Honor, here the World Court unanimously 3 adopted Principle 21 of the Stockholm Declaration of 1972, 4 which everyone would say today is a basic principle of 5 international environmental law, which the EA has not 6 bothered to deal with. And it basically says states have 7 a duty "to ensure that activities within their 8 jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to the 9 environment of other states or areas beyond the limits of 10 national jurisdiction." That's a basic principle of 11 international environmental law. It goes back to the 12 Stockholm Declaration of 1972. It has direct relevance 13 here to this entire project. You've got international 14 shipment of plutonium, it's going over the high seas if it 15 goes by boat from Russia. That also triggers the Law of 16 the Sea Convention that they have not dealt with. They 17 haven't dealt with the Stockholm Declaration, and they 18 have not dealt with this recent ruling by the World Court 19 as to obligations under international law. If you read 20 the EA when they are asked this question, they said "Once 21 we give to Canada, that's their problem." Well, again, 22 that isn't a correct statement of international law. It 23 is our problem. 24 The second important point of the ICJ opinion, 25 and there are other sections here dealing with the KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 62 1 environment -- and I know we have a limited amount of 2 time, I'm not going to go through it all -- deals with the 3 interpretation of the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty. 4 This is an international treaty, the World Court 5 also has authority to interpret the Nuclear 6 Nonproliferation Treaty, and they have interpreted the 7 Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. 8 Mr. Love, could you give me -- I identified a 9 paragraph for you, I think it's 102. 10 Q. I believe you are looking for Paragraph 102? 11 A. 102, right. 12 Q. May also want to take a look at Paragraph 99. 13 A. 99 and 102, right. 14 The World Court, in the same advisory opinion, 15 has also dealt with the NPT and the obligation of Article 16 VI of the NPT, "Each of the parties to the treaty 17 undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on 18 effective measures relating to cessation of the" -- "in 19 good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of 20 the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear 21 disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete 22 disarmament under strict and effective international 23 control." And they have interpreted this provision, NPT 24 Article VI, which we are a party to, by the way, to have a 25 dual obligation, two components here: One, we must pursue KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 63 1 negotiations on nuclear disarmament as a matter of good 2 faith. 3 Recently, I regret to report the U.S. Ambassador 4 to the Conference on Nuclear Disarmament sponsored by the 5 United Nations has said "We are not going to pursue 6 nuclear disarmament negotiations." In my opinion, that 7 puts us in breach of NPT Article VI, certainly as 8 interpreted by the World Court. We have an obligation to 9 pursue nuclear disarmament negotiations and we have just 10 said we are not going to do it. The Ambassador said "We 11 are going to pursue instead a treaty on the cutoff of 12 fissile materials such as what is at stake here, but we 13 are not going to pursue nuclear disarmament negotiations." 14 Well, Your Honor, it does seem to me that that is a 15 violation of NPT Article VI and is certainly not meeting 16 the requirements of Article VI as interpreted by the World 17 Court. We must pursue these negotiations in good faith. 18 And then the second component of the obligation 19 is we must achieve a precise result. Nuclear disarmament 20 in all its aspects. And again just recently the U.S. 21 Ambassador to the Council of Nuclear Disarmament under the 22 auspices of the UN said "We are just not going to do it." 23 The reason why this creates serious legal problems is that 24 the non-nuclear weapons states went along with the entire 25 Nuclear Proliferation Treaty on the assumption that the KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 64 1 nuclear weapons states would engage in good faith 2 negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament. If we are 3 not engaging in negotiations leading to nuclear 4 disarmament and publicly say we are not going to do it, 5 this in theory could give the non-nuclear weapons states, 6 all 175 of them, grounds to argue the material breach of 7 the NPT and pull out of the NPT and to engage in nuclear 8 armament. Now I'm not recommending that and indeed I 9 certainly would not recommend that to anyone, but it is a 10 very serious concern if we are not engaging in these 11 nuclear disarmament negotiations, which we are not 12 currently doing. 13 Q. Dr. Boyle, could you briefly summarize for the Court why 14 the International Court of Justice opinions, if at all, 15 are binding on the U.S.? 16 A. This opinion per se is listed as an advisory opinion. So 17 it is -- we are not party to the lawsuit. As you know, 18 some courts can give advisory opinions. Your Honor, you 19 can't give an advisory opinion, but there are courts in 20 the United States that some states courts have authority 21 to give advisory opinions as well as contentious 22 opinions. The World Court has both. They have authority 23 contentious opinion and an advisory opinion. This was not 24 a contentious case. If it were a contentious case, we 25 would be bound by it, like the Lockerbie case, like the KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 65 1 Bosnia cases that I was involved with, those were 2 contentious cases. This was an advisory opinion, however, 3 in this advisory opinion, with these unanimous rulings by 4 the World Court on these points, the World Court made it 5 clear that these rules are customary international law. 6 And rules of customary international law bind the United 7 States Government. The Paquete, P-a-q-u-e-t-e, Habana, 8 H-a-b-a-n-a, decision by the United States Supreme Court 9 customarily international law binds the United States and 10 the United States courts. And technically, this is 11 federal common law. So the, Your Honor, this Court should 12 take into account the World Court rulings on these two 13 points on international environmental law and how the NPT 14 should be interpreted. 15 The rest of the opinion, which is quite lengthy 16 and I had written about elsewhere -- if you are interested 17 in reading my article, you can, but it's not really 18 relevant or terribly germane to the issues here, but 19 certainly, the section on international environmental law 20 and their interpretation of the NPT is relevant. I think 21 they enunciate rules of customary international law. I 22 also have reached the same conclusions myself in my own 23 scholarly research before the World Court did, but I think 24 most experts would agree with the rulings of the World 25 Court on these two points, it's requirements of KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 66 1 international environmental law and the interpretation of 2 the NPT. 3 And again, the DOE's environmental assessment 4 has not taken any of this into account. They have not 5 taken into account the rules of international 6 environmental law, which they should do, and they have not 7 taken into account anything about the NPT. 8 Q. Dr. Boyle, based on your review of the NPT, the Nuclear 9 Nonproliferation Acts of 1978, 1994, and 1998, the 10 International Court of Justice opinion, and the 11 declarations by the Department of State regarding the U.S. 12 position with respect to the Nonproliferation Treaty 13 commitments we have made, do you have an opinion as an 14 expert in international law as to whether the foreign 15 policy of the United States would be violated by the 16 shipment of MOX from Russia to Canada funded by the U.S. 17 DOE? 18 A. Well, again, I agree with everything Dr. Edwards said. 19 Your Honor, this is a major change in United States 20 nonproliferation policy going back at a minimum to the 21 Carter administration and the adoption of the Nuclear 22 Nonproliferation Act, it seems to me completely 23 inconsistent with the treaty, with the Act, the 1978 Act 24 and 1994 Act and the 1998 Act. So yes, this is a major 25 change in policy that potentially is illegal under the KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 67 1 sources. And I would really like to see the Department of 2 Energy comprehensively address all of these issues so we 3 could see what is their authority to do this. Besides 4 their own ipse dixit. I would like to see the authority. 5 I don't see it in any of the sources I've read before for 6 them to unilaterally engage in this major change in policy 7 that seems to be inconsistent with the Treaty, the '78 8 Act, the '94 Act and '98 Act, yes. 9 MR. LOVE: Your Honor, I have no further 10 questions of this witness. Thank you. 11 CROSS EXAMINATION 12 BY MR. DODGE: 13 Q. Morning, Mr. Boyle. 14 A. Morning. 15 Q. I would like to turn your attention back to your C.V., 16 which I think is Exhibit 3. Do you have that in front of 17 you? 18 A. Sure. 19 Q. Just to round out a few items on the second page, about 20 halfway down you testified that you were counsel to Libya 21 in connection with the bombing of the Pan Am flight over 22 Lockerbie, Scotland. 23 A. That is correct. I should point out that matter is being 24 peaceably resolved now by the United States and Libya 25 because of my efforts. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 68 1 Q. And you've also served, going up now the fourth item from 2 the top of that page, since 1987 you served as a legal 3 advisor to the Palestine Liberation Organization? 4 A. That is correct, and I was also the legal advisor to the 5 Palestinian delegation for the Middle East Peace Talks 6 convened under the auspices of President Bush, yes. 7 Q. And two items down from there said you were counsel 8 related to House Resolution 86 in the 102nd Congress 9 dealing with the impeachment of former, then President 10 George Bush? 11 A. Yes. Congressman Henry G. Gonzalez of Texas reached a 12 decision that President Bush going to war violated 13 numerous provisions of the Constitution and international 14 law. You can find them there in House Resolution 86. And 15 he asked me, because of my knowledge and expertise to 16 serve as counsel to them on these matters, and I did serve 17 as counsel free of charge, that is correct. 18 My service to the Palestinian Delegation in the 19 Middle East Peace Negotiations is there in '91 and '93, as 20 I said, President Bush was the one who convened those 21 negotiations, and yes, even though I did set out with 22 Congressman Gonzalez on this issue, President Bush did 23 sign my Biological Weapons Anti-terrorists Act of 1989, 24 which is -- 25 Q. He apparently didn't hold your efforts against you KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 69 1 personally. 2 A. Pardon me? 3 Q. Sounds like he didn't hold it against you personally. 4 A. I don't think he did, no. I'm a lawyer and a law 5 professor and I'm a professional, but he had no problems, 6 President Bush had no problems with my Biological 7 Anti-Terrorism Act. It was approved unanimously by both 8 Houses of Congress. 9 Q. Moving on to the third page, second item from the top of 10 the page, you worked as a consultant in 1993 on 11 Independence for the State of Hawaii. I would assume for 12 Hawaii to become an independent nation? 13 A. That is correct. The State of Hawaii-- the Hawaiian 14 Sovereignty Advisory Commission is an agency of the State 15 of Hawaii. And they were charged under the law by the 16 State of Hawaiian law to investigate all alternatives for 17 the native Hawaiian people. One of the alternatives that 18 needed to be investigated was whether or not the native 19 Hawaiian people should establish their own independent 20 nation state. And I was retained by the State of Hawaii 21 then to advise them on this because of my experience doing 22 the same work with the Palestinians. I advised them on 23 the creation of their state and the peace talks with 24 Israel based on a two-state solution, and the Palestinian 25 state today has diplomatic recognition now by about 125 KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 70 1 states, and currently has de facto UN membership, and I 2 did the legal work on that, so the State of Hawaii 3 retained me to come out and advise on the establishment of 4 an independent nations state, and the State of Hawaii paid 5 my expenses and a modest fee for this work, yes. 6 Q. Moving on to the Nonproliferation Treaty, you testified 7 about Article I. Do you recall that? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. And as I understood your testimony, your view is that the 10 fuel rods at issue in the Parallex Project, in your view, 11 should be treated as components of a nuclear weapon; is 12 that right? Explosive device? 13 A. No. What I said was weapons grade plutonium should be 14 treated as a component of either a nuclear weapon or a 15 nuclear explosive device. 16 Q. What about -- I mean, the Parallex test involves shipment 17 and then irradiation of fuel rods; is that correct? 18 A. Right. 19 Q. And is it your view or is it not your view that those fuel 20 rods constitute components of nuclear weapons or explosive 21 devices? 22 A. My viewpoint is what I said, that weapons grade plutonium 23 is a component of a nuclear weapon or nuclear explosive 24 device. 25 Q. You didn't answer my question. Do you understand the KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 71 1 question? 2 A. Well, I've given my answer. 3 THE COURT: No, you haven't answered his 4 question. He asked you question, if you don't know the 5 answer, say so. He asked you a very specific question 6 about rods. 7 BY MR. DODGE: 8 Q. In fact, the question has to do with your view, if you 9 have one, whether the fuel rods at issue in the Parallex 10 test program constitute components of nuclear weapons or 11 explosive devices. 12 A. If they contain weapons grade plutonium, they would be or 13 could be components of nuclear weapons or nuclear 14 explosive devices. 15 Q. Well, these fuel rods do contain plutonium; is that right? 16 A. As I understand it, it's in there, yep. 17 Q. So in your view, does that make the fuel rods components 18 of nuclear weapons or explosive devices? 19 A. Again, my testimony is that the weapons grade plutonium 20 clearly is either nuclear -- is a component of a nuclear 21 weapon or a nuclear explosive device, and the reason I 22 give that testimony is based on my reading of the 23 Congressional legislation, Congress has taken the position 24 that weapons grade plutonium or plutonium, in general, is 25 a component of a nuclear weapon or nuclear explosive KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 72 1 device. Congress does not deal with the fuel rods, they 2 dealt with the plutonium. 3 Q. I want to make sure I understand your testimony clearly. 4 Is it your testimony, is it your view that any 5 plutonium would qualify as a component of a nuclear 6 weapons or nuclear weapon or explosive device under the 7 treaty? 8 A. My testimony today is the weapons grade plutonium involved 9 in this project is a component of a nuclear weapons or 10 other nuclear explosive device. I believe weapons grade 11 plutonium is what is involved in this project. 12 Q. I asked you a different question. The question was a 13 broader one. Is it your view or not your view that all 14 plutonium would qualify as a component of a nuclear weapon 15 or explosive device under Article I? 16 A. It appears Congress has taken that position, yes, and they 17 have stringently regulated plutonium in all forms. And I 18 also note that the United States Government has exploded a 19 nuclear weapon -- 20 THE COURT: The question is: Is it your 21 opinion? He is asking four or five times now, could you 22 answer that? 23 THE WITNESS: But Your Honor, my opinion is 24 based on -- 25 THE COURT: In courts -- I know you are a KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 73 1 professor -- we answer the questions of the lawyer, not 2 what we want to talk about. He asked you seven or eight 3 questions, none of which you've answered. I would ask you 4 simply listen to the lawyer's question and answer it. 5 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honor. 6 BY MR. DODGE: 7 Q. Do you understand the question? 8 THE COURT: Ask it again for the fifteenth time, 9 ask it again. 10 BY MR. DODGE: 11 Q. Is it your view that all plutonium constitutes a component 12 of nuclear weapon or explosive device under Article I of 13 the treaty? 14 A. It can. 15 Q. It can? 16 A. Yes. Yes. 17 Q. Is it your view across the board that plutonium, whether 18 weapons grade or not, if it's present in a fuel rod for 19 a-- destined for a civilian nuclear reactor would qualify 20 as a component of a nuclear weapon explosive device? 21 A. It could. 22 Q. Do you know whether as a general matter the signatories of 23 the Nonproliferation Treaty have interpreted, whether any 24 signatory has interpreted Article I to ban transport of 25 fuel rods containing plutonium? KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 74 1 A. Congress has strictly regulated plutonium, yes, and there 2 is legislation on the books saying "We, Congress, 3 interpreting our obligations under the NPT, are against 4 international transport of plutonium," yes. 5 Q. Has Congress passed any legislation prohibiting the 6 transport of nuclear fuel rods containing any plutonium? 7 A. In what I have reviewed for my testimony here today, I 8 have not seen in the '78, '94 or '98 Act that Congress has 9 prohibited transport of fuel rods. 10 Q. In fact, fuel rods are transported across national 11 boundaries all the time; is that not correct? 12 A. They are transported. 13 Q. In fact, fuel rods containing plutonium are transported 14 across national boundaries all the time, isn't that 15 correct? 16 A. If they are subject to-- they are supposed to be subject 17 to safeguards, yes. 18 Q. Well, that gets us to another point of your earlier 19 testimony regarding whether the fuel rods particularly at 20 issue in the Parallex Project are or are not subject to 21 IA/EA safeguards in Canada. Do you recall that testimony? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. Do you have personal knowledge whether Canada, the 24 Government of Canada has taken a position on whether the 25 U.S. Parallex fuel rods, which are now in Canada, whether KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 75 1 those fuel rods are now subject to IA/EA safeguards? 2 A. I have not seen any evidence because of the recentness of 3 the movement of the shipments. 4 Q. If I told you that the position of the Government of 5 Canada is that those fuel rods are, in fact, subject to 6 IA/EA safeguards, would you have any basis to quarrel with 7 that? 8 A. The statement by Ms. Locatelli does call into question the 9 validity of these assertions, yes. 10 Q. Miss Locatelli was generally speaking of Parallex fuel 11 rods, was she? 12 A. Speaking about plutonium in general, right. 13 Q. I take it you didn't speak personally to Miss Locatelli? 14 A. No, I did not. 15 Q. About this or any-- 16 A. But I did speak with Mr. Clemens of NCI by e-mail and he 17 has similar concerns to me. 18 Q. Okay. And did you speak to the newspaper reporter, Martin 19 Mittelstaedt, who quoted Ms. Locatelli? 20 A. No, I did not. 21 Q. Whether his quotes accurately reflect what she said or not 22 is not something you would be qualified to testify about; 23 is that right? 24 A. Well, I note The Globe and Mail is a newspaper of public 25 record and I would be able to rely on that in the World KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 76 1 Court for sure, yep. 2 Q. But newspaper reporters are human beings? 3 A. Newspaper reporters make mistakes, sure. But again, the 4 World Court, for example, the nuclear test cases did rely 5 on statements made by Government officials as normally 6 reported in reputable news media sources. They have 7 different standards of evidence, the World Court, than 8 they do here in United States District Court. 9 Q. Now you've also relied on this article, Plaintiff's 10 Exhibit 5, I guess too, in support of your opinion that 11 Canada is in possession of 40 kilograms or up to 40 12 kilograms of plutonium; is that right? 13 A. This is a statement by Mr. Clemens, and I have had e-mail 14 correspondence with him about it. 15 Q. Do you have any personal knowledge whether -- 16 A. No. 17 Q. I'm sorry, I didn't finish my question. 18 A. I did answer your question. 19 THE COURT: He hasn't finished asking it; you 20 couldn't possibly answer his question when he hasn't 21 finished asking it. 22 THE WITNESS: Sorry. 23 BY MR. DODGE: 24 Q. Do you have any personal knowledge of whether Canada, in 25 fact, has 40 kilograms of plutonium? KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 77 1 A. I do not have personal knowledge, no. I'm relying on the 2 statement by Mr. Clemens. 3 Q. Mr. Clemens, does Mr. Clemens have personal knowledge 4 whether Canada has 40-- 5 A. As I understand, Mr. Clemens does. From my e-mail 6 correspondence with him, he does. 7 Q. Has he seen that plutonium? 8 A. Pardon me? 9 Q. Has he seen it? 10 A. He didn't tell me what his sources of evidence are, but he 11 did tell me that they will be making it public soon. 12 Q. So he thinks he has -- he thinks he has evidence to 13 support that conclusion and whether that evidence holds 14 any water or not, we really can't tell, can we? 15 A. Well, again, as an expert, if the NCI is making the 16 statements, I think they are significant and they need to 17 be dealt with, and certainly by the Department of Energy. 18 THE COURT: That was not -- excuse me, that was 19 not his question. 20 Would you repeat your question, please? 21 BY MR. DODGE: 22 Q. The question is: Mr. Clemens believes he has reason or he 23 has evidence to support his conclusion that Canada has 40 24 kilograms of plutonium, but as far as anybody in this 25 courtroom knows, that evidence may or may not hold water, KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 78 1 we just don't know, correct? 2 A. I'm not evaluating the evidence, and Mr. Clemens said the 3 evidence will be produced, so at that point I will review 4 the evidence and formulate a formal opinion. 5 THE COURT: Do you want to ask it again or just 6 want to give up? 7 MR. DODGE: I think that -- I think the point is 8 established to the extent I need to, Your Honor. 9 BY MR. DODGE: 10 Q. Now, you testified earlier that it's up to the State 11 Department, not the Department of Energy to interpret 12 United States treaty obligations; is that right? 13 A. I testified that it is the State Department that is in 14 charge of nuclear proliferation policies, that's what I 15 testified, and not the Department of Energy, yes. 16 Q. Okay. Is it your view that it's -- maybe I misunderstood 17 what you testified earlier. I thought I heard you say 18 that interpreting whether or not the U.S. is complying 19 with Nonproliferation Treaty in particular, that pertinent 20 authority on that would be the State Department, not the 21 Department of Energy; is that a fair statement? 22 A. I've also testified that the State Department has the lead 23 role in the United States Government with respect to 24 interpretation of treatises as well. 25 Q. Do you know what the State Department's position is on KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 79 1 whether the Parallex test program is or is not compliant 2 with Article I of the Nonproliferation Treaty? 3 A. Well, that's why I read the Environmental Assessment, to 4 see if you had talked to the State Department here, and 5 they hadn't, so I have not seen any statement by the State 6 Department as to what their position is, no. 7 Q. The Environmental Assessment is not the only document 8 that's been generated in the course of the Parallex 9 Project, you understand that? 10 A. That is correct, and I have read a good deal of the 11 documentation, but I still have not seen an expression by 12 the Department of State on this issue. 13 Q. Okay. Do you know whether or not the State Department was 14 involved at any level in the Parallex Project? 15 A. There probably were discussions somewhere in there. 16 Q. Do you know? 17 A. Myself personally? 18 Q. Yes. 19 A. I don't know for sure. 20 Q. Do you know one way or the other whether the State 21 Department has a view on whether the Parallex Project is 22 consistent with our treaty obligations under Article I of 23 the NPT? 24 A. I have not seen any expression by the State Department on 25 this issue. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 80 1 Q. If I told you the State Department has taken the view that 2 the Parallex Project is entirely consistent with our 3 obligations under Article I, would you have any basis to 4 quarrel with that? 5 A. I haven't seen it. 6 MR. LODGE: Objection, Your Honor. 7 THE COURT: If he hasn't seen -- 8 MR. DODGE: Withdraw the question, Your Honor. 9 THE WITNESS: I would like to see it and 10 evaluate it myself, sure. 11 BY MR. DODGE: 12 Q. You also testified about dangers of nuclear proliferation 13 relating to countries such as Taiwan and Korea that are 14 not currently nuclear weapons states, but would like to 15 acquire nuclear weapons, do you recall that testimony? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. Is it correct that the MOX program, the Parallex Program 18 does not contemplate the shipment of any fuel rods to any 19 country other than Canada? 20 A. Not at this stage, but eventually it does appear there 21 will be mass circulation of this material, yes, down the 22 line. 23 Q. And the basis for that is what exactly? 24 A. The quantities. If the test works out, the quantity we 25 are talking about coming from Russia. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 81 1 Q. Well, let me be more specific about this. Has the United 2 States, any spokesperson for the United States Government 3 proposed in connection with the Parallex Project to send 4 fuel rods to any country other than Canada? 5 A. The United States? 6 Q. Right. 7 A. No. 8 Q. Has the Government of Russia proposed, in connection with 9 the Parallex Project, to send fuel rods to any country 10 other than Canada? 11 A. Well, they are talking about massive quantities of weapons 12 grade plutonium being circulated into this program and the 13 independent team of experts by Russia and the United 14 States have made that quite clear they are talking tons of 15 this stuff. 16 Q. Well, again, you didn't answer my question there, 17 Professor. I asked you whether the Russian Government has 18 proposed sending fuel rods to any country other than 19 Canada. Your answer only dealt with volumes, it didn't 20 address where. That was my question. 21 A. Right. There might have been discussions on Germany or 22 some of the European states have there -- there have been 23 discussions and proposals, but it's just at that stage 24 now, yes. 25 Q. But Russia has not, to your knowledge, proposed sending KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 82 1 fuel rods to Korea? 2 A. There is an international market here, sure, it could be 3 sold anywhere. 4 THE COURT: No, he didn't say could have. He 5 said: Did they propose it? 6 THE WITNESS: I have not read that right now 7 Russia is proposing sending this to Korea. 8 BY MR. DODGE: 9 Q. Same question with Taiwan. 10 A. I have not read that Russia is proposing to send this to 11 Taiwan. 12 MR. DODGE: No further questions at this time, 13 Your Honor. 14 THE COURT: We will take a 15-minute recess. 15 COURT CLERK: All rise. 16 This court is in recess. 17 (At 10:54 a.m., recess.) 18 THE COURT: Okay. What is next? 19 MR. LOVE: Brief redirect, Your Honor. 20 REDIRECT EXAMINATION 21 BY MR. LOVE: 22 Q. Professor Boyle, did you receive any recognition or 23 rewards from Bosnia for your efforts on their behalf? 24 A. While I was never paid a penny, but President Izetbegovic 25 and Vice President Gonich (phonetic) held a ceremony at KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 83 1 the Bosnian presidency with a-- awarded me full-fledged 2 citizenship in the Republic, a diplomatic passport and 3 visa and a declaration and they put the ceremony on 4 television, so that was very nice. So technically I'm a 5 Bosnian citizen too. 6 Q. Dr. Boyle, with respect to your work on the Hawaiian 7 independence that Mr. Dodge asked you about, has there 8 been any action by the President or Congress, to your 9 knowledge, with respect to that? 10 A. Yes. In 1993 Congress passed a statute signed into law by 11 President Clinton formally apologizing to the native 12 Hawaiian people for destroying their kingdom and stealing 13 their land. The legislation at the end provides for a 14 process of reconciliation and reparations, and how this is 15 going to be dealt with, and I'm still currently involved 16 in those matters. 17 Q. Dr. Boyle, there should be a document up there marked 18 Plaintiff's Exhibit 13. Do you see that? 19 A. Yes, I have it here. 20 Q. Now, this is entitled a Nonproliferation Arms Control 21 Assessment of Weapons Usable Fissile Material Storage and 22 Excess Plutonium Disposition Alternatives, dated January, 23 1997 authored by the United States Department of Energy, 24 correct? 25 A. Yes. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 84 1 Q. Was this among the documents that you reviewed in 2 preparing your testimony? 3 A. I did not have -- I did not get this entire document until 4 Monday, so I did not have a chance to review the entire 5 document, but I have reviewed the excerpts you gave to 6 me. 7 Q. Now Mr. Dodge asked you-- for the record, Your Honor, the 8 excerpt only contains Pages 106 and 107-- Mr. Dodge asked 9 you about your testimony about the possibility of future 10 shipments of MOX to Taiwan and Korea. Do you remember him 11 asking you about that? 12 A. Yes. 13 THE COURT: He didn't ask what the possibility 14 is, he asked if there were plans by Russia or the United 15 States to ship to those two nations. That was the 16 question. 17 MR. LOVE: Okay. 18 THE COURT: And the answer was no. Not are 19 there possibilities. I know the witness thinks there are 20 possibilities, that won't help me any. I understand 21 that. 22 BY MR. LOVE: 23 Q. In fact, Dr. Boyle is it true that in this document the 24 DOE indicates there are possibilities such as you 25 testified about? KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 85 1 A. Yes. 2 THE COURT: I accept that. You are wasting my 3 time. There are possibilities. 4 BY MR. LOVE: 5 Q. Dr. Boyle, if you would, I direct your attention to the 6 large document that's in front of you. This is 7 Proliferation Venerability Red Team Report, Plaintiff's 8 Exhibit 28, and introduced in the prior hearing. 9 A. Yes, and I read this entire report prior to my testimony 10 here today. 11 Q. I'm going to ask you, if you would, to direct your 12 attention to Page 6-1, the conclusions to that report. 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. And again, this is a document that was produced by Sandia 15 Laboratories for the Department of Energy? 16 A. That is correct. 17 Q. Directing your attention to the first conclusion, under 18 the conclusion, keeping plutonium inaccessible is the key 19 to proliferation resistance, do you see that? 20 A. Yes. It says quite clearly, all plutonium from all stages 21 of all alternatives can be made weapons usable should 22 sufficient material be successfully removed. And I should 23 point out that is the position Congress takes under the 24 Nuclear Nonproliferation Act of '78, the Act of '94 and 25 the '98, all plutonium can be made weapons usable. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 86 1 Q. In your view, is that conclusion by the Sandia Lab in this 2 Red Team Report consistent with your testimony? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. Now, Mr. Dodge asked you if there was transport of 5 plutonium across boundaries all the time. My notes 6 reflected you said yes. Do you remember that testimony? 7 A. I said there was some, yes. 8 Q. Is there routinely transportation of weapons grade 9 plutonium shipped across boundaries all the time by the 10 United States? 11 A. No. No. 12 MR. LOVE: No further questions. 13 MR. DODGE: No recross, Your Honor. 14 THE COURT: You may step down. 15 THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honor. 16 Your Honor, did you have any questions? 17 THE COURT: No, I don't. 18 THE WITNESS: Thank you. 19 THE COURT: You've exceeded your time so I take 20 it you have no more witnesses. 21 MR. LOVE: Your Honor, I have no more witnesses 22 but at this time I would like to move our Exhibit 5, 23 Exhibit 7, Exhibit 11, Exhibit 12, Exhibit 13, Exhibit 14 24 and Plaintiff's Exhibit 2 and Exhibit 1 into evidence. 25 MR. DODGE: No objection, Your Honor. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 87 1 THE COURT: 5, 7, 11, 12, 13 and 14, 1 and 2 are 2 received. 3 MR. LOVE: Thank you, Your Honor. We have 4 nothing further. 5 THE WITNESS: Here are the exhibits. Where do 6 you want them? 7 MR. LOVE: I'll take them here. 8 (Hearing continued; reported, not requested 9 transcribed.) 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 88 1 2 3 4 5 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE 6 7 I, Kathleen S. Thomas, Official Court Reporter for the 8 United States District Court for the Western District of 9 Michigan, appointed pursuant to the provisions of Title 28, 10 United States Code, Section 753, do hereby certify that the 11 foregoing is a true and correct transcript of proceedings had 12 in the within-entitled and numbered cause on the date 13 hereinbefore set forth; and I do further certify that the 14 foregoing transcript has been prepared by me or under my 15 direction. 16 17 18 19 20 __________________________________ 21 Kathleen S. Thomas, CSR, RPR-1300 22 U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue 23 Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 24 25 KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (voice) 217-244-1478 (fax) fboyle at law.uiuc.edu (personal comments only) Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Brussel, Morton K Sent: Monday, November 06, 2017 7:56 PM To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: David Green >; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; Estabrook, Carl G > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] FW: MOX for Bombs in Japan I think this is wrong. MOX fuel is mainly used for fuel in nuclear power reactors, not to make bombs. Japan had/has many nuclear reactors. A fairly intelligible discussion is found in wikipedia, under "MOX nuclear”. —mkb On Nov 6, 2017, at 4:40 PM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss > wrote: This was a very lengthy interview I gave in Japan courtesy of their peace and anti-nuclear movement. It was heavily censored. My basic point was that Japan was using MOX to make bombs and that my best estimate was that Japan probably had as many bombs as PRC, which would be in the area of 500. So when the details of the disaster at Fukushima came out, it was clear to me it was one of their leading bomb complexes. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: globenet at yahoogroups.com [mailto:globenet at yahoogroups.com] Sent: Saturday, March 21, 2015 8:10 AM To: globenet at yahoogroups.com Cc: 'Hiroshi Taka'; 'Gensuikyo'; 'Akira Kawasaki'; oheyeran at yahoogroups.com; asia-pacific_demil_mdg-request at lists.riseup.net; 'Coleen Rowley'; 'Douglas Roche' Subject: [globenet] MOX for Bombs in Japan Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (Voice) 217-244-1478 (Fax) (personal comments only) __._,_.___ ________________________________ Posted by: "Boyle, Francis A" > ________________________________ Reply via web post • Reply to sender • Reply to group • Start a New Topic • Messages in this topic (1) VISIT YOUR GROUP [Yahoo! Groups] • Privacy • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use . __,_._,___ _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Tue Nov 7 04:06:47 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2017 04:06:47 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: MOX for Bombs in Japan References: <5B253921-B91A-4A46-B18B-A94C48E12123@illinois.edu> Message-ID: The Japanese Peace Movement know full well that their stockpile of MOX is being used to manufacture nuclear weapons. They also knew of my expertise on MOX for having worked on this case in Michigan. They contacted me because they wanted to do something to stop their government’s use of MOX for weapons purposes. So they asked me to do this interview for them, and then did all the work to set it up including the translation. So maybe you should tell the Japanese Peace Movement that their MOX is not being used for weapons purposes. Maybe you should tell the Japanese Peace Movement that they don’t know what they are talking about when it comes to their own MOX in Japan. I did not. I agreed to help them out and gave this interview which took quite some time to set up and because of the translation. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Monday, November 06, 2017 9:39 PM To: Brussel, Morton K Cc: 'David Green' ; 'C. G. ESTABROOK' ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; 'sherwoodross10 at gmail.com' ; 'peace-discuss at anti-war.net' ; 'a-fields at uiuc.edu' ; Hoffman, Valerie J ; 'Joe Lauria' ; 'Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net' ; 'peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net' ; Szoke, Ron ; 'Arlene Hickory' ; 'Karen Aram' ; 'abass10 at gmail.com' ; 'mickalideh at gmail.com' ; 'Lina Thorne' ; 'chicago at worldcantwait.net' ; 'Jay' ; 'David Johnson' ; 'Mildred O'brien' ; Estabrook, Carl G Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] FW: MOX for Bombs in Japan And by the way, the reason Japanese Peace Movement had me interviewed is because they know full well that their MOX Stockpile is used for weapons purposes. fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Monday, November 06, 2017 9:30 PM To: Brussel, Morton K > Cc: David Green >; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; Estabrook, Carl G > Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] FW: MOX for Bombs in Japan If you are not going to take the time to read these two Testimonies under oath and subject to cross-examination by the Feds of two Experts on MOX in United States Federal District, then you should stop impugning my integrity in favor of Wikipedia—pure guttersnipe! fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Brussel, Morton K Sent: Monday, November 06, 2017 9:13 PM To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: David Green >; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; Estabrook, Carl G > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] FW: MOX for Bombs in Japan I don’t know who qualified you as an expert of nuclear reactors and the nature of their fuels, nuclear physics or nuclear chemistry. Your statements belie that qualification. I hope you don’t expect me, or anyone on this list, to read the transcript you presented, but I did scan it and noted nothing in technical detail there about the properties and use of MOX, certainly not for bombs. Sorry, —mkb On Nov 6, 2017, at 8:38 PM, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: Well I have been qualified as an Expert on MOX in United States Federal District Court. And I prohibit my law students from citing Wikipedia to me in any paper and advise them to never cite or quote Wikipedia to a Judge because Wikipedia is filled with so much pure, unadulterated BULL-TWADDLE. Fab. Subject: Nuclear Proliferation/NPT/US Atomic Energy Law/MOX, etc. 1 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 3 SOUTHERN DIVISION 4 5 ALICE HIRT; ANABEL DWYER; CITIZENS FOR ALTERNATIVES 6 TO CHEMICAL CONTAMINATION; KATHRYN CUMBOW; ROBERT 7 ANDERSON; DORIS SCHALLER VERNON; and TERRY MILLER, 8 Plaintiffs, 9 v. CASE NO: 1:99-CV-933 10 BILL RICHARDSON, Secretary, 11 United States Department of Energy; UNITED STATES 12 OF AMERICA; and UNKNOWN PART(Y)(IES), named as 13 "John and Jane Doe" on complaint, 14 Defendants. 15 ____________________________/ 16 * * * * 17 18 TESTIMONY OF GORDON EDWARDS and FRANCIS BOYLE 19 * * * * 20 21 BEFORE: THE HONORABLE RICHARD ALAN ENSLEN United States District Judge 22 Kalamazoo, Michigan April 7, 2000 23 24 25 KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 2 1 APPEARANCES: 2 APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFFS: 3 MR. KARY LOVE 4 977 Butternut Drive PMB 128 5 Holland, Michigan 49424 6 MR. TERRY J. LODGE 316 North Michigan Street, Suite 520 7 Toledo, Ohio 43624-1627 8 APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANTS: 9 MR. ROBERT I. DODGE 10 MR. CHARLES GROSS U.S. Attorney's Office 11 330 Ionia Avenue, N.W., Suite 501 P.O. Box 208 12 Grand Rapids, Michigan 49501-208 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 3 1 INDEX 2 WITNESS: Page 3 GORDON EDWARDS Direct Examination by Mr. Lodge 4 4 Cross Examination by Mr. Dodge 17 Redirect Examination by Mr. Lodge 20 5 6 FRANCIS BOYLE 7 Direct Examination by Mr. Love 21 Cross Examination by Mr. Dodge 67 8 Redirect Examination by Mr. Love 82 9 10 EXHIBITS Rec'd. 11 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 1 87 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 2 87 12 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 3 31 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 5 87 13 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 6 87 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 11 87 14 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 12 87 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 13 87 15 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 14 87 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 4 1 Kalamazoo, Michigan 2 April 7, 2000 3 at approximately 8:50 A.M. 4 EXCERPT OF PROCEEDINGS 5 TESTIMONY OF GORDON EDWARDS 6 MR. LODGE: We waive opening. 7 THE COURT: Okay. Good for you. 8 MR. LODGE: And we would call Gordon Edwards. 9 GORDON EDWARDS - PLAINTIFFS' WITNESS - SWORN. 10 COURT CLERK: Please state and spell your name 11 for the record. 12 THE WITNESS: My name is Gordon Edwards, 13 G-o-r-d-o-n E-d-w-a-r-d-s. 14 DIRECT EXAMINATION 15 BY MR. LODGE: 16 Q. Dr. Edwards, you previously testified in this proceeding 17 in an earlier motion hearing in December, 1999, correct? 18 A. That is correct. 19 Q. And what, just summarize for the Court, to refresh the 20 Court's recollection, what is your occupation or 21 profession? 22 A. I'm a professor of mathematics at Vanier College in 23 Montreal, and I'm also a consultant on nuclear issues for 24 both governmental and nongovernmental agencies. 25 Q. Are you affiliated with any nongovernmental entity in KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 5 1 Canada regarding the purpose of which is to discuss 2 nuclear issues? 3 A. Yes, I'm the president of the Canadian Coalition for 4 Nuclear Responsibility, which is a federally incorporated 5 organization, since 1978. 6 Q. And how long and in what capacities have you served as a 7 consultant on nuclear issues? 8 A. I've served as a consultant since 1977 for a variety of 9 bodies, including Royal Commissions of Inquiry where I 10 have been retained to cross-examine expert witnesses, also 11 the auditor general of Canada when they were doing a 12 comprehensive audit of the Atomic Energy Control Board, 13 and most recently I was invited for January 2000 by the 14 Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs and International 15 Trade to participate in a small expert workshop on nuclear 16 weapons policies in Ottawa. 17 Q. And Dr. Edwards, have you had the occasion to read the 18 environmental assessment promulgated by the Fissile 19 Materials Office of the U.S. Department of Energy for the 20 Parallex Project? 21 A. Yes, I have, and have commented on that as well. 22 Q. We are here today on a proposed shipment of MOX plutonium 23 from Russia to Chalk River, Ontario, you understand that? 24 A. That is correct. 25 Q. What is your understanding as to the amount of the KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 6 1 plutonium content of the MOX fuel rods, pins that would be 2 brought from Russia? 3 A. The MOX fuel contains 135 grams of weapons grade plutonium 4 as compared with the 119 grams that were in the American 5 shipment that proceeded in January. 6 Q. Now, Dr. Edwards, you indicated that the Canadian 7 Coalition was incorporated in approximately 1978? 8 A. That's right. 9 Q. Have you been active in nuclear issues since that time? 10 A. Even before that time, yes. I have been active 11 specifically on proliferation questions and 12 plutonium-related questions since 1975. 13 MR. LODGE: If I may approach. 14 THE COURT: Of course. 15 BY MR. LODGE: 16 Q. Showing you what has been marked for purposes of the 17 supplemental motion hearing as Plaintiff's Exhibit 1, I'm 18 going to also leave Exhibit 2 up here. 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. Have you ever conducted any investigation into the issue 21 of civilian population or work exposures to plutonium? 22 A. Only at the level of potential for damage, potential for 23 harm. 24 Q. What is Exhibit 1? 25 A. Exhibit 1 is a letter from Mary Measures, Ph.D., Director KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 7 1 of the Radiation Environmental Protection Division of the 2 Atomic Energy Control Board of Canada dealing with 3 quantity of plutonium that an atomic radiation worker or a 4 member of the public may inhale to reach their respective 5 maximum limits. 6 Q. And the date of that is September 30, 1999? 7 A. That is correct, about six months ago. 8 Q. And could you summarize what the inhalation, or what the 9 limits are for both workers and for public? 10 A. Yes. The maximum lifetime limit of exposure in the lung 11 for an atomic worker is approximately 1.4 micrograms, and 12 for the member of the public it's 0.1 microgram, and a 13 microgram being one one-millionth of a gram, so if we 14 translate this into grams, it would mean 1.4 grams would 15 be equivalent-- would be enough to give maximum 16 permissible doses to one million workers and ten -- one 17 gram would be enough to give maximum permissible doses to 18 ten million members of the general public. That's just 19 potential. 20 Q. Okay. And is that based on the -- or, I'm sorry. Have 21 you had occasion in connection with the proposed Russian 22 shipment of a 135 grams of plutonium and the American 23 shipment of 119 grams, to perform any computations as to 24 what the potential dispersion or exposure is? 25 A. Well, I would like to emphasize this is just arithmetic KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 8 1 and does not take into account dispersion factors such as 2 wind velocity, any respiration rates, and so on. If we 3 just look at the theoretical potential, then with 119 4 grams, we are talking about the potential for 85 million 5 atomic workers to receive their maximum permissible 6 exposure, if that were able to be disseminated into all of 7 their lungs and 1,000,190,000 members of the general 8 public, so even though this is a very small amount of 9 plutonium, the potential for exposure, harmful exposure is 10 quite significant. 11 Q. All right. But so that implies you would have to have an 12 optimal dispersal? 13 A. This would be an impossibly optimal dispersal. This would 14 be assuming that the plutonium were distributed fully into 15 the lungs of all the people that I've mentioned. 16 Q. Are you aware of whether or not the American shipment was 17 delivered to Chalk River? 18 A. Yes, the American shipment was delivered to Chalk River. 19 It was taken to the border in what I believe was an SST, a 20 truck which was described as silver, and I believe it was 21 probably an SST, although I do not know for absolute 22 certainty about that, and then it was transported to the 23 Sault Ste. Marie airport where it was lifted by helicopter 24 accompanied by two other helicopters, and transported from 25 there to Chalk River. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 9 1 Q. You indicated that you were talking about an impossibly 2 optimal dispersal. Have you had the occasion to perform 3 any computations as to a very conservative prudent factor 4 to start with for dispersal? 5 A. Well, this is beyond my competence to really talk about 6 the details of how it might be dispersed, but if we just 7 assume for example 99.9 percent containment in the event 8 of a serious accident. 9 Q. Are you saying how much? 10 A. Suppose 99.9 percent of the material were successfully 11 contained and not disseminated in the environment and only 12 that small fraction was disseminated. 13 Q. Okay. 14 A. The potential again would correspond to, for atomic 15 workers in the case of the 119 gram shipment from the 16 States, it would be 85,000 maximum exposures and in the 17 case of the public, it would still over a million. Even 18 with 99.9 containment, in the event of an accident, you 19 still have the potential for over a million 20 overexposures. By the way, the 135 grams, the difference 21 between the 119 grams and the 135 grams from Russia 22 corresponds to potentially again 160,000 additional 23 maximum exposures for members of the public. 24 Q. How many for workers? 25 A. 11,428. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 10 1 Q. That's just -- 2 A. That's just the differential between the two shipments, 3 just the added, going from 119 to 135 adds the potential 4 for another 11,000 worker overexposures or 160,000 public 5 overexposures. This, I believe, is why authorities take 6 such great care to emphasize the packaging in transport. 7 They realize that the potential is great for damage. 8 Q. Do your computations reflect an assumption respecting 9 whether or not the dispersion occurs as a result of an 10 accident or an attack? 11 A. No, we are talking about theoretical potential which is 12 the same regardless of how much or whether the material is 13 dispersed. In an accident, for example, we have 14 previously seen accidents that were analyzed for ground 15 transportation. I have not seen any computations or 16 analysis of accidents for air transport either from the 17 American side or from the Canadian side. 18 Q. Are you talking with respect to Parallex? 19 A. I'm talking with respect to Parallex. 20 If you had, for example, a violent crash and 21 fire of an aircraft, including a helicopter, then the 22 dispersal would cause a plume downwind, could cause a 23 plume downwind, and how much of that plutonium would 24 escape would be subject to analysis which is not, to my 25 knowledge, been performed. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 11 1 Q. Dr. Edwards, do you consider the plutonium in MOX fuel 2 form to be a weapons component? 3 A. Well, in the case of the Parallex project, as you know, 4 this 119 grams or 135 grams, there is not enough there to 5 make an atomic bomb. However, it has long been known that 6 you can make a very damaging radiological explosive device 7 which would simply disperse the plutonium in breathable 8 form. That means that if the plutonium were acquired by a 9 criminal organization or terrorist group they could make 10 an incendiary device which would make this available to be 11 breathed by members of the public and also cause very 12 long-lasting contamination of the environs where this 13 exposure would take place. I believe that it would be 14 incorrect to say that these, even this small Parallex 15 shipment, would not be attractive to terrorists or to 16 criminal organizations as a top -- as a target for theft 17 or diversion. It is true, of course, that this is weapons 18 grade material and had one, if one had sufficient weapons 19 grade material, one indeed can make a very powerful atomic 20 bomb from that. 21 Q. Have you seen any literature or other information in or 22 out of the record of this case that discusses the weapons 23 potential for plutonium? 24 A. Well, yes, it's certainly common knowledge that the -- in 25 fact, the U.S. Department of Energy acknowledges as much KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 12 1 when they refer to the Russian plutonium, the Russian 2 weapons grade plutonium is continuing a clear and present 3 danger. It's long been known and recognized that 4 plutonium is the key ingredient of atomic weapons, so if 5 one talks about components of atomic weapons, the 6 plutonium is the essential component. Once you have the 7 plutonium, then you can acquire the other materials on the 8 open market that are necessary to build a bomb. 9 Q. How do you know that? 10 A. Well, it's been well known for a long time. For instance, 11 there was a study done, published in the Harvard Civil 12 Rights and Civil Liberties Law Review -- I could make that 13 available to the Court, if you would like -- in 1975 as 14 long ago as then, which says, "Since all the material 15 other than plutonium needed to build a bomb is available 16 from commercial hardware and chemical suppliers, the 17 present obstacle to the private construction of nuclear 18 weapons is the unavailability of plutonium." 19 But if we just turn to the study that was 20 commissioned and already on file, I believe, here at the 21 Court, a study that was commissioned by the Office of 22 Fissile Materials Management called the Red Team Report, 23 the Red Team Proliferation Vulnerability Report. 24 In their conclusions on Page 6-1, they have a 25 heading called Keeping Plutonium Inaccessible is the Key KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 13 1 to Proliferation Resistance. So what is basically being 2 said here is plutonium is not just a component but the key 3 component of atomic bombs particularly in the context of 4 illicit groups. 5 Q. Dr. Edwards, could you explain for us Canada's role in the 6 reprocessing of plutonium? 7 A. Well, Canada's role in plutonium goes back to the World 8 War II Atomic Bomb Project. We had a secret laboratory in 9 Montreal which was manned by British, French and Canadian 10 scientists dedicated to developing methods for producing 11 and separating plutonium for weapons purposes as well as 12 civilian purposes, because even then it was anticipated 13 plutonium would have some civilian value. At the end of 14 the war -- incidentally, the first reactor in Canada was 15 built according to a military decision taken in 16 Washington, D.C. in 1944, to demonstrate this potential. 17 The reactor called the NRX reactor was built at 18 Chalk River and a plutonium reprocessing plant was built 19 as well. Plutonium was separated and Britain received its 20 first sample of weapons grade plutonium from Canada from 21 Chalk River just months before their first atomic test. 22 There was also an illicit transfer of plutonium 23 from Chalk River to Russia, which was so the first samples 24 of plutonium that both Britain and Russia received were 25 from Chalk River. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 14 1 Since that time, Canada, of course, has taken a 2 policy decision not to pursue a nuclear weapons option 3 itself, but they have, however, looked favorably on the 4 idea of reprocessing plutonium for civilian purposes. 5 They do not have a policy which is against the 6 reprocessing of plutonium in principle and nor do they 7 discourage their clients, their customers overseas from 8 reprocessing plutonium. And in fact, in Canada, there is 9 an open door policy towards reprocessing as a future 10 option. 11 We just concluded recently a ten-year 12 environmental assessment of the problem of high-level 13 radioactive waste disposal, and in all of the documents it 14 begins by saying, in the very first paragraphs, that by 15 nuclear waste disposal, we mean either spent fuel or 16 post-reprocessing waste. So this is very much a 17 theoretical opening and a policy opening for Canada to use 18 plutonium as a fuel. 19 Q. Showing you what has been marked as Supplemental Motion 20 Exhibit 2, can you identify that for the Court, please? 21 A. Yes. This appears to be an exchange from the British 22 Parliament, questions and answers having to do with 23 nuclear fuel, and the Secretary of State for Trade and 24 Industry is being asked about quantities of spent fuel 25 from Canada that have been contracted for reprocessing at KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 15 1 Cello Field in England. 2 Q. And can you summarize your understanding of what the 3 response by the British Government was? 4 A. Yes. The response here is that a certain amount of 5 plutonium, a certain amount of spent fuel from Canada has 6 been reprocessed beginning in 1970, and that the plutonium 7 has been returned to Canada. I have personal knowledge of 8 the fact that at Chalk River they have maintained a pilot 9 plutonium fuel fabrication line since the 1970s, since 10 1970 and before, and that they have processed at Chalk 11 River approximately three tons, more than three tons of 12 MOX fuel from recycled civilian plutonium. This is part 13 of that, the plutonium that is here being referred to as 14 being recycled or reprocessed in Britain, that's part of 15 the total amount of plutonium that Canada has acquired for 16 the purposes of MOX fabrication. 17 I mentioned that Canada also does not discourage 18 client customers from reprocessing. This is in 19 distinction to the American policy. The American policy, 20 since the Carter administration, successive 21 administrations have maintained the policy of not only not 22 allowing reprocessing in the United States, but also 23 discouraging reprocessing in other countries insofar as 24 that is possible. Canada does not share this policy 25 completely. We do not reprocess in Canada but, on the KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 16 1 other hand, we don't hesitate, it seems, to send our spent 2 fuel to other countries to get reprocessed so that we can 3 develop expertise in plutonium recycling. 4 Q. Does Canada have any relationship with the nation of Japan 5 respecting nuclear material? 6 A. Yes. Canada, as is probably known to the Court, is the 7 world's largest exporter of uranium. We are one of the 8 world's largest producers of uranium and the world's 9 largest exporter of uranium. We have bilateral agreements 10 with our customers as to the use of that uranium. Of 11 course, we have requirements that that uranium not be used 12 for military purposes. If a client customer such as Japan 13 who buys a good deal -- Japan purchases a good deal of 14 uranium from Canada. If a client customer wishes to 15 reprocess their spent fuel to recover plutonium, they do 16 have to get prior permission from the Government of 17 Canada, so when plutonium is reprocessed for the Japanese, 18 in the case where uranium from Canada is involved, the 19 Canadian Government gives their permission for that. 20 Q. Even if it is offshore from Canada? 21 A. Yes. 22 MR. LODGE: Thank you. I have nothing further. 23 THE WITNESS: Thank you. 24 Sorry. 25 MR. LODGE: Yes? KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 17 1 THE WITNESS: Excuse me. 2 MR. DODGE: Not quite finished, Dr. Edwards. 3 THE WITNESS: You knew the time was short. I 4 was jumping the gun a little. 5 CROSS EXAMINATION 6 BY MR. DODGE: 7 Q. Good morning, Mr. Edwards. My name is Bob Dodge. We have 8 met once before back in December. 9 A. That's right. 10 Q. Just a few questions. You testified about the quantity of 11 plutonium that would be included in the Russian shipment. 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. Do you recall that? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. You testified that it was 135 grams? 16 A. That's what was announced, yes. 17 Q. And how many ounces is that? 18 A. How many ounces is that? 19 Q. Yes. 20 A. I don't think in terms of ounces. I have to do the 21 conversion. 22 Q. Can you do the conversion? 23 A. I don't have the -- 24 Q. If I told you that one ounce is 28 grams, does that sound 25 about right? KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 18 1 A. I have no reason to doubt it. We are on the metric system 2 in Canada, we don't use ounces anymore. 3 Q. I understand. If I estimated 135 grams was approximately 4 five ounces, would you quarrel with that? 5 A. I would have no reason to quarrel with that. 6 Q. Now, you also testified about the amount of plutonium that 7 would have to be inhaled in order to exceed the maximum 8 permissible dose under Canadian regulations? 9 A. That is correct. 10 Q. And in your testimony, as I understood it, the assumption 11 you were making was that every single molecule of 12 plutonium that was in that sample would end up in 13 somebody's lungs; is that right? 14 A. That's right. It's calculating the theoretical 15 potential. It is not talking about a realistic scenario. 16 Q. Not only would all of the plutonium have to end up in 17 someone's lungs, but the plutonium would have to be evenly 18 divided so that each person got exactly the same amount of 19 plutonium, it's not all concentrated in one person, you 20 would have to take one-millionths of the sample, put it in 21 one person's lungs and put the next one-millionth in the 22 next person's lungs and so on? 23 A. That is correct. 24 Q. Do you have any idea, if you performed the same analysis 25 on this table, what sort of toxicity numbers you would KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 19 1 get? 2 A. I have no idea of what that would be, no. 3 Q. Now you also talked about Canada's policies regarding 4 plutonium reprocessing. 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. Do you recall that? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. Do you have any understanding of whether the plutonium in 9 the Parallex MOX samples will or will not be reprocessed 10 in Canada? 11 A. It will-- to the best of my knowledge, it will not be 12 reprocessed in Canada, although that option apparently is 13 not decided. 14 Q. What is the basis for that last? 15 A. Because Canada has a policy that at sometime in the future 16 they may reprocess. 17 Q. Do you have any understanding whether there is an 18 understanding between the Government of Canada and the 19 Government of United States or the Government of Russia as 20 to whether these particular samples will or will not be 21 reprocessed? 22 A. I do not, no. 23 MR. DODGE: Thank you very much. 24 25 REDIRECT EXAMINATION KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 20 1 BY MR. LODGE: 2 Q. Dr. Edwards, the House of Commons question and answer, do 3 you know of any particular statistics on Canada's shipping 4 of spent fuel to British nuclear fields and fuels at Cello 5 Field? 6 A. I don't have those figures with me, I'm sorry. I could 7 supply them to the Court, if desired. I do have some 8 figures at my office at home, I don't have them here. But 9 we are talking -- if we are talking about three tons of 10 MOX being fabricated at Chalk River, then one could work 11 out approximately how much of that would contain 12 plutonium, how much plutonium would be contained assuming, 13 for example, three percent. 14 Q. Right. 15 A. And then one could reasonably suppose that the lion's 16 share of that would come from Cello Field. Now I have 17 figures on shipments from Cello Field, but I don't have 18 them here. 19 Q. My question is: Would you presume that the Atomic Energy 20 Control Board of Canada, or AECL of Canada, would make 21 public the fact that the spent MOX from Parallex were 22 being shipped to Britain for reprocessing? Would you 23 presume that would become public knowledge? 24 A. No, I would not assume anything related to plutonium would 25 become public knowledge in Canada. Canada has a very KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 21 1 non-public attitude toward plutonium dealings. In fact, 2 the existing plutonium dealings in Canada including the 3 BNFL contracts is not public knowledge other than as it 4 has been raised in foreign countries such as in Britain or 5 by documents that have been leaked to nongovernmental 6 organizations. This is not something which Atomic Energy 7 of Canada Limited makes public. 8 MR. LODGE: Thank you. 9 MR. DODGE: No recross, Your Honor. 10 THE COURT: You may step down, Dr. Edwards. 11 Thank you. 12 MR. LOVE: Your Honor, if it please the Court, 13 the Plaintiffs would call Francis Boyle to the stand 14 FRANCIS BOYLE - PLAINTIFFS' WITNESS - SWORN 15 COURT CLERK: Please be seated and state and 16 spell your name for the record. 17 THE WITNESS: My name is Francis Boyle. 18 F-r-a-n-c-i-s B-o-y-l-e. 19 DIRECT EXAMINATION 20 BY MR. LOVE: 21 Q. Dr. Boyle, are you currently employed? 22 A. Yes, I am a professor of international law at the 23 University of Illinois College of Law in Champaign. 24 Q. How long have you been employed in that capacity? 25 A. 1978. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 22 1 MR. LOVE: Your Honor, may I approach the 2 witness? 3 BY MR. LOVE: 4 Q. Dr. Boyle, I'm showing you what has been marked as 5 Supplemental Preliminary Injunction Hearing Plaintiffs' 6 Exhibit 3 and ask you if you can identify that document. 7 A. It's a copy of my professional resume. 8 Q. Was this resume prepared at or under your direction? 9 A. Yes. I think it's current as of January 28th, 1999. I've 10 been kind of busy in the last year, haven't revised it. 11 Q. To the extent it's current through that date, does that 12 accurately reflect your experience, education, seminars 13 that you participated in, and articles that you've 14 authored? 15 A. Not seminars I've participated in, that would be too many 16 but, you know, the essence of my professional career and 17 articles-- significant teaching, consulting, practice. 18 I'm also a licensed attorney as well. 19 Q. If you would, give us a brief recitation of your 20 educational background? 21 A. I attended the University of Chicago where I studied 22 international relations with Professor Hans Morganthal who 23 is the mentor of Dr. Henry Kissinger at Harvard. I was 24 one of seven students in my class elected to Phi Beta 25 Kappa as a junior. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 23 1 I also did work in mathematical biology, winning 2 the award for the work I did in that area by the world's 3 leading geneticist now at Harvard. 4 I graduated in three years. From there I went 5 to Harvard Law School. I have a J.D. Magna Cum Laude from 6 Harvard Law School specializing in international law. 7 I also entered the Graduate School of Arts and 8 Sciences at Harvard in the Department of Government. I 9 have a Master's degree and a Ph.D. in political science 10 specializing in international relations, international 11 politics. This is the same Ph.D. program that produced 12 Henry Kissinger, Zabanya Brezenski (phonetic) and other 13 high level U.S. Government officials. 14 I was at the Harvard Center for International 15 Affairs for two years. Kissinger and Brezenski had been 16 there before me. 17 I spent two years teaching in the Harvard 18 College undergraduates international law organizations, 19 human rights. I practiced law with a Boston law firm for 20 a year at Bingham, Dana and Gould, where I did 21 international tax, and tax, and then finally in 1978 I 22 came to the University of Illinois. I went up for tenure 23 at the beginning of my third year, which I got, and I've 24 been tenured there since, you know, many years. 25 Q. Since undertaking your position at University of Illinois, KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 24 1 have you specialized in any area with respect to 2 particular research, writing and international law? 3 A. Well, for the purpose of our proceedings today, yes. I 4 have been specializing an enormous amount on the nuclear 5 weapons, nuclear weapons policy, proliferation, arms 6 control. Going back to my studies with Professor 7 Morganthal 30 years ago so I've been involved in these 8 issues starting as a student since 1969 and continuously 9 until today. 10 THE WITNESS: Sorry, Your Honor, I have a bit of 11 laryngitis. 12 THE COURT: That's fine, no problem. 13 BY MR. LOVE: 14 Q. Dr. Boyle, if you would direct your attention to your 15 resume, I would like to touch on a few seminal points. On 16 the first page under teaching, the third entry down talks 17 about being a lecturer in Nuclear Weapons and 18 International Law, 21st Senior Conference on Nuclear 19 Deterrence at U.S. Military Academy at West Point in 20 1983. 21 A. Yes. This is a high level seminar run by the Pentagon, 22 not for the cadets, but for about 200 of the highest level 23 officials of the United States Government dealing with 24 nuclear weapons proliferation, nuclear weapons policies, 25 and I was asked to lecture to this conference, and I won't KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 25 1 go through all the high level officials there, but sitting 2 right in front of me for my lecture was the three star 3 general in charge of war operations at the Pentagon, at 4 that time General Mahaffey. And I also note I had read 5 the independent expert's report on the MOX program 6 U.S./Russia of 1977, one of the U.S. independent experts, 7 Richard Garwin was there with me and he was also a 8 lecturer with me to this group, so I do know that Garwin 9 was involved in the Parallex MOX recommendations. 10 Q. With respect to the second to the last entry on Page 1 of 11 Exhibit 3, talks about "Lecture Tour of the Soviet Union 12 on Nuclear Weapons and International Law for Lawyers' 13 Committee on Nuclear Policy and Association of Soviet 14 Lawyers" in 1986. What was involved with that? 15 A. Yes. The former Soviet Union, their equivalent to the 16 American Bar Association was the Association of Soviet 17 Lawyers, and in conjunction with the Lawyers' Committee on 18 Nuclear Policy headquartered here, they decided to invite 19 one professor to go over to the Soviet Union and lecture 20 around the country for two weeks on various issues related 21 to nuclear weapons and international law, and both 22 organizations selected me for this purpose, so I went over 23 for two weeks and gave several lectures per day, Moscow, 24 Leningrad, Kiev to professors, lawyers, peace people, 25 whoever, news media on various aspects of nuclear weapons KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 26 1 targeting doctrine as they relate to international law 2 and, in general, nuclear policies. 3 Q. If you would direct your attention, Dr. Boyle, to Page 2 4 under Practice, fifth entry down it says "Author, 5 Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989, Public Law 6 Number 101-298 (1990) (adopted unanimously by both Houses 7 of Congress)," could you explain what that means, please? 8 A. Yes. Your Honor, we are dealing here with a treaty, the 9 Nuclear Proliferation Treaty-- Nonproliferation Treaty of 10 1968. That treaty has been implemented by Congress in the 11 Nuclear Nonproliferation Act of 1978, the Nuclear 12 Proliferation Prevention Act of 1994 and also recent 13 amendments in 1998 to deal with the India/Pakistan 14 explosions. I have direct personal experience on how you 15 take a treaty, an international treaty, and implement it 16 as a matter of United States Constitutional law by working 17 with Congress. 18 The Biological Weapons Convention of 1972 is a 19 treaty that is a total, not only arms control reduction 20 and elimination treaty for biological weapons, I gave a 21 lecture on Capitol Hill calling for legislation, domestic 22 legislation to implement this treaty, and this 23 recommendation was taken up by a group I work for called 24 the Council of Responsible Genetics. I'm on their 25 Advisory Board. I also serve as counsel to them, so KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 27 1 pursuant to their request, I drafted the implementing 2 legislation, I authored it, how to implement this treaty. 3 And then we took it to members of the House and the Senate 4 and we shepherded it through the entire process dealing 5 with members of Congress, both Houses, including testimony 6 I prepared. At that point in time, the Reagan 7 administration was opposed to this implementing 8 legislation. I had to deal personally with their position 9 papers against it refuting these things. 10 Finally there was a change of policy when 11 President Bush came into office, to his credit, and they 12 supported the legislation. It finally was approved 13 unanimously by both Houses of Congress and signed into law 14 by President Bush in 1989. This legislation was called 15 the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989. It was 16 later amended in the anti-terrorism and effect Death 17 Penalty Act of 1996. 18 I thought I had drafted the most draconian piece 19 of legislation you could possibly imagine on biological 20 weapons, but there is always a loophole, Your Honor, so 21 Congress revisited this in 1996 to close some of the 22 loopholes that had not been apparent to me and the 23 scientists I worked with back in 19, starting in from '85 24 to about 1989. So I just cite this as having direct 25 personal experience with relationship between arms control KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 28 1 treatise, reduction treatise and then how they are 2 implemented by Congress. I have done this myself. On 3 biological weapons and I'm still involved in that issue. 4 Obviously, I have not been involved in the 5 drafting of the implementing legislation for the Nuclear 6 Proliferation Treaty of 1968, there are three pieces, but 7 I have read and reviewed the implementing legislation. I 8 have an understanding how they relate to the 9 Nonproliferation Treaty and I also teach a course on this 10 subject, that is how international laws related to the 11 United States Constitution is implemented by Congress and 12 also carried out in the courts. I teach an entire course 13 just devoted to this subject. 14 Q. Dr. Boyle, you've had some experience practicing before 15 what was known formerly as the International Court of 16 Justice but currently the World Court; is that correct? 17 A. Yes, I have. 18 Q. Could you relate to the Court a summary of that 19 experience? 20 A. Well, I've advised governments with respect to either 21 actual or potential World Court litigation, some of that 22 is still attorney/client confidence that I'm not prepared 23 to discuss. What I am prepared to discuss are those 24 matters that are in the public record. 25 I did serve as counsel to Libya on the Lockerbie KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 29 1 bombing case. It was my recommendation the-- 2 unfortunately President Bush had about the sixth fleet 3 mobilized off the coast of Libya and was about to bomb 4 Libya that we filed a lawsuit at the World Court to stop 5 the bombing. We filed a lawsuit, Libya was not bombed. 6 Later on, I was General Agent for the Republic 7 in Bosnia of Herzegovina before the International Court of 8 Justice. In other words, I was their first ambassador to 9 the World Court for the Republic of Bosnia, Herzegovina, 10 and I sued Yugoslavia for committing genocide against the 11 Bosnian people. I won two cease and desist orders 12 overwhelmingly in favor of Bosnia against Yugoslavia. 13 Later on, I publicly advised -- I advised the 14 Bosnian Government to sue Britain for aiding and abetting 15 genocide against Bosnia, and President Izetbegovic 16 instructed me to sue Britain for a genocide against 17 Bosnia. That lawsuit was terminated under duress, 18 threatened them, so they withdrew from those proceedings. 19 Q. Dr. Boyle, with respect to your writings, if you would 20 direct your attention to Page 3 of Exhibit 3, the last two 21 entries at the bottom -- excuse me, the second to last 22 entries entitled Nuclear Weapons and International Law: 23 The Arms Control Dimensions, do you see that? 24 A. Yes. This was the lecture I gave to the West Point 25 Military Academy senior conference proceedings, which they KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 30 1 did publish in their proceedings at West Point, and 2 actually under my books, I've just completed work on my 3 sixth book, which is entitled Nuclear Deterrence and 4 International Law. And right now it is sitting at Pluto 5 Press -- I guess that's appropriate for today's 6 proceedings -- Pluto Press in Britain. They have 7 expressed an interest in publishing it. They are 8 currently evaluating it. I do not have a contract on that 9 book, but I did get the e-mail just before I came here, so 10 I'll have to deal with that when I go back. 11 Q. With respect to your other publications, Dr. Boyle, I note 12 that on Page 4 you've got one entitled, about halfway 13 down, The Relevance of International Law to the "Paradox" 14 of Nuclear Deterrence. 15 A. That is correct. 16 Q. Can you tell us briefly what the subject matter is? 17 A. After I made the lecture at West Point, obviously the U.S. 18 military officials and others, we had a fairly vigorous 19 debate, let me put it that way. And that vigorous debate 20 between myself and these others led to this article that 21 was later published here in the United States and also 22 translated into Dutch, because the Dutch lawyers wanted it 23 to be available as part of the debate in Holland over the 24 deployment of the U.S. intermediate nuclear forces under 25 the Reagan administration, so they translated the whole KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 31 1 thing into Dutch and it was published in the Netherlands. 2 MR. LOVE: Your Honor, I have no further 3 questions of Dr. Boyle with respect to qualifications, and 4 I tender him for voir dire to the U.S. Attorney's Office 5 subject to my motion to admit Plaintiff's Exhibit 3 into 6 evidence. 7 MR. DODGE: I have no objection to the admission 8 of the C.V. 9 THE COURT: Exhibit 3? 10 MR. DODGE: Exhibit 3. 11 THE COURT: You have no voir dire questions to 12 ask either? 13 MR. DODGE: Not with respect to that exhibit. I 14 may get into the resume on the cross. 15 THE COURT: That's fair enough. 16 Exhibit 3 is received. 17 MR. DODGE: Thank you, your Honor. 18 BY MR. LOVE: 19 Q. Dr. Boyle, in preparing for your testimony here today, 20 could you please outline for the Court -- I think you have 21 done so somewhat already -- some of the documents that you 22 reviewed and the source materials you looked at in 23 preparing your testimony today? 24 A. I have a pretty detailed knowledge about these things 25 generally. For example, when the Nuclear Nonproliferation KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 32 1 Act first came out in 1978, I did read it, but in 2 preparation for this testimony today, I've gone back and 3 read the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, the Nuclear 4 Nonproliferation Act, the Nuclear Proliferation Prevention 5 Act of 1994, the 1998 amendments. I have read a large 6 quantity of documents produced by the Department of Energy 7 on the Parallex Project. I have read the Environmental 8 Assessment dealing with the aspects of international 9 environmental law that have not been dealt with in the 10 Environmental Assessment, in my opinion, should have been 11 dealt with the Stockholm Declaration, which is not there, 12 and the World Court Advisory Opinion on 1996, I have an 13 article on it that. I didn't go back and read the whole 14 advisory opinion, but I reread the portions of the 15 article, and other scholarly sources that deal with this 16 question. There are other sources I did not have a chance 17 to review not directly related to proliferation per se. 18 But for example, in my opinion the EA should 19 have dealt with the UN Convention on the Law of the Seas. 20 It's not in there. There's been nuclear accidents 21 convention, it's not dealt with in there. There is the 22 Bowel convention on the International Transportation of 23 Hazardous Substance and Toxic Materials, that's not in 24 there. I identified those as further sources that should 25 be analyzed in my opinion, but I haven't had a chance to KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 33 1 go back and review all of those sources. 2 Q. Dr. Boyle, did the types of materials that you've just 3 identified for the Court, are these the types of materials 4 that in your experience are relied upon by experts in the 5 field of international law in forming opinions as to the 6 legitimacy of governmental actions under internationally? 7 A. Yes. I also have experience reading environmental impact 8 statements. When the Pentagon produced the DEIS or the 9 biological defense research program, the Council for 10 Responsible Genetics asked me to evaluate this entire 11 thing -- it was an enormous document -- and submit formal 12 comments on it to the Pentagon, which I did do and they 13 did respond to. So this is the type of sources that 14 experts in my field would normally look at and review in 15 forming an opinion about Government behavior, and I have 16 done this before with respect to biological weapons. 17 Q. Dr. Boyle, I'm going to show you what has been marked for 18 identification as Plaintiff's Exhibit 4. Ask you to take 19 a moment to look at that and let me know when you've had a 20 chance to do so, please. 21 A. Yes. This is the treaty on the nonproliferation of 22 nuclear weapons, and as I've said, it has also been 23 implemented by Congress on the Nuclear Nonproliferation 24 Act of 1978, the Nuclear Proliferation Prevention Act of 25 1994 and also 1998 amendments. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 34 1 The critical point to keep in mind about this 2 treaty, Your Honor, is that Congress has passed 3 legislation expressing its understanding of what this 4 treaty means and what our obligations are under this 5 treaty. And this legislation is binding on the Department 6 of Energy, on the President, on the Department of State 7 and respectfully, Your Honor, on this Court. And what we 8 see, when you read through it all, is Congress has 9 decided, and prior to that the Atomic Energy Act as well, 10 that nuclear power, nuclear weapons, nuclear proliferation 11 is so important to the American people and our republic, 12 that they have decided to engage in micro management of 13 everything related to this subject and have pretty much, I 14 would not say completely eliminated, but whittled down 15 substantially any discretion that the executive branch 16 might have in this area. I have, as I said, I did read 17 the NPA back in 1978, but when you add in everything else, 18 what surprised me was how little discretion was left to 19 the executive branch with respect to nuclear 20 proliferation, nuclear weapons. In this area, they have 21 very little discretion. 22 Q. Professor Boyle, if you could, can you explain to the 23 Court what the implications are for Canada, Russia and the 24 United States under the Nonproliferation Treaty? 25 A. Well, my reading of both the treaty and in light of the KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 35 1 Department of Energy documents describing Parallex and 2 MOX, the Red Team report, many other documents that I've 3 read, in my opinion, there are serious problems, 4 compliance problems for this entire project under Articles 5 I, II and III of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty as 6 interpreted by the United States Congress. 7 The Article I deals with the obligations of the 8 United States and Russia. Each nuclear weapons State 9 Party to the Treaty, i.e. U.S. and Russia, undertakes not 10 to transfer to any recipient whatsoever, i.e. Canada, 11 nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices, and we 12 have a problem here in that Congress has interpreted this 13 to mean components of nuclear weapons or nuclear explosive 14 devices; that is, Congress simply does not interpret this 15 to mean you can't hand over a bomb, but a component for a 16 bomb is prohibited. And here we are dealing with weapons 17 grade plutonium, which Dr. Edwards has already testified 18 can be and indeed is, in his opinion, a component for 19 either a nuclear weapon or a nuclear explosive device. 20 Okay? 21 So when you read the treaty in light of the 22 statutory scheme, in my opinion, there are serious 23 compliance problems here with Article I, which have not 24 been addressed in the EA. The DOE has not dealt with any 25 of these problems at all in the EA, indeed, they have KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 36 1 basically said in one of their comments "Well, once we 2 give it to Canada, it's their problem," and that just is 3 an incorrect statement, in my opinion. 4 And it says "directly or indirectly," which 5 means also we, the United States, directly or indirectly 6 by encouraging and paying for the Russians to do this, you 7 see. So we are accountable for the Russian behavior 8 because we are working with them. And indeed, if we were 9 sued at the International Court of Justice -- let's 10 suppose something went wrong, Your Honor, and there was, 11 as Dr. Edwards testified, an aerial explosion in the 12 latest helicopter shipment and radiological dispersal of 13 plutonium that came across the border, killing Americans, 14 killing Canadians, others, if we were sued in World Court 15 over this, we would be found both jointly and severally 16 liable with Russia, with Canada, for any accident. 17 Likewise, this is followed up by both shipments on the 18 high seas of the plutonium. If there is an accident on 19 high seas, we could be sued at the World Court, the United 20 States, both ourselves and jointly and severally with 21 Russia and Canada over any accident here that might 22 happen. And that substantive liability could be based on 23 the U.N. Law of the Sea Convention. As I said, Your 24 Honor, I haven't had time to go through the environmental 25 provision of the Law of the Sea Convention, the Department KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 37 1 of Energy didn't even bother, and in the EA they did not 2 look at this at all. They did not consider this, but it 3 certainly is something that has to be considered, that 4 they haven't looked at. 5 And then "not in any way to assist, encourage or 6 induce any non-nuclear weapon State to manufacture or 7 otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear 8 explosive devices." Well, the problem here is Canada is 9 supposed to be a non-nuclear weapons state and says 10 "otherwise acquired nuclear explosive devices." Well, we 11 are giving them weapons grade plutonium, which again 12 Dr. Edwards has testified, and he is Canadian, is a 13 component of a nuclear weapons or nuclear explosive 14 device. And again, "or control over such weapons or 15 explosive devices." We are giving them weapons grade 16 plutonium. And if you look at how Congress has 17 interpreted this, they interpret it down to components, 18 they even talk about substances that they are trying to 19 regulate everything, and understand the 1978 legislation 20 was a very strict interpretation of what this treaty means 21 as far as the United States Government is concerned. And 22 I think we really need a comprehensive assessment here by 23 the Department of Energy as to whether or not any of these 24 transfers is consistent with Article I. Under the current 25 circumstances, they haven't bothered to look at any of the KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 38 1 terms as defined by Congress, the applicability of the 2 Congressional legislation to the transfers. 3 Likewise, Article II, Your Honor, Article II 4 deals with the Canadian obligations, "Each 5 non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes 6 not to receive the transfer from any transferor whatsoever 7 of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices." 8 Again, the same analysis here needs to be done. This 9 weapons grade plutonium, in my opinion and Dr. Edwards' 10 opinion, is clearly a component of either a nuclear weapon 11 or nuclear explosive device. And Canada, according to 12 this language, has agreed not to receive this material. 13 And by the way, as Dr. Edwards correctly pointed out, Your 14 Honor, this was consistent United States policy, stopping 15 proliferation of this type of material for any reason 16 going back to the Carter administration. We are seeing a 17 major dramatic change here in United States 18 nonproliferation policy, and that policy, Your Honor, 19 going back to the Carter administration, is enshrined in 20 law by Congress in the Nuclear Nonproliferation Act of 21 1978. So again, in my opinion, I believe these issues 22 likewise need to be addressed by the Department of 23 Energy. They have not been addressed in the environmental 24 assessment at all. 25 "Or control over such weapons or explosive KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 39 1 devices, directly or indirectly." Well, again, we are 2 giving Canada, either ourselves in the first shipment or 3 indirectly by means of the Russians in the second 4 shipment, control over a component for a nuclear weapon or 5 a nuclear explosive device. That's very clear they are 6 getting it. And according to the EA, we are trusting 7 their good intentions. There is no assurance in the EA 8 that this weapons grade plutonium is subject to 9 international safeguards. No. Despite the fact that 10 Congress has made it very clear that any transfer, and 11 Congress also made it clear in the legislation that they 12 are against any transfers of this type of stuff to other 13 States. But if there are any transfers at a minimum there 14 have to be absolute guaranteed protections on 15 international assurances to make sure it is not misused, 16 and you will note in the EA it says nothing about it. 17 There are no assurances about anything. 18 Now, "to manufacture or otherwise acquire 19 nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices; and 20 not to seek or receive any assistance in the manufacture," 21 etcetera, etcetera. 22 Article III then deals with the safeguard 23 requirements; that is, if there are transfers of materials 24 for peaceful purposes, and you know you can obviously, 25 Your Honor, you can read this yourself. There must be KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 40 1 safeguards. Under the supervision of the International 2 Atomic Energy Agency, the Environmental Assessment says 3 nothing at all about these safeguards. Nothing. It isn't 4 in there. 5 Apparently we have to rely on not even 6 statements by Canada that what we are transferring there, 7 what we are encouraging the Russians to transfer are 8 somehow going to be safeguarded despite the fact that 9 Article III says that there must be safeguards, and we 10 simply don't have them. 11 Q. Dr. Boyle, I'm going to show you what's been marked for 12 identification as Plaintiff's Exhibit 5 and ask you to 13 take a look in the upper right-hand corner, and after 14 you've had a moment to review that, let me know, please. 15 A. Yes. This is an article I had read in preparation for my 16 testimony here today, from the Toronto News. 17 Q. Based on your experience and expertise, Dr. Boyle, is this 18 the type of information that an international law scholar 19 could rely on in formulating opinions about the state or 20 nationally? 21 A. Well, here is stating comments by Mr. Tom Clemens, head of 22 the Washington-based Nuclear Control Institute. It's a 23 recognized organization dealing with nuclear policies, and 24 certainly experts in my field would rely upon statements 25 produced by the Nuclear Control Institute and, indeed, KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 41 1 prior to my testimony today, I did read several documents 2 produced by the Nuclear Control Institute just in the 3 normal course of preparing, yes. An expert in my field 4 would rely on this. 5 Q. Dr. Boyle, my recollection is you testified this appeared 6 in the Toronto -- 7 A. News. 8 Q. -- News and it -- 9 A. The Globe and Mail, which is, you know, it's sort of like 10 the New York Times here in the United States, a newspaper 11 of public record, so again, it's not like a tabloid or 12 something like this. 13 Q. Plaintiff's Exhibit 5, Dr. Boyle in the right-hand column 14 attributes some comments to a Sunni Locatelli purportedly 15 a spokeswoman at the Atomic Control Board. Do you see 16 that? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. What if anything is the significance, based on your 19 experience as expertise, of considering published reports 20 attributed to spokespersons for governmental entities in 21 formulating use of international law? 22 A. Yes. There is a decision by the International Court of 23 Justice in the nuclear test cases dealing with nuclear 24 explosions 1974, stating that the Court can rely upon 25 official statements made by Government officials acting KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 42 1 within their scope of authority and certainly Locatelli 2 here is the spokeswoman of the Atomic Energy Control 3 Board. So basically, I would be able to take this 4 statement and file it at the World Court and they would 5 find the statement could be, would be attributable to the 6 Canadian government, and Canada would be bound by this 7 statement. 8 Q. What does that article, Plaintiff's Exhibit 5, attribute 9 to Miss Locatelli? 10 A. She can't reveal how much fissile material Canada has. We 11 aren't able to give out that information under our 12 security regulations. Ms. Locatelli said Canada believes 13 it should come under the IA/EA guidelines because it 14 doesn't operate its own reprocessing facilities. I think 15 Dr. Edwards just pointed out that isn't correct. But even 16 if it were correct, it does come under IA/EA, and we need 17 to know, the United States Government under the NPT, under 18 the Congressional implementing legislation, we have to 19 know how much fissile material Canada has. 20 And basically, we are just taking their, 21 whatever their word is for it, and in my opinion, that's 22 unacceptable. We have to know how much material they have 23 and what they are doing with it, and what she's saying 24 here is "Well, we are just not going to tell you." And 25 you will note in the EA, the Department of Energy has KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 43 1 taken the same position. One of the comments made was 2 "Well, what is Canada doing," and the response of the DOE 3 is well, that is Canada's problem, once it leaves here we 4 are no longer responsible. The treaty and statutory 5 regime make it clear that's not the case. We are 6 responsible for our plutonium, wherever it goes. And 7 Congress has made it clear even if we do give it up, we 8 have to have absolute international safeguards as to what 9 is going to happen with our plutonium. And the same would 10 apply if we are encouraging Russia to ship weapons grade 11 plutonium to Canada. We have an obligation to make sure 12 that it's safeguarded and that it can be accountable and 13 accounted for. And what Ms. Locatelli here is saying 14 "Well, sorry, we are just not going to tell you." Again, 15 this raises serious problems in my mind that have not been 16 dealt with by the Department of Energy as to compliance 17 with the IA/EA safeguards regime, which is absolutely 18 required under Article III of the NPT and also required 19 under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Act. Indeed, if I 20 remember correctly, the 1994 implementation, Your Honor, 21 Congress said that transferring of unsafeguarded plutonium 22 is an act of international terrorism as far as Congress is 23 concerned. 24 So and that would trigger a whole host of other 25 provisions of the federal code dealing with international KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 44 1 terrorism, so we really need to know what is going to 2 happen to our plutonium when it gets up into Canada, and 3 to make sure there are safeguards and it is accountable 4 and there is an explanation here. 5 Now Mr. Clemens then said that, in his opinion, 6 Canada has 40 kilograms of plutonium, it's really not 7 accounted for or accountable for by anyone, and that 8 basically makes Canada a de facto nuclear weapons state. 9 I would agree, assuming that they do have the 40 kilograms 10 of plutonium, and I take it you know Mr. Clemens -- I had 11 e-mail correspondence with Mr. Clemens about this matter. 12 He feels that they do have it and that his group, the 13 Nuclear Control Institute, will be making this evidence 14 available soon. He told me it is not yet -- he is not yet 15 prepared to make it public, but they will be going public 16 with it soon. 17 In my opinion, if that is the case, they have 40 18 kilograms of plutonium, that's enough to make five bombs, 19 and that makes Canada a de facto nuclear weapons state 20 under the NPT and, in my opinion, would be inconsistent 21 with the NPT. There is a potential here for Canada being 22 in violation of the NET. We need to know that. Congress 23 has sanctions in there in the implementing legislation for 24 non-nuclear weapons states being, moving into a position 25 where they are de facto nuclear weapons states in KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 45 1 violation of the NPT. 2 It's clear Congress interprets our obligations 3 under the treaty to mean that a non-nuclear weapons state 4 simply cannot go off, assemble all the components for a 5 bomb, have one here, one there and one there, and then 6 say, oh but we are not a nuclear weapons state because we 7 haven't assembled the bomb. 8 Again, Congress made it very clear, no. Indeed, 9 in one of the pieces of legislation, Congress indicated 10 that it was also concerned with a facto nuclear weapons 11 states that an end run around the NPT, and the 12 Congressional regime applicable to it. Again, I regret to 13 report I haven't seen any of these issues dealt with by 14 the Department of Energy in the Environmental Assessments 15 and, indeed, when they were asked about it, they just said 16 this is now Canada's problem. Wondered-- United States 17 law of the NPT, it is not Canada's problem alone, it is 18 our problem because it's our plutonium and it's Russian 19 plutonium that we are paying to send up to Canada. 20 Q. Professor Boyle, based on the representations of Miss 21 Locatelli on behalf of Atomic Energy Control Board of 22 Canada that they don't believe they are subject to the 23 IA/EA guidelines, what if any impact would that have on 24 the United States' responsibility under the Nuclear 25 Nonproliferation Treaty of 1978? KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 46 1 A. It's very clear, Your Honor, the NPT and the Congressional 2 implementing legislation that we ourselves cannot ship 3 weapons grade plutonium there or engage in the Russians to 4 ship weapons grade plutonium unless there are absolutely 5 safeguards by the IA/EA that, to make sure that there is 6 no diversion. And again, Miss Locatelli is indicating 7 there is a high amount of uncertainty as to what is 8 happening with the Canadian plutonium. We simply don't 9 know. In the EA, there are no guarantees given by the 10 Department of Energy as to what is happening to plutonium 11 up in Canada. 12 Q. You may have testified to this, Dr. Boyle, and I apologize 13 if I missed it, but are Russia, Canada and the United 14 States all signatory partis to the Nonproliferation 15 Treaty? 16 A. Yes. We are all parties. There are about 182 or 183 17 states that are parties. The United States and Russia are 18 nuclear weapon states, parties to the convention, that is, 19 we are permitted to have nuclear weapons and nuclear 20 components, etc. Canada is designated a non-nuclear 21 weapons state. And they are supposed to preserve this 22 stative or statement. Yet according to the Nuclear 23 Control Institute, they have enough plutonium up there to 24 at least manufacture five bombs. So somehow this has to 25 be explained and accounted for in order for them to KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 47 1 continue their non-nuclear weapons state status under the 2 NPT, so again, the Nuclear Control Institute is raising 3 very serious compliance problems and potentially serious 4 violation of the NPT by Canada, and there are severe 5 sanctions in the United States laws enacted by Congress 6 under the Simplemen legislation, Your Honor, in the event 7 a state that is a non-nuclear weapons state moves to 8 become a nuclear weapons state. And again, none of this 9 has been addressed by the Department of Energy in the 10 environmental assessment that I'm aware of, either in the 11 environmental assessment or elsewhere. 12 Q. Dr. Boyle, could you advise the Court, if you would, as to 13 what the ramifications legally are of being a signatory 14 party to an international treaty such as the 15 Nonproliferation Treaty? 16 A. Yes. Your Honor, of course, the basic rule of Pacta Sunt, 17 P-a-c-t-a-s-u-n-t, Servanda, S-e-r-v-a-n-d-a. 18 The other point -- there are two other points, 19 however, that must be kept in mind in interpreting any 20 treaty and especially the NPT. First, the treaty must be 21 interpreted in good faith. And again, the question here 22 with Canada maintaining 40 kilograms of plutonium is 23 whether or not this is a good faith interpretation 24 implementation of the NPT by Canada. 25 Second, the treaty must be interpreted in KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 48 1 accordance with its object and purpose, and that in this 2 case the NPT is to stop nuclear proliferation. And again, 3 this entire program, the Parallex program, in my opinion, 4 seems to defeat the object and purpose of the NPT, which 5 is to stop nuclear proliferation. 6 The third point to keep in mind is that this 7 treaty has already been interpreted by Congress and 8 implemented by Congress. And Congress is agreeing with 9 what I'm saying here, Your Honor, and I'm agreeing with 10 what Congress is saying. Congress has made it very clear 11 that they do not want to see any type of nuclear 12 proliferation or programs that encourage nuclear 13 proliferation. And we are now seeing a drastic departure 14 from the policy enacted in Congress pursuant to the NPC 15 back in -- the NPT back in 1978 in the Nuclear 16 Nonproliferation Act, and we have seen no change in the 17 legislation by Congress to authorize or approve this 18 drastic change. And again, I agree with what Dr. Edwards 19 said from his Canadian perspective, my American 20 perspective, the Parallex MOX project is a drastic change 21 in encouraging proliferation of nuclear weapons components 22 and there has been no direct approval, change of statutes 23 or whatever. So again, this, in my opinion, raises very 24 serious problems under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty 25 as interpreted in good faith and in accordance with its KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 49 1 object and purpose not only for Canada, but the United 2 States and Russia. And in my opinion, we should have a 3 full study of all these issues by the Department of Energy 4 before there is any further movement on this project. 5 The implications here are enormous. They could 6 be catastrophic, and I personally would like to see a full 7 scale investigation analysis so that I could evaluate it 8 myself before anyone goes ahead with this project, but of 9 course that, you know, that's my personal opinion. I know 10 that's for you, Your Honor, to decide. 11 Q. Dr. Boyle, what if anything is the requirement or 12 obligation of the United States to interpret the 13 Nonproliferation Treaty in good faith? I think you 14 testified that Canada has that obligation. Does the 15 United States have a similar obligation? 16 A. Yes. And as a matter of fact, here Congress has 17 interpreted our obligation under the NPT and, in my 18 opinion, Congress has interpreted our obligations under 19 the NPT in good faith and also in accordance with the 20 object and purpose of this treaty. Congress interpreted 21 this by means of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Act of 1978, 22 the Nuclear Proliferation Prevention Act of 1994 and the 23 1998 amendments to do with the India-Pakistani 24 explosions. So in my opinion, Congress did interpret this 25 treaty in good faith and in accordance with its object and KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 50 1 purpose and it appears to me the Department of Energy is 2 off there on their own with no express authorization from 3 Congress pursuing a policy here that defeats the object 4 and purpose of the NPT. 5 Q. By that, you are referring to the Parallex project? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. With respect to the Congressional implementation of the 8 NPT in the '78, '94 and '98 acts, what if anything is the 9 role of the Department of State and/or Department of 10 Energy with respect to interpreting those obligations? 11 A. Yes. Your Honor, it's very clear from the treaty related 12 to the statutory scheme. Treaties deal with international 13 law and foreign relations. Therefore, they are normally 14 negotiated and concluded by the Department of State and 15 then they are handed over to the Senate Foreign Relations 16 to the Senate for advice and consent. It is the State 17 Department that traditionally has always had the sole and 18 exclusive role here in the United States with respect to 19 nonproliferation policy, not the Department of Energy. 20 The Department of Energy has always been treated as a 21 technical agency, technical consultant. The policy is 22 formulated by the State Department. There had been, again 23 going back to the Carter administration, United States 24 Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, Your Honor, set up by 25 Congress to deal precisely with these issues. They were KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 51 1 the ones given the authority to deal with proliferation 2 and nonproliferation policies negotiate these agreements, 3 etcetera. Senator Helms in the latest did not like act, 4 he concluded it was super numerator morgue or something so 5 he passed legislation terminating the Arms Control 6 Disarmament Agency and transferring all functions to the 7 Department of State today. But if you read the 8 Congressional implementing legislation, they make it very 9 clear that the lead role played on proliferation and 10 nonproliferation policy is the Department of State, not 11 the Department of Energy, and the Department of State 12 should consult with the Department of Energy. At times 13 the Department of Energy is given authority to have its 14 input to the Department of State, but it's the Department 15 of State that makes nonproliferation policy, not the 16 Department of Energy. 17 Q. In your review of the environmental assessment prepared by 18 the Department of Energy in January of '99, Dr. Boyle, 19 regarding the Parallex Project, is there any indication 20 that the Department of Energy consulted with the 21 Department of State? And if you don't mind, I direct your 22 attention to Page 41 of Plaintiff's Exhibit 12 previously 23 admitted and ask you to refer to that. 24 A. Yes. They had a list here of agencies consulted. Your 25 Honor, over here on Page 41, it says agencies consulted KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 52 1 during the preparation of this analysis: Atomic Energy of 2 Canada, Canadian Atomic Energy Control Board, U.S. 3 Department of Transportation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 4 Commission. They do not consult with the Department of 5 State and, in my opinion, and also in the opinion of 6 Congress, if you read through all the implementing 7 legislation, I know, Your Honor, as I understand it, you 8 are a conscientious Judge so I'm sure you are going to do 9 this, you'll see that they have to deal with the 10 Department of State. And the main problem with this EA is 11 they have not dealt with the Department of State, they 12 have not dealt with the nonproliferation issues, they have 13 not dealt with the Nonproliferation Treaty, they have not 14 dealt with the 1978 Act, they have not dealt with the 1994 15 Act, they have not dealt with the 1998 Act. All that is 16 expressly required by Congress. So again, in my opinion, 17 for some reason the Department of Energy has just decided 18 to go out there on its own and completely either ignore or 19 violate the Congressional statutes and procedures for 20 dealing with proliferation and nonproliferation issues. 21 Q. Dr. Boyle, to your knowledge, has the Department of State 22 retreated at all from the U.S. commitment to the 23 Nonproliferation Treaty as implemented by Congress through 24 the legislation you've indicated? 25 A. No, and as a matter of fact, Madeline Albright was just KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 53 1 out in India-Pakistan with President Clinton. As you 2 know, President Clinton stated that today India-Pakistan, 3 the Indian subcontinent is the most dangerous place on the 4 face of the earth because of the proliferation problem, 5 and they both have nuclear weapons now, and the dispute 6 over Casmir. 7 President Clinton then was just lectured in the 8 Indian Parliament publicly by the speaker of Parliament 9 for making the statement, but I think it's a fair and 10 accurate statement. Madeline Albright followed this up 11 with another statement reiterating our commitment to 12 nonproliferation and, specifically with respect to India 13 and Pakistan, that this was the policy of the United 14 States Government, and also tying this into the integral 15 importance of safeguards. 16 And again, that is a fair and accurate statement 17 of the policy being pursued by the President and the 18 Secretary of State that is charged under the legislation 19 and the Constitution to deal with these matters. There is 20 a complete and total disconnect here between what the 21 President and Secretary of State are saying and what the 22 Department of Energy is planning to do here in the 23 environmental assessment. 24 Q. Dr. Boyle, I'm going to show you what has been marked as 25 Plaintiff's Exhibit 11 and ask you to take a minute to KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 54 1 review that and let me know when you have had a chance to 2 do so, please. 3 A. Yes. This is an account of the Secretary of State 4 Albright's statement on April 2, as recently as April 2 5 dealing with our proliferation policies. And let me draw 6 a few things to your attention. United States regards 7 proliferation anywhere as our Number 1 security concern. 8 So again, she's pointing this out and she is the cabinet 9 officer with the authority to deal with these matters, not 10 the Secretary of Energy. We continue to seek universal 11 adherence to the NPT neither India nor Pakistan are 12 parties to the NPT. And here is crucial points: The 13 limits in our ability to cooperate with India and Pakistan 14 are a matter of U.S. law, as well as our international 15 obligations, all right? So Secretary Albright is pointing 16 out we have United States law that deals with 17 proliferation and this United States law -- of course, 18 she's not a lawyer -- but the U.S. law is the Nuclear 19 Nonproliferation Act, the Proliferation Prevention Act and 20 the '98 amendments as well as the Atomic Energy Act. So 21 there's a very comprehensive legislative scheme here as 22 well as our international obligation she points out. 23 There are international treaties here, and in particular 24 the most important one being the one she just referred to, 25 the Nonproliferation Treaty, and she is aware of that. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 55 1 Unfortunately, it does not appear that the Department of 2 Energy is aware of it or is concerned about it in the 3 least bit, at least as reflected in the environmental 4 assessment, they have not dealt with any of these issues 5 in environmental assessment nothing, none. 6 Q. Dr. Boyle, based on your experience and investigations 7 study, are you aware of whether or not India and Pakistan 8 have Canadian CANDU reactors? 9 A. As I understand it, they've got reactors from the Indian 10 Nuclear Bomb Project was a serous reactor, Canada, India 11 and United States, right. And Pakistan has a CANDU 12 reactor, right. And just the other day, the New York 13 Times reported the smuggling of substantial quantity of 14 nuclear materials out of the former Soviet Union towards 15 Pakistan that was recently intercepted in Kazakhstan, I 16 think. So I think this is a very serious problem. And I 17 don't see how this Parallex MOX -- it's only going to 18 compound the problem. These countries are doing 19 everything they possibly can. And here I would also add 20 in Israel is not a party to the NPT. There are other 21 states that have CANDU reactors, it has already been 22 reported in the professional literature, Your Honor, that 23 Japan too is a de facto nuclear weapons state in violation 24 of the NPT. And as Dr. Edwards already reported, they 25 have gotten a good deal of their nuclear material from KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 56 1 Canada. 2 So, we see -- Canadian reactors that are what, 3 in South Korea, Taiwan, states that are interested in 4 getting nuclear weapons. Clearly Taiwan wants them, South 5 Korea wants them. And you know, not that I can speak for 6 these governments, but it seems to me they have made a 7 decision the best way to get a weapon is to do it the way 8 the Indians did. We get a Canadian CANDU reactor, then we 9 start getting in whatever material we can get from, for 10 example, this MOX program. They will get plutonium and 11 then they can make a bomb, they can assemble a bomb. 12 As for the ease of assembling a bomb, Your 13 Honor, when I was a student at Harvard there was a very 14 bright student at MIT who, as a class project, assembled a 15 bomb. He had everything there except the plutonium. 16 That's how easy it is to assemble an atomic bottom, and he 17 brought it down there and, if I remember correctly, in 18 central square at MIT, and just showed it to everyone. 19 Even a bright student at MIT can assemble a bomb, that's 20 how easy it is to do. And what we see on these states 21 that say they are non-nuclear weapons states is an effort 22 to get a CANDU reactor and do what the Indians do use the 23 CANDU reactor, then they just need to get hold of the 24 plutonium, and Parallex MOX is going to give them access 25 to this plutonium if it gets in circulation. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 57 1 Q. Dr. Boyle, you've testified in some depth as to the 2 Nonproliferation Treaty and the implementation by Congress 3 indicating Congress' intent to prohibit even components, 4 parts of nuclear weapons to be covered by the U.S.; is 5 that correct? 6 A. Congress has interpreted the NPT, as I said, in good 7 faith, and to achieve its object and purpose and they have 8 interpreted to mean components that is clear of nuclear 9 weapons or nuclear explosive devices and there are other 10 areas in legislation where they even break it down to 11 items or substances that could be used for nuclear weapons 12 or nuclear explosive device, so Congress is aware of this 13 problem of a state becoming a de facto nuclear weapons 14 state and somehow trying to assemble components, items and 15 substances to be used for a nuclear weapon in order to 16 circumvent the treaty. So again Congress has interpreted, 17 I think, the treaty properly. 18 Q. Are you familiar in the course of your research with the 19 DOE's stockpile of stewardship program? 20 A. I am, yes. 21 Q. Are you familiar with their use in that program of 22 subcritical amounts of weapons grade plutonium? 23 A. Yes. Right now the Department of Energy is engaging in 24 what are known as subcritical tests. A subcritical test 25 is using -- they just did one this week, I think I gave KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 58 1 you the press release on it, and they are consistently 2 doing this. 3 A subcritical test uses a subcritical amount of 4 plutonium, which is under the -- it was eight kilograms. 5 And they are exploding it in order to test, verify and 6 develop the next generation of U.S. nuclear weapons. So 7 what we see the Department of Energy doing here is the 8 subcritical tests, in my opinion, would constitute it's 9 not a nuclear weapon, but it is a nuclear explosive 10 device. Now, there is nothing illegal with, under the NPT 11 with us having a nuclear explosive device, because we are 12 a nuclear weapons state party, but again, it creates 13 problems other states are now mimicking our behavior. 14 Russia is doing the same thing, France and Britain say 15 they are going to do the same thing. If we give weapons 16 grade plutonium to Canada, Canada could be doing the same 17 thing. Or the Russians give their weapons grade plutonium 18 to Canada, Canada could be doing the same thing, and other 19 states could be doing the same thing. So again, I think I 20 have serious concerns here, but I want to point out the 21 DOE is already engaged in the subcritical tests which are 22 clearly nuclear explosive devices. So it just doesn't 23 have to be a bomb to be regulated by the NPT. 24 Q. Dr. Boyle, in the scope of your experience and research, 25 have you become acquainted with the International Court of KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 59 1 Justice opinion regarding nuclear weapons in 1996? 2 A. Yes. As a matter of fact, I was part of the effort 3 originally to try to get that advisory opinion from the 4 World Court. 5 Q. If you would explain briefly what the significance, if 6 anything, of that World Court decision on the Parallex 7 project is, in your opinion? 8 A. Well, Your Honor, the World Court was asked by the United 9 Nations general assembly to give an opinion on the entire 10 question of nuclear weapons and international law. It's a 11 very long decision with many separate decisions in the 12 sense I've written an article here, Mr. Love might want to 13 provide it to you, going through all of it. But in this 14 opinion, there are two critical components that are 15 relevant to the Parallex MOX project and, of course, the 16 EA has not dealt with either, let alone the World Court 17 opinion, and the World Court opinion in this area 18 enunciates the rules of international law that are binding 19 on the United States Government, binding on Canada, 20 binding on Russia. The one component of this opinion 21 deals with the environmental-- international environmental 22 law applicable to nuclear weapons, and you will note in 23 the EA, the DOE does absolutely nothing at all with 24 international environmental law applicable to this 25 transaction because it is an international transaction, KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 60 1 they're shipping plutonium from the States up to Canada 2 and from Russia over to Canada. So international 3 environmental law is involved, and the DOE has done 4 nothing at all about it. 5 And Mr. Love, I think you have the exact 6 language there. You want to provide that to me, the exact 7 ruling of the Court on the international environmental law 8 that would apply? 9 MR. LOVE: Your Honor, we have tendered what I'm 10 going to show Dr. Boyle as Plaintiff's Exhibit 14, a copy 11 of the World Court opinion to both the Court and counsel 12 previously. 13 BY MR. LOVE: 14 Q. Dr. Boyle, I'm going to show you what has been marked as 15 Plaintiff's Exhibit 14 and ask you to take a look at that 16 and let us know when you've had a chance to do so and what 17 it is. 18 A. Right, this is the World Court advisory opinion. It's so 19 long, I'm going to have to get my notes on it, excuse me. 20 I think, Mr. Love, I gave you my notes last 21 night on the relevant provisions of the opinion, the 22 relevant paragraphs. 23 Q. While I'm looking for your notes, could you direct your 24 attention to Paragraph 27, please? 25 A. Right. What we need are the paragraphs here. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 61 1 Right. Yes, I have Paragraph 27. 2 Your Honor, here the World Court unanimously 3 adopted Principle 21 of the Stockholm Declaration of 1972, 4 which everyone would say today is a basic principle of 5 international environmental law, which the EA has not 6 bothered to deal with. And it basically says states have 7 a duty "to ensure that activities within their 8 jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to the 9 environment of other states or areas beyond the limits of 10 national jurisdiction." That's a basic principle of 11 international environmental law. It goes back to the 12 Stockholm Declaration of 1972. It has direct relevance 13 here to this entire project. You've got international 14 shipment of plutonium, it's going over the high seas if it 15 goes by boat from Russia. That also triggers the Law of 16 the Sea Convention that they have not dealt with. They 17 haven't dealt with the Stockholm Declaration, and they 18 have not dealt with this recent ruling by the World Court 19 as to obligations under international law. If you read 20 the EA when they are asked this question, they said "Once 21 we give to Canada, that's their problem." Well, again, 22 that isn't a correct statement of international law. It 23 is our problem. 24 The second important point of the ICJ opinion, 25 and there are other sections here dealing with the KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 62 1 environment -- and I know we have a limited amount of 2 time, I'm not going to go through it all -- deals with the 3 interpretation of the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty. 4 This is an international treaty, the World Court 5 also has authority to interpret the Nuclear 6 Nonproliferation Treaty, and they have interpreted the 7 Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. 8 Mr. Love, could you give me -- I identified a 9 paragraph for you, I think it's 102. 10 Q. I believe you are looking for Paragraph 102? 11 A. 102, right. 12 Q. May also want to take a look at Paragraph 99. 13 A. 99 and 102, right. 14 The World Court, in the same advisory opinion, 15 has also dealt with the NPT and the obligation of Article 16 VI of the NPT, "Each of the parties to the treaty 17 undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on 18 effective measures relating to cessation of the" -- "in 19 good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of 20 the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear 21 disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete 22 disarmament under strict and effective international 23 control." And they have interpreted this provision, NPT 24 Article VI, which we are a party to, by the way, to have a 25 dual obligation, two components here: One, we must pursue KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 63 1 negotiations on nuclear disarmament as a matter of good 2 faith. 3 Recently, I regret to report the U.S. Ambassador 4 to the Conference on Nuclear Disarmament sponsored by the 5 United Nations has said "We are not going to pursue 6 nuclear disarmament negotiations." In my opinion, that 7 puts us in breach of NPT Article VI, certainly as 8 interpreted by the World Court. We have an obligation to 9 pursue nuclear disarmament negotiations and we have just 10 said we are not going to do it. The Ambassador said "We 11 are going to pursue instead a treaty on the cutoff of 12 fissile materials such as what is at stake here, but we 13 are not going to pursue nuclear disarmament negotiations." 14 Well, Your Honor, it does seem to me that that is a 15 violation of NPT Article VI and is certainly not meeting 16 the requirements of Article VI as interpreted by the World 17 Court. We must pursue these negotiations in good faith. 18 And then the second component of the obligation 19 is we must achieve a precise result. Nuclear disarmament 20 in all its aspects. And again just recently the U.S. 21 Ambassador to the Council of Nuclear Disarmament under the 22 auspices of the UN said "We are just not going to do it." 23 The reason why this creates serious legal problems is that 24 the non-nuclear weapons states went along with the entire 25 Nuclear Proliferation Treaty on the assumption that the KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 64 1 nuclear weapons states would engage in good faith 2 negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament. If we are 3 not engaging in negotiations leading to nuclear 4 disarmament and publicly say we are not going to do it, 5 this in theory could give the non-nuclear weapons states, 6 all 175 of them, grounds to argue the material breach of 7 the NPT and pull out of the NPT and to engage in nuclear 8 armament. Now I'm not recommending that and indeed I 9 certainly would not recommend that to anyone, but it is a 10 very serious concern if we are not engaging in these 11 nuclear disarmament negotiations, which we are not 12 currently doing. 13 Q. Dr. Boyle, could you briefly summarize for the Court why 14 the International Court of Justice opinions, if at all, 15 are binding on the U.S.? 16 A. This opinion per se is listed as an advisory opinion. So 17 it is -- we are not party to the lawsuit. As you know, 18 some courts can give advisory opinions. Your Honor, you 19 can't give an advisory opinion, but there are courts in 20 the United States that some states courts have authority 21 to give advisory opinions as well as contentious 22 opinions. The World Court has both. They have authority 23 contentious opinion and an advisory opinion. This was not 24 a contentious case. If it were a contentious case, we 25 would be bound by it, like the Lockerbie case, like the KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 65 1 Bosnia cases that I was involved with, those were 2 contentious cases. This was an advisory opinion, however, 3 in this advisory opinion, with these unanimous rulings by 4 the World Court on these points, the World Court made it 5 clear that these rules are customary international law. 6 And rules of customary international law bind the United 7 States Government. The Paquete, P-a-q-u-e-t-e, Habana, 8 H-a-b-a-n-a, decision by the United States Supreme Court 9 customarily international law binds the United States and 10 the United States courts. And technically, this is 11 federal common law. So the, Your Honor, this Court should 12 take into account the World Court rulings on these two 13 points on international environmental law and how the NPT 14 should be interpreted. 15 The rest of the opinion, which is quite lengthy 16 and I had written about elsewhere -- if you are interested 17 in reading my article, you can, but it's not really 18 relevant or terribly germane to the issues here, but 19 certainly, the section on international environmental law 20 and their interpretation of the NPT is relevant. I think 21 they enunciate rules of customary international law. I 22 also have reached the same conclusions myself in my own 23 scholarly research before the World Court did, but I think 24 most experts would agree with the rulings of the World 25 Court on these two points, it's requirements of KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 66 1 international environmental law and the interpretation of 2 the NPT. 3 And again, the DOE's environmental assessment 4 has not taken any of this into account. They have not 5 taken into account the rules of international 6 environmental law, which they should do, and they have not 7 taken into account anything about the NPT. 8 Q. Dr. Boyle, based on your review of the NPT, the Nuclear 9 Nonproliferation Acts of 1978, 1994, and 1998, the 10 International Court of Justice opinion, and the 11 declarations by the Department of State regarding the U.S. 12 position with respect to the Nonproliferation Treaty 13 commitments we have made, do you have an opinion as an 14 expert in international law as to whether the foreign 15 policy of the United States would be violated by the 16 shipment of MOX from Russia to Canada funded by the U.S. 17 DOE? 18 A. Well, again, I agree with everything Dr. Edwards said. 19 Your Honor, this is a major change in United States 20 nonproliferation policy going back at a minimum to the 21 Carter administration and the adoption of the Nuclear 22 Nonproliferation Act, it seems to me completely 23 inconsistent with the treaty, with the Act, the 1978 Act 24 and 1994 Act and the 1998 Act. So yes, this is a major 25 change in policy that potentially is illegal under the KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 67 1 sources. And I would really like to see the Department of 2 Energy comprehensively address all of these issues so we 3 could see what is their authority to do this. Besides 4 their own ipse dixit. I would like to see the authority. 5 I don't see it in any of the sources I've read before for 6 them to unilaterally engage in this major change in policy 7 that seems to be inconsistent with the Treaty, the '78 8 Act, the '94 Act and '98 Act, yes. 9 MR. LOVE: Your Honor, I have no further 10 questions of this witness. Thank you. 11 CROSS EXAMINATION 12 BY MR. DODGE: 13 Q. Morning, Mr. Boyle. 14 A. Morning. 15 Q. I would like to turn your attention back to your C.V., 16 which I think is Exhibit 3. Do you have that in front of 17 you? 18 A. Sure. 19 Q. Just to round out a few items on the second page, about 20 halfway down you testified that you were counsel to Libya 21 in connection with the bombing of the Pan Am flight over 22 Lockerbie, Scotland. 23 A. That is correct. I should point out that matter is being 24 peaceably resolved now by the United States and Libya 25 because of my efforts. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 68 1 Q. And you've also served, going up now the fourth item from 2 the top of that page, since 1987 you served as a legal 3 advisor to the Palestine Liberation Organization? 4 A. That is correct, and I was also the legal advisor to the 5 Palestinian delegation for the Middle East Peace Talks 6 convened under the auspices of President Bush, yes. 7 Q. And two items down from there said you were counsel 8 related to House Resolution 86 in the 102nd Congress 9 dealing with the impeachment of former, then President 10 George Bush? 11 A. Yes. Congressman Henry G. Gonzalez of Texas reached a 12 decision that President Bush going to war violated 13 numerous provisions of the Constitution and international 14 law. You can find them there in House Resolution 86. And 15 he asked me, because of my knowledge and expertise to 16 serve as counsel to them on these matters, and I did serve 17 as counsel free of charge, that is correct. 18 My service to the Palestinian Delegation in the 19 Middle East Peace Negotiations is there in '91 and '93, as 20 I said, President Bush was the one who convened those 21 negotiations, and yes, even though I did set out with 22 Congressman Gonzalez on this issue, President Bush did 23 sign my Biological Weapons Anti-terrorists Act of 1989, 24 which is -- 25 Q. He apparently didn't hold your efforts against you KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 69 1 personally. 2 A. Pardon me? 3 Q. Sounds like he didn't hold it against you personally. 4 A. I don't think he did, no. I'm a lawyer and a law 5 professor and I'm a professional, but he had no problems, 6 President Bush had no problems with my Biological 7 Anti-Terrorism Act. It was approved unanimously by both 8 Houses of Congress. 9 Q. Moving on to the third page, second item from the top of 10 the page, you worked as a consultant in 1993 on 11 Independence for the State of Hawaii. I would assume for 12 Hawaii to become an independent nation? 13 A. That is correct. The State of Hawaii-- the Hawaiian 14 Sovereignty Advisory Commission is an agency of the State 15 of Hawaii. And they were charged under the law by the 16 State of Hawaiian law to investigate all alternatives for 17 the native Hawaiian people. One of the alternatives that 18 needed to be investigated was whether or not the native 19 Hawaiian people should establish their own independent 20 nation state. And I was retained by the State of Hawaii 21 then to advise them on this because of my experience doing 22 the same work with the Palestinians. I advised them on 23 the creation of their state and the peace talks with 24 Israel based on a two-state solution, and the Palestinian 25 state today has diplomatic recognition now by about 125 KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 70 1 states, and currently has de facto UN membership, and I 2 did the legal work on that, so the State of Hawaii 3 retained me to come out and advise on the establishment of 4 an independent nations state, and the State of Hawaii paid 5 my expenses and a modest fee for this work, yes. 6 Q. Moving on to the Nonproliferation Treaty, you testified 7 about Article I. Do you recall that? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. And as I understood your testimony, your view is that the 10 fuel rods at issue in the Parallex Project, in your view, 11 should be treated as components of a nuclear weapon; is 12 that right? Explosive device? 13 A. No. What I said was weapons grade plutonium should be 14 treated as a component of either a nuclear weapon or a 15 nuclear explosive device. 16 Q. What about -- I mean, the Parallex test involves shipment 17 and then irradiation of fuel rods; is that correct? 18 A. Right. 19 Q. And is it your view or is it not your view that those fuel 20 rods constitute components of nuclear weapons or explosive 21 devices? 22 A. My viewpoint is what I said, that weapons grade plutonium 23 is a component of a nuclear weapon or nuclear explosive 24 device. 25 Q. You didn't answer my question. Do you understand the KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 71 1 question? 2 A. Well, I've given my answer. 3 THE COURT: No, you haven't answered his 4 question. He asked you question, if you don't know the 5 answer, say so. He asked you a very specific question 6 about rods. 7 BY MR. DODGE: 8 Q. In fact, the question has to do with your view, if you 9 have one, whether the fuel rods at issue in the Parallex 10 test program constitute components of nuclear weapons or 11 explosive devices. 12 A. If they contain weapons grade plutonium, they would be or 13 could be components of nuclear weapons or nuclear 14 explosive devices. 15 Q. Well, these fuel rods do contain plutonium; is that right? 16 A. As I understand it, it's in there, yep. 17 Q. So in your view, does that make the fuel rods components 18 of nuclear weapons or explosive devices? 19 A. Again, my testimony is that the weapons grade plutonium 20 clearly is either nuclear -- is a component of a nuclear 21 weapon or a nuclear explosive device, and the reason I 22 give that testimony is based on my reading of the 23 Congressional legislation, Congress has taken the position 24 that weapons grade plutonium or plutonium, in general, is 25 a component of a nuclear weapon or nuclear explosive KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 72 1 device. Congress does not deal with the fuel rods, they 2 dealt with the plutonium. 3 Q. I want to make sure I understand your testimony clearly. 4 Is it your testimony, is it your view that any 5 plutonium would qualify as a component of a nuclear 6 weapons or nuclear weapon or explosive device under the 7 treaty? 8 A. My testimony today is the weapons grade plutonium involved 9 in this project is a component of a nuclear weapons or 10 other nuclear explosive device. I believe weapons grade 11 plutonium is what is involved in this project. 12 Q. I asked you a different question. The question was a 13 broader one. Is it your view or not your view that all 14 plutonium would qualify as a component of a nuclear weapon 15 or explosive device under Article I? 16 A. It appears Congress has taken that position, yes, and they 17 have stringently regulated plutonium in all forms. And I 18 also note that the United States Government has exploded a 19 nuclear weapon -- 20 THE COURT: The question is: Is it your 21 opinion? He is asking four or five times now, could you 22 answer that? 23 THE WITNESS: But Your Honor, my opinion is 24 based on -- 25 THE COURT: In courts -- I know you are a KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 73 1 professor -- we answer the questions of the lawyer, not 2 what we want to talk about. He asked you seven or eight 3 questions, none of which you've answered. I would ask you 4 simply listen to the lawyer's question and answer it. 5 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honor. 6 BY MR. DODGE: 7 Q. Do you understand the question? 8 THE COURT: Ask it again for the fifteenth time, 9 ask it again. 10 BY MR. DODGE: 11 Q. Is it your view that all plutonium constitutes a component 12 of nuclear weapon or explosive device under Article I of 13 the treaty? 14 A. It can. 15 Q. It can? 16 A. Yes. Yes. 17 Q. Is it your view across the board that plutonium, whether 18 weapons grade or not, if it's present in a fuel rod for 19 a-- destined for a civilian nuclear reactor would qualify 20 as a component of a nuclear weapon explosive device? 21 A. It could. 22 Q. Do you know whether as a general matter the signatories of 23 the Nonproliferation Treaty have interpreted, whether any 24 signatory has interpreted Article I to ban transport of 25 fuel rods containing plutonium? KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 74 1 A. Congress has strictly regulated plutonium, yes, and there 2 is legislation on the books saying "We, Congress, 3 interpreting our obligations under the NPT, are against 4 international transport of plutonium," yes. 5 Q. Has Congress passed any legislation prohibiting the 6 transport of nuclear fuel rods containing any plutonium? 7 A. In what I have reviewed for my testimony here today, I 8 have not seen in the '78, '94 or '98 Act that Congress has 9 prohibited transport of fuel rods. 10 Q. In fact, fuel rods are transported across national 11 boundaries all the time; is that not correct? 12 A. They are transported. 13 Q. In fact, fuel rods containing plutonium are transported 14 across national boundaries all the time, isn't that 15 correct? 16 A. If they are subject to-- they are supposed to be subject 17 to safeguards, yes. 18 Q. Well, that gets us to another point of your earlier 19 testimony regarding whether the fuel rods particularly at 20 issue in the Parallex Project are or are not subject to 21 IA/EA safeguards in Canada. Do you recall that testimony? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. Do you have personal knowledge whether Canada, the 24 Government of Canada has taken a position on whether the 25 U.S. Parallex fuel rods, which are now in Canada, whether KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 75 1 those fuel rods are now subject to IA/EA safeguards? 2 A. I have not seen any evidence because of the recentness of 3 the movement of the shipments. 4 Q. If I told you that the position of the Government of 5 Canada is that those fuel rods are, in fact, subject to 6 IA/EA safeguards, would you have any basis to quarrel with 7 that? 8 A. The statement by Ms. Locatelli does call into question the 9 validity of these assertions, yes. 10 Q. Miss Locatelli was generally speaking of Parallex fuel 11 rods, was she? 12 A. Speaking about plutonium in general, right. 13 Q. I take it you didn't speak personally to Miss Locatelli? 14 A. No, I did not. 15 Q. About this or any-- 16 A. But I did speak with Mr. Clemens of NCI by e-mail and he 17 has similar concerns to me. 18 Q. Okay. And did you speak to the newspaper reporter, Martin 19 Mittelstaedt, who quoted Ms. Locatelli? 20 A. No, I did not. 21 Q. Whether his quotes accurately reflect what she said or not 22 is not something you would be qualified to testify about; 23 is that right? 24 A. Well, I note The Globe and Mail is a newspaper of public 25 record and I would be able to rely on that in the World KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 76 1 Court for sure, yep. 2 Q. But newspaper reporters are human beings? 3 A. Newspaper reporters make mistakes, sure. But again, the 4 World Court, for example, the nuclear test cases did rely 5 on statements made by Government officials as normally 6 reported in reputable news media sources. They have 7 different standards of evidence, the World Court, than 8 they do here in United States District Court. 9 Q. Now you've also relied on this article, Plaintiff's 10 Exhibit 5, I guess too, in support of your opinion that 11 Canada is in possession of 40 kilograms or up to 40 12 kilograms of plutonium; is that right? 13 A. This is a statement by Mr. Clemens, and I have had e-mail 14 correspondence with him about it. 15 Q. Do you have any personal knowledge whether -- 16 A. No. 17 Q. I'm sorry, I didn't finish my question. 18 A. I did answer your question. 19 THE COURT: He hasn't finished asking it; you 20 couldn't possibly answer his question when he hasn't 21 finished asking it. 22 THE WITNESS: Sorry. 23 BY MR. DODGE: 24 Q. Do you have any personal knowledge of whether Canada, in 25 fact, has 40 kilograms of plutonium? KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 77 1 A. I do not have personal knowledge, no. I'm relying on the 2 statement by Mr. Clemens. 3 Q. Mr. Clemens, does Mr. Clemens have personal knowledge 4 whether Canada has 40-- 5 A. As I understand, Mr. Clemens does. From my e-mail 6 correspondence with him, he does. 7 Q. Has he seen that plutonium? 8 A. Pardon me? 9 Q. Has he seen it? 10 A. He didn't tell me what his sources of evidence are, but he 11 did tell me that they will be making it public soon. 12 Q. So he thinks he has -- he thinks he has evidence to 13 support that conclusion and whether that evidence holds 14 any water or not, we really can't tell, can we? 15 A. Well, again, as an expert, if the NCI is making the 16 statements, I think they are significant and they need to 17 be dealt with, and certainly by the Department of Energy. 18 THE COURT: That was not -- excuse me, that was 19 not his question. 20 Would you repeat your question, please? 21 BY MR. DODGE: 22 Q. The question is: Mr. Clemens believes he has reason or he 23 has evidence to support his conclusion that Canada has 40 24 kilograms of plutonium, but as far as anybody in this 25 courtroom knows, that evidence may or may not hold water, KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 78 1 we just don't know, correct? 2 A. I'm not evaluating the evidence, and Mr. Clemens said the 3 evidence will be produced, so at that point I will review 4 the evidence and formulate a formal opinion. 5 THE COURT: Do you want to ask it again or just 6 want to give up? 7 MR. DODGE: I think that -- I think the point is 8 established to the extent I need to, Your Honor. 9 BY MR. DODGE: 10 Q. Now, you testified earlier that it's up to the State 11 Department, not the Department of Energy to interpret 12 United States treaty obligations; is that right? 13 A. I testified that it is the State Department that is in 14 charge of nuclear proliferation policies, that's what I 15 testified, and not the Department of Energy, yes. 16 Q. Okay. Is it your view that it's -- maybe I misunderstood 17 what you testified earlier. I thought I heard you say 18 that interpreting whether or not the U.S. is complying 19 with Nonproliferation Treaty in particular, that pertinent 20 authority on that would be the State Department, not the 21 Department of Energy; is that a fair statement? 22 A. I've also testified that the State Department has the lead 23 role in the United States Government with respect to 24 interpretation of treatises as well. 25 Q. Do you know what the State Department's position is on KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 79 1 whether the Parallex test program is or is not compliant 2 with Article I of the Nonproliferation Treaty? 3 A. Well, that's why I read the Environmental Assessment, to 4 see if you had talked to the State Department here, and 5 they hadn't, so I have not seen any statement by the State 6 Department as to what their position is, no. 7 Q. The Environmental Assessment is not the only document 8 that's been generated in the course of the Parallex 9 Project, you understand that? 10 A. That is correct, and I have read a good deal of the 11 documentation, but I still have not seen an expression by 12 the Department of State on this issue. 13 Q. Okay. Do you know whether or not the State Department was 14 involved at any level in the Parallex Project? 15 A. There probably were discussions somewhere in there. 16 Q. Do you know? 17 A. Myself personally? 18 Q. Yes. 19 A. I don't know for sure. 20 Q. Do you know one way or the other whether the State 21 Department has a view on whether the Parallex Project is 22 consistent with our treaty obligations under Article I of 23 the NPT? 24 A. I have not seen any expression by the State Department on 25 this issue. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 80 1 Q. If I told you the State Department has taken the view that 2 the Parallex Project is entirely consistent with our 3 obligations under Article I, would you have any basis to 4 quarrel with that? 5 A. I haven't seen it. 6 MR. LODGE: Objection, Your Honor. 7 THE COURT: If he hasn't seen -- 8 MR. DODGE: Withdraw the question, Your Honor. 9 THE WITNESS: I would like to see it and 10 evaluate it myself, sure. 11 BY MR. DODGE: 12 Q. You also testified about dangers of nuclear proliferation 13 relating to countries such as Taiwan and Korea that are 14 not currently nuclear weapons states, but would like to 15 acquire nuclear weapons, do you recall that testimony? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. Is it correct that the MOX program, the Parallex Program 18 does not contemplate the shipment of any fuel rods to any 19 country other than Canada? 20 A. Not at this stage, but eventually it does appear there 21 will be mass circulation of this material, yes, down the 22 line. 23 Q. And the basis for that is what exactly? 24 A. The quantities. If the test works out, the quantity we 25 are talking about coming from Russia. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 81 1 Q. Well, let me be more specific about this. Has the United 2 States, any spokesperson for the United States Government 3 proposed in connection with the Parallex Project to send 4 fuel rods to any country other than Canada? 5 A. The United States? 6 Q. Right. 7 A. No. 8 Q. Has the Government of Russia proposed, in connection with 9 the Parallex Project, to send fuel rods to any country 10 other than Canada? 11 A. Well, they are talking about massive quantities of weapons 12 grade plutonium being circulated into this program and the 13 independent team of experts by Russia and the United 14 States have made that quite clear they are talking tons of 15 this stuff. 16 Q. Well, again, you didn't answer my question there, 17 Professor. I asked you whether the Russian Government has 18 proposed sending fuel rods to any country other than 19 Canada. Your answer only dealt with volumes, it didn't 20 address where. That was my question. 21 A. Right. There might have been discussions on Germany or 22 some of the European states have there -- there have been 23 discussions and proposals, but it's just at that stage 24 now, yes. 25 Q. But Russia has not, to your knowledge, proposed sending KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 82 1 fuel rods to Korea? 2 A. There is an international market here, sure, it could be 3 sold anywhere. 4 THE COURT: No, he didn't say could have. He 5 said: Did they propose it? 6 THE WITNESS: I have not read that right now 7 Russia is proposing sending this to Korea. 8 BY MR. DODGE: 9 Q. Same question with Taiwan. 10 A. I have not read that Russia is proposing to send this to 11 Taiwan. 12 MR. DODGE: No further questions at this time, 13 Your Honor. 14 THE COURT: We will take a 15-minute recess. 15 COURT CLERK: All rise. 16 This court is in recess. 17 (At 10:54 a.m., recess.) 18 THE COURT: Okay. What is next? 19 MR. LOVE: Brief redirect, Your Honor. 20 REDIRECT EXAMINATION 21 BY MR. LOVE: 22 Q. Professor Boyle, did you receive any recognition or 23 rewards from Bosnia for your efforts on their behalf? 24 A. While I was never paid a penny, but President Izetbegovic 25 and Vice President Gonich (phonetic) held a ceremony at KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 83 1 the Bosnian presidency with a-- awarded me full-fledged 2 citizenship in the Republic, a diplomatic passport and 3 visa and a declaration and they put the ceremony on 4 television, so that was very nice. So technically I'm a 5 Bosnian citizen too. 6 Q. Dr. Boyle, with respect to your work on the Hawaiian 7 independence that Mr. Dodge asked you about, has there 8 been any action by the President or Congress, to your 9 knowledge, with respect to that? 10 A. Yes. In 1993 Congress passed a statute signed into law by 11 President Clinton formally apologizing to the native 12 Hawaiian people for destroying their kingdom and stealing 13 their land. The legislation at the end provides for a 14 process of reconciliation and reparations, and how this is 15 going to be dealt with, and I'm still currently involved 16 in those matters. 17 Q. Dr. Boyle, there should be a document up there marked 18 Plaintiff's Exhibit 13. Do you see that? 19 A. Yes, I have it here. 20 Q. Now, this is entitled a Nonproliferation Arms Control 21 Assessment of Weapons Usable Fissile Material Storage and 22 Excess Plutonium Disposition Alternatives, dated January, 23 1997 authored by the United States Department of Energy, 24 correct? 25 A. Yes. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 84 1 Q. Was this among the documents that you reviewed in 2 preparing your testimony? 3 A. I did not have -- I did not get this entire document until 4 Monday, so I did not have a chance to review the entire 5 document, but I have reviewed the excerpts you gave to 6 me. 7 Q. Now Mr. Dodge asked you-- for the record, Your Honor, the 8 excerpt only contains Pages 106 and 107-- Mr. Dodge asked 9 you about your testimony about the possibility of future 10 shipments of MOX to Taiwan and Korea. Do you remember him 11 asking you about that? 12 A. Yes. 13 THE COURT: He didn't ask what the possibility 14 is, he asked if there were plans by Russia or the United 15 States to ship to those two nations. That was the 16 question. 17 MR. LOVE: Okay. 18 THE COURT: And the answer was no. Not are 19 there possibilities. I know the witness thinks there are 20 possibilities, that won't help me any. I understand 21 that. 22 BY MR. LOVE: 23 Q. In fact, Dr. Boyle is it true that in this document the 24 DOE indicates there are possibilities such as you 25 testified about? KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 85 1 A. Yes. 2 THE COURT: I accept that. You are wasting my 3 time. There are possibilities. 4 BY MR. LOVE: 5 Q. Dr. Boyle, if you would, I direct your attention to the 6 large document that's in front of you. This is 7 Proliferation Venerability Red Team Report, Plaintiff's 8 Exhibit 28, and introduced in the prior hearing. 9 A. Yes, and I read this entire report prior to my testimony 10 here today. 11 Q. I'm going to ask you, if you would, to direct your 12 attention to Page 6-1, the conclusions to that report. 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. And again, this is a document that was produced by Sandia 15 Laboratories for the Department of Energy? 16 A. That is correct. 17 Q. Directing your attention to the first conclusion, under 18 the conclusion, keeping plutonium inaccessible is the key 19 to proliferation resistance, do you see that? 20 A. Yes. It says quite clearly, all plutonium from all stages 21 of all alternatives can be made weapons usable should 22 sufficient material be successfully removed. And I should 23 point out that is the position Congress takes under the 24 Nuclear Nonproliferation Act of '78, the Act of '94 and 25 the '98, all plutonium can be made weapons usable. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 86 1 Q. In your view, is that conclusion by the Sandia Lab in this 2 Red Team Report consistent with your testimony? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. Now, Mr. Dodge asked you if there was transport of 5 plutonium across boundaries all the time. My notes 6 reflected you said yes. Do you remember that testimony? 7 A. I said there was some, yes. 8 Q. Is there routinely transportation of weapons grade 9 plutonium shipped across boundaries all the time by the 10 United States? 11 A. No. No. 12 MR. LOVE: No further questions. 13 MR. DODGE: No recross, Your Honor. 14 THE COURT: You may step down. 15 THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honor. 16 Your Honor, did you have any questions? 17 THE COURT: No, I don't. 18 THE WITNESS: Thank you. 19 THE COURT: You've exceeded your time so I take 20 it you have no more witnesses. 21 MR. LOVE: Your Honor, I have no more witnesses 22 but at this time I would like to move our Exhibit 5, 23 Exhibit 7, Exhibit 11, Exhibit 12, Exhibit 13, Exhibit 14 24 and Plaintiff's Exhibit 2 and Exhibit 1 into evidence. 25 MR. DODGE: No objection, Your Honor. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 87 1 THE COURT: 5, 7, 11, 12, 13 and 14, 1 and 2 are 2 received. 3 MR. LOVE: Thank you, Your Honor. We have 4 nothing further. 5 THE WITNESS: Here are the exhibits. Where do 6 you want them? 7 MR. LOVE: I'll take them here. 8 (Hearing continued; reported, not requested 9 transcribed.) 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 88 1 2 3 4 5 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE 6 7 I, Kathleen S. Thomas, Official Court Reporter for the 8 United States District Court for the Western District of 9 Michigan, appointed pursuant to the provisions of Title 28, 10 United States Code, Section 753, do hereby certify that the 11 foregoing is a true and correct transcript of proceedings had 12 in the within-entitled and numbered cause on the date 13 hereinbefore set forth; and I do further certify that the 14 foregoing transcript has been prepared by me or under my 15 direction. 16 17 18 19 20 __________________________________ 21 Kathleen S. Thomas, CSR, RPR-1300 22 U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue 23 Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 24 25 KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (voice) 217-244-1478 (fax) fboyle at law.uiuc.edu (personal comments only) Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Brussel, Morton K Sent: Monday, November 06, 2017 7:56 PM To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: David Green >; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; Estabrook, Carl G > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] FW: MOX for Bombs in Japan I think this is wrong. MOX fuel is mainly used for fuel in nuclear power reactors, not to make bombs. Japan had/has many nuclear reactors. A fairly intelligible discussion is found in wikipedia, under "MOX nuclear”. —mkb On Nov 6, 2017, at 4:40 PM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss > wrote: This was a very lengthy interview I gave in Japan courtesy of their peace and anti-nuclear movement. It was heavily censored. My basic point was that Japan was using MOX to make bombs and that my best estimate was that Japan probably had as many bombs as PRC, which would be in the area of 500. So when the details of the disaster at Fukushima came out, it was clear to me it was one of their leading bomb complexes. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: globenet at yahoogroups.com [mailto:globenet at yahoogroups.com] Sent: Saturday, March 21, 2015 8:10 AM To: globenet at yahoogroups.com Cc: 'Hiroshi Taka'; 'Gensuikyo'; 'Akira Kawasaki'; oheyeran at yahoogroups.com; asia-pacific_demil_mdg-request at lists.riseup.net; 'Coleen Rowley'; 'Douglas Roche' Subject: [globenet] MOX for Bombs in Japan Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (Voice) 217-244-1478 (Fax) (personal comments only) __._,_.___ ________________________________ Posted by: "Boyle, Francis A" > ________________________________ Reply via web post • Reply to sender • Reply to group • Start a New Topic • Messages in this topic (1) VISIT YOUR GROUP [Yahoo! Groups] • Privacy • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use . __,_._,___ _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Tue Nov 7 04:06:47 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2017 04:06:47 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: MOX for Bombs in Japan References: <5B253921-B91A-4A46-B18B-A94C48E12123@illinois.edu> Message-ID: The Japanese Peace Movement know full well that their stockpile of MOX is being used to manufacture nuclear weapons. They also knew of my expertise on MOX for having worked on this case in Michigan. They contacted me because they wanted to do something to stop their government’s use of MOX for weapons purposes. So they asked me to do this interview for them, and then did all the work to set it up including the translation. So maybe you should tell the Japanese Peace Movement that their MOX is not being used for weapons purposes. Maybe you should tell the Japanese Peace Movement that they don’t know what they are talking about when it comes to their own MOX in Japan. I did not. I agreed to help them out and gave this interview which took quite some time to set up and because of the translation. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Monday, November 06, 2017 9:39 PM To: Brussel, Morton K Cc: 'David Green' ; 'C. G. ESTABROOK' ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; 'sherwoodross10 at gmail.com' ; 'peace-discuss at anti-war.net' ; 'a-fields at uiuc.edu' ; Hoffman, Valerie J ; 'Joe Lauria' ; 'Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net' ; 'peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net' ; Szoke, Ron ; 'Arlene Hickory' ; 'Karen Aram' ; 'abass10 at gmail.com' ; 'mickalideh at gmail.com' ; 'Lina Thorne' ; 'chicago at worldcantwait.net' ; 'Jay' ; 'David Johnson' ; 'Mildred O'brien' ; Estabrook, Carl G Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] FW: MOX for Bombs in Japan And by the way, the reason Japanese Peace Movement had me interviewed is because they know full well that their MOX Stockpile is used for weapons purposes. fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Monday, November 06, 2017 9:30 PM To: Brussel, Morton K > Cc: David Green >; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; Estabrook, Carl G > Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] FW: MOX for Bombs in Japan If you are not going to take the time to read these two Testimonies under oath and subject to cross-examination by the Feds of two Experts on MOX in United States Federal District, then you should stop impugning my integrity in favor of Wikipedia—pure guttersnipe! fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Brussel, Morton K Sent: Monday, November 06, 2017 9:13 PM To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: David Green >; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; Estabrook, Carl G > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] FW: MOX for Bombs in Japan I don’t know who qualified you as an expert of nuclear reactors and the nature of their fuels, nuclear physics or nuclear chemistry. Your statements belie that qualification. I hope you don’t expect me, or anyone on this list, to read the transcript you presented, but I did scan it and noted nothing in technical detail there about the properties and use of MOX, certainly not for bombs. Sorry, —mkb On Nov 6, 2017, at 8:38 PM, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: Well I have been qualified as an Expert on MOX in United States Federal District Court. And I prohibit my law students from citing Wikipedia to me in any paper and advise them to never cite or quote Wikipedia to a Judge because Wikipedia is filled with so much pure, unadulterated BULL-TWADDLE. Fab. Subject: Nuclear Proliferation/NPT/US Atomic Energy Law/MOX, etc. 1 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 3 SOUTHERN DIVISION 4 5 ALICE HIRT; ANABEL DWYER; CITIZENS FOR ALTERNATIVES 6 TO CHEMICAL CONTAMINATION; KATHRYN CUMBOW; ROBERT 7 ANDERSON; DORIS SCHALLER VERNON; and TERRY MILLER, 8 Plaintiffs, 9 v. CASE NO: 1:99-CV-933 10 BILL RICHARDSON, Secretary, 11 United States Department of Energy; UNITED STATES 12 OF AMERICA; and UNKNOWN PART(Y)(IES), named as 13 "John and Jane Doe" on complaint, 14 Defendants. 15 ____________________________/ 16 * * * * 17 18 TESTIMONY OF GORDON EDWARDS and FRANCIS BOYLE 19 * * * * 20 21 BEFORE: THE HONORABLE RICHARD ALAN ENSLEN United States District Judge 22 Kalamazoo, Michigan April 7, 2000 23 24 25 KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 2 1 APPEARANCES: 2 APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFFS: 3 MR. KARY LOVE 4 977 Butternut Drive PMB 128 5 Holland, Michigan 49424 6 MR. TERRY J. LODGE 316 North Michigan Street, Suite 520 7 Toledo, Ohio 43624-1627 8 APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANTS: 9 MR. ROBERT I. DODGE 10 MR. CHARLES GROSS U.S. Attorney's Office 11 330 Ionia Avenue, N.W., Suite 501 P.O. Box 208 12 Grand Rapids, Michigan 49501-208 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 3 1 INDEX 2 WITNESS: Page 3 GORDON EDWARDS Direct Examination by Mr. Lodge 4 4 Cross Examination by Mr. Dodge 17 Redirect Examination by Mr. Lodge 20 5 6 FRANCIS BOYLE 7 Direct Examination by Mr. Love 21 Cross Examination by Mr. Dodge 67 8 Redirect Examination by Mr. Love 82 9 10 EXHIBITS Rec'd. 11 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 1 87 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 2 87 12 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 3 31 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 5 87 13 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 6 87 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 11 87 14 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 12 87 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 13 87 15 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 14 87 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 4 1 Kalamazoo, Michigan 2 April 7, 2000 3 at approximately 8:50 A.M. 4 EXCERPT OF PROCEEDINGS 5 TESTIMONY OF GORDON EDWARDS 6 MR. LODGE: We waive opening. 7 THE COURT: Okay. Good for you. 8 MR. LODGE: And we would call Gordon Edwards. 9 GORDON EDWARDS - PLAINTIFFS' WITNESS - SWORN. 10 COURT CLERK: Please state and spell your name 11 for the record. 12 THE WITNESS: My name is Gordon Edwards, 13 G-o-r-d-o-n E-d-w-a-r-d-s. 14 DIRECT EXAMINATION 15 BY MR. LODGE: 16 Q. Dr. Edwards, you previously testified in this proceeding 17 in an earlier motion hearing in December, 1999, correct? 18 A. That is correct. 19 Q. And what, just summarize for the Court, to refresh the 20 Court's recollection, what is your occupation or 21 profession? 22 A. I'm a professor of mathematics at Vanier College in 23 Montreal, and I'm also a consultant on nuclear issues for 24 both governmental and nongovernmental agencies. 25 Q. Are you affiliated with any nongovernmental entity in KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 5 1 Canada regarding the purpose of which is to discuss 2 nuclear issues? 3 A. Yes, I'm the president of the Canadian Coalition for 4 Nuclear Responsibility, which is a federally incorporated 5 organization, since 1978. 6 Q. And how long and in what capacities have you served as a 7 consultant on nuclear issues? 8 A. I've served as a consultant since 1977 for a variety of 9 bodies, including Royal Commissions of Inquiry where I 10 have been retained to cross-examine expert witnesses, also 11 the auditor general of Canada when they were doing a 12 comprehensive audit of the Atomic Energy Control Board, 13 and most recently I was invited for January 2000 by the 14 Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs and International 15 Trade to participate in a small expert workshop on nuclear 16 weapons policies in Ottawa. 17 Q. And Dr. Edwards, have you had the occasion to read the 18 environmental assessment promulgated by the Fissile 19 Materials Office of the U.S. Department of Energy for the 20 Parallex Project? 21 A. Yes, I have, and have commented on that as well. 22 Q. We are here today on a proposed shipment of MOX plutonium 23 from Russia to Chalk River, Ontario, you understand that? 24 A. That is correct. 25 Q. What is your understanding as to the amount of the KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 6 1 plutonium content of the MOX fuel rods, pins that would be 2 brought from Russia? 3 A. The MOX fuel contains 135 grams of weapons grade plutonium 4 as compared with the 119 grams that were in the American 5 shipment that proceeded in January. 6 Q. Now, Dr. Edwards, you indicated that the Canadian 7 Coalition was incorporated in approximately 1978? 8 A. That's right. 9 Q. Have you been active in nuclear issues since that time? 10 A. Even before that time, yes. I have been active 11 specifically on proliferation questions and 12 plutonium-related questions since 1975. 13 MR. LODGE: If I may approach. 14 THE COURT: Of course. 15 BY MR. LODGE: 16 Q. Showing you what has been marked for purposes of the 17 supplemental motion hearing as Plaintiff's Exhibit 1, I'm 18 going to also leave Exhibit 2 up here. 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. Have you ever conducted any investigation into the issue 21 of civilian population or work exposures to plutonium? 22 A. Only at the level of potential for damage, potential for 23 harm. 24 Q. What is Exhibit 1? 25 A. Exhibit 1 is a letter from Mary Measures, Ph.D., Director KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 7 1 of the Radiation Environmental Protection Division of the 2 Atomic Energy Control Board of Canada dealing with 3 quantity of plutonium that an atomic radiation worker or a 4 member of the public may inhale to reach their respective 5 maximum limits. 6 Q. And the date of that is September 30, 1999? 7 A. That is correct, about six months ago. 8 Q. And could you summarize what the inhalation, or what the 9 limits are for both workers and for public? 10 A. Yes. The maximum lifetime limit of exposure in the lung 11 for an atomic worker is approximately 1.4 micrograms, and 12 for the member of the public it's 0.1 microgram, and a 13 microgram being one one-millionth of a gram, so if we 14 translate this into grams, it would mean 1.4 grams would 15 be equivalent-- would be enough to give maximum 16 permissible doses to one million workers and ten -- one 17 gram would be enough to give maximum permissible doses to 18 ten million members of the general public. That's just 19 potential. 20 Q. Okay. And is that based on the -- or, I'm sorry. Have 21 you had occasion in connection with the proposed Russian 22 shipment of a 135 grams of plutonium and the American 23 shipment of 119 grams, to perform any computations as to 24 what the potential dispersion or exposure is? 25 A. Well, I would like to emphasize this is just arithmetic KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 8 1 and does not take into account dispersion factors such as 2 wind velocity, any respiration rates, and so on. If we 3 just look at the theoretical potential, then with 119 4 grams, we are talking about the potential for 85 million 5 atomic workers to receive their maximum permissible 6 exposure, if that were able to be disseminated into all of 7 their lungs and 1,000,190,000 members of the general 8 public, so even though this is a very small amount of 9 plutonium, the potential for exposure, harmful exposure is 10 quite significant. 11 Q. All right. But so that implies you would have to have an 12 optimal dispersal? 13 A. This would be an impossibly optimal dispersal. This would 14 be assuming that the plutonium were distributed fully into 15 the lungs of all the people that I've mentioned. 16 Q. Are you aware of whether or not the American shipment was 17 delivered to Chalk River? 18 A. Yes, the American shipment was delivered to Chalk River. 19 It was taken to the border in what I believe was an SST, a 20 truck which was described as silver, and I believe it was 21 probably an SST, although I do not know for absolute 22 certainty about that, and then it was transported to the 23 Sault Ste. Marie airport where it was lifted by helicopter 24 accompanied by two other helicopters, and transported from 25 there to Chalk River. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 9 1 Q. You indicated that you were talking about an impossibly 2 optimal dispersal. Have you had the occasion to perform 3 any computations as to a very conservative prudent factor 4 to start with for dispersal? 5 A. Well, this is beyond my competence to really talk about 6 the details of how it might be dispersed, but if we just 7 assume for example 99.9 percent containment in the event 8 of a serious accident. 9 Q. Are you saying how much? 10 A. Suppose 99.9 percent of the material were successfully 11 contained and not disseminated in the environment and only 12 that small fraction was disseminated. 13 Q. Okay. 14 A. The potential again would correspond to, for atomic 15 workers in the case of the 119 gram shipment from the 16 States, it would be 85,000 maximum exposures and in the 17 case of the public, it would still over a million. Even 18 with 99.9 containment, in the event of an accident, you 19 still have the potential for over a million 20 overexposures. By the way, the 135 grams, the difference 21 between the 119 grams and the 135 grams from Russia 22 corresponds to potentially again 160,000 additional 23 maximum exposures for members of the public. 24 Q. How many for workers? 25 A. 11,428. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 10 1 Q. That's just -- 2 A. That's just the differential between the two shipments, 3 just the added, going from 119 to 135 adds the potential 4 for another 11,000 worker overexposures or 160,000 public 5 overexposures. This, I believe, is why authorities take 6 such great care to emphasize the packaging in transport. 7 They realize that the potential is great for damage. 8 Q. Do your computations reflect an assumption respecting 9 whether or not the dispersion occurs as a result of an 10 accident or an attack? 11 A. No, we are talking about theoretical potential which is 12 the same regardless of how much or whether the material is 13 dispersed. In an accident, for example, we have 14 previously seen accidents that were analyzed for ground 15 transportation. I have not seen any computations or 16 analysis of accidents for air transport either from the 17 American side or from the Canadian side. 18 Q. Are you talking with respect to Parallex? 19 A. I'm talking with respect to Parallex. 20 If you had, for example, a violent crash and 21 fire of an aircraft, including a helicopter, then the 22 dispersal would cause a plume downwind, could cause a 23 plume downwind, and how much of that plutonium would 24 escape would be subject to analysis which is not, to my 25 knowledge, been performed. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 11 1 Q. Dr. Edwards, do you consider the plutonium in MOX fuel 2 form to be a weapons component? 3 A. Well, in the case of the Parallex project, as you know, 4 this 119 grams or 135 grams, there is not enough there to 5 make an atomic bomb. However, it has long been known that 6 you can make a very damaging radiological explosive device 7 which would simply disperse the plutonium in breathable 8 form. That means that if the plutonium were acquired by a 9 criminal organization or terrorist group they could make 10 an incendiary device which would make this available to be 11 breathed by members of the public and also cause very 12 long-lasting contamination of the environs where this 13 exposure would take place. I believe that it would be 14 incorrect to say that these, even this small Parallex 15 shipment, would not be attractive to terrorists or to 16 criminal organizations as a top -- as a target for theft 17 or diversion. It is true, of course, that this is weapons 18 grade material and had one, if one had sufficient weapons 19 grade material, one indeed can make a very powerful atomic 20 bomb from that. 21 Q. Have you seen any literature or other information in or 22 out of the record of this case that discusses the weapons 23 potential for plutonium? 24 A. Well, yes, it's certainly common knowledge that the -- in 25 fact, the U.S. Department of Energy acknowledges as much KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 12 1 when they refer to the Russian plutonium, the Russian 2 weapons grade plutonium is continuing a clear and present 3 danger. It's long been known and recognized that 4 plutonium is the key ingredient of atomic weapons, so if 5 one talks about components of atomic weapons, the 6 plutonium is the essential component. Once you have the 7 plutonium, then you can acquire the other materials on the 8 open market that are necessary to build a bomb. 9 Q. How do you know that? 10 A. Well, it's been well known for a long time. For instance, 11 there was a study done, published in the Harvard Civil 12 Rights and Civil Liberties Law Review -- I could make that 13 available to the Court, if you would like -- in 1975 as 14 long ago as then, which says, "Since all the material 15 other than plutonium needed to build a bomb is available 16 from commercial hardware and chemical suppliers, the 17 present obstacle to the private construction of nuclear 18 weapons is the unavailability of plutonium." 19 But if we just turn to the study that was 20 commissioned and already on file, I believe, here at the 21 Court, a study that was commissioned by the Office of 22 Fissile Materials Management called the Red Team Report, 23 the Red Team Proliferation Vulnerability Report. 24 In their conclusions on Page 6-1, they have a 25 heading called Keeping Plutonium Inaccessible is the Key KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 13 1 to Proliferation Resistance. So what is basically being 2 said here is plutonium is not just a component but the key 3 component of atomic bombs particularly in the context of 4 illicit groups. 5 Q. Dr. Edwards, could you explain for us Canada's role in the 6 reprocessing of plutonium? 7 A. Well, Canada's role in plutonium goes back to the World 8 War II Atomic Bomb Project. We had a secret laboratory in 9 Montreal which was manned by British, French and Canadian 10 scientists dedicated to developing methods for producing 11 and separating plutonium for weapons purposes as well as 12 civilian purposes, because even then it was anticipated 13 plutonium would have some civilian value. At the end of 14 the war -- incidentally, the first reactor in Canada was 15 built according to a military decision taken in 16 Washington, D.C. in 1944, to demonstrate this potential. 17 The reactor called the NRX reactor was built at 18 Chalk River and a plutonium reprocessing plant was built 19 as well. Plutonium was separated and Britain received its 20 first sample of weapons grade plutonium from Canada from 21 Chalk River just months before their first atomic test. 22 There was also an illicit transfer of plutonium 23 from Chalk River to Russia, which was so the first samples 24 of plutonium that both Britain and Russia received were 25 from Chalk River. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 14 1 Since that time, Canada, of course, has taken a 2 policy decision not to pursue a nuclear weapons option 3 itself, but they have, however, looked favorably on the 4 idea of reprocessing plutonium for civilian purposes. 5 They do not have a policy which is against the 6 reprocessing of plutonium in principle and nor do they 7 discourage their clients, their customers overseas from 8 reprocessing plutonium. And in fact, in Canada, there is 9 an open door policy towards reprocessing as a future 10 option. 11 We just concluded recently a ten-year 12 environmental assessment of the problem of high-level 13 radioactive waste disposal, and in all of the documents it 14 begins by saying, in the very first paragraphs, that by 15 nuclear waste disposal, we mean either spent fuel or 16 post-reprocessing waste. So this is very much a 17 theoretical opening and a policy opening for Canada to use 18 plutonium as a fuel. 19 Q. Showing you what has been marked as Supplemental Motion 20 Exhibit 2, can you identify that for the Court, please? 21 A. Yes. This appears to be an exchange from the British 22 Parliament, questions and answers having to do with 23 nuclear fuel, and the Secretary of State for Trade and 24 Industry is being asked about quantities of spent fuel 25 from Canada that have been contracted for reprocessing at KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 15 1 Cello Field in England. 2 Q. And can you summarize your understanding of what the 3 response by the British Government was? 4 A. Yes. The response here is that a certain amount of 5 plutonium, a certain amount of spent fuel from Canada has 6 been reprocessed beginning in 1970, and that the plutonium 7 has been returned to Canada. I have personal knowledge of 8 the fact that at Chalk River they have maintained a pilot 9 plutonium fuel fabrication line since the 1970s, since 10 1970 and before, and that they have processed at Chalk 11 River approximately three tons, more than three tons of 12 MOX fuel from recycled civilian plutonium. This is part 13 of that, the plutonium that is here being referred to as 14 being recycled or reprocessed in Britain, that's part of 15 the total amount of plutonium that Canada has acquired for 16 the purposes of MOX fabrication. 17 I mentioned that Canada also does not discourage 18 client customers from reprocessing. This is in 19 distinction to the American policy. The American policy, 20 since the Carter administration, successive 21 administrations have maintained the policy of not only not 22 allowing reprocessing in the United States, but also 23 discouraging reprocessing in other countries insofar as 24 that is possible. Canada does not share this policy 25 completely. We do not reprocess in Canada but, on the KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 16 1 other hand, we don't hesitate, it seems, to send our spent 2 fuel to other countries to get reprocessed so that we can 3 develop expertise in plutonium recycling. 4 Q. Does Canada have any relationship with the nation of Japan 5 respecting nuclear material? 6 A. Yes. Canada, as is probably known to the Court, is the 7 world's largest exporter of uranium. We are one of the 8 world's largest producers of uranium and the world's 9 largest exporter of uranium. We have bilateral agreements 10 with our customers as to the use of that uranium. Of 11 course, we have requirements that that uranium not be used 12 for military purposes. If a client customer such as Japan 13 who buys a good deal -- Japan purchases a good deal of 14 uranium from Canada. If a client customer wishes to 15 reprocess their spent fuel to recover plutonium, they do 16 have to get prior permission from the Government of 17 Canada, so when plutonium is reprocessed for the Japanese, 18 in the case where uranium from Canada is involved, the 19 Canadian Government gives their permission for that. 20 Q. Even if it is offshore from Canada? 21 A. Yes. 22 MR. LODGE: Thank you. I have nothing further. 23 THE WITNESS: Thank you. 24 Sorry. 25 MR. LODGE: Yes? KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 17 1 THE WITNESS: Excuse me. 2 MR. DODGE: Not quite finished, Dr. Edwards. 3 THE WITNESS: You knew the time was short. I 4 was jumping the gun a little. 5 CROSS EXAMINATION 6 BY MR. DODGE: 7 Q. Good morning, Mr. Edwards. My name is Bob Dodge. We have 8 met once before back in December. 9 A. That's right. 10 Q. Just a few questions. You testified about the quantity of 11 plutonium that would be included in the Russian shipment. 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. Do you recall that? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. You testified that it was 135 grams? 16 A. That's what was announced, yes. 17 Q. And how many ounces is that? 18 A. How many ounces is that? 19 Q. Yes. 20 A. I don't think in terms of ounces. I have to do the 21 conversion. 22 Q. Can you do the conversion? 23 A. I don't have the -- 24 Q. If I told you that one ounce is 28 grams, does that sound 25 about right? KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 18 1 A. I have no reason to doubt it. We are on the metric system 2 in Canada, we don't use ounces anymore. 3 Q. I understand. If I estimated 135 grams was approximately 4 five ounces, would you quarrel with that? 5 A. I would have no reason to quarrel with that. 6 Q. Now, you also testified about the amount of plutonium that 7 would have to be inhaled in order to exceed the maximum 8 permissible dose under Canadian regulations? 9 A. That is correct. 10 Q. And in your testimony, as I understood it, the assumption 11 you were making was that every single molecule of 12 plutonium that was in that sample would end up in 13 somebody's lungs; is that right? 14 A. That's right. It's calculating the theoretical 15 potential. It is not talking about a realistic scenario. 16 Q. Not only would all of the plutonium have to end up in 17 someone's lungs, but the plutonium would have to be evenly 18 divided so that each person got exactly the same amount of 19 plutonium, it's not all concentrated in one person, you 20 would have to take one-millionths of the sample, put it in 21 one person's lungs and put the next one-millionth in the 22 next person's lungs and so on? 23 A. That is correct. 24 Q. Do you have any idea, if you performed the same analysis 25 on this table, what sort of toxicity numbers you would KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 19 1 get? 2 A. I have no idea of what that would be, no. 3 Q. Now you also talked about Canada's policies regarding 4 plutonium reprocessing. 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. Do you recall that? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. Do you have any understanding of whether the plutonium in 9 the Parallex MOX samples will or will not be reprocessed 10 in Canada? 11 A. It will-- to the best of my knowledge, it will not be 12 reprocessed in Canada, although that option apparently is 13 not decided. 14 Q. What is the basis for that last? 15 A. Because Canada has a policy that at sometime in the future 16 they may reprocess. 17 Q. Do you have any understanding whether there is an 18 understanding between the Government of Canada and the 19 Government of United States or the Government of Russia as 20 to whether these particular samples will or will not be 21 reprocessed? 22 A. I do not, no. 23 MR. DODGE: Thank you very much. 24 25 REDIRECT EXAMINATION KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 20 1 BY MR. LODGE: 2 Q. Dr. Edwards, the House of Commons question and answer, do 3 you know of any particular statistics on Canada's shipping 4 of spent fuel to British nuclear fields and fuels at Cello 5 Field? 6 A. I don't have those figures with me, I'm sorry. I could 7 supply them to the Court, if desired. I do have some 8 figures at my office at home, I don't have them here. But 9 we are talking -- if we are talking about three tons of 10 MOX being fabricated at Chalk River, then one could work 11 out approximately how much of that would contain 12 plutonium, how much plutonium would be contained assuming, 13 for example, three percent. 14 Q. Right. 15 A. And then one could reasonably suppose that the lion's 16 share of that would come from Cello Field. Now I have 17 figures on shipments from Cello Field, but I don't have 18 them here. 19 Q. My question is: Would you presume that the Atomic Energy 20 Control Board of Canada, or AECL of Canada, would make 21 public the fact that the spent MOX from Parallex were 22 being shipped to Britain for reprocessing? Would you 23 presume that would become public knowledge? 24 A. No, I would not assume anything related to plutonium would 25 become public knowledge in Canada. Canada has a very KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 21 1 non-public attitude toward plutonium dealings. In fact, 2 the existing plutonium dealings in Canada including the 3 BNFL contracts is not public knowledge other than as it 4 has been raised in foreign countries such as in Britain or 5 by documents that have been leaked to nongovernmental 6 organizations. This is not something which Atomic Energy 7 of Canada Limited makes public. 8 MR. LODGE: Thank you. 9 MR. DODGE: No recross, Your Honor. 10 THE COURT: You may step down, Dr. Edwards. 11 Thank you. 12 MR. LOVE: Your Honor, if it please the Court, 13 the Plaintiffs would call Francis Boyle to the stand 14 FRANCIS BOYLE - PLAINTIFFS' WITNESS - SWORN 15 COURT CLERK: Please be seated and state and 16 spell your name for the record. 17 THE WITNESS: My name is Francis Boyle. 18 F-r-a-n-c-i-s B-o-y-l-e. 19 DIRECT EXAMINATION 20 BY MR. LOVE: 21 Q. Dr. Boyle, are you currently employed? 22 A. Yes, I am a professor of international law at the 23 University of Illinois College of Law in Champaign. 24 Q. How long have you been employed in that capacity? 25 A. 1978. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 22 1 MR. LOVE: Your Honor, may I approach the 2 witness? 3 BY MR. LOVE: 4 Q. Dr. Boyle, I'm showing you what has been marked as 5 Supplemental Preliminary Injunction Hearing Plaintiffs' 6 Exhibit 3 and ask you if you can identify that document. 7 A. It's a copy of my professional resume. 8 Q. Was this resume prepared at or under your direction? 9 A. Yes. I think it's current as of January 28th, 1999. I've 10 been kind of busy in the last year, haven't revised it. 11 Q. To the extent it's current through that date, does that 12 accurately reflect your experience, education, seminars 13 that you participated in, and articles that you've 14 authored? 15 A. Not seminars I've participated in, that would be too many 16 but, you know, the essence of my professional career and 17 articles-- significant teaching, consulting, practice. 18 I'm also a licensed attorney as well. 19 Q. If you would, give us a brief recitation of your 20 educational background? 21 A. I attended the University of Chicago where I studied 22 international relations with Professor Hans Morganthal who 23 is the mentor of Dr. Henry Kissinger at Harvard. I was 24 one of seven students in my class elected to Phi Beta 25 Kappa as a junior. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 23 1 I also did work in mathematical biology, winning 2 the award for the work I did in that area by the world's 3 leading geneticist now at Harvard. 4 I graduated in three years. From there I went 5 to Harvard Law School. I have a J.D. Magna Cum Laude from 6 Harvard Law School specializing in international law. 7 I also entered the Graduate School of Arts and 8 Sciences at Harvard in the Department of Government. I 9 have a Master's degree and a Ph.D. in political science 10 specializing in international relations, international 11 politics. This is the same Ph.D. program that produced 12 Henry Kissinger, Zabanya Brezenski (phonetic) and other 13 high level U.S. Government officials. 14 I was at the Harvard Center for International 15 Affairs for two years. Kissinger and Brezenski had been 16 there before me. 17 I spent two years teaching in the Harvard 18 College undergraduates international law organizations, 19 human rights. I practiced law with a Boston law firm for 20 a year at Bingham, Dana and Gould, where I did 21 international tax, and tax, and then finally in 1978 I 22 came to the University of Illinois. I went up for tenure 23 at the beginning of my third year, which I got, and I've 24 been tenured there since, you know, many years. 25 Q. Since undertaking your position at University of Illinois, KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 24 1 have you specialized in any area with respect to 2 particular research, writing and international law? 3 A. Well, for the purpose of our proceedings today, yes. I 4 have been specializing an enormous amount on the nuclear 5 weapons, nuclear weapons policy, proliferation, arms 6 control. Going back to my studies with Professor 7 Morganthal 30 years ago so I've been involved in these 8 issues starting as a student since 1969 and continuously 9 until today. 10 THE WITNESS: Sorry, Your Honor, I have a bit of 11 laryngitis. 12 THE COURT: That's fine, no problem. 13 BY MR. LOVE: 14 Q. Dr. Boyle, if you would direct your attention to your 15 resume, I would like to touch on a few seminal points. On 16 the first page under teaching, the third entry down talks 17 about being a lecturer in Nuclear Weapons and 18 International Law, 21st Senior Conference on Nuclear 19 Deterrence at U.S. Military Academy at West Point in 20 1983. 21 A. Yes. This is a high level seminar run by the Pentagon, 22 not for the cadets, but for about 200 of the highest level 23 officials of the United States Government dealing with 24 nuclear weapons proliferation, nuclear weapons policies, 25 and I was asked to lecture to this conference, and I won't KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 25 1 go through all the high level officials there, but sitting 2 right in front of me for my lecture was the three star 3 general in charge of war operations at the Pentagon, at 4 that time General Mahaffey. And I also note I had read 5 the independent expert's report on the MOX program 6 U.S./Russia of 1977, one of the U.S. independent experts, 7 Richard Garwin was there with me and he was also a 8 lecturer with me to this group, so I do know that Garwin 9 was involved in the Parallex MOX recommendations. 10 Q. With respect to the second to the last entry on Page 1 of 11 Exhibit 3, talks about "Lecture Tour of the Soviet Union 12 on Nuclear Weapons and International Law for Lawyers' 13 Committee on Nuclear Policy and Association of Soviet 14 Lawyers" in 1986. What was involved with that? 15 A. Yes. The former Soviet Union, their equivalent to the 16 American Bar Association was the Association of Soviet 17 Lawyers, and in conjunction with the Lawyers' Committee on 18 Nuclear Policy headquartered here, they decided to invite 19 one professor to go over to the Soviet Union and lecture 20 around the country for two weeks on various issues related 21 to nuclear weapons and international law, and both 22 organizations selected me for this purpose, so I went over 23 for two weeks and gave several lectures per day, Moscow, 24 Leningrad, Kiev to professors, lawyers, peace people, 25 whoever, news media on various aspects of nuclear weapons KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 26 1 targeting doctrine as they relate to international law 2 and, in general, nuclear policies. 3 Q. If you would direct your attention, Dr. Boyle, to Page 2 4 under Practice, fifth entry down it says "Author, 5 Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989, Public Law 6 Number 101-298 (1990) (adopted unanimously by both Houses 7 of Congress)," could you explain what that means, please? 8 A. Yes. Your Honor, we are dealing here with a treaty, the 9 Nuclear Proliferation Treaty-- Nonproliferation Treaty of 10 1968. That treaty has been implemented by Congress in the 11 Nuclear Nonproliferation Act of 1978, the Nuclear 12 Proliferation Prevention Act of 1994 and also recent 13 amendments in 1998 to deal with the India/Pakistan 14 explosions. I have direct personal experience on how you 15 take a treaty, an international treaty, and implement it 16 as a matter of United States Constitutional law by working 17 with Congress. 18 The Biological Weapons Convention of 1972 is a 19 treaty that is a total, not only arms control reduction 20 and elimination treaty for biological weapons, I gave a 21 lecture on Capitol Hill calling for legislation, domestic 22 legislation to implement this treaty, and this 23 recommendation was taken up by a group I work for called 24 the Council of Responsible Genetics. I'm on their 25 Advisory Board. I also serve as counsel to them, so KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 27 1 pursuant to their request, I drafted the implementing 2 legislation, I authored it, how to implement this treaty. 3 And then we took it to members of the House and the Senate 4 and we shepherded it through the entire process dealing 5 with members of Congress, both Houses, including testimony 6 I prepared. At that point in time, the Reagan 7 administration was opposed to this implementing 8 legislation. I had to deal personally with their position 9 papers against it refuting these things. 10 Finally there was a change of policy when 11 President Bush came into office, to his credit, and they 12 supported the legislation. It finally was approved 13 unanimously by both Houses of Congress and signed into law 14 by President Bush in 1989. This legislation was called 15 the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989. It was 16 later amended in the anti-terrorism and effect Death 17 Penalty Act of 1996. 18 I thought I had drafted the most draconian piece 19 of legislation you could possibly imagine on biological 20 weapons, but there is always a loophole, Your Honor, so 21 Congress revisited this in 1996 to close some of the 22 loopholes that had not been apparent to me and the 23 scientists I worked with back in 19, starting in from '85 24 to about 1989. So I just cite this as having direct 25 personal experience with relationship between arms control KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 28 1 treatise, reduction treatise and then how they are 2 implemented by Congress. I have done this myself. On 3 biological weapons and I'm still involved in that issue. 4 Obviously, I have not been involved in the 5 drafting of the implementing legislation for the Nuclear 6 Proliferation Treaty of 1968, there are three pieces, but 7 I have read and reviewed the implementing legislation. I 8 have an understanding how they relate to the 9 Nonproliferation Treaty and I also teach a course on this 10 subject, that is how international laws related to the 11 United States Constitution is implemented by Congress and 12 also carried out in the courts. I teach an entire course 13 just devoted to this subject. 14 Q. Dr. Boyle, you've had some experience practicing before 15 what was known formerly as the International Court of 16 Justice but currently the World Court; is that correct? 17 A. Yes, I have. 18 Q. Could you relate to the Court a summary of that 19 experience? 20 A. Well, I've advised governments with respect to either 21 actual or potential World Court litigation, some of that 22 is still attorney/client confidence that I'm not prepared 23 to discuss. What I am prepared to discuss are those 24 matters that are in the public record. 25 I did serve as counsel to Libya on the Lockerbie KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 29 1 bombing case. It was my recommendation the-- 2 unfortunately President Bush had about the sixth fleet 3 mobilized off the coast of Libya and was about to bomb 4 Libya that we filed a lawsuit at the World Court to stop 5 the bombing. We filed a lawsuit, Libya was not bombed. 6 Later on, I was General Agent for the Republic 7 in Bosnia of Herzegovina before the International Court of 8 Justice. In other words, I was their first ambassador to 9 the World Court for the Republic of Bosnia, Herzegovina, 10 and I sued Yugoslavia for committing genocide against the 11 Bosnian people. I won two cease and desist orders 12 overwhelmingly in favor of Bosnia against Yugoslavia. 13 Later on, I publicly advised -- I advised the 14 Bosnian Government to sue Britain for aiding and abetting 15 genocide against Bosnia, and President Izetbegovic 16 instructed me to sue Britain for a genocide against 17 Bosnia. That lawsuit was terminated under duress, 18 threatened them, so they withdrew from those proceedings. 19 Q. Dr. Boyle, with respect to your writings, if you would 20 direct your attention to Page 3 of Exhibit 3, the last two 21 entries at the bottom -- excuse me, the second to last 22 entries entitled Nuclear Weapons and International Law: 23 The Arms Control Dimensions, do you see that? 24 A. Yes. This was the lecture I gave to the West Point 25 Military Academy senior conference proceedings, which they KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 30 1 did publish in their proceedings at West Point, and 2 actually under my books, I've just completed work on my 3 sixth book, which is entitled Nuclear Deterrence and 4 International Law. And right now it is sitting at Pluto 5 Press -- I guess that's appropriate for today's 6 proceedings -- Pluto Press in Britain. They have 7 expressed an interest in publishing it. They are 8 currently evaluating it. I do not have a contract on that 9 book, but I did get the e-mail just before I came here, so 10 I'll have to deal with that when I go back. 11 Q. With respect to your other publications, Dr. Boyle, I note 12 that on Page 4 you've got one entitled, about halfway 13 down, The Relevance of International Law to the "Paradox" 14 of Nuclear Deterrence. 15 A. That is correct. 16 Q. Can you tell us briefly what the subject matter is? 17 A. After I made the lecture at West Point, obviously the U.S. 18 military officials and others, we had a fairly vigorous 19 debate, let me put it that way. And that vigorous debate 20 between myself and these others led to this article that 21 was later published here in the United States and also 22 translated into Dutch, because the Dutch lawyers wanted it 23 to be available as part of the debate in Holland over the 24 deployment of the U.S. intermediate nuclear forces under 25 the Reagan administration, so they translated the whole KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 31 1 thing into Dutch and it was published in the Netherlands. 2 MR. LOVE: Your Honor, I have no further 3 questions of Dr. Boyle with respect to qualifications, and 4 I tender him for voir dire to the U.S. Attorney's Office 5 subject to my motion to admit Plaintiff's Exhibit 3 into 6 evidence. 7 MR. DODGE: I have no objection to the admission 8 of the C.V. 9 THE COURT: Exhibit 3? 10 MR. DODGE: Exhibit 3. 11 THE COURT: You have no voir dire questions to 12 ask either? 13 MR. DODGE: Not with respect to that exhibit. I 14 may get into the resume on the cross. 15 THE COURT: That's fair enough. 16 Exhibit 3 is received. 17 MR. DODGE: Thank you, your Honor. 18 BY MR. LOVE: 19 Q. Dr. Boyle, in preparing for your testimony here today, 20 could you please outline for the Court -- I think you have 21 done so somewhat already -- some of the documents that you 22 reviewed and the source materials you looked at in 23 preparing your testimony today? 24 A. I have a pretty detailed knowledge about these things 25 generally. For example, when the Nuclear Nonproliferation KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 32 1 Act first came out in 1978, I did read it, but in 2 preparation for this testimony today, I've gone back and 3 read the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, the Nuclear 4 Nonproliferation Act, the Nuclear Proliferation Prevention 5 Act of 1994, the 1998 amendments. I have read a large 6 quantity of documents produced by the Department of Energy 7 on the Parallex Project. I have read the Environmental 8 Assessment dealing with the aspects of international 9 environmental law that have not been dealt with in the 10 Environmental Assessment, in my opinion, should have been 11 dealt with the Stockholm Declaration, which is not there, 12 and the World Court Advisory Opinion on 1996, I have an 13 article on it that. I didn't go back and read the whole 14 advisory opinion, but I reread the portions of the 15 article, and other scholarly sources that deal with this 16 question. There are other sources I did not have a chance 17 to review not directly related to proliferation per se. 18 But for example, in my opinion the EA should 19 have dealt with the UN Convention on the Law of the Seas. 20 It's not in there. There's been nuclear accidents 21 convention, it's not dealt with in there. There is the 22 Bowel convention on the International Transportation of 23 Hazardous Substance and Toxic Materials, that's not in 24 there. I identified those as further sources that should 25 be analyzed in my opinion, but I haven't had a chance to KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 33 1 go back and review all of those sources. 2 Q. Dr. Boyle, did the types of materials that you've just 3 identified for the Court, are these the types of materials 4 that in your experience are relied upon by experts in the 5 field of international law in forming opinions as to the 6 legitimacy of governmental actions under internationally? 7 A. Yes. I also have experience reading environmental impact 8 statements. When the Pentagon produced the DEIS or the 9 biological defense research program, the Council for 10 Responsible Genetics asked me to evaluate this entire 11 thing -- it was an enormous document -- and submit formal 12 comments on it to the Pentagon, which I did do and they 13 did respond to. So this is the type of sources that 14 experts in my field would normally look at and review in 15 forming an opinion about Government behavior, and I have 16 done this before with respect to biological weapons. 17 Q. Dr. Boyle, I'm going to show you what has been marked for 18 identification as Plaintiff's Exhibit 4. Ask you to take 19 a moment to look at that and let me know when you've had a 20 chance to do so, please. 21 A. Yes. This is the treaty on the nonproliferation of 22 nuclear weapons, and as I've said, it has also been 23 implemented by Congress on the Nuclear Nonproliferation 24 Act of 1978, the Nuclear Proliferation Prevention Act of 25 1994 and also 1998 amendments. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 34 1 The critical point to keep in mind about this 2 treaty, Your Honor, is that Congress has passed 3 legislation expressing its understanding of what this 4 treaty means and what our obligations are under this 5 treaty. And this legislation is binding on the Department 6 of Energy, on the President, on the Department of State 7 and respectfully, Your Honor, on this Court. And what we 8 see, when you read through it all, is Congress has 9 decided, and prior to that the Atomic Energy Act as well, 10 that nuclear power, nuclear weapons, nuclear proliferation 11 is so important to the American people and our republic, 12 that they have decided to engage in micro management of 13 everything related to this subject and have pretty much, I 14 would not say completely eliminated, but whittled down 15 substantially any discretion that the executive branch 16 might have in this area. I have, as I said, I did read 17 the NPA back in 1978, but when you add in everything else, 18 what surprised me was how little discretion was left to 19 the executive branch with respect to nuclear 20 proliferation, nuclear weapons. In this area, they have 21 very little discretion. 22 Q. Professor Boyle, if you could, can you explain to the 23 Court what the implications are for Canada, Russia and the 24 United States under the Nonproliferation Treaty? 25 A. Well, my reading of both the treaty and in light of the KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 35 1 Department of Energy documents describing Parallex and 2 MOX, the Red Team report, many other documents that I've 3 read, in my opinion, there are serious problems, 4 compliance problems for this entire project under Articles 5 I, II and III of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty as 6 interpreted by the United States Congress. 7 The Article I deals with the obligations of the 8 United States and Russia. Each nuclear weapons State 9 Party to the Treaty, i.e. U.S. and Russia, undertakes not 10 to transfer to any recipient whatsoever, i.e. Canada, 11 nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices, and we 12 have a problem here in that Congress has interpreted this 13 to mean components of nuclear weapons or nuclear explosive 14 devices; that is, Congress simply does not interpret this 15 to mean you can't hand over a bomb, but a component for a 16 bomb is prohibited. And here we are dealing with weapons 17 grade plutonium, which Dr. Edwards has already testified 18 can be and indeed is, in his opinion, a component for 19 either a nuclear weapon or a nuclear explosive device. 20 Okay? 21 So when you read the treaty in light of the 22 statutory scheme, in my opinion, there are serious 23 compliance problems here with Article I, which have not 24 been addressed in the EA. The DOE has not dealt with any 25 of these problems at all in the EA, indeed, they have KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 36 1 basically said in one of their comments "Well, once we 2 give it to Canada, it's their problem," and that just is 3 an incorrect statement, in my opinion. 4 And it says "directly or indirectly," which 5 means also we, the United States, directly or indirectly 6 by encouraging and paying for the Russians to do this, you 7 see. So we are accountable for the Russian behavior 8 because we are working with them. And indeed, if we were 9 sued at the International Court of Justice -- let's 10 suppose something went wrong, Your Honor, and there was, 11 as Dr. Edwards testified, an aerial explosion in the 12 latest helicopter shipment and radiological dispersal of 13 plutonium that came across the border, killing Americans, 14 killing Canadians, others, if we were sued in World Court 15 over this, we would be found both jointly and severally 16 liable with Russia, with Canada, for any accident. 17 Likewise, this is followed up by both shipments on the 18 high seas of the plutonium. If there is an accident on 19 high seas, we could be sued at the World Court, the United 20 States, both ourselves and jointly and severally with 21 Russia and Canada over any accident here that might 22 happen. And that substantive liability could be based on 23 the U.N. Law of the Sea Convention. As I said, Your 24 Honor, I haven't had time to go through the environmental 25 provision of the Law of the Sea Convention, the Department KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 37 1 of Energy didn't even bother, and in the EA they did not 2 look at this at all. They did not consider this, but it 3 certainly is something that has to be considered, that 4 they haven't looked at. 5 And then "not in any way to assist, encourage or 6 induce any non-nuclear weapon State to manufacture or 7 otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear 8 explosive devices." Well, the problem here is Canada is 9 supposed to be a non-nuclear weapons state and says 10 "otherwise acquired nuclear explosive devices." Well, we 11 are giving them weapons grade plutonium, which again 12 Dr. Edwards has testified, and he is Canadian, is a 13 component of a nuclear weapons or nuclear explosive 14 device. And again, "or control over such weapons or 15 explosive devices." We are giving them weapons grade 16 plutonium. And if you look at how Congress has 17 interpreted this, they interpret it down to components, 18 they even talk about substances that they are trying to 19 regulate everything, and understand the 1978 legislation 20 was a very strict interpretation of what this treaty means 21 as far as the United States Government is concerned. And 22 I think we really need a comprehensive assessment here by 23 the Department of Energy as to whether or not any of these 24 transfers is consistent with Article I. Under the current 25 circumstances, they haven't bothered to look at any of the KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 38 1 terms as defined by Congress, the applicability of the 2 Congressional legislation to the transfers. 3 Likewise, Article II, Your Honor, Article II 4 deals with the Canadian obligations, "Each 5 non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes 6 not to receive the transfer from any transferor whatsoever 7 of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices." 8 Again, the same analysis here needs to be done. This 9 weapons grade plutonium, in my opinion and Dr. Edwards' 10 opinion, is clearly a component of either a nuclear weapon 11 or nuclear explosive device. And Canada, according to 12 this language, has agreed not to receive this material. 13 And by the way, as Dr. Edwards correctly pointed out, Your 14 Honor, this was consistent United States policy, stopping 15 proliferation of this type of material for any reason 16 going back to the Carter administration. We are seeing a 17 major dramatic change here in United States 18 nonproliferation policy, and that policy, Your Honor, 19 going back to the Carter administration, is enshrined in 20 law by Congress in the Nuclear Nonproliferation Act of 21 1978. So again, in my opinion, I believe these issues 22 likewise need to be addressed by the Department of 23 Energy. They have not been addressed in the environmental 24 assessment at all. 25 "Or control over such weapons or explosive KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 39 1 devices, directly or indirectly." Well, again, we are 2 giving Canada, either ourselves in the first shipment or 3 indirectly by means of the Russians in the second 4 shipment, control over a component for a nuclear weapon or 5 a nuclear explosive device. That's very clear they are 6 getting it. And according to the EA, we are trusting 7 their good intentions. There is no assurance in the EA 8 that this weapons grade plutonium is subject to 9 international safeguards. No. Despite the fact that 10 Congress has made it very clear that any transfer, and 11 Congress also made it clear in the legislation that they 12 are against any transfers of this type of stuff to other 13 States. But if there are any transfers at a minimum there 14 have to be absolute guaranteed protections on 15 international assurances to make sure it is not misused, 16 and you will note in the EA it says nothing about it. 17 There are no assurances about anything. 18 Now, "to manufacture or otherwise acquire 19 nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices; and 20 not to seek or receive any assistance in the manufacture," 21 etcetera, etcetera. 22 Article III then deals with the safeguard 23 requirements; that is, if there are transfers of materials 24 for peaceful purposes, and you know you can obviously, 25 Your Honor, you can read this yourself. There must be KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 40 1 safeguards. Under the supervision of the International 2 Atomic Energy Agency, the Environmental Assessment says 3 nothing at all about these safeguards. Nothing. It isn't 4 in there. 5 Apparently we have to rely on not even 6 statements by Canada that what we are transferring there, 7 what we are encouraging the Russians to transfer are 8 somehow going to be safeguarded despite the fact that 9 Article III says that there must be safeguards, and we 10 simply don't have them. 11 Q. Dr. Boyle, I'm going to show you what's been marked for 12 identification as Plaintiff's Exhibit 5 and ask you to 13 take a look in the upper right-hand corner, and after 14 you've had a moment to review that, let me know, please. 15 A. Yes. This is an article I had read in preparation for my 16 testimony here today, from the Toronto News. 17 Q. Based on your experience and expertise, Dr. Boyle, is this 18 the type of information that an international law scholar 19 could rely on in formulating opinions about the state or 20 nationally? 21 A. Well, here is stating comments by Mr. Tom Clemens, head of 22 the Washington-based Nuclear Control Institute. It's a 23 recognized organization dealing with nuclear policies, and 24 certainly experts in my field would rely upon statements 25 produced by the Nuclear Control Institute and, indeed, KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 41 1 prior to my testimony today, I did read several documents 2 produced by the Nuclear Control Institute just in the 3 normal course of preparing, yes. An expert in my field 4 would rely on this. 5 Q. Dr. Boyle, my recollection is you testified this appeared 6 in the Toronto -- 7 A. News. 8 Q. -- News and it -- 9 A. The Globe and Mail, which is, you know, it's sort of like 10 the New York Times here in the United States, a newspaper 11 of public record, so again, it's not like a tabloid or 12 something like this. 13 Q. Plaintiff's Exhibit 5, Dr. Boyle in the right-hand column 14 attributes some comments to a Sunni Locatelli purportedly 15 a spokeswoman at the Atomic Control Board. Do you see 16 that? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. What if anything is the significance, based on your 19 experience as expertise, of considering published reports 20 attributed to spokespersons for governmental entities in 21 formulating use of international law? 22 A. Yes. There is a decision by the International Court of 23 Justice in the nuclear test cases dealing with nuclear 24 explosions 1974, stating that the Court can rely upon 25 official statements made by Government officials acting KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 42 1 within their scope of authority and certainly Locatelli 2 here is the spokeswoman of the Atomic Energy Control 3 Board. So basically, I would be able to take this 4 statement and file it at the World Court and they would 5 find the statement could be, would be attributable to the 6 Canadian government, and Canada would be bound by this 7 statement. 8 Q. What does that article, Plaintiff's Exhibit 5, attribute 9 to Miss Locatelli? 10 A. She can't reveal how much fissile material Canada has. We 11 aren't able to give out that information under our 12 security regulations. Ms. Locatelli said Canada believes 13 it should come under the IA/EA guidelines because it 14 doesn't operate its own reprocessing facilities. I think 15 Dr. Edwards just pointed out that isn't correct. But even 16 if it were correct, it does come under IA/EA, and we need 17 to know, the United States Government under the NPT, under 18 the Congressional implementing legislation, we have to 19 know how much fissile material Canada has. 20 And basically, we are just taking their, 21 whatever their word is for it, and in my opinion, that's 22 unacceptable. We have to know how much material they have 23 and what they are doing with it, and what she's saying 24 here is "Well, we are just not going to tell you." And 25 you will note in the EA, the Department of Energy has KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 43 1 taken the same position. One of the comments made was 2 "Well, what is Canada doing," and the response of the DOE 3 is well, that is Canada's problem, once it leaves here we 4 are no longer responsible. The treaty and statutory 5 regime make it clear that's not the case. We are 6 responsible for our plutonium, wherever it goes. And 7 Congress has made it clear even if we do give it up, we 8 have to have absolute international safeguards as to what 9 is going to happen with our plutonium. And the same would 10 apply if we are encouraging Russia to ship weapons grade 11 plutonium to Canada. We have an obligation to make sure 12 that it's safeguarded and that it can be accountable and 13 accounted for. And what Ms. Locatelli here is saying 14 "Well, sorry, we are just not going to tell you." Again, 15 this raises serious problems in my mind that have not been 16 dealt with by the Department of Energy as to compliance 17 with the IA/EA safeguards regime, which is absolutely 18 required under Article III of the NPT and also required 19 under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Act. Indeed, if I 20 remember correctly, the 1994 implementation, Your Honor, 21 Congress said that transferring of unsafeguarded plutonium 22 is an act of international terrorism as far as Congress is 23 concerned. 24 So and that would trigger a whole host of other 25 provisions of the federal code dealing with international KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 44 1 terrorism, so we really need to know what is going to 2 happen to our plutonium when it gets up into Canada, and 3 to make sure there are safeguards and it is accountable 4 and there is an explanation here. 5 Now Mr. Clemens then said that, in his opinion, 6 Canada has 40 kilograms of plutonium, it's really not 7 accounted for or accountable for by anyone, and that 8 basically makes Canada a de facto nuclear weapons state. 9 I would agree, assuming that they do have the 40 kilograms 10 of plutonium, and I take it you know Mr. Clemens -- I had 11 e-mail correspondence with Mr. Clemens about this matter. 12 He feels that they do have it and that his group, the 13 Nuclear Control Institute, will be making this evidence 14 available soon. He told me it is not yet -- he is not yet 15 prepared to make it public, but they will be going public 16 with it soon. 17 In my opinion, if that is the case, they have 40 18 kilograms of plutonium, that's enough to make five bombs, 19 and that makes Canada a de facto nuclear weapons state 20 under the NPT and, in my opinion, would be inconsistent 21 with the NPT. There is a potential here for Canada being 22 in violation of the NET. We need to know that. Congress 23 has sanctions in there in the implementing legislation for 24 non-nuclear weapons states being, moving into a position 25 where they are de facto nuclear weapons states in KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 45 1 violation of the NPT. 2 It's clear Congress interprets our obligations 3 under the treaty to mean that a non-nuclear weapons state 4 simply cannot go off, assemble all the components for a 5 bomb, have one here, one there and one there, and then 6 say, oh but we are not a nuclear weapons state because we 7 haven't assembled the bomb. 8 Again, Congress made it very clear, no. Indeed, 9 in one of the pieces of legislation, Congress indicated 10 that it was also concerned with a facto nuclear weapons 11 states that an end run around the NPT, and the 12 Congressional regime applicable to it. Again, I regret to 13 report I haven't seen any of these issues dealt with by 14 the Department of Energy in the Environmental Assessments 15 and, indeed, when they were asked about it, they just said 16 this is now Canada's problem. Wondered-- United States 17 law of the NPT, it is not Canada's problem alone, it is 18 our problem because it's our plutonium and it's Russian 19 plutonium that we are paying to send up to Canada. 20 Q. Professor Boyle, based on the representations of Miss 21 Locatelli on behalf of Atomic Energy Control Board of 22 Canada that they don't believe they are subject to the 23 IA/EA guidelines, what if any impact would that have on 24 the United States' responsibility under the Nuclear 25 Nonproliferation Treaty of 1978? KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 46 1 A. It's very clear, Your Honor, the NPT and the Congressional 2 implementing legislation that we ourselves cannot ship 3 weapons grade plutonium there or engage in the Russians to 4 ship weapons grade plutonium unless there are absolutely 5 safeguards by the IA/EA that, to make sure that there is 6 no diversion. And again, Miss Locatelli is indicating 7 there is a high amount of uncertainty as to what is 8 happening with the Canadian plutonium. We simply don't 9 know. In the EA, there are no guarantees given by the 10 Department of Energy as to what is happening to plutonium 11 up in Canada. 12 Q. You may have testified to this, Dr. Boyle, and I apologize 13 if I missed it, but are Russia, Canada and the United 14 States all signatory partis to the Nonproliferation 15 Treaty? 16 A. Yes. We are all parties. There are about 182 or 183 17 states that are parties. The United States and Russia are 18 nuclear weapon states, parties to the convention, that is, 19 we are permitted to have nuclear weapons and nuclear 20 components, etc. Canada is designated a non-nuclear 21 weapons state. And they are supposed to preserve this 22 stative or statement. Yet according to the Nuclear 23 Control Institute, they have enough plutonium up there to 24 at least manufacture five bombs. So somehow this has to 25 be explained and accounted for in order for them to KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 47 1 continue their non-nuclear weapons state status under the 2 NPT, so again, the Nuclear Control Institute is raising 3 very serious compliance problems and potentially serious 4 violation of the NPT by Canada, and there are severe 5 sanctions in the United States laws enacted by Congress 6 under the Simplemen legislation, Your Honor, in the event 7 a state that is a non-nuclear weapons state moves to 8 become a nuclear weapons state. And again, none of this 9 has been addressed by the Department of Energy in the 10 environmental assessment that I'm aware of, either in the 11 environmental assessment or elsewhere. 12 Q. Dr. Boyle, could you advise the Court, if you would, as to 13 what the ramifications legally are of being a signatory 14 party to an international treaty such as the 15 Nonproliferation Treaty? 16 A. Yes. Your Honor, of course, the basic rule of Pacta Sunt, 17 P-a-c-t-a-s-u-n-t, Servanda, S-e-r-v-a-n-d-a. 18 The other point -- there are two other points, 19 however, that must be kept in mind in interpreting any 20 treaty and especially the NPT. First, the treaty must be 21 interpreted in good faith. And again, the question here 22 with Canada maintaining 40 kilograms of plutonium is 23 whether or not this is a good faith interpretation 24 implementation of the NPT by Canada. 25 Second, the treaty must be interpreted in KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 48 1 accordance with its object and purpose, and that in this 2 case the NPT is to stop nuclear proliferation. And again, 3 this entire program, the Parallex program, in my opinion, 4 seems to defeat the object and purpose of the NPT, which 5 is to stop nuclear proliferation. 6 The third point to keep in mind is that this 7 treaty has already been interpreted by Congress and 8 implemented by Congress. And Congress is agreeing with 9 what I'm saying here, Your Honor, and I'm agreeing with 10 what Congress is saying. Congress has made it very clear 11 that they do not want to see any type of nuclear 12 proliferation or programs that encourage nuclear 13 proliferation. And we are now seeing a drastic departure 14 from the policy enacted in Congress pursuant to the NPC 15 back in -- the NPT back in 1978 in the Nuclear 16 Nonproliferation Act, and we have seen no change in the 17 legislation by Congress to authorize or approve this 18 drastic change. And again, I agree with what Dr. Edwards 19 said from his Canadian perspective, my American 20 perspective, the Parallex MOX project is a drastic change 21 in encouraging proliferation of nuclear weapons components 22 and there has been no direct approval, change of statutes 23 or whatever. So again, this, in my opinion, raises very 24 serious problems under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty 25 as interpreted in good faith and in accordance with its KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 49 1 object and purpose not only for Canada, but the United 2 States and Russia. And in my opinion, we should have a 3 full study of all these issues by the Department of Energy 4 before there is any further movement on this project. 5 The implications here are enormous. They could 6 be catastrophic, and I personally would like to see a full 7 scale investigation analysis so that I could evaluate it 8 myself before anyone goes ahead with this project, but of 9 course that, you know, that's my personal opinion. I know 10 that's for you, Your Honor, to decide. 11 Q. Dr. Boyle, what if anything is the requirement or 12 obligation of the United States to interpret the 13 Nonproliferation Treaty in good faith? I think you 14 testified that Canada has that obligation. Does the 15 United States have a similar obligation? 16 A. Yes. And as a matter of fact, here Congress has 17 interpreted our obligation under the NPT and, in my 18 opinion, Congress has interpreted our obligations under 19 the NPT in good faith and also in accordance with the 20 object and purpose of this treaty. Congress interpreted 21 this by means of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Act of 1978, 22 the Nuclear Proliferation Prevention Act of 1994 and the 23 1998 amendments to do with the India-Pakistani 24 explosions. So in my opinion, Congress did interpret this 25 treaty in good faith and in accordance with its object and KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 50 1 purpose and it appears to me the Department of Energy is 2 off there on their own with no express authorization from 3 Congress pursuing a policy here that defeats the object 4 and purpose of the NPT. 5 Q. By that, you are referring to the Parallex project? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. With respect to the Congressional implementation of the 8 NPT in the '78, '94 and '98 acts, what if anything is the 9 role of the Department of State and/or Department of 10 Energy with respect to interpreting those obligations? 11 A. Yes. Your Honor, it's very clear from the treaty related 12 to the statutory scheme. Treaties deal with international 13 law and foreign relations. Therefore, they are normally 14 negotiated and concluded by the Department of State and 15 then they are handed over to the Senate Foreign Relations 16 to the Senate for advice and consent. It is the State 17 Department that traditionally has always had the sole and 18 exclusive role here in the United States with respect to 19 nonproliferation policy, not the Department of Energy. 20 The Department of Energy has always been treated as a 21 technical agency, technical consultant. The policy is 22 formulated by the State Department. There had been, again 23 going back to the Carter administration, United States 24 Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, Your Honor, set up by 25 Congress to deal precisely with these issues. They were KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 51 1 the ones given the authority to deal with proliferation 2 and nonproliferation policies negotiate these agreements, 3 etcetera. Senator Helms in the latest did not like act, 4 he concluded it was super numerator morgue or something so 5 he passed legislation terminating the Arms Control 6 Disarmament Agency and transferring all functions to the 7 Department of State today. But if you read the 8 Congressional implementing legislation, they make it very 9 clear that the lead role played on proliferation and 10 nonproliferation policy is the Department of State, not 11 the Department of Energy, and the Department of State 12 should consult with the Department of Energy. At times 13 the Department of Energy is given authority to have its 14 input to the Department of State, but it's the Department 15 of State that makes nonproliferation policy, not the 16 Department of Energy. 17 Q. In your review of the environmental assessment prepared by 18 the Department of Energy in January of '99, Dr. Boyle, 19 regarding the Parallex Project, is there any indication 20 that the Department of Energy consulted with the 21 Department of State? And if you don't mind, I direct your 22 attention to Page 41 of Plaintiff's Exhibit 12 previously 23 admitted and ask you to refer to that. 24 A. Yes. They had a list here of agencies consulted. Your 25 Honor, over here on Page 41, it says agencies consulted KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 52 1 during the preparation of this analysis: Atomic Energy of 2 Canada, Canadian Atomic Energy Control Board, U.S. 3 Department of Transportation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 4 Commission. They do not consult with the Department of 5 State and, in my opinion, and also in the opinion of 6 Congress, if you read through all the implementing 7 legislation, I know, Your Honor, as I understand it, you 8 are a conscientious Judge so I'm sure you are going to do 9 this, you'll see that they have to deal with the 10 Department of State. And the main problem with this EA is 11 they have not dealt with the Department of State, they 12 have not dealt with the nonproliferation issues, they have 13 not dealt with the Nonproliferation Treaty, they have not 14 dealt with the 1978 Act, they have not dealt with the 1994 15 Act, they have not dealt with the 1998 Act. All that is 16 expressly required by Congress. So again, in my opinion, 17 for some reason the Department of Energy has just decided 18 to go out there on its own and completely either ignore or 19 violate the Congressional statutes and procedures for 20 dealing with proliferation and nonproliferation issues. 21 Q. Dr. Boyle, to your knowledge, has the Department of State 22 retreated at all from the U.S. commitment to the 23 Nonproliferation Treaty as implemented by Congress through 24 the legislation you've indicated? 25 A. No, and as a matter of fact, Madeline Albright was just KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 53 1 out in India-Pakistan with President Clinton. As you 2 know, President Clinton stated that today India-Pakistan, 3 the Indian subcontinent is the most dangerous place on the 4 face of the earth because of the proliferation problem, 5 and they both have nuclear weapons now, and the dispute 6 over Casmir. 7 President Clinton then was just lectured in the 8 Indian Parliament publicly by the speaker of Parliament 9 for making the statement, but I think it's a fair and 10 accurate statement. Madeline Albright followed this up 11 with another statement reiterating our commitment to 12 nonproliferation and, specifically with respect to India 13 and Pakistan, that this was the policy of the United 14 States Government, and also tying this into the integral 15 importance of safeguards. 16 And again, that is a fair and accurate statement 17 of the policy being pursued by the President and the 18 Secretary of State that is charged under the legislation 19 and the Constitution to deal with these matters. There is 20 a complete and total disconnect here between what the 21 President and Secretary of State are saying and what the 22 Department of Energy is planning to do here in the 23 environmental assessment. 24 Q. Dr. Boyle, I'm going to show you what has been marked as 25 Plaintiff's Exhibit 11 and ask you to take a minute to KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 54 1 review that and let me know when you have had a chance to 2 do so, please. 3 A. Yes. This is an account of the Secretary of State 4 Albright's statement on April 2, as recently as April 2 5 dealing with our proliferation policies. And let me draw 6 a few things to your attention. United States regards 7 proliferation anywhere as our Number 1 security concern. 8 So again, she's pointing this out and she is the cabinet 9 officer with the authority to deal with these matters, not 10 the Secretary of Energy. We continue to seek universal 11 adherence to the NPT neither India nor Pakistan are 12 parties to the NPT. And here is crucial points: The 13 limits in our ability to cooperate with India and Pakistan 14 are a matter of U.S. law, as well as our international 15 obligations, all right? So Secretary Albright is pointing 16 out we have United States law that deals with 17 proliferation and this United States law -- of course, 18 she's not a lawyer -- but the U.S. law is the Nuclear 19 Nonproliferation Act, the Proliferation Prevention Act and 20 the '98 amendments as well as the Atomic Energy Act. So 21 there's a very comprehensive legislative scheme here as 22 well as our international obligation she points out. 23 There are international treaties here, and in particular 24 the most important one being the one she just referred to, 25 the Nonproliferation Treaty, and she is aware of that. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 55 1 Unfortunately, it does not appear that the Department of 2 Energy is aware of it or is concerned about it in the 3 least bit, at least as reflected in the environmental 4 assessment, they have not dealt with any of these issues 5 in environmental assessment nothing, none. 6 Q. Dr. Boyle, based on your experience and investigations 7 study, are you aware of whether or not India and Pakistan 8 have Canadian CANDU reactors? 9 A. As I understand it, they've got reactors from the Indian 10 Nuclear Bomb Project was a serous reactor, Canada, India 11 and United States, right. And Pakistan has a CANDU 12 reactor, right. And just the other day, the New York 13 Times reported the smuggling of substantial quantity of 14 nuclear materials out of the former Soviet Union towards 15 Pakistan that was recently intercepted in Kazakhstan, I 16 think. So I think this is a very serious problem. And I 17 don't see how this Parallex MOX -- it's only going to 18 compound the problem. These countries are doing 19 everything they possibly can. And here I would also add 20 in Israel is not a party to the NPT. There are other 21 states that have CANDU reactors, it has already been 22 reported in the professional literature, Your Honor, that 23 Japan too is a de facto nuclear weapons state in violation 24 of the NPT. And as Dr. Edwards already reported, they 25 have gotten a good deal of their nuclear material from KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 56 1 Canada. 2 So, we see -- Canadian reactors that are what, 3 in South Korea, Taiwan, states that are interested in 4 getting nuclear weapons. Clearly Taiwan wants them, South 5 Korea wants them. And you know, not that I can speak for 6 these governments, but it seems to me they have made a 7 decision the best way to get a weapon is to do it the way 8 the Indians did. We get a Canadian CANDU reactor, then we 9 start getting in whatever material we can get from, for 10 example, this MOX program. They will get plutonium and 11 then they can make a bomb, they can assemble a bomb. 12 As for the ease of assembling a bomb, Your 13 Honor, when I was a student at Harvard there was a very 14 bright student at MIT who, as a class project, assembled a 15 bomb. He had everything there except the plutonium. 16 That's how easy it is to assemble an atomic bottom, and he 17 brought it down there and, if I remember correctly, in 18 central square at MIT, and just showed it to everyone. 19 Even a bright student at MIT can assemble a bomb, that's 20 how easy it is to do. And what we see on these states 21 that say they are non-nuclear weapons states is an effort 22 to get a CANDU reactor and do what the Indians do use the 23 CANDU reactor, then they just need to get hold of the 24 plutonium, and Parallex MOX is going to give them access 25 to this plutonium if it gets in circulation. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 57 1 Q. Dr. Boyle, you've testified in some depth as to the 2 Nonproliferation Treaty and the implementation by Congress 3 indicating Congress' intent to prohibit even components, 4 parts of nuclear weapons to be covered by the U.S.; is 5 that correct? 6 A. Congress has interpreted the NPT, as I said, in good 7 faith, and to achieve its object and purpose and they have 8 interpreted to mean components that is clear of nuclear 9 weapons or nuclear explosive devices and there are other 10 areas in legislation where they even break it down to 11 items or substances that could be used for nuclear weapons 12 or nuclear explosive device, so Congress is aware of this 13 problem of a state becoming a de facto nuclear weapons 14 state and somehow trying to assemble components, items and 15 substances to be used for a nuclear weapon in order to 16 circumvent the treaty. So again Congress has interpreted, 17 I think, the treaty properly. 18 Q. Are you familiar in the course of your research with the 19 DOE's stockpile of stewardship program? 20 A. I am, yes. 21 Q. Are you familiar with their use in that program of 22 subcritical amounts of weapons grade plutonium? 23 A. Yes. Right now the Department of Energy is engaging in 24 what are known as subcritical tests. A subcritical test 25 is using -- they just did one this week, I think I gave KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 58 1 you the press release on it, and they are consistently 2 doing this. 3 A subcritical test uses a subcritical amount of 4 plutonium, which is under the -- it was eight kilograms. 5 And they are exploding it in order to test, verify and 6 develop the next generation of U.S. nuclear weapons. So 7 what we see the Department of Energy doing here is the 8 subcritical tests, in my opinion, would constitute it's 9 not a nuclear weapon, but it is a nuclear explosive 10 device. Now, there is nothing illegal with, under the NPT 11 with us having a nuclear explosive device, because we are 12 a nuclear weapons state party, but again, it creates 13 problems other states are now mimicking our behavior. 14 Russia is doing the same thing, France and Britain say 15 they are going to do the same thing. If we give weapons 16 grade plutonium to Canada, Canada could be doing the same 17 thing. Or the Russians give their weapons grade plutonium 18 to Canada, Canada could be doing the same thing, and other 19 states could be doing the same thing. So again, I think I 20 have serious concerns here, but I want to point out the 21 DOE is already engaged in the subcritical tests which are 22 clearly nuclear explosive devices. So it just doesn't 23 have to be a bomb to be regulated by the NPT. 24 Q. Dr. Boyle, in the scope of your experience and research, 25 have you become acquainted with the International Court of KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 59 1 Justice opinion regarding nuclear weapons in 1996? 2 A. Yes. As a matter of fact, I was part of the effort 3 originally to try to get that advisory opinion from the 4 World Court. 5 Q. If you would explain briefly what the significance, if 6 anything, of that World Court decision on the Parallex 7 project is, in your opinion? 8 A. Well, Your Honor, the World Court was asked by the United 9 Nations general assembly to give an opinion on the entire 10 question of nuclear weapons and international law. It's a 11 very long decision with many separate decisions in the 12 sense I've written an article here, Mr. Love might want to 13 provide it to you, going through all of it. But in this 14 opinion, there are two critical components that are 15 relevant to the Parallex MOX project and, of course, the 16 EA has not dealt with either, let alone the World Court 17 opinion, and the World Court opinion in this area 18 enunciates the rules of international law that are binding 19 on the United States Government, binding on Canada, 20 binding on Russia. The one component of this opinion 21 deals with the environmental-- international environmental 22 law applicable to nuclear weapons, and you will note in 23 the EA, the DOE does absolutely nothing at all with 24 international environmental law applicable to this 25 transaction because it is an international transaction, KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 60 1 they're shipping plutonium from the States up to Canada 2 and from Russia over to Canada. So international 3 environmental law is involved, and the DOE has done 4 nothing at all about it. 5 And Mr. Love, I think you have the exact 6 language there. You want to provide that to me, the exact 7 ruling of the Court on the international environmental law 8 that would apply? 9 MR. LOVE: Your Honor, we have tendered what I'm 10 going to show Dr. Boyle as Plaintiff's Exhibit 14, a copy 11 of the World Court opinion to both the Court and counsel 12 previously. 13 BY MR. LOVE: 14 Q. Dr. Boyle, I'm going to show you what has been marked as 15 Plaintiff's Exhibit 14 and ask you to take a look at that 16 and let us know when you've had a chance to do so and what 17 it is. 18 A. Right, this is the World Court advisory opinion. It's so 19 long, I'm going to have to get my notes on it, excuse me. 20 I think, Mr. Love, I gave you my notes last 21 night on the relevant provisions of the opinion, the 22 relevant paragraphs. 23 Q. While I'm looking for your notes, could you direct your 24 attention to Paragraph 27, please? 25 A. Right. What we need are the paragraphs here. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 61 1 Right. Yes, I have Paragraph 27. 2 Your Honor, here the World Court unanimously 3 adopted Principle 21 of the Stockholm Declaration of 1972, 4 which everyone would say today is a basic principle of 5 international environmental law, which the EA has not 6 bothered to deal with. And it basically says states have 7 a duty "to ensure that activities within their 8 jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to the 9 environment of other states or areas beyond the limits of 10 national jurisdiction." That's a basic principle of 11 international environmental law. It goes back to the 12 Stockholm Declaration of 1972. It has direct relevance 13 here to this entire project. You've got international 14 shipment of plutonium, it's going over the high seas if it 15 goes by boat from Russia. That also triggers the Law of 16 the Sea Convention that they have not dealt with. They 17 haven't dealt with the Stockholm Declaration, and they 18 have not dealt with this recent ruling by the World Court 19 as to obligations under international law. If you read 20 the EA when they are asked this question, they said "Once 21 we give to Canada, that's their problem." Well, again, 22 that isn't a correct statement of international law. It 23 is our problem. 24 The second important point of the ICJ opinion, 25 and there are other sections here dealing with the KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 62 1 environment -- and I know we have a limited amount of 2 time, I'm not going to go through it all -- deals with the 3 interpretation of the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty. 4 This is an international treaty, the World Court 5 also has authority to interpret the Nuclear 6 Nonproliferation Treaty, and they have interpreted the 7 Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. 8 Mr. Love, could you give me -- I identified a 9 paragraph for you, I think it's 102. 10 Q. I believe you are looking for Paragraph 102? 11 A. 102, right. 12 Q. May also want to take a look at Paragraph 99. 13 A. 99 and 102, right. 14 The World Court, in the same advisory opinion, 15 has also dealt with the NPT and the obligation of Article 16 VI of the NPT, "Each of the parties to the treaty 17 undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on 18 effective measures relating to cessation of the" -- "in 19 good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of 20 the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear 21 disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete 22 disarmament under strict and effective international 23 control." And they have interpreted this provision, NPT 24 Article VI, which we are a party to, by the way, to have a 25 dual obligation, two components here: One, we must pursue KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 63 1 negotiations on nuclear disarmament as a matter of good 2 faith. 3 Recently, I regret to report the U.S. Ambassador 4 to the Conference on Nuclear Disarmament sponsored by the 5 United Nations has said "We are not going to pursue 6 nuclear disarmament negotiations." In my opinion, that 7 puts us in breach of NPT Article VI, certainly as 8 interpreted by the World Court. We have an obligation to 9 pursue nuclear disarmament negotiations and we have just 10 said we are not going to do it. The Ambassador said "We 11 are going to pursue instead a treaty on the cutoff of 12 fissile materials such as what is at stake here, but we 13 are not going to pursue nuclear disarmament negotiations." 14 Well, Your Honor, it does seem to me that that is a 15 violation of NPT Article VI and is certainly not meeting 16 the requirements of Article VI as interpreted by the World 17 Court. We must pursue these negotiations in good faith. 18 And then the second component of the obligation 19 is we must achieve a precise result. Nuclear disarmament 20 in all its aspects. And again just recently the U.S. 21 Ambassador to the Council of Nuclear Disarmament under the 22 auspices of the UN said "We are just not going to do it." 23 The reason why this creates serious legal problems is that 24 the non-nuclear weapons states went along with the entire 25 Nuclear Proliferation Treaty on the assumption that the KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 64 1 nuclear weapons states would engage in good faith 2 negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament. If we are 3 not engaging in negotiations leading to nuclear 4 disarmament and publicly say we are not going to do it, 5 this in theory could give the non-nuclear weapons states, 6 all 175 of them, grounds to argue the material breach of 7 the NPT and pull out of the NPT and to engage in nuclear 8 armament. Now I'm not recommending that and indeed I 9 certainly would not recommend that to anyone, but it is a 10 very serious concern if we are not engaging in these 11 nuclear disarmament negotiations, which we are not 12 currently doing. 13 Q. Dr. Boyle, could you briefly summarize for the Court why 14 the International Court of Justice opinions, if at all, 15 are binding on the U.S.? 16 A. This opinion per se is listed as an advisory opinion. So 17 it is -- we are not party to the lawsuit. As you know, 18 some courts can give advisory opinions. Your Honor, you 19 can't give an advisory opinion, but there are courts in 20 the United States that some states courts have authority 21 to give advisory opinions as well as contentious 22 opinions. The World Court has both. They have authority 23 contentious opinion and an advisory opinion. This was not 24 a contentious case. If it were a contentious case, we 25 would be bound by it, like the Lockerbie case, like the KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 65 1 Bosnia cases that I was involved with, those were 2 contentious cases. This was an advisory opinion, however, 3 in this advisory opinion, with these unanimous rulings by 4 the World Court on these points, the World Court made it 5 clear that these rules are customary international law. 6 And rules of customary international law bind the United 7 States Government. The Paquete, P-a-q-u-e-t-e, Habana, 8 H-a-b-a-n-a, decision by the United States Supreme Court 9 customarily international law binds the United States and 10 the United States courts. And technically, this is 11 federal common law. So the, Your Honor, this Court should 12 take into account the World Court rulings on these two 13 points on international environmental law and how the NPT 14 should be interpreted. 15 The rest of the opinion, which is quite lengthy 16 and I had written about elsewhere -- if you are interested 17 in reading my article, you can, but it's not really 18 relevant or terribly germane to the issues here, but 19 certainly, the section on international environmental law 20 and their interpretation of the NPT is relevant. I think 21 they enunciate rules of customary international law. I 22 also have reached the same conclusions myself in my own 23 scholarly research before the World Court did, but I think 24 most experts would agree with the rulings of the World 25 Court on these two points, it's requirements of KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 66 1 international environmental law and the interpretation of 2 the NPT. 3 And again, the DOE's environmental assessment 4 has not taken any of this into account. They have not 5 taken into account the rules of international 6 environmental law, which they should do, and they have not 7 taken into account anything about the NPT. 8 Q. Dr. Boyle, based on your review of the NPT, the Nuclear 9 Nonproliferation Acts of 1978, 1994, and 1998, the 10 International Court of Justice opinion, and the 11 declarations by the Department of State regarding the U.S. 12 position with respect to the Nonproliferation Treaty 13 commitments we have made, do you have an opinion as an 14 expert in international law as to whether the foreign 15 policy of the United States would be violated by the 16 shipment of MOX from Russia to Canada funded by the U.S. 17 DOE? 18 A. Well, again, I agree with everything Dr. Edwards said. 19 Your Honor, this is a major change in United States 20 nonproliferation policy going back at a minimum to the 21 Carter administration and the adoption of the Nuclear 22 Nonproliferation Act, it seems to me completely 23 inconsistent with the treaty, with the Act, the 1978 Act 24 and 1994 Act and the 1998 Act. So yes, this is a major 25 change in policy that potentially is illegal under the KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 67 1 sources. And I would really like to see the Department of 2 Energy comprehensively address all of these issues so we 3 could see what is their authority to do this. Besides 4 their own ipse dixit. I would like to see the authority. 5 I don't see it in any of the sources I've read before for 6 them to unilaterally engage in this major change in policy 7 that seems to be inconsistent with the Treaty, the '78 8 Act, the '94 Act and '98 Act, yes. 9 MR. LOVE: Your Honor, I have no further 10 questions of this witness. Thank you. 11 CROSS EXAMINATION 12 BY MR. DODGE: 13 Q. Morning, Mr. Boyle. 14 A. Morning. 15 Q. I would like to turn your attention back to your C.V., 16 which I think is Exhibit 3. Do you have that in front of 17 you? 18 A. Sure. 19 Q. Just to round out a few items on the second page, about 20 halfway down you testified that you were counsel to Libya 21 in connection with the bombing of the Pan Am flight over 22 Lockerbie, Scotland. 23 A. That is correct. I should point out that matter is being 24 peaceably resolved now by the United States and Libya 25 because of my efforts. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 68 1 Q. And you've also served, going up now the fourth item from 2 the top of that page, since 1987 you served as a legal 3 advisor to the Palestine Liberation Organization? 4 A. That is correct, and I was also the legal advisor to the 5 Palestinian delegation for the Middle East Peace Talks 6 convened under the auspices of President Bush, yes. 7 Q. And two items down from there said you were counsel 8 related to House Resolution 86 in the 102nd Congress 9 dealing with the impeachment of former, then President 10 George Bush? 11 A. Yes. Congressman Henry G. Gonzalez of Texas reached a 12 decision that President Bush going to war violated 13 numerous provisions of the Constitution and international 14 law. You can find them there in House Resolution 86. And 15 he asked me, because of my knowledge and expertise to 16 serve as counsel to them on these matters, and I did serve 17 as counsel free of charge, that is correct. 18 My service to the Palestinian Delegation in the 19 Middle East Peace Negotiations is there in '91 and '93, as 20 I said, President Bush was the one who convened those 21 negotiations, and yes, even though I did set out with 22 Congressman Gonzalez on this issue, President Bush did 23 sign my Biological Weapons Anti-terrorists Act of 1989, 24 which is -- 25 Q. He apparently didn't hold your efforts against you KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 69 1 personally. 2 A. Pardon me? 3 Q. Sounds like he didn't hold it against you personally. 4 A. I don't think he did, no. I'm a lawyer and a law 5 professor and I'm a professional, but he had no problems, 6 President Bush had no problems with my Biological 7 Anti-Terrorism Act. It was approved unanimously by both 8 Houses of Congress. 9 Q. Moving on to the third page, second item from the top of 10 the page, you worked as a consultant in 1993 on 11 Independence for the State of Hawaii. I would assume for 12 Hawaii to become an independent nation? 13 A. That is correct. The State of Hawaii-- the Hawaiian 14 Sovereignty Advisory Commission is an agency of the State 15 of Hawaii. And they were charged under the law by the 16 State of Hawaiian law to investigate all alternatives for 17 the native Hawaiian people. One of the alternatives that 18 needed to be investigated was whether or not the native 19 Hawaiian people should establish their own independent 20 nation state. And I was retained by the State of Hawaii 21 then to advise them on this because of my experience doing 22 the same work with the Palestinians. I advised them on 23 the creation of their state and the peace talks with 24 Israel based on a two-state solution, and the Palestinian 25 state today has diplomatic recognition now by about 125 KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 70 1 states, and currently has de facto UN membership, and I 2 did the legal work on that, so the State of Hawaii 3 retained me to come out and advise on the establishment of 4 an independent nations state, and the State of Hawaii paid 5 my expenses and a modest fee for this work, yes. 6 Q. Moving on to the Nonproliferation Treaty, you testified 7 about Article I. Do you recall that? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. And as I understood your testimony, your view is that the 10 fuel rods at issue in the Parallex Project, in your view, 11 should be treated as components of a nuclear weapon; is 12 that right? Explosive device? 13 A. No. What I said was weapons grade plutonium should be 14 treated as a component of either a nuclear weapon or a 15 nuclear explosive device. 16 Q. What about -- I mean, the Parallex test involves shipment 17 and then irradiation of fuel rods; is that correct? 18 A. Right. 19 Q. And is it your view or is it not your view that those fuel 20 rods constitute components of nuclear weapons or explosive 21 devices? 22 A. My viewpoint is what I said, that weapons grade plutonium 23 is a component of a nuclear weapon or nuclear explosive 24 device. 25 Q. You didn't answer my question. Do you understand the KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 71 1 question? 2 A. Well, I've given my answer. 3 THE COURT: No, you haven't answered his 4 question. He asked you question, if you don't know the 5 answer, say so. He asked you a very specific question 6 about rods. 7 BY MR. DODGE: 8 Q. In fact, the question has to do with your view, if you 9 have one, whether the fuel rods at issue in the Parallex 10 test program constitute components of nuclear weapons or 11 explosive devices. 12 A. If they contain weapons grade plutonium, they would be or 13 could be components of nuclear weapons or nuclear 14 explosive devices. 15 Q. Well, these fuel rods do contain plutonium; is that right? 16 A. As I understand it, it's in there, yep. 17 Q. So in your view, does that make the fuel rods components 18 of nuclear weapons or explosive devices? 19 A. Again, my testimony is that the weapons grade plutonium 20 clearly is either nuclear -- is a component of a nuclear 21 weapon or a nuclear explosive device, and the reason I 22 give that testimony is based on my reading of the 23 Congressional legislation, Congress has taken the position 24 that weapons grade plutonium or plutonium, in general, is 25 a component of a nuclear weapon or nuclear explosive KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 72 1 device. Congress does not deal with the fuel rods, they 2 dealt with the plutonium. 3 Q. I want to make sure I understand your testimony clearly. 4 Is it your testimony, is it your view that any 5 plutonium would qualify as a component of a nuclear 6 weapons or nuclear weapon or explosive device under the 7 treaty? 8 A. My testimony today is the weapons grade plutonium involved 9 in this project is a component of a nuclear weapons or 10 other nuclear explosive device. I believe weapons grade 11 plutonium is what is involved in this project. 12 Q. I asked you a different question. The question was a 13 broader one. Is it your view or not your view that all 14 plutonium would qualify as a component of a nuclear weapon 15 or explosive device under Article I? 16 A. It appears Congress has taken that position, yes, and they 17 have stringently regulated plutonium in all forms. And I 18 also note that the United States Government has exploded a 19 nuclear weapon -- 20 THE COURT: The question is: Is it your 21 opinion? He is asking four or five times now, could you 22 answer that? 23 THE WITNESS: But Your Honor, my opinion is 24 based on -- 25 THE COURT: In courts -- I know you are a KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 73 1 professor -- we answer the questions of the lawyer, not 2 what we want to talk about. He asked you seven or eight 3 questions, none of which you've answered. I would ask you 4 simply listen to the lawyer's question and answer it. 5 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honor. 6 BY MR. DODGE: 7 Q. Do you understand the question? 8 THE COURT: Ask it again for the fifteenth time, 9 ask it again. 10 BY MR. DODGE: 11 Q. Is it your view that all plutonium constitutes a component 12 of nuclear weapon or explosive device under Article I of 13 the treaty? 14 A. It can. 15 Q. It can? 16 A. Yes. Yes. 17 Q. Is it your view across the board that plutonium, whether 18 weapons grade or not, if it's present in a fuel rod for 19 a-- destined for a civilian nuclear reactor would qualify 20 as a component of a nuclear weapon explosive device? 21 A. It could. 22 Q. Do you know whether as a general matter the signatories of 23 the Nonproliferation Treaty have interpreted, whether any 24 signatory has interpreted Article I to ban transport of 25 fuel rods containing plutonium? KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 74 1 A. Congress has strictly regulated plutonium, yes, and there 2 is legislation on the books saying "We, Congress, 3 interpreting our obligations under the NPT, are against 4 international transport of plutonium," yes. 5 Q. Has Congress passed any legislation prohibiting the 6 transport of nuclear fuel rods containing any plutonium? 7 A. In what I have reviewed for my testimony here today, I 8 have not seen in the '78, '94 or '98 Act that Congress has 9 prohibited transport of fuel rods. 10 Q. In fact, fuel rods are transported across national 11 boundaries all the time; is that not correct? 12 A. They are transported. 13 Q. In fact, fuel rods containing plutonium are transported 14 across national boundaries all the time, isn't that 15 correct? 16 A. If they are subject to-- they are supposed to be subject 17 to safeguards, yes. 18 Q. Well, that gets us to another point of your earlier 19 testimony regarding whether the fuel rods particularly at 20 issue in the Parallex Project are or are not subject to 21 IA/EA safeguards in Canada. Do you recall that testimony? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. Do you have personal knowledge whether Canada, the 24 Government of Canada has taken a position on whether the 25 U.S. Parallex fuel rods, which are now in Canada, whether KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 75 1 those fuel rods are now subject to IA/EA safeguards? 2 A. I have not seen any evidence because of the recentness of 3 the movement of the shipments. 4 Q. If I told you that the position of the Government of 5 Canada is that those fuel rods are, in fact, subject to 6 IA/EA safeguards, would you have any basis to quarrel with 7 that? 8 A. The statement by Ms. Locatelli does call into question the 9 validity of these assertions, yes. 10 Q. Miss Locatelli was generally speaking of Parallex fuel 11 rods, was she? 12 A. Speaking about plutonium in general, right. 13 Q. I take it you didn't speak personally to Miss Locatelli? 14 A. No, I did not. 15 Q. About this or any-- 16 A. But I did speak with Mr. Clemens of NCI by e-mail and he 17 has similar concerns to me. 18 Q. Okay. And did you speak to the newspaper reporter, Martin 19 Mittelstaedt, who quoted Ms. Locatelli? 20 A. No, I did not. 21 Q. Whether his quotes accurately reflect what she said or not 22 is not something you would be qualified to testify about; 23 is that right? 24 A. Well, I note The Globe and Mail is a newspaper of public 25 record and I would be able to rely on that in the World KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 76 1 Court for sure, yep. 2 Q. But newspaper reporters are human beings? 3 A. Newspaper reporters make mistakes, sure. But again, the 4 World Court, for example, the nuclear test cases did rely 5 on statements made by Government officials as normally 6 reported in reputable news media sources. They have 7 different standards of evidence, the World Court, than 8 they do here in United States District Court. 9 Q. Now you've also relied on this article, Plaintiff's 10 Exhibit 5, I guess too, in support of your opinion that 11 Canada is in possession of 40 kilograms or up to 40 12 kilograms of plutonium; is that right? 13 A. This is a statement by Mr. Clemens, and I have had e-mail 14 correspondence with him about it. 15 Q. Do you have any personal knowledge whether -- 16 A. No. 17 Q. I'm sorry, I didn't finish my question. 18 A. I did answer your question. 19 THE COURT: He hasn't finished asking it; you 20 couldn't possibly answer his question when he hasn't 21 finished asking it. 22 THE WITNESS: Sorry. 23 BY MR. DODGE: 24 Q. Do you have any personal knowledge of whether Canada, in 25 fact, has 40 kilograms of plutonium? KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 77 1 A. I do not have personal knowledge, no. I'm relying on the 2 statement by Mr. Clemens. 3 Q. Mr. Clemens, does Mr. Clemens have personal knowledge 4 whether Canada has 40-- 5 A. As I understand, Mr. Clemens does. From my e-mail 6 correspondence with him, he does. 7 Q. Has he seen that plutonium? 8 A. Pardon me? 9 Q. Has he seen it? 10 A. He didn't tell me what his sources of evidence are, but he 11 did tell me that they will be making it public soon. 12 Q. So he thinks he has -- he thinks he has evidence to 13 support that conclusion and whether that evidence holds 14 any water or not, we really can't tell, can we? 15 A. Well, again, as an expert, if the NCI is making the 16 statements, I think they are significant and they need to 17 be dealt with, and certainly by the Department of Energy. 18 THE COURT: That was not -- excuse me, that was 19 not his question. 20 Would you repeat your question, please? 21 BY MR. DODGE: 22 Q. The question is: Mr. Clemens believes he has reason or he 23 has evidence to support his conclusion that Canada has 40 24 kilograms of plutonium, but as far as anybody in this 25 courtroom knows, that evidence may or may not hold water, KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 78 1 we just don't know, correct? 2 A. I'm not evaluating the evidence, and Mr. Clemens said the 3 evidence will be produced, so at that point I will review 4 the evidence and formulate a formal opinion. 5 THE COURT: Do you want to ask it again or just 6 want to give up? 7 MR. DODGE: I think that -- I think the point is 8 established to the extent I need to, Your Honor. 9 BY MR. DODGE: 10 Q. Now, you testified earlier that it's up to the State 11 Department, not the Department of Energy to interpret 12 United States treaty obligations; is that right? 13 A. I testified that it is the State Department that is in 14 charge of nuclear proliferation policies, that's what I 15 testified, and not the Department of Energy, yes. 16 Q. Okay. Is it your view that it's -- maybe I misunderstood 17 what you testified earlier. I thought I heard you say 18 that interpreting whether or not the U.S. is complying 19 with Nonproliferation Treaty in particular, that pertinent 20 authority on that would be the State Department, not the 21 Department of Energy; is that a fair statement? 22 A. I've also testified that the State Department has the lead 23 role in the United States Government with respect to 24 interpretation of treatises as well. 25 Q. Do you know what the State Department's position is on KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 79 1 whether the Parallex test program is or is not compliant 2 with Article I of the Nonproliferation Treaty? 3 A. Well, that's why I read the Environmental Assessment, to 4 see if you had talked to the State Department here, and 5 they hadn't, so I have not seen any statement by the State 6 Department as to what their position is, no. 7 Q. The Environmental Assessment is not the only document 8 that's been generated in the course of the Parallex 9 Project, you understand that? 10 A. That is correct, and I have read a good deal of the 11 documentation, but I still have not seen an expression by 12 the Department of State on this issue. 13 Q. Okay. Do you know whether or not the State Department was 14 involved at any level in the Parallex Project? 15 A. There probably were discussions somewhere in there. 16 Q. Do you know? 17 A. Myself personally? 18 Q. Yes. 19 A. I don't know for sure. 20 Q. Do you know one way or the other whether the State 21 Department has a view on whether the Parallex Project is 22 consistent with our treaty obligations under Article I of 23 the NPT? 24 A. I have not seen any expression by the State Department on 25 this issue. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 80 1 Q. If I told you the State Department has taken the view that 2 the Parallex Project is entirely consistent with our 3 obligations under Article I, would you have any basis to 4 quarrel with that? 5 A. I haven't seen it. 6 MR. LODGE: Objection, Your Honor. 7 THE COURT: If he hasn't seen -- 8 MR. DODGE: Withdraw the question, Your Honor. 9 THE WITNESS: I would like to see it and 10 evaluate it myself, sure. 11 BY MR. DODGE: 12 Q. You also testified about dangers of nuclear proliferation 13 relating to countries such as Taiwan and Korea that are 14 not currently nuclear weapons states, but would like to 15 acquire nuclear weapons, do you recall that testimony? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. Is it correct that the MOX program, the Parallex Program 18 does not contemplate the shipment of any fuel rods to any 19 country other than Canada? 20 A. Not at this stage, but eventually it does appear there 21 will be mass circulation of this material, yes, down the 22 line. 23 Q. And the basis for that is what exactly? 24 A. The quantities. If the test works out, the quantity we 25 are talking about coming from Russia. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 81 1 Q. Well, let me be more specific about this. Has the United 2 States, any spokesperson for the United States Government 3 proposed in connection with the Parallex Project to send 4 fuel rods to any country other than Canada? 5 A. The United States? 6 Q. Right. 7 A. No. 8 Q. Has the Government of Russia proposed, in connection with 9 the Parallex Project, to send fuel rods to any country 10 other than Canada? 11 A. Well, they are talking about massive quantities of weapons 12 grade plutonium being circulated into this program and the 13 independent team of experts by Russia and the United 14 States have made that quite clear they are talking tons of 15 this stuff. 16 Q. Well, again, you didn't answer my question there, 17 Professor. I asked you whether the Russian Government has 18 proposed sending fuel rods to any country other than 19 Canada. Your answer only dealt with volumes, it didn't 20 address where. That was my question. 21 A. Right. There might have been discussions on Germany or 22 some of the European states have there -- there have been 23 discussions and proposals, but it's just at that stage 24 now, yes. 25 Q. But Russia has not, to your knowledge, proposed sending KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 82 1 fuel rods to Korea? 2 A. There is an international market here, sure, it could be 3 sold anywhere. 4 THE COURT: No, he didn't say could have. He 5 said: Did they propose it? 6 THE WITNESS: I have not read that right now 7 Russia is proposing sending this to Korea. 8 BY MR. DODGE: 9 Q. Same question with Taiwan. 10 A. I have not read that Russia is proposing to send this to 11 Taiwan. 12 MR. DODGE: No further questions at this time, 13 Your Honor. 14 THE COURT: We will take a 15-minute recess. 15 COURT CLERK: All rise. 16 This court is in recess. 17 (At 10:54 a.m., recess.) 18 THE COURT: Okay. What is next? 19 MR. LOVE: Brief redirect, Your Honor. 20 REDIRECT EXAMINATION 21 BY MR. LOVE: 22 Q. Professor Boyle, did you receive any recognition or 23 rewards from Bosnia for your efforts on their behalf? 24 A. While I was never paid a penny, but President Izetbegovic 25 and Vice President Gonich (phonetic) held a ceremony at KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 83 1 the Bosnian presidency with a-- awarded me full-fledged 2 citizenship in the Republic, a diplomatic passport and 3 visa and a declaration and they put the ceremony on 4 television, so that was very nice. So technically I'm a 5 Bosnian citizen too. 6 Q. Dr. Boyle, with respect to your work on the Hawaiian 7 independence that Mr. Dodge asked you about, has there 8 been any action by the President or Congress, to your 9 knowledge, with respect to that? 10 A. Yes. In 1993 Congress passed a statute signed into law by 11 President Clinton formally apologizing to the native 12 Hawaiian people for destroying their kingdom and stealing 13 their land. The legislation at the end provides for a 14 process of reconciliation and reparations, and how this is 15 going to be dealt with, and I'm still currently involved 16 in those matters. 17 Q. Dr. Boyle, there should be a document up there marked 18 Plaintiff's Exhibit 13. Do you see that? 19 A. Yes, I have it here. 20 Q. Now, this is entitled a Nonproliferation Arms Control 21 Assessment of Weapons Usable Fissile Material Storage and 22 Excess Plutonium Disposition Alternatives, dated January, 23 1997 authored by the United States Department of Energy, 24 correct? 25 A. Yes. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 84 1 Q. Was this among the documents that you reviewed in 2 preparing your testimony? 3 A. I did not have -- I did not get this entire document until 4 Monday, so I did not have a chance to review the entire 5 document, but I have reviewed the excerpts you gave to 6 me. 7 Q. Now Mr. Dodge asked you-- for the record, Your Honor, the 8 excerpt only contains Pages 106 and 107-- Mr. Dodge asked 9 you about your testimony about the possibility of future 10 shipments of MOX to Taiwan and Korea. Do you remember him 11 asking you about that? 12 A. Yes. 13 THE COURT: He didn't ask what the possibility 14 is, he asked if there were plans by Russia or the United 15 States to ship to those two nations. That was the 16 question. 17 MR. LOVE: Okay. 18 THE COURT: And the answer was no. Not are 19 there possibilities. I know the witness thinks there are 20 possibilities, that won't help me any. I understand 21 that. 22 BY MR. LOVE: 23 Q. In fact, Dr. Boyle is it true that in this document the 24 DOE indicates there are possibilities such as you 25 testified about? KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 85 1 A. Yes. 2 THE COURT: I accept that. You are wasting my 3 time. There are possibilities. 4 BY MR. LOVE: 5 Q. Dr. Boyle, if you would, I direct your attention to the 6 large document that's in front of you. This is 7 Proliferation Venerability Red Team Report, Plaintiff's 8 Exhibit 28, and introduced in the prior hearing. 9 A. Yes, and I read this entire report prior to my testimony 10 here today. 11 Q. I'm going to ask you, if you would, to direct your 12 attention to Page 6-1, the conclusions to that report. 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. And again, this is a document that was produced by Sandia 15 Laboratories for the Department of Energy? 16 A. That is correct. 17 Q. Directing your attention to the first conclusion, under 18 the conclusion, keeping plutonium inaccessible is the key 19 to proliferation resistance, do you see that? 20 A. Yes. It says quite clearly, all plutonium from all stages 21 of all alternatives can be made weapons usable should 22 sufficient material be successfully removed. And I should 23 point out that is the position Congress takes under the 24 Nuclear Nonproliferation Act of '78, the Act of '94 and 25 the '98, all plutonium can be made weapons usable. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 86 1 Q. In your view, is that conclusion by the Sandia Lab in this 2 Red Team Report consistent with your testimony? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. Now, Mr. Dodge asked you if there was transport of 5 plutonium across boundaries all the time. My notes 6 reflected you said yes. Do you remember that testimony? 7 A. I said there was some, yes. 8 Q. Is there routinely transportation of weapons grade 9 plutonium shipped across boundaries all the time by the 10 United States? 11 A. No. No. 12 MR. LOVE: No further questions. 13 MR. DODGE: No recross, Your Honor. 14 THE COURT: You may step down. 15 THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honor. 16 Your Honor, did you have any questions? 17 THE COURT: No, I don't. 18 THE WITNESS: Thank you. 19 THE COURT: You've exceeded your time so I take 20 it you have no more witnesses. 21 MR. LOVE: Your Honor, I have no more witnesses 22 but at this time I would like to move our Exhibit 5, 23 Exhibit 7, Exhibit 11, Exhibit 12, Exhibit 13, Exhibit 14 24 and Plaintiff's Exhibit 2 and Exhibit 1 into evidence. 25 MR. DODGE: No objection, Your Honor. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 87 1 THE COURT: 5, 7, 11, 12, 13 and 14, 1 and 2 are 2 received. 3 MR. LOVE: Thank you, Your Honor. We have 4 nothing further. 5 THE WITNESS: Here are the exhibits. Where do 6 you want them? 7 MR. LOVE: I'll take them here. 8 (Hearing continued; reported, not requested 9 transcribed.) 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 88 1 2 3 4 5 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE 6 7 I, Kathleen S. Thomas, Official Court Reporter for the 8 United States District Court for the Western District of 9 Michigan, appointed pursuant to the provisions of Title 28, 10 United States Code, Section 753, do hereby certify that the 11 foregoing is a true and correct transcript of proceedings had 12 in the within-entitled and numbered cause on the date 13 hereinbefore set forth; and I do further certify that the 14 foregoing transcript has been prepared by me or under my 15 direction. 16 17 18 19 20 __________________________________ 21 Kathleen S. Thomas, CSR, RPR-1300 22 U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue 23 Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 24 25 KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (voice) 217-244-1478 (fax) fboyle at law.uiuc.edu (personal comments only) Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Brussel, Morton K Sent: Monday, November 06, 2017 7:56 PM To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: David Green >; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; Estabrook, Carl G > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] FW: MOX for Bombs in Japan I think this is wrong. MOX fuel is mainly used for fuel in nuclear power reactors, not to make bombs. Japan had/has many nuclear reactors. A fairly intelligible discussion is found in wikipedia, under "MOX nuclear”. —mkb On Nov 6, 2017, at 4:40 PM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss > wrote: This was a very lengthy interview I gave in Japan courtesy of their peace and anti-nuclear movement. It was heavily censored. My basic point was that Japan was using MOX to make bombs and that my best estimate was that Japan probably had as many bombs as PRC, which would be in the area of 500. So when the details of the disaster at Fukushima came out, it was clear to me it was one of their leading bomb complexes. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: globenet at yahoogroups.com [mailto:globenet at yahoogroups.com] Sent: Saturday, March 21, 2015 8:10 AM To: globenet at yahoogroups.com Cc: 'Hiroshi Taka'; 'Gensuikyo'; 'Akira Kawasaki'; oheyeran at yahoogroups.com; asia-pacific_demil_mdg-request at lists.riseup.net; 'Coleen Rowley'; 'Douglas Roche' Subject: [globenet] MOX for Bombs in Japan Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (Voice) 217-244-1478 (Fax) (personal comments only) __._,_.___ ________________________________ Posted by: "Boyle, Francis A" > ________________________________ Reply via web post • Reply to sender • Reply to group • Start a New Topic • Messages in this topic (1) VISIT YOUR GROUP [Yahoo! Groups] • Privacy • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use . __,_._,___ _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brussel at illinois.edu Tue Nov 7 04:09:59 2017 From: brussel at illinois.edu (Brussel, Morton K) Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2017 04:09:59 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: MOX for Bombs in Japan In-Reply-To: References: <5B253921-B91A-4A46-B18B-A94C48E12123@illinois.edu> Message-ID: I will comment no longer on this issue; you are twisting in the wind, Francis, with sad but laughable arguments. On Nov 6, 2017, at 9:39 PM, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: And by the way, the reason Japanese Peace Movement had me interviewed is because they know full well that their MOX Stockpile is used for weapons purposes. fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Monday, November 06, 2017 9:30 PM To: Brussel, Morton K > Cc: David Green >; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; Estabrook, Carl G > Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] FW: MOX for Bombs in Japan If you are not going to take the time to read these two Testimonies under oath and subject to cross-examination by the Feds of two Experts on MOX in United States Federal District, then you should stop impugning my integrity in favor of Wikipedia—pure guttersnipe! fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Brussel, Morton K Sent: Monday, November 06, 2017 9:13 PM To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: David Green >; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >;chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; Estabrook, Carl G > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] FW: MOX for Bombs in Japan I don’t know who qualified you as an expert of nuclear reactors and the nature of their fuels, nuclear physics or nuclear chemistry. Your statements belie that qualification. I hope you don’t expect me, or anyone on this list, to read the transcript you presented, but I did scan it and noted nothing in technical detail there about the properties and use of MOX, certainly not for bombs. Sorry, —mkb On Nov 6, 2017, at 8:38 PM, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: Well I have been qualified as an Expert on MOX in United States Federal District Court. And I prohibit my law students from citing Wikipedia to me in any paper and advise them to never cite or quote Wikipedia to a Judge because Wikipedia is filled with so much pure, unadulterated BULL-TWADDLE. Fab. Subject: Nuclear Proliferation/NPT/US Atomic Energy Law/MOX, etc. 1 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 3 SOUTHERN DIVISION 4 5 ALICE HIRT; ANABEL DWYER; CITIZENS FOR ALTERNATIVES 6 TO CHEMICAL CONTAMINATION; KATHRYN CUMBOW; ROBERT 7 ANDERSON; DORIS SCHALLER VERNON; and TERRY MILLER, 8 Plaintiffs, 9 v. CASE NO: 1:99-CV-933 10 BILL RICHARDSON, Secretary, 11 United States Department of Energy; UNITED STATES 12 OF AMERICA; and UNKNOWN PART(Y)(IES), named as 13 "John and Jane Doe" on complaint, 14 Defendants. 15 ____________________________/ 16 * * * * 17 18 TESTIMONY OF GORDON EDWARDS and FRANCIS BOYLE 19 * * * * 20 21 BEFORE: THE HONORABLE RICHARD ALAN ENSLEN United States District Judge 22 Kalamazoo, Michigan April 7, 2000 23 24 25 KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 2 1 APPEARANCES: 2 APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFFS: 3 MR. KARY LOVE 4 977 Butternut Drive PMB 128 5 Holland, Michigan 49424 6 MR. TERRY J. LODGE 316 North Michigan Street, Suite 520 7 Toledo, Ohio 43624-1627 8 APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANTS: 9 MR. ROBERT I. DODGE 10 MR. CHARLES GROSS U.S. Attorney's Office 11 330 Ionia Avenue, N.W., Suite 501 P.O. Box 208 12 Grand Rapids, Michigan 49501-208 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 3 1 INDEX 2 WITNESS: Page 3 GORDON EDWARDS Direct Examination by Mr. Lodge 4 4 Cross Examination by Mr. Dodge 17 Redirect Examination by Mr. Lodge 20 5 6 FRANCIS BOYLE 7 Direct Examination by Mr. Love 21 Cross Examination by Mr. Dodge 67 8 Redirect Examination by Mr. Love 82 9 10 EXHIBITS Rec'd. 11 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 1 87 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 2 87 12 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 3 31 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 5 87 13 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 6 87 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 11 87 14 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 12 87 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 13 87 15 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 14 87 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 4 1 Kalamazoo, Michigan 2 April 7, 2000 3 at approximately 8:50 A.M. 4 EXCERPT OF PROCEEDINGS 5 TESTIMONY OF GORDON EDWARDS 6 MR. LODGE: We waive opening. 7 THE COURT: Okay. Good for you. 8 MR. LODGE: And we would call Gordon Edwards. 9 GORDON EDWARDS - PLAINTIFFS' WITNESS - SWORN. 10 COURT CLERK: Please state and spell your name 11 for the record. 12 THE WITNESS: My name is Gordon Edwards, 13 G-o-r-d-o-n E-d-w-a-r-d-s. 14 DIRECT EXAMINATION 15 BY MR. LODGE: 16 Q. Dr. Edwards, you previously testified in this proceeding 17 in an earlier motion hearing in December, 1999, correct? 18 A. That is correct. 19 Q. And what, just summarize for the Court, to refresh the 20 Court's recollection, what is your occupation or 21 profession? 22 A. I'm a professor of mathematics at Vanier College in 23 Montreal, and I'm also a consultant on nuclear issues for 24 both governmental and nongovernmental agencies. 25 Q. Are you affiliated with any nongovernmental entity in KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 5 1 Canada regarding the purpose of which is to discuss 2 nuclear issues? 3 A. Yes, I'm the president of the Canadian Coalition for 4 Nuclear Responsibility, which is a federally incorporated 5 organization, since 1978. 6 Q. And how long and in what capacities have you served as a 7 consultant on nuclear issues? 8 A. I've served as a consultant since 1977 for a variety of 9 bodies, including Royal Commissions of Inquiry where I 10 have been retained to cross-examine expert witnesses, also 11 the auditor general of Canada when they were doing a 12 comprehensive audit of the Atomic Energy Control Board, 13 and most recently I was invited for January 2000 by the 14 Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs and International 15 Trade to participate in a small expert workshop on nuclear 16 weapons policies in Ottawa. 17 Q. And Dr. Edwards, have you had the occasion to read the 18 environmental assessment promulgated by the Fissile 19 Materials Office of the U.S. Department of Energy for the 20 Parallex Project? 21 A. Yes, I have, and have commented on that as well. 22 Q. We are here today on a proposed shipment of MOX plutonium 23 from Russia to Chalk River, Ontario, you understand that? 24 A. That is correct. 25 Q. What is your understanding as to the amount of the KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 6 1 plutonium content of the MOX fuel rods, pins that would be 2 brought from Russia? 3 A. The MOX fuel contains 135 grams of weapons grade plutonium 4 as compared with the 119 grams that were in the American 5 shipment that proceeded in January. 6 Q. Now, Dr. Edwards, you indicated that the Canadian 7 Coalition was incorporated in approximately 1978? 8 A. That's right. 9 Q. Have you been active in nuclear issues since that time? 10 A. Even before that time, yes. I have been active 11 specifically on proliferation questions and 12 plutonium-related questions since 1975. 13 MR. LODGE: If I may approach. 14 THE COURT: Of course. 15 BY MR. LODGE: 16 Q. Showing you what has been marked for purposes of the 17 supplemental motion hearing as Plaintiff's Exhibit 1, I'm 18 going to also leave Exhibit 2 up here. 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. Have you ever conducted any investigation into the issue 21 of civilian population or work exposures to plutonium? 22 A. Only at the level of potential for damage, potential for 23 harm. 24 Q. What is Exhibit 1? 25 A. Exhibit 1 is a letter from Mary Measures, Ph.D., Director KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 7 1 of the Radiation Environmental Protection Division of the 2 Atomic Energy Control Board of Canada dealing with 3 quantity of plutonium that an atomic radiation worker or a 4 member of the public may inhale to reach their respective 5 maximum limits. 6 Q. And the date of that is September 30, 1999? 7 A. That is correct, about six months ago. 8 Q. And could you summarize what the inhalation, or what the 9 limits are for both workers and for public? 10 A. Yes. The maximum lifetime limit of exposure in the lung 11 for an atomic worker is approximately 1.4 micrograms, and 12 for the member of the public it's 0.1 microgram, and a 13 microgram being one one-millionth of a gram, so if we 14 translate this into grams, it would mean 1.4 grams would 15 be equivalent-- would be enough to give maximum 16 permissible doses to one million workers and ten -- one 17 gram would be enough to give maximum permissible doses to 18 ten million members of the general public. That's just 19 potential. 20 Q. Okay. And is that based on the -- or, I'm sorry. Have 21 you had occasion in connection with the proposed Russian 22 shipment of a 135 grams of plutonium and the American 23 shipment of 119 grams, to perform any computations as to 24 what the potential dispersion or exposure is? 25 A. Well, I would like to emphasize this is just arithmetic KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 8 1 and does not take into account dispersion factors such as 2 wind velocity, any respiration rates, and so on. If we 3 just look at the theoretical potential, then with 119 4 grams, we are talking about the potential for 85 million 5 atomic workers to receive their maximum permissible 6 exposure, if that were able to be disseminated into all of 7 their lungs and 1,000,190,000 members of the general 8 public, so even though this is a very small amount of 9 plutonium, the potential for exposure, harmful exposure is 10 quite significant. 11 Q. All right. But so that implies you would have to have an 12 optimal dispersal? 13 A. This would be an impossibly optimal dispersal. This would 14 be assuming that the plutonium were distributed fully into 15 the lungs of all the people that I've mentioned. 16 Q. Are you aware of whether or not the American shipment was 17 delivered to Chalk River? 18 A. Yes, the American shipment was delivered to Chalk River. 19 It was taken to the border in what I believe was an SST, a 20 truck which was described as silver, and I believe it was 21 probably an SST, although I do not know for absolute 22 certainty about that, and then it was transported to the 23 Sault Ste. Marie airport where it was lifted by helicopter 24 accompanied by two other helicopters, and transported from 25 there to Chalk River. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 9 1 Q. You indicated that you were talking about an impossibly 2 optimal dispersal. Have you had the occasion to perform 3 any computations as to a very conservative prudent factor 4 to start with for dispersal? 5 A. Well, this is beyond my competence to really talk about 6 the details of how it might be dispersed, but if we just 7 assume for example 99.9 percent containment in the event 8 of a serious accident. 9 Q. Are you saying how much? 10 A. Suppose 99.9 percent of the material were successfully 11 contained and not disseminated in the environment and only 12 that small fraction was disseminated. 13 Q. Okay. 14 A. The potential again would correspond to, for atomic 15 workers in the case of the 119 gram shipment from the 16 States, it would be 85,000 maximum exposures and in the 17 case of the public, it would still over a million. Even 18 with 99.9 containment, in the event of an accident, you 19 still have the potential for over a million 20 overexposures. By the way, the 135 grams, the difference 21 between the 119 grams and the 135 grams from Russia 22 corresponds to potentially again 160,000 additional 23 maximum exposures for members of the public. 24 Q. How many for workers? 25 A. 11,428. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 10 1 Q. That's just -- 2 A. That's just the differential between the two shipments, 3 just the added, going from 119 to 135 adds the potential 4 for another 11,000 worker overexposures or 160,000 public 5 overexposures. This, I believe, is why authorities take 6 such great care to emphasize the packaging in transport. 7 They realize that the potential is great for damage. 8 Q. Do your computations reflect an assumption respecting 9 whether or not the dispersion occurs as a result of an 10 accident or an attack? 11 A. No, we are talking about theoretical potential which is 12 the same regardless of how much or whether the material is 13 dispersed. In an accident, for example, we have 14 previously seen accidents that were analyzed for ground 15 transportation. I have not seen any computations or 16 analysis of accidents for air transport either from the 17 American side or from the Canadian side. 18 Q. Are you talking with respect to Parallex? 19 A. I'm talking with respect to Parallex. 20 If you had, for example, a violent crash and 21 fire of an aircraft, including a helicopter, then the 22 dispersal would cause a plume downwind, could cause a 23 plume downwind, and how much of that plutonium would 24 escape would be subject to analysis which is not, to my 25 knowledge, been performed. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 11 1 Q. Dr. Edwards, do you consider the plutonium in MOX fuel 2 form to be a weapons component? 3 A. Well, in the case of the Parallex project, as you know, 4 this 119 grams or 135 grams, there is not enough there to 5 make an atomic bomb. However, it has long been known that 6 you can make a very damaging radiological explosive device 7 which would simply disperse the plutonium in breathable 8 form. That means that if the plutonium were acquired by a 9 criminal organization or terrorist group they could make 10 an incendiary device which would make this available to be 11 breathed by members of the public and also cause very 12 long-lasting contamination of the environs where this 13 exposure would take place. I believe that it would be 14 incorrect to say that these, even this small Parallex 15 shipment, would not be attractive to terrorists or to 16 criminal organizations as a top -- as a target for theft 17 or diversion. It is true, of course, that this is weapons 18 grade material and had one, if one had sufficient weapons 19 grade material, one indeed can make a very powerful atomic 20 bomb from that. 21 Q. Have you seen any literature or other information in or 22 out of the record of this case that discusses the weapons 23 potential for plutonium? 24 A. Well, yes, it's certainly common knowledge that the -- in 25 fact, the U.S. Department of Energy acknowledges as much KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 12 1 when they refer to the Russian plutonium, the Russian 2 weapons grade plutonium is continuing a clear and present 3 danger. It's long been known and recognized that 4 plutonium is the key ingredient of atomic weapons, so if 5 one talks about components of atomic weapons, the 6 plutonium is the essential component. Once you have the 7 plutonium, then you can acquire the other materials on the 8 open market that are necessary to build a bomb. 9 Q. How do you know that? 10 A. Well, it's been well known for a long time. For instance, 11 there was a study done, published in the Harvard Civil 12 Rights and Civil Liberties Law Review -- I could make that 13 available to the Court, if you would like -- in 1975 as 14 long ago as then, which says, "Since all the material 15 other than plutonium needed to build a bomb is available 16 from commercial hardware and chemical suppliers, the 17 present obstacle to the private construction of nuclear 18 weapons is the unavailability of plutonium." 19 But if we just turn to the study that was 20 commissioned and already on file, I believe, here at the 21 Court, a study that was commissioned by the Office of 22 Fissile Materials Management called the Red Team Report, 23 the Red Team Proliferation Vulnerability Report. 24 In their conclusions on Page 6-1, they have a 25 heading called Keeping Plutonium Inaccessible is the Key KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 13 1 to Proliferation Resistance. So what is basically being 2 said here is plutonium is not just a component but the key 3 component of atomic bombs particularly in the context of 4 illicit groups. 5 Q. Dr. Edwards, could you explain for us Canada's role in the 6 reprocessing of plutonium? 7 A. Well, Canada's role in plutonium goes back to the World 8 War II Atomic Bomb Project. We had a secret laboratory in 9 Montreal which was manned by British, French and Canadian 10 scientists dedicated to developing methods for producing 11 and separating plutonium for weapons purposes as well as 12 civilian purposes, because even then it was anticipated 13 plutonium would have some civilian value. At the end of 14 the war -- incidentally, the first reactor in Canada was 15 built according to a military decision taken in 16 Washington, D.C. in 1944, to demonstrate this potential. 17 The reactor called the NRX reactor was built at 18 Chalk River and a plutonium reprocessing plant was built 19 as well. Plutonium was separated and Britain received its 20 first sample of weapons grade plutonium from Canada from 21 Chalk River just months before their first atomic test. 22 There was also an illicit transfer of plutonium 23 from Chalk River to Russia, which was so the first samples 24 of plutonium that both Britain and Russia received were 25 from Chalk River. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 14 1 Since that time, Canada, of course, has taken a 2 policy decision not to pursue a nuclear weapons option 3 itself, but they have, however, looked favorably on the 4 idea of reprocessing plutonium for civilian purposes. 5 They do not have a policy which is against the 6 reprocessing of plutonium in principle and nor do they 7 discourage their clients, their customers overseas from 8 reprocessing plutonium. And in fact, in Canada, there is 9 an open door policy towards reprocessing as a future 10 option. 11 We just concluded recently a ten-year 12 environmental assessment of the problem of high-level 13 radioactive waste disposal, and in all of the documents it 14 begins by saying, in the very first paragraphs, that by 15 nuclear waste disposal, we mean either spent fuel or 16 post-reprocessing waste. So this is very much a 17 theoretical opening and a policy opening for Canada to use 18 plutonium as a fuel. 19 Q. Showing you what has been marked as Supplemental Motion 20 Exhibit 2, can you identify that for the Court, please? 21 A. Yes. This appears to be an exchange from the British 22 Parliament, questions and answers having to do with 23 nuclear fuel, and the Secretary of State for Trade and 24 Industry is being asked about quantities of spent fuel 25 from Canada that have been contracted for reprocessing at KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 15 1 Cello Field in England. 2 Q. And can you summarize your understanding of what the 3 response by the British Government was? 4 A. Yes. The response here is that a certain amount of 5 plutonium, a certain amount of spent fuel from Canada has 6 been reprocessed beginning in 1970, and that the plutonium 7 has been returned to Canada. I have personal knowledge of 8 the fact that at Chalk River they have maintained a pilot 9 plutonium fuel fabrication line since the 1970s, since 10 1970 and before, and that they have processed at Chalk 11 River approximately three tons, more than three tons of 12 MOX fuel from recycled civilian plutonium. This is part 13 of that, the plutonium that is here being referred to as 14 being recycled or reprocessed in Britain, that's part of 15 the total amount of plutonium that Canada has acquired for 16 the purposes of MOX fabrication. 17 I mentioned that Canada also does not discourage 18 client customers from reprocessing. This is in 19 distinction to the American policy. The American policy, 20 since the Carter administration, successive 21 administrations have maintained the policy of not only not 22 allowing reprocessing in the United States, but also 23 discouraging reprocessing in other countries insofar as 24 that is possible. Canada does not share this policy 25 completely. We do not reprocess in Canada but, on the KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 16 1 other hand, we don't hesitate, it seems, to send our spent 2 fuel to other countries to get reprocessed so that we can 3 develop expertise in plutonium recycling. 4 Q. Does Canada have any relationship with the nation of Japan 5 respecting nuclear material? 6 A. Yes. Canada, as is probably known to the Court, is the 7 world's largest exporter of uranium. We are one of the 8 world's largest producers of uranium and the world's 9 largest exporter of uranium. We have bilateral agreements 10 with our customers as to the use of that uranium. Of 11 course, we have requirements that that uranium not be used 12 for military purposes. If a client customer such as Japan 13 who buys a good deal -- Japan purchases a good deal of 14 uranium from Canada. If a client customer wishes to 15 reprocess their spent fuel to recover plutonium, they do 16 have to get prior permission from the Government of 17 Canada, so when plutonium is reprocessed for the Japanese, 18 in the case where uranium from Canada is involved, the 19 Canadian Government gives their permission for that. 20 Q. Even if it is offshore from Canada? 21 A. Yes. 22 MR. LODGE: Thank you. I have nothing further. 23 THE WITNESS: Thank you. 24 Sorry. 25 MR. LODGE: Yes? KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 17 1 THE WITNESS: Excuse me. 2 MR. DODGE: Not quite finished, Dr. Edwards. 3 THE WITNESS: You knew the time was short. I 4 was jumping the gun a little. 5 CROSS EXAMINATION 6 BY MR. DODGE: 7 Q. Good morning, Mr. Edwards. My name is Bob Dodge. We have 8 met once before back in December. 9 A. That's right. 10 Q. Just a few questions. You testified about the quantity of 11 plutonium that would be included in the Russian shipment. 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. Do you recall that? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. You testified that it was 135 grams? 16 A. That's what was announced, yes. 17 Q. And how many ounces is that? 18 A. How many ounces is that? 19 Q. Yes. 20 A. I don't think in terms of ounces. I have to do the 21 conversion. 22 Q. Can you do the conversion? 23 A. I don't have the -- 24 Q. If I told you that one ounce is 28 grams, does that sound 25 about right? KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 18 1 A. I have no reason to doubt it. We are on the metric system 2 in Canada, we don't use ounces anymore. 3 Q. I understand. If I estimated 135 grams was approximately 4 five ounces, would you quarrel with that? 5 A. I would have no reason to quarrel with that. 6 Q. Now, you also testified about the amount of plutonium that 7 would have to be inhaled in order to exceed the maximum 8 permissible dose under Canadian regulations? 9 A. That is correct. 10 Q. And in your testimony, as I understood it, the assumption 11 you were making was that every single molecule of 12 plutonium that was in that sample would end up in 13 somebody's lungs; is that right? 14 A. That's right. It's calculating the theoretical 15 potential. It is not talking about a realistic scenario. 16 Q. Not only would all of the plutonium have to end up in 17 someone's lungs, but the plutonium would have to be evenly 18 divided so that each person got exactly the same amount of 19 plutonium, it's not all concentrated in one person, you 20 would have to take one-millionths of the sample, put it in 21 one person's lungs and put the next one-millionth in the 22 next person's lungs and so on? 23 A. That is correct. 24 Q. Do you have any idea, if you performed the same analysis 25 on this table, what sort of toxicity numbers you would KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 19 1 get? 2 A. I have no idea of what that would be, no. 3 Q. Now you also talked about Canada's policies regarding 4 plutonium reprocessing. 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. Do you recall that? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. Do you have any understanding of whether the plutonium in 9 the Parallex MOX samples will or will not be reprocessed 10 in Canada? 11 A. It will-- to the best of my knowledge, it will not be 12 reprocessed in Canada, although that option apparently is 13 not decided. 14 Q. What is the basis for that last? 15 A. Because Canada has a policy that at sometime in the future 16 they may reprocess. 17 Q. Do you have any understanding whether there is an 18 understanding between the Government of Canada and the 19 Government of United States or the Government of Russia as 20 to whether these particular samples will or will not be 21 reprocessed? 22 A. I do not, no. 23 MR. DODGE: Thank you very much. 24 25 REDIRECT EXAMINATION KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 20 1 BY MR. LODGE: 2 Q. Dr. Edwards, the House of Commons question and answer, do 3 you know of any particular statistics on Canada's shipping 4 of spent fuel to British nuclear fields and fuels at Cello 5 Field? 6 A. I don't have those figures with me, I'm sorry. I could 7 supply them to the Court, if desired. I do have some 8 figures at my office at home, I don't have them here. But 9 we are talking -- if we are talking about three tons of 10 MOX being fabricated at Chalk River, then one could work 11 out approximately how much of that would contain 12 plutonium, how much plutonium would be contained assuming, 13 for example, three percent. 14 Q. Right. 15 A. And then one could reasonably suppose that the lion's 16 share of that would come from Cello Field. Now I have 17 figures on shipments from Cello Field, but I don't have 18 them here. 19 Q. My question is: Would you presume that the Atomic Energy 20 Control Board of Canada, or AECL of Canada, would make 21 public the fact that the spent MOX from Parallex were 22 being shipped to Britain for reprocessing? Would you 23 presume that would become public knowledge? 24 A. No, I would not assume anything related to plutonium would 25 become public knowledge in Canada. Canada has a very KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 21 1 non-public attitude toward plutonium dealings. In fact, 2 the existing plutonium dealings in Canada including the 3 BNFL contracts is not public knowledge other than as it 4 has been raised in foreign countries such as in Britain or 5 by documents that have been leaked to nongovernmental 6 organizations. This is not something which Atomic Energy 7 of Canada Limited makes public. 8 MR. LODGE: Thank you. 9 MR. DODGE: No recross, Your Honor. 10 THE COURT: You may step down, Dr. Edwards. 11 Thank you. 12 MR. LOVE: Your Honor, if it please the Court, 13 the Plaintiffs would call Francis Boyle to the stand 14 FRANCIS BOYLE - PLAINTIFFS' WITNESS - SWORN 15 COURT CLERK: Please be seated and state and 16 spell your name for the record. 17 THE WITNESS: My name is Francis Boyle. 18 F-r-a-n-c-i-s B-o-y-l-e. 19 DIRECT EXAMINATION 20 BY MR. LOVE: 21 Q. Dr. Boyle, are you currently employed? 22 A. Yes, I am a professor of international law at the 23 University of Illinois College of Law in Champaign. 24 Q. How long have you been employed in that capacity? 25 A. 1978. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 22 1 MR. LOVE: Your Honor, may I approach the 2 witness? 3 BY MR. LOVE: 4 Q. Dr. Boyle, I'm showing you what has been marked as 5 Supplemental Preliminary Injunction Hearing Plaintiffs' 6 Exhibit 3 and ask you if you can identify that document. 7 A. It's a copy of my professional resume. 8 Q. Was this resume prepared at or under your direction? 9 A. Yes. I think it's current as of January 28th, 1999. I've 10 been kind of busy in the last year, haven't revised it. 11 Q. To the extent it's current through that date, does that 12 accurately reflect your experience, education, seminars 13 that you participated in, and articles that you've 14 authored? 15 A. Not seminars I've participated in, that would be too many 16 but, you know, the essence of my professional career and 17 articles-- significant teaching, consulting, practice. 18 I'm also a licensed attorney as well. 19 Q. If you would, give us a brief recitation of your 20 educational background? 21 A. I attended the University of Chicago where I studied 22 international relations with Professor Hans Morganthal who 23 is the mentor of Dr. Henry Kissinger at Harvard. I was 24 one of seven students in my class elected to Phi Beta 25 Kappa as a junior. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 23 1 I also did work in mathematical biology, winning 2 the award for the work I did in that area by the world's 3 leading geneticist now at Harvard. 4 I graduated in three years. From there I went 5 to Harvard Law School. I have a J.D. Magna Cum Laude from 6 Harvard Law School specializing in international law. 7 I also entered the Graduate School of Arts and 8 Sciences at Harvard in the Department of Government. I 9 have a Master's degree and a Ph.D. in political science 10 specializing in international relations, international 11 politics. This is the same Ph.D. program that produced 12 Henry Kissinger, Zabanya Brezenski (phonetic) and other 13 high level U.S. Government officials. 14 I was at the Harvard Center for International 15 Affairs for two years. Kissinger and Brezenski had been 16 there before me. 17 I spent two years teaching in the Harvard 18 College undergraduates international law organizations, 19 human rights. I practiced law with a Boston law firm for 20 a year at Bingham, Dana and Gould, where I did 21 international tax, and tax, and then finally in 1978 I 22 came to the University of Illinois. I went up for tenure 23 at the beginning of my third year, which I got, and I've 24 been tenured there since, you know, many years. 25 Q. Since undertaking your position at University of Illinois, KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 24 1 have you specialized in any area with respect to 2 particular research, writing and international law? 3 A. Well, for the purpose of our proceedings today, yes. I 4 have been specializing an enormous amount on the nuclear 5 weapons, nuclear weapons policy, proliferation, arms 6 control. Going back to my studies with Professor 7 Morganthal 30 years ago so I've been involved in these 8 issues starting as a student since 1969 and continuously 9 until today. 10 THE WITNESS: Sorry, Your Honor, I have a bit of 11 laryngitis. 12 THE COURT: That's fine, no problem. 13 BY MR. LOVE: 14 Q. Dr. Boyle, if you would direct your attention to your 15 resume, I would like to touch on a few seminal points. On 16 the first page under teaching, the third entry down talks 17 about being a lecturer in Nuclear Weapons and 18 International Law, 21st Senior Conference on Nuclear 19 Deterrence at U.S. Military Academy at West Point in 20 1983. 21 A. Yes. This is a high level seminar run by the Pentagon, 22 not for the cadets, but for about 200 of the highest level 23 officials of the United States Government dealing with 24 nuclear weapons proliferation, nuclear weapons policies, 25 and I was asked to lecture to this conference, and I won't KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 25 1 go through all the high level officials there, but sitting 2 right in front of me for my lecture was the three star 3 general in charge of war operations at the Pentagon, at 4 that time General Mahaffey. And I also note I had read 5 the independent expert's report on the MOX program 6 U.S./Russia of 1977, one of the U.S. independent experts, 7 Richard Garwin was there with me and he was also a 8 lecturer with me to this group, so I do know that Garwin 9 was involved in the Parallex MOX recommendations. 10 Q. With respect to the second to the last entry on Page 1 of 11 Exhibit 3, talks about "Lecture Tour of the Soviet Union 12 on Nuclear Weapons and International Law for Lawyers' 13 Committee on Nuclear Policy and Association of Soviet 14 Lawyers" in 1986. What was involved with that? 15 A. Yes. The former Soviet Union, their equivalent to the 16 American Bar Association was the Association of Soviet 17 Lawyers, and in conjunction with the Lawyers' Committee on 18 Nuclear Policy headquartered here, they decided to invite 19 one professor to go over to the Soviet Union and lecture 20 around the country for two weeks on various issues related 21 to nuclear weapons and international law, and both 22 organizations selected me for this purpose, so I went over 23 for two weeks and gave several lectures per day, Moscow, 24 Leningrad, Kiev to professors, lawyers, peace people, 25 whoever, news media on various aspects of nuclear weapons KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 26 1 targeting doctrine as they relate to international law 2 and, in general, nuclear policies. 3 Q. If you would direct your attention, Dr. Boyle, to Page 2 4 under Practice, fifth entry down it says "Author, 5 Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989, Public Law 6 Number 101-298 (1990) (adopted unanimously by both Houses 7 of Congress)," could you explain what that means, please? 8 A. Yes. Your Honor, we are dealing here with a treaty, the 9 Nuclear Proliferation Treaty-- Nonproliferation Treaty of 10 1968. That treaty has been implemented by Congress in the 11 Nuclear Nonproliferation Act of 1978, the Nuclear 12 Proliferation Prevention Act of 1994 and also recent 13 amendments in 1998 to deal with the India/Pakistan 14 explosions. I have direct personal experience on how you 15 take a treaty, an international treaty, and implement it 16 as a matter of United States Constitutional law by working 17 with Congress. 18 The Biological Weapons Convention of 1972 is a 19 treaty that is a total, not only arms control reduction 20 and elimination treaty for biological weapons, I gave a 21 lecture on Capitol Hill calling for legislation, domestic 22 legislation to implement this treaty, and this 23 recommendation was taken up by a group I work for called 24 the Council of Responsible Genetics. I'm on their 25 Advisory Board. I also serve as counsel to them, so KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 27 1 pursuant to their request, I drafted the implementing 2 legislation, I authored it, how to implement this treaty. 3 And then we took it to members of the House and the Senate 4 and we shepherded it through the entire process dealing 5 with members of Congress, both Houses, including testimony 6 I prepared. At that point in time, the Reagan 7 administration was opposed to this implementing 8 legislation. I had to deal personally with their position 9 papers against it refuting these things. 10 Finally there was a change of policy when 11 President Bush came into office, to his credit, and they 12 supported the legislation. It finally was approved 13 unanimously by both Houses of Congress and signed into law 14 by President Bush in 1989. This legislation was called 15 the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989. It was 16 later amended in the anti-terrorism and effect Death 17 Penalty Act of 1996. 18 I thought I had drafted the most draconian piece 19 of legislation you could possibly imagine on biological 20 weapons, but there is always a loophole, Your Honor, so 21 Congress revisited this in 1996 to close some of the 22 loopholes that had not been apparent to me and the 23 scientists I worked with back in 19, starting in from '85 24 to about 1989. So I just cite this as having direct 25 personal experience with relationship between arms control KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 28 1 treatise, reduction treatise and then how they are 2 implemented by Congress. I have done this myself. On 3 biological weapons and I'm still involved in that issue. 4 Obviously, I have not been involved in the 5 drafting of the implementing legislation for the Nuclear 6 Proliferation Treaty of 1968, there are three pieces, but 7 I have read and reviewed the implementing legislation. I 8 have an understanding how they relate to the 9 Nonproliferation Treaty and I also teach a course on this 10 subject, that is how international laws related to the 11 United States Constitution is implemented by Congress and 12 also carried out in the courts. I teach an entire course 13 just devoted to this subject. 14 Q. Dr. Boyle, you've had some experience practicing before 15 what was known formerly as the International Court of 16 Justice but currently the World Court; is that correct? 17 A. Yes, I have. 18 Q. Could you relate to the Court a summary of that 19 experience? 20 A. Well, I've advised governments with respect to either 21 actual or potential World Court litigation, some of that 22 is still attorney/client confidence that I'm not prepared 23 to discuss. What I am prepared to discuss are those 24 matters that are in the public record. 25 I did serve as counsel to Libya on the Lockerbie KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 29 1 bombing case. It was my recommendation the-- 2 unfortunately President Bush had about the sixth fleet 3 mobilized off the coast of Libya and was about to bomb 4 Libya that we filed a lawsuit at the World Court to stop 5 the bombing. We filed a lawsuit, Libya was not bombed. 6 Later on, I was General Agent for the Republic 7 in Bosnia of Herzegovina before the International Court of 8 Justice. In other words, I was their first ambassador to 9 the World Court for the Republic of Bosnia, Herzegovina, 10 and I sued Yugoslavia for committing genocide against the 11 Bosnian people. I won two cease and desist orders 12 overwhelmingly in favor of Bosnia against Yugoslavia. 13 Later on, I publicly advised -- I advised the 14 Bosnian Government to sue Britain for aiding and abetting 15 genocide against Bosnia, and President Izetbegovic 16 instructed me to sue Britain for a genocide against 17 Bosnia. That lawsuit was terminated under duress, 18 threatened them, so they withdrew from those proceedings. 19 Q. Dr. Boyle, with respect to your writings, if you would 20 direct your attention to Page 3 of Exhibit 3, the last two 21 entries at the bottom -- excuse me, the second to last 22 entries entitled Nuclear Weapons and International Law: 23 The Arms Control Dimensions, do you see that? 24 A. Yes. This was the lecture I gave to the West Point 25 Military Academy senior conference proceedings, which they KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 30 1 did publish in their proceedings at West Point, and 2 actually under my books, I've just completed work on my 3 sixth book, which is entitled Nuclear Deterrence and 4 International Law. And right now it is sitting at Pluto 5 Press -- I guess that's appropriate for today's 6 proceedings -- Pluto Press in Britain. They have 7 expressed an interest in publishing it. They are 8 currently evaluating it. I do not have a contract on that 9 book, but I did get the e-mail just before I came here, so 10 I'll have to deal with that when I go back. 11 Q. With respect to your other publications, Dr. Boyle, I note 12 that on Page 4 you've got one entitled, about halfway 13 down, The Relevance of International Law to the "Paradox" 14 of Nuclear Deterrence. 15 A. That is correct. 16 Q. Can you tell us briefly what the subject matter is? 17 A. After I made the lecture at West Point, obviously the U.S. 18 military officials and others, we had a fairly vigorous 19 debate, let me put it that way. And that vigorous debate 20 between myself and these others led to this article that 21 was later published here in the United States and also 22 translated into Dutch, because the Dutch lawyers wanted it 23 to be available as part of the debate in Holland over the 24 deployment of the U.S. intermediate nuclear forces under 25 the Reagan administration, so they translated the whole KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 31 1 thing into Dutch and it was published in the Netherlands. 2 MR. LOVE: Your Honor, I have no further 3 questions of Dr. Boyle with respect to qualifications, and 4 I tender him for voir dire to the U.S. Attorney's Office 5 subject to my motion to admit Plaintiff's Exhibit 3 into 6 evidence. 7 MR. DODGE: I have no objection to the admission 8 of the C.V. 9 THE COURT: Exhibit 3? 10 MR. DODGE: Exhibit 3. 11 THE COURT: You have no voir dire questions to 12 ask either? 13 MR. DODGE: Not with respect to that exhibit. I 14 may get into the resume on the cross. 15 THE COURT: That's fair enough. 16 Exhibit 3 is received. 17 MR. DODGE: Thank you, your Honor. 18 BY MR. LOVE: 19 Q. Dr. Boyle, in preparing for your testimony here today, 20 could you please outline for the Court -- I think you have 21 done so somewhat already -- some of the documents that you 22 reviewed and the source materials you looked at in 23 preparing your testimony today? 24 A. I have a pretty detailed knowledge about these things 25 generally. For example, when the Nuclear Nonproliferation KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 32 1 Act first came out in 1978, I did read it, but in 2 preparation for this testimony today, I've gone back and 3 read the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, the Nuclear 4 Nonproliferation Act, the Nuclear Proliferation Prevention 5 Act of 1994, the 1998 amendments. I have read a large 6 quantity of documents produced by the Department of Energy 7 on the Parallex Project. I have read the Environmental 8 Assessment dealing with the aspects of international 9 environmental law that have not been dealt with in the 10 Environmental Assessment, in my opinion, should have been 11 dealt with the Stockholm Declaration, which is not there, 12 and the World Court Advisory Opinion on 1996, I have an 13 article on it that. I didn't go back and read the whole 14 advisory opinion, but I reread the portions of the 15 article, and other scholarly sources that deal with this 16 question. There are other sources I did not have a chance 17 to review not directly related to proliferation per se. 18 But for example, in my opinion the EA should 19 have dealt with the UN Convention on the Law of the Seas. 20 It's not in there. There's been nuclear accidents 21 convention, it's not dealt with in there. There is the 22 Bowel convention on the International Transportation of 23 Hazardous Substance and Toxic Materials, that's not in 24 there. I identified those as further sources that should 25 be analyzed in my opinion, but I haven't had a chance to KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 33 1 go back and review all of those sources. 2 Q. Dr. Boyle, did the types of materials that you've just 3 identified for the Court, are these the types of materials 4 that in your experience are relied upon by experts in the 5 field of international law in forming opinions as to the 6 legitimacy of governmental actions under internationally? 7 A. Yes. I also have experience reading environmental impact 8 statements. When the Pentagon produced the DEIS or the 9 biological defense research program, the Council for 10 Responsible Genetics asked me to evaluate this entire 11 thing -- it was an enormous document -- and submit formal 12 comments on it to the Pentagon, which I did do and they 13 did respond to. So this is the type of sources that 14 experts in my field would normally look at and review in 15 forming an opinion about Government behavior, and I have 16 done this before with respect to biological weapons. 17 Q. Dr. Boyle, I'm going to show you what has been marked for 18 identification as Plaintiff's Exhibit 4. Ask you to take 19 a moment to look at that and let me know when you've had a 20 chance to do so, please. 21 A. Yes. This is the treaty on the nonproliferation of 22 nuclear weapons, and as I've said, it has also been 23 implemented by Congress on the Nuclear Nonproliferation 24 Act of 1978, the Nuclear Proliferation Prevention Act of 25 1994 and also 1998 amendments. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 34 1 The critical point to keep in mind about this 2 treaty, Your Honor, is that Congress has passed 3 legislation expressing its understanding of what this 4 treaty means and what our obligations are under this 5 treaty. And this legislation is binding on the Department 6 of Energy, on the President, on the Department of State 7 and respectfully, Your Honor, on this Court. And what we 8 see, when you read through it all, is Congress has 9 decided, and prior to that the Atomic Energy Act as well, 10 that nuclear power, nuclear weapons, nuclear proliferation 11 is so important to the American people and our republic, 12 that they have decided to engage in micro management of 13 everything related to this subject and have pretty much, I 14 would not say completely eliminated, but whittled down 15 substantially any discretion that the executive branch 16 might have in this area. I have, as I said, I did read 17 the NPA back in 1978, but when you add in everything else, 18 what surprised me was how little discretion was left to 19 the executive branch with respect to nuclear 20 proliferation, nuclear weapons. In this area, they have 21 very little discretion. 22 Q. Professor Boyle, if you could, can you explain to the 23 Court what the implications are for Canada, Russia and the 24 United States under the Nonproliferation Treaty? 25 A. Well, my reading of both the treaty and in light of the KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 35 1 Department of Energy documents describing Parallex and 2 MOX, the Red Team report, many other documents that I've 3 read, in my opinion, there are serious problems, 4 compliance problems for this entire project under Articles 5 I, II and III of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty as 6 interpreted by the United States Congress. 7 The Article I deals with the obligations of the 8 United States and Russia. Each nuclear weapons State 9 Party to the Treaty, i.e. U.S. and Russia, undertakes not 10 to transfer to any recipient whatsoever, i.e. Canada, 11 nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices, and we 12 have a problem here in that Congress has interpreted this 13 to mean components of nuclear weapons or nuclear explosive 14 devices; that is, Congress simply does not interpret this 15 to mean you can't hand over a bomb, but a component for a 16 bomb is prohibited. And here we are dealing with weapons 17 grade plutonium, which Dr. Edwards has already testified 18 can be and indeed is, in his opinion, a component for 19 either a nuclear weapon or a nuclear explosive device. 20 Okay? 21 So when you read the treaty in light of the 22 statutory scheme, in my opinion, there are serious 23 compliance problems here with Article I, which have not 24 been addressed in the EA. The DOE has not dealt with any 25 of these problems at all in the EA, indeed, they have KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 36 1 basically said in one of their comments "Well, once we 2 give it to Canada, it's their problem," and that just is 3 an incorrect statement, in my opinion. 4 And it says "directly or indirectly," which 5 means also we, the United States, directly or indirectly 6 by encouraging and paying for the Russians to do this, you 7 see. So we are accountable for the Russian behavior 8 because we are working with them. And indeed, if we were 9 sued at the International Court of Justice -- let's 10 suppose something went wrong, Your Honor, and there was, 11 as Dr. Edwards testified, an aerial explosion in the 12 latest helicopter shipment and radiological dispersal of 13 plutonium that came across the border, killing Americans, 14 killing Canadians, others, if we were sued in World Court 15 over this, we would be found both jointly and severally 16 liable with Russia, with Canada, for any accident. 17 Likewise, this is followed up by both shipments on the 18 high seas of the plutonium. If there is an accident on 19 high seas, we could be sued at the World Court, the United 20 States, both ourselves and jointly and severally with 21 Russia and Canada over any accident here that might 22 happen. And that substantive liability could be based on 23 the U.N. Law of the Sea Convention. As I said, Your 24 Honor, I haven't had time to go through the environmental 25 provision of the Law of the Sea Convention, the Department KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 37 1 of Energy didn't even bother, and in the EA they did not 2 look at this at all. They did not consider this, but it 3 certainly is something that has to be considered, that 4 they haven't looked at. 5 And then "not in any way to assist, encourage or 6 induce any non-nuclear weapon State to manufacture or 7 otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear 8 explosive devices." Well, the problem here is Canada is 9 supposed to be a non-nuclear weapons state and says 10 "otherwise acquired nuclear explosive devices." Well, we 11 are giving them weapons grade plutonium, which again 12 Dr. Edwards has testified, and he is Canadian, is a 13 component of a nuclear weapons or nuclear explosive 14 device. And again, "or control over such weapons or 15 explosive devices." We are giving them weapons grade 16 plutonium. And if you look at how Congress has 17 interpreted this, they interpret it down to components, 18 they even talk about substances that they are trying to 19 regulate everything, and understand the 1978 legislation 20 was a very strict interpretation of what this treaty means 21 as far as the United States Government is concerned. And 22 I think we really need a comprehensive assessment here by 23 the Department of Energy as to whether or not any of these 24 transfers is consistent with Article I. Under the current 25 circumstances, they haven't bothered to look at any of the KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 38 1 terms as defined by Congress, the applicability of the 2 Congressional legislation to the transfers. 3 Likewise, Article II, Your Honor, Article II 4 deals with the Canadian obligations, "Each 5 non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes 6 not to receive the transfer from any transferor whatsoever 7 of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices." 8 Again, the same analysis here needs to be done. This 9 weapons grade plutonium, in my opinion and Dr. Edwards' 10 opinion, is clearly a component of either a nuclear weapon 11 or nuclear explosive device. And Canada, according to 12 this language, has agreed not to receive this material. 13 And by the way, as Dr. Edwards correctly pointed out, Your 14 Honor, this was consistent United States policy, stopping 15 proliferation of this type of material for any reason 16 going back to the Carter administration. We are seeing a 17 major dramatic change here in United States 18 nonproliferation policy, and that policy, Your Honor, 19 going back to the Carter administration, is enshrined in 20 law by Congress in the Nuclear Nonproliferation Act of 21 1978. So again, in my opinion, I believe these issues 22 likewise need to be addressed by the Department of 23 Energy. They have not been addressed in the environmental 24 assessment at all. 25 "Or control over such weapons or explosive KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 39 1 devices, directly or indirectly." Well, again, we are 2 giving Canada, either ourselves in the first shipment or 3 indirectly by means of the Russians in the second 4 shipment, control over a component for a nuclear weapon or 5 a nuclear explosive device. That's very clear they are 6 getting it. And according to the EA, we are trusting 7 their good intentions. There is no assurance in the EA 8 that this weapons grade plutonium is subject to 9 international safeguards. No. Despite the fact that 10 Congress has made it very clear that any transfer, and 11 Congress also made it clear in the legislation that they 12 are against any transfers of this type of stuff to other 13 States. But if there are any transfers at a minimum there 14 have to be absolute guaranteed protections on 15 international assurances to make sure it is not misused, 16 and you will note in the EA it says nothing about it. 17 There are no assurances about anything. 18 Now, "to manufacture or otherwise acquire 19 nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices; and 20 not to seek or receive any assistance in the manufacture," 21 etcetera, etcetera. 22 Article III then deals with the safeguard 23 requirements; that is, if there are transfers of materials 24 for peaceful purposes, and you know you can obviously, 25 Your Honor, you can read this yourself. There must be KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 40 1 safeguards. Under the supervision of the International 2 Atomic Energy Agency, the Environmental Assessment says 3 nothing at all about these safeguards. Nothing. It isn't 4 in there. 5 Apparently we have to rely on not even 6 statements by Canada that what we are transferring there, 7 what we are encouraging the Russians to transfer are 8 somehow going to be safeguarded despite the fact that 9 Article III says that there must be safeguards, and we 10 simply don't have them. 11 Q. Dr. Boyle, I'm going to show you what's been marked for 12 identification as Plaintiff's Exhibit 5 and ask you to 13 take a look in the upper right-hand corner, and after 14 you've had a moment to review that, let me know, please. 15 A. Yes. This is an article I had read in preparation for my 16 testimony here today, from the Toronto News. 17 Q. Based on your experience and expertise, Dr. Boyle, is this 18 the type of information that an international law scholar 19 could rely on in formulating opinions about the state or 20 nationally? 21 A. Well, here is stating comments by Mr. Tom Clemens, head of 22 the Washington-based Nuclear Control Institute. It's a 23 recognized organization dealing with nuclear policies, and 24 certainly experts in my field would rely upon statements 25 produced by the Nuclear Control Institute and, indeed, KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 41 1 prior to my testimony today, I did read several documents 2 produced by the Nuclear Control Institute just in the 3 normal course of preparing, yes. An expert in my field 4 would rely on this. 5 Q. Dr. Boyle, my recollection is you testified this appeared 6 in the Toronto -- 7 A. News. 8 Q. -- News and it -- 9 A. The Globe and Mail, which is, you know, it's sort of like 10 the New York Times here in the United States, a newspaper 11 of public record, so again, it's not like a tabloid or 12 something like this. 13 Q. Plaintiff's Exhibit 5, Dr. Boyle in the right-hand column 14 attributes some comments to a Sunni Locatelli purportedly 15 a spokeswoman at the Atomic Control Board. Do you see 16 that? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. What if anything is the significance, based on your 19 experience as expertise, of considering published reports 20 attributed to spokespersons for governmental entities in 21 formulating use of international law? 22 A. Yes. There is a decision by the International Court of 23 Justice in the nuclear test cases dealing with nuclear 24 explosions 1974, stating that the Court can rely upon 25 official statements made by Government officials acting KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 42 1 within their scope of authority and certainly Locatelli 2 here is the spokeswoman of the Atomic Energy Control 3 Board. So basically, I would be able to take this 4 statement and file it at the World Court and they would 5 find the statement could be, would be attributable to the 6 Canadian government, and Canada would be bound by this 7 statement. 8 Q. What does that article, Plaintiff's Exhibit 5, attribute 9 to Miss Locatelli? 10 A. She can't reveal how much fissile material Canada has. We 11 aren't able to give out that information under our 12 security regulations. Ms. Locatelli said Canada believes 13 it should come under the IA/EA guidelines because it 14 doesn't operate its own reprocessing facilities. I think 15 Dr. Edwards just pointed out that isn't correct. But even 16 if it were correct, it does come under IA/EA, and we need 17 to know, the United States Government under the NPT, under 18 the Congressional implementing legislation, we have to 19 know how much fissile material Canada has. 20 And basically, we are just taking their, 21 whatever their word is for it, and in my opinion, that's 22 unacceptable. We have to know how much material they have 23 and what they are doing with it, and what she's saying 24 here is "Well, we are just not going to tell you." And 25 you will note in the EA, the Department of Energy has KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 43 1 taken the same position. One of the comments made was 2 "Well, what is Canada doing," and the response of the DOE 3 is well, that is Canada's problem, once it leaves here we 4 are no longer responsible. The treaty and statutory 5 regime make it clear that's not the case. We are 6 responsible for our plutonium, wherever it goes. And 7 Congress has made it clear even if we do give it up, we 8 have to have absolute international safeguards as to what 9 is going to happen with our plutonium. And the same would 10 apply if we are encouraging Russia to ship weapons grade 11 plutonium to Canada. We have an obligation to make sure 12 that it's safeguarded and that it can be accountable and 13 accounted for. And what Ms. Locatelli here is saying 14 "Well, sorry, we are just not going to tell you." Again, 15 this raises serious problems in my mind that have not been 16 dealt with by the Department of Energy as to compliance 17 with the IA/EA safeguards regime, which is absolutely 18 required under Article III of the NPT and also required 19 under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Act. Indeed, if I 20 remember correctly, the 1994 implementation, Your Honor, 21 Congress said that transferring of unsafeguarded plutonium 22 is an act of international terrorism as far as Congress is 23 concerned. 24 So and that would trigger a whole host of other 25 provisions of the federal code dealing with international KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 44 1 terrorism, so we really need to know what is going to 2 happen to our plutonium when it gets up into Canada, and 3 to make sure there are safeguards and it is accountable 4 and there is an explanation here. 5 Now Mr. Clemens then said that, in his opinion, 6 Canada has 40 kilograms of plutonium, it's really not 7 accounted for or accountable for by anyone, and that 8 basically makes Canada a de facto nuclear weapons state. 9 I would agree, assuming that they do have the 40 kilograms 10 of plutonium, and I take it you know Mr. Clemens -- I had 11 e-mail correspondence with Mr. Clemens about this matter. 12 He feels that they do have it and that his group, the 13 Nuclear Control Institute, will be making this evidence 14 available soon. He told me it is not yet -- he is not yet 15 prepared to make it public, but they will be going public 16 with it soon. 17 In my opinion, if that is the case, they have 40 18 kilograms of plutonium, that's enough to make five bombs, 19 and that makes Canada a de facto nuclear weapons state 20 under the NPT and, in my opinion, would be inconsistent 21 with the NPT. There is a potential here for Canada being 22 in violation of the NET. We need to know that. Congress 23 has sanctions in there in the implementing legislation for 24 non-nuclear weapons states being, moving into a position 25 where they are de facto nuclear weapons states in KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 45 1 violation of the NPT. 2 It's clear Congress interprets our obligations 3 under the treaty to mean that a non-nuclear weapons state 4 simply cannot go off, assemble all the components for a 5 bomb, have one here, one there and one there, and then 6 say, oh but we are not a nuclear weapons state because we 7 haven't assembled the bomb. 8 Again, Congress made it very clear, no. Indeed, 9 in one of the pieces of legislation, Congress indicated 10 that it was also concerned with a facto nuclear weapons 11 states that an end run around the NPT, and the 12 Congressional regime applicable to it. Again, I regret to 13 report I haven't seen any of these issues dealt with by 14 the Department of Energy in the Environmental Assessments 15 and, indeed, when they were asked about it, they just said 16 this is now Canada's problem. Wondered-- United States 17 law of the NPT, it is not Canada's problem alone, it is 18 our problem because it's our plutonium and it's Russian 19 plutonium that we are paying to send up to Canada. 20 Q. Professor Boyle, based on the representations of Miss 21 Locatelli on behalf of Atomic Energy Control Board of 22 Canada that they don't believe they are subject to the 23 IA/EA guidelines, what if any impact would that have on 24 the United States' responsibility under the Nuclear 25 Nonproliferation Treaty of 1978? KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 46 1 A. It's very clear, Your Honor, the NPT and the Congressional 2 implementing legislation that we ourselves cannot ship 3 weapons grade plutonium there or engage in the Russians to 4 ship weapons grade plutonium unless there are absolutely 5 safeguards by the IA/EA that, to make sure that there is 6 no diversion. And again, Miss Locatelli is indicating 7 there is a high amount of uncertainty as to what is 8 happening with the Canadian plutonium. We simply don't 9 know. In the EA, there are no guarantees given by the 10 Department of Energy as to what is happening to plutonium 11 up in Canada. 12 Q. You may have testified to this, Dr. Boyle, and I apologize 13 if I missed it, but are Russia, Canada and the United 14 States all signatory partis to the Nonproliferation 15 Treaty? 16 A. Yes. We are all parties. There are about 182 or 183 17 states that are parties. The United States and Russia are 18 nuclear weapon states, parties to the convention, that is, 19 we are permitted to have nuclear weapons and nuclear 20 components, etc. Canada is designated a non-nuclear 21 weapons state. And they are supposed to preserve this 22 stative or statement. Yet according to the Nuclear 23 Control Institute, they have enough plutonium up there to 24 at least manufacture five bombs. So somehow this has to 25 be explained and accounted for in order for them to KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 47 1 continue their non-nuclear weapons state status under the 2 NPT, so again, the Nuclear Control Institute is raising 3 very serious compliance problems and potentially serious 4 violation of the NPT by Canada, and there are severe 5 sanctions in the United States laws enacted by Congress 6 under the Simplemen legislation, Your Honor, in the event 7 a state that is a non-nuclear weapons state moves to 8 become a nuclear weapons state. And again, none of this 9 has been addressed by the Department of Energy in the 10 environmental assessment that I'm aware of, either in the 11 environmental assessment or elsewhere. 12 Q. Dr. Boyle, could you advise the Court, if you would, as to 13 what the ramifications legally are of being a signatory 14 party to an international treaty such as the 15 Nonproliferation Treaty? 16 A. Yes. Your Honor, of course, the basic rule of Pacta Sunt, 17 P-a-c-t-a-s-u-n-t, Servanda, S-e-r-v-a-n-d-a. 18 The other point -- there are two other points, 19 however, that must be kept in mind in interpreting any 20 treaty and especially the NPT. First, the treaty must be 21 interpreted in good faith. And again, the question here 22 with Canada maintaining 40 kilograms of plutonium is 23 whether or not this is a good faith interpretation 24 implementation of the NPT by Canada. 25 Second, the treaty must be interpreted in KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 48 1 accordance with its object and purpose, and that in this 2 case the NPT is to stop nuclear proliferation. And again, 3 this entire program, the Parallex program, in my opinion, 4 seems to defeat the object and purpose of the NPT, which 5 is to stop nuclear proliferation. 6 The third point to keep in mind is that this 7 treaty has already been interpreted by Congress and 8 implemented by Congress. And Congress is agreeing with 9 what I'm saying here, Your Honor, and I'm agreeing with 10 what Congress is saying. Congress has made it very clear 11 that they do not want to see any type of nuclear 12 proliferation or programs that encourage nuclear 13 proliferation. And we are now seeing a drastic departure 14 from the policy enacted in Congress pursuant to the NPC 15 back in -- the NPT back in 1978 in the Nuclear 16 Nonproliferation Act, and we have seen no change in the 17 legislation by Congress to authorize or approve this 18 drastic change. And again, I agree with what Dr. Edwards 19 said from his Canadian perspective, my American 20 perspective, the Parallex MOX project is a drastic change 21 in encouraging proliferation of nuclear weapons components 22 and there has been no direct approval, change of statutes 23 or whatever. So again, this, in my opinion, raises very 24 serious problems under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty 25 as interpreted in good faith and in accordance with its KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 49 1 object and purpose not only for Canada, but the United 2 States and Russia. And in my opinion, we should have a 3 full study of all these issues by the Department of Energy 4 before there is any further movement on this project. 5 The implications here are enormous. They could 6 be catastrophic, and I personally would like to see a full 7 scale investigation analysis so that I could evaluate it 8 myself before anyone goes ahead with this project, but of 9 course that, you know, that's my personal opinion. I know 10 that's for you, Your Honor, to decide. 11 Q. Dr. Boyle, what if anything is the requirement or 12 obligation of the United States to interpret the 13 Nonproliferation Treaty in good faith? I think you 14 testified that Canada has that obligation. Does the 15 United States have a similar obligation? 16 A. Yes. And as a matter of fact, here Congress has 17 interpreted our obligation under the NPT and, in my 18 opinion, Congress has interpreted our obligations under 19 the NPT in good faith and also in accordance with the 20 object and purpose of this treaty. Congress interpreted 21 this by means of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Act of 1978, 22 the Nuclear Proliferation Prevention Act of 1994 and the 23 1998 amendments to do with the India-Pakistani 24 explosions. So in my opinion, Congress did interpret this 25 treaty in good faith and in accordance with its object and KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 50 1 purpose and it appears to me the Department of Energy is 2 off there on their own with no express authorization from 3 Congress pursuing a policy here that defeats the object 4 and purpose of the NPT. 5 Q. By that, you are referring to the Parallex project? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. With respect to the Congressional implementation of the 8 NPT in the '78, '94 and '98 acts, what if anything is the 9 role of the Department of State and/or Department of 10 Energy with respect to interpreting those obligations? 11 A. Yes. Your Honor, it's very clear from the treaty related 12 to the statutory scheme. Treaties deal with international 13 law and foreign relations. Therefore, they are normally 14 negotiated and concluded by the Department of State and 15 then they are handed over to the Senate Foreign Relations 16 to the Senate for advice and consent. It is the State 17 Department that traditionally has always had the sole and 18 exclusive role here in the United States with respect to 19 nonproliferation policy, not the Department of Energy. 20 The Department of Energy has always been treated as a 21 technical agency, technical consultant. The policy is 22 formulated by the State Department. There had been, again 23 going back to the Carter administration, United States 24 Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, Your Honor, set up by 25 Congress to deal precisely with these issues. They were KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 51 1 the ones given the authority to deal with proliferation 2 and nonproliferation policies negotiate these agreements, 3 etcetera. Senator Helms in the latest did not like act, 4 he concluded it was super numerator morgue or something so 5 he passed legislation terminating the Arms Control 6 Disarmament Agency and transferring all functions to the 7 Department of State today. But if you read the 8 Congressional implementing legislation, they make it very 9 clear that the lead role played on proliferation and 10 nonproliferation policy is the Department of State, not 11 the Department of Energy, and the Department of State 12 should consult with the Department of Energy. At times 13 the Department of Energy is given authority to have its 14 input to the Department of State, but it's the Department 15 of State that makes nonproliferation policy, not the 16 Department of Energy. 17 Q. In your review of the environmental assessment prepared by 18 the Department of Energy in January of '99, Dr. Boyle, 19 regarding the Parallex Project, is there any indication 20 that the Department of Energy consulted with the 21 Department of State? And if you don't mind, I direct your 22 attention to Page 41 of Plaintiff's Exhibit 12 previously 23 admitted and ask you to refer to that. 24 A. Yes. They had a list here of agencies consulted. Your 25 Honor, over here on Page 41, it says agencies consulted KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 52 1 during the preparation of this analysis: Atomic Energy of 2 Canada, Canadian Atomic Energy Control Board, U.S. 3 Department of Transportation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 4 Commission. They do not consult with the Department of 5 State and, in my opinion, and also in the opinion of 6 Congress, if you read through all the implementing 7 legislation, I know, Your Honor, as I understand it, you 8 are a conscientious Judge so I'm sure you are going to do 9 this, you'll see that they have to deal with the 10 Department of State. And the main problem with this EA is 11 they have not dealt with the Department of State, they 12 have not dealt with the nonproliferation issues, they have 13 not dealt with the Nonproliferation Treaty, they have not 14 dealt with the 1978 Act, they have not dealt with the 1994 15 Act, they have not dealt with the 1998 Act. All that is 16 expressly required by Congress. So again, in my opinion, 17 for some reason the Department of Energy has just decided 18 to go out there on its own and completely either ignore or 19 violate the Congressional statutes and procedures for 20 dealing with proliferation and nonproliferation issues. 21 Q. Dr. Boyle, to your knowledge, has the Department of State 22 retreated at all from the U.S. commitment to the 23 Nonproliferation Treaty as implemented by Congress through 24 the legislation you've indicated? 25 A. No, and as a matter of fact, Madeline Albright was just KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 53 1 out in India-Pakistan with President Clinton. As you 2 know, President Clinton stated that today India-Pakistan, 3 the Indian subcontinent is the most dangerous place on the 4 face of the earth because of the proliferation problem, 5 and they both have nuclear weapons now, and the dispute 6 over Casmir. 7 President Clinton then was just lectured in the 8 Indian Parliament publicly by the speaker of Parliament 9 for making the statement, but I think it's a fair and 10 accurate statement. Madeline Albright followed this up 11 with another statement reiterating our commitment to 12 nonproliferation and, specifically with respect to India 13 and Pakistan, that this was the policy of the United 14 States Government, and also tying this into the integral 15 importance of safeguards. 16 And again, that is a fair and accurate statement 17 of the policy being pursued by the President and the 18 Secretary of State that is charged under the legislation 19 and the Constitution to deal with these matters. There is 20 a complete and total disconnect here between what the 21 President and Secretary of State are saying and what the 22 Department of Energy is planning to do here in the 23 environmental assessment. 24 Q. Dr. Boyle, I'm going to show you what has been marked as 25 Plaintiff's Exhibit 11 and ask you to take a minute to KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 54 1 review that and let me know when you have had a chance to 2 do so, please. 3 A. Yes. This is an account of the Secretary of State 4 Albright's statement on April 2, as recently as April 2 5 dealing with our proliferation policies. And let me draw 6 a few things to your attention. United States regards 7 proliferation anywhere as our Number 1 security concern. 8 So again, she's pointing this out and she is the cabinet 9 officer with the authority to deal with these matters, not 10 the Secretary of Energy. We continue to seek universal 11 adherence to the NPT neither India nor Pakistan are 12 parties to the NPT. And here is crucial points: The 13 limits in our ability to cooperate with India and Pakistan 14 are a matter of U.S. law, as well as our international 15 obligations, all right? So Secretary Albright is pointing 16 out we have United States law that deals with 17 proliferation and this United States law -- of course, 18 she's not a lawyer -- but the U.S. law is the Nuclear 19 Nonproliferation Act, the Proliferation Prevention Act and 20 the '98 amendments as well as the Atomic Energy Act. So 21 there's a very comprehensive legislative scheme here as 22 well as our international obligation she points out. 23 There are international treaties here, and in particular 24 the most important one being the one she just referred to, 25 the Nonproliferation Treaty, and she is aware of that. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 55 1 Unfortunately, it does not appear that the Department of 2 Energy is aware of it or is concerned about it in the 3 least bit, at least as reflected in the environmental 4 assessment, they have not dealt with any of these issues 5 in environmental assessment nothing, none. 6 Q. Dr. Boyle, based on your experience and investigations 7 study, are you aware of whether or not India and Pakistan 8 have Canadian CANDU reactors? 9 A. As I understand it, they've got reactors from the Indian 10 Nuclear Bomb Project was a serous reactor, Canada, India 11 and United States, right. And Pakistan has a CANDU 12 reactor, right. And just the other day, the New York 13 Times reported the smuggling of substantial quantity of 14 nuclear materials out of the former Soviet Union towards 15 Pakistan that was recently intercepted in Kazakhstan, I 16 think. So I think this is a very serious problem. And I 17 don't see how this Parallex MOX -- it's only going to 18 compound the problem. These countries are doing 19 everything they possibly can. And here I would also add 20 in Israel is not a party to the NPT. There are other 21 states that have CANDU reactors, it has already been 22 reported in the professional literature, Your Honor, that 23 Japan too is a de facto nuclear weapons state in violation 24 of the NPT. And as Dr. Edwards already reported, they 25 have gotten a good deal of their nuclear material from KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 56 1 Canada. 2 So, we see -- Canadian reactors that are what, 3 in South Korea, Taiwan, states that are interested in 4 getting nuclear weapons. Clearly Taiwan wants them, South 5 Korea wants them. And you know, not that I can speak for 6 these governments, but it seems to me they have made a 7 decision the best way to get a weapon is to do it the way 8 the Indians did. We get a Canadian CANDU reactor, then we 9 start getting in whatever material we can get from, for 10 example, this MOX program. They will get plutonium and 11 then they can make a bomb, they can assemble a bomb. 12 As for the ease of assembling a bomb, Your 13 Honor, when I was a student at Harvard there was a very 14 bright student at MIT who, as a class project, assembled a 15 bomb. He had everything there except the plutonium. 16 That's how easy it is to assemble an atomic bottom, and he 17 brought it down there and, if I remember correctly, in 18 central square at MIT, and just showed it to everyone. 19 Even a bright student at MIT can assemble a bomb, that's 20 how easy it is to do. And what we see on these states 21 that say they are non-nuclear weapons states is an effort 22 to get a CANDU reactor and do what the Indians do use the 23 CANDU reactor, then they just need to get hold of the 24 plutonium, and Parallex MOX is going to give them access 25 to this plutonium if it gets in circulation. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 57 1 Q. Dr. Boyle, you've testified in some depth as to the 2 Nonproliferation Treaty and the implementation by Congress 3 indicating Congress' intent to prohibit even components, 4 parts of nuclear weapons to be covered by the U.S.; is 5 that correct? 6 A. Congress has interpreted the NPT, as I said, in good 7 faith, and to achieve its object and purpose and they have 8 interpreted to mean components that is clear of nuclear 9 weapons or nuclear explosive devices and there are other 10 areas in legislation where they even break it down to 11 items or substances that could be used for nuclear weapons 12 or nuclear explosive device, so Congress is aware of this 13 problem of a state becoming a de facto nuclear weapons 14 state and somehow trying to assemble components, items and 15 substances to be used for a nuclear weapon in order to 16 circumvent the treaty. So again Congress has interpreted, 17 I think, the treaty properly. 18 Q. Are you familiar in the course of your research with the 19 DOE's stockpile of stewardship program? 20 A. I am, yes. 21 Q. Are you familiar with their use in that program of 22 subcritical amounts of weapons grade plutonium? 23 A. Yes. Right now the Department of Energy is engaging in 24 what are known as subcritical tests. A subcritical test 25 is using -- they just did one this week, I think I gave KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 58 1 you the press release on it, and they are consistently 2 doing this. 3 A subcritical test uses a subcritical amount of 4 plutonium, which is under the -- it was eight kilograms. 5 And they are exploding it in order to test, verify and 6 develop the next generation of U.S. nuclear weapons. So 7 what we see the Department of Energy doing here is the 8 subcritical tests, in my opinion, would constitute it's 9 not a nuclear weapon, but it is a nuclear explosive 10 device. Now, there is nothing illegal with, under the NPT 11 with us having a nuclear explosive device, because we are 12 a nuclear weapons state party, but again, it creates 13 problems other states are now mimicking our behavior. 14 Russia is doing the same thing, France and Britain say 15 they are going to do the same thing. If we give weapons 16 grade plutonium to Canada, Canada could be doing the same 17 thing. Or the Russians give their weapons grade plutonium 18 to Canada, Canada could be doing the same thing, and other 19 states could be doing the same thing. So again, I think I 20 have serious concerns here, but I want to point out the 21 DOE is already engaged in the subcritical tests which are 22 clearly nuclear explosive devices. So it just doesn't 23 have to be a bomb to be regulated by the NPT. 24 Q. Dr. Boyle, in the scope of your experience and research, 25 have you become acquainted with the International Court of KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 59 1 Justice opinion regarding nuclear weapons in 1996? 2 A. Yes. As a matter of fact, I was part of the effort 3 originally to try to get that advisory opinion from the 4 World Court. 5 Q. If you would explain briefly what the significance, if 6 anything, of that World Court decision on the Parallex 7 project is, in your opinion? 8 A. Well, Your Honor, the World Court was asked by the United 9 Nations general assembly to give an opinion on the entire 10 question of nuclear weapons and international law. It's a 11 very long decision with many separate decisions in the 12 sense I've written an article here, Mr. Love might want to 13 provide it to you, going through all of it. But in this 14 opinion, there are two critical components that are 15 relevant to the Parallex MOX project and, of course, the 16 EA has not dealt with either, let alone the World Court 17 opinion, and the World Court opinion in this area 18 enunciates the rules of international law that are binding 19 on the United States Government, binding on Canada, 20 binding on Russia. The one component of this opinion 21 deals with the environmental-- international environmental 22 law applicable to nuclear weapons, and you will note in 23 the EA, the DOE does absolutely nothing at all with 24 international environmental law applicable to this 25 transaction because it is an international transaction, KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 60 1 they're shipping plutonium from the States up to Canada 2 and from Russia over to Canada. So international 3 environmental law is involved, and the DOE has done 4 nothing at all about it. 5 And Mr. Love, I think you have the exact 6 language there. You want to provide that to me, the exact 7 ruling of the Court on the international environmental law 8 that would apply? 9 MR. LOVE: Your Honor, we have tendered what I'm 10 going to show Dr. Boyle as Plaintiff's Exhibit 14, a copy 11 of the World Court opinion to both the Court and counsel 12 previously. 13 BY MR. LOVE: 14 Q. Dr. Boyle, I'm going to show you what has been marked as 15 Plaintiff's Exhibit 14 and ask you to take a look at that 16 and let us know when you've had a chance to do so and what 17 it is. 18 A. Right, this is the World Court advisory opinion. It's so 19 long, I'm going to have to get my notes on it, excuse me. 20 I think, Mr. Love, I gave you my notes last 21 night on the relevant provisions of the opinion, the 22 relevant paragraphs. 23 Q. While I'm looking for your notes, could you direct your 24 attention to Paragraph 27, please? 25 A. Right. What we need are the paragraphs here. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 61 1 Right. Yes, I have Paragraph 27. 2 Your Honor, here the World Court unanimously 3 adopted Principle 21 of the Stockholm Declaration of 1972, 4 which everyone would say today is a basic principle of 5 international environmental law, which the EA has not 6 bothered to deal with. And it basically says states have 7 a duty "to ensure that activities within their 8 jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to the 9 environment of other states or areas beyond the limits of 10 national jurisdiction." That's a basic principle of 11 international environmental law. It goes back to the 12 Stockholm Declaration of 1972. It has direct relevance 13 here to this entire project. You've got international 14 shipment of plutonium, it's going over the high seas if it 15 goes by boat from Russia. That also triggers the Law of 16 the Sea Convention that they have not dealt with. They 17 haven't dealt with the Stockholm Declaration, and they 18 have not dealt with this recent ruling by the World Court 19 as to obligations under international law. If you read 20 the EA when they are asked this question, they said "Once 21 we give to Canada, that's their problem." Well, again, 22 that isn't a correct statement of international law. It 23 is our problem. 24 The second important point of the ICJ opinion, 25 and there are other sections here dealing with the KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 62 1 environment -- and I know we have a limited amount of 2 time, I'm not going to go through it all -- deals with the 3 interpretation of the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty. 4 This is an international treaty, the World Court 5 also has authority to interpret the Nuclear 6 Nonproliferation Treaty, and they have interpreted the 7 Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. 8 Mr. Love, could you give me -- I identified a 9 paragraph for you, I think it's 102. 10 Q. I believe you are looking for Paragraph 102? 11 A. 102, right. 12 Q. May also want to take a look at Paragraph 99. 13 A. 99 and 102, right. 14 The World Court, in the same advisory opinion, 15 has also dealt with the NPT and the obligation of Article 16 VI of the NPT, "Each of the parties to the treaty 17 undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on 18 effective measures relating to cessation of the" -- "in 19 good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of 20 the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear 21 disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete 22 disarmament under strict and effective international 23 control." And they have interpreted this provision, NPT 24 Article VI, which we are a party to, by the way, to have a 25 dual obligation, two components here: One, we must pursue KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 63 1 negotiations on nuclear disarmament as a matter of good 2 faith. 3 Recently, I regret to report the U.S. Ambassador 4 to the Conference on Nuclear Disarmament sponsored by the 5 United Nations has said "We are not going to pursue 6 nuclear disarmament negotiations." In my opinion, that 7 puts us in breach of NPT Article VI, certainly as 8 interpreted by the World Court. We have an obligation to 9 pursue nuclear disarmament negotiations and we have just 10 said we are not going to do it. The Ambassador said "We 11 are going to pursue instead a treaty on the cutoff of 12 fissile materials such as what is at stake here, but we 13 are not going to pursue nuclear disarmament negotiations." 14 Well, Your Honor, it does seem to me that that is a 15 violation of NPT Article VI and is certainly not meeting 16 the requirements of Article VI as interpreted by the World 17 Court. We must pursue these negotiations in good faith. 18 And then the second component of the obligation 19 is we must achieve a precise result. Nuclear disarmament 20 in all its aspects. And again just recently the U.S. 21 Ambassador to the Council of Nuclear Disarmament under the 22 auspices of the UN said "We are just not going to do it." 23 The reason why this creates serious legal problems is that 24 the non-nuclear weapons states went along with the entire 25 Nuclear Proliferation Treaty on the assumption that the KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 64 1 nuclear weapons states would engage in good faith 2 negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament. If we are 3 not engaging in negotiations leading to nuclear 4 disarmament and publicly say we are not going to do it, 5 this in theory could give the non-nuclear weapons states, 6 all 175 of them, grounds to argue the material breach of 7 the NPT and pull out of the NPT and to engage in nuclear 8 armament. Now I'm not recommending that and indeed I 9 certainly would not recommend that to anyone, but it is a 10 very serious concern if we are not engaging in these 11 nuclear disarmament negotiations, which we are not 12 currently doing. 13 Q. Dr. Boyle, could you briefly summarize for the Court why 14 the International Court of Justice opinions, if at all, 15 are binding on the U.S.? 16 A. This opinion per se is listed as an advisory opinion. So 17 it is -- we are not party to the lawsuit. As you know, 18 some courts can give advisory opinions. Your Honor, you 19 can't give an advisory opinion, but there are courts in 20 the United States that some states courts have authority 21 to give advisory opinions as well as contentious 22 opinions. The World Court has both. They have authority 23 contentious opinion and an advisory opinion. This was not 24 a contentious case. If it were a contentious case, we 25 would be bound by it, like the Lockerbie case, like the KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 65 1 Bosnia cases that I was involved with, those were 2 contentious cases. This was an advisory opinion, however, 3 in this advisory opinion, with these unanimous rulings by 4 the World Court on these points, the World Court made it 5 clear that these rules are customary international law. 6 And rules of customary international law bind the United 7 States Government. The Paquete, P-a-q-u-e-t-e, Habana, 8 H-a-b-a-n-a, decision by the United States Supreme Court 9 customarily international law binds the United States and 10 the United States courts. And technically, this is 11 federal common law. So the, Your Honor, this Court should 12 take into account the World Court rulings on these two 13 points on international environmental law and how the NPT 14 should be interpreted. 15 The rest of the opinion, which is quite lengthy 16 and I had written about elsewhere -- if you are interested 17 in reading my article, you can, but it's not really 18 relevant or terribly germane to the issues here, but 19 certainly, the section on international environmental law 20 and their interpretation of the NPT is relevant. I think 21 they enunciate rules of customary international law. I 22 also have reached the same conclusions myself in my own 23 scholarly research before the World Court did, but I think 24 most experts would agree with the rulings of the World 25 Court on these two points, it's requirements of KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 66 1 international environmental law and the interpretation of 2 the NPT. 3 And again, the DOE's environmental assessment 4 has not taken any of this into account. They have not 5 taken into account the rules of international 6 environmental law, which they should do, and they have not 7 taken into account anything about the NPT. 8 Q. Dr. Boyle, based on your review of the NPT, the Nuclear 9 Nonproliferation Acts of 1978, 1994, and 1998, the 10 International Court of Justice opinion, and the 11 declarations by the Department of State regarding the U.S. 12 position with respect to the Nonproliferation Treaty 13 commitments we have made, do you have an opinion as an 14 expert in international law as to whether the foreign 15 policy of the United States would be violated by the 16 shipment of MOX from Russia to Canada funded by the U.S. 17 DOE? 18 A. Well, again, I agree with everything Dr. Edwards said. 19 Your Honor, this is a major change in United States 20 nonproliferation policy going back at a minimum to the 21 Carter administration and the adoption of the Nuclear 22 Nonproliferation Act, it seems to me completely 23 inconsistent with the treaty, with the Act, the 1978 Act 24 and 1994 Act and the 1998 Act. So yes, this is a major 25 change in policy that potentially is illegal under the KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 67 1 sources. And I would really like to see the Department of 2 Energy comprehensively address all of these issues so we 3 could see what is their authority to do this. Besides 4 their own ipse dixit. I would like to see the authority. 5 I don't see it in any of the sources I've read before for 6 them to unilaterally engage in this major change in policy 7 that seems to be inconsistent with the Treaty, the '78 8 Act, the '94 Act and '98 Act, yes. 9 MR. LOVE: Your Honor, I have no further 10 questions of this witness. Thank you. 11 CROSS EXAMINATION 12 BY MR. DODGE: 13 Q. Morning, Mr. Boyle. 14 A. Morning. 15 Q. I would like to turn your attention back to your C.V., 16 which I think is Exhibit 3. Do you have that in front of 17 you? 18 A. Sure. 19 Q. Just to round out a few items on the second page, about 20 halfway down you testified that you were counsel to Libya 21 in connection with the bombing of the Pan Am flight over 22 Lockerbie, Scotland. 23 A. That is correct. I should point out that matter is being 24 peaceably resolved now by the United States and Libya 25 because of my efforts. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 68 1 Q. And you've also served, going up now the fourth item from 2 the top of that page, since 1987 you served as a legal 3 advisor to the Palestine Liberation Organization? 4 A. That is correct, and I was also the legal advisor to the 5 Palestinian delegation for the Middle East Peace Talks 6 convened under the auspices of President Bush, yes. 7 Q. And two items down from there said you were counsel 8 related to House Resolution 86 in the 102nd Congress 9 dealing with the impeachment of former, then President 10 George Bush? 11 A. Yes. Congressman Henry G. Gonzalez of Texas reached a 12 decision that President Bush going to war violated 13 numerous provisions of the Constitution and international 14 law. You can find them there in House Resolution 86. And 15 he asked me, because of my knowledge and expertise to 16 serve as counsel to them on these matters, and I did serve 17 as counsel free of charge, that is correct. 18 My service to the Palestinian Delegation in the 19 Middle East Peace Negotiations is there in '91 and '93, as 20 I said, President Bush was the one who convened those 21 negotiations, and yes, even though I did set out with 22 Congressman Gonzalez on this issue, President Bush did 23 sign my Biological Weapons Anti-terrorists Act of 1989, 24 which is -- 25 Q. He apparently didn't hold your efforts against you KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 69 1 personally. 2 A. Pardon me? 3 Q. Sounds like he didn't hold it against you personally. 4 A. I don't think he did, no. I'm a lawyer and a law 5 professor and I'm a professional, but he had no problems, 6 President Bush had no problems with my Biological 7 Anti-Terrorism Act. It was approved unanimously by both 8 Houses of Congress. 9 Q. Moving on to the third page, second item from the top of 10 the page, you worked as a consultant in 1993 on 11 Independence for the State of Hawaii. I would assume for 12 Hawaii to become an independent nation? 13 A. That is correct. The State of Hawaii-- the Hawaiian 14 Sovereignty Advisory Commission is an agency of the State 15 of Hawaii. And they were charged under the law by the 16 State of Hawaiian law to investigate all alternatives for 17 the native Hawaiian people. One of the alternatives that 18 needed to be investigated was whether or not the native 19 Hawaiian people should establish their own independent 20 nation state. And I was retained by the State of Hawaii 21 then to advise them on this because of my experience doing 22 the same work with the Palestinians. I advised them on 23 the creation of their state and the peace talks with 24 Israel based on a two-state solution, and the Palestinian 25 state today has diplomatic recognition now by about 125 KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 70 1 states, and currently has de facto UN membership, and I 2 did the legal work on that, so the State of Hawaii 3 retained me to come out and advise on the establishment of 4 an independent nations state, and the State of Hawaii paid 5 my expenses and a modest fee for this work, yes. 6 Q. Moving on to the Nonproliferation Treaty, you testified 7 about Article I. Do you recall that? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. And as I understood your testimony, your view is that the 10 fuel rods at issue in the Parallex Project, in your view, 11 should be treated as components of a nuclear weapon; is 12 that right? Explosive device? 13 A. No. What I said was weapons grade plutonium should be 14 treated as a component of either a nuclear weapon or a 15 nuclear explosive device. 16 Q. What about -- I mean, the Parallex test involves shipment 17 and then irradiation of fuel rods; is that correct? 18 A. Right. 19 Q. And is it your view or is it not your view that those fuel 20 rods constitute components of nuclear weapons or explosive 21 devices? 22 A. My viewpoint is what I said, that weapons grade plutonium 23 is a component of a nuclear weapon or nuclear explosive 24 device. 25 Q. You didn't answer my question. Do you understand the KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 71 1 question? 2 A. Well, I've given my answer. 3 THE COURT: No, you haven't answered his 4 question. He asked you question, if you don't know the 5 answer, say so. He asked you a very specific question 6 about rods. 7 BY MR. DODGE: 8 Q. In fact, the question has to do with your view, if you 9 have one, whether the fuel rods at issue in the Parallex 10 test program constitute components of nuclear weapons or 11 explosive devices. 12 A. If they contain weapons grade plutonium, they would be or 13 could be components of nuclear weapons or nuclear 14 explosive devices. 15 Q. Well, these fuel rods do contain plutonium; is that right? 16 A. As I understand it, it's in there, yep. 17 Q. So in your view, does that make the fuel rods components 18 of nuclear weapons or explosive devices? 19 A. Again, my testimony is that the weapons grade plutonium 20 clearly is either nuclear -- is a component of a nuclear 21 weapon or a nuclear explosive device, and the reason I 22 give that testimony is based on my reading of the 23 Congressional legislation, Congress has taken the position 24 that weapons grade plutonium or plutonium, in general, is 25 a component of a nuclear weapon or nuclear explosive KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 72 1 device. Congress does not deal with the fuel rods, they 2 dealt with the plutonium. 3 Q. I want to make sure I understand your testimony clearly. 4 Is it your testimony, is it your view that any 5 plutonium would qualify as a component of a nuclear 6 weapons or nuclear weapon or explosive device under the 7 treaty? 8 A. My testimony today is the weapons grade plutonium involved 9 in this project is a component of a nuclear weapons or 10 other nuclear explosive device. I believe weapons grade 11 plutonium is what is involved in this project. 12 Q. I asked you a different question. The question was a 13 broader one. Is it your view or not your view that all 14 plutonium would qualify as a component of a nuclear weapon 15 or explosive device under Article I? 16 A. It appears Congress has taken that position, yes, and they 17 have stringently regulated plutonium in all forms. And I 18 also note that the United States Government has exploded a 19 nuclear weapon -- 20 THE COURT: The question is: Is it your 21 opinion? He is asking four or five times now, could you 22 answer that? 23 THE WITNESS: But Your Honor, my opinion is 24 based on -- 25 THE COURT: In courts -- I know you are a KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 73 1 professor -- we answer the questions of the lawyer, not 2 what we want to talk about. He asked you seven or eight 3 questions, none of which you've answered. I would ask you 4 simply listen to the lawyer's question and answer it. 5 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honor. 6 BY MR. DODGE: 7 Q. Do you understand the question? 8 THE COURT: Ask it again for the fifteenth time, 9 ask it again. 10 BY MR. DODGE: 11 Q. Is it your view that all plutonium constitutes a component 12 of nuclear weapon or explosive device under Article I of 13 the treaty? 14 A. It can. 15 Q. It can? 16 A. Yes. Yes. 17 Q. Is it your view across the board that plutonium, whether 18 weapons grade or not, if it's present in a fuel rod for 19 a-- destined for a civilian nuclear reactor would qualify 20 as a component of a nuclear weapon explosive device? 21 A. It could. 22 Q. Do you know whether as a general matter the signatories of 23 the Nonproliferation Treaty have interpreted, whether any 24 signatory has interpreted Article I to ban transport of 25 fuel rods containing plutonium? KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 74 1 A. Congress has strictly regulated plutonium, yes, and there 2 is legislation on the books saying "We, Congress, 3 interpreting our obligations under the NPT, are against 4 international transport of plutonium," yes. 5 Q. Has Congress passed any legislation prohibiting the 6 transport of nuclear fuel rods containing any plutonium? 7 A. In what I have reviewed for my testimony here today, I 8 have not seen in the '78, '94 or '98 Act that Congress has 9 prohibited transport of fuel rods. 10 Q. In fact, fuel rods are transported across national 11 boundaries all the time; is that not correct? 12 A. They are transported. 13 Q. In fact, fuel rods containing plutonium are transported 14 across national boundaries all the time, isn't that 15 correct? 16 A. If they are subject to-- they are supposed to be subject 17 to safeguards, yes. 18 Q. Well, that gets us to another point of your earlier 19 testimony regarding whether the fuel rods particularly at 20 issue in the Parallex Project are or are not subject to 21 IA/EA safeguards in Canada. Do you recall that testimony? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. Do you have personal knowledge whether Canada, the 24 Government of Canada has taken a position on whether the 25 U.S. Parallex fuel rods, which are now in Canada, whether KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 75 1 those fuel rods are now subject to IA/EA safeguards? 2 A. I have not seen any evidence because of the recentness of 3 the movement of the shipments. 4 Q. If I told you that the position of the Government of 5 Canada is that those fuel rods are, in fact, subject to 6 IA/EA safeguards, would you have any basis to quarrel with 7 that? 8 A. The statement by Ms. Locatelli does call into question the 9 validity of these assertions, yes. 10 Q. Miss Locatelli was generally speaking of Parallex fuel 11 rods, was she? 12 A. Speaking about plutonium in general, right. 13 Q. I take it you didn't speak personally to Miss Locatelli? 14 A. No, I did not. 15 Q. About this or any-- 16 A. But I did speak with Mr. Clemens of NCI by e-mail and he 17 has similar concerns to me. 18 Q. Okay. And did you speak to the newspaper reporter, Martin 19 Mittelstaedt, who quoted Ms. Locatelli? 20 A. No, I did not. 21 Q. Whether his quotes accurately reflect what she said or not 22 is not something you would be qualified to testify about; 23 is that right? 24 A. Well, I note The Globe and Mail is a newspaper of public 25 record and I would be able to rely on that in the World KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 76 1 Court for sure, yep. 2 Q. But newspaper reporters are human beings? 3 A. Newspaper reporters make mistakes, sure. But again, the 4 World Court, for example, the nuclear test cases did rely 5 on statements made by Government officials as normally 6 reported in reputable news media sources. They have 7 different standards of evidence, the World Court, than 8 they do here in United States District Court. 9 Q. Now you've also relied on this article, Plaintiff's 10 Exhibit 5, I guess too, in support of your opinion that 11 Canada is in possession of 40 kilograms or up to 40 12 kilograms of plutonium; is that right? 13 A. This is a statement by Mr. Clemens, and I have had e-mail 14 correspondence with him about it. 15 Q. Do you have any personal knowledge whether -- 16 A. No. 17 Q. I'm sorry, I didn't finish my question. 18 A. I did answer your question. 19 THE COURT: He hasn't finished asking it; you 20 couldn't possibly answer his question when he hasn't 21 finished asking it. 22 THE WITNESS: Sorry. 23 BY MR. DODGE: 24 Q. Do you have any personal knowledge of whether Canada, in 25 fact, has 40 kilograms of plutonium? KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 77 1 A. I do not have personal knowledge, no. I'm relying on the 2 statement by Mr. Clemens. 3 Q. Mr. Clemens, does Mr. Clemens have personal knowledge 4 whether Canada has 40-- 5 A. As I understand, Mr. Clemens does. From my e-mail 6 correspondence with him, he does. 7 Q. Has he seen that plutonium? 8 A. Pardon me? 9 Q. Has he seen it? 10 A. He didn't tell me what his sources of evidence are, but he 11 did tell me that they will be making it public soon. 12 Q. So he thinks he has -- he thinks he has evidence to 13 support that conclusion and whether that evidence holds 14 any water or not, we really can't tell, can we? 15 A. Well, again, as an expert, if the NCI is making the 16 statements, I think they are significant and they need to 17 be dealt with, and certainly by the Department of Energy. 18 THE COURT: That was not -- excuse me, that was 19 not his question. 20 Would you repeat your question, please? 21 BY MR. DODGE: 22 Q. The question is: Mr. Clemens believes he has reason or he 23 has evidence to support his conclusion that Canada has 40 24 kilograms of plutonium, but as far as anybody in this 25 courtroom knows, that evidence may or may not hold water, KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 78 1 we just don't know, correct? 2 A. I'm not evaluating the evidence, and Mr. Clemens said the 3 evidence will be produced, so at that point I will review 4 the evidence and formulate a formal opinion. 5 THE COURT: Do you want to ask it again or just 6 want to give up? 7 MR. DODGE: I think that -- I think the point is 8 established to the extent I need to, Your Honor. 9 BY MR. DODGE: 10 Q. Now, you testified earlier that it's up to the State 11 Department, not the Department of Energy to interpret 12 United States treaty obligations; is that right? 13 A. I testified that it is the State Department that is in 14 charge of nuclear proliferation policies, that's what I 15 testified, and not the Department of Energy, yes. 16 Q. Okay. Is it your view that it's -- maybe I misunderstood 17 what you testified earlier. I thought I heard you say 18 that interpreting whether or not the U.S. is complying 19 with Nonproliferation Treaty in particular, that pertinent 20 authority on that would be the State Department, not the 21 Department of Energy; is that a fair statement? 22 A. I've also testified that the State Department has the lead 23 role in the United States Government with respect to 24 interpretation of treatises as well. 25 Q. Do you know what the State Department's position is on KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 79 1 whether the Parallex test program is or is not compliant 2 with Article I of the Nonproliferation Treaty? 3 A. Well, that's why I read the Environmental Assessment, to 4 see if you had talked to the State Department here, and 5 they hadn't, so I have not seen any statement by the State 6 Department as to what their position is, no. 7 Q. The Environmental Assessment is not the only document 8 that's been generated in the course of the Parallex 9 Project, you understand that? 10 A. That is correct, and I have read a good deal of the 11 documentation, but I still have not seen an expression by 12 the Department of State on this issue. 13 Q. Okay. Do you know whether or not the State Department was 14 involved at any level in the Parallex Project? 15 A. There probably were discussions somewhere in there. 16 Q. Do you know? 17 A. Myself personally? 18 Q. Yes. 19 A. I don't know for sure. 20 Q. Do you know one way or the other whether the State 21 Department has a view on whether the Parallex Project is 22 consistent with our treaty obligations under Article I of 23 the NPT? 24 A. I have not seen any expression by the State Department on 25 this issue. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 80 1 Q. If I told you the State Department has taken the view that 2 the Parallex Project is entirely consistent with our 3 obligations under Article I, would you have any basis to 4 quarrel with that? 5 A. I haven't seen it. 6 MR. LODGE: Objection, Your Honor. 7 THE COURT: If he hasn't seen -- 8 MR. DODGE: Withdraw the question, Your Honor. 9 THE WITNESS: I would like to see it and 10 evaluate it myself, sure. 11 BY MR. DODGE: 12 Q. You also testified about dangers of nuclear proliferation 13 relating to countries such as Taiwan and Korea that are 14 not currently nuclear weapons states, but would like to 15 acquire nuclear weapons, do you recall that testimony? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. Is it correct that the MOX program, the Parallex Program 18 does not contemplate the shipment of any fuel rods to any 19 country other than Canada? 20 A. Not at this stage, but eventually it does appear there 21 will be mass circulation of this material, yes, down the 22 line. 23 Q. And the basis for that is what exactly? 24 A. The quantities. If the test works out, the quantity we 25 are talking about coming from Russia. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 81 1 Q. Well, let me be more specific about this. Has the United 2 States, any spokesperson for the United States Government 3 proposed in connection with the Parallex Project to send 4 fuel rods to any country other than Canada? 5 A. The United States? 6 Q. Right. 7 A. No. 8 Q. Has the Government of Russia proposed, in connection with 9 the Parallex Project, to send fuel rods to any country 10 other than Canada? 11 A. Well, they are talking about massive quantities of weapons 12 grade plutonium being circulated into this program and the 13 independent team of experts by Russia and the United 14 States have made that quite clear they are talking tons of 15 this stuff. 16 Q. Well, again, you didn't answer my question there, 17 Professor. I asked you whether the Russian Government has 18 proposed sending fuel rods to any country other than 19 Canada. Your answer only dealt with volumes, it didn't 20 address where. That was my question. 21 A. Right. There might have been discussions on Germany or 22 some of the European states have there -- there have been 23 discussions and proposals, but it's just at that stage 24 now, yes. 25 Q. But Russia has not, to your knowledge, proposed sending KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 82 1 fuel rods to Korea? 2 A. There is an international market here, sure, it could be 3 sold anywhere. 4 THE COURT: No, he didn't say could have. He 5 said: Did they propose it? 6 THE WITNESS: I have not read that right now 7 Russia is proposing sending this to Korea. 8 BY MR. DODGE: 9 Q. Same question with Taiwan. 10 A. I have not read that Russia is proposing to send this to 11 Taiwan. 12 MR. DODGE: No further questions at this time, 13 Your Honor. 14 THE COURT: We will take a 15-minute recess. 15 COURT CLERK: All rise. 16 This court is in recess. 17 (At 10:54 a.m., recess.) 18 THE COURT: Okay. What is next? 19 MR. LOVE: Brief redirect, Your Honor. 20 REDIRECT EXAMINATION 21 BY MR. LOVE: 22 Q. Professor Boyle, did you receive any recognition or 23 rewards from Bosnia for your efforts on their behalf? 24 A. While I was never paid a penny, but President Izetbegovic 25 and Vice President Gonich (phonetic) held a ceremony at KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 83 1 the Bosnian presidency with a-- awarded me full-fledged 2 citizenship in the Republic, a diplomatic passport and 3 visa and a declaration and they put the ceremony on 4 television, so that was very nice. So technically I'm a 5 Bosnian citizen too. 6 Q. Dr. Boyle, with respect to your work on the Hawaiian 7 independence that Mr. Dodge asked you about, has there 8 been any action by the President or Congress, to your 9 knowledge, with respect to that? 10 A. Yes. In 1993 Congress passed a statute signed into law by 11 President Clinton formally apologizing to the native 12 Hawaiian people for destroying their kingdom and stealing 13 their land. The legislation at the end provides for a 14 process of reconciliation and reparations, and how this is 15 going to be dealt with, and I'm still currently involved 16 in those matters. 17 Q. Dr. Boyle, there should be a document up there marked 18 Plaintiff's Exhibit 13. Do you see that? 19 A. Yes, I have it here. 20 Q. Now, this is entitled a Nonproliferation Arms Control 21 Assessment of Weapons Usable Fissile Material Storage and 22 Excess Plutonium Disposition Alternatives, dated January, 23 1997 authored by the United States Department of Energy, 24 correct? 25 A. Yes. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 84 1 Q. Was this among the documents that you reviewed in 2 preparing your testimony? 3 A. I did not have -- I did not get this entire document until 4 Monday, so I did not have a chance to review the entire 5 document, but I have reviewed the excerpts you gave to 6 me. 7 Q. Now Mr. Dodge asked you-- for the record, Your Honor, the 8 excerpt only contains Pages 106 and 107-- Mr. Dodge asked 9 you about your testimony about the possibility of future 10 shipments of MOX to Taiwan and Korea. Do you remember him 11 asking you about that? 12 A. Yes. 13 THE COURT: He didn't ask what the possibility 14 is, he asked if there were plans by Russia or the United 15 States to ship to those two nations. That was the 16 question. 17 MR. LOVE: Okay. 18 THE COURT: And the answer was no. Not are 19 there possibilities. I know the witness thinks there are 20 possibilities, that won't help me any. I understand 21 that. 22 BY MR. LOVE: 23 Q. In fact, Dr. Boyle is it true that in this document the 24 DOE indicates there are possibilities such as you 25 testified about? KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 85 1 A. Yes. 2 THE COURT: I accept that. You are wasting my 3 time. There are possibilities. 4 BY MR. LOVE: 5 Q. Dr. Boyle, if you would, I direct your attention to the 6 large document that's in front of you. This is 7 Proliferation Venerability Red Team Report, Plaintiff's 8 Exhibit 28, and introduced in the prior hearing. 9 A. Yes, and I read this entire report prior to my testimony 10 here today. 11 Q. I'm going to ask you, if you would, to direct your 12 attention to Page 6-1, the conclusions to that report. 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. And again, this is a document that was produced by Sandia 15 Laboratories for the Department of Energy? 16 A. That is correct. 17 Q. Directing your attention to the first conclusion, under 18 the conclusion, keeping plutonium inaccessible is the key 19 to proliferation resistance, do you see that? 20 A. Yes. It says quite clearly, all plutonium from all stages 21 of all alternatives can be made weapons usable should 22 sufficient material be successfully removed. And I should 23 point out that is the position Congress takes under the 24 Nuclear Nonproliferation Act of '78, the Act of '94 and 25 the '98, all plutonium can be made weapons usable. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 86 1 Q. In your view, is that conclusion by the Sandia Lab in this 2 Red Team Report consistent with your testimony? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. Now, Mr. Dodge asked you if there was transport of 5 plutonium across boundaries all the time. My notes 6 reflected you said yes. Do you remember that testimony? 7 A. I said there was some, yes. 8 Q. Is there routinely transportation of weapons grade 9 plutonium shipped across boundaries all the time by the 10 United States? 11 A. No. No. 12 MR. LOVE: No further questions. 13 MR. DODGE: No recross, Your Honor. 14 THE COURT: You may step down. 15 THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honor. 16 Your Honor, did you have any questions? 17 THE COURT: No, I don't. 18 THE WITNESS: Thank you. 19 THE COURT: You've exceeded your time so I take 20 it you have no more witnesses. 21 MR. LOVE: Your Honor, I have no more witnesses 22 but at this time I would like to move our Exhibit 5, 23 Exhibit 7, Exhibit 11, Exhibit 12, Exhibit 13, Exhibit 14 24 and Plaintiff's Exhibit 2 and Exhibit 1 into evidence. 25 MR. DODGE: No objection, Your Honor. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 87 1 THE COURT: 5, 7, 11, 12, 13 and 14, 1 and 2 are 2 received. 3 MR. LOVE: Thank you, Your Honor. We have 4 nothing further. 5 THE WITNESS: Here are the exhibits. Where do 6 you want them? 7 MR. LOVE: I'll take them here. 8 (Hearing continued; reported, not requested 9 transcribed.) 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 88 1 2 3 4 5 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE 6 7 I, Kathleen S. Thomas, Official Court Reporter for the 8 United States District Court for the Western District of 9 Michigan, appointed pursuant to the provisions of Title 28, 10 United States Code, Section 753, do hereby certify that the 11 foregoing is a true and correct transcript of proceedings had 12 in the within-entitled and numbered cause on the date 13 hereinbefore set forth; and I do further certify that the 14 foregoing transcript has been prepared by me or under my 15 direction. 16 17 18 19 20 __________________________________ 21 Kathleen S. Thomas, CSR, RPR-1300 22 U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue 23 Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 24 25 KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (voice) 217-244-1478 (fax) fboyle at law.uiuc.edu (personal comments only) Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Brussel, Morton K Sent: Monday, November 06, 2017 7:56 PM To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: David Green >; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; Estabrook, Carl G > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] FW: MOX for Bombs in Japan I think this is wrong. MOX fuel is mainly used for fuel in nuclear power reactors, not to make bombs. Japan had/has many nuclear reactors. A fairly intelligible discussion is found in wikipedia, under "MOX nuclear”. —mkb On Nov 6, 2017, at 4:40 PM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss > wrote: This was a very lengthy interview I gave in Japan courtesy of their peace and anti-nuclear movement. It was heavily censored. My basic point was that Japan was using MOX to make bombs and that my best estimate was that Japan probably had as many bombs as PRC, which would be in the area of 500. So when the details of the disaster at Fukushima came out, it was clear to me it was one of their leading bomb complexes. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: globenet at yahoogroups.com [mailto:globenet at yahoogroups.com] Sent: Saturday, March 21, 2015 8:10 AM To: globenet at yahoogroups.com Cc: 'Hiroshi Taka'; 'Gensuikyo'; 'Akira Kawasaki'; oheyeran at yahoogroups.com; asia-pacific_demil_mdg-request at lists.riseup.net; 'Coleen Rowley'; 'Douglas Roche' Subject: [globenet] MOX for Bombs in Japan Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (Voice) 217-244-1478 (Fax) (personal comments only) __._,_.___ ________________________________ Posted by: "Boyle, Francis A" > ________________________________ Reply via web post • Reply to sender • Reply to group • Start a New Topic • Messages in this topic (1) VISIT YOUR GROUP [Yahoo! Groups] • Privacy • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use . __,_._,___ _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brussel at illinois.edu Tue Nov 7 04:09:59 2017 From: brussel at illinois.edu (Brussel, Morton K) Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2017 04:09:59 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: MOX for Bombs in Japan In-Reply-To: References: <5B253921-B91A-4A46-B18B-A94C48E12123@illinois.edu> Message-ID: I will comment no longer on this issue; you are twisting in the wind, Francis, with sad but laughable arguments. On Nov 6, 2017, at 9:39 PM, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: And by the way, the reason Japanese Peace Movement had me interviewed is because they know full well that their MOX Stockpile is used for weapons purposes. fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Monday, November 06, 2017 9:30 PM To: Brussel, Morton K > Cc: David Green >; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; Estabrook, Carl G > Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] FW: MOX for Bombs in Japan If you are not going to take the time to read these two Testimonies under oath and subject to cross-examination by the Feds of two Experts on MOX in United States Federal District, then you should stop impugning my integrity in favor of Wikipedia—pure guttersnipe! fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Brussel, Morton K Sent: Monday, November 06, 2017 9:13 PM To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: David Green >; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >;chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; Estabrook, Carl G > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] FW: MOX for Bombs in Japan I don’t know who qualified you as an expert of nuclear reactors and the nature of their fuels, nuclear physics or nuclear chemistry. Your statements belie that qualification. I hope you don’t expect me, or anyone on this list, to read the transcript you presented, but I did scan it and noted nothing in technical detail there about the properties and use of MOX, certainly not for bombs. Sorry, —mkb On Nov 6, 2017, at 8:38 PM, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: Well I have been qualified as an Expert on MOX in United States Federal District Court. And I prohibit my law students from citing Wikipedia to me in any paper and advise them to never cite or quote Wikipedia to a Judge because Wikipedia is filled with so much pure, unadulterated BULL-TWADDLE. Fab. Subject: Nuclear Proliferation/NPT/US Atomic Energy Law/MOX, etc. 1 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 3 SOUTHERN DIVISION 4 5 ALICE HIRT; ANABEL DWYER; CITIZENS FOR ALTERNATIVES 6 TO CHEMICAL CONTAMINATION; KATHRYN CUMBOW; ROBERT 7 ANDERSON; DORIS SCHALLER VERNON; and TERRY MILLER, 8 Plaintiffs, 9 v. CASE NO: 1:99-CV-933 10 BILL RICHARDSON, Secretary, 11 United States Department of Energy; UNITED STATES 12 OF AMERICA; and UNKNOWN PART(Y)(IES), named as 13 "John and Jane Doe" on complaint, 14 Defendants. 15 ____________________________/ 16 * * * * 17 18 TESTIMONY OF GORDON EDWARDS and FRANCIS BOYLE 19 * * * * 20 21 BEFORE: THE HONORABLE RICHARD ALAN ENSLEN United States District Judge 22 Kalamazoo, Michigan April 7, 2000 23 24 25 KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 2 1 APPEARANCES: 2 APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFFS: 3 MR. KARY LOVE 4 977 Butternut Drive PMB 128 5 Holland, Michigan 49424 6 MR. TERRY J. LODGE 316 North Michigan Street, Suite 520 7 Toledo, Ohio 43624-1627 8 APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANTS: 9 MR. ROBERT I. DODGE 10 MR. CHARLES GROSS U.S. Attorney's Office 11 330 Ionia Avenue, N.W., Suite 501 P.O. Box 208 12 Grand Rapids, Michigan 49501-208 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 3 1 INDEX 2 WITNESS: Page 3 GORDON EDWARDS Direct Examination by Mr. Lodge 4 4 Cross Examination by Mr. Dodge 17 Redirect Examination by Mr. Lodge 20 5 6 FRANCIS BOYLE 7 Direct Examination by Mr. Love 21 Cross Examination by Mr. Dodge 67 8 Redirect Examination by Mr. Love 82 9 10 EXHIBITS Rec'd. 11 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 1 87 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 2 87 12 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 3 31 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 5 87 13 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 6 87 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 11 87 14 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 12 87 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 13 87 15 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 14 87 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 4 1 Kalamazoo, Michigan 2 April 7, 2000 3 at approximately 8:50 A.M. 4 EXCERPT OF PROCEEDINGS 5 TESTIMONY OF GORDON EDWARDS 6 MR. LODGE: We waive opening. 7 THE COURT: Okay. Good for you. 8 MR. LODGE: And we would call Gordon Edwards. 9 GORDON EDWARDS - PLAINTIFFS' WITNESS - SWORN. 10 COURT CLERK: Please state and spell your name 11 for the record. 12 THE WITNESS: My name is Gordon Edwards, 13 G-o-r-d-o-n E-d-w-a-r-d-s. 14 DIRECT EXAMINATION 15 BY MR. LODGE: 16 Q. Dr. Edwards, you previously testified in this proceeding 17 in an earlier motion hearing in December, 1999, correct? 18 A. That is correct. 19 Q. And what, just summarize for the Court, to refresh the 20 Court's recollection, what is your occupation or 21 profession? 22 A. I'm a professor of mathematics at Vanier College in 23 Montreal, and I'm also a consultant on nuclear issues for 24 both governmental and nongovernmental agencies. 25 Q. Are you affiliated with any nongovernmental entity in KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 5 1 Canada regarding the purpose of which is to discuss 2 nuclear issues? 3 A. Yes, I'm the president of the Canadian Coalition for 4 Nuclear Responsibility, which is a federally incorporated 5 organization, since 1978. 6 Q. And how long and in what capacities have you served as a 7 consultant on nuclear issues? 8 A. I've served as a consultant since 1977 for a variety of 9 bodies, including Royal Commissions of Inquiry where I 10 have been retained to cross-examine expert witnesses, also 11 the auditor general of Canada when they were doing a 12 comprehensive audit of the Atomic Energy Control Board, 13 and most recently I was invited for January 2000 by the 14 Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs and International 15 Trade to participate in a small expert workshop on nuclear 16 weapons policies in Ottawa. 17 Q. And Dr. Edwards, have you had the occasion to read the 18 environmental assessment promulgated by the Fissile 19 Materials Office of the U.S. Department of Energy for the 20 Parallex Project? 21 A. Yes, I have, and have commented on that as well. 22 Q. We are here today on a proposed shipment of MOX plutonium 23 from Russia to Chalk River, Ontario, you understand that? 24 A. That is correct. 25 Q. What is your understanding as to the amount of the KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 6 1 plutonium content of the MOX fuel rods, pins that would be 2 brought from Russia? 3 A. The MOX fuel contains 135 grams of weapons grade plutonium 4 as compared with the 119 grams that were in the American 5 shipment that proceeded in January. 6 Q. Now, Dr. Edwards, you indicated that the Canadian 7 Coalition was incorporated in approximately 1978? 8 A. That's right. 9 Q. Have you been active in nuclear issues since that time? 10 A. Even before that time, yes. I have been active 11 specifically on proliferation questions and 12 plutonium-related questions since 1975. 13 MR. LODGE: If I may approach. 14 THE COURT: Of course. 15 BY MR. LODGE: 16 Q. Showing you what has been marked for purposes of the 17 supplemental motion hearing as Plaintiff's Exhibit 1, I'm 18 going to also leave Exhibit 2 up here. 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. Have you ever conducted any investigation into the issue 21 of civilian population or work exposures to plutonium? 22 A. Only at the level of potential for damage, potential for 23 harm. 24 Q. What is Exhibit 1? 25 A. Exhibit 1 is a letter from Mary Measures, Ph.D., Director KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 7 1 of the Radiation Environmental Protection Division of the 2 Atomic Energy Control Board of Canada dealing with 3 quantity of plutonium that an atomic radiation worker or a 4 member of the public may inhale to reach their respective 5 maximum limits. 6 Q. And the date of that is September 30, 1999? 7 A. That is correct, about six months ago. 8 Q. And could you summarize what the inhalation, or what the 9 limits are for both workers and for public? 10 A. Yes. The maximum lifetime limit of exposure in the lung 11 for an atomic worker is approximately 1.4 micrograms, and 12 for the member of the public it's 0.1 microgram, and a 13 microgram being one one-millionth of a gram, so if we 14 translate this into grams, it would mean 1.4 grams would 15 be equivalent-- would be enough to give maximum 16 permissible doses to one million workers and ten -- one 17 gram would be enough to give maximum permissible doses to 18 ten million members of the general public. That's just 19 potential. 20 Q. Okay. And is that based on the -- or, I'm sorry. Have 21 you had occasion in connection with the proposed Russian 22 shipment of a 135 grams of plutonium and the American 23 shipment of 119 grams, to perform any computations as to 24 what the potential dispersion or exposure is? 25 A. Well, I would like to emphasize this is just arithmetic KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 8 1 and does not take into account dispersion factors such as 2 wind velocity, any respiration rates, and so on. If we 3 just look at the theoretical potential, then with 119 4 grams, we are talking about the potential for 85 million 5 atomic workers to receive their maximum permissible 6 exposure, if that were able to be disseminated into all of 7 their lungs and 1,000,190,000 members of the general 8 public, so even though this is a very small amount of 9 plutonium, the potential for exposure, harmful exposure is 10 quite significant. 11 Q. All right. But so that implies you would have to have an 12 optimal dispersal? 13 A. This would be an impossibly optimal dispersal. This would 14 be assuming that the plutonium were distributed fully into 15 the lungs of all the people that I've mentioned. 16 Q. Are you aware of whether or not the American shipment was 17 delivered to Chalk River? 18 A. Yes, the American shipment was delivered to Chalk River. 19 It was taken to the border in what I believe was an SST, a 20 truck which was described as silver, and I believe it was 21 probably an SST, although I do not know for absolute 22 certainty about that, and then it was transported to the 23 Sault Ste. Marie airport where it was lifted by helicopter 24 accompanied by two other helicopters, and transported from 25 there to Chalk River. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 9 1 Q. You indicated that you were talking about an impossibly 2 optimal dispersal. Have you had the occasion to perform 3 any computations as to a very conservative prudent factor 4 to start with for dispersal? 5 A. Well, this is beyond my competence to really talk about 6 the details of how it might be dispersed, but if we just 7 assume for example 99.9 percent containment in the event 8 of a serious accident. 9 Q. Are you saying how much? 10 A. Suppose 99.9 percent of the material were successfully 11 contained and not disseminated in the environment and only 12 that small fraction was disseminated. 13 Q. Okay. 14 A. The potential again would correspond to, for atomic 15 workers in the case of the 119 gram shipment from the 16 States, it would be 85,000 maximum exposures and in the 17 case of the public, it would still over a million. Even 18 with 99.9 containment, in the event of an accident, you 19 still have the potential for over a million 20 overexposures. By the way, the 135 grams, the difference 21 between the 119 grams and the 135 grams from Russia 22 corresponds to potentially again 160,000 additional 23 maximum exposures for members of the public. 24 Q. How many for workers? 25 A. 11,428. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 10 1 Q. That's just -- 2 A. That's just the differential between the two shipments, 3 just the added, going from 119 to 135 adds the potential 4 for another 11,000 worker overexposures or 160,000 public 5 overexposures. This, I believe, is why authorities take 6 such great care to emphasize the packaging in transport. 7 They realize that the potential is great for damage. 8 Q. Do your computations reflect an assumption respecting 9 whether or not the dispersion occurs as a result of an 10 accident or an attack? 11 A. No, we are talking about theoretical potential which is 12 the same regardless of how much or whether the material is 13 dispersed. In an accident, for example, we have 14 previously seen accidents that were analyzed for ground 15 transportation. I have not seen any computations or 16 analysis of accidents for air transport either from the 17 American side or from the Canadian side. 18 Q. Are you talking with respect to Parallex? 19 A. I'm talking with respect to Parallex. 20 If you had, for example, a violent crash and 21 fire of an aircraft, including a helicopter, then the 22 dispersal would cause a plume downwind, could cause a 23 plume downwind, and how much of that plutonium would 24 escape would be subject to analysis which is not, to my 25 knowledge, been performed. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 11 1 Q. Dr. Edwards, do you consider the plutonium in MOX fuel 2 form to be a weapons component? 3 A. Well, in the case of the Parallex project, as you know, 4 this 119 grams or 135 grams, there is not enough there to 5 make an atomic bomb. However, it has long been known that 6 you can make a very damaging radiological explosive device 7 which would simply disperse the plutonium in breathable 8 form. That means that if the plutonium were acquired by a 9 criminal organization or terrorist group they could make 10 an incendiary device which would make this available to be 11 breathed by members of the public and also cause very 12 long-lasting contamination of the environs where this 13 exposure would take place. I believe that it would be 14 incorrect to say that these, even this small Parallex 15 shipment, would not be attractive to terrorists or to 16 criminal organizations as a top -- as a target for theft 17 or diversion. It is true, of course, that this is weapons 18 grade material and had one, if one had sufficient weapons 19 grade material, one indeed can make a very powerful atomic 20 bomb from that. 21 Q. Have you seen any literature or other information in or 22 out of the record of this case that discusses the weapons 23 potential for plutonium? 24 A. Well, yes, it's certainly common knowledge that the -- in 25 fact, the U.S. Department of Energy acknowledges as much KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 12 1 when they refer to the Russian plutonium, the Russian 2 weapons grade plutonium is continuing a clear and present 3 danger. It's long been known and recognized that 4 plutonium is the key ingredient of atomic weapons, so if 5 one talks about components of atomic weapons, the 6 plutonium is the essential component. Once you have the 7 plutonium, then you can acquire the other materials on the 8 open market that are necessary to build a bomb. 9 Q. How do you know that? 10 A. Well, it's been well known for a long time. For instance, 11 there was a study done, published in the Harvard Civil 12 Rights and Civil Liberties Law Review -- I could make that 13 available to the Court, if you would like -- in 1975 as 14 long ago as then, which says, "Since all the material 15 other than plutonium needed to build a bomb is available 16 from commercial hardware and chemical suppliers, the 17 present obstacle to the private construction of nuclear 18 weapons is the unavailability of plutonium." 19 But if we just turn to the study that was 20 commissioned and already on file, I believe, here at the 21 Court, a study that was commissioned by the Office of 22 Fissile Materials Management called the Red Team Report, 23 the Red Team Proliferation Vulnerability Report. 24 In their conclusions on Page 6-1, they have a 25 heading called Keeping Plutonium Inaccessible is the Key KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 13 1 to Proliferation Resistance. So what is basically being 2 said here is plutonium is not just a component but the key 3 component of atomic bombs particularly in the context of 4 illicit groups. 5 Q. Dr. Edwards, could you explain for us Canada's role in the 6 reprocessing of plutonium? 7 A. Well, Canada's role in plutonium goes back to the World 8 War II Atomic Bomb Project. We had a secret laboratory in 9 Montreal which was manned by British, French and Canadian 10 scientists dedicated to developing methods for producing 11 and separating plutonium for weapons purposes as well as 12 civilian purposes, because even then it was anticipated 13 plutonium would have some civilian value. At the end of 14 the war -- incidentally, the first reactor in Canada was 15 built according to a military decision taken in 16 Washington, D.C. in 1944, to demonstrate this potential. 17 The reactor called the NRX reactor was built at 18 Chalk River and a plutonium reprocessing plant was built 19 as well. Plutonium was separated and Britain received its 20 first sample of weapons grade plutonium from Canada from 21 Chalk River just months before their first atomic test. 22 There was also an illicit transfer of plutonium 23 from Chalk River to Russia, which was so the first samples 24 of plutonium that both Britain and Russia received were 25 from Chalk River. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 14 1 Since that time, Canada, of course, has taken a 2 policy decision not to pursue a nuclear weapons option 3 itself, but they have, however, looked favorably on the 4 idea of reprocessing plutonium for civilian purposes. 5 They do not have a policy which is against the 6 reprocessing of plutonium in principle and nor do they 7 discourage their clients, their customers overseas from 8 reprocessing plutonium. And in fact, in Canada, there is 9 an open door policy towards reprocessing as a future 10 option. 11 We just concluded recently a ten-year 12 environmental assessment of the problem of high-level 13 radioactive waste disposal, and in all of the documents it 14 begins by saying, in the very first paragraphs, that by 15 nuclear waste disposal, we mean either spent fuel or 16 post-reprocessing waste. So this is very much a 17 theoretical opening and a policy opening for Canada to use 18 plutonium as a fuel. 19 Q. Showing you what has been marked as Supplemental Motion 20 Exhibit 2, can you identify that for the Court, please? 21 A. Yes. This appears to be an exchange from the British 22 Parliament, questions and answers having to do with 23 nuclear fuel, and the Secretary of State for Trade and 24 Industry is being asked about quantities of spent fuel 25 from Canada that have been contracted for reprocessing at KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 15 1 Cello Field in England. 2 Q. And can you summarize your understanding of what the 3 response by the British Government was? 4 A. Yes. The response here is that a certain amount of 5 plutonium, a certain amount of spent fuel from Canada has 6 been reprocessed beginning in 1970, and that the plutonium 7 has been returned to Canada. I have personal knowledge of 8 the fact that at Chalk River they have maintained a pilot 9 plutonium fuel fabrication line since the 1970s, since 10 1970 and before, and that they have processed at Chalk 11 River approximately three tons, more than three tons of 12 MOX fuel from recycled civilian plutonium. This is part 13 of that, the plutonium that is here being referred to as 14 being recycled or reprocessed in Britain, that's part of 15 the total amount of plutonium that Canada has acquired for 16 the purposes of MOX fabrication. 17 I mentioned that Canada also does not discourage 18 client customers from reprocessing. This is in 19 distinction to the American policy. The American policy, 20 since the Carter administration, successive 21 administrations have maintained the policy of not only not 22 allowing reprocessing in the United States, but also 23 discouraging reprocessing in other countries insofar as 24 that is possible. Canada does not share this policy 25 completely. We do not reprocess in Canada but, on the KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 16 1 other hand, we don't hesitate, it seems, to send our spent 2 fuel to other countries to get reprocessed so that we can 3 develop expertise in plutonium recycling. 4 Q. Does Canada have any relationship with the nation of Japan 5 respecting nuclear material? 6 A. Yes. Canada, as is probably known to the Court, is the 7 world's largest exporter of uranium. We are one of the 8 world's largest producers of uranium and the world's 9 largest exporter of uranium. We have bilateral agreements 10 with our customers as to the use of that uranium. Of 11 course, we have requirements that that uranium not be used 12 for military purposes. If a client customer such as Japan 13 who buys a good deal -- Japan purchases a good deal of 14 uranium from Canada. If a client customer wishes to 15 reprocess their spent fuel to recover plutonium, they do 16 have to get prior permission from the Government of 17 Canada, so when plutonium is reprocessed for the Japanese, 18 in the case where uranium from Canada is involved, the 19 Canadian Government gives their permission for that. 20 Q. Even if it is offshore from Canada? 21 A. Yes. 22 MR. LODGE: Thank you. I have nothing further. 23 THE WITNESS: Thank you. 24 Sorry. 25 MR. LODGE: Yes? KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 17 1 THE WITNESS: Excuse me. 2 MR. DODGE: Not quite finished, Dr. Edwards. 3 THE WITNESS: You knew the time was short. I 4 was jumping the gun a little. 5 CROSS EXAMINATION 6 BY MR. DODGE: 7 Q. Good morning, Mr. Edwards. My name is Bob Dodge. We have 8 met once before back in December. 9 A. That's right. 10 Q. Just a few questions. You testified about the quantity of 11 plutonium that would be included in the Russian shipment. 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. Do you recall that? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. You testified that it was 135 grams? 16 A. That's what was announced, yes. 17 Q. And how many ounces is that? 18 A. How many ounces is that? 19 Q. Yes. 20 A. I don't think in terms of ounces. I have to do the 21 conversion. 22 Q. Can you do the conversion? 23 A. I don't have the -- 24 Q. If I told you that one ounce is 28 grams, does that sound 25 about right? KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 18 1 A. I have no reason to doubt it. We are on the metric system 2 in Canada, we don't use ounces anymore. 3 Q. I understand. If I estimated 135 grams was approximately 4 five ounces, would you quarrel with that? 5 A. I would have no reason to quarrel with that. 6 Q. Now, you also testified about the amount of plutonium that 7 would have to be inhaled in order to exceed the maximum 8 permissible dose under Canadian regulations? 9 A. That is correct. 10 Q. And in your testimony, as I understood it, the assumption 11 you were making was that every single molecule of 12 plutonium that was in that sample would end up in 13 somebody's lungs; is that right? 14 A. That's right. It's calculating the theoretical 15 potential. It is not talking about a realistic scenario. 16 Q. Not only would all of the plutonium have to end up in 17 someone's lungs, but the plutonium would have to be evenly 18 divided so that each person got exactly the same amount of 19 plutonium, it's not all concentrated in one person, you 20 would have to take one-millionths of the sample, put it in 21 one person's lungs and put the next one-millionth in the 22 next person's lungs and so on? 23 A. That is correct. 24 Q. Do you have any idea, if you performed the same analysis 25 on this table, what sort of toxicity numbers you would KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 19 1 get? 2 A. I have no idea of what that would be, no. 3 Q. Now you also talked about Canada's policies regarding 4 plutonium reprocessing. 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. Do you recall that? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. Do you have any understanding of whether the plutonium in 9 the Parallex MOX samples will or will not be reprocessed 10 in Canada? 11 A. It will-- to the best of my knowledge, it will not be 12 reprocessed in Canada, although that option apparently is 13 not decided. 14 Q. What is the basis for that last? 15 A. Because Canada has a policy that at sometime in the future 16 they may reprocess. 17 Q. Do you have any understanding whether there is an 18 understanding between the Government of Canada and the 19 Government of United States or the Government of Russia as 20 to whether these particular samples will or will not be 21 reprocessed? 22 A. I do not, no. 23 MR. DODGE: Thank you very much. 24 25 REDIRECT EXAMINATION KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 20 1 BY MR. LODGE: 2 Q. Dr. Edwards, the House of Commons question and answer, do 3 you know of any particular statistics on Canada's shipping 4 of spent fuel to British nuclear fields and fuels at Cello 5 Field? 6 A. I don't have those figures with me, I'm sorry. I could 7 supply them to the Court, if desired. I do have some 8 figures at my office at home, I don't have them here. But 9 we are talking -- if we are talking about three tons of 10 MOX being fabricated at Chalk River, then one could work 11 out approximately how much of that would contain 12 plutonium, how much plutonium would be contained assuming, 13 for example, three percent. 14 Q. Right. 15 A. And then one could reasonably suppose that the lion's 16 share of that would come from Cello Field. Now I have 17 figures on shipments from Cello Field, but I don't have 18 them here. 19 Q. My question is: Would you presume that the Atomic Energy 20 Control Board of Canada, or AECL of Canada, would make 21 public the fact that the spent MOX from Parallex were 22 being shipped to Britain for reprocessing? Would you 23 presume that would become public knowledge? 24 A. No, I would not assume anything related to plutonium would 25 become public knowledge in Canada. Canada has a very KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 21 1 non-public attitude toward plutonium dealings. In fact, 2 the existing plutonium dealings in Canada including the 3 BNFL contracts is not public knowledge other than as it 4 has been raised in foreign countries such as in Britain or 5 by documents that have been leaked to nongovernmental 6 organizations. This is not something which Atomic Energy 7 of Canada Limited makes public. 8 MR. LODGE: Thank you. 9 MR. DODGE: No recross, Your Honor. 10 THE COURT: You may step down, Dr. Edwards. 11 Thank you. 12 MR. LOVE: Your Honor, if it please the Court, 13 the Plaintiffs would call Francis Boyle to the stand 14 FRANCIS BOYLE - PLAINTIFFS' WITNESS - SWORN 15 COURT CLERK: Please be seated and state and 16 spell your name for the record. 17 THE WITNESS: My name is Francis Boyle. 18 F-r-a-n-c-i-s B-o-y-l-e. 19 DIRECT EXAMINATION 20 BY MR. LOVE: 21 Q. Dr. Boyle, are you currently employed? 22 A. Yes, I am a professor of international law at the 23 University of Illinois College of Law in Champaign. 24 Q. How long have you been employed in that capacity? 25 A. 1978. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 22 1 MR. LOVE: Your Honor, may I approach the 2 witness? 3 BY MR. LOVE: 4 Q. Dr. Boyle, I'm showing you what has been marked as 5 Supplemental Preliminary Injunction Hearing Plaintiffs' 6 Exhibit 3 and ask you if you can identify that document. 7 A. It's a copy of my professional resume. 8 Q. Was this resume prepared at or under your direction? 9 A. Yes. I think it's current as of January 28th, 1999. I've 10 been kind of busy in the last year, haven't revised it. 11 Q. To the extent it's current through that date, does that 12 accurately reflect your experience, education, seminars 13 that you participated in, and articles that you've 14 authored? 15 A. Not seminars I've participated in, that would be too many 16 but, you know, the essence of my professional career and 17 articles-- significant teaching, consulting, practice. 18 I'm also a licensed attorney as well. 19 Q. If you would, give us a brief recitation of your 20 educational background? 21 A. I attended the University of Chicago where I studied 22 international relations with Professor Hans Morganthal who 23 is the mentor of Dr. Henry Kissinger at Harvard. I was 24 one of seven students in my class elected to Phi Beta 25 Kappa as a junior. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 23 1 I also did work in mathematical biology, winning 2 the award for the work I did in that area by the world's 3 leading geneticist now at Harvard. 4 I graduated in three years. From there I went 5 to Harvard Law School. I have a J.D. Magna Cum Laude from 6 Harvard Law School specializing in international law. 7 I also entered the Graduate School of Arts and 8 Sciences at Harvard in the Department of Government. I 9 have a Master's degree and a Ph.D. in political science 10 specializing in international relations, international 11 politics. This is the same Ph.D. program that produced 12 Henry Kissinger, Zabanya Brezenski (phonetic) and other 13 high level U.S. Government officials. 14 I was at the Harvard Center for International 15 Affairs for two years. Kissinger and Brezenski had been 16 there before me. 17 I spent two years teaching in the Harvard 18 College undergraduates international law organizations, 19 human rights. I practiced law with a Boston law firm for 20 a year at Bingham, Dana and Gould, where I did 21 international tax, and tax, and then finally in 1978 I 22 came to the University of Illinois. I went up for tenure 23 at the beginning of my third year, which I got, and I've 24 been tenured there since, you know, many years. 25 Q. Since undertaking your position at University of Illinois, KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 24 1 have you specialized in any area with respect to 2 particular research, writing and international law? 3 A. Well, for the purpose of our proceedings today, yes. I 4 have been specializing an enormous amount on the nuclear 5 weapons, nuclear weapons policy, proliferation, arms 6 control. Going back to my studies with Professor 7 Morganthal 30 years ago so I've been involved in these 8 issues starting as a student since 1969 and continuously 9 until today. 10 THE WITNESS: Sorry, Your Honor, I have a bit of 11 laryngitis. 12 THE COURT: That's fine, no problem. 13 BY MR. LOVE: 14 Q. Dr. Boyle, if you would direct your attention to your 15 resume, I would like to touch on a few seminal points. On 16 the first page under teaching, the third entry down talks 17 about being a lecturer in Nuclear Weapons and 18 International Law, 21st Senior Conference on Nuclear 19 Deterrence at U.S. Military Academy at West Point in 20 1983. 21 A. Yes. This is a high level seminar run by the Pentagon, 22 not for the cadets, but for about 200 of the highest level 23 officials of the United States Government dealing with 24 nuclear weapons proliferation, nuclear weapons policies, 25 and I was asked to lecture to this conference, and I won't KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 25 1 go through all the high level officials there, but sitting 2 right in front of me for my lecture was the three star 3 general in charge of war operations at the Pentagon, at 4 that time General Mahaffey. And I also note I had read 5 the independent expert's report on the MOX program 6 U.S./Russia of 1977, one of the U.S. independent experts, 7 Richard Garwin was there with me and he was also a 8 lecturer with me to this group, so I do know that Garwin 9 was involved in the Parallex MOX recommendations. 10 Q. With respect to the second to the last entry on Page 1 of 11 Exhibit 3, talks about "Lecture Tour of the Soviet Union 12 on Nuclear Weapons and International Law for Lawyers' 13 Committee on Nuclear Policy and Association of Soviet 14 Lawyers" in 1986. What was involved with that? 15 A. Yes. The former Soviet Union, their equivalent to the 16 American Bar Association was the Association of Soviet 17 Lawyers, and in conjunction with the Lawyers' Committee on 18 Nuclear Policy headquartered here, they decided to invite 19 one professor to go over to the Soviet Union and lecture 20 around the country for two weeks on various issues related 21 to nuclear weapons and international law, and both 22 organizations selected me for this purpose, so I went over 23 for two weeks and gave several lectures per day, Moscow, 24 Leningrad, Kiev to professors, lawyers, peace people, 25 whoever, news media on various aspects of nuclear weapons KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 26 1 targeting doctrine as they relate to international law 2 and, in general, nuclear policies. 3 Q. If you would direct your attention, Dr. Boyle, to Page 2 4 under Practice, fifth entry down it says "Author, 5 Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989, Public Law 6 Number 101-298 (1990) (adopted unanimously by both Houses 7 of Congress)," could you explain what that means, please? 8 A. Yes. Your Honor, we are dealing here with a treaty, the 9 Nuclear Proliferation Treaty-- Nonproliferation Treaty of 10 1968. That treaty has been implemented by Congress in the 11 Nuclear Nonproliferation Act of 1978, the Nuclear 12 Proliferation Prevention Act of 1994 and also recent 13 amendments in 1998 to deal with the India/Pakistan 14 explosions. I have direct personal experience on how you 15 take a treaty, an international treaty, and implement it 16 as a matter of United States Constitutional law by working 17 with Congress. 18 The Biological Weapons Convention of 1972 is a 19 treaty that is a total, not only arms control reduction 20 and elimination treaty for biological weapons, I gave a 21 lecture on Capitol Hill calling for legislation, domestic 22 legislation to implement this treaty, and this 23 recommendation was taken up by a group I work for called 24 the Council of Responsible Genetics. I'm on their 25 Advisory Board. I also serve as counsel to them, so KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 27 1 pursuant to their request, I drafted the implementing 2 legislation, I authored it, how to implement this treaty. 3 And then we took it to members of the House and the Senate 4 and we shepherded it through the entire process dealing 5 with members of Congress, both Houses, including testimony 6 I prepared. At that point in time, the Reagan 7 administration was opposed to this implementing 8 legislation. I had to deal personally with their position 9 papers against it refuting these things. 10 Finally there was a change of policy when 11 President Bush came into office, to his credit, and they 12 supported the legislation. It finally was approved 13 unanimously by both Houses of Congress and signed into law 14 by President Bush in 1989. This legislation was called 15 the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989. It was 16 later amended in the anti-terrorism and effect Death 17 Penalty Act of 1996. 18 I thought I had drafted the most draconian piece 19 of legislation you could possibly imagine on biological 20 weapons, but there is always a loophole, Your Honor, so 21 Congress revisited this in 1996 to close some of the 22 loopholes that had not been apparent to me and the 23 scientists I worked with back in 19, starting in from '85 24 to about 1989. So I just cite this as having direct 25 personal experience with relationship between arms control KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 28 1 treatise, reduction treatise and then how they are 2 implemented by Congress. I have done this myself. On 3 biological weapons and I'm still involved in that issue. 4 Obviously, I have not been involved in the 5 drafting of the implementing legislation for the Nuclear 6 Proliferation Treaty of 1968, there are three pieces, but 7 I have read and reviewed the implementing legislation. I 8 have an understanding how they relate to the 9 Nonproliferation Treaty and I also teach a course on this 10 subject, that is how international laws related to the 11 United States Constitution is implemented by Congress and 12 also carried out in the courts. I teach an entire course 13 just devoted to this subject. 14 Q. Dr. Boyle, you've had some experience practicing before 15 what was known formerly as the International Court of 16 Justice but currently the World Court; is that correct? 17 A. Yes, I have. 18 Q. Could you relate to the Court a summary of that 19 experience? 20 A. Well, I've advised governments with respect to either 21 actual or potential World Court litigation, some of that 22 is still attorney/client confidence that I'm not prepared 23 to discuss. What I am prepared to discuss are those 24 matters that are in the public record. 25 I did serve as counsel to Libya on the Lockerbie KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 29 1 bombing case. It was my recommendation the-- 2 unfortunately President Bush had about the sixth fleet 3 mobilized off the coast of Libya and was about to bomb 4 Libya that we filed a lawsuit at the World Court to stop 5 the bombing. We filed a lawsuit, Libya was not bombed. 6 Later on, I was General Agent for the Republic 7 in Bosnia of Herzegovina before the International Court of 8 Justice. In other words, I was their first ambassador to 9 the World Court for the Republic of Bosnia, Herzegovina, 10 and I sued Yugoslavia for committing genocide against the 11 Bosnian people. I won two cease and desist orders 12 overwhelmingly in favor of Bosnia against Yugoslavia. 13 Later on, I publicly advised -- I advised the 14 Bosnian Government to sue Britain for aiding and abetting 15 genocide against Bosnia, and President Izetbegovic 16 instructed me to sue Britain for a genocide against 17 Bosnia. That lawsuit was terminated under duress, 18 threatened them, so they withdrew from those proceedings. 19 Q. Dr. Boyle, with respect to your writings, if you would 20 direct your attention to Page 3 of Exhibit 3, the last two 21 entries at the bottom -- excuse me, the second to last 22 entries entitled Nuclear Weapons and International Law: 23 The Arms Control Dimensions, do you see that? 24 A. Yes. This was the lecture I gave to the West Point 25 Military Academy senior conference proceedings, which they KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 30 1 did publish in their proceedings at West Point, and 2 actually under my books, I've just completed work on my 3 sixth book, which is entitled Nuclear Deterrence and 4 International Law. And right now it is sitting at Pluto 5 Press -- I guess that's appropriate for today's 6 proceedings -- Pluto Press in Britain. They have 7 expressed an interest in publishing it. They are 8 currently evaluating it. I do not have a contract on that 9 book, but I did get the e-mail just before I came here, so 10 I'll have to deal with that when I go back. 11 Q. With respect to your other publications, Dr. Boyle, I note 12 that on Page 4 you've got one entitled, about halfway 13 down, The Relevance of International Law to the "Paradox" 14 of Nuclear Deterrence. 15 A. That is correct. 16 Q. Can you tell us briefly what the subject matter is? 17 A. After I made the lecture at West Point, obviously the U.S. 18 military officials and others, we had a fairly vigorous 19 debate, let me put it that way. And that vigorous debate 20 between myself and these others led to this article that 21 was later published here in the United States and also 22 translated into Dutch, because the Dutch lawyers wanted it 23 to be available as part of the debate in Holland over the 24 deployment of the U.S. intermediate nuclear forces under 25 the Reagan administration, so they translated the whole KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 31 1 thing into Dutch and it was published in the Netherlands. 2 MR. LOVE: Your Honor, I have no further 3 questions of Dr. Boyle with respect to qualifications, and 4 I tender him for voir dire to the U.S. Attorney's Office 5 subject to my motion to admit Plaintiff's Exhibit 3 into 6 evidence. 7 MR. DODGE: I have no objection to the admission 8 of the C.V. 9 THE COURT: Exhibit 3? 10 MR. DODGE: Exhibit 3. 11 THE COURT: You have no voir dire questions to 12 ask either? 13 MR. DODGE: Not with respect to that exhibit. I 14 may get into the resume on the cross. 15 THE COURT: That's fair enough. 16 Exhibit 3 is received. 17 MR. DODGE: Thank you, your Honor. 18 BY MR. LOVE: 19 Q. Dr. Boyle, in preparing for your testimony here today, 20 could you please outline for the Court -- I think you have 21 done so somewhat already -- some of the documents that you 22 reviewed and the source materials you looked at in 23 preparing your testimony today? 24 A. I have a pretty detailed knowledge about these things 25 generally. For example, when the Nuclear Nonproliferation KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 32 1 Act first came out in 1978, I did read it, but in 2 preparation for this testimony today, I've gone back and 3 read the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, the Nuclear 4 Nonproliferation Act, the Nuclear Proliferation Prevention 5 Act of 1994, the 1998 amendments. I have read a large 6 quantity of documents produced by the Department of Energy 7 on the Parallex Project. I have read the Environmental 8 Assessment dealing with the aspects of international 9 environmental law that have not been dealt with in the 10 Environmental Assessment, in my opinion, should have been 11 dealt with the Stockholm Declaration, which is not there, 12 and the World Court Advisory Opinion on 1996, I have an 13 article on it that. I didn't go back and read the whole 14 advisory opinion, but I reread the portions of the 15 article, and other scholarly sources that deal with this 16 question. There are other sources I did not have a chance 17 to review not directly related to proliferation per se. 18 But for example, in my opinion the EA should 19 have dealt with the UN Convention on the Law of the Seas. 20 It's not in there. There's been nuclear accidents 21 convention, it's not dealt with in there. There is the 22 Bowel convention on the International Transportation of 23 Hazardous Substance and Toxic Materials, that's not in 24 there. I identified those as further sources that should 25 be analyzed in my opinion, but I haven't had a chance to KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 33 1 go back and review all of those sources. 2 Q. Dr. Boyle, did the types of materials that you've just 3 identified for the Court, are these the types of materials 4 that in your experience are relied upon by experts in the 5 field of international law in forming opinions as to the 6 legitimacy of governmental actions under internationally? 7 A. Yes. I also have experience reading environmental impact 8 statements. When the Pentagon produced the DEIS or the 9 biological defense research program, the Council for 10 Responsible Genetics asked me to evaluate this entire 11 thing -- it was an enormous document -- and submit formal 12 comments on it to the Pentagon, which I did do and they 13 did respond to. So this is the type of sources that 14 experts in my field would normally look at and review in 15 forming an opinion about Government behavior, and I have 16 done this before with respect to biological weapons. 17 Q. Dr. Boyle, I'm going to show you what has been marked for 18 identification as Plaintiff's Exhibit 4. Ask you to take 19 a moment to look at that and let me know when you've had a 20 chance to do so, please. 21 A. Yes. This is the treaty on the nonproliferation of 22 nuclear weapons, and as I've said, it has also been 23 implemented by Congress on the Nuclear Nonproliferation 24 Act of 1978, the Nuclear Proliferation Prevention Act of 25 1994 and also 1998 amendments. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 34 1 The critical point to keep in mind about this 2 treaty, Your Honor, is that Congress has passed 3 legislation expressing its understanding of what this 4 treaty means and what our obligations are under this 5 treaty. And this legislation is binding on the Department 6 of Energy, on the President, on the Department of State 7 and respectfully, Your Honor, on this Court. And what we 8 see, when you read through it all, is Congress has 9 decided, and prior to that the Atomic Energy Act as well, 10 that nuclear power, nuclear weapons, nuclear proliferation 11 is so important to the American people and our republic, 12 that they have decided to engage in micro management of 13 everything related to this subject and have pretty much, I 14 would not say completely eliminated, but whittled down 15 substantially any discretion that the executive branch 16 might have in this area. I have, as I said, I did read 17 the NPA back in 1978, but when you add in everything else, 18 what surprised me was how little discretion was left to 19 the executive branch with respect to nuclear 20 proliferation, nuclear weapons. In this area, they have 21 very little discretion. 22 Q. Professor Boyle, if you could, can you explain to the 23 Court what the implications are for Canada, Russia and the 24 United States under the Nonproliferation Treaty? 25 A. Well, my reading of both the treaty and in light of the KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 35 1 Department of Energy documents describing Parallex and 2 MOX, the Red Team report, many other documents that I've 3 read, in my opinion, there are serious problems, 4 compliance problems for this entire project under Articles 5 I, II and III of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty as 6 interpreted by the United States Congress. 7 The Article I deals with the obligations of the 8 United States and Russia. Each nuclear weapons State 9 Party to the Treaty, i.e. U.S. and Russia, undertakes not 10 to transfer to any recipient whatsoever, i.e. Canada, 11 nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices, and we 12 have a problem here in that Congress has interpreted this 13 to mean components of nuclear weapons or nuclear explosive 14 devices; that is, Congress simply does not interpret this 15 to mean you can't hand over a bomb, but a component for a 16 bomb is prohibited. And here we are dealing with weapons 17 grade plutonium, which Dr. Edwards has already testified 18 can be and indeed is, in his opinion, a component for 19 either a nuclear weapon or a nuclear explosive device. 20 Okay? 21 So when you read the treaty in light of the 22 statutory scheme, in my opinion, there are serious 23 compliance problems here with Article I, which have not 24 been addressed in the EA. The DOE has not dealt with any 25 of these problems at all in the EA, indeed, they have KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 36 1 basically said in one of their comments "Well, once we 2 give it to Canada, it's their problem," and that just is 3 an incorrect statement, in my opinion. 4 And it says "directly or indirectly," which 5 means also we, the United States, directly or indirectly 6 by encouraging and paying for the Russians to do this, you 7 see. So we are accountable for the Russian behavior 8 because we are working with them. And indeed, if we were 9 sued at the International Court of Justice -- let's 10 suppose something went wrong, Your Honor, and there was, 11 as Dr. Edwards testified, an aerial explosion in the 12 latest helicopter shipment and radiological dispersal of 13 plutonium that came across the border, killing Americans, 14 killing Canadians, others, if we were sued in World Court 15 over this, we would be found both jointly and severally 16 liable with Russia, with Canada, for any accident. 17 Likewise, this is followed up by both shipments on the 18 high seas of the plutonium. If there is an accident on 19 high seas, we could be sued at the World Court, the United 20 States, both ourselves and jointly and severally with 21 Russia and Canada over any accident here that might 22 happen. And that substantive liability could be based on 23 the U.N. Law of the Sea Convention. As I said, Your 24 Honor, I haven't had time to go through the environmental 25 provision of the Law of the Sea Convention, the Department KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 37 1 of Energy didn't even bother, and in the EA they did not 2 look at this at all. They did not consider this, but it 3 certainly is something that has to be considered, that 4 they haven't looked at. 5 And then "not in any way to assist, encourage or 6 induce any non-nuclear weapon State to manufacture or 7 otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear 8 explosive devices." Well, the problem here is Canada is 9 supposed to be a non-nuclear weapons state and says 10 "otherwise acquired nuclear explosive devices." Well, we 11 are giving them weapons grade plutonium, which again 12 Dr. Edwards has testified, and he is Canadian, is a 13 component of a nuclear weapons or nuclear explosive 14 device. And again, "or control over such weapons or 15 explosive devices." We are giving them weapons grade 16 plutonium. And if you look at how Congress has 17 interpreted this, they interpret it down to components, 18 they even talk about substances that they are trying to 19 regulate everything, and understand the 1978 legislation 20 was a very strict interpretation of what this treaty means 21 as far as the United States Government is concerned. And 22 I think we really need a comprehensive assessment here by 23 the Department of Energy as to whether or not any of these 24 transfers is consistent with Article I. Under the current 25 circumstances, they haven't bothered to look at any of the KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 38 1 terms as defined by Congress, the applicability of the 2 Congressional legislation to the transfers. 3 Likewise, Article II, Your Honor, Article II 4 deals with the Canadian obligations, "Each 5 non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes 6 not to receive the transfer from any transferor whatsoever 7 of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices." 8 Again, the same analysis here needs to be done. This 9 weapons grade plutonium, in my opinion and Dr. Edwards' 10 opinion, is clearly a component of either a nuclear weapon 11 or nuclear explosive device. And Canada, according to 12 this language, has agreed not to receive this material. 13 And by the way, as Dr. Edwards correctly pointed out, Your 14 Honor, this was consistent United States policy, stopping 15 proliferation of this type of material for any reason 16 going back to the Carter administration. We are seeing a 17 major dramatic change here in United States 18 nonproliferation policy, and that policy, Your Honor, 19 going back to the Carter administration, is enshrined in 20 law by Congress in the Nuclear Nonproliferation Act of 21 1978. So again, in my opinion, I believe these issues 22 likewise need to be addressed by the Department of 23 Energy. They have not been addressed in the environmental 24 assessment at all. 25 "Or control over such weapons or explosive KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 39 1 devices, directly or indirectly." Well, again, we are 2 giving Canada, either ourselves in the first shipment or 3 indirectly by means of the Russians in the second 4 shipment, control over a component for a nuclear weapon or 5 a nuclear explosive device. That's very clear they are 6 getting it. And according to the EA, we are trusting 7 their good intentions. There is no assurance in the EA 8 that this weapons grade plutonium is subject to 9 international safeguards. No. Despite the fact that 10 Congress has made it very clear that any transfer, and 11 Congress also made it clear in the legislation that they 12 are against any transfers of this type of stuff to other 13 States. But if there are any transfers at a minimum there 14 have to be absolute guaranteed protections on 15 international assurances to make sure it is not misused, 16 and you will note in the EA it says nothing about it. 17 There are no assurances about anything. 18 Now, "to manufacture or otherwise acquire 19 nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices; and 20 not to seek or receive any assistance in the manufacture," 21 etcetera, etcetera. 22 Article III then deals with the safeguard 23 requirements; that is, if there are transfers of materials 24 for peaceful purposes, and you know you can obviously, 25 Your Honor, you can read this yourself. There must be KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 40 1 safeguards. Under the supervision of the International 2 Atomic Energy Agency, the Environmental Assessment says 3 nothing at all about these safeguards. Nothing. It isn't 4 in there. 5 Apparently we have to rely on not even 6 statements by Canada that what we are transferring there, 7 what we are encouraging the Russians to transfer are 8 somehow going to be safeguarded despite the fact that 9 Article III says that there must be safeguards, and we 10 simply don't have them. 11 Q. Dr. Boyle, I'm going to show you what's been marked for 12 identification as Plaintiff's Exhibit 5 and ask you to 13 take a look in the upper right-hand corner, and after 14 you've had a moment to review that, let me know, please. 15 A. Yes. This is an article I had read in preparation for my 16 testimony here today, from the Toronto News. 17 Q. Based on your experience and expertise, Dr. Boyle, is this 18 the type of information that an international law scholar 19 could rely on in formulating opinions about the state or 20 nationally? 21 A. Well, here is stating comments by Mr. Tom Clemens, head of 22 the Washington-based Nuclear Control Institute. It's a 23 recognized organization dealing with nuclear policies, and 24 certainly experts in my field would rely upon statements 25 produced by the Nuclear Control Institute and, indeed, KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 41 1 prior to my testimony today, I did read several documents 2 produced by the Nuclear Control Institute just in the 3 normal course of preparing, yes. An expert in my field 4 would rely on this. 5 Q. Dr. Boyle, my recollection is you testified this appeared 6 in the Toronto -- 7 A. News. 8 Q. -- News and it -- 9 A. The Globe and Mail, which is, you know, it's sort of like 10 the New York Times here in the United States, a newspaper 11 of public record, so again, it's not like a tabloid or 12 something like this. 13 Q. Plaintiff's Exhibit 5, Dr. Boyle in the right-hand column 14 attributes some comments to a Sunni Locatelli purportedly 15 a spokeswoman at the Atomic Control Board. Do you see 16 that? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. What if anything is the significance, based on your 19 experience as expertise, of considering published reports 20 attributed to spokespersons for governmental entities in 21 formulating use of international law? 22 A. Yes. There is a decision by the International Court of 23 Justice in the nuclear test cases dealing with nuclear 24 explosions 1974, stating that the Court can rely upon 25 official statements made by Government officials acting KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 42 1 within their scope of authority and certainly Locatelli 2 here is the spokeswoman of the Atomic Energy Control 3 Board. So basically, I would be able to take this 4 statement and file it at the World Court and they would 5 find the statement could be, would be attributable to the 6 Canadian government, and Canada would be bound by this 7 statement. 8 Q. What does that article, Plaintiff's Exhibit 5, attribute 9 to Miss Locatelli? 10 A. She can't reveal how much fissile material Canada has. We 11 aren't able to give out that information under our 12 security regulations. Ms. Locatelli said Canada believes 13 it should come under the IA/EA guidelines because it 14 doesn't operate its own reprocessing facilities. I think 15 Dr. Edwards just pointed out that isn't correct. But even 16 if it were correct, it does come under IA/EA, and we need 17 to know, the United States Government under the NPT, under 18 the Congressional implementing legislation, we have to 19 know how much fissile material Canada has. 20 And basically, we are just taking their, 21 whatever their word is for it, and in my opinion, that's 22 unacceptable. We have to know how much material they have 23 and what they are doing with it, and what she's saying 24 here is "Well, we are just not going to tell you." And 25 you will note in the EA, the Department of Energy has KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 43 1 taken the same position. One of the comments made was 2 "Well, what is Canada doing," and the response of the DOE 3 is well, that is Canada's problem, once it leaves here we 4 are no longer responsible. The treaty and statutory 5 regime make it clear that's not the case. We are 6 responsible for our plutonium, wherever it goes. And 7 Congress has made it clear even if we do give it up, we 8 have to have absolute international safeguards as to what 9 is going to happen with our plutonium. And the same would 10 apply if we are encouraging Russia to ship weapons grade 11 plutonium to Canada. We have an obligation to make sure 12 that it's safeguarded and that it can be accountable and 13 accounted for. And what Ms. Locatelli here is saying 14 "Well, sorry, we are just not going to tell you." Again, 15 this raises serious problems in my mind that have not been 16 dealt with by the Department of Energy as to compliance 17 with the IA/EA safeguards regime, which is absolutely 18 required under Article III of the NPT and also required 19 under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Act. Indeed, if I 20 remember correctly, the 1994 implementation, Your Honor, 21 Congress said that transferring of unsafeguarded plutonium 22 is an act of international terrorism as far as Congress is 23 concerned. 24 So and that would trigger a whole host of other 25 provisions of the federal code dealing with international KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 44 1 terrorism, so we really need to know what is going to 2 happen to our plutonium when it gets up into Canada, and 3 to make sure there are safeguards and it is accountable 4 and there is an explanation here. 5 Now Mr. Clemens then said that, in his opinion, 6 Canada has 40 kilograms of plutonium, it's really not 7 accounted for or accountable for by anyone, and that 8 basically makes Canada a de facto nuclear weapons state. 9 I would agree, assuming that they do have the 40 kilograms 10 of plutonium, and I take it you know Mr. Clemens -- I had 11 e-mail correspondence with Mr. Clemens about this matter. 12 He feels that they do have it and that his group, the 13 Nuclear Control Institute, will be making this evidence 14 available soon. He told me it is not yet -- he is not yet 15 prepared to make it public, but they will be going public 16 with it soon. 17 In my opinion, if that is the case, they have 40 18 kilograms of plutonium, that's enough to make five bombs, 19 and that makes Canada a de facto nuclear weapons state 20 under the NPT and, in my opinion, would be inconsistent 21 with the NPT. There is a potential here for Canada being 22 in violation of the NET. We need to know that. Congress 23 has sanctions in there in the implementing legislation for 24 non-nuclear weapons states being, moving into a position 25 where they are de facto nuclear weapons states in KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 45 1 violation of the NPT. 2 It's clear Congress interprets our obligations 3 under the treaty to mean that a non-nuclear weapons state 4 simply cannot go off, assemble all the components for a 5 bomb, have one here, one there and one there, and then 6 say, oh but we are not a nuclear weapons state because we 7 haven't assembled the bomb. 8 Again, Congress made it very clear, no. Indeed, 9 in one of the pieces of legislation, Congress indicated 10 that it was also concerned with a facto nuclear weapons 11 states that an end run around the NPT, and the 12 Congressional regime applicable to it. Again, I regret to 13 report I haven't seen any of these issues dealt with by 14 the Department of Energy in the Environmental Assessments 15 and, indeed, when they were asked about it, they just said 16 this is now Canada's problem. Wondered-- United States 17 law of the NPT, it is not Canada's problem alone, it is 18 our problem because it's our plutonium and it's Russian 19 plutonium that we are paying to send up to Canada. 20 Q. Professor Boyle, based on the representations of Miss 21 Locatelli on behalf of Atomic Energy Control Board of 22 Canada that they don't believe they are subject to the 23 IA/EA guidelines, what if any impact would that have on 24 the United States' responsibility under the Nuclear 25 Nonproliferation Treaty of 1978? KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 46 1 A. It's very clear, Your Honor, the NPT and the Congressional 2 implementing legislation that we ourselves cannot ship 3 weapons grade plutonium there or engage in the Russians to 4 ship weapons grade plutonium unless there are absolutely 5 safeguards by the IA/EA that, to make sure that there is 6 no diversion. And again, Miss Locatelli is indicating 7 there is a high amount of uncertainty as to what is 8 happening with the Canadian plutonium. We simply don't 9 know. In the EA, there are no guarantees given by the 10 Department of Energy as to what is happening to plutonium 11 up in Canada. 12 Q. You may have testified to this, Dr. Boyle, and I apologize 13 if I missed it, but are Russia, Canada and the United 14 States all signatory partis to the Nonproliferation 15 Treaty? 16 A. Yes. We are all parties. There are about 182 or 183 17 states that are parties. The United States and Russia are 18 nuclear weapon states, parties to the convention, that is, 19 we are permitted to have nuclear weapons and nuclear 20 components, etc. Canada is designated a non-nuclear 21 weapons state. And they are supposed to preserve this 22 stative or statement. Yet according to the Nuclear 23 Control Institute, they have enough plutonium up there to 24 at least manufacture five bombs. So somehow this has to 25 be explained and accounted for in order for them to KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 47 1 continue their non-nuclear weapons state status under the 2 NPT, so again, the Nuclear Control Institute is raising 3 very serious compliance problems and potentially serious 4 violation of the NPT by Canada, and there are severe 5 sanctions in the United States laws enacted by Congress 6 under the Simplemen legislation, Your Honor, in the event 7 a state that is a non-nuclear weapons state moves to 8 become a nuclear weapons state. And again, none of this 9 has been addressed by the Department of Energy in the 10 environmental assessment that I'm aware of, either in the 11 environmental assessment or elsewhere. 12 Q. Dr. Boyle, could you advise the Court, if you would, as to 13 what the ramifications legally are of being a signatory 14 party to an international treaty such as the 15 Nonproliferation Treaty? 16 A. Yes. Your Honor, of course, the basic rule of Pacta Sunt, 17 P-a-c-t-a-s-u-n-t, Servanda, S-e-r-v-a-n-d-a. 18 The other point -- there are two other points, 19 however, that must be kept in mind in interpreting any 20 treaty and especially the NPT. First, the treaty must be 21 interpreted in good faith. And again, the question here 22 with Canada maintaining 40 kilograms of plutonium is 23 whether or not this is a good faith interpretation 24 implementation of the NPT by Canada. 25 Second, the treaty must be interpreted in KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 48 1 accordance with its object and purpose, and that in this 2 case the NPT is to stop nuclear proliferation. And again, 3 this entire program, the Parallex program, in my opinion, 4 seems to defeat the object and purpose of the NPT, which 5 is to stop nuclear proliferation. 6 The third point to keep in mind is that this 7 treaty has already been interpreted by Congress and 8 implemented by Congress. And Congress is agreeing with 9 what I'm saying here, Your Honor, and I'm agreeing with 10 what Congress is saying. Congress has made it very clear 11 that they do not want to see any type of nuclear 12 proliferation or programs that encourage nuclear 13 proliferation. And we are now seeing a drastic departure 14 from the policy enacted in Congress pursuant to the NPC 15 back in -- the NPT back in 1978 in the Nuclear 16 Nonproliferation Act, and we have seen no change in the 17 legislation by Congress to authorize or approve this 18 drastic change. And again, I agree with what Dr. Edwards 19 said from his Canadian perspective, my American 20 perspective, the Parallex MOX project is a drastic change 21 in encouraging proliferation of nuclear weapons components 22 and there has been no direct approval, change of statutes 23 or whatever. So again, this, in my opinion, raises very 24 serious problems under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty 25 as interpreted in good faith and in accordance with its KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 49 1 object and purpose not only for Canada, but the United 2 States and Russia. And in my opinion, we should have a 3 full study of all these issues by the Department of Energy 4 before there is any further movement on this project. 5 The implications here are enormous. They could 6 be catastrophic, and I personally would like to see a full 7 scale investigation analysis so that I could evaluate it 8 myself before anyone goes ahead with this project, but of 9 course that, you know, that's my personal opinion. I know 10 that's for you, Your Honor, to decide. 11 Q. Dr. Boyle, what if anything is the requirement or 12 obligation of the United States to interpret the 13 Nonproliferation Treaty in good faith? I think you 14 testified that Canada has that obligation. Does the 15 United States have a similar obligation? 16 A. Yes. And as a matter of fact, here Congress has 17 interpreted our obligation under the NPT and, in my 18 opinion, Congress has interpreted our obligations under 19 the NPT in good faith and also in accordance with the 20 object and purpose of this treaty. Congress interpreted 21 this by means of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Act of 1978, 22 the Nuclear Proliferation Prevention Act of 1994 and the 23 1998 amendments to do with the India-Pakistani 24 explosions. So in my opinion, Congress did interpret this 25 treaty in good faith and in accordance with its object and KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 50 1 purpose and it appears to me the Department of Energy is 2 off there on their own with no express authorization from 3 Congress pursuing a policy here that defeats the object 4 and purpose of the NPT. 5 Q. By that, you are referring to the Parallex project? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. With respect to the Congressional implementation of the 8 NPT in the '78, '94 and '98 acts, what if anything is the 9 role of the Department of State and/or Department of 10 Energy with respect to interpreting those obligations? 11 A. Yes. Your Honor, it's very clear from the treaty related 12 to the statutory scheme. Treaties deal with international 13 law and foreign relations. Therefore, they are normally 14 negotiated and concluded by the Department of State and 15 then they are handed over to the Senate Foreign Relations 16 to the Senate for advice and consent. It is the State 17 Department that traditionally has always had the sole and 18 exclusive role here in the United States with respect to 19 nonproliferation policy, not the Department of Energy. 20 The Department of Energy has always been treated as a 21 technical agency, technical consultant. The policy is 22 formulated by the State Department. There had been, again 23 going back to the Carter administration, United States 24 Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, Your Honor, set up by 25 Congress to deal precisely with these issues. They were KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 51 1 the ones given the authority to deal with proliferation 2 and nonproliferation policies negotiate these agreements, 3 etcetera. Senator Helms in the latest did not like act, 4 he concluded it was super numerator morgue or something so 5 he passed legislation terminating the Arms Control 6 Disarmament Agency and transferring all functions to the 7 Department of State today. But if you read the 8 Congressional implementing legislation, they make it very 9 clear that the lead role played on proliferation and 10 nonproliferation policy is the Department of State, not 11 the Department of Energy, and the Department of State 12 should consult with the Department of Energy. At times 13 the Department of Energy is given authority to have its 14 input to the Department of State, but it's the Department 15 of State that makes nonproliferation policy, not the 16 Department of Energy. 17 Q. In your review of the environmental assessment prepared by 18 the Department of Energy in January of '99, Dr. Boyle, 19 regarding the Parallex Project, is there any indication 20 that the Department of Energy consulted with the 21 Department of State? And if you don't mind, I direct your 22 attention to Page 41 of Plaintiff's Exhibit 12 previously 23 admitted and ask you to refer to that. 24 A. Yes. They had a list here of agencies consulted. Your 25 Honor, over here on Page 41, it says agencies consulted KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 52 1 during the preparation of this analysis: Atomic Energy of 2 Canada, Canadian Atomic Energy Control Board, U.S. 3 Department of Transportation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 4 Commission. They do not consult with the Department of 5 State and, in my opinion, and also in the opinion of 6 Congress, if you read through all the implementing 7 legislation, I know, Your Honor, as I understand it, you 8 are a conscientious Judge so I'm sure you are going to do 9 this, you'll see that they have to deal with the 10 Department of State. And the main problem with this EA is 11 they have not dealt with the Department of State, they 12 have not dealt with the nonproliferation issues, they have 13 not dealt with the Nonproliferation Treaty, they have not 14 dealt with the 1978 Act, they have not dealt with the 1994 15 Act, they have not dealt with the 1998 Act. All that is 16 expressly required by Congress. So again, in my opinion, 17 for some reason the Department of Energy has just decided 18 to go out there on its own and completely either ignore or 19 violate the Congressional statutes and procedures for 20 dealing with proliferation and nonproliferation issues. 21 Q. Dr. Boyle, to your knowledge, has the Department of State 22 retreated at all from the U.S. commitment to the 23 Nonproliferation Treaty as implemented by Congress through 24 the legislation you've indicated? 25 A. No, and as a matter of fact, Madeline Albright was just KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 53 1 out in India-Pakistan with President Clinton. As you 2 know, President Clinton stated that today India-Pakistan, 3 the Indian subcontinent is the most dangerous place on the 4 face of the earth because of the proliferation problem, 5 and they both have nuclear weapons now, and the dispute 6 over Casmir. 7 President Clinton then was just lectured in the 8 Indian Parliament publicly by the speaker of Parliament 9 for making the statement, but I think it's a fair and 10 accurate statement. Madeline Albright followed this up 11 with another statement reiterating our commitment to 12 nonproliferation and, specifically with respect to India 13 and Pakistan, that this was the policy of the United 14 States Government, and also tying this into the integral 15 importance of safeguards. 16 And again, that is a fair and accurate statement 17 of the policy being pursued by the President and the 18 Secretary of State that is charged under the legislation 19 and the Constitution to deal with these matters. There is 20 a complete and total disconnect here between what the 21 President and Secretary of State are saying and what the 22 Department of Energy is planning to do here in the 23 environmental assessment. 24 Q. Dr. Boyle, I'm going to show you what has been marked as 25 Plaintiff's Exhibit 11 and ask you to take a minute to KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 54 1 review that and let me know when you have had a chance to 2 do so, please. 3 A. Yes. This is an account of the Secretary of State 4 Albright's statement on April 2, as recently as April 2 5 dealing with our proliferation policies. And let me draw 6 a few things to your attention. United States regards 7 proliferation anywhere as our Number 1 security concern. 8 So again, she's pointing this out and she is the cabinet 9 officer with the authority to deal with these matters, not 10 the Secretary of Energy. We continue to seek universal 11 adherence to the NPT neither India nor Pakistan are 12 parties to the NPT. And here is crucial points: The 13 limits in our ability to cooperate with India and Pakistan 14 are a matter of U.S. law, as well as our international 15 obligations, all right? So Secretary Albright is pointing 16 out we have United States law that deals with 17 proliferation and this United States law -- of course, 18 she's not a lawyer -- but the U.S. law is the Nuclear 19 Nonproliferation Act, the Proliferation Prevention Act and 20 the '98 amendments as well as the Atomic Energy Act. So 21 there's a very comprehensive legislative scheme here as 22 well as our international obligation she points out. 23 There are international treaties here, and in particular 24 the most important one being the one she just referred to, 25 the Nonproliferation Treaty, and she is aware of that. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 55 1 Unfortunately, it does not appear that the Department of 2 Energy is aware of it or is concerned about it in the 3 least bit, at least as reflected in the environmental 4 assessment, they have not dealt with any of these issues 5 in environmental assessment nothing, none. 6 Q. Dr. Boyle, based on your experience and investigations 7 study, are you aware of whether or not India and Pakistan 8 have Canadian CANDU reactors? 9 A. As I understand it, they've got reactors from the Indian 10 Nuclear Bomb Project was a serous reactor, Canada, India 11 and United States, right. And Pakistan has a CANDU 12 reactor, right. And just the other day, the New York 13 Times reported the smuggling of substantial quantity of 14 nuclear materials out of the former Soviet Union towards 15 Pakistan that was recently intercepted in Kazakhstan, I 16 think. So I think this is a very serious problem. And I 17 don't see how this Parallex MOX -- it's only going to 18 compound the problem. These countries are doing 19 everything they possibly can. And here I would also add 20 in Israel is not a party to the NPT. There are other 21 states that have CANDU reactors, it has already been 22 reported in the professional literature, Your Honor, that 23 Japan too is a de facto nuclear weapons state in violation 24 of the NPT. And as Dr. Edwards already reported, they 25 have gotten a good deal of their nuclear material from KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 56 1 Canada. 2 So, we see -- Canadian reactors that are what, 3 in South Korea, Taiwan, states that are interested in 4 getting nuclear weapons. Clearly Taiwan wants them, South 5 Korea wants them. And you know, not that I can speak for 6 these governments, but it seems to me they have made a 7 decision the best way to get a weapon is to do it the way 8 the Indians did. We get a Canadian CANDU reactor, then we 9 start getting in whatever material we can get from, for 10 example, this MOX program. They will get plutonium and 11 then they can make a bomb, they can assemble a bomb. 12 As for the ease of assembling a bomb, Your 13 Honor, when I was a student at Harvard there was a very 14 bright student at MIT who, as a class project, assembled a 15 bomb. He had everything there except the plutonium. 16 That's how easy it is to assemble an atomic bottom, and he 17 brought it down there and, if I remember correctly, in 18 central square at MIT, and just showed it to everyone. 19 Even a bright student at MIT can assemble a bomb, that's 20 how easy it is to do. And what we see on these states 21 that say they are non-nuclear weapons states is an effort 22 to get a CANDU reactor and do what the Indians do use the 23 CANDU reactor, then they just need to get hold of the 24 plutonium, and Parallex MOX is going to give them access 25 to this plutonium if it gets in circulation. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 57 1 Q. Dr. Boyle, you've testified in some depth as to the 2 Nonproliferation Treaty and the implementation by Congress 3 indicating Congress' intent to prohibit even components, 4 parts of nuclear weapons to be covered by the U.S.; is 5 that correct? 6 A. Congress has interpreted the NPT, as I said, in good 7 faith, and to achieve its object and purpose and they have 8 interpreted to mean components that is clear of nuclear 9 weapons or nuclear explosive devices and there are other 10 areas in legislation where they even break it down to 11 items or substances that could be used for nuclear weapons 12 or nuclear explosive device, so Congress is aware of this 13 problem of a state becoming a de facto nuclear weapons 14 state and somehow trying to assemble components, items and 15 substances to be used for a nuclear weapon in order to 16 circumvent the treaty. So again Congress has interpreted, 17 I think, the treaty properly. 18 Q. Are you familiar in the course of your research with the 19 DOE's stockpile of stewardship program? 20 A. I am, yes. 21 Q. Are you familiar with their use in that program of 22 subcritical amounts of weapons grade plutonium? 23 A. Yes. Right now the Department of Energy is engaging in 24 what are known as subcritical tests. A subcritical test 25 is using -- they just did one this week, I think I gave KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 58 1 you the press release on it, and they are consistently 2 doing this. 3 A subcritical test uses a subcritical amount of 4 plutonium, which is under the -- it was eight kilograms. 5 And they are exploding it in order to test, verify and 6 develop the next generation of U.S. nuclear weapons. So 7 what we see the Department of Energy doing here is the 8 subcritical tests, in my opinion, would constitute it's 9 not a nuclear weapon, but it is a nuclear explosive 10 device. Now, there is nothing illegal with, under the NPT 11 with us having a nuclear explosive device, because we are 12 a nuclear weapons state party, but again, it creates 13 problems other states are now mimicking our behavior. 14 Russia is doing the same thing, France and Britain say 15 they are going to do the same thing. If we give weapons 16 grade plutonium to Canada, Canada could be doing the same 17 thing. Or the Russians give their weapons grade plutonium 18 to Canada, Canada could be doing the same thing, and other 19 states could be doing the same thing. So again, I think I 20 have serious concerns here, but I want to point out the 21 DOE is already engaged in the subcritical tests which are 22 clearly nuclear explosive devices. So it just doesn't 23 have to be a bomb to be regulated by the NPT. 24 Q. Dr. Boyle, in the scope of your experience and research, 25 have you become acquainted with the International Court of KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 59 1 Justice opinion regarding nuclear weapons in 1996? 2 A. Yes. As a matter of fact, I was part of the effort 3 originally to try to get that advisory opinion from the 4 World Court. 5 Q. If you would explain briefly what the significance, if 6 anything, of that World Court decision on the Parallex 7 project is, in your opinion? 8 A. Well, Your Honor, the World Court was asked by the United 9 Nations general assembly to give an opinion on the entire 10 question of nuclear weapons and international law. It's a 11 very long decision with many separate decisions in the 12 sense I've written an article here, Mr. Love might want to 13 provide it to you, going through all of it. But in this 14 opinion, there are two critical components that are 15 relevant to the Parallex MOX project and, of course, the 16 EA has not dealt with either, let alone the World Court 17 opinion, and the World Court opinion in this area 18 enunciates the rules of international law that are binding 19 on the United States Government, binding on Canada, 20 binding on Russia. The one component of this opinion 21 deals with the environmental-- international environmental 22 law applicable to nuclear weapons, and you will note in 23 the EA, the DOE does absolutely nothing at all with 24 international environmental law applicable to this 25 transaction because it is an international transaction, KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 60 1 they're shipping plutonium from the States up to Canada 2 and from Russia over to Canada. So international 3 environmental law is involved, and the DOE has done 4 nothing at all about it. 5 And Mr. Love, I think you have the exact 6 language there. You want to provide that to me, the exact 7 ruling of the Court on the international environmental law 8 that would apply? 9 MR. LOVE: Your Honor, we have tendered what I'm 10 going to show Dr. Boyle as Plaintiff's Exhibit 14, a copy 11 of the World Court opinion to both the Court and counsel 12 previously. 13 BY MR. LOVE: 14 Q. Dr. Boyle, I'm going to show you what has been marked as 15 Plaintiff's Exhibit 14 and ask you to take a look at that 16 and let us know when you've had a chance to do so and what 17 it is. 18 A. Right, this is the World Court advisory opinion. It's so 19 long, I'm going to have to get my notes on it, excuse me. 20 I think, Mr. Love, I gave you my notes last 21 night on the relevant provisions of the opinion, the 22 relevant paragraphs. 23 Q. While I'm looking for your notes, could you direct your 24 attention to Paragraph 27, please? 25 A. Right. What we need are the paragraphs here. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 61 1 Right. Yes, I have Paragraph 27. 2 Your Honor, here the World Court unanimously 3 adopted Principle 21 of the Stockholm Declaration of 1972, 4 which everyone would say today is a basic principle of 5 international environmental law, which the EA has not 6 bothered to deal with. And it basically says states have 7 a duty "to ensure that activities within their 8 jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to the 9 environment of other states or areas beyond the limits of 10 national jurisdiction." That's a basic principle of 11 international environmental law. It goes back to the 12 Stockholm Declaration of 1972. It has direct relevance 13 here to this entire project. You've got international 14 shipment of plutonium, it's going over the high seas if it 15 goes by boat from Russia. That also triggers the Law of 16 the Sea Convention that they have not dealt with. They 17 haven't dealt with the Stockholm Declaration, and they 18 have not dealt with this recent ruling by the World Court 19 as to obligations under international law. If you read 20 the EA when they are asked this question, they said "Once 21 we give to Canada, that's their problem." Well, again, 22 that isn't a correct statement of international law. It 23 is our problem. 24 The second important point of the ICJ opinion, 25 and there are other sections here dealing with the KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 62 1 environment -- and I know we have a limited amount of 2 time, I'm not going to go through it all -- deals with the 3 interpretation of the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty. 4 This is an international treaty, the World Court 5 also has authority to interpret the Nuclear 6 Nonproliferation Treaty, and they have interpreted the 7 Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. 8 Mr. Love, could you give me -- I identified a 9 paragraph for you, I think it's 102. 10 Q. I believe you are looking for Paragraph 102? 11 A. 102, right. 12 Q. May also want to take a look at Paragraph 99. 13 A. 99 and 102, right. 14 The World Court, in the same advisory opinion, 15 has also dealt with the NPT and the obligation of Article 16 VI of the NPT, "Each of the parties to the treaty 17 undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on 18 effective measures relating to cessation of the" -- "in 19 good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of 20 the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear 21 disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete 22 disarmament under strict and effective international 23 control." And they have interpreted this provision, NPT 24 Article VI, which we are a party to, by the way, to have a 25 dual obligation, two components here: One, we must pursue KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 63 1 negotiations on nuclear disarmament as a matter of good 2 faith. 3 Recently, I regret to report the U.S. Ambassador 4 to the Conference on Nuclear Disarmament sponsored by the 5 United Nations has said "We are not going to pursue 6 nuclear disarmament negotiations." In my opinion, that 7 puts us in breach of NPT Article VI, certainly as 8 interpreted by the World Court. We have an obligation to 9 pursue nuclear disarmament negotiations and we have just 10 said we are not going to do it. The Ambassador said "We 11 are going to pursue instead a treaty on the cutoff of 12 fissile materials such as what is at stake here, but we 13 are not going to pursue nuclear disarmament negotiations." 14 Well, Your Honor, it does seem to me that that is a 15 violation of NPT Article VI and is certainly not meeting 16 the requirements of Article VI as interpreted by the World 17 Court. We must pursue these negotiations in good faith. 18 And then the second component of the obligation 19 is we must achieve a precise result. Nuclear disarmament 20 in all its aspects. And again just recently the U.S. 21 Ambassador to the Council of Nuclear Disarmament under the 22 auspices of the UN said "We are just not going to do it." 23 The reason why this creates serious legal problems is that 24 the non-nuclear weapons states went along with the entire 25 Nuclear Proliferation Treaty on the assumption that the KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 64 1 nuclear weapons states would engage in good faith 2 negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament. If we are 3 not engaging in negotiations leading to nuclear 4 disarmament and publicly say we are not going to do it, 5 this in theory could give the non-nuclear weapons states, 6 all 175 of them, grounds to argue the material breach of 7 the NPT and pull out of the NPT and to engage in nuclear 8 armament. Now I'm not recommending that and indeed I 9 certainly would not recommend that to anyone, but it is a 10 very serious concern if we are not engaging in these 11 nuclear disarmament negotiations, which we are not 12 currently doing. 13 Q. Dr. Boyle, could you briefly summarize for the Court why 14 the International Court of Justice opinions, if at all, 15 are binding on the U.S.? 16 A. This opinion per se is listed as an advisory opinion. So 17 it is -- we are not party to the lawsuit. As you know, 18 some courts can give advisory opinions. Your Honor, you 19 can't give an advisory opinion, but there are courts in 20 the United States that some states courts have authority 21 to give advisory opinions as well as contentious 22 opinions. The World Court has both. They have authority 23 contentious opinion and an advisory opinion. This was not 24 a contentious case. If it were a contentious case, we 25 would be bound by it, like the Lockerbie case, like the KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 65 1 Bosnia cases that I was involved with, those were 2 contentious cases. This was an advisory opinion, however, 3 in this advisory opinion, with these unanimous rulings by 4 the World Court on these points, the World Court made it 5 clear that these rules are customary international law. 6 And rules of customary international law bind the United 7 States Government. The Paquete, P-a-q-u-e-t-e, Habana, 8 H-a-b-a-n-a, decision by the United States Supreme Court 9 customarily international law binds the United States and 10 the United States courts. And technically, this is 11 federal common law. So the, Your Honor, this Court should 12 take into account the World Court rulings on these two 13 points on international environmental law and how the NPT 14 should be interpreted. 15 The rest of the opinion, which is quite lengthy 16 and I had written about elsewhere -- if you are interested 17 in reading my article, you can, but it's not really 18 relevant or terribly germane to the issues here, but 19 certainly, the section on international environmental law 20 and their interpretation of the NPT is relevant. I think 21 they enunciate rules of customary international law. I 22 also have reached the same conclusions myself in my own 23 scholarly research before the World Court did, but I think 24 most experts would agree with the rulings of the World 25 Court on these two points, it's requirements of KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 66 1 international environmental law and the interpretation of 2 the NPT. 3 And again, the DOE's environmental assessment 4 has not taken any of this into account. They have not 5 taken into account the rules of international 6 environmental law, which they should do, and they have not 7 taken into account anything about the NPT. 8 Q. Dr. Boyle, based on your review of the NPT, the Nuclear 9 Nonproliferation Acts of 1978, 1994, and 1998, the 10 International Court of Justice opinion, and the 11 declarations by the Department of State regarding the U.S. 12 position with respect to the Nonproliferation Treaty 13 commitments we have made, do you have an opinion as an 14 expert in international law as to whether the foreign 15 policy of the United States would be violated by the 16 shipment of MOX from Russia to Canada funded by the U.S. 17 DOE? 18 A. Well, again, I agree with everything Dr. Edwards said. 19 Your Honor, this is a major change in United States 20 nonproliferation policy going back at a minimum to the 21 Carter administration and the adoption of the Nuclear 22 Nonproliferation Act, it seems to me completely 23 inconsistent with the treaty, with the Act, the 1978 Act 24 and 1994 Act and the 1998 Act. So yes, this is a major 25 change in policy that potentially is illegal under the KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 67 1 sources. And I would really like to see the Department of 2 Energy comprehensively address all of these issues so we 3 could see what is their authority to do this. Besides 4 their own ipse dixit. I would like to see the authority. 5 I don't see it in any of the sources I've read before for 6 them to unilaterally engage in this major change in policy 7 that seems to be inconsistent with the Treaty, the '78 8 Act, the '94 Act and '98 Act, yes. 9 MR. LOVE: Your Honor, I have no further 10 questions of this witness. Thank you. 11 CROSS EXAMINATION 12 BY MR. DODGE: 13 Q. Morning, Mr. Boyle. 14 A. Morning. 15 Q. I would like to turn your attention back to your C.V., 16 which I think is Exhibit 3. Do you have that in front of 17 you? 18 A. Sure. 19 Q. Just to round out a few items on the second page, about 20 halfway down you testified that you were counsel to Libya 21 in connection with the bombing of the Pan Am flight over 22 Lockerbie, Scotland. 23 A. That is correct. I should point out that matter is being 24 peaceably resolved now by the United States and Libya 25 because of my efforts. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 68 1 Q. And you've also served, going up now the fourth item from 2 the top of that page, since 1987 you served as a legal 3 advisor to the Palestine Liberation Organization? 4 A. That is correct, and I was also the legal advisor to the 5 Palestinian delegation for the Middle East Peace Talks 6 convened under the auspices of President Bush, yes. 7 Q. And two items down from there said you were counsel 8 related to House Resolution 86 in the 102nd Congress 9 dealing with the impeachment of former, then President 10 George Bush? 11 A. Yes. Congressman Henry G. Gonzalez of Texas reached a 12 decision that President Bush going to war violated 13 numerous provisions of the Constitution and international 14 law. You can find them there in House Resolution 86. And 15 he asked me, because of my knowledge and expertise to 16 serve as counsel to them on these matters, and I did serve 17 as counsel free of charge, that is correct. 18 My service to the Palestinian Delegation in the 19 Middle East Peace Negotiations is there in '91 and '93, as 20 I said, President Bush was the one who convened those 21 negotiations, and yes, even though I did set out with 22 Congressman Gonzalez on this issue, President Bush did 23 sign my Biological Weapons Anti-terrorists Act of 1989, 24 which is -- 25 Q. He apparently didn't hold your efforts against you KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 69 1 personally. 2 A. Pardon me? 3 Q. Sounds like he didn't hold it against you personally. 4 A. I don't think he did, no. I'm a lawyer and a law 5 professor and I'm a professional, but he had no problems, 6 President Bush had no problems with my Biological 7 Anti-Terrorism Act. It was approved unanimously by both 8 Houses of Congress. 9 Q. Moving on to the third page, second item from the top of 10 the page, you worked as a consultant in 1993 on 11 Independence for the State of Hawaii. I would assume for 12 Hawaii to become an independent nation? 13 A. That is correct. The State of Hawaii-- the Hawaiian 14 Sovereignty Advisory Commission is an agency of the State 15 of Hawaii. And they were charged under the law by the 16 State of Hawaiian law to investigate all alternatives for 17 the native Hawaiian people. One of the alternatives that 18 needed to be investigated was whether or not the native 19 Hawaiian people should establish their own independent 20 nation state. And I was retained by the State of Hawaii 21 then to advise them on this because of my experience doing 22 the same work with the Palestinians. I advised them on 23 the creation of their state and the peace talks with 24 Israel based on a two-state solution, and the Palestinian 25 state today has diplomatic recognition now by about 125 KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 70 1 states, and currently has de facto UN membership, and I 2 did the legal work on that, so the State of Hawaii 3 retained me to come out and advise on the establishment of 4 an independent nations state, and the State of Hawaii paid 5 my expenses and a modest fee for this work, yes. 6 Q. Moving on to the Nonproliferation Treaty, you testified 7 about Article I. Do you recall that? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. And as I understood your testimony, your view is that the 10 fuel rods at issue in the Parallex Project, in your view, 11 should be treated as components of a nuclear weapon; is 12 that right? Explosive device? 13 A. No. What I said was weapons grade plutonium should be 14 treated as a component of either a nuclear weapon or a 15 nuclear explosive device. 16 Q. What about -- I mean, the Parallex test involves shipment 17 and then irradiation of fuel rods; is that correct? 18 A. Right. 19 Q. And is it your view or is it not your view that those fuel 20 rods constitute components of nuclear weapons or explosive 21 devices? 22 A. My viewpoint is what I said, that weapons grade plutonium 23 is a component of a nuclear weapon or nuclear explosive 24 device. 25 Q. You didn't answer my question. Do you understand the KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 71 1 question? 2 A. Well, I've given my answer. 3 THE COURT: No, you haven't answered his 4 question. He asked you question, if you don't know the 5 answer, say so. He asked you a very specific question 6 about rods. 7 BY MR. DODGE: 8 Q. In fact, the question has to do with your view, if you 9 have one, whether the fuel rods at issue in the Parallex 10 test program constitute components of nuclear weapons or 11 explosive devices. 12 A. If they contain weapons grade plutonium, they would be or 13 could be components of nuclear weapons or nuclear 14 explosive devices. 15 Q. Well, these fuel rods do contain plutonium; is that right? 16 A. As I understand it, it's in there, yep. 17 Q. So in your view, does that make the fuel rods components 18 of nuclear weapons or explosive devices? 19 A. Again, my testimony is that the weapons grade plutonium 20 clearly is either nuclear -- is a component of a nuclear 21 weapon or a nuclear explosive device, and the reason I 22 give that testimony is based on my reading of the 23 Congressional legislation, Congress has taken the position 24 that weapons grade plutonium or plutonium, in general, is 25 a component of a nuclear weapon or nuclear explosive KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 72 1 device. Congress does not deal with the fuel rods, they 2 dealt with the plutonium. 3 Q. I want to make sure I understand your testimony clearly. 4 Is it your testimony, is it your view that any 5 plutonium would qualify as a component of a nuclear 6 weapons or nuclear weapon or explosive device under the 7 treaty? 8 A. My testimony today is the weapons grade plutonium involved 9 in this project is a component of a nuclear weapons or 10 other nuclear explosive device. I believe weapons grade 11 plutonium is what is involved in this project. 12 Q. I asked you a different question. The question was a 13 broader one. Is it your view or not your view that all 14 plutonium would qualify as a component of a nuclear weapon 15 or explosive device under Article I? 16 A. It appears Congress has taken that position, yes, and they 17 have stringently regulated plutonium in all forms. And I 18 also note that the United States Government has exploded a 19 nuclear weapon -- 20 THE COURT: The question is: Is it your 21 opinion? He is asking four or five times now, could you 22 answer that? 23 THE WITNESS: But Your Honor, my opinion is 24 based on -- 25 THE COURT: In courts -- I know you are a KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 73 1 professor -- we answer the questions of the lawyer, not 2 what we want to talk about. He asked you seven or eight 3 questions, none of which you've answered. I would ask you 4 simply listen to the lawyer's question and answer it. 5 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honor. 6 BY MR. DODGE: 7 Q. Do you understand the question? 8 THE COURT: Ask it again for the fifteenth time, 9 ask it again. 10 BY MR. DODGE: 11 Q. Is it your view that all plutonium constitutes a component 12 of nuclear weapon or explosive device under Article I of 13 the treaty? 14 A. It can. 15 Q. It can? 16 A. Yes. Yes. 17 Q. Is it your view across the board that plutonium, whether 18 weapons grade or not, if it's present in a fuel rod for 19 a-- destined for a civilian nuclear reactor would qualify 20 as a component of a nuclear weapon explosive device? 21 A. It could. 22 Q. Do you know whether as a general matter the signatories of 23 the Nonproliferation Treaty have interpreted, whether any 24 signatory has interpreted Article I to ban transport of 25 fuel rods containing plutonium? KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 74 1 A. Congress has strictly regulated plutonium, yes, and there 2 is legislation on the books saying "We, Congress, 3 interpreting our obligations under the NPT, are against 4 international transport of plutonium," yes. 5 Q. Has Congress passed any legislation prohibiting the 6 transport of nuclear fuel rods containing any plutonium? 7 A. In what I have reviewed for my testimony here today, I 8 have not seen in the '78, '94 or '98 Act that Congress has 9 prohibited transport of fuel rods. 10 Q. In fact, fuel rods are transported across national 11 boundaries all the time; is that not correct? 12 A. They are transported. 13 Q. In fact, fuel rods containing plutonium are transported 14 across national boundaries all the time, isn't that 15 correct? 16 A. If they are subject to-- they are supposed to be subject 17 to safeguards, yes. 18 Q. Well, that gets us to another point of your earlier 19 testimony regarding whether the fuel rods particularly at 20 issue in the Parallex Project are or are not subject to 21 IA/EA safeguards in Canada. Do you recall that testimony? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. Do you have personal knowledge whether Canada, the 24 Government of Canada has taken a position on whether the 25 U.S. Parallex fuel rods, which are now in Canada, whether KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 75 1 those fuel rods are now subject to IA/EA safeguards? 2 A. I have not seen any evidence because of the recentness of 3 the movement of the shipments. 4 Q. If I told you that the position of the Government of 5 Canada is that those fuel rods are, in fact, subject to 6 IA/EA safeguards, would you have any basis to quarrel with 7 that? 8 A. The statement by Ms. Locatelli does call into question the 9 validity of these assertions, yes. 10 Q. Miss Locatelli was generally speaking of Parallex fuel 11 rods, was she? 12 A. Speaking about plutonium in general, right. 13 Q. I take it you didn't speak personally to Miss Locatelli? 14 A. No, I did not. 15 Q. About this or any-- 16 A. But I did speak with Mr. Clemens of NCI by e-mail and he 17 has similar concerns to me. 18 Q. Okay. And did you speak to the newspaper reporter, Martin 19 Mittelstaedt, who quoted Ms. Locatelli? 20 A. No, I did not. 21 Q. Whether his quotes accurately reflect what she said or not 22 is not something you would be qualified to testify about; 23 is that right? 24 A. Well, I note The Globe and Mail is a newspaper of public 25 record and I would be able to rely on that in the World KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 76 1 Court for sure, yep. 2 Q. But newspaper reporters are human beings? 3 A. Newspaper reporters make mistakes, sure. But again, the 4 World Court, for example, the nuclear test cases did rely 5 on statements made by Government officials as normally 6 reported in reputable news media sources. They have 7 different standards of evidence, the World Court, than 8 they do here in United States District Court. 9 Q. Now you've also relied on this article, Plaintiff's 10 Exhibit 5, I guess too, in support of your opinion that 11 Canada is in possession of 40 kilograms or up to 40 12 kilograms of plutonium; is that right? 13 A. This is a statement by Mr. Clemens, and I have had e-mail 14 correspondence with him about it. 15 Q. Do you have any personal knowledge whether -- 16 A. No. 17 Q. I'm sorry, I didn't finish my question. 18 A. I did answer your question. 19 THE COURT: He hasn't finished asking it; you 20 couldn't possibly answer his question when he hasn't 21 finished asking it. 22 THE WITNESS: Sorry. 23 BY MR. DODGE: 24 Q. Do you have any personal knowledge of whether Canada, in 25 fact, has 40 kilograms of plutonium? KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 77 1 A. I do not have personal knowledge, no. I'm relying on the 2 statement by Mr. Clemens. 3 Q. Mr. Clemens, does Mr. Clemens have personal knowledge 4 whether Canada has 40-- 5 A. As I understand, Mr. Clemens does. From my e-mail 6 correspondence with him, he does. 7 Q. Has he seen that plutonium? 8 A. Pardon me? 9 Q. Has he seen it? 10 A. He didn't tell me what his sources of evidence are, but he 11 did tell me that they will be making it public soon. 12 Q. So he thinks he has -- he thinks he has evidence to 13 support that conclusion and whether that evidence holds 14 any water or not, we really can't tell, can we? 15 A. Well, again, as an expert, if the NCI is making the 16 statements, I think they are significant and they need to 17 be dealt with, and certainly by the Department of Energy. 18 THE COURT: That was not -- excuse me, that was 19 not his question. 20 Would you repeat your question, please? 21 BY MR. DODGE: 22 Q. The question is: Mr. Clemens believes he has reason or he 23 has evidence to support his conclusion that Canada has 40 24 kilograms of plutonium, but as far as anybody in this 25 courtroom knows, that evidence may or may not hold water, KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 78 1 we just don't know, correct? 2 A. I'm not evaluating the evidence, and Mr. Clemens said the 3 evidence will be produced, so at that point I will review 4 the evidence and formulate a formal opinion. 5 THE COURT: Do you want to ask it again or just 6 want to give up? 7 MR. DODGE: I think that -- I think the point is 8 established to the extent I need to, Your Honor. 9 BY MR. DODGE: 10 Q. Now, you testified earlier that it's up to the State 11 Department, not the Department of Energy to interpret 12 United States treaty obligations; is that right? 13 A. I testified that it is the State Department that is in 14 charge of nuclear proliferation policies, that's what I 15 testified, and not the Department of Energy, yes. 16 Q. Okay. Is it your view that it's -- maybe I misunderstood 17 what you testified earlier. I thought I heard you say 18 that interpreting whether or not the U.S. is complying 19 with Nonproliferation Treaty in particular, that pertinent 20 authority on that would be the State Department, not the 21 Department of Energy; is that a fair statement? 22 A. I've also testified that the State Department has the lead 23 role in the United States Government with respect to 24 interpretation of treatises as well. 25 Q. Do you know what the State Department's position is on KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 79 1 whether the Parallex test program is or is not compliant 2 with Article I of the Nonproliferation Treaty? 3 A. Well, that's why I read the Environmental Assessment, to 4 see if you had talked to the State Department here, and 5 they hadn't, so I have not seen any statement by the State 6 Department as to what their position is, no. 7 Q. The Environmental Assessment is not the only document 8 that's been generated in the course of the Parallex 9 Project, you understand that? 10 A. That is correct, and I have read a good deal of the 11 documentation, but I still have not seen an expression by 12 the Department of State on this issue. 13 Q. Okay. Do you know whether or not the State Department was 14 involved at any level in the Parallex Project? 15 A. There probably were discussions somewhere in there. 16 Q. Do you know? 17 A. Myself personally? 18 Q. Yes. 19 A. I don't know for sure. 20 Q. Do you know one way or the other whether the State 21 Department has a view on whether the Parallex Project is 22 consistent with our treaty obligations under Article I of 23 the NPT? 24 A. I have not seen any expression by the State Department on 25 this issue. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 80 1 Q. If I told you the State Department has taken the view that 2 the Parallex Project is entirely consistent with our 3 obligations under Article I, would you have any basis to 4 quarrel with that? 5 A. I haven't seen it. 6 MR. LODGE: Objection, Your Honor. 7 THE COURT: If he hasn't seen -- 8 MR. DODGE: Withdraw the question, Your Honor. 9 THE WITNESS: I would like to see it and 10 evaluate it myself, sure. 11 BY MR. DODGE: 12 Q. You also testified about dangers of nuclear proliferation 13 relating to countries such as Taiwan and Korea that are 14 not currently nuclear weapons states, but would like to 15 acquire nuclear weapons, do you recall that testimony? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. Is it correct that the MOX program, the Parallex Program 18 does not contemplate the shipment of any fuel rods to any 19 country other than Canada? 20 A. Not at this stage, but eventually it does appear there 21 will be mass circulation of this material, yes, down the 22 line. 23 Q. And the basis for that is what exactly? 24 A. The quantities. If the test works out, the quantity we 25 are talking about coming from Russia. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 81 1 Q. Well, let me be more specific about this. Has the United 2 States, any spokesperson for the United States Government 3 proposed in connection with the Parallex Project to send 4 fuel rods to any country other than Canada? 5 A. The United States? 6 Q. Right. 7 A. No. 8 Q. Has the Government of Russia proposed, in connection with 9 the Parallex Project, to send fuel rods to any country 10 other than Canada? 11 A. Well, they are talking about massive quantities of weapons 12 grade plutonium being circulated into this program and the 13 independent team of experts by Russia and the United 14 States have made that quite clear they are talking tons of 15 this stuff. 16 Q. Well, again, you didn't answer my question there, 17 Professor. I asked you whether the Russian Government has 18 proposed sending fuel rods to any country other than 19 Canada. Your answer only dealt with volumes, it didn't 20 address where. That was my question. 21 A. Right. There might have been discussions on Germany or 22 some of the European states have there -- there have been 23 discussions and proposals, but it's just at that stage 24 now, yes. 25 Q. But Russia has not, to your knowledge, proposed sending KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 82 1 fuel rods to Korea? 2 A. There is an international market here, sure, it could be 3 sold anywhere. 4 THE COURT: No, he didn't say could have. He 5 said: Did they propose it? 6 THE WITNESS: I have not read that right now 7 Russia is proposing sending this to Korea. 8 BY MR. DODGE: 9 Q. Same question with Taiwan. 10 A. I have not read that Russia is proposing to send this to 11 Taiwan. 12 MR. DODGE: No further questions at this time, 13 Your Honor. 14 THE COURT: We will take a 15-minute recess. 15 COURT CLERK: All rise. 16 This court is in recess. 17 (At 10:54 a.m., recess.) 18 THE COURT: Okay. What is next? 19 MR. LOVE: Brief redirect, Your Honor. 20 REDIRECT EXAMINATION 21 BY MR. LOVE: 22 Q. Professor Boyle, did you receive any recognition or 23 rewards from Bosnia for your efforts on their behalf? 24 A. While I was never paid a penny, but President Izetbegovic 25 and Vice President Gonich (phonetic) held a ceremony at KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 83 1 the Bosnian presidency with a-- awarded me full-fledged 2 citizenship in the Republic, a diplomatic passport and 3 visa and a declaration and they put the ceremony on 4 television, so that was very nice. So technically I'm a 5 Bosnian citizen too. 6 Q. Dr. Boyle, with respect to your work on the Hawaiian 7 independence that Mr. Dodge asked you about, has there 8 been any action by the President or Congress, to your 9 knowledge, with respect to that? 10 A. Yes. In 1993 Congress passed a statute signed into law by 11 President Clinton formally apologizing to the native 12 Hawaiian people for destroying their kingdom and stealing 13 their land. The legislation at the end provides for a 14 process of reconciliation and reparations, and how this is 15 going to be dealt with, and I'm still currently involved 16 in those matters. 17 Q. Dr. Boyle, there should be a document up there marked 18 Plaintiff's Exhibit 13. Do you see that? 19 A. Yes, I have it here. 20 Q. Now, this is entitled a Nonproliferation Arms Control 21 Assessment of Weapons Usable Fissile Material Storage and 22 Excess Plutonium Disposition Alternatives, dated January, 23 1997 authored by the United States Department of Energy, 24 correct? 25 A. Yes. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 84 1 Q. Was this among the documents that you reviewed in 2 preparing your testimony? 3 A. I did not have -- I did not get this entire document until 4 Monday, so I did not have a chance to review the entire 5 document, but I have reviewed the excerpts you gave to 6 me. 7 Q. Now Mr. Dodge asked you-- for the record, Your Honor, the 8 excerpt only contains Pages 106 and 107-- Mr. Dodge asked 9 you about your testimony about the possibility of future 10 shipments of MOX to Taiwan and Korea. Do you remember him 11 asking you about that? 12 A. Yes. 13 THE COURT: He didn't ask what the possibility 14 is, he asked if there were plans by Russia or the United 15 States to ship to those two nations. That was the 16 question. 17 MR. LOVE: Okay. 18 THE COURT: And the answer was no. Not are 19 there possibilities. I know the witness thinks there are 20 possibilities, that won't help me any. I understand 21 that. 22 BY MR. LOVE: 23 Q. In fact, Dr. Boyle is it true that in this document the 24 DOE indicates there are possibilities such as you 25 testified about? KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 85 1 A. Yes. 2 THE COURT: I accept that. You are wasting my 3 time. There are possibilities. 4 BY MR. LOVE: 5 Q. Dr. Boyle, if you would, I direct your attention to the 6 large document that's in front of you. This is 7 Proliferation Venerability Red Team Report, Plaintiff's 8 Exhibit 28, and introduced in the prior hearing. 9 A. Yes, and I read this entire report prior to my testimony 10 here today. 11 Q. I'm going to ask you, if you would, to direct your 12 attention to Page 6-1, the conclusions to that report. 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. And again, this is a document that was produced by Sandia 15 Laboratories for the Department of Energy? 16 A. That is correct. 17 Q. Directing your attention to the first conclusion, under 18 the conclusion, keeping plutonium inaccessible is the key 19 to proliferation resistance, do you see that? 20 A. Yes. It says quite clearly, all plutonium from all stages 21 of all alternatives can be made weapons usable should 22 sufficient material be successfully removed. And I should 23 point out that is the position Congress takes under the 24 Nuclear Nonproliferation Act of '78, the Act of '94 and 25 the '98, all plutonium can be made weapons usable. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 86 1 Q. In your view, is that conclusion by the Sandia Lab in this 2 Red Team Report consistent with your testimony? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. Now, Mr. Dodge asked you if there was transport of 5 plutonium across boundaries all the time. My notes 6 reflected you said yes. Do you remember that testimony? 7 A. I said there was some, yes. 8 Q. Is there routinely transportation of weapons grade 9 plutonium shipped across boundaries all the time by the 10 United States? 11 A. No. No. 12 MR. LOVE: No further questions. 13 MR. DODGE: No recross, Your Honor. 14 THE COURT: You may step down. 15 THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honor. 16 Your Honor, did you have any questions? 17 THE COURT: No, I don't. 18 THE WITNESS: Thank you. 19 THE COURT: You've exceeded your time so I take 20 it you have no more witnesses. 21 MR. LOVE: Your Honor, I have no more witnesses 22 but at this time I would like to move our Exhibit 5, 23 Exhibit 7, Exhibit 11, Exhibit 12, Exhibit 13, Exhibit 14 24 and Plaintiff's Exhibit 2 and Exhibit 1 into evidence. 25 MR. DODGE: No objection, Your Honor. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 87 1 THE COURT: 5, 7, 11, 12, 13 and 14, 1 and 2 are 2 received. 3 MR. LOVE: Thank you, Your Honor. We have 4 nothing further. 5 THE WITNESS: Here are the exhibits. Where do 6 you want them? 7 MR. LOVE: I'll take them here. 8 (Hearing continued; reported, not requested 9 transcribed.) 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 88 1 2 3 4 5 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE 6 7 I, Kathleen S. Thomas, Official Court Reporter for the 8 United States District Court for the Western District of 9 Michigan, appointed pursuant to the provisions of Title 28, 10 United States Code, Section 753, do hereby certify that the 11 foregoing is a true and correct transcript of proceedings had 12 in the within-entitled and numbered cause on the date 13 hereinbefore set forth; and I do further certify that the 14 foregoing transcript has been prepared by me or under my 15 direction. 16 17 18 19 20 __________________________________ 21 Kathleen S. Thomas, CSR, RPR-1300 22 U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue 23 Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 24 25 KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (voice) 217-244-1478 (fax) fboyle at law.uiuc.edu (personal comments only) Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Brussel, Morton K Sent: Monday, November 06, 2017 7:56 PM To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: David Green >; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; Estabrook, Carl G > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] FW: MOX for Bombs in Japan I think this is wrong. MOX fuel is mainly used for fuel in nuclear power reactors, not to make bombs. Japan had/has many nuclear reactors. A fairly intelligible discussion is found in wikipedia, under "MOX nuclear”. —mkb On Nov 6, 2017, at 4:40 PM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss > wrote: This was a very lengthy interview I gave in Japan courtesy of their peace and anti-nuclear movement. It was heavily censored. My basic point was that Japan was using MOX to make bombs and that my best estimate was that Japan probably had as many bombs as PRC, which would be in the area of 500. So when the details of the disaster at Fukushima came out, it was clear to me it was one of their leading bomb complexes. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: globenet at yahoogroups.com [mailto:globenet at yahoogroups.com] Sent: Saturday, March 21, 2015 8:10 AM To: globenet at yahoogroups.com Cc: 'Hiroshi Taka'; 'Gensuikyo'; 'Akira Kawasaki'; oheyeran at yahoogroups.com; asia-pacific_demil_mdg-request at lists.riseup.net; 'Coleen Rowley'; 'Douglas Roche' Subject: [globenet] MOX for Bombs in Japan Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (Voice) 217-244-1478 (Fax) (personal comments only) __._,_.___ ________________________________ Posted by: "Boyle, Francis A" > ________________________________ Reply via web post • Reply to sender • Reply to group • Start a New Topic • Messages in this topic (1) VISIT YOUR GROUP [Yahoo! Groups] • Privacy • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use . __,_._,___ _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Tue Nov 7 04:11:14 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2017 04:11:14 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: MOX for Bombs in Japan In-Reply-To: References: <5B253921-B91A-4A46-B18B-A94C48E12123@illinois.edu> Message-ID: Go tell that to the Japanese Peace Movement! Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Brussel, Morton K Sent: Monday, November 06, 2017 10:10 PM To: Boyle, Francis A Cc: David Green ; C. G. ESTABROOK ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay ; David Johnson ; Mildred O'brien ; Estabrook, Carl G Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] FW: MOX for Bombs in Japan I will comment no longer on this issue; you are twisting in the wind, Francis, with sad but laughable arguments. On Nov 6, 2017, at 9:39 PM, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: And by the way, the reason Japanese Peace Movement had me interviewed is because they know full well that their MOX Stockpile is used for weapons purposes. fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Monday, November 06, 2017 9:30 PM To: Brussel, Morton K > Cc: David Green >; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; Estabrook, Carl G > Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] FW: MOX for Bombs in Japan If you are not going to take the time to read these two Testimonies under oath and subject to cross-examination by the Feds of two Experts on MOX in United States Federal District, then you should stop impugning my integrity in favor of Wikipedia—pure guttersnipe! fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Brussel, Morton K Sent: Monday, November 06, 2017 9:13 PM To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: David Green >; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >;chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; Estabrook, Carl G > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] FW: MOX for Bombs in Japan I don’t know who qualified you as an expert of nuclear reactors and the nature of their fuels, nuclear physics or nuclear chemistry. Your statements belie that qualification. I hope you don’t expect me, or anyone on this list, to read the transcript you presented, but I did scan it and noted nothing in technical detail there about the properties and use of MOX, certainly not for bombs. Sorry, —mkb On Nov 6, 2017, at 8:38 PM, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: Well I have been qualified as an Expert on MOX in United States Federal District Court. And I prohibit my law students from citing Wikipedia to me in any paper and advise them to never cite or quote Wikipedia to a Judge because Wikipedia is filled with so much pure, unadulterated BULL-TWADDLE. Fab. Subject: Nuclear Proliferation/NPT/US Atomic Energy Law/MOX, etc. 1 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 3 SOUTHERN DIVISION 4 5 ALICE HIRT; ANABEL DWYER; CITIZENS FOR ALTERNATIVES 6 TO CHEMICAL CONTAMINATION; KATHRYN CUMBOW; ROBERT 7 ANDERSON; DORIS SCHALLER VERNON; and TERRY MILLER, 8 Plaintiffs, 9 v. CASE NO: 1:99-CV-933 10 BILL RICHARDSON, Secretary, 11 United States Department of Energy; UNITED STATES 12 OF AMERICA; and UNKNOWN PART(Y)(IES), named as 13 "John and Jane Doe" on complaint, 14 Defendants. 15 ____________________________/ 16 * * * * 17 18 TESTIMONY OF GORDON EDWARDS and FRANCIS BOYLE 19 * * * * 20 21 BEFORE: THE HONORABLE RICHARD ALAN ENSLEN United States District Judge 22 Kalamazoo, Michigan April 7, 2000 23 24 25 KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 2 1 APPEARANCES: 2 APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFFS: 3 MR. KARY LOVE 4 977 Butternut Drive PMB 128 5 Holland, Michigan 49424 6 MR. TERRY J. LODGE 316 North Michigan Street, Suite 520 7 Toledo, Ohio 43624-1627 8 APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANTS: 9 MR. ROBERT I. DODGE 10 MR. CHARLES GROSS U.S. Attorney's Office 11 330 Ionia Avenue, N.W., Suite 501 P.O. Box 208 12 Grand Rapids, Michigan 49501-208 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 3 1 INDEX 2 WITNESS: Page 3 GORDON EDWARDS Direct Examination by Mr. Lodge 4 4 Cross Examination by Mr. Dodge 17 Redirect Examination by Mr. Lodge 20 5 6 FRANCIS BOYLE 7 Direct Examination by Mr. Love 21 Cross Examination by Mr. Dodge 67 8 Redirect Examination by Mr. Love 82 9 10 EXHIBITS Rec'd. 11 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 1 87 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 2 87 12 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 3 31 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 5 87 13 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 6 87 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 11 87 14 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 12 87 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 13 87 15 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 14 87 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 4 1 Kalamazoo, Michigan 2 April 7, 2000 3 at approximately 8:50 A.M. 4 EXCERPT OF PROCEEDINGS 5 TESTIMONY OF GORDON EDWARDS 6 MR. LODGE: We waive opening. 7 THE COURT: Okay. Good for you. 8 MR. LODGE: And we would call Gordon Edwards. 9 GORDON EDWARDS - PLAINTIFFS' WITNESS - SWORN. 10 COURT CLERK: Please state and spell your name 11 for the record. 12 THE WITNESS: My name is Gordon Edwards, 13 G-o-r-d-o-n E-d-w-a-r-d-s. 14 DIRECT EXAMINATION 15 BY MR. LODGE: 16 Q. Dr. Edwards, you previously testified in this proceeding 17 in an earlier motion hearing in December, 1999, correct? 18 A. That is correct. 19 Q. And what, just summarize for the Court, to refresh the 20 Court's recollection, what is your occupation or 21 profession? 22 A. I'm a professor of mathematics at Vanier College in 23 Montreal, and I'm also a consultant on nuclear issues for 24 both governmental and nongovernmental agencies. 25 Q. Are you affiliated with any nongovernmental entity in KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 5 1 Canada regarding the purpose of which is to discuss 2 nuclear issues? 3 A. Yes, I'm the president of the Canadian Coalition for 4 Nuclear Responsibility, which is a federally incorporated 5 organization, since 1978. 6 Q. And how long and in what capacities have you served as a 7 consultant on nuclear issues? 8 A. I've served as a consultant since 1977 for a variety of 9 bodies, including Royal Commissions of Inquiry where I 10 have been retained to cross-examine expert witnesses, also 11 the auditor general of Canada when they were doing a 12 comprehensive audit of the Atomic Energy Control Board, 13 and most recently I was invited for January 2000 by the 14 Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs and International 15 Trade to participate in a small expert workshop on nuclear 16 weapons policies in Ottawa. 17 Q. And Dr. Edwards, have you had the occasion to read the 18 environmental assessment promulgated by the Fissile 19 Materials Office of the U.S. Department of Energy for the 20 Parallex Project? 21 A. Yes, I have, and have commented on that as well. 22 Q. We are here today on a proposed shipment of MOX plutonium 23 from Russia to Chalk River, Ontario, you understand that? 24 A. That is correct. 25 Q. What is your understanding as to the amount of the KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 6 1 plutonium content of the MOX fuel rods, pins that would be 2 brought from Russia? 3 A. The MOX fuel contains 135 grams of weapons grade plutonium 4 as compared with the 119 grams that were in the American 5 shipment that proceeded in January. 6 Q. Now, Dr. Edwards, you indicated that the Canadian 7 Coalition was incorporated in approximately 1978? 8 A. That's right. 9 Q. Have you been active in nuclear issues since that time? 10 A. Even before that time, yes. I have been active 11 specifically on proliferation questions and 12 plutonium-related questions since 1975. 13 MR. LODGE: If I may approach. 14 THE COURT: Of course. 15 BY MR. LODGE: 16 Q. Showing you what has been marked for purposes of the 17 supplemental motion hearing as Plaintiff's Exhibit 1, I'm 18 going to also leave Exhibit 2 up here. 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. Have you ever conducted any investigation into the issue 21 of civilian population or work exposures to plutonium? 22 A. Only at the level of potential for damage, potential for 23 harm. 24 Q. What is Exhibit 1? 25 A. Exhibit 1 is a letter from Mary Measures, Ph.D., Director KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 7 1 of the Radiation Environmental Protection Division of the 2 Atomic Energy Control Board of Canada dealing with 3 quantity of plutonium that an atomic radiation worker or a 4 member of the public may inhale to reach their respective 5 maximum limits. 6 Q. And the date of that is September 30, 1999? 7 A. That is correct, about six months ago. 8 Q. And could you summarize what the inhalation, or what the 9 limits are for both workers and for public? 10 A. Yes. The maximum lifetime limit of exposure in the lung 11 for an atomic worker is approximately 1.4 micrograms, and 12 for the member of the public it's 0.1 microgram, and a 13 microgram being one one-millionth of a gram, so if we 14 translate this into grams, it would mean 1.4 grams would 15 be equivalent-- would be enough to give maximum 16 permissible doses to one million workers and ten -- one 17 gram would be enough to give maximum permissible doses to 18 ten million members of the general public. That's just 19 potential. 20 Q. Okay. And is that based on the -- or, I'm sorry. Have 21 you had occasion in connection with the proposed Russian 22 shipment of a 135 grams of plutonium and the American 23 shipment of 119 grams, to perform any computations as to 24 what the potential dispersion or exposure is? 25 A. Well, I would like to emphasize this is just arithmetic KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 8 1 and does not take into account dispersion factors such as 2 wind velocity, any respiration rates, and so on. If we 3 just look at the theoretical potential, then with 119 4 grams, we are talking about the potential for 85 million 5 atomic workers to receive their maximum permissible 6 exposure, if that were able to be disseminated into all of 7 their lungs and 1,000,190,000 members of the general 8 public, so even though this is a very small amount of 9 plutonium, the potential for exposure, harmful exposure is 10 quite significant. 11 Q. All right. But so that implies you would have to have an 12 optimal dispersal? 13 A. This would be an impossibly optimal dispersal. This would 14 be assuming that the plutonium were distributed fully into 15 the lungs of all the people that I've mentioned. 16 Q. Are you aware of whether or not the American shipment was 17 delivered to Chalk River? 18 A. Yes, the American shipment was delivered to Chalk River. 19 It was taken to the border in what I believe was an SST, a 20 truck which was described as silver, and I believe it was 21 probably an SST, although I do not know for absolute 22 certainty about that, and then it was transported to the 23 Sault Ste. Marie airport where it was lifted by helicopter 24 accompanied by two other helicopters, and transported from 25 there to Chalk River. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 9 1 Q. You indicated that you were talking about an impossibly 2 optimal dispersal. Have you had the occasion to perform 3 any computations as to a very conservative prudent factor 4 to start with for dispersal? 5 A. Well, this is beyond my competence to really talk about 6 the details of how it might be dispersed, but if we just 7 assume for example 99.9 percent containment in the event 8 of a serious accident. 9 Q. Are you saying how much? 10 A. Suppose 99.9 percent of the material were successfully 11 contained and not disseminated in the environment and only 12 that small fraction was disseminated. 13 Q. Okay. 14 A. The potential again would correspond to, for atomic 15 workers in the case of the 119 gram shipment from the 16 States, it would be 85,000 maximum exposures and in the 17 case of the public, it would still over a million. Even 18 with 99.9 containment, in the event of an accident, you 19 still have the potential for over a million 20 overexposures. By the way, the 135 grams, the difference 21 between the 119 grams and the 135 grams from Russia 22 corresponds to potentially again 160,000 additional 23 maximum exposures for members of the public. 24 Q. How many for workers? 25 A. 11,428. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 10 1 Q. That's just -- 2 A. That's just the differential between the two shipments, 3 just the added, going from 119 to 135 adds the potential 4 for another 11,000 worker overexposures or 160,000 public 5 overexposures. This, I believe, is why authorities take 6 such great care to emphasize the packaging in transport. 7 They realize that the potential is great for damage. 8 Q. Do your computations reflect an assumption respecting 9 whether or not the dispersion occurs as a result of an 10 accident or an attack? 11 A. No, we are talking about theoretical potential which is 12 the same regardless of how much or whether the material is 13 dispersed. In an accident, for example, we have 14 previously seen accidents that were analyzed for ground 15 transportation. I have not seen any computations or 16 analysis of accidents for air transport either from the 17 American side or from the Canadian side. 18 Q. Are you talking with respect to Parallex? 19 A. I'm talking with respect to Parallex. 20 If you had, for example, a violent crash and 21 fire of an aircraft, including a helicopter, then the 22 dispersal would cause a plume downwind, could cause a 23 plume downwind, and how much of that plutonium would 24 escape would be subject to analysis which is not, to my 25 knowledge, been performed. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 11 1 Q. Dr. Edwards, do you consider the plutonium in MOX fuel 2 form to be a weapons component? 3 A. Well, in the case of the Parallex project, as you know, 4 this 119 grams or 135 grams, there is not enough there to 5 make an atomic bomb. However, it has long been known that 6 you can make a very damaging radiological explosive device 7 which would simply disperse the plutonium in breathable 8 form. That means that if the plutonium were acquired by a 9 criminal organization or terrorist group they could make 10 an incendiary device which would make this available to be 11 breathed by members of the public and also cause very 12 long-lasting contamination of the environs where this 13 exposure would take place. I believe that it would be 14 incorrect to say that these, even this small Parallex 15 shipment, would not be attractive to terrorists or to 16 criminal organizations as a top -- as a target for theft 17 or diversion. It is true, of course, that this is weapons 18 grade material and had one, if one had sufficient weapons 19 grade material, one indeed can make a very powerful atomic 20 bomb from that. 21 Q. Have you seen any literature or other information in or 22 out of the record of this case that discusses the weapons 23 potential for plutonium? 24 A. Well, yes, it's certainly common knowledge that the -- in 25 fact, the U.S. Department of Energy acknowledges as much KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 12 1 when they refer to the Russian plutonium, the Russian 2 weapons grade plutonium is continuing a clear and present 3 danger. It's long been known and recognized that 4 plutonium is the key ingredient of atomic weapons, so if 5 one talks about components of atomic weapons, the 6 plutonium is the essential component. Once you have the 7 plutonium, then you can acquire the other materials on the 8 open market that are necessary to build a bomb. 9 Q. How do you know that? 10 A. Well, it's been well known for a long time. For instance, 11 there was a study done, published in the Harvard Civil 12 Rights and Civil Liberties Law Review -- I could make that 13 available to the Court, if you would like -- in 1975 as 14 long ago as then, which says, "Since all the material 15 other than plutonium needed to build a bomb is available 16 from commercial hardware and chemical suppliers, the 17 present obstacle to the private construction of nuclear 18 weapons is the unavailability of plutonium." 19 But if we just turn to the study that was 20 commissioned and already on file, I believe, here at the 21 Court, a study that was commissioned by the Office of 22 Fissile Materials Management called the Red Team Report, 23 the Red Team Proliferation Vulnerability Report. 24 In their conclusions on Page 6-1, they have a 25 heading called Keeping Plutonium Inaccessible is the Key KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 13 1 to Proliferation Resistance. So what is basically being 2 said here is plutonium is not just a component but the key 3 component of atomic bombs particularly in the context of 4 illicit groups. 5 Q. Dr. Edwards, could you explain for us Canada's role in the 6 reprocessing of plutonium? 7 A. Well, Canada's role in plutonium goes back to the World 8 War II Atomic Bomb Project. We had a secret laboratory in 9 Montreal which was manned by British, French and Canadian 10 scientists dedicated to developing methods for producing 11 and separating plutonium for weapons purposes as well as 12 civilian purposes, because even then it was anticipated 13 plutonium would have some civilian value. At the end of 14 the war -- incidentally, the first reactor in Canada was 15 built according to a military decision taken in 16 Washington, D.C. in 1944, to demonstrate this potential. 17 The reactor called the NRX reactor was built at 18 Chalk River and a plutonium reprocessing plant was built 19 as well. Plutonium was separated and Britain received its 20 first sample of weapons grade plutonium from Canada from 21 Chalk River just months before their first atomic test. 22 There was also an illicit transfer of plutonium 23 from Chalk River to Russia, which was so the first samples 24 of plutonium that both Britain and Russia received were 25 from Chalk River. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 14 1 Since that time, Canada, of course, has taken a 2 policy decision not to pursue a nuclear weapons option 3 itself, but they have, however, looked favorably on the 4 idea of reprocessing plutonium for civilian purposes. 5 They do not have a policy which is against the 6 reprocessing of plutonium in principle and nor do they 7 discourage their clients, their customers overseas from 8 reprocessing plutonium. And in fact, in Canada, there is 9 an open door policy towards reprocessing as a future 10 option. 11 We just concluded recently a ten-year 12 environmental assessment of the problem of high-level 13 radioactive waste disposal, and in all of the documents it 14 begins by saying, in the very first paragraphs, that by 15 nuclear waste disposal, we mean either spent fuel or 16 post-reprocessing waste. So this is very much a 17 theoretical opening and a policy opening for Canada to use 18 plutonium as a fuel. 19 Q. Showing you what has been marked as Supplemental Motion 20 Exhibit 2, can you identify that for the Court, please? 21 A. Yes. This appears to be an exchange from the British 22 Parliament, questions and answers having to do with 23 nuclear fuel, and the Secretary of State for Trade and 24 Industry is being asked about quantities of spent fuel 25 from Canada that have been contracted for reprocessing at KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 15 1 Cello Field in England. 2 Q. And can you summarize your understanding of what the 3 response by the British Government was? 4 A. Yes. The response here is that a certain amount of 5 plutonium, a certain amount of spent fuel from Canada has 6 been reprocessed beginning in 1970, and that the plutonium 7 has been returned to Canada. I have personal knowledge of 8 the fact that at Chalk River they have maintained a pilot 9 plutonium fuel fabrication line since the 1970s, since 10 1970 and before, and that they have processed at Chalk 11 River approximately three tons, more than three tons of 12 MOX fuel from recycled civilian plutonium. This is part 13 of that, the plutonium that is here being referred to as 14 being recycled or reprocessed in Britain, that's part of 15 the total amount of plutonium that Canada has acquired for 16 the purposes of MOX fabrication. 17 I mentioned that Canada also does not discourage 18 client customers from reprocessing. This is in 19 distinction to the American policy. The American policy, 20 since the Carter administration, successive 21 administrations have maintained the policy of not only not 22 allowing reprocessing in the United States, but also 23 discouraging reprocessing in other countries insofar as 24 that is possible. Canada does not share this policy 25 completely. We do not reprocess in Canada but, on the KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 16 1 other hand, we don't hesitate, it seems, to send our spent 2 fuel to other countries to get reprocessed so that we can 3 develop expertise in plutonium recycling. 4 Q. Does Canada have any relationship with the nation of Japan 5 respecting nuclear material? 6 A. Yes. Canada, as is probably known to the Court, is the 7 world's largest exporter of uranium. We are one of the 8 world's largest producers of uranium and the world's 9 largest exporter of uranium. We have bilateral agreements 10 with our customers as to the use of that uranium. Of 11 course, we have requirements that that uranium not be used 12 for military purposes. If a client customer such as Japan 13 who buys a good deal -- Japan purchases a good deal of 14 uranium from Canada. If a client customer wishes to 15 reprocess their spent fuel to recover plutonium, they do 16 have to get prior permission from the Government of 17 Canada, so when plutonium is reprocessed for the Japanese, 18 in the case where uranium from Canada is involved, the 19 Canadian Government gives their permission for that. 20 Q. Even if it is offshore from Canada? 21 A. Yes. 22 MR. LODGE: Thank you. I have nothing further. 23 THE WITNESS: Thank you. 24 Sorry. 25 MR. LODGE: Yes? KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 17 1 THE WITNESS: Excuse me. 2 MR. DODGE: Not quite finished, Dr. Edwards. 3 THE WITNESS: You knew the time was short. I 4 was jumping the gun a little. 5 CROSS EXAMINATION 6 BY MR. DODGE: 7 Q. Good morning, Mr. Edwards. My name is Bob Dodge. We have 8 met once before back in December. 9 A. That's right. 10 Q. Just a few questions. You testified about the quantity of 11 plutonium that would be included in the Russian shipment. 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. Do you recall that? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. You testified that it was 135 grams? 16 A. That's what was announced, yes. 17 Q. And how many ounces is that? 18 A. How many ounces is that? 19 Q. Yes. 20 A. I don't think in terms of ounces. I have to do the 21 conversion. 22 Q. Can you do the conversion? 23 A. I don't have the -- 24 Q. If I told you that one ounce is 28 grams, does that sound 25 about right? KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 18 1 A. I have no reason to doubt it. We are on the metric system 2 in Canada, we don't use ounces anymore. 3 Q. I understand. If I estimated 135 grams was approximately 4 five ounces, would you quarrel with that? 5 A. I would have no reason to quarrel with that. 6 Q. Now, you also testified about the amount of plutonium that 7 would have to be inhaled in order to exceed the maximum 8 permissible dose under Canadian regulations? 9 A. That is correct. 10 Q. And in your testimony, as I understood it, the assumption 11 you were making was that every single molecule of 12 plutonium that was in that sample would end up in 13 somebody's lungs; is that right? 14 A. That's right. It's calculating the theoretical 15 potential. It is not talking about a realistic scenario. 16 Q. Not only would all of the plutonium have to end up in 17 someone's lungs, but the plutonium would have to be evenly 18 divided so that each person got exactly the same amount of 19 plutonium, it's not all concentrated in one person, you 20 would have to take one-millionths of the sample, put it in 21 one person's lungs and put the next one-millionth in the 22 next person's lungs and so on? 23 A. That is correct. 24 Q. Do you have any idea, if you performed the same analysis 25 on this table, what sort of toxicity numbers you would KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 19 1 get? 2 A. I have no idea of what that would be, no. 3 Q. Now you also talked about Canada's policies regarding 4 plutonium reprocessing. 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. Do you recall that? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. Do you have any understanding of whether the plutonium in 9 the Parallex MOX samples will or will not be reprocessed 10 in Canada? 11 A. It will-- to the best of my knowledge, it will not be 12 reprocessed in Canada, although that option apparently is 13 not decided. 14 Q. What is the basis for that last? 15 A. Because Canada has a policy that at sometime in the future 16 they may reprocess. 17 Q. Do you have any understanding whether there is an 18 understanding between the Government of Canada and the 19 Government of United States or the Government of Russia as 20 to whether these particular samples will or will not be 21 reprocessed? 22 A. I do not, no. 23 MR. DODGE: Thank you very much. 24 25 REDIRECT EXAMINATION KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 20 1 BY MR. LODGE: 2 Q. Dr. Edwards, the House of Commons question and answer, do 3 you know of any particular statistics on Canada's shipping 4 of spent fuel to British nuclear fields and fuels at Cello 5 Field? 6 A. I don't have those figures with me, I'm sorry. I could 7 supply them to the Court, if desired. I do have some 8 figures at my office at home, I don't have them here. But 9 we are talking -- if we are talking about three tons of 10 MOX being fabricated at Chalk River, then one could work 11 out approximately how much of that would contain 12 plutonium, how much plutonium would be contained assuming, 13 for example, three percent. 14 Q. Right. 15 A. And then one could reasonably suppose that the lion's 16 share of that would come from Cello Field. Now I have 17 figures on shipments from Cello Field, but I don't have 18 them here. 19 Q. My question is: Would you presume that the Atomic Energy 20 Control Board of Canada, or AECL of Canada, would make 21 public the fact that the spent MOX from Parallex were 22 being shipped to Britain for reprocessing? Would you 23 presume that would become public knowledge? 24 A. No, I would not assume anything related to plutonium would 25 become public knowledge in Canada. Canada has a very KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 21 1 non-public attitude toward plutonium dealings. In fact, 2 the existing plutonium dealings in Canada including the 3 BNFL contracts is not public knowledge other than as it 4 has been raised in foreign countries such as in Britain or 5 by documents that have been leaked to nongovernmental 6 organizations. This is not something which Atomic Energy 7 of Canada Limited makes public. 8 MR. LODGE: Thank you. 9 MR. DODGE: No recross, Your Honor. 10 THE COURT: You may step down, Dr. Edwards. 11 Thank you. 12 MR. LOVE: Your Honor, if it please the Court, 13 the Plaintiffs would call Francis Boyle to the stand 14 FRANCIS BOYLE - PLAINTIFFS' WITNESS - SWORN 15 COURT CLERK: Please be seated and state and 16 spell your name for the record. 17 THE WITNESS: My name is Francis Boyle. 18 F-r-a-n-c-i-s B-o-y-l-e. 19 DIRECT EXAMINATION 20 BY MR. LOVE: 21 Q. Dr. Boyle, are you currently employed? 22 A. Yes, I am a professor of international law at the 23 University of Illinois College of Law in Champaign. 24 Q. How long have you been employed in that capacity? 25 A. 1978. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 22 1 MR. LOVE: Your Honor, may I approach the 2 witness? 3 BY MR. LOVE: 4 Q. Dr. Boyle, I'm showing you what has been marked as 5 Supplemental Preliminary Injunction Hearing Plaintiffs' 6 Exhibit 3 and ask you if you can identify that document. 7 A. It's a copy of my professional resume. 8 Q. Was this resume prepared at or under your direction? 9 A. Yes. I think it's current as of January 28th, 1999. I've 10 been kind of busy in the last year, haven't revised it. 11 Q. To the extent it's current through that date, does that 12 accurately reflect your experience, education, seminars 13 that you participated in, and articles that you've 14 authored? 15 A. Not seminars I've participated in, that would be too many 16 but, you know, the essence of my professional career and 17 articles-- significant teaching, consulting, practice. 18 I'm also a licensed attorney as well. 19 Q. If you would, give us a brief recitation of your 20 educational background? 21 A. I attended the University of Chicago where I studied 22 international relations with Professor Hans Morganthal who 23 is the mentor of Dr. Henry Kissinger at Harvard. I was 24 one of seven students in my class elected to Phi Beta 25 Kappa as a junior. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 23 1 I also did work in mathematical biology, winning 2 the award for the work I did in that area by the world's 3 leading geneticist now at Harvard. 4 I graduated in three years. From there I went 5 to Harvard Law School. I have a J.D. Magna Cum Laude from 6 Harvard Law School specializing in international law. 7 I also entered the Graduate School of Arts and 8 Sciences at Harvard in the Department of Government. I 9 have a Master's degree and a Ph.D. in political science 10 specializing in international relations, international 11 politics. This is the same Ph.D. program that produced 12 Henry Kissinger, Zabanya Brezenski (phonetic) and other 13 high level U.S. Government officials. 14 I was at the Harvard Center for International 15 Affairs for two years. Kissinger and Brezenski had been 16 there before me. 17 I spent two years teaching in the Harvard 18 College undergraduates international law organizations, 19 human rights. I practiced law with a Boston law firm for 20 a year at Bingham, Dana and Gould, where I did 21 international tax, and tax, and then finally in 1978 I 22 came to the University of Illinois. I went up for tenure 23 at the beginning of my third year, which I got, and I've 24 been tenured there since, you know, many years. 25 Q. Since undertaking your position at University of Illinois, KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 24 1 have you specialized in any area with respect to 2 particular research, writing and international law? 3 A. Well, for the purpose of our proceedings today, yes. I 4 have been specializing an enormous amount on the nuclear 5 weapons, nuclear weapons policy, proliferation, arms 6 control. Going back to my studies with Professor 7 Morganthal 30 years ago so I've been involved in these 8 issues starting as a student since 1969 and continuously 9 until today. 10 THE WITNESS: Sorry, Your Honor, I have a bit of 11 laryngitis. 12 THE COURT: That's fine, no problem. 13 BY MR. LOVE: 14 Q. Dr. Boyle, if you would direct your attention to your 15 resume, I would like to touch on a few seminal points. On 16 the first page under teaching, the third entry down talks 17 about being a lecturer in Nuclear Weapons and 18 International Law, 21st Senior Conference on Nuclear 19 Deterrence at U.S. Military Academy at West Point in 20 1983. 21 A. Yes. This is a high level seminar run by the Pentagon, 22 not for the cadets, but for about 200 of the highest level 23 officials of the United States Government dealing with 24 nuclear weapons proliferation, nuclear weapons policies, 25 and I was asked to lecture to this conference, and I won't KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 25 1 go through all the high level officials there, but sitting 2 right in front of me for my lecture was the three star 3 general in charge of war operations at the Pentagon, at 4 that time General Mahaffey. And I also note I had read 5 the independent expert's report on the MOX program 6 U.S./Russia of 1977, one of the U.S. independent experts, 7 Richard Garwin was there with me and he was also a 8 lecturer with me to this group, so I do know that Garwin 9 was involved in the Parallex MOX recommendations. 10 Q. With respect to the second to the last entry on Page 1 of 11 Exhibit 3, talks about "Lecture Tour of the Soviet Union 12 on Nuclear Weapons and International Law for Lawyers' 13 Committee on Nuclear Policy and Association of Soviet 14 Lawyers" in 1986. What was involved with that? 15 A. Yes. The former Soviet Union, their equivalent to the 16 American Bar Association was the Association of Soviet 17 Lawyers, and in conjunction with the Lawyers' Committee on 18 Nuclear Policy headquartered here, they decided to invite 19 one professor to go over to the Soviet Union and lecture 20 around the country for two weeks on various issues related 21 to nuclear weapons and international law, and both 22 organizations selected me for this purpose, so I went over 23 for two weeks and gave several lectures per day, Moscow, 24 Leningrad, Kiev to professors, lawyers, peace people, 25 whoever, news media on various aspects of nuclear weapons KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 26 1 targeting doctrine as they relate to international law 2 and, in general, nuclear policies. 3 Q. If you would direct your attention, Dr. Boyle, to Page 2 4 under Practice, fifth entry down it says "Author, 5 Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989, Public Law 6 Number 101-298 (1990) (adopted unanimously by both Houses 7 of Congress)," could you explain what that means, please? 8 A. Yes. Your Honor, we are dealing here with a treaty, the 9 Nuclear Proliferation Treaty-- Nonproliferation Treaty of 10 1968. That treaty has been implemented by Congress in the 11 Nuclear Nonproliferation Act of 1978, the Nuclear 12 Proliferation Prevention Act of 1994 and also recent 13 amendments in 1998 to deal with the India/Pakistan 14 explosions. I have direct personal experience on how you 15 take a treaty, an international treaty, and implement it 16 as a matter of United States Constitutional law by working 17 with Congress. 18 The Biological Weapons Convention of 1972 is a 19 treaty that is a total, not only arms control reduction 20 and elimination treaty for biological weapons, I gave a 21 lecture on Capitol Hill calling for legislation, domestic 22 legislation to implement this treaty, and this 23 recommendation was taken up by a group I work for called 24 the Council of Responsible Genetics. I'm on their 25 Advisory Board. I also serve as counsel to them, so KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 27 1 pursuant to their request, I drafted the implementing 2 legislation, I authored it, how to implement this treaty. 3 And then we took it to members of the House and the Senate 4 and we shepherded it through the entire process dealing 5 with members of Congress, both Houses, including testimony 6 I prepared. At that point in time, the Reagan 7 administration was opposed to this implementing 8 legislation. I had to deal personally with their position 9 papers against it refuting these things. 10 Finally there was a change of policy when 11 President Bush came into office, to his credit, and they 12 supported the legislation. It finally was approved 13 unanimously by both Houses of Congress and signed into law 14 by President Bush in 1989. This legislation was called 15 the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989. It was 16 later amended in the anti-terrorism and effect Death 17 Penalty Act of 1996. 18 I thought I had drafted the most draconian piece 19 of legislation you could possibly imagine on biological 20 weapons, but there is always a loophole, Your Honor, so 21 Congress revisited this in 1996 to close some of the 22 loopholes that had not been apparent to me and the 23 scientists I worked with back in 19, starting in from '85 24 to about 1989. So I just cite this as having direct 25 personal experience with relationship between arms control KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 28 1 treatise, reduction treatise and then how they are 2 implemented by Congress. I have done this myself. On 3 biological weapons and I'm still involved in that issue. 4 Obviously, I have not been involved in the 5 drafting of the implementing legislation for the Nuclear 6 Proliferation Treaty of 1968, there are three pieces, but 7 I have read and reviewed the implementing legislation. I 8 have an understanding how they relate to the 9 Nonproliferation Treaty and I also teach a course on this 10 subject, that is how international laws related to the 11 United States Constitution is implemented by Congress and 12 also carried out in the courts. I teach an entire course 13 just devoted to this subject. 14 Q. Dr. Boyle, you've had some experience practicing before 15 what was known formerly as the International Court of 16 Justice but currently the World Court; is that correct? 17 A. Yes, I have. 18 Q. Could you relate to the Court a summary of that 19 experience? 20 A. Well, I've advised governments with respect to either 21 actual or potential World Court litigation, some of that 22 is still attorney/client confidence that I'm not prepared 23 to discuss. What I am prepared to discuss are those 24 matters that are in the public record. 25 I did serve as counsel to Libya on the Lockerbie KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 29 1 bombing case. It was my recommendation the-- 2 unfortunately President Bush had about the sixth fleet 3 mobilized off the coast of Libya and was about to bomb 4 Libya that we filed a lawsuit at the World Court to stop 5 the bombing. We filed a lawsuit, Libya was not bombed. 6 Later on, I was General Agent for the Republic 7 in Bosnia of Herzegovina before the International Court of 8 Justice. In other words, I was their first ambassador to 9 the World Court for the Republic of Bosnia, Herzegovina, 10 and I sued Yugoslavia for committing genocide against the 11 Bosnian people. I won two cease and desist orders 12 overwhelmingly in favor of Bosnia against Yugoslavia. 13 Later on, I publicly advised -- I advised the 14 Bosnian Government to sue Britain for aiding and abetting 15 genocide against Bosnia, and President Izetbegovic 16 instructed me to sue Britain for a genocide against 17 Bosnia. That lawsuit was terminated under duress, 18 threatened them, so they withdrew from those proceedings. 19 Q. Dr. Boyle, with respect to your writings, if you would 20 direct your attention to Page 3 of Exhibit 3, the last two 21 entries at the bottom -- excuse me, the second to last 22 entries entitled Nuclear Weapons and International Law: 23 The Arms Control Dimensions, do you see that? 24 A. Yes. This was the lecture I gave to the West Point 25 Military Academy senior conference proceedings, which they KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 30 1 did publish in their proceedings at West Point, and 2 actually under my books, I've just completed work on my 3 sixth book, which is entitled Nuclear Deterrence and 4 International Law. And right now it is sitting at Pluto 5 Press -- I guess that's appropriate for today's 6 proceedings -- Pluto Press in Britain. They have 7 expressed an interest in publishing it. They are 8 currently evaluating it. I do not have a contract on that 9 book, but I did get the e-mail just before I came here, so 10 I'll have to deal with that when I go back. 11 Q. With respect to your other publications, Dr. Boyle, I note 12 that on Page 4 you've got one entitled, about halfway 13 down, The Relevance of International Law to the "Paradox" 14 of Nuclear Deterrence. 15 A. That is correct. 16 Q. Can you tell us briefly what the subject matter is? 17 A. After I made the lecture at West Point, obviously the U.S. 18 military officials and others, we had a fairly vigorous 19 debate, let me put it that way. And that vigorous debate 20 between myself and these others led to this article that 21 was later published here in the United States and also 22 translated into Dutch, because the Dutch lawyers wanted it 23 to be available as part of the debate in Holland over the 24 deployment of the U.S. intermediate nuclear forces under 25 the Reagan administration, so they translated the whole KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 31 1 thing into Dutch and it was published in the Netherlands. 2 MR. LOVE: Your Honor, I have no further 3 questions of Dr. Boyle with respect to qualifications, and 4 I tender him for voir dire to the U.S. Attorney's Office 5 subject to my motion to admit Plaintiff's Exhibit 3 into 6 evidence. 7 MR. DODGE: I have no objection to the admission 8 of the C.V. 9 THE COURT: Exhibit 3? 10 MR. DODGE: Exhibit 3. 11 THE COURT: You have no voir dire questions to 12 ask either? 13 MR. DODGE: Not with respect to that exhibit. I 14 may get into the resume on the cross. 15 THE COURT: That's fair enough. 16 Exhibit 3 is received. 17 MR. DODGE: Thank you, your Honor. 18 BY MR. LOVE: 19 Q. Dr. Boyle, in preparing for your testimony here today, 20 could you please outline for the Court -- I think you have 21 done so somewhat already -- some of the documents that you 22 reviewed and the source materials you looked at in 23 preparing your testimony today? 24 A. I have a pretty detailed knowledge about these things 25 generally. For example, when the Nuclear Nonproliferation KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 32 1 Act first came out in 1978, I did read it, but in 2 preparation for this testimony today, I've gone back and 3 read the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, the Nuclear 4 Nonproliferation Act, the Nuclear Proliferation Prevention 5 Act of 1994, the 1998 amendments. I have read a large 6 quantity of documents produced by the Department of Energy 7 on the Parallex Project. I have read the Environmental 8 Assessment dealing with the aspects of international 9 environmental law that have not been dealt with in the 10 Environmental Assessment, in my opinion, should have been 11 dealt with the Stockholm Declaration, which is not there, 12 and the World Court Advisory Opinion on 1996, I have an 13 article on it that. I didn't go back and read the whole 14 advisory opinion, but I reread the portions of the 15 article, and other scholarly sources that deal with this 16 question. There are other sources I did not have a chance 17 to review not directly related to proliferation per se. 18 But for example, in my opinion the EA should 19 have dealt with the UN Convention on the Law of the Seas. 20 It's not in there. There's been nuclear accidents 21 convention, it's not dealt with in there. There is the 22 Bowel convention on the International Transportation of 23 Hazardous Substance and Toxic Materials, that's not in 24 there. I identified those as further sources that should 25 be analyzed in my opinion, but I haven't had a chance to KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 33 1 go back and review all of those sources. 2 Q. Dr. Boyle, did the types of materials that you've just 3 identified for the Court, are these the types of materials 4 that in your experience are relied upon by experts in the 5 field of international law in forming opinions as to the 6 legitimacy of governmental actions under internationally? 7 A. Yes. I also have experience reading environmental impact 8 statements. When the Pentagon produced the DEIS or the 9 biological defense research program, the Council for 10 Responsible Genetics asked me to evaluate this entire 11 thing -- it was an enormous document -- and submit formal 12 comments on it to the Pentagon, which I did do and they 13 did respond to. So this is the type of sources that 14 experts in my field would normally look at and review in 15 forming an opinion about Government behavior, and I have 16 done this before with respect to biological weapons. 17 Q. Dr. Boyle, I'm going to show you what has been marked for 18 identification as Plaintiff's Exhibit 4. Ask you to take 19 a moment to look at that and let me know when you've had a 20 chance to do so, please. 21 A. Yes. This is the treaty on the nonproliferation of 22 nuclear weapons, and as I've said, it has also been 23 implemented by Congress on the Nuclear Nonproliferation 24 Act of 1978, the Nuclear Proliferation Prevention Act of 25 1994 and also 1998 amendments. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 34 1 The critical point to keep in mind about this 2 treaty, Your Honor, is that Congress has passed 3 legislation expressing its understanding of what this 4 treaty means and what our obligations are under this 5 treaty. And this legislation is binding on the Department 6 of Energy, on the President, on the Department of State 7 and respectfully, Your Honor, on this Court. And what we 8 see, when you read through it all, is Congress has 9 decided, and prior to that the Atomic Energy Act as well, 10 that nuclear power, nuclear weapons, nuclear proliferation 11 is so important to the American people and our republic, 12 that they have decided to engage in micro management of 13 everything related to this subject and have pretty much, I 14 would not say completely eliminated, but whittled down 15 substantially any discretion that the executive branch 16 might have in this area. I have, as I said, I did read 17 the NPA back in 1978, but when you add in everything else, 18 what surprised me was how little discretion was left to 19 the executive branch with respect to nuclear 20 proliferation, nuclear weapons. In this area, they have 21 very little discretion. 22 Q. Professor Boyle, if you could, can you explain to the 23 Court what the implications are for Canada, Russia and the 24 United States under the Nonproliferation Treaty? 25 A. Well, my reading of both the treaty and in light of the KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 35 1 Department of Energy documents describing Parallex and 2 MOX, the Red Team report, many other documents that I've 3 read, in my opinion, there are serious problems, 4 compliance problems for this entire project under Articles 5 I, II and III of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty as 6 interpreted by the United States Congress. 7 The Article I deals with the obligations of the 8 United States and Russia. Each nuclear weapons State 9 Party to the Treaty, i.e. U.S. and Russia, undertakes not 10 to transfer to any recipient whatsoever, i.e. Canada, 11 nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices, and we 12 have a problem here in that Congress has interpreted this 13 to mean components of nuclear weapons or nuclear explosive 14 devices; that is, Congress simply does not interpret this 15 to mean you can't hand over a bomb, but a component for a 16 bomb is prohibited. And here we are dealing with weapons 17 grade plutonium, which Dr. Edwards has already testified 18 can be and indeed is, in his opinion, a component for 19 either a nuclear weapon or a nuclear explosive device. 20 Okay? 21 So when you read the treaty in light of the 22 statutory scheme, in my opinion, there are serious 23 compliance problems here with Article I, which have not 24 been addressed in the EA. The DOE has not dealt with any 25 of these problems at all in the EA, indeed, they have KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 36 1 basically said in one of their comments "Well, once we 2 give it to Canada, it's their problem," and that just is 3 an incorrect statement, in my opinion. 4 And it says "directly or indirectly," which 5 means also we, the United States, directly or indirectly 6 by encouraging and paying for the Russians to do this, you 7 see. So we are accountable for the Russian behavior 8 because we are working with them. And indeed, if we were 9 sued at the International Court of Justice -- let's 10 suppose something went wrong, Your Honor, and there was, 11 as Dr. Edwards testified, an aerial explosion in the 12 latest helicopter shipment and radiological dispersal of 13 plutonium that came across the border, killing Americans, 14 killing Canadians, others, if we were sued in World Court 15 over this, we would be found both jointly and severally 16 liable with Russia, with Canada, for any accident. 17 Likewise, this is followed up by both shipments on the 18 high seas of the plutonium. If there is an accident on 19 high seas, we could be sued at the World Court, the United 20 States, both ourselves and jointly and severally with 21 Russia and Canada over any accident here that might 22 happen. And that substantive liability could be based on 23 the U.N. Law of the Sea Convention. As I said, Your 24 Honor, I haven't had time to go through the environmental 25 provision of the Law of the Sea Convention, the Department KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 37 1 of Energy didn't even bother, and in the EA they did not 2 look at this at all. They did not consider this, but it 3 certainly is something that has to be considered, that 4 they haven't looked at. 5 And then "not in any way to assist, encourage or 6 induce any non-nuclear weapon State to manufacture or 7 otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear 8 explosive devices." Well, the problem here is Canada is 9 supposed to be a non-nuclear weapons state and says 10 "otherwise acquired nuclear explosive devices." Well, we 11 are giving them weapons grade plutonium, which again 12 Dr. Edwards has testified, and he is Canadian, is a 13 component of a nuclear weapons or nuclear explosive 14 device. And again, "or control over such weapons or 15 explosive devices." We are giving them weapons grade 16 plutonium. And if you look at how Congress has 17 interpreted this, they interpret it down to components, 18 they even talk about substances that they are trying to 19 regulate everything, and understand the 1978 legislation 20 was a very strict interpretation of what this treaty means 21 as far as the United States Government is concerned. And 22 I think we really need a comprehensive assessment here by 23 the Department of Energy as to whether or not any of these 24 transfers is consistent with Article I. Under the current 25 circumstances, they haven't bothered to look at any of the KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 38 1 terms as defined by Congress, the applicability of the 2 Congressional legislation to the transfers. 3 Likewise, Article II, Your Honor, Article II 4 deals with the Canadian obligations, "Each 5 non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes 6 not to receive the transfer from any transferor whatsoever 7 of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices." 8 Again, the same analysis here needs to be done. This 9 weapons grade plutonium, in my opinion and Dr. Edwards' 10 opinion, is clearly a component of either a nuclear weapon 11 or nuclear explosive device. And Canada, according to 12 this language, has agreed not to receive this material. 13 And by the way, as Dr. Edwards correctly pointed out, Your 14 Honor, this was consistent United States policy, stopping 15 proliferation of this type of material for any reason 16 going back to the Carter administration. We are seeing a 17 major dramatic change here in United States 18 nonproliferation policy, and that policy, Your Honor, 19 going back to the Carter administration, is enshrined in 20 law by Congress in the Nuclear Nonproliferation Act of 21 1978. So again, in my opinion, I believe these issues 22 likewise need to be addressed by the Department of 23 Energy. They have not been addressed in the environmental 24 assessment at all. 25 "Or control over such weapons or explosive KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 39 1 devices, directly or indirectly." Well, again, we are 2 giving Canada, either ourselves in the first shipment or 3 indirectly by means of the Russians in the second 4 shipment, control over a component for a nuclear weapon or 5 a nuclear explosive device. That's very clear they are 6 getting it. And according to the EA, we are trusting 7 their good intentions. There is no assurance in the EA 8 that this weapons grade plutonium is subject to 9 international safeguards. No. Despite the fact that 10 Congress has made it very clear that any transfer, and 11 Congress also made it clear in the legislation that they 12 are against any transfers of this type of stuff to other 13 States. But if there are any transfers at a minimum there 14 have to be absolute guaranteed protections on 15 international assurances to make sure it is not misused, 16 and you will note in the EA it says nothing about it. 17 There are no assurances about anything. 18 Now, "to manufacture or otherwise acquire 19 nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices; and 20 not to seek or receive any assistance in the manufacture," 21 etcetera, etcetera. 22 Article III then deals with the safeguard 23 requirements; that is, if there are transfers of materials 24 for peaceful purposes, and you know you can obviously, 25 Your Honor, you can read this yourself. There must be KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 40 1 safeguards. Under the supervision of the International 2 Atomic Energy Agency, the Environmental Assessment says 3 nothing at all about these safeguards. Nothing. It isn't 4 in there. 5 Apparently we have to rely on not even 6 statements by Canada that what we are transferring there, 7 what we are encouraging the Russians to transfer are 8 somehow going to be safeguarded despite the fact that 9 Article III says that there must be safeguards, and we 10 simply don't have them. 11 Q. Dr. Boyle, I'm going to show you what's been marked for 12 identification as Plaintiff's Exhibit 5 and ask you to 13 take a look in the upper right-hand corner, and after 14 you've had a moment to review that, let me know, please. 15 A. Yes. This is an article I had read in preparation for my 16 testimony here today, from the Toronto News. 17 Q. Based on your experience and expertise, Dr. Boyle, is this 18 the type of information that an international law scholar 19 could rely on in formulating opinions about the state or 20 nationally? 21 A. Well, here is stating comments by Mr. Tom Clemens, head of 22 the Washington-based Nuclear Control Institute. It's a 23 recognized organization dealing with nuclear policies, and 24 certainly experts in my field would rely upon statements 25 produced by the Nuclear Control Institute and, indeed, KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 41 1 prior to my testimony today, I did read several documents 2 produced by the Nuclear Control Institute just in the 3 normal course of preparing, yes. An expert in my field 4 would rely on this. 5 Q. Dr. Boyle, my recollection is you testified this appeared 6 in the Toronto -- 7 A. News. 8 Q. -- News and it -- 9 A. The Globe and Mail, which is, you know, it's sort of like 10 the New York Times here in the United States, a newspaper 11 of public record, so again, it's not like a tabloid or 12 something like this. 13 Q. Plaintiff's Exhibit 5, Dr. Boyle in the right-hand column 14 attributes some comments to a Sunni Locatelli purportedly 15 a spokeswoman at the Atomic Control Board. Do you see 16 that? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. What if anything is the significance, based on your 19 experience as expertise, of considering published reports 20 attributed to spokespersons for governmental entities in 21 formulating use of international law? 22 A. Yes. There is a decision by the International Court of 23 Justice in the nuclear test cases dealing with nuclear 24 explosions 1974, stating that the Court can rely upon 25 official statements made by Government officials acting KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 42 1 within their scope of authority and certainly Locatelli 2 here is the spokeswoman of the Atomic Energy Control 3 Board. So basically, I would be able to take this 4 statement and file it at the World Court and they would 5 find the statement could be, would be attributable to the 6 Canadian government, and Canada would be bound by this 7 statement. 8 Q. What does that article, Plaintiff's Exhibit 5, attribute 9 to Miss Locatelli? 10 A. She can't reveal how much fissile material Canada has. We 11 aren't able to give out that information under our 12 security regulations. Ms. Locatelli said Canada believes 13 it should come under the IA/EA guidelines because it 14 doesn't operate its own reprocessing facilities. I think 15 Dr. Edwards just pointed out that isn't correct. But even 16 if it were correct, it does come under IA/EA, and we need 17 to know, the United States Government under the NPT, under 18 the Congressional implementing legislation, we have to 19 know how much fissile material Canada has. 20 And basically, we are just taking their, 21 whatever their word is for it, and in my opinion, that's 22 unacceptable. We have to know how much material they have 23 and what they are doing with it, and what she's saying 24 here is "Well, we are just not going to tell you." And 25 you will note in the EA, the Department of Energy has KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 43 1 taken the same position. One of the comments made was 2 "Well, what is Canada doing," and the response of the DOE 3 is well, that is Canada's problem, once it leaves here we 4 are no longer responsible. The treaty and statutory 5 regime make it clear that's not the case. We are 6 responsible for our plutonium, wherever it goes. And 7 Congress has made it clear even if we do give it up, we 8 have to have absolute international safeguards as to what 9 is going to happen with our plutonium. And the same would 10 apply if we are encouraging Russia to ship weapons grade 11 plutonium to Canada. We have an obligation to make sure 12 that it's safeguarded and that it can be accountable and 13 accounted for. And what Ms. Locatelli here is saying 14 "Well, sorry, we are just not going to tell you." Again, 15 this raises serious problems in my mind that have not been 16 dealt with by the Department of Energy as to compliance 17 with the IA/EA safeguards regime, which is absolutely 18 required under Article III of the NPT and also required 19 under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Act. Indeed, if I 20 remember correctly, the 1994 implementation, Your Honor, 21 Congress said that transferring of unsafeguarded plutonium 22 is an act of international terrorism as far as Congress is 23 concerned. 24 So and that would trigger a whole host of other 25 provisions of the federal code dealing with international KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 44 1 terrorism, so we really need to know what is going to 2 happen to our plutonium when it gets up into Canada, and 3 to make sure there are safeguards and it is accountable 4 and there is an explanation here. 5 Now Mr. Clemens then said that, in his opinion, 6 Canada has 40 kilograms of plutonium, it's really not 7 accounted for or accountable for by anyone, and that 8 basically makes Canada a de facto nuclear weapons state. 9 I would agree, assuming that they do have the 40 kilograms 10 of plutonium, and I take it you know Mr. Clemens -- I had 11 e-mail correspondence with Mr. Clemens about this matter. 12 He feels that they do have it and that his group, the 13 Nuclear Control Institute, will be making this evidence 14 available soon. He told me it is not yet -- he is not yet 15 prepared to make it public, but they will be going public 16 with it soon. 17 In my opinion, if that is the case, they have 40 18 kilograms of plutonium, that's enough to make five bombs, 19 and that makes Canada a de facto nuclear weapons state 20 under the NPT and, in my opinion, would be inconsistent 21 with the NPT. There is a potential here for Canada being 22 in violation of the NET. We need to know that. Congress 23 has sanctions in there in the implementing legislation for 24 non-nuclear weapons states being, moving into a position 25 where they are de facto nuclear weapons states in KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 45 1 violation of the NPT. 2 It's clear Congress interprets our obligations 3 under the treaty to mean that a non-nuclear weapons state 4 simply cannot go off, assemble all the components for a 5 bomb, have one here, one there and one there, and then 6 say, oh but we are not a nuclear weapons state because we 7 haven't assembled the bomb. 8 Again, Congress made it very clear, no. Indeed, 9 in one of the pieces of legislation, Congress indicated 10 that it was also concerned with a facto nuclear weapons 11 states that an end run around the NPT, and the 12 Congressional regime applicable to it. Again, I regret to 13 report I haven't seen any of these issues dealt with by 14 the Department of Energy in the Environmental Assessments 15 and, indeed, when they were asked about it, they just said 16 this is now Canada's problem. Wondered-- United States 17 law of the NPT, it is not Canada's problem alone, it is 18 our problem because it's our plutonium and it's Russian 19 plutonium that we are paying to send up to Canada. 20 Q. Professor Boyle, based on the representations of Miss 21 Locatelli on behalf of Atomic Energy Control Board of 22 Canada that they don't believe they are subject to the 23 IA/EA guidelines, what if any impact would that have on 24 the United States' responsibility under the Nuclear 25 Nonproliferation Treaty of 1978? KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 46 1 A. It's very clear, Your Honor, the NPT and the Congressional 2 implementing legislation that we ourselves cannot ship 3 weapons grade plutonium there or engage in the Russians to 4 ship weapons grade plutonium unless there are absolutely 5 safeguards by the IA/EA that, to make sure that there is 6 no diversion. And again, Miss Locatelli is indicating 7 there is a high amount of uncertainty as to what is 8 happening with the Canadian plutonium. We simply don't 9 know. In the EA, there are no guarantees given by the 10 Department of Energy as to what is happening to plutonium 11 up in Canada. 12 Q. You may have testified to this, Dr. Boyle, and I apologize 13 if I missed it, but are Russia, Canada and the United 14 States all signatory partis to the Nonproliferation 15 Treaty? 16 A. Yes. We are all parties. There are about 182 or 183 17 states that are parties. The United States and Russia are 18 nuclear weapon states, parties to the convention, that is, 19 we are permitted to have nuclear weapons and nuclear 20 components, etc. Canada is designated a non-nuclear 21 weapons state. And they are supposed to preserve this 22 stative or statement. Yet according to the Nuclear 23 Control Institute, they have enough plutonium up there to 24 at least manufacture five bombs. So somehow this has to 25 be explained and accounted for in order for them to KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 47 1 continue their non-nuclear weapons state status under the 2 NPT, so again, the Nuclear Control Institute is raising 3 very serious compliance problems and potentially serious 4 violation of the NPT by Canada, and there are severe 5 sanctions in the United States laws enacted by Congress 6 under the Simplemen legislation, Your Honor, in the event 7 a state that is a non-nuclear weapons state moves to 8 become a nuclear weapons state. And again, none of this 9 has been addressed by the Department of Energy in the 10 environmental assessment that I'm aware of, either in the 11 environmental assessment or elsewhere. 12 Q. Dr. Boyle, could you advise the Court, if you would, as to 13 what the ramifications legally are of being a signatory 14 party to an international treaty such as the 15 Nonproliferation Treaty? 16 A. Yes. Your Honor, of course, the basic rule of Pacta Sunt, 17 P-a-c-t-a-s-u-n-t, Servanda, S-e-r-v-a-n-d-a. 18 The other point -- there are two other points, 19 however, that must be kept in mind in interpreting any 20 treaty and especially the NPT. First, the treaty must be 21 interpreted in good faith. And again, the question here 22 with Canada maintaining 40 kilograms of plutonium is 23 whether or not this is a good faith interpretation 24 implementation of the NPT by Canada. 25 Second, the treaty must be interpreted in KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 48 1 accordance with its object and purpose, and that in this 2 case the NPT is to stop nuclear proliferation. And again, 3 this entire program, the Parallex program, in my opinion, 4 seems to defeat the object and purpose of the NPT, which 5 is to stop nuclear proliferation. 6 The third point to keep in mind is that this 7 treaty has already been interpreted by Congress and 8 implemented by Congress. And Congress is agreeing with 9 what I'm saying here, Your Honor, and I'm agreeing with 10 what Congress is saying. Congress has made it very clear 11 that they do not want to see any type of nuclear 12 proliferation or programs that encourage nuclear 13 proliferation. And we are now seeing a drastic departure 14 from the policy enacted in Congress pursuant to the NPC 15 back in -- the NPT back in 1978 in the Nuclear 16 Nonproliferation Act, and we have seen no change in the 17 legislation by Congress to authorize or approve this 18 drastic change. And again, I agree with what Dr. Edwards 19 said from his Canadian perspective, my American 20 perspective, the Parallex MOX project is a drastic change 21 in encouraging proliferation of nuclear weapons components 22 and there has been no direct approval, change of statutes 23 or whatever. So again, this, in my opinion, raises very 24 serious problems under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty 25 as interpreted in good faith and in accordance with its KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 49 1 object and purpose not only for Canada, but the United 2 States and Russia. And in my opinion, we should have a 3 full study of all these issues by the Department of Energy 4 before there is any further movement on this project. 5 The implications here are enormous. They could 6 be catastrophic, and I personally would like to see a full 7 scale investigation analysis so that I could evaluate it 8 myself before anyone goes ahead with this project, but of 9 course that, you know, that's my personal opinion. I know 10 that's for you, Your Honor, to decide. 11 Q. Dr. Boyle, what if anything is the requirement or 12 obligation of the United States to interpret the 13 Nonproliferation Treaty in good faith? I think you 14 testified that Canada has that obligation. Does the 15 United States have a similar obligation? 16 A. Yes. And as a matter of fact, here Congress has 17 interpreted our obligation under the NPT and, in my 18 opinion, Congress has interpreted our obligations under 19 the NPT in good faith and also in accordance with the 20 object and purpose of this treaty. Congress interpreted 21 this by means of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Act of 1978, 22 the Nuclear Proliferation Prevention Act of 1994 and the 23 1998 amendments to do with the India-Pakistani 24 explosions. So in my opinion, Congress did interpret this 25 treaty in good faith and in accordance with its object and KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 50 1 purpose and it appears to me the Department of Energy is 2 off there on their own with no express authorization from 3 Congress pursuing a policy here that defeats the object 4 and purpose of the NPT. 5 Q. By that, you are referring to the Parallex project? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. With respect to the Congressional implementation of the 8 NPT in the '78, '94 and '98 acts, what if anything is the 9 role of the Department of State and/or Department of 10 Energy with respect to interpreting those obligations? 11 A. Yes. Your Honor, it's very clear from the treaty related 12 to the statutory scheme. Treaties deal with international 13 law and foreign relations. Therefore, they are normally 14 negotiated and concluded by the Department of State and 15 then they are handed over to the Senate Foreign Relations 16 to the Senate for advice and consent. It is the State 17 Department that traditionally has always had the sole and 18 exclusive role here in the United States with respect to 19 nonproliferation policy, not the Department of Energy. 20 The Department of Energy has always been treated as a 21 technical agency, technical consultant. The policy is 22 formulated by the State Department. There had been, again 23 going back to the Carter administration, United States 24 Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, Your Honor, set up by 25 Congress to deal precisely with these issues. They were KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 51 1 the ones given the authority to deal with proliferation 2 and nonproliferation policies negotiate these agreements, 3 etcetera. Senator Helms in the latest did not like act, 4 he concluded it was super numerator morgue or something so 5 he passed legislation terminating the Arms Control 6 Disarmament Agency and transferring all functions to the 7 Department of State today. But if you read the 8 Congressional implementing legislation, they make it very 9 clear that the lead role played on proliferation and 10 nonproliferation policy is the Department of State, not 11 the Department of Energy, and the Department of State 12 should consult with the Department of Energy. At times 13 the Department of Energy is given authority to have its 14 input to the Department of State, but it's the Department 15 of State that makes nonproliferation policy, not the 16 Department of Energy. 17 Q. In your review of the environmental assessment prepared by 18 the Department of Energy in January of '99, Dr. Boyle, 19 regarding the Parallex Project, is there any indication 20 that the Department of Energy consulted with the 21 Department of State? And if you don't mind, I direct your 22 attention to Page 41 of Plaintiff's Exhibit 12 previously 23 admitted and ask you to refer to that. 24 A. Yes. They had a list here of agencies consulted. Your 25 Honor, over here on Page 41, it says agencies consulted KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 52 1 during the preparation of this analysis: Atomic Energy of 2 Canada, Canadian Atomic Energy Control Board, U.S. 3 Department of Transportation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 4 Commission. They do not consult with the Department of 5 State and, in my opinion, and also in the opinion of 6 Congress, if you read through all the implementing 7 legislation, I know, Your Honor, as I understand it, you 8 are a conscientious Judge so I'm sure you are going to do 9 this, you'll see that they have to deal with the 10 Department of State. And the main problem with this EA is 11 they have not dealt with the Department of State, they 12 have not dealt with the nonproliferation issues, they have 13 not dealt with the Nonproliferation Treaty, they have not 14 dealt with the 1978 Act, they have not dealt with the 1994 15 Act, they have not dealt with the 1998 Act. All that is 16 expressly required by Congress. So again, in my opinion, 17 for some reason the Department of Energy has just decided 18 to go out there on its own and completely either ignore or 19 violate the Congressional statutes and procedures for 20 dealing with proliferation and nonproliferation issues. 21 Q. Dr. Boyle, to your knowledge, has the Department of State 22 retreated at all from the U.S. commitment to the 23 Nonproliferation Treaty as implemented by Congress through 24 the legislation you've indicated? 25 A. No, and as a matter of fact, Madeline Albright was just KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 53 1 out in India-Pakistan with President Clinton. As you 2 know, President Clinton stated that today India-Pakistan, 3 the Indian subcontinent is the most dangerous place on the 4 face of the earth because of the proliferation problem, 5 and they both have nuclear weapons now, and the dispute 6 over Casmir. 7 President Clinton then was just lectured in the 8 Indian Parliament publicly by the speaker of Parliament 9 for making the statement, but I think it's a fair and 10 accurate statement. Madeline Albright followed this up 11 with another statement reiterating our commitment to 12 nonproliferation and, specifically with respect to India 13 and Pakistan, that this was the policy of the United 14 States Government, and also tying this into the integral 15 importance of safeguards. 16 And again, that is a fair and accurate statement 17 of the policy being pursued by the President and the 18 Secretary of State that is charged under the legislation 19 and the Constitution to deal with these matters. There is 20 a complete and total disconnect here between what the 21 President and Secretary of State are saying and what the 22 Department of Energy is planning to do here in the 23 environmental assessment. 24 Q. Dr. Boyle, I'm going to show you what has been marked as 25 Plaintiff's Exhibit 11 and ask you to take a minute to KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 54 1 review that and let me know when you have had a chance to 2 do so, please. 3 A. Yes. This is an account of the Secretary of State 4 Albright's statement on April 2, as recently as April 2 5 dealing with our proliferation policies. And let me draw 6 a few things to your attention. United States regards 7 proliferation anywhere as our Number 1 security concern. 8 So again, she's pointing this out and she is the cabinet 9 officer with the authority to deal with these matters, not 10 the Secretary of Energy. We continue to seek universal 11 adherence to the NPT neither India nor Pakistan are 12 parties to the NPT. And here is crucial points: The 13 limits in our ability to cooperate with India and Pakistan 14 are a matter of U.S. law, as well as our international 15 obligations, all right? So Secretary Albright is pointing 16 out we have United States law that deals with 17 proliferation and this United States law -- of course, 18 she's not a lawyer -- but the U.S. law is the Nuclear 19 Nonproliferation Act, the Proliferation Prevention Act and 20 the '98 amendments as well as the Atomic Energy Act. So 21 there's a very comprehensive legislative scheme here as 22 well as our international obligation she points out. 23 There are international treaties here, and in particular 24 the most important one being the one she just referred to, 25 the Nonproliferation Treaty, and she is aware of that. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 55 1 Unfortunately, it does not appear that the Department of 2 Energy is aware of it or is concerned about it in the 3 least bit, at least as reflected in the environmental 4 assessment, they have not dealt with any of these issues 5 in environmental assessment nothing, none. 6 Q. Dr. Boyle, based on your experience and investigations 7 study, are you aware of whether or not India and Pakistan 8 have Canadian CANDU reactors? 9 A. As I understand it, they've got reactors from the Indian 10 Nuclear Bomb Project was a serous reactor, Canada, India 11 and United States, right. And Pakistan has a CANDU 12 reactor, right. And just the other day, the New York 13 Times reported the smuggling of substantial quantity of 14 nuclear materials out of the former Soviet Union towards 15 Pakistan that was recently intercepted in Kazakhstan, I 16 think. So I think this is a very serious problem. And I 17 don't see how this Parallex MOX -- it's only going to 18 compound the problem. These countries are doing 19 everything they possibly can. And here I would also add 20 in Israel is not a party to the NPT. There are other 21 states that have CANDU reactors, it has already been 22 reported in the professional literature, Your Honor, that 23 Japan too is a de facto nuclear weapons state in violation 24 of the NPT. And as Dr. Edwards already reported, they 25 have gotten a good deal of their nuclear material from KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 56 1 Canada. 2 So, we see -- Canadian reactors that are what, 3 in South Korea, Taiwan, states that are interested in 4 getting nuclear weapons. Clearly Taiwan wants them, South 5 Korea wants them. And you know, not that I can speak for 6 these governments, but it seems to me they have made a 7 decision the best way to get a weapon is to do it the way 8 the Indians did. We get a Canadian CANDU reactor, then we 9 start getting in whatever material we can get from, for 10 example, this MOX program. They will get plutonium and 11 then they can make a bomb, they can assemble a bomb. 12 As for the ease of assembling a bomb, Your 13 Honor, when I was a student at Harvard there was a very 14 bright student at MIT who, as a class project, assembled a 15 bomb. He had everything there except the plutonium. 16 That's how easy it is to assemble an atomic bottom, and he 17 brought it down there and, if I remember correctly, in 18 central square at MIT, and just showed it to everyone. 19 Even a bright student at MIT can assemble a bomb, that's 20 how easy it is to do. And what we see on these states 21 that say they are non-nuclear weapons states is an effort 22 to get a CANDU reactor and do what the Indians do use the 23 CANDU reactor, then they just need to get hold of the 24 plutonium, and Parallex MOX is going to give them access 25 to this plutonium if it gets in circulation. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 57 1 Q. Dr. Boyle, you've testified in some depth as to the 2 Nonproliferation Treaty and the implementation by Congress 3 indicating Congress' intent to prohibit even components, 4 parts of nuclear weapons to be covered by the U.S.; is 5 that correct? 6 A. Congress has interpreted the NPT, as I said, in good 7 faith, and to achieve its object and purpose and they have 8 interpreted to mean components that is clear of nuclear 9 weapons or nuclear explosive devices and there are other 10 areas in legislation where they even break it down to 11 items or substances that could be used for nuclear weapons 12 or nuclear explosive device, so Congress is aware of this 13 problem of a state becoming a de facto nuclear weapons 14 state and somehow trying to assemble components, items and 15 substances to be used for a nuclear weapon in order to 16 circumvent the treaty. So again Congress has interpreted, 17 I think, the treaty properly. 18 Q. Are you familiar in the course of your research with the 19 DOE's stockpile of stewardship program? 20 A. I am, yes. 21 Q. Are you familiar with their use in that program of 22 subcritical amounts of weapons grade plutonium? 23 A. Yes. Right now the Department of Energy is engaging in 24 what are known as subcritical tests. A subcritical test 25 is using -- they just did one this week, I think I gave KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 58 1 you the press release on it, and they are consistently 2 doing this. 3 A subcritical test uses a subcritical amount of 4 plutonium, which is under the -- it was eight kilograms. 5 And they are exploding it in order to test, verify and 6 develop the next generation of U.S. nuclear weapons. So 7 what we see the Department of Energy doing here is the 8 subcritical tests, in my opinion, would constitute it's 9 not a nuclear weapon, but it is a nuclear explosive 10 device. Now, there is nothing illegal with, under the NPT 11 with us having a nuclear explosive device, because we are 12 a nuclear weapons state party, but again, it creates 13 problems other states are now mimicking our behavior. 14 Russia is doing the same thing, France and Britain say 15 they are going to do the same thing. If we give weapons 16 grade plutonium to Canada, Canada could be doing the same 17 thing. Or the Russians give their weapons grade plutonium 18 to Canada, Canada could be doing the same thing, and other 19 states could be doing the same thing. So again, I think I 20 have serious concerns here, but I want to point out the 21 DOE is already engaged in the subcritical tests which are 22 clearly nuclear explosive devices. So it just doesn't 23 have to be a bomb to be regulated by the NPT. 24 Q. Dr. Boyle, in the scope of your experience and research, 25 have you become acquainted with the International Court of KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 59 1 Justice opinion regarding nuclear weapons in 1996? 2 A. Yes. As a matter of fact, I was part of the effort 3 originally to try to get that advisory opinion from the 4 World Court. 5 Q. If you would explain briefly what the significance, if 6 anything, of that World Court decision on the Parallex 7 project is, in your opinion? 8 A. Well, Your Honor, the World Court was asked by the United 9 Nations general assembly to give an opinion on the entire 10 question of nuclear weapons and international law. It's a 11 very long decision with many separate decisions in the 12 sense I've written an article here, Mr. Love might want to 13 provide it to you, going through all of it. But in this 14 opinion, there are two critical components that are 15 relevant to the Parallex MOX project and, of course, the 16 EA has not dealt with either, let alone the World Court 17 opinion, and the World Court opinion in this area 18 enunciates the rules of international law that are binding 19 on the United States Government, binding on Canada, 20 binding on Russia. The one component of this opinion 21 deals with the environmental-- international environmental 22 law applicable to nuclear weapons, and you will note in 23 the EA, the DOE does absolutely nothing at all with 24 international environmental law applicable to this 25 transaction because it is an international transaction, KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 60 1 they're shipping plutonium from the States up to Canada 2 and from Russia over to Canada. So international 3 environmental law is involved, and the DOE has done 4 nothing at all about it. 5 And Mr. Love, I think you have the exact 6 language there. You want to provide that to me, the exact 7 ruling of the Court on the international environmental law 8 that would apply? 9 MR. LOVE: Your Honor, we have tendered what I'm 10 going to show Dr. Boyle as Plaintiff's Exhibit 14, a copy 11 of the World Court opinion to both the Court and counsel 12 previously. 13 BY MR. LOVE: 14 Q. Dr. Boyle, I'm going to show you what has been marked as 15 Plaintiff's Exhibit 14 and ask you to take a look at that 16 and let us know when you've had a chance to do so and what 17 it is. 18 A. Right, this is the World Court advisory opinion. It's so 19 long, I'm going to have to get my notes on it, excuse me. 20 I think, Mr. Love, I gave you my notes last 21 night on the relevant provisions of the opinion, the 22 relevant paragraphs. 23 Q. While I'm looking for your notes, could you direct your 24 attention to Paragraph 27, please? 25 A. Right. What we need are the paragraphs here. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 61 1 Right. Yes, I have Paragraph 27. 2 Your Honor, here the World Court unanimously 3 adopted Principle 21 of the Stockholm Declaration of 1972, 4 which everyone would say today is a basic principle of 5 international environmental law, which the EA has not 6 bothered to deal with. And it basically says states have 7 a duty "to ensure that activities within their 8 jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to the 9 environment of other states or areas beyond the limits of 10 national jurisdiction." That's a basic principle of 11 international environmental law. It goes back to the 12 Stockholm Declaration of 1972. It has direct relevance 13 here to this entire project. You've got international 14 shipment of plutonium, it's going over the high seas if it 15 goes by boat from Russia. That also triggers the Law of 16 the Sea Convention that they have not dealt with. They 17 haven't dealt with the Stockholm Declaration, and they 18 have not dealt with this recent ruling by the World Court 19 as to obligations under international law. If you read 20 the EA when they are asked this question, they said "Once 21 we give to Canada, that's their problem." Well, again, 22 that isn't a correct statement of international law. It 23 is our problem. 24 The second important point of the ICJ opinion, 25 and there are other sections here dealing with the KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 62 1 environment -- and I know we have a limited amount of 2 time, I'm not going to go through it all -- deals with the 3 interpretation of the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty. 4 This is an international treaty, the World Court 5 also has authority to interpret the Nuclear 6 Nonproliferation Treaty, and they have interpreted the 7 Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. 8 Mr. Love, could you give me -- I identified a 9 paragraph for you, I think it's 102. 10 Q. I believe you are looking for Paragraph 102? 11 A. 102, right. 12 Q. May also want to take a look at Paragraph 99. 13 A. 99 and 102, right. 14 The World Court, in the same advisory opinion, 15 has also dealt with the NPT and the obligation of Article 16 VI of the NPT, "Each of the parties to the treaty 17 undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on 18 effective measures relating to cessation of the" -- "in 19 good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of 20 the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear 21 disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete 22 disarmament under strict and effective international 23 control." And they have interpreted this provision, NPT 24 Article VI, which we are a party to, by the way, to have a 25 dual obligation, two components here: One, we must pursue KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 63 1 negotiations on nuclear disarmament as a matter of good 2 faith. 3 Recently, I regret to report the U.S. Ambassador 4 to the Conference on Nuclear Disarmament sponsored by the 5 United Nations has said "We are not going to pursue 6 nuclear disarmament negotiations." In my opinion, that 7 puts us in breach of NPT Article VI, certainly as 8 interpreted by the World Court. We have an obligation to 9 pursue nuclear disarmament negotiations and we have just 10 said we are not going to do it. The Ambassador said "We 11 are going to pursue instead a treaty on the cutoff of 12 fissile materials such as what is at stake here, but we 13 are not going to pursue nuclear disarmament negotiations." 14 Well, Your Honor, it does seem to me that that is a 15 violation of NPT Article VI and is certainly not meeting 16 the requirements of Article VI as interpreted by the World 17 Court. We must pursue these negotiations in good faith. 18 And then the second component of the obligation 19 is we must achieve a precise result. Nuclear disarmament 20 in all its aspects. And again just recently the U.S. 21 Ambassador to the Council of Nuclear Disarmament under the 22 auspices of the UN said "We are just not going to do it." 23 The reason why this creates serious legal problems is that 24 the non-nuclear weapons states went along with the entire 25 Nuclear Proliferation Treaty on the assumption that the KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 64 1 nuclear weapons states would engage in good faith 2 negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament. If we are 3 not engaging in negotiations leading to nuclear 4 disarmament and publicly say we are not going to do it, 5 this in theory could give the non-nuclear weapons states, 6 all 175 of them, grounds to argue the material breach of 7 the NPT and pull out of the NPT and to engage in nuclear 8 armament. Now I'm not recommending that and indeed I 9 certainly would not recommend that to anyone, but it is a 10 very serious concern if we are not engaging in these 11 nuclear disarmament negotiations, which we are not 12 currently doing. 13 Q. Dr. Boyle, could you briefly summarize for the Court why 14 the International Court of Justice opinions, if at all, 15 are binding on the U.S.? 16 A. This opinion per se is listed as an advisory opinion. So 17 it is -- we are not party to the lawsuit. As you know, 18 some courts can give advisory opinions. Your Honor, you 19 can't give an advisory opinion, but there are courts in 20 the United States that some states courts have authority 21 to give advisory opinions as well as contentious 22 opinions. The World Court has both. They have authority 23 contentious opinion and an advisory opinion. This was not 24 a contentious case. If it were a contentious case, we 25 would be bound by it, like the Lockerbie case, like the KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 65 1 Bosnia cases that I was involved with, those were 2 contentious cases. This was an advisory opinion, however, 3 in this advisory opinion, with these unanimous rulings by 4 the World Court on these points, the World Court made it 5 clear that these rules are customary international law. 6 And rules of customary international law bind the United 7 States Government. The Paquete, P-a-q-u-e-t-e, Habana, 8 H-a-b-a-n-a, decision by the United States Supreme Court 9 customarily international law binds the United States and 10 the United States courts. And technically, this is 11 federal common law. So the, Your Honor, this Court should 12 take into account the World Court rulings on these two 13 points on international environmental law and how the NPT 14 should be interpreted. 15 The rest of the opinion, which is quite lengthy 16 and I had written about elsewhere -- if you are interested 17 in reading my article, you can, but it's not really 18 relevant or terribly germane to the issues here, but 19 certainly, the section on international environmental law 20 and their interpretation of the NPT is relevant. I think 21 they enunciate rules of customary international law. I 22 also have reached the same conclusions myself in my own 23 scholarly research before the World Court did, but I think 24 most experts would agree with the rulings of the World 25 Court on these two points, it's requirements of KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 66 1 international environmental law and the interpretation of 2 the NPT. 3 And again, the DOE's environmental assessment 4 has not taken any of this into account. They have not 5 taken into account the rules of international 6 environmental law, which they should do, and they have not 7 taken into account anything about the NPT. 8 Q. Dr. Boyle, based on your review of the NPT, the Nuclear 9 Nonproliferation Acts of 1978, 1994, and 1998, the 10 International Court of Justice opinion, and the 11 declarations by the Department of State regarding the U.S. 12 position with respect to the Nonproliferation Treaty 13 commitments we have made, do you have an opinion as an 14 expert in international law as to whether the foreign 15 policy of the United States would be violated by the 16 shipment of MOX from Russia to Canada funded by the U.S. 17 DOE? 18 A. Well, again, I agree with everything Dr. Edwards said. 19 Your Honor, this is a major change in United States 20 nonproliferation policy going back at a minimum to the 21 Carter administration and the adoption of the Nuclear 22 Nonproliferation Act, it seems to me completely 23 inconsistent with the treaty, with the Act, the 1978 Act 24 and 1994 Act and the 1998 Act. So yes, this is a major 25 change in policy that potentially is illegal under the KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 67 1 sources. And I would really like to see the Department of 2 Energy comprehensively address all of these issues so we 3 could see what is their authority to do this. Besides 4 their own ipse dixit. I would like to see the authority. 5 I don't see it in any of the sources I've read before for 6 them to unilaterally engage in this major change in policy 7 that seems to be inconsistent with the Treaty, the '78 8 Act, the '94 Act and '98 Act, yes. 9 MR. LOVE: Your Honor, I have no further 10 questions of this witness. Thank you. 11 CROSS EXAMINATION 12 BY MR. DODGE: 13 Q. Morning, Mr. Boyle. 14 A. Morning. 15 Q. I would like to turn your attention back to your C.V., 16 which I think is Exhibit 3. Do you have that in front of 17 you? 18 A. Sure. 19 Q. Just to round out a few items on the second page, about 20 halfway down you testified that you were counsel to Libya 21 in connection with the bombing of the Pan Am flight over 22 Lockerbie, Scotland. 23 A. That is correct. I should point out that matter is being 24 peaceably resolved now by the United States and Libya 25 because of my efforts. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 68 1 Q. And you've also served, going up now the fourth item from 2 the top of that page, since 1987 you served as a legal 3 advisor to the Palestine Liberation Organization? 4 A. That is correct, and I was also the legal advisor to the 5 Palestinian delegation for the Middle East Peace Talks 6 convened under the auspices of President Bush, yes. 7 Q. And two items down from there said you were counsel 8 related to House Resolution 86 in the 102nd Congress 9 dealing with the impeachment of former, then President 10 George Bush? 11 A. Yes. Congressman Henry G. Gonzalez of Texas reached a 12 decision that President Bush going to war violated 13 numerous provisions of the Constitution and international 14 law. You can find them there in House Resolution 86. And 15 he asked me, because of my knowledge and expertise to 16 serve as counsel to them on these matters, and I did serve 17 as counsel free of charge, that is correct. 18 My service to the Palestinian Delegation in the 19 Middle East Peace Negotiations is there in '91 and '93, as 20 I said, President Bush was the one who convened those 21 negotiations, and yes, even though I did set out with 22 Congressman Gonzalez on this issue, President Bush did 23 sign my Biological Weapons Anti-terrorists Act of 1989, 24 which is -- 25 Q. He apparently didn't hold your efforts against you KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 69 1 personally. 2 A. Pardon me? 3 Q. Sounds like he didn't hold it against you personally. 4 A. I don't think he did, no. I'm a lawyer and a law 5 professor and I'm a professional, but he had no problems, 6 President Bush had no problems with my Biological 7 Anti-Terrorism Act. It was approved unanimously by both 8 Houses of Congress. 9 Q. Moving on to the third page, second item from the top of 10 the page, you worked as a consultant in 1993 on 11 Independence for the State of Hawaii. I would assume for 12 Hawaii to become an independent nation? 13 A. That is correct. The State of Hawaii-- the Hawaiian 14 Sovereignty Advisory Commission is an agency of the State 15 of Hawaii. And they were charged under the law by the 16 State of Hawaiian law to investigate all alternatives for 17 the native Hawaiian people. One of the alternatives that 18 needed to be investigated was whether or not the native 19 Hawaiian people should establish their own independent 20 nation state. And I was retained by the State of Hawaii 21 then to advise them on this because of my experience doing 22 the same work with the Palestinians. I advised them on 23 the creation of their state and the peace talks with 24 Israel based on a two-state solution, and the Palestinian 25 state today has diplomatic recognition now by about 125 KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 70 1 states, and currently has de facto UN membership, and I 2 did the legal work on that, so the State of Hawaii 3 retained me to come out and advise on the establishment of 4 an independent nations state, and the State of Hawaii paid 5 my expenses and a modest fee for this work, yes. 6 Q. Moving on to the Nonproliferation Treaty, you testified 7 about Article I. Do you recall that? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. And as I understood your testimony, your view is that the 10 fuel rods at issue in the Parallex Project, in your view, 11 should be treated as components of a nuclear weapon; is 12 that right? Explosive device? 13 A. No. What I said was weapons grade plutonium should be 14 treated as a component of either a nuclear weapon or a 15 nuclear explosive device. 16 Q. What about -- I mean, the Parallex test involves shipment 17 and then irradiation of fuel rods; is that correct? 18 A. Right. 19 Q. And is it your view or is it not your view that those fuel 20 rods constitute components of nuclear weapons or explosive 21 devices? 22 A. My viewpoint is what I said, that weapons grade plutonium 23 is a component of a nuclear weapon or nuclear explosive 24 device. 25 Q. You didn't answer my question. Do you understand the KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 71 1 question? 2 A. Well, I've given my answer. 3 THE COURT: No, you haven't answered his 4 question. He asked you question, if you don't know the 5 answer, say so. He asked you a very specific question 6 about rods. 7 BY MR. DODGE: 8 Q. In fact, the question has to do with your view, if you 9 have one, whether the fuel rods at issue in the Parallex 10 test program constitute components of nuclear weapons or 11 explosive devices. 12 A. If they contain weapons grade plutonium, they would be or 13 could be components of nuclear weapons or nuclear 14 explosive devices. 15 Q. Well, these fuel rods do contain plutonium; is that right? 16 A. As I understand it, it's in there, yep. 17 Q. So in your view, does that make the fuel rods components 18 of nuclear weapons or explosive devices? 19 A. Again, my testimony is that the weapons grade plutonium 20 clearly is either nuclear -- is a component of a nuclear 21 weapon or a nuclear explosive device, and the reason I 22 give that testimony is based on my reading of the 23 Congressional legislation, Congress has taken the position 24 that weapons grade plutonium or plutonium, in general, is 25 a component of a nuclear weapon or nuclear explosive KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 72 1 device. Congress does not deal with the fuel rods, they 2 dealt with the plutonium. 3 Q. I want to make sure I understand your testimony clearly. 4 Is it your testimony, is it your view that any 5 plutonium would qualify as a component of a nuclear 6 weapons or nuclear weapon or explosive device under the 7 treaty? 8 A. My testimony today is the weapons grade plutonium involved 9 in this project is a component of a nuclear weapons or 10 other nuclear explosive device. I believe weapons grade 11 plutonium is what is involved in this project. 12 Q. I asked you a different question. The question was a 13 broader one. Is it your view or not your view that all 14 plutonium would qualify as a component of a nuclear weapon 15 or explosive device under Article I? 16 A. It appears Congress has taken that position, yes, and they 17 have stringently regulated plutonium in all forms. And I 18 also note that the United States Government has exploded a 19 nuclear weapon -- 20 THE COURT: The question is: Is it your 21 opinion? He is asking four or five times now, could you 22 answer that? 23 THE WITNESS: But Your Honor, my opinion is 24 based on -- 25 THE COURT: In courts -- I know you are a KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 73 1 professor -- we answer the questions of the lawyer, not 2 what we want to talk about. He asked you seven or eight 3 questions, none of which you've answered. I would ask you 4 simply listen to the lawyer's question and answer it. 5 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honor. 6 BY MR. DODGE: 7 Q. Do you understand the question? 8 THE COURT: Ask it again for the fifteenth time, 9 ask it again. 10 BY MR. DODGE: 11 Q. Is it your view that all plutonium constitutes a component 12 of nuclear weapon or explosive device under Article I of 13 the treaty? 14 A. It can. 15 Q. It can? 16 A. Yes. Yes. 17 Q. Is it your view across the board that plutonium, whether 18 weapons grade or not, if it's present in a fuel rod for 19 a-- destined for a civilian nuclear reactor would qualify 20 as a component of a nuclear weapon explosive device? 21 A. It could. 22 Q. Do you know whether as a general matter the signatories of 23 the Nonproliferation Treaty have interpreted, whether any 24 signatory has interpreted Article I to ban transport of 25 fuel rods containing plutonium? KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 74 1 A. Congress has strictly regulated plutonium, yes, and there 2 is legislation on the books saying "We, Congress, 3 interpreting our obligations under the NPT, are against 4 international transport of plutonium," yes. 5 Q. Has Congress passed any legislation prohibiting the 6 transport of nuclear fuel rods containing any plutonium? 7 A. In what I have reviewed for my testimony here today, I 8 have not seen in the '78, '94 or '98 Act that Congress has 9 prohibited transport of fuel rods. 10 Q. In fact, fuel rods are transported across national 11 boundaries all the time; is that not correct? 12 A. They are transported. 13 Q. In fact, fuel rods containing plutonium are transported 14 across national boundaries all the time, isn't that 15 correct? 16 A. If they are subject to-- they are supposed to be subject 17 to safeguards, yes. 18 Q. Well, that gets us to another point of your earlier 19 testimony regarding whether the fuel rods particularly at 20 issue in the Parallex Project are or are not subject to 21 IA/EA safeguards in Canada. Do you recall that testimony? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. Do you have personal knowledge whether Canada, the 24 Government of Canada has taken a position on whether the 25 U.S. Parallex fuel rods, which are now in Canada, whether KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 75 1 those fuel rods are now subject to IA/EA safeguards? 2 A. I have not seen any evidence because of the recentness of 3 the movement of the shipments. 4 Q. If I told you that the position of the Government of 5 Canada is that those fuel rods are, in fact, subject to 6 IA/EA safeguards, would you have any basis to quarrel with 7 that? 8 A. The statement by Ms. Locatelli does call into question the 9 validity of these assertions, yes. 10 Q. Miss Locatelli was generally speaking of Parallex fuel 11 rods, was she? 12 A. Speaking about plutonium in general, right. 13 Q. I take it you didn't speak personally to Miss Locatelli? 14 A. No, I did not. 15 Q. About this or any-- 16 A. But I did speak with Mr. Clemens of NCI by e-mail and he 17 has similar concerns to me. 18 Q. Okay. And did you speak to the newspaper reporter, Martin 19 Mittelstaedt, who quoted Ms. Locatelli? 20 A. No, I did not. 21 Q. Whether his quotes accurately reflect what she said or not 22 is not something you would be qualified to testify about; 23 is that right? 24 A. Well, I note The Globe and Mail is a newspaper of public 25 record and I would be able to rely on that in the World KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 76 1 Court for sure, yep. 2 Q. But newspaper reporters are human beings? 3 A. Newspaper reporters make mistakes, sure. But again, the 4 World Court, for example, the nuclear test cases did rely 5 on statements made by Government officials as normally 6 reported in reputable news media sources. They have 7 different standards of evidence, the World Court, than 8 they do here in United States District Court. 9 Q. Now you've also relied on this article, Plaintiff's 10 Exhibit 5, I guess too, in support of your opinion that 11 Canada is in possession of 40 kilograms or up to 40 12 kilograms of plutonium; is that right? 13 A. This is a statement by Mr. Clemens, and I have had e-mail 14 correspondence with him about it. 15 Q. Do you have any personal knowledge whether -- 16 A. No. 17 Q. I'm sorry, I didn't finish my question. 18 A. I did answer your question. 19 THE COURT: He hasn't finished asking it; you 20 couldn't possibly answer his question when he hasn't 21 finished asking it. 22 THE WITNESS: Sorry. 23 BY MR. DODGE: 24 Q. Do you have any personal knowledge of whether Canada, in 25 fact, has 40 kilograms of plutonium? KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 77 1 A. I do not have personal knowledge, no. I'm relying on the 2 statement by Mr. Clemens. 3 Q. Mr. Clemens, does Mr. Clemens have personal knowledge 4 whether Canada has 40-- 5 A. As I understand, Mr. Clemens does. From my e-mail 6 correspondence with him, he does. 7 Q. Has he seen that plutonium? 8 A. Pardon me? 9 Q. Has he seen it? 10 A. He didn't tell me what his sources of evidence are, but he 11 did tell me that they will be making it public soon. 12 Q. So he thinks he has -- he thinks he has evidence to 13 support that conclusion and whether that evidence holds 14 any water or not, we really can't tell, can we? 15 A. Well, again, as an expert, if the NCI is making the 16 statements, I think they are significant and they need to 17 be dealt with, and certainly by the Department of Energy. 18 THE COURT: That was not -- excuse me, that was 19 not his question. 20 Would you repeat your question, please? 21 BY MR. DODGE: 22 Q. The question is: Mr. Clemens believes he has reason or he 23 has evidence to support his conclusion that Canada has 40 24 kilograms of plutonium, but as far as anybody in this 25 courtroom knows, that evidence may or may not hold water, KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 78 1 we just don't know, correct? 2 A. I'm not evaluating the evidence, and Mr. Clemens said the 3 evidence will be produced, so at that point I will review 4 the evidence and formulate a formal opinion. 5 THE COURT: Do you want to ask it again or just 6 want to give up? 7 MR. DODGE: I think that -- I think the point is 8 established to the extent I need to, Your Honor. 9 BY MR. DODGE: 10 Q. Now, you testified earlier that it's up to the State 11 Department, not the Department of Energy to interpret 12 United States treaty obligations; is that right? 13 A. I testified that it is the State Department that is in 14 charge of nuclear proliferation policies, that's what I 15 testified, and not the Department of Energy, yes. 16 Q. Okay. Is it your view that it's -- maybe I misunderstood 17 what you testified earlier. I thought I heard you say 18 that interpreting whether or not the U.S. is complying 19 with Nonproliferation Treaty in particular, that pertinent 20 authority on that would be the State Department, not the 21 Department of Energy; is that a fair statement? 22 A. I've also testified that the State Department has the lead 23 role in the United States Government with respect to 24 interpretation of treatises as well. 25 Q. Do you know what the State Department's position is on KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 79 1 whether the Parallex test program is or is not compliant 2 with Article I of the Nonproliferation Treaty? 3 A. Well, that's why I read the Environmental Assessment, to 4 see if you had talked to the State Department here, and 5 they hadn't, so I have not seen any statement by the State 6 Department as to what their position is, no. 7 Q. The Environmental Assessment is not the only document 8 that's been generated in the course of the Parallex 9 Project, you understand that? 10 A. That is correct, and I have read a good deal of the 11 documentation, but I still have not seen an expression by 12 the Department of State on this issue. 13 Q. Okay. Do you know whether or not the State Department was 14 involved at any level in the Parallex Project? 15 A. There probably were discussions somewhere in there. 16 Q. Do you know? 17 A. Myself personally? 18 Q. Yes. 19 A. I don't know for sure. 20 Q. Do you know one way or the other whether the State 21 Department has a view on whether the Parallex Project is 22 consistent with our treaty obligations under Article I of 23 the NPT? 24 A. I have not seen any expression by the State Department on 25 this issue. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 80 1 Q. If I told you the State Department has taken the view that 2 the Parallex Project is entirely consistent with our 3 obligations under Article I, would you have any basis to 4 quarrel with that? 5 A. I haven't seen it. 6 MR. LODGE: Objection, Your Honor. 7 THE COURT: If he hasn't seen -- 8 MR. DODGE: Withdraw the question, Your Honor. 9 THE WITNESS: I would like to see it and 10 evaluate it myself, sure. 11 BY MR. DODGE: 12 Q. You also testified about dangers of nuclear proliferation 13 relating to countries such as Taiwan and Korea that are 14 not currently nuclear weapons states, but would like to 15 acquire nuclear weapons, do you recall that testimony? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. Is it correct that the MOX program, the Parallex Program 18 does not contemplate the shipment of any fuel rods to any 19 country other than Canada? 20 A. Not at this stage, but eventually it does appear there 21 will be mass circulation of this material, yes, down the 22 line. 23 Q. And the basis for that is what exactly? 24 A. The quantities. If the test works out, the quantity we 25 are talking about coming from Russia. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 81 1 Q. Well, let me be more specific about this. Has the United 2 States, any spokesperson for the United States Government 3 proposed in connection with the Parallex Project to send 4 fuel rods to any country other than Canada? 5 A. The United States? 6 Q. Right. 7 A. No. 8 Q. Has the Government of Russia proposed, in connection with 9 the Parallex Project, to send fuel rods to any country 10 other than Canada? 11 A. Well, they are talking about massive quantities of weapons 12 grade plutonium being circulated into this program and the 13 independent team of experts by Russia and the United 14 States have made that quite clear they are talking tons of 15 this stuff. 16 Q. Well, again, you didn't answer my question there, 17 Professor. I asked you whether the Russian Government has 18 proposed sending fuel rods to any country other than 19 Canada. Your answer only dealt with volumes, it didn't 20 address where. That was my question. 21 A. Right. There might have been discussions on Germany or 22 some of the European states have there -- there have been 23 discussions and proposals, but it's just at that stage 24 now, yes. 25 Q. But Russia has not, to your knowledge, proposed sending KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 82 1 fuel rods to Korea? 2 A. There is an international market here, sure, it could be 3 sold anywhere. 4 THE COURT: No, he didn't say could have. He 5 said: Did they propose it? 6 THE WITNESS: I have not read that right now 7 Russia is proposing sending this to Korea. 8 BY MR. DODGE: 9 Q. Same question with Taiwan. 10 A. I have not read that Russia is proposing to send this to 11 Taiwan. 12 MR. DODGE: No further questions at this time, 13 Your Honor. 14 THE COURT: We will take a 15-minute recess. 15 COURT CLERK: All rise. 16 This court is in recess. 17 (At 10:54 a.m., recess.) 18 THE COURT: Okay. What is next? 19 MR. LOVE: Brief redirect, Your Honor. 20 REDIRECT EXAMINATION 21 BY MR. LOVE: 22 Q. Professor Boyle, did you receive any recognition or 23 rewards from Bosnia for your efforts on their behalf? 24 A. While I was never paid a penny, but President Izetbegovic 25 and Vice President Gonich (phonetic) held a ceremony at KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 83 1 the Bosnian presidency with a-- awarded me full-fledged 2 citizenship in the Republic, a diplomatic passport and 3 visa and a declaration and they put the ceremony on 4 television, so that was very nice. So technically I'm a 5 Bosnian citizen too. 6 Q. Dr. Boyle, with respect to your work on the Hawaiian 7 independence that Mr. Dodge asked you about, has there 8 been any action by the President or Congress, to your 9 knowledge, with respect to that? 10 A. Yes. In 1993 Congress passed a statute signed into law by 11 President Clinton formally apologizing to the native 12 Hawaiian people for destroying their kingdom and stealing 13 their land. The legislation at the end provides for a 14 process of reconciliation and reparations, and how this is 15 going to be dealt with, and I'm still currently involved 16 in those matters. 17 Q. Dr. Boyle, there should be a document up there marked 18 Plaintiff's Exhibit 13. Do you see that? 19 A. Yes, I have it here. 20 Q. Now, this is entitled a Nonproliferation Arms Control 21 Assessment of Weapons Usable Fissile Material Storage and 22 Excess Plutonium Disposition Alternatives, dated January, 23 1997 authored by the United States Department of Energy, 24 correct? 25 A. Yes. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 84 1 Q. Was this among the documents that you reviewed in 2 preparing your testimony? 3 A. I did not have -- I did not get this entire document until 4 Monday, so I did not have a chance to review the entire 5 document, but I have reviewed the excerpts you gave to 6 me. 7 Q. Now Mr. Dodge asked you-- for the record, Your Honor, the 8 excerpt only contains Pages 106 and 107-- Mr. Dodge asked 9 you about your testimony about the possibility of future 10 shipments of MOX to Taiwan and Korea. Do you remember him 11 asking you about that? 12 A. Yes. 13 THE COURT: He didn't ask what the possibility 14 is, he asked if there were plans by Russia or the United 15 States to ship to those two nations. That was the 16 question. 17 MR. LOVE: Okay. 18 THE COURT: And the answer was no. Not are 19 there possibilities. I know the witness thinks there are 20 possibilities, that won't help me any. I understand 21 that. 22 BY MR. LOVE: 23 Q. In fact, Dr. Boyle is it true that in this document the 24 DOE indicates there are possibilities such as you 25 testified about? KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 85 1 A. Yes. 2 THE COURT: I accept that. You are wasting my 3 time. There are possibilities. 4 BY MR. LOVE: 5 Q. Dr. Boyle, if you would, I direct your attention to the 6 large document that's in front of you. This is 7 Proliferation Venerability Red Team Report, Plaintiff's 8 Exhibit 28, and introduced in the prior hearing. 9 A. Yes, and I read this entire report prior to my testimony 10 here today. 11 Q. I'm going to ask you, if you would, to direct your 12 attention to Page 6-1, the conclusions to that report. 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. And again, this is a document that was produced by Sandia 15 Laboratories for the Department of Energy? 16 A. That is correct. 17 Q. Directing your attention to the first conclusion, under 18 the conclusion, keeping plutonium inaccessible is the key 19 to proliferation resistance, do you see that? 20 A. Yes. It says quite clearly, all plutonium from all stages 21 of all alternatives can be made weapons usable should 22 sufficient material be successfully removed. And I should 23 point out that is the position Congress takes under the 24 Nuclear Nonproliferation Act of '78, the Act of '94 and 25 the '98, all plutonium can be made weapons usable. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 86 1 Q. In your view, is that conclusion by the Sandia Lab in this 2 Red Team Report consistent with your testimony? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. Now, Mr. Dodge asked you if there was transport of 5 plutonium across boundaries all the time. My notes 6 reflected you said yes. Do you remember that testimony? 7 A. I said there was some, yes. 8 Q. Is there routinely transportation of weapons grade 9 plutonium shipped across boundaries all the time by the 10 United States? 11 A. No. No. 12 MR. LOVE: No further questions. 13 MR. DODGE: No recross, Your Honor. 14 THE COURT: You may step down. 15 THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honor. 16 Your Honor, did you have any questions? 17 THE COURT: No, I don't. 18 THE WITNESS: Thank you. 19 THE COURT: You've exceeded your time so I take 20 it you have no more witnesses. 21 MR. LOVE: Your Honor, I have no more witnesses 22 but at this time I would like to move our Exhibit 5, 23 Exhibit 7, Exhibit 11, Exhibit 12, Exhibit 13, Exhibit 14 24 and Plaintiff's Exhibit 2 and Exhibit 1 into evidence. 25 MR. DODGE: No objection, Your Honor. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 87 1 THE COURT: 5, 7, 11, 12, 13 and 14, 1 and 2 are 2 received. 3 MR. LOVE: Thank you, Your Honor. We have 4 nothing further. 5 THE WITNESS: Here are the exhibits. Where do 6 you want them? 7 MR. LOVE: I'll take them here. 8 (Hearing continued; reported, not requested 9 transcribed.) 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 88 1 2 3 4 5 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE 6 7 I, Kathleen S. Thomas, Official Court Reporter for the 8 United States District Court for the Western District of 9 Michigan, appointed pursuant to the provisions of Title 28, 10 United States Code, Section 753, do hereby certify that the 11 foregoing is a true and correct transcript of proceedings had 12 in the within-entitled and numbered cause on the date 13 hereinbefore set forth; and I do further certify that the 14 foregoing transcript has been prepared by me or under my 15 direction. 16 17 18 19 20 __________________________________ 21 Kathleen S. Thomas, CSR, RPR-1300 22 U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue 23 Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 24 25 KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (voice) 217-244-1478 (fax) fboyle at law.uiuc.edu (personal comments only) Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Brussel, Morton K Sent: Monday, November 06, 2017 7:56 PM To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: David Green >; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; Estabrook, Carl G > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] FW: MOX for Bombs in Japan I think this is wrong. MOX fuel is mainly used for fuel in nuclear power reactors, not to make bombs. Japan had/has many nuclear reactors. A fairly intelligible discussion is found in wikipedia, under "MOX nuclear”. —mkb On Nov 6, 2017, at 4:40 PM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss > wrote: This was a very lengthy interview I gave in Japan courtesy of their peace and anti-nuclear movement. It was heavily censored. My basic point was that Japan was using MOX to make bombs and that my best estimate was that Japan probably had as many bombs as PRC, which would be in the area of 500. So when the details of the disaster at Fukushima came out, it was clear to me it was one of their leading bomb complexes. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: globenet at yahoogroups.com [mailto:globenet at yahoogroups.com] Sent: Saturday, March 21, 2015 8:10 AM To: globenet at yahoogroups.com Cc: 'Hiroshi Taka'; 'Gensuikyo'; 'Akira Kawasaki'; oheyeran at yahoogroups.com; asia-pacific_demil_mdg-request at lists.riseup.net; 'Coleen Rowley'; 'Douglas Roche' Subject: [globenet] MOX for Bombs in Japan Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (Voice) 217-244-1478 (Fax) (personal comments only) __._,_.___ ________________________________ Posted by: "Boyle, Francis A" > ________________________________ Reply via web post • Reply to sender • Reply to group • Start a New Topic • Messages in this topic (1) VISIT YOUR GROUP [Yahoo! Groups] • Privacy • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use . __,_._,___ _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Tue Nov 7 04:11:14 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2017 04:11:14 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: MOX for Bombs in Japan In-Reply-To: References: <5B253921-B91A-4A46-B18B-A94C48E12123@illinois.edu> Message-ID: Go tell that to the Japanese Peace Movement! Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Brussel, Morton K Sent: Monday, November 06, 2017 10:10 PM To: Boyle, Francis A Cc: David Green ; C. G. ESTABROOK ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay ; David Johnson ; Mildred O'brien ; Estabrook, Carl G Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] FW: MOX for Bombs in Japan I will comment no longer on this issue; you are twisting in the wind, Francis, with sad but laughable arguments. On Nov 6, 2017, at 9:39 PM, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: And by the way, the reason Japanese Peace Movement had me interviewed is because they know full well that their MOX Stockpile is used for weapons purposes. fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Monday, November 06, 2017 9:30 PM To: Brussel, Morton K > Cc: David Green >; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; Estabrook, Carl G > Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] FW: MOX for Bombs in Japan If you are not going to take the time to read these two Testimonies under oath and subject to cross-examination by the Feds of two Experts on MOX in United States Federal District, then you should stop impugning my integrity in favor of Wikipedia—pure guttersnipe! fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Brussel, Morton K Sent: Monday, November 06, 2017 9:13 PM To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: David Green >; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >;chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; Estabrook, Carl G > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] FW: MOX for Bombs in Japan I don’t know who qualified you as an expert of nuclear reactors and the nature of their fuels, nuclear physics or nuclear chemistry. Your statements belie that qualification. I hope you don’t expect me, or anyone on this list, to read the transcript you presented, but I did scan it and noted nothing in technical detail there about the properties and use of MOX, certainly not for bombs. Sorry, —mkb On Nov 6, 2017, at 8:38 PM, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: Well I have been qualified as an Expert on MOX in United States Federal District Court. And I prohibit my law students from citing Wikipedia to me in any paper and advise them to never cite or quote Wikipedia to a Judge because Wikipedia is filled with so much pure, unadulterated BULL-TWADDLE. Fab. Subject: Nuclear Proliferation/NPT/US Atomic Energy Law/MOX, etc. 1 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 3 SOUTHERN DIVISION 4 5 ALICE HIRT; ANABEL DWYER; CITIZENS FOR ALTERNATIVES 6 TO CHEMICAL CONTAMINATION; KATHRYN CUMBOW; ROBERT 7 ANDERSON; DORIS SCHALLER VERNON; and TERRY MILLER, 8 Plaintiffs, 9 v. CASE NO: 1:99-CV-933 10 BILL RICHARDSON, Secretary, 11 United States Department of Energy; UNITED STATES 12 OF AMERICA; and UNKNOWN PART(Y)(IES), named as 13 "John and Jane Doe" on complaint, 14 Defendants. 15 ____________________________/ 16 * * * * 17 18 TESTIMONY OF GORDON EDWARDS and FRANCIS BOYLE 19 * * * * 20 21 BEFORE: THE HONORABLE RICHARD ALAN ENSLEN United States District Judge 22 Kalamazoo, Michigan April 7, 2000 23 24 25 KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 2 1 APPEARANCES: 2 APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFFS: 3 MR. KARY LOVE 4 977 Butternut Drive PMB 128 5 Holland, Michigan 49424 6 MR. TERRY J. LODGE 316 North Michigan Street, Suite 520 7 Toledo, Ohio 43624-1627 8 APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANTS: 9 MR. ROBERT I. DODGE 10 MR. CHARLES GROSS U.S. Attorney's Office 11 330 Ionia Avenue, N.W., Suite 501 P.O. Box 208 12 Grand Rapids, Michigan 49501-208 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 3 1 INDEX 2 WITNESS: Page 3 GORDON EDWARDS Direct Examination by Mr. Lodge 4 4 Cross Examination by Mr. Dodge 17 Redirect Examination by Mr. Lodge 20 5 6 FRANCIS BOYLE 7 Direct Examination by Mr. Love 21 Cross Examination by Mr. Dodge 67 8 Redirect Examination by Mr. Love 82 9 10 EXHIBITS Rec'd. 11 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 1 87 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 2 87 12 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 3 31 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 5 87 13 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 6 87 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 11 87 14 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 12 87 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 13 87 15 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 14 87 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 4 1 Kalamazoo, Michigan 2 April 7, 2000 3 at approximately 8:50 A.M. 4 EXCERPT OF PROCEEDINGS 5 TESTIMONY OF GORDON EDWARDS 6 MR. LODGE: We waive opening. 7 THE COURT: Okay. Good for you. 8 MR. LODGE: And we would call Gordon Edwards. 9 GORDON EDWARDS - PLAINTIFFS' WITNESS - SWORN. 10 COURT CLERK: Please state and spell your name 11 for the record. 12 THE WITNESS: My name is Gordon Edwards, 13 G-o-r-d-o-n E-d-w-a-r-d-s. 14 DIRECT EXAMINATION 15 BY MR. LODGE: 16 Q. Dr. Edwards, you previously testified in this proceeding 17 in an earlier motion hearing in December, 1999, correct? 18 A. That is correct. 19 Q. And what, just summarize for the Court, to refresh the 20 Court's recollection, what is your occupation or 21 profession? 22 A. I'm a professor of mathematics at Vanier College in 23 Montreal, and I'm also a consultant on nuclear issues for 24 both governmental and nongovernmental agencies. 25 Q. Are you affiliated with any nongovernmental entity in KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 5 1 Canada regarding the purpose of which is to discuss 2 nuclear issues? 3 A. Yes, I'm the president of the Canadian Coalition for 4 Nuclear Responsibility, which is a federally incorporated 5 organization, since 1978. 6 Q. And how long and in what capacities have you served as a 7 consultant on nuclear issues? 8 A. I've served as a consultant since 1977 for a variety of 9 bodies, including Royal Commissions of Inquiry where I 10 have been retained to cross-examine expert witnesses, also 11 the auditor general of Canada when they were doing a 12 comprehensive audit of the Atomic Energy Control Board, 13 and most recently I was invited for January 2000 by the 14 Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs and International 15 Trade to participate in a small expert workshop on nuclear 16 weapons policies in Ottawa. 17 Q. And Dr. Edwards, have you had the occasion to read the 18 environmental assessment promulgated by the Fissile 19 Materials Office of the U.S. Department of Energy for the 20 Parallex Project? 21 A. Yes, I have, and have commented on that as well. 22 Q. We are here today on a proposed shipment of MOX plutonium 23 from Russia to Chalk River, Ontario, you understand that? 24 A. That is correct. 25 Q. What is your understanding as to the amount of the KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 6 1 plutonium content of the MOX fuel rods, pins that would be 2 brought from Russia? 3 A. The MOX fuel contains 135 grams of weapons grade plutonium 4 as compared with the 119 grams that were in the American 5 shipment that proceeded in January. 6 Q. Now, Dr. Edwards, you indicated that the Canadian 7 Coalition was incorporated in approximately 1978? 8 A. That's right. 9 Q. Have you been active in nuclear issues since that time? 10 A. Even before that time, yes. I have been active 11 specifically on proliferation questions and 12 plutonium-related questions since 1975. 13 MR. LODGE: If I may approach. 14 THE COURT: Of course. 15 BY MR. LODGE: 16 Q. Showing you what has been marked for purposes of the 17 supplemental motion hearing as Plaintiff's Exhibit 1, I'm 18 going to also leave Exhibit 2 up here. 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. Have you ever conducted any investigation into the issue 21 of civilian population or work exposures to plutonium? 22 A. Only at the level of potential for damage, potential for 23 harm. 24 Q. What is Exhibit 1? 25 A. Exhibit 1 is a letter from Mary Measures, Ph.D., Director KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 7 1 of the Radiation Environmental Protection Division of the 2 Atomic Energy Control Board of Canada dealing with 3 quantity of plutonium that an atomic radiation worker or a 4 member of the public may inhale to reach their respective 5 maximum limits. 6 Q. And the date of that is September 30, 1999? 7 A. That is correct, about six months ago. 8 Q. And could you summarize what the inhalation, or what the 9 limits are for both workers and for public? 10 A. Yes. The maximum lifetime limit of exposure in the lung 11 for an atomic worker is approximately 1.4 micrograms, and 12 for the member of the public it's 0.1 microgram, and a 13 microgram being one one-millionth of a gram, so if we 14 translate this into grams, it would mean 1.4 grams would 15 be equivalent-- would be enough to give maximum 16 permissible doses to one million workers and ten -- one 17 gram would be enough to give maximum permissible doses to 18 ten million members of the general public. That's just 19 potential. 20 Q. Okay. And is that based on the -- or, I'm sorry. Have 21 you had occasion in connection with the proposed Russian 22 shipment of a 135 grams of plutonium and the American 23 shipment of 119 grams, to perform any computations as to 24 what the potential dispersion or exposure is? 25 A. Well, I would like to emphasize this is just arithmetic KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 8 1 and does not take into account dispersion factors such as 2 wind velocity, any respiration rates, and so on. If we 3 just look at the theoretical potential, then with 119 4 grams, we are talking about the potential for 85 million 5 atomic workers to receive their maximum permissible 6 exposure, if that were able to be disseminated into all of 7 their lungs and 1,000,190,000 members of the general 8 public, so even though this is a very small amount of 9 plutonium, the potential for exposure, harmful exposure is 10 quite significant. 11 Q. All right. But so that implies you would have to have an 12 optimal dispersal? 13 A. This would be an impossibly optimal dispersal. This would 14 be assuming that the plutonium were distributed fully into 15 the lungs of all the people that I've mentioned. 16 Q. Are you aware of whether or not the American shipment was 17 delivered to Chalk River? 18 A. Yes, the American shipment was delivered to Chalk River. 19 It was taken to the border in what I believe was an SST, a 20 truck which was described as silver, and I believe it was 21 probably an SST, although I do not know for absolute 22 certainty about that, and then it was transported to the 23 Sault Ste. Marie airport where it was lifted by helicopter 24 accompanied by two other helicopters, and transported from 25 there to Chalk River. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 9 1 Q. You indicated that you were talking about an impossibly 2 optimal dispersal. Have you had the occasion to perform 3 any computations as to a very conservative prudent factor 4 to start with for dispersal? 5 A. Well, this is beyond my competence to really talk about 6 the details of how it might be dispersed, but if we just 7 assume for example 99.9 percent containment in the event 8 of a serious accident. 9 Q. Are you saying how much? 10 A. Suppose 99.9 percent of the material were successfully 11 contained and not disseminated in the environment and only 12 that small fraction was disseminated. 13 Q. Okay. 14 A. The potential again would correspond to, for atomic 15 workers in the case of the 119 gram shipment from the 16 States, it would be 85,000 maximum exposures and in the 17 case of the public, it would still over a million. Even 18 with 99.9 containment, in the event of an accident, you 19 still have the potential for over a million 20 overexposures. By the way, the 135 grams, the difference 21 between the 119 grams and the 135 grams from Russia 22 corresponds to potentially again 160,000 additional 23 maximum exposures for members of the public. 24 Q. How many for workers? 25 A. 11,428. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 10 1 Q. That's just -- 2 A. That's just the differential between the two shipments, 3 just the added, going from 119 to 135 adds the potential 4 for another 11,000 worker overexposures or 160,000 public 5 overexposures. This, I believe, is why authorities take 6 such great care to emphasize the packaging in transport. 7 They realize that the potential is great for damage. 8 Q. Do your computations reflect an assumption respecting 9 whether or not the dispersion occurs as a result of an 10 accident or an attack? 11 A. No, we are talking about theoretical potential which is 12 the same regardless of how much or whether the material is 13 dispersed. In an accident, for example, we have 14 previously seen accidents that were analyzed for ground 15 transportation. I have not seen any computations or 16 analysis of accidents for air transport either from the 17 American side or from the Canadian side. 18 Q. Are you talking with respect to Parallex? 19 A. I'm talking with respect to Parallex. 20 If you had, for example, a violent crash and 21 fire of an aircraft, including a helicopter, then the 22 dispersal would cause a plume downwind, could cause a 23 plume downwind, and how much of that plutonium would 24 escape would be subject to analysis which is not, to my 25 knowledge, been performed. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 11 1 Q. Dr. Edwards, do you consider the plutonium in MOX fuel 2 form to be a weapons component? 3 A. Well, in the case of the Parallex project, as you know, 4 this 119 grams or 135 grams, there is not enough there to 5 make an atomic bomb. However, it has long been known that 6 you can make a very damaging radiological explosive device 7 which would simply disperse the plutonium in breathable 8 form. That means that if the plutonium were acquired by a 9 criminal organization or terrorist group they could make 10 an incendiary device which would make this available to be 11 breathed by members of the public and also cause very 12 long-lasting contamination of the environs where this 13 exposure would take place. I believe that it would be 14 incorrect to say that these, even this small Parallex 15 shipment, would not be attractive to terrorists or to 16 criminal organizations as a top -- as a target for theft 17 or diversion. It is true, of course, that this is weapons 18 grade material and had one, if one had sufficient weapons 19 grade material, one indeed can make a very powerful atomic 20 bomb from that. 21 Q. Have you seen any literature or other information in or 22 out of the record of this case that discusses the weapons 23 potential for plutonium? 24 A. Well, yes, it's certainly common knowledge that the -- in 25 fact, the U.S. Department of Energy acknowledges as much KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 12 1 when they refer to the Russian plutonium, the Russian 2 weapons grade plutonium is continuing a clear and present 3 danger. It's long been known and recognized that 4 plutonium is the key ingredient of atomic weapons, so if 5 one talks about components of atomic weapons, the 6 plutonium is the essential component. Once you have the 7 plutonium, then you can acquire the other materials on the 8 open market that are necessary to build a bomb. 9 Q. How do you know that? 10 A. Well, it's been well known for a long time. For instance, 11 there was a study done, published in the Harvard Civil 12 Rights and Civil Liberties Law Review -- I could make that 13 available to the Court, if you would like -- in 1975 as 14 long ago as then, which says, "Since all the material 15 other than plutonium needed to build a bomb is available 16 from commercial hardware and chemical suppliers, the 17 present obstacle to the private construction of nuclear 18 weapons is the unavailability of plutonium." 19 But if we just turn to the study that was 20 commissioned and already on file, I believe, here at the 21 Court, a study that was commissioned by the Office of 22 Fissile Materials Management called the Red Team Report, 23 the Red Team Proliferation Vulnerability Report. 24 In their conclusions on Page 6-1, they have a 25 heading called Keeping Plutonium Inaccessible is the Key KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 13 1 to Proliferation Resistance. So what is basically being 2 said here is plutonium is not just a component but the key 3 component of atomic bombs particularly in the context of 4 illicit groups. 5 Q. Dr. Edwards, could you explain for us Canada's role in the 6 reprocessing of plutonium? 7 A. Well, Canada's role in plutonium goes back to the World 8 War II Atomic Bomb Project. We had a secret laboratory in 9 Montreal which was manned by British, French and Canadian 10 scientists dedicated to developing methods for producing 11 and separating plutonium for weapons purposes as well as 12 civilian purposes, because even then it was anticipated 13 plutonium would have some civilian value. At the end of 14 the war -- incidentally, the first reactor in Canada was 15 built according to a military decision taken in 16 Washington, D.C. in 1944, to demonstrate this potential. 17 The reactor called the NRX reactor was built at 18 Chalk River and a plutonium reprocessing plant was built 19 as well. Plutonium was separated and Britain received its 20 first sample of weapons grade plutonium from Canada from 21 Chalk River just months before their first atomic test. 22 There was also an illicit transfer of plutonium 23 from Chalk River to Russia, which was so the first samples 24 of plutonium that both Britain and Russia received were 25 from Chalk River. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 14 1 Since that time, Canada, of course, has taken a 2 policy decision not to pursue a nuclear weapons option 3 itself, but they have, however, looked favorably on the 4 idea of reprocessing plutonium for civilian purposes. 5 They do not have a policy which is against the 6 reprocessing of plutonium in principle and nor do they 7 discourage their clients, their customers overseas from 8 reprocessing plutonium. And in fact, in Canada, there is 9 an open door policy towards reprocessing as a future 10 option. 11 We just concluded recently a ten-year 12 environmental assessment of the problem of high-level 13 radioactive waste disposal, and in all of the documents it 14 begins by saying, in the very first paragraphs, that by 15 nuclear waste disposal, we mean either spent fuel or 16 post-reprocessing waste. So this is very much a 17 theoretical opening and a policy opening for Canada to use 18 plutonium as a fuel. 19 Q. Showing you what has been marked as Supplemental Motion 20 Exhibit 2, can you identify that for the Court, please? 21 A. Yes. This appears to be an exchange from the British 22 Parliament, questions and answers having to do with 23 nuclear fuel, and the Secretary of State for Trade and 24 Industry is being asked about quantities of spent fuel 25 from Canada that have been contracted for reprocessing at KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 15 1 Cello Field in England. 2 Q. And can you summarize your understanding of what the 3 response by the British Government was? 4 A. Yes. The response here is that a certain amount of 5 plutonium, a certain amount of spent fuel from Canada has 6 been reprocessed beginning in 1970, and that the plutonium 7 has been returned to Canada. I have personal knowledge of 8 the fact that at Chalk River they have maintained a pilot 9 plutonium fuel fabrication line since the 1970s, since 10 1970 and before, and that they have processed at Chalk 11 River approximately three tons, more than three tons of 12 MOX fuel from recycled civilian plutonium. This is part 13 of that, the plutonium that is here being referred to as 14 being recycled or reprocessed in Britain, that's part of 15 the total amount of plutonium that Canada has acquired for 16 the purposes of MOX fabrication. 17 I mentioned that Canada also does not discourage 18 client customers from reprocessing. This is in 19 distinction to the American policy. The American policy, 20 since the Carter administration, successive 21 administrations have maintained the policy of not only not 22 allowing reprocessing in the United States, but also 23 discouraging reprocessing in other countries insofar as 24 that is possible. Canada does not share this policy 25 completely. We do not reprocess in Canada but, on the KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 16 1 other hand, we don't hesitate, it seems, to send our spent 2 fuel to other countries to get reprocessed so that we can 3 develop expertise in plutonium recycling. 4 Q. Does Canada have any relationship with the nation of Japan 5 respecting nuclear material? 6 A. Yes. Canada, as is probably known to the Court, is the 7 world's largest exporter of uranium. We are one of the 8 world's largest producers of uranium and the world's 9 largest exporter of uranium. We have bilateral agreements 10 with our customers as to the use of that uranium. Of 11 course, we have requirements that that uranium not be used 12 for military purposes. If a client customer such as Japan 13 who buys a good deal -- Japan purchases a good deal of 14 uranium from Canada. If a client customer wishes to 15 reprocess their spent fuel to recover plutonium, they do 16 have to get prior permission from the Government of 17 Canada, so when plutonium is reprocessed for the Japanese, 18 in the case where uranium from Canada is involved, the 19 Canadian Government gives their permission for that. 20 Q. Even if it is offshore from Canada? 21 A. Yes. 22 MR. LODGE: Thank you. I have nothing further. 23 THE WITNESS: Thank you. 24 Sorry. 25 MR. LODGE: Yes? KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 17 1 THE WITNESS: Excuse me. 2 MR. DODGE: Not quite finished, Dr. Edwards. 3 THE WITNESS: You knew the time was short. I 4 was jumping the gun a little. 5 CROSS EXAMINATION 6 BY MR. DODGE: 7 Q. Good morning, Mr. Edwards. My name is Bob Dodge. We have 8 met once before back in December. 9 A. That's right. 10 Q. Just a few questions. You testified about the quantity of 11 plutonium that would be included in the Russian shipment. 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. Do you recall that? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. You testified that it was 135 grams? 16 A. That's what was announced, yes. 17 Q. And how many ounces is that? 18 A. How many ounces is that? 19 Q. Yes. 20 A. I don't think in terms of ounces. I have to do the 21 conversion. 22 Q. Can you do the conversion? 23 A. I don't have the -- 24 Q. If I told you that one ounce is 28 grams, does that sound 25 about right? KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 18 1 A. I have no reason to doubt it. We are on the metric system 2 in Canada, we don't use ounces anymore. 3 Q. I understand. If I estimated 135 grams was approximately 4 five ounces, would you quarrel with that? 5 A. I would have no reason to quarrel with that. 6 Q. Now, you also testified about the amount of plutonium that 7 would have to be inhaled in order to exceed the maximum 8 permissible dose under Canadian regulations? 9 A. That is correct. 10 Q. And in your testimony, as I understood it, the assumption 11 you were making was that every single molecule of 12 plutonium that was in that sample would end up in 13 somebody's lungs; is that right? 14 A. That's right. It's calculating the theoretical 15 potential. It is not talking about a realistic scenario. 16 Q. Not only would all of the plutonium have to end up in 17 someone's lungs, but the plutonium would have to be evenly 18 divided so that each person got exactly the same amount of 19 plutonium, it's not all concentrated in one person, you 20 would have to take one-millionths of the sample, put it in 21 one person's lungs and put the next one-millionth in the 22 next person's lungs and so on? 23 A. That is correct. 24 Q. Do you have any idea, if you performed the same analysis 25 on this table, what sort of toxicity numbers you would KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 19 1 get? 2 A. I have no idea of what that would be, no. 3 Q. Now you also talked about Canada's policies regarding 4 plutonium reprocessing. 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. Do you recall that? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. Do you have any understanding of whether the plutonium in 9 the Parallex MOX samples will or will not be reprocessed 10 in Canada? 11 A. It will-- to the best of my knowledge, it will not be 12 reprocessed in Canada, although that option apparently is 13 not decided. 14 Q. What is the basis for that last? 15 A. Because Canada has a policy that at sometime in the future 16 they may reprocess. 17 Q. Do you have any understanding whether there is an 18 understanding between the Government of Canada and the 19 Government of United States or the Government of Russia as 20 to whether these particular samples will or will not be 21 reprocessed? 22 A. I do not, no. 23 MR. DODGE: Thank you very much. 24 25 REDIRECT EXAMINATION KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 20 1 BY MR. LODGE: 2 Q. Dr. Edwards, the House of Commons question and answer, do 3 you know of any particular statistics on Canada's shipping 4 of spent fuel to British nuclear fields and fuels at Cello 5 Field? 6 A. I don't have those figures with me, I'm sorry. I could 7 supply them to the Court, if desired. I do have some 8 figures at my office at home, I don't have them here. But 9 we are talking -- if we are talking about three tons of 10 MOX being fabricated at Chalk River, then one could work 11 out approximately how much of that would contain 12 plutonium, how much plutonium would be contained assuming, 13 for example, three percent. 14 Q. Right. 15 A. And then one could reasonably suppose that the lion's 16 share of that would come from Cello Field. Now I have 17 figures on shipments from Cello Field, but I don't have 18 them here. 19 Q. My question is: Would you presume that the Atomic Energy 20 Control Board of Canada, or AECL of Canada, would make 21 public the fact that the spent MOX from Parallex were 22 being shipped to Britain for reprocessing? Would you 23 presume that would become public knowledge? 24 A. No, I would not assume anything related to plutonium would 25 become public knowledge in Canada. Canada has a very KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 21 1 non-public attitude toward plutonium dealings. In fact, 2 the existing plutonium dealings in Canada including the 3 BNFL contracts is not public knowledge other than as it 4 has been raised in foreign countries such as in Britain or 5 by documents that have been leaked to nongovernmental 6 organizations. This is not something which Atomic Energy 7 of Canada Limited makes public. 8 MR. LODGE: Thank you. 9 MR. DODGE: No recross, Your Honor. 10 THE COURT: You may step down, Dr. Edwards. 11 Thank you. 12 MR. LOVE: Your Honor, if it please the Court, 13 the Plaintiffs would call Francis Boyle to the stand 14 FRANCIS BOYLE - PLAINTIFFS' WITNESS - SWORN 15 COURT CLERK: Please be seated and state and 16 spell your name for the record. 17 THE WITNESS: My name is Francis Boyle. 18 F-r-a-n-c-i-s B-o-y-l-e. 19 DIRECT EXAMINATION 20 BY MR. LOVE: 21 Q. Dr. Boyle, are you currently employed? 22 A. Yes, I am a professor of international law at the 23 University of Illinois College of Law in Champaign. 24 Q. How long have you been employed in that capacity? 25 A. 1978. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 22 1 MR. LOVE: Your Honor, may I approach the 2 witness? 3 BY MR. LOVE: 4 Q. Dr. Boyle, I'm showing you what has been marked as 5 Supplemental Preliminary Injunction Hearing Plaintiffs' 6 Exhibit 3 and ask you if you can identify that document. 7 A. It's a copy of my professional resume. 8 Q. Was this resume prepared at or under your direction? 9 A. Yes. I think it's current as of January 28th, 1999. I've 10 been kind of busy in the last year, haven't revised it. 11 Q. To the extent it's current through that date, does that 12 accurately reflect your experience, education, seminars 13 that you participated in, and articles that you've 14 authored? 15 A. Not seminars I've participated in, that would be too many 16 but, you know, the essence of my professional career and 17 articles-- significant teaching, consulting, practice. 18 I'm also a licensed attorney as well. 19 Q. If you would, give us a brief recitation of your 20 educational background? 21 A. I attended the University of Chicago where I studied 22 international relations with Professor Hans Morganthal who 23 is the mentor of Dr. Henry Kissinger at Harvard. I was 24 one of seven students in my class elected to Phi Beta 25 Kappa as a junior. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 23 1 I also did work in mathematical biology, winning 2 the award for the work I did in that area by the world's 3 leading geneticist now at Harvard. 4 I graduated in three years. From there I went 5 to Harvard Law School. I have a J.D. Magna Cum Laude from 6 Harvard Law School specializing in international law. 7 I also entered the Graduate School of Arts and 8 Sciences at Harvard in the Department of Government. I 9 have a Master's degree and a Ph.D. in political science 10 specializing in international relations, international 11 politics. This is the same Ph.D. program that produced 12 Henry Kissinger, Zabanya Brezenski (phonetic) and other 13 high level U.S. Government officials. 14 I was at the Harvard Center for International 15 Affairs for two years. Kissinger and Brezenski had been 16 there before me. 17 I spent two years teaching in the Harvard 18 College undergraduates international law organizations, 19 human rights. I practiced law with a Boston law firm for 20 a year at Bingham, Dana and Gould, where I did 21 international tax, and tax, and then finally in 1978 I 22 came to the University of Illinois. I went up for tenure 23 at the beginning of my third year, which I got, and I've 24 been tenured there since, you know, many years. 25 Q. Since undertaking your position at University of Illinois, KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 24 1 have you specialized in any area with respect to 2 particular research, writing and international law? 3 A. Well, for the purpose of our proceedings today, yes. I 4 have been specializing an enormous amount on the nuclear 5 weapons, nuclear weapons policy, proliferation, arms 6 control. Going back to my studies with Professor 7 Morganthal 30 years ago so I've been involved in these 8 issues starting as a student since 1969 and continuously 9 until today. 10 THE WITNESS: Sorry, Your Honor, I have a bit of 11 laryngitis. 12 THE COURT: That's fine, no problem. 13 BY MR. LOVE: 14 Q. Dr. Boyle, if you would direct your attention to your 15 resume, I would like to touch on a few seminal points. On 16 the first page under teaching, the third entry down talks 17 about being a lecturer in Nuclear Weapons and 18 International Law, 21st Senior Conference on Nuclear 19 Deterrence at U.S. Military Academy at West Point in 20 1983. 21 A. Yes. This is a high level seminar run by the Pentagon, 22 not for the cadets, but for about 200 of the highest level 23 officials of the United States Government dealing with 24 nuclear weapons proliferation, nuclear weapons policies, 25 and I was asked to lecture to this conference, and I won't KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 25 1 go through all the high level officials there, but sitting 2 right in front of me for my lecture was the three star 3 general in charge of war operations at the Pentagon, at 4 that time General Mahaffey. And I also note I had read 5 the independent expert's report on the MOX program 6 U.S./Russia of 1977, one of the U.S. independent experts, 7 Richard Garwin was there with me and he was also a 8 lecturer with me to this group, so I do know that Garwin 9 was involved in the Parallex MOX recommendations. 10 Q. With respect to the second to the last entry on Page 1 of 11 Exhibit 3, talks about "Lecture Tour of the Soviet Union 12 on Nuclear Weapons and International Law for Lawyers' 13 Committee on Nuclear Policy and Association of Soviet 14 Lawyers" in 1986. What was involved with that? 15 A. Yes. The former Soviet Union, their equivalent to the 16 American Bar Association was the Association of Soviet 17 Lawyers, and in conjunction with the Lawyers' Committee on 18 Nuclear Policy headquartered here, they decided to invite 19 one professor to go over to the Soviet Union and lecture 20 around the country for two weeks on various issues related 21 to nuclear weapons and international law, and both 22 organizations selected me for this purpose, so I went over 23 for two weeks and gave several lectures per day, Moscow, 24 Leningrad, Kiev to professors, lawyers, peace people, 25 whoever, news media on various aspects of nuclear weapons KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 26 1 targeting doctrine as they relate to international law 2 and, in general, nuclear policies. 3 Q. If you would direct your attention, Dr. Boyle, to Page 2 4 under Practice, fifth entry down it says "Author, 5 Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989, Public Law 6 Number 101-298 (1990) (adopted unanimously by both Houses 7 of Congress)," could you explain what that means, please? 8 A. Yes. Your Honor, we are dealing here with a treaty, the 9 Nuclear Proliferation Treaty-- Nonproliferation Treaty of 10 1968. That treaty has been implemented by Congress in the 11 Nuclear Nonproliferation Act of 1978, the Nuclear 12 Proliferation Prevention Act of 1994 and also recent 13 amendments in 1998 to deal with the India/Pakistan 14 explosions. I have direct personal experience on how you 15 take a treaty, an international treaty, and implement it 16 as a matter of United States Constitutional law by working 17 with Congress. 18 The Biological Weapons Convention of 1972 is a 19 treaty that is a total, not only arms control reduction 20 and elimination treaty for biological weapons, I gave a 21 lecture on Capitol Hill calling for legislation, domestic 22 legislation to implement this treaty, and this 23 recommendation was taken up by a group I work for called 24 the Council of Responsible Genetics. I'm on their 25 Advisory Board. I also serve as counsel to them, so KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 27 1 pursuant to their request, I drafted the implementing 2 legislation, I authored it, how to implement this treaty. 3 And then we took it to members of the House and the Senate 4 and we shepherded it through the entire process dealing 5 with members of Congress, both Houses, including testimony 6 I prepared. At that point in time, the Reagan 7 administration was opposed to this implementing 8 legislation. I had to deal personally with their position 9 papers against it refuting these things. 10 Finally there was a change of policy when 11 President Bush came into office, to his credit, and they 12 supported the legislation. It finally was approved 13 unanimously by both Houses of Congress and signed into law 14 by President Bush in 1989. This legislation was called 15 the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989. It was 16 later amended in the anti-terrorism and effect Death 17 Penalty Act of 1996. 18 I thought I had drafted the most draconian piece 19 of legislation you could possibly imagine on biological 20 weapons, but there is always a loophole, Your Honor, so 21 Congress revisited this in 1996 to close some of the 22 loopholes that had not been apparent to me and the 23 scientists I worked with back in 19, starting in from '85 24 to about 1989. So I just cite this as having direct 25 personal experience with relationship between arms control KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 28 1 treatise, reduction treatise and then how they are 2 implemented by Congress. I have done this myself. On 3 biological weapons and I'm still involved in that issue. 4 Obviously, I have not been involved in the 5 drafting of the implementing legislation for the Nuclear 6 Proliferation Treaty of 1968, there are three pieces, but 7 I have read and reviewed the implementing legislation. I 8 have an understanding how they relate to the 9 Nonproliferation Treaty and I also teach a course on this 10 subject, that is how international laws related to the 11 United States Constitution is implemented by Congress and 12 also carried out in the courts. I teach an entire course 13 just devoted to this subject. 14 Q. Dr. Boyle, you've had some experience practicing before 15 what was known formerly as the International Court of 16 Justice but currently the World Court; is that correct? 17 A. Yes, I have. 18 Q. Could you relate to the Court a summary of that 19 experience? 20 A. Well, I've advised governments with respect to either 21 actual or potential World Court litigation, some of that 22 is still attorney/client confidence that I'm not prepared 23 to discuss. What I am prepared to discuss are those 24 matters that are in the public record. 25 I did serve as counsel to Libya on the Lockerbie KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 29 1 bombing case. It was my recommendation the-- 2 unfortunately President Bush had about the sixth fleet 3 mobilized off the coast of Libya and was about to bomb 4 Libya that we filed a lawsuit at the World Court to stop 5 the bombing. We filed a lawsuit, Libya was not bombed. 6 Later on, I was General Agent for the Republic 7 in Bosnia of Herzegovina before the International Court of 8 Justice. In other words, I was their first ambassador to 9 the World Court for the Republic of Bosnia, Herzegovina, 10 and I sued Yugoslavia for committing genocide against the 11 Bosnian people. I won two cease and desist orders 12 overwhelmingly in favor of Bosnia against Yugoslavia. 13 Later on, I publicly advised -- I advised the 14 Bosnian Government to sue Britain for aiding and abetting 15 genocide against Bosnia, and President Izetbegovic 16 instructed me to sue Britain for a genocide against 17 Bosnia. That lawsuit was terminated under duress, 18 threatened them, so they withdrew from those proceedings. 19 Q. Dr. Boyle, with respect to your writings, if you would 20 direct your attention to Page 3 of Exhibit 3, the last two 21 entries at the bottom -- excuse me, the second to last 22 entries entitled Nuclear Weapons and International Law: 23 The Arms Control Dimensions, do you see that? 24 A. Yes. This was the lecture I gave to the West Point 25 Military Academy senior conference proceedings, which they KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 30 1 did publish in their proceedings at West Point, and 2 actually under my books, I've just completed work on my 3 sixth book, which is entitled Nuclear Deterrence and 4 International Law. And right now it is sitting at Pluto 5 Press -- I guess that's appropriate for today's 6 proceedings -- Pluto Press in Britain. They have 7 expressed an interest in publishing it. They are 8 currently evaluating it. I do not have a contract on that 9 book, but I did get the e-mail just before I came here, so 10 I'll have to deal with that when I go back. 11 Q. With respect to your other publications, Dr. Boyle, I note 12 that on Page 4 you've got one entitled, about halfway 13 down, The Relevance of International Law to the "Paradox" 14 of Nuclear Deterrence. 15 A. That is correct. 16 Q. Can you tell us briefly what the subject matter is? 17 A. After I made the lecture at West Point, obviously the U.S. 18 military officials and others, we had a fairly vigorous 19 debate, let me put it that way. And that vigorous debate 20 between myself and these others led to this article that 21 was later published here in the United States and also 22 translated into Dutch, because the Dutch lawyers wanted it 23 to be available as part of the debate in Holland over the 24 deployment of the U.S. intermediate nuclear forces under 25 the Reagan administration, so they translated the whole KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 31 1 thing into Dutch and it was published in the Netherlands. 2 MR. LOVE: Your Honor, I have no further 3 questions of Dr. Boyle with respect to qualifications, and 4 I tender him for voir dire to the U.S. Attorney's Office 5 subject to my motion to admit Plaintiff's Exhibit 3 into 6 evidence. 7 MR. DODGE: I have no objection to the admission 8 of the C.V. 9 THE COURT: Exhibit 3? 10 MR. DODGE: Exhibit 3. 11 THE COURT: You have no voir dire questions to 12 ask either? 13 MR. DODGE: Not with respect to that exhibit. I 14 may get into the resume on the cross. 15 THE COURT: That's fair enough. 16 Exhibit 3 is received. 17 MR. DODGE: Thank you, your Honor. 18 BY MR. LOVE: 19 Q. Dr. Boyle, in preparing for your testimony here today, 20 could you please outline for the Court -- I think you have 21 done so somewhat already -- some of the documents that you 22 reviewed and the source materials you looked at in 23 preparing your testimony today? 24 A. I have a pretty detailed knowledge about these things 25 generally. For example, when the Nuclear Nonproliferation KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 32 1 Act first came out in 1978, I did read it, but in 2 preparation for this testimony today, I've gone back and 3 read the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, the Nuclear 4 Nonproliferation Act, the Nuclear Proliferation Prevention 5 Act of 1994, the 1998 amendments. I have read a large 6 quantity of documents produced by the Department of Energy 7 on the Parallex Project. I have read the Environmental 8 Assessment dealing with the aspects of international 9 environmental law that have not been dealt with in the 10 Environmental Assessment, in my opinion, should have been 11 dealt with the Stockholm Declaration, which is not there, 12 and the World Court Advisory Opinion on 1996, I have an 13 article on it that. I didn't go back and read the whole 14 advisory opinion, but I reread the portions of the 15 article, and other scholarly sources that deal with this 16 question. There are other sources I did not have a chance 17 to review not directly related to proliferation per se. 18 But for example, in my opinion the EA should 19 have dealt with the UN Convention on the Law of the Seas. 20 It's not in there. There's been nuclear accidents 21 convention, it's not dealt with in there. There is the 22 Bowel convention on the International Transportation of 23 Hazardous Substance and Toxic Materials, that's not in 24 there. I identified those as further sources that should 25 be analyzed in my opinion, but I haven't had a chance to KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 33 1 go back and review all of those sources. 2 Q. Dr. Boyle, did the types of materials that you've just 3 identified for the Court, are these the types of materials 4 that in your experience are relied upon by experts in the 5 field of international law in forming opinions as to the 6 legitimacy of governmental actions under internationally? 7 A. Yes. I also have experience reading environmental impact 8 statements. When the Pentagon produced the DEIS or the 9 biological defense research program, the Council for 10 Responsible Genetics asked me to evaluate this entire 11 thing -- it was an enormous document -- and submit formal 12 comments on it to the Pentagon, which I did do and they 13 did respond to. So this is the type of sources that 14 experts in my field would normally look at and review in 15 forming an opinion about Government behavior, and I have 16 done this before with respect to biological weapons. 17 Q. Dr. Boyle, I'm going to show you what has been marked for 18 identification as Plaintiff's Exhibit 4. Ask you to take 19 a moment to look at that and let me know when you've had a 20 chance to do so, please. 21 A. Yes. This is the treaty on the nonproliferation of 22 nuclear weapons, and as I've said, it has also been 23 implemented by Congress on the Nuclear Nonproliferation 24 Act of 1978, the Nuclear Proliferation Prevention Act of 25 1994 and also 1998 amendments. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 34 1 The critical point to keep in mind about this 2 treaty, Your Honor, is that Congress has passed 3 legislation expressing its understanding of what this 4 treaty means and what our obligations are under this 5 treaty. And this legislation is binding on the Department 6 of Energy, on the President, on the Department of State 7 and respectfully, Your Honor, on this Court. And what we 8 see, when you read through it all, is Congress has 9 decided, and prior to that the Atomic Energy Act as well, 10 that nuclear power, nuclear weapons, nuclear proliferation 11 is so important to the American people and our republic, 12 that they have decided to engage in micro management of 13 everything related to this subject and have pretty much, I 14 would not say completely eliminated, but whittled down 15 substantially any discretion that the executive branch 16 might have in this area. I have, as I said, I did read 17 the NPA back in 1978, but when you add in everything else, 18 what surprised me was how little discretion was left to 19 the executive branch with respect to nuclear 20 proliferation, nuclear weapons. In this area, they have 21 very little discretion. 22 Q. Professor Boyle, if you could, can you explain to the 23 Court what the implications are for Canada, Russia and the 24 United States under the Nonproliferation Treaty? 25 A. Well, my reading of both the treaty and in light of the KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 35 1 Department of Energy documents describing Parallex and 2 MOX, the Red Team report, many other documents that I've 3 read, in my opinion, there are serious problems, 4 compliance problems for this entire project under Articles 5 I, II and III of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty as 6 interpreted by the United States Congress. 7 The Article I deals with the obligations of the 8 United States and Russia. Each nuclear weapons State 9 Party to the Treaty, i.e. U.S. and Russia, undertakes not 10 to transfer to any recipient whatsoever, i.e. Canada, 11 nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices, and we 12 have a problem here in that Congress has interpreted this 13 to mean components of nuclear weapons or nuclear explosive 14 devices; that is, Congress simply does not interpret this 15 to mean you can't hand over a bomb, but a component for a 16 bomb is prohibited. And here we are dealing with weapons 17 grade plutonium, which Dr. Edwards has already testified 18 can be and indeed is, in his opinion, a component for 19 either a nuclear weapon or a nuclear explosive device. 20 Okay? 21 So when you read the treaty in light of the 22 statutory scheme, in my opinion, there are serious 23 compliance problems here with Article I, which have not 24 been addressed in the EA. The DOE has not dealt with any 25 of these problems at all in the EA, indeed, they have KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 36 1 basically said in one of their comments "Well, once we 2 give it to Canada, it's their problem," and that just is 3 an incorrect statement, in my opinion. 4 And it says "directly or indirectly," which 5 means also we, the United States, directly or indirectly 6 by encouraging and paying for the Russians to do this, you 7 see. So we are accountable for the Russian behavior 8 because we are working with them. And indeed, if we were 9 sued at the International Court of Justice -- let's 10 suppose something went wrong, Your Honor, and there was, 11 as Dr. Edwards testified, an aerial explosion in the 12 latest helicopter shipment and radiological dispersal of 13 plutonium that came across the border, killing Americans, 14 killing Canadians, others, if we were sued in World Court 15 over this, we would be found both jointly and severally 16 liable with Russia, with Canada, for any accident. 17 Likewise, this is followed up by both shipments on the 18 high seas of the plutonium. If there is an accident on 19 high seas, we could be sued at the World Court, the United 20 States, both ourselves and jointly and severally with 21 Russia and Canada over any accident here that might 22 happen. And that substantive liability could be based on 23 the U.N. Law of the Sea Convention. As I said, Your 24 Honor, I haven't had time to go through the environmental 25 provision of the Law of the Sea Convention, the Department KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 37 1 of Energy didn't even bother, and in the EA they did not 2 look at this at all. They did not consider this, but it 3 certainly is something that has to be considered, that 4 they haven't looked at. 5 And then "not in any way to assist, encourage or 6 induce any non-nuclear weapon State to manufacture or 7 otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear 8 explosive devices." Well, the problem here is Canada is 9 supposed to be a non-nuclear weapons state and says 10 "otherwise acquired nuclear explosive devices." Well, we 11 are giving them weapons grade plutonium, which again 12 Dr. Edwards has testified, and he is Canadian, is a 13 component of a nuclear weapons or nuclear explosive 14 device. And again, "or control over such weapons or 15 explosive devices." We are giving them weapons grade 16 plutonium. And if you look at how Congress has 17 interpreted this, they interpret it down to components, 18 they even talk about substances that they are trying to 19 regulate everything, and understand the 1978 legislation 20 was a very strict interpretation of what this treaty means 21 as far as the United States Government is concerned. And 22 I think we really need a comprehensive assessment here by 23 the Department of Energy as to whether or not any of these 24 transfers is consistent with Article I. Under the current 25 circumstances, they haven't bothered to look at any of the KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 38 1 terms as defined by Congress, the applicability of the 2 Congressional legislation to the transfers. 3 Likewise, Article II, Your Honor, Article II 4 deals with the Canadian obligations, "Each 5 non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes 6 not to receive the transfer from any transferor whatsoever 7 of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices." 8 Again, the same analysis here needs to be done. This 9 weapons grade plutonium, in my opinion and Dr. Edwards' 10 opinion, is clearly a component of either a nuclear weapon 11 or nuclear explosive device. And Canada, according to 12 this language, has agreed not to receive this material. 13 And by the way, as Dr. Edwards correctly pointed out, Your 14 Honor, this was consistent United States policy, stopping 15 proliferation of this type of material for any reason 16 going back to the Carter administration. We are seeing a 17 major dramatic change here in United States 18 nonproliferation policy, and that policy, Your Honor, 19 going back to the Carter administration, is enshrined in 20 law by Congress in the Nuclear Nonproliferation Act of 21 1978. So again, in my opinion, I believe these issues 22 likewise need to be addressed by the Department of 23 Energy. They have not been addressed in the environmental 24 assessment at all. 25 "Or control over such weapons or explosive KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 39 1 devices, directly or indirectly." Well, again, we are 2 giving Canada, either ourselves in the first shipment or 3 indirectly by means of the Russians in the second 4 shipment, control over a component for a nuclear weapon or 5 a nuclear explosive device. That's very clear they are 6 getting it. And according to the EA, we are trusting 7 their good intentions. There is no assurance in the EA 8 that this weapons grade plutonium is subject to 9 international safeguards. No. Despite the fact that 10 Congress has made it very clear that any transfer, and 11 Congress also made it clear in the legislation that they 12 are against any transfers of this type of stuff to other 13 States. But if there are any transfers at a minimum there 14 have to be absolute guaranteed protections on 15 international assurances to make sure it is not misused, 16 and you will note in the EA it says nothing about it. 17 There are no assurances about anything. 18 Now, "to manufacture or otherwise acquire 19 nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices; and 20 not to seek or receive any assistance in the manufacture," 21 etcetera, etcetera. 22 Article III then deals with the safeguard 23 requirements; that is, if there are transfers of materials 24 for peaceful purposes, and you know you can obviously, 25 Your Honor, you can read this yourself. There must be KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 40 1 safeguards. Under the supervision of the International 2 Atomic Energy Agency, the Environmental Assessment says 3 nothing at all about these safeguards. Nothing. It isn't 4 in there. 5 Apparently we have to rely on not even 6 statements by Canada that what we are transferring there, 7 what we are encouraging the Russians to transfer are 8 somehow going to be safeguarded despite the fact that 9 Article III says that there must be safeguards, and we 10 simply don't have them. 11 Q. Dr. Boyle, I'm going to show you what's been marked for 12 identification as Plaintiff's Exhibit 5 and ask you to 13 take a look in the upper right-hand corner, and after 14 you've had a moment to review that, let me know, please. 15 A. Yes. This is an article I had read in preparation for my 16 testimony here today, from the Toronto News. 17 Q. Based on your experience and expertise, Dr. Boyle, is this 18 the type of information that an international law scholar 19 could rely on in formulating opinions about the state or 20 nationally? 21 A. Well, here is stating comments by Mr. Tom Clemens, head of 22 the Washington-based Nuclear Control Institute. It's a 23 recognized organization dealing with nuclear policies, and 24 certainly experts in my field would rely upon statements 25 produced by the Nuclear Control Institute and, indeed, KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 41 1 prior to my testimony today, I did read several documents 2 produced by the Nuclear Control Institute just in the 3 normal course of preparing, yes. An expert in my field 4 would rely on this. 5 Q. Dr. Boyle, my recollection is you testified this appeared 6 in the Toronto -- 7 A. News. 8 Q. -- News and it -- 9 A. The Globe and Mail, which is, you know, it's sort of like 10 the New York Times here in the United States, a newspaper 11 of public record, so again, it's not like a tabloid or 12 something like this. 13 Q. Plaintiff's Exhibit 5, Dr. Boyle in the right-hand column 14 attributes some comments to a Sunni Locatelli purportedly 15 a spokeswoman at the Atomic Control Board. Do you see 16 that? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. What if anything is the significance, based on your 19 experience as expertise, of considering published reports 20 attributed to spokespersons for governmental entities in 21 formulating use of international law? 22 A. Yes. There is a decision by the International Court of 23 Justice in the nuclear test cases dealing with nuclear 24 explosions 1974, stating that the Court can rely upon 25 official statements made by Government officials acting KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 42 1 within their scope of authority and certainly Locatelli 2 here is the spokeswoman of the Atomic Energy Control 3 Board. So basically, I would be able to take this 4 statement and file it at the World Court and they would 5 find the statement could be, would be attributable to the 6 Canadian government, and Canada would be bound by this 7 statement. 8 Q. What does that article, Plaintiff's Exhibit 5, attribute 9 to Miss Locatelli? 10 A. She can't reveal how much fissile material Canada has. We 11 aren't able to give out that information under our 12 security regulations. Ms. Locatelli said Canada believes 13 it should come under the IA/EA guidelines because it 14 doesn't operate its own reprocessing facilities. I think 15 Dr. Edwards just pointed out that isn't correct. But even 16 if it were correct, it does come under IA/EA, and we need 17 to know, the United States Government under the NPT, under 18 the Congressional implementing legislation, we have to 19 know how much fissile material Canada has. 20 And basically, we are just taking their, 21 whatever their word is for it, and in my opinion, that's 22 unacceptable. We have to know how much material they have 23 and what they are doing with it, and what she's saying 24 here is "Well, we are just not going to tell you." And 25 you will note in the EA, the Department of Energy has KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 43 1 taken the same position. One of the comments made was 2 "Well, what is Canada doing," and the response of the DOE 3 is well, that is Canada's problem, once it leaves here we 4 are no longer responsible. The treaty and statutory 5 regime make it clear that's not the case. We are 6 responsible for our plutonium, wherever it goes. And 7 Congress has made it clear even if we do give it up, we 8 have to have absolute international safeguards as to what 9 is going to happen with our plutonium. And the same would 10 apply if we are encouraging Russia to ship weapons grade 11 plutonium to Canada. We have an obligation to make sure 12 that it's safeguarded and that it can be accountable and 13 accounted for. And what Ms. Locatelli here is saying 14 "Well, sorry, we are just not going to tell you." Again, 15 this raises serious problems in my mind that have not been 16 dealt with by the Department of Energy as to compliance 17 with the IA/EA safeguards regime, which is absolutely 18 required under Article III of the NPT and also required 19 under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Act. Indeed, if I 20 remember correctly, the 1994 implementation, Your Honor, 21 Congress said that transferring of unsafeguarded plutonium 22 is an act of international terrorism as far as Congress is 23 concerned. 24 So and that would trigger a whole host of other 25 provisions of the federal code dealing with international KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 44 1 terrorism, so we really need to know what is going to 2 happen to our plutonium when it gets up into Canada, and 3 to make sure there are safeguards and it is accountable 4 and there is an explanation here. 5 Now Mr. Clemens then said that, in his opinion, 6 Canada has 40 kilograms of plutonium, it's really not 7 accounted for or accountable for by anyone, and that 8 basically makes Canada a de facto nuclear weapons state. 9 I would agree, assuming that they do have the 40 kilograms 10 of plutonium, and I take it you know Mr. Clemens -- I had 11 e-mail correspondence with Mr. Clemens about this matter. 12 He feels that they do have it and that his group, the 13 Nuclear Control Institute, will be making this evidence 14 available soon. He told me it is not yet -- he is not yet 15 prepared to make it public, but they will be going public 16 with it soon. 17 In my opinion, if that is the case, they have 40 18 kilograms of plutonium, that's enough to make five bombs, 19 and that makes Canada a de facto nuclear weapons state 20 under the NPT and, in my opinion, would be inconsistent 21 with the NPT. There is a potential here for Canada being 22 in violation of the NET. We need to know that. Congress 23 has sanctions in there in the implementing legislation for 24 non-nuclear weapons states being, moving into a position 25 where they are de facto nuclear weapons states in KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 45 1 violation of the NPT. 2 It's clear Congress interprets our obligations 3 under the treaty to mean that a non-nuclear weapons state 4 simply cannot go off, assemble all the components for a 5 bomb, have one here, one there and one there, and then 6 say, oh but we are not a nuclear weapons state because we 7 haven't assembled the bomb. 8 Again, Congress made it very clear, no. Indeed, 9 in one of the pieces of legislation, Congress indicated 10 that it was also concerned with a facto nuclear weapons 11 states that an end run around the NPT, and the 12 Congressional regime applicable to it. Again, I regret to 13 report I haven't seen any of these issues dealt with by 14 the Department of Energy in the Environmental Assessments 15 and, indeed, when they were asked about it, they just said 16 this is now Canada's problem. Wondered-- United States 17 law of the NPT, it is not Canada's problem alone, it is 18 our problem because it's our plutonium and it's Russian 19 plutonium that we are paying to send up to Canada. 20 Q. Professor Boyle, based on the representations of Miss 21 Locatelli on behalf of Atomic Energy Control Board of 22 Canada that they don't believe they are subject to the 23 IA/EA guidelines, what if any impact would that have on 24 the United States' responsibility under the Nuclear 25 Nonproliferation Treaty of 1978? KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 46 1 A. It's very clear, Your Honor, the NPT and the Congressional 2 implementing legislation that we ourselves cannot ship 3 weapons grade plutonium there or engage in the Russians to 4 ship weapons grade plutonium unless there are absolutely 5 safeguards by the IA/EA that, to make sure that there is 6 no diversion. And again, Miss Locatelli is indicating 7 there is a high amount of uncertainty as to what is 8 happening with the Canadian plutonium. We simply don't 9 know. In the EA, there are no guarantees given by the 10 Department of Energy as to what is happening to plutonium 11 up in Canada. 12 Q. You may have testified to this, Dr. Boyle, and I apologize 13 if I missed it, but are Russia, Canada and the United 14 States all signatory partis to the Nonproliferation 15 Treaty? 16 A. Yes. We are all parties. There are about 182 or 183 17 states that are parties. The United States and Russia are 18 nuclear weapon states, parties to the convention, that is, 19 we are permitted to have nuclear weapons and nuclear 20 components, etc. Canada is designated a non-nuclear 21 weapons state. And they are supposed to preserve this 22 stative or statement. Yet according to the Nuclear 23 Control Institute, they have enough plutonium up there to 24 at least manufacture five bombs. So somehow this has to 25 be explained and accounted for in order for them to KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 47 1 continue their non-nuclear weapons state status under the 2 NPT, so again, the Nuclear Control Institute is raising 3 very serious compliance problems and potentially serious 4 violation of the NPT by Canada, and there are severe 5 sanctions in the United States laws enacted by Congress 6 under the Simplemen legislation, Your Honor, in the event 7 a state that is a non-nuclear weapons state moves to 8 become a nuclear weapons state. And again, none of this 9 has been addressed by the Department of Energy in the 10 environmental assessment that I'm aware of, either in the 11 environmental assessment or elsewhere. 12 Q. Dr. Boyle, could you advise the Court, if you would, as to 13 what the ramifications legally are of being a signatory 14 party to an international treaty such as the 15 Nonproliferation Treaty? 16 A. Yes. Your Honor, of course, the basic rule of Pacta Sunt, 17 P-a-c-t-a-s-u-n-t, Servanda, S-e-r-v-a-n-d-a. 18 The other point -- there are two other points, 19 however, that must be kept in mind in interpreting any 20 treaty and especially the NPT. First, the treaty must be 21 interpreted in good faith. And again, the question here 22 with Canada maintaining 40 kilograms of plutonium is 23 whether or not this is a good faith interpretation 24 implementation of the NPT by Canada. 25 Second, the treaty must be interpreted in KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 48 1 accordance with its object and purpose, and that in this 2 case the NPT is to stop nuclear proliferation. And again, 3 this entire program, the Parallex program, in my opinion, 4 seems to defeat the object and purpose of the NPT, which 5 is to stop nuclear proliferation. 6 The third point to keep in mind is that this 7 treaty has already been interpreted by Congress and 8 implemented by Congress. And Congress is agreeing with 9 what I'm saying here, Your Honor, and I'm agreeing with 10 what Congress is saying. Congress has made it very clear 11 that they do not want to see any type of nuclear 12 proliferation or programs that encourage nuclear 13 proliferation. And we are now seeing a drastic departure 14 from the policy enacted in Congress pursuant to the NPC 15 back in -- the NPT back in 1978 in the Nuclear 16 Nonproliferation Act, and we have seen no change in the 17 legislation by Congress to authorize or approve this 18 drastic change. And again, I agree with what Dr. Edwards 19 said from his Canadian perspective, my American 20 perspective, the Parallex MOX project is a drastic change 21 in encouraging proliferation of nuclear weapons components 22 and there has been no direct approval, change of statutes 23 or whatever. So again, this, in my opinion, raises very 24 serious problems under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty 25 as interpreted in good faith and in accordance with its KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 49 1 object and purpose not only for Canada, but the United 2 States and Russia. And in my opinion, we should have a 3 full study of all these issues by the Department of Energy 4 before there is any further movement on this project. 5 The implications here are enormous. They could 6 be catastrophic, and I personally would like to see a full 7 scale investigation analysis so that I could evaluate it 8 myself before anyone goes ahead with this project, but of 9 course that, you know, that's my personal opinion. I know 10 that's for you, Your Honor, to decide. 11 Q. Dr. Boyle, what if anything is the requirement or 12 obligation of the United States to interpret the 13 Nonproliferation Treaty in good faith? I think you 14 testified that Canada has that obligation. Does the 15 United States have a similar obligation? 16 A. Yes. And as a matter of fact, here Congress has 17 interpreted our obligation under the NPT and, in my 18 opinion, Congress has interpreted our obligations under 19 the NPT in good faith and also in accordance with the 20 object and purpose of this treaty. Congress interpreted 21 this by means of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Act of 1978, 22 the Nuclear Proliferation Prevention Act of 1994 and the 23 1998 amendments to do with the India-Pakistani 24 explosions. So in my opinion, Congress did interpret this 25 treaty in good faith and in accordance with its object and KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 50 1 purpose and it appears to me the Department of Energy is 2 off there on their own with no express authorization from 3 Congress pursuing a policy here that defeats the object 4 and purpose of the NPT. 5 Q. By that, you are referring to the Parallex project? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. With respect to the Congressional implementation of the 8 NPT in the '78, '94 and '98 acts, what if anything is the 9 role of the Department of State and/or Department of 10 Energy with respect to interpreting those obligations? 11 A. Yes. Your Honor, it's very clear from the treaty related 12 to the statutory scheme. Treaties deal with international 13 law and foreign relations. Therefore, they are normally 14 negotiated and concluded by the Department of State and 15 then they are handed over to the Senate Foreign Relations 16 to the Senate for advice and consent. It is the State 17 Department that traditionally has always had the sole and 18 exclusive role here in the United States with respect to 19 nonproliferation policy, not the Department of Energy. 20 The Department of Energy has always been treated as a 21 technical agency, technical consultant. The policy is 22 formulated by the State Department. There had been, again 23 going back to the Carter administration, United States 24 Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, Your Honor, set up by 25 Congress to deal precisely with these issues. They were KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 51 1 the ones given the authority to deal with proliferation 2 and nonproliferation policies negotiate these agreements, 3 etcetera. Senator Helms in the latest did not like act, 4 he concluded it was super numerator morgue or something so 5 he passed legislation terminating the Arms Control 6 Disarmament Agency and transferring all functions to the 7 Department of State today. But if you read the 8 Congressional implementing legislation, they make it very 9 clear that the lead role played on proliferation and 10 nonproliferation policy is the Department of State, not 11 the Department of Energy, and the Department of State 12 should consult with the Department of Energy. At times 13 the Department of Energy is given authority to have its 14 input to the Department of State, but it's the Department 15 of State that makes nonproliferation policy, not the 16 Department of Energy. 17 Q. In your review of the environmental assessment prepared by 18 the Department of Energy in January of '99, Dr. Boyle, 19 regarding the Parallex Project, is there any indication 20 that the Department of Energy consulted with the 21 Department of State? And if you don't mind, I direct your 22 attention to Page 41 of Plaintiff's Exhibit 12 previously 23 admitted and ask you to refer to that. 24 A. Yes. They had a list here of agencies consulted. Your 25 Honor, over here on Page 41, it says agencies consulted KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 52 1 during the preparation of this analysis: Atomic Energy of 2 Canada, Canadian Atomic Energy Control Board, U.S. 3 Department of Transportation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 4 Commission. They do not consult with the Department of 5 State and, in my opinion, and also in the opinion of 6 Congress, if you read through all the implementing 7 legislation, I know, Your Honor, as I understand it, you 8 are a conscientious Judge so I'm sure you are going to do 9 this, you'll see that they have to deal with the 10 Department of State. And the main problem with this EA is 11 they have not dealt with the Department of State, they 12 have not dealt with the nonproliferation issues, they have 13 not dealt with the Nonproliferation Treaty, they have not 14 dealt with the 1978 Act, they have not dealt with the 1994 15 Act, they have not dealt with the 1998 Act. All that is 16 expressly required by Congress. So again, in my opinion, 17 for some reason the Department of Energy has just decided 18 to go out there on its own and completely either ignore or 19 violate the Congressional statutes and procedures for 20 dealing with proliferation and nonproliferation issues. 21 Q. Dr. Boyle, to your knowledge, has the Department of State 22 retreated at all from the U.S. commitment to the 23 Nonproliferation Treaty as implemented by Congress through 24 the legislation you've indicated? 25 A. No, and as a matter of fact, Madeline Albright was just KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 53 1 out in India-Pakistan with President Clinton. As you 2 know, President Clinton stated that today India-Pakistan, 3 the Indian subcontinent is the most dangerous place on the 4 face of the earth because of the proliferation problem, 5 and they both have nuclear weapons now, and the dispute 6 over Casmir. 7 President Clinton then was just lectured in the 8 Indian Parliament publicly by the speaker of Parliament 9 for making the statement, but I think it's a fair and 10 accurate statement. Madeline Albright followed this up 11 with another statement reiterating our commitment to 12 nonproliferation and, specifically with respect to India 13 and Pakistan, that this was the policy of the United 14 States Government, and also tying this into the integral 15 importance of safeguards. 16 And again, that is a fair and accurate statement 17 of the policy being pursued by the President and the 18 Secretary of State that is charged under the legislation 19 and the Constitution to deal with these matters. There is 20 a complete and total disconnect here between what the 21 President and Secretary of State are saying and what the 22 Department of Energy is planning to do here in the 23 environmental assessment. 24 Q. Dr. Boyle, I'm going to show you what has been marked as 25 Plaintiff's Exhibit 11 and ask you to take a minute to KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 54 1 review that and let me know when you have had a chance to 2 do so, please. 3 A. Yes. This is an account of the Secretary of State 4 Albright's statement on April 2, as recently as April 2 5 dealing with our proliferation policies. And let me draw 6 a few things to your attention. United States regards 7 proliferation anywhere as our Number 1 security concern. 8 So again, she's pointing this out and she is the cabinet 9 officer with the authority to deal with these matters, not 10 the Secretary of Energy. We continue to seek universal 11 adherence to the NPT neither India nor Pakistan are 12 parties to the NPT. And here is crucial points: The 13 limits in our ability to cooperate with India and Pakistan 14 are a matter of U.S. law, as well as our international 15 obligations, all right? So Secretary Albright is pointing 16 out we have United States law that deals with 17 proliferation and this United States law -- of course, 18 she's not a lawyer -- but the U.S. law is the Nuclear 19 Nonproliferation Act, the Proliferation Prevention Act and 20 the '98 amendments as well as the Atomic Energy Act. So 21 there's a very comprehensive legislative scheme here as 22 well as our international obligation she points out. 23 There are international treaties here, and in particular 24 the most important one being the one she just referred to, 25 the Nonproliferation Treaty, and she is aware of that. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 55 1 Unfortunately, it does not appear that the Department of 2 Energy is aware of it or is concerned about it in the 3 least bit, at least as reflected in the environmental 4 assessment, they have not dealt with any of these issues 5 in environmental assessment nothing, none. 6 Q. Dr. Boyle, based on your experience and investigations 7 study, are you aware of whether or not India and Pakistan 8 have Canadian CANDU reactors? 9 A. As I understand it, they've got reactors from the Indian 10 Nuclear Bomb Project was a serous reactor, Canada, India 11 and United States, right. And Pakistan has a CANDU 12 reactor, right. And just the other day, the New York 13 Times reported the smuggling of substantial quantity of 14 nuclear materials out of the former Soviet Union towards 15 Pakistan that was recently intercepted in Kazakhstan, I 16 think. So I think this is a very serious problem. And I 17 don't see how this Parallex MOX -- it's only going to 18 compound the problem. These countries are doing 19 everything they possibly can. And here I would also add 20 in Israel is not a party to the NPT. There are other 21 states that have CANDU reactors, it has already been 22 reported in the professional literature, Your Honor, that 23 Japan too is a de facto nuclear weapons state in violation 24 of the NPT. And as Dr. Edwards already reported, they 25 have gotten a good deal of their nuclear material from KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 56 1 Canada. 2 So, we see -- Canadian reactors that are what, 3 in South Korea, Taiwan, states that are interested in 4 getting nuclear weapons. Clearly Taiwan wants them, South 5 Korea wants them. And you know, not that I can speak for 6 these governments, but it seems to me they have made a 7 decision the best way to get a weapon is to do it the way 8 the Indians did. We get a Canadian CANDU reactor, then we 9 start getting in whatever material we can get from, for 10 example, this MOX program. They will get plutonium and 11 then they can make a bomb, they can assemble a bomb. 12 As for the ease of assembling a bomb, Your 13 Honor, when I was a student at Harvard there was a very 14 bright student at MIT who, as a class project, assembled a 15 bomb. He had everything there except the plutonium. 16 That's how easy it is to assemble an atomic bottom, and he 17 brought it down there and, if I remember correctly, in 18 central square at MIT, and just showed it to everyone. 19 Even a bright student at MIT can assemble a bomb, that's 20 how easy it is to do. And what we see on these states 21 that say they are non-nuclear weapons states is an effort 22 to get a CANDU reactor and do what the Indians do use the 23 CANDU reactor, then they just need to get hold of the 24 plutonium, and Parallex MOX is going to give them access 25 to this plutonium if it gets in circulation. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 57 1 Q. Dr. Boyle, you've testified in some depth as to the 2 Nonproliferation Treaty and the implementation by Congress 3 indicating Congress' intent to prohibit even components, 4 parts of nuclear weapons to be covered by the U.S.; is 5 that correct? 6 A. Congress has interpreted the NPT, as I said, in good 7 faith, and to achieve its object and purpose and they have 8 interpreted to mean components that is clear of nuclear 9 weapons or nuclear explosive devices and there are other 10 areas in legislation where they even break it down to 11 items or substances that could be used for nuclear weapons 12 or nuclear explosive device, so Congress is aware of this 13 problem of a state becoming a de facto nuclear weapons 14 state and somehow trying to assemble components, items and 15 substances to be used for a nuclear weapon in order to 16 circumvent the treaty. So again Congress has interpreted, 17 I think, the treaty properly. 18 Q. Are you familiar in the course of your research with the 19 DOE's stockpile of stewardship program? 20 A. I am, yes. 21 Q. Are you familiar with their use in that program of 22 subcritical amounts of weapons grade plutonium? 23 A. Yes. Right now the Department of Energy is engaging in 24 what are known as subcritical tests. A subcritical test 25 is using -- they just did one this week, I think I gave KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 58 1 you the press release on it, and they are consistently 2 doing this. 3 A subcritical test uses a subcritical amount of 4 plutonium, which is under the -- it was eight kilograms. 5 And they are exploding it in order to test, verify and 6 develop the next generation of U.S. nuclear weapons. So 7 what we see the Department of Energy doing here is the 8 subcritical tests, in my opinion, would constitute it's 9 not a nuclear weapon, but it is a nuclear explosive 10 device. Now, there is nothing illegal with, under the NPT 11 with us having a nuclear explosive device, because we are 12 a nuclear weapons state party, but again, it creates 13 problems other states are now mimicking our behavior. 14 Russia is doing the same thing, France and Britain say 15 they are going to do the same thing. If we give weapons 16 grade plutonium to Canada, Canada could be doing the same 17 thing. Or the Russians give their weapons grade plutonium 18 to Canada, Canada could be doing the same thing, and other 19 states could be doing the same thing. So again, I think I 20 have serious concerns here, but I want to point out the 21 DOE is already engaged in the subcritical tests which are 22 clearly nuclear explosive devices. So it just doesn't 23 have to be a bomb to be regulated by the NPT. 24 Q. Dr. Boyle, in the scope of your experience and research, 25 have you become acquainted with the International Court of KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 59 1 Justice opinion regarding nuclear weapons in 1996? 2 A. Yes. As a matter of fact, I was part of the effort 3 originally to try to get that advisory opinion from the 4 World Court. 5 Q. If you would explain briefly what the significance, if 6 anything, of that World Court decision on the Parallex 7 project is, in your opinion? 8 A. Well, Your Honor, the World Court was asked by the United 9 Nations general assembly to give an opinion on the entire 10 question of nuclear weapons and international law. It's a 11 very long decision with many separate decisions in the 12 sense I've written an article here, Mr. Love might want to 13 provide it to you, going through all of it. But in this 14 opinion, there are two critical components that are 15 relevant to the Parallex MOX project and, of course, the 16 EA has not dealt with either, let alone the World Court 17 opinion, and the World Court opinion in this area 18 enunciates the rules of international law that are binding 19 on the United States Government, binding on Canada, 20 binding on Russia. The one component of this opinion 21 deals with the environmental-- international environmental 22 law applicable to nuclear weapons, and you will note in 23 the EA, the DOE does absolutely nothing at all with 24 international environmental law applicable to this 25 transaction because it is an international transaction, KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 60 1 they're shipping plutonium from the States up to Canada 2 and from Russia over to Canada. So international 3 environmental law is involved, and the DOE has done 4 nothing at all about it. 5 And Mr. Love, I think you have the exact 6 language there. You want to provide that to me, the exact 7 ruling of the Court on the international environmental law 8 that would apply? 9 MR. LOVE: Your Honor, we have tendered what I'm 10 going to show Dr. Boyle as Plaintiff's Exhibit 14, a copy 11 of the World Court opinion to both the Court and counsel 12 previously. 13 BY MR. LOVE: 14 Q. Dr. Boyle, I'm going to show you what has been marked as 15 Plaintiff's Exhibit 14 and ask you to take a look at that 16 and let us know when you've had a chance to do so and what 17 it is. 18 A. Right, this is the World Court advisory opinion. It's so 19 long, I'm going to have to get my notes on it, excuse me. 20 I think, Mr. Love, I gave you my notes last 21 night on the relevant provisions of the opinion, the 22 relevant paragraphs. 23 Q. While I'm looking for your notes, could you direct your 24 attention to Paragraph 27, please? 25 A. Right. What we need are the paragraphs here. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 61 1 Right. Yes, I have Paragraph 27. 2 Your Honor, here the World Court unanimously 3 adopted Principle 21 of the Stockholm Declaration of 1972, 4 which everyone would say today is a basic principle of 5 international environmental law, which the EA has not 6 bothered to deal with. And it basically says states have 7 a duty "to ensure that activities within their 8 jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to the 9 environment of other states or areas beyond the limits of 10 national jurisdiction." That's a basic principle of 11 international environmental law. It goes back to the 12 Stockholm Declaration of 1972. It has direct relevance 13 here to this entire project. You've got international 14 shipment of plutonium, it's going over the high seas if it 15 goes by boat from Russia. That also triggers the Law of 16 the Sea Convention that they have not dealt with. They 17 haven't dealt with the Stockholm Declaration, and they 18 have not dealt with this recent ruling by the World Court 19 as to obligations under international law. If you read 20 the EA when they are asked this question, they said "Once 21 we give to Canada, that's their problem." Well, again, 22 that isn't a correct statement of international law. It 23 is our problem. 24 The second important point of the ICJ opinion, 25 and there are other sections here dealing with the KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 62 1 environment -- and I know we have a limited amount of 2 time, I'm not going to go through it all -- deals with the 3 interpretation of the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty. 4 This is an international treaty, the World Court 5 also has authority to interpret the Nuclear 6 Nonproliferation Treaty, and they have interpreted the 7 Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. 8 Mr. Love, could you give me -- I identified a 9 paragraph for you, I think it's 102. 10 Q. I believe you are looking for Paragraph 102? 11 A. 102, right. 12 Q. May also want to take a look at Paragraph 99. 13 A. 99 and 102, right. 14 The World Court, in the same advisory opinion, 15 has also dealt with the NPT and the obligation of Article 16 VI of the NPT, "Each of the parties to the treaty 17 undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on 18 effective measures relating to cessation of the" -- "in 19 good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of 20 the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear 21 disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete 22 disarmament under strict and effective international 23 control." And they have interpreted this provision, NPT 24 Article VI, which we are a party to, by the way, to have a 25 dual obligation, two components here: One, we must pursue KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 63 1 negotiations on nuclear disarmament as a matter of good 2 faith. 3 Recently, I regret to report the U.S. Ambassador 4 to the Conference on Nuclear Disarmament sponsored by the 5 United Nations has said "We are not going to pursue 6 nuclear disarmament negotiations." In my opinion, that 7 puts us in breach of NPT Article VI, certainly as 8 interpreted by the World Court. We have an obligation to 9 pursue nuclear disarmament negotiations and we have just 10 said we are not going to do it. The Ambassador said "We 11 are going to pursue instead a treaty on the cutoff of 12 fissile materials such as what is at stake here, but we 13 are not going to pursue nuclear disarmament negotiations." 14 Well, Your Honor, it does seem to me that that is a 15 violation of NPT Article VI and is certainly not meeting 16 the requirements of Article VI as interpreted by the World 17 Court. We must pursue these negotiations in good faith. 18 And then the second component of the obligation 19 is we must achieve a precise result. Nuclear disarmament 20 in all its aspects. And again just recently the U.S. 21 Ambassador to the Council of Nuclear Disarmament under the 22 auspices of the UN said "We are just not going to do it." 23 The reason why this creates serious legal problems is that 24 the non-nuclear weapons states went along with the entire 25 Nuclear Proliferation Treaty on the assumption that the KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 64 1 nuclear weapons states would engage in good faith 2 negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament. If we are 3 not engaging in negotiations leading to nuclear 4 disarmament and publicly say we are not going to do it, 5 this in theory could give the non-nuclear weapons states, 6 all 175 of them, grounds to argue the material breach of 7 the NPT and pull out of the NPT and to engage in nuclear 8 armament. Now I'm not recommending that and indeed I 9 certainly would not recommend that to anyone, but it is a 10 very serious concern if we are not engaging in these 11 nuclear disarmament negotiations, which we are not 12 currently doing. 13 Q. Dr. Boyle, could you briefly summarize for the Court why 14 the International Court of Justice opinions, if at all, 15 are binding on the U.S.? 16 A. This opinion per se is listed as an advisory opinion. So 17 it is -- we are not party to the lawsuit. As you know, 18 some courts can give advisory opinions. Your Honor, you 19 can't give an advisory opinion, but there are courts in 20 the United States that some states courts have authority 21 to give advisory opinions as well as contentious 22 opinions. The World Court has both. They have authority 23 contentious opinion and an advisory opinion. This was not 24 a contentious case. If it were a contentious case, we 25 would be bound by it, like the Lockerbie case, like the KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 65 1 Bosnia cases that I was involved with, those were 2 contentious cases. This was an advisory opinion, however, 3 in this advisory opinion, with these unanimous rulings by 4 the World Court on these points, the World Court made it 5 clear that these rules are customary international law. 6 And rules of customary international law bind the United 7 States Government. The Paquete, P-a-q-u-e-t-e, Habana, 8 H-a-b-a-n-a, decision by the United States Supreme Court 9 customarily international law binds the United States and 10 the United States courts. And technically, this is 11 federal common law. So the, Your Honor, this Court should 12 take into account the World Court rulings on these two 13 points on international environmental law and how the NPT 14 should be interpreted. 15 The rest of the opinion, which is quite lengthy 16 and I had written about elsewhere -- if you are interested 17 in reading my article, you can, but it's not really 18 relevant or terribly germane to the issues here, but 19 certainly, the section on international environmental law 20 and their interpretation of the NPT is relevant. I think 21 they enunciate rules of customary international law. I 22 also have reached the same conclusions myself in my own 23 scholarly research before the World Court did, but I think 24 most experts would agree with the rulings of the World 25 Court on these two points, it's requirements of KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 66 1 international environmental law and the interpretation of 2 the NPT. 3 And again, the DOE's environmental assessment 4 has not taken any of this into account. They have not 5 taken into account the rules of international 6 environmental law, which they should do, and they have not 7 taken into account anything about the NPT. 8 Q. Dr. Boyle, based on your review of the NPT, the Nuclear 9 Nonproliferation Acts of 1978, 1994, and 1998, the 10 International Court of Justice opinion, and the 11 declarations by the Department of State regarding the U.S. 12 position with respect to the Nonproliferation Treaty 13 commitments we have made, do you have an opinion as an 14 expert in international law as to whether the foreign 15 policy of the United States would be violated by the 16 shipment of MOX from Russia to Canada funded by the U.S. 17 DOE? 18 A. Well, again, I agree with everything Dr. Edwards said. 19 Your Honor, this is a major change in United States 20 nonproliferation policy going back at a minimum to the 21 Carter administration and the adoption of the Nuclear 22 Nonproliferation Act, it seems to me completely 23 inconsistent with the treaty, with the Act, the 1978 Act 24 and 1994 Act and the 1998 Act. So yes, this is a major 25 change in policy that potentially is illegal under the KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 67 1 sources. And I would really like to see the Department of 2 Energy comprehensively address all of these issues so we 3 could see what is their authority to do this. Besides 4 their own ipse dixit. I would like to see the authority. 5 I don't see it in any of the sources I've read before for 6 them to unilaterally engage in this major change in policy 7 that seems to be inconsistent with the Treaty, the '78 8 Act, the '94 Act and '98 Act, yes. 9 MR. LOVE: Your Honor, I have no further 10 questions of this witness. Thank you. 11 CROSS EXAMINATION 12 BY MR. DODGE: 13 Q. Morning, Mr. Boyle. 14 A. Morning. 15 Q. I would like to turn your attention back to your C.V., 16 which I think is Exhibit 3. Do you have that in front of 17 you? 18 A. Sure. 19 Q. Just to round out a few items on the second page, about 20 halfway down you testified that you were counsel to Libya 21 in connection with the bombing of the Pan Am flight over 22 Lockerbie, Scotland. 23 A. That is correct. I should point out that matter is being 24 peaceably resolved now by the United States and Libya 25 because of my efforts. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 68 1 Q. And you've also served, going up now the fourth item from 2 the top of that page, since 1987 you served as a legal 3 advisor to the Palestine Liberation Organization? 4 A. That is correct, and I was also the legal advisor to the 5 Palestinian delegation for the Middle East Peace Talks 6 convened under the auspices of President Bush, yes. 7 Q. And two items down from there said you were counsel 8 related to House Resolution 86 in the 102nd Congress 9 dealing with the impeachment of former, then President 10 George Bush? 11 A. Yes. Congressman Henry G. Gonzalez of Texas reached a 12 decision that President Bush going to war violated 13 numerous provisions of the Constitution and international 14 law. You can find them there in House Resolution 86. And 15 he asked me, because of my knowledge and expertise to 16 serve as counsel to them on these matters, and I did serve 17 as counsel free of charge, that is correct. 18 My service to the Palestinian Delegation in the 19 Middle East Peace Negotiations is there in '91 and '93, as 20 I said, President Bush was the one who convened those 21 negotiations, and yes, even though I did set out with 22 Congressman Gonzalez on this issue, President Bush did 23 sign my Biological Weapons Anti-terrorists Act of 1989, 24 which is -- 25 Q. He apparently didn't hold your efforts against you KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 69 1 personally. 2 A. Pardon me? 3 Q. Sounds like he didn't hold it against you personally. 4 A. I don't think he did, no. I'm a lawyer and a law 5 professor and I'm a professional, but he had no problems, 6 President Bush had no problems with my Biological 7 Anti-Terrorism Act. It was approved unanimously by both 8 Houses of Congress. 9 Q. Moving on to the third page, second item from the top of 10 the page, you worked as a consultant in 1993 on 11 Independence for the State of Hawaii. I would assume for 12 Hawaii to become an independent nation? 13 A. That is correct. The State of Hawaii-- the Hawaiian 14 Sovereignty Advisory Commission is an agency of the State 15 of Hawaii. And they were charged under the law by the 16 State of Hawaiian law to investigate all alternatives for 17 the native Hawaiian people. One of the alternatives that 18 needed to be investigated was whether or not the native 19 Hawaiian people should establish their own independent 20 nation state. And I was retained by the State of Hawaii 21 then to advise them on this because of my experience doing 22 the same work with the Palestinians. I advised them on 23 the creation of their state and the peace talks with 24 Israel based on a two-state solution, and the Palestinian 25 state today has diplomatic recognition now by about 125 KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 70 1 states, and currently has de facto UN membership, and I 2 did the legal work on that, so the State of Hawaii 3 retained me to come out and advise on the establishment of 4 an independent nations state, and the State of Hawaii paid 5 my expenses and a modest fee for this work, yes. 6 Q. Moving on to the Nonproliferation Treaty, you testified 7 about Article I. Do you recall that? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. And as I understood your testimony, your view is that the 10 fuel rods at issue in the Parallex Project, in your view, 11 should be treated as components of a nuclear weapon; is 12 that right? Explosive device? 13 A. No. What I said was weapons grade plutonium should be 14 treated as a component of either a nuclear weapon or a 15 nuclear explosive device. 16 Q. What about -- I mean, the Parallex test involves shipment 17 and then irradiation of fuel rods; is that correct? 18 A. Right. 19 Q. And is it your view or is it not your view that those fuel 20 rods constitute components of nuclear weapons or explosive 21 devices? 22 A. My viewpoint is what I said, that weapons grade plutonium 23 is a component of a nuclear weapon or nuclear explosive 24 device. 25 Q. You didn't answer my question. Do you understand the KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 71 1 question? 2 A. Well, I've given my answer. 3 THE COURT: No, you haven't answered his 4 question. He asked you question, if you don't know the 5 answer, say so. He asked you a very specific question 6 about rods. 7 BY MR. DODGE: 8 Q. In fact, the question has to do with your view, if you 9 have one, whether the fuel rods at issue in the Parallex 10 test program constitute components of nuclear weapons or 11 explosive devices. 12 A. If they contain weapons grade plutonium, they would be or 13 could be components of nuclear weapons or nuclear 14 explosive devices. 15 Q. Well, these fuel rods do contain plutonium; is that right? 16 A. As I understand it, it's in there, yep. 17 Q. So in your view, does that make the fuel rods components 18 of nuclear weapons or explosive devices? 19 A. Again, my testimony is that the weapons grade plutonium 20 clearly is either nuclear -- is a component of a nuclear 21 weapon or a nuclear explosive device, and the reason I 22 give that testimony is based on my reading of the 23 Congressional legislation, Congress has taken the position 24 that weapons grade plutonium or plutonium, in general, is 25 a component of a nuclear weapon or nuclear explosive KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 72 1 device. Congress does not deal with the fuel rods, they 2 dealt with the plutonium. 3 Q. I want to make sure I understand your testimony clearly. 4 Is it your testimony, is it your view that any 5 plutonium would qualify as a component of a nuclear 6 weapons or nuclear weapon or explosive device under the 7 treaty? 8 A. My testimony today is the weapons grade plutonium involved 9 in this project is a component of a nuclear weapons or 10 other nuclear explosive device. I believe weapons grade 11 plutonium is what is involved in this project. 12 Q. I asked you a different question. The question was a 13 broader one. Is it your view or not your view that all 14 plutonium would qualify as a component of a nuclear weapon 15 or explosive device under Article I? 16 A. It appears Congress has taken that position, yes, and they 17 have stringently regulated plutonium in all forms. And I 18 also note that the United States Government has exploded a 19 nuclear weapon -- 20 THE COURT: The question is: Is it your 21 opinion? He is asking four or five times now, could you 22 answer that? 23 THE WITNESS: But Your Honor, my opinion is 24 based on -- 25 THE COURT: In courts -- I know you are a KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 73 1 professor -- we answer the questions of the lawyer, not 2 what we want to talk about. He asked you seven or eight 3 questions, none of which you've answered. I would ask you 4 simply listen to the lawyer's question and answer it. 5 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honor. 6 BY MR. DODGE: 7 Q. Do you understand the question? 8 THE COURT: Ask it again for the fifteenth time, 9 ask it again. 10 BY MR. DODGE: 11 Q. Is it your view that all plutonium constitutes a component 12 of nuclear weapon or explosive device under Article I of 13 the treaty? 14 A. It can. 15 Q. It can? 16 A. Yes. Yes. 17 Q. Is it your view across the board that plutonium, whether 18 weapons grade or not, if it's present in a fuel rod for 19 a-- destined for a civilian nuclear reactor would qualify 20 as a component of a nuclear weapon explosive device? 21 A. It could. 22 Q. Do you know whether as a general matter the signatories of 23 the Nonproliferation Treaty have interpreted, whether any 24 signatory has interpreted Article I to ban transport of 25 fuel rods containing plutonium? KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 74 1 A. Congress has strictly regulated plutonium, yes, and there 2 is legislation on the books saying "We, Congress, 3 interpreting our obligations under the NPT, are against 4 international transport of plutonium," yes. 5 Q. Has Congress passed any legislation prohibiting the 6 transport of nuclear fuel rods containing any plutonium? 7 A. In what I have reviewed for my testimony here today, I 8 have not seen in the '78, '94 or '98 Act that Congress has 9 prohibited transport of fuel rods. 10 Q. In fact, fuel rods are transported across national 11 boundaries all the time; is that not correct? 12 A. They are transported. 13 Q. In fact, fuel rods containing plutonium are transported 14 across national boundaries all the time, isn't that 15 correct? 16 A. If they are subject to-- they are supposed to be subject 17 to safeguards, yes. 18 Q. Well, that gets us to another point of your earlier 19 testimony regarding whether the fuel rods particularly at 20 issue in the Parallex Project are or are not subject to 21 IA/EA safeguards in Canada. Do you recall that testimony? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. Do you have personal knowledge whether Canada, the 24 Government of Canada has taken a position on whether the 25 U.S. Parallex fuel rods, which are now in Canada, whether KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 75 1 those fuel rods are now subject to IA/EA safeguards? 2 A. I have not seen any evidence because of the recentness of 3 the movement of the shipments. 4 Q. If I told you that the position of the Government of 5 Canada is that those fuel rods are, in fact, subject to 6 IA/EA safeguards, would you have any basis to quarrel with 7 that? 8 A. The statement by Ms. Locatelli does call into question the 9 validity of these assertions, yes. 10 Q. Miss Locatelli was generally speaking of Parallex fuel 11 rods, was she? 12 A. Speaking about plutonium in general, right. 13 Q. I take it you didn't speak personally to Miss Locatelli? 14 A. No, I did not. 15 Q. About this or any-- 16 A. But I did speak with Mr. Clemens of NCI by e-mail and he 17 has similar concerns to me. 18 Q. Okay. And did you speak to the newspaper reporter, Martin 19 Mittelstaedt, who quoted Ms. Locatelli? 20 A. No, I did not. 21 Q. Whether his quotes accurately reflect what she said or not 22 is not something you would be qualified to testify about; 23 is that right? 24 A. Well, I note The Globe and Mail is a newspaper of public 25 record and I would be able to rely on that in the World KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 76 1 Court for sure, yep. 2 Q. But newspaper reporters are human beings? 3 A. Newspaper reporters make mistakes, sure. But again, the 4 World Court, for example, the nuclear test cases did rely 5 on statements made by Government officials as normally 6 reported in reputable news media sources. They have 7 different standards of evidence, the World Court, than 8 they do here in United States District Court. 9 Q. Now you've also relied on this article, Plaintiff's 10 Exhibit 5, I guess too, in support of your opinion that 11 Canada is in possession of 40 kilograms or up to 40 12 kilograms of plutonium; is that right? 13 A. This is a statement by Mr. Clemens, and I have had e-mail 14 correspondence with him about it. 15 Q. Do you have any personal knowledge whether -- 16 A. No. 17 Q. I'm sorry, I didn't finish my question. 18 A. I did answer your question. 19 THE COURT: He hasn't finished asking it; you 20 couldn't possibly answer his question when he hasn't 21 finished asking it. 22 THE WITNESS: Sorry. 23 BY MR. DODGE: 24 Q. Do you have any personal knowledge of whether Canada, in 25 fact, has 40 kilograms of plutonium? KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 77 1 A. I do not have personal knowledge, no. I'm relying on the 2 statement by Mr. Clemens. 3 Q. Mr. Clemens, does Mr. Clemens have personal knowledge 4 whether Canada has 40-- 5 A. As I understand, Mr. Clemens does. From my e-mail 6 correspondence with him, he does. 7 Q. Has he seen that plutonium? 8 A. Pardon me? 9 Q. Has he seen it? 10 A. He didn't tell me what his sources of evidence are, but he 11 did tell me that they will be making it public soon. 12 Q. So he thinks he has -- he thinks he has evidence to 13 support that conclusion and whether that evidence holds 14 any water or not, we really can't tell, can we? 15 A. Well, again, as an expert, if the NCI is making the 16 statements, I think they are significant and they need to 17 be dealt with, and certainly by the Department of Energy. 18 THE COURT: That was not -- excuse me, that was 19 not his question. 20 Would you repeat your question, please? 21 BY MR. DODGE: 22 Q. The question is: Mr. Clemens believes he has reason or he 23 has evidence to support his conclusion that Canada has 40 24 kilograms of plutonium, but as far as anybody in this 25 courtroom knows, that evidence may or may not hold water, KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 78 1 we just don't know, correct? 2 A. I'm not evaluating the evidence, and Mr. Clemens said the 3 evidence will be produced, so at that point I will review 4 the evidence and formulate a formal opinion. 5 THE COURT: Do you want to ask it again or just 6 want to give up? 7 MR. DODGE: I think that -- I think the point is 8 established to the extent I need to, Your Honor. 9 BY MR. DODGE: 10 Q. Now, you testified earlier that it's up to the State 11 Department, not the Department of Energy to interpret 12 United States treaty obligations; is that right? 13 A. I testified that it is the State Department that is in 14 charge of nuclear proliferation policies, that's what I 15 testified, and not the Department of Energy, yes. 16 Q. Okay. Is it your view that it's -- maybe I misunderstood 17 what you testified earlier. I thought I heard you say 18 that interpreting whether or not the U.S. is complying 19 with Nonproliferation Treaty in particular, that pertinent 20 authority on that would be the State Department, not the 21 Department of Energy; is that a fair statement? 22 A. I've also testified that the State Department has the lead 23 role in the United States Government with respect to 24 interpretation of treatises as well. 25 Q. Do you know what the State Department's position is on KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 79 1 whether the Parallex test program is or is not compliant 2 with Article I of the Nonproliferation Treaty? 3 A. Well, that's why I read the Environmental Assessment, to 4 see if you had talked to the State Department here, and 5 they hadn't, so I have not seen any statement by the State 6 Department as to what their position is, no. 7 Q. The Environmental Assessment is not the only document 8 that's been generated in the course of the Parallex 9 Project, you understand that? 10 A. That is correct, and I have read a good deal of the 11 documentation, but I still have not seen an expression by 12 the Department of State on this issue. 13 Q. Okay. Do you know whether or not the State Department was 14 involved at any level in the Parallex Project? 15 A. There probably were discussions somewhere in there. 16 Q. Do you know? 17 A. Myself personally? 18 Q. Yes. 19 A. I don't know for sure. 20 Q. Do you know one way or the other whether the State 21 Department has a view on whether the Parallex Project is 22 consistent with our treaty obligations under Article I of 23 the NPT? 24 A. I have not seen any expression by the State Department on 25 this issue. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 80 1 Q. If I told you the State Department has taken the view that 2 the Parallex Project is entirely consistent with our 3 obligations under Article I, would you have any basis to 4 quarrel with that? 5 A. I haven't seen it. 6 MR. LODGE: Objection, Your Honor. 7 THE COURT: If he hasn't seen -- 8 MR. DODGE: Withdraw the question, Your Honor. 9 THE WITNESS: I would like to see it and 10 evaluate it myself, sure. 11 BY MR. DODGE: 12 Q. You also testified about dangers of nuclear proliferation 13 relating to countries such as Taiwan and Korea that are 14 not currently nuclear weapons states, but would like to 15 acquire nuclear weapons, do you recall that testimony? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. Is it correct that the MOX program, the Parallex Program 18 does not contemplate the shipment of any fuel rods to any 19 country other than Canada? 20 A. Not at this stage, but eventually it does appear there 21 will be mass circulation of this material, yes, down the 22 line. 23 Q. And the basis for that is what exactly? 24 A. The quantities. If the test works out, the quantity we 25 are talking about coming from Russia. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 81 1 Q. Well, let me be more specific about this. Has the United 2 States, any spokesperson for the United States Government 3 proposed in connection with the Parallex Project to send 4 fuel rods to any country other than Canada? 5 A. The United States? 6 Q. Right. 7 A. No. 8 Q. Has the Government of Russia proposed, in connection with 9 the Parallex Project, to send fuel rods to any country 10 other than Canada? 11 A. Well, they are talking about massive quantities of weapons 12 grade plutonium being circulated into this program and the 13 independent team of experts by Russia and the United 14 States have made that quite clear they are talking tons of 15 this stuff. 16 Q. Well, again, you didn't answer my question there, 17 Professor. I asked you whether the Russian Government has 18 proposed sending fuel rods to any country other than 19 Canada. Your answer only dealt with volumes, it didn't 20 address where. That was my question. 21 A. Right. There might have been discussions on Germany or 22 some of the European states have there -- there have been 23 discussions and proposals, but it's just at that stage 24 now, yes. 25 Q. But Russia has not, to your knowledge, proposed sending KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 82 1 fuel rods to Korea? 2 A. There is an international market here, sure, it could be 3 sold anywhere. 4 THE COURT: No, he didn't say could have. He 5 said: Did they propose it? 6 THE WITNESS: I have not read that right now 7 Russia is proposing sending this to Korea. 8 BY MR. DODGE: 9 Q. Same question with Taiwan. 10 A. I have not read that Russia is proposing to send this to 11 Taiwan. 12 MR. DODGE: No further questions at this time, 13 Your Honor. 14 THE COURT: We will take a 15-minute recess. 15 COURT CLERK: All rise. 16 This court is in recess. 17 (At 10:54 a.m., recess.) 18 THE COURT: Okay. What is next? 19 MR. LOVE: Brief redirect, Your Honor. 20 REDIRECT EXAMINATION 21 BY MR. LOVE: 22 Q. Professor Boyle, did you receive any recognition or 23 rewards from Bosnia for your efforts on their behalf? 24 A. While I was never paid a penny, but President Izetbegovic 25 and Vice President Gonich (phonetic) held a ceremony at KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 83 1 the Bosnian presidency with a-- awarded me full-fledged 2 citizenship in the Republic, a diplomatic passport and 3 visa and a declaration and they put the ceremony on 4 television, so that was very nice. So technically I'm a 5 Bosnian citizen too. 6 Q. Dr. Boyle, with respect to your work on the Hawaiian 7 independence that Mr. Dodge asked you about, has there 8 been any action by the President or Congress, to your 9 knowledge, with respect to that? 10 A. Yes. In 1993 Congress passed a statute signed into law by 11 President Clinton formally apologizing to the native 12 Hawaiian people for destroying their kingdom and stealing 13 their land. The legislation at the end provides for a 14 process of reconciliation and reparations, and how this is 15 going to be dealt with, and I'm still currently involved 16 in those matters. 17 Q. Dr. Boyle, there should be a document up there marked 18 Plaintiff's Exhibit 13. Do you see that? 19 A. Yes, I have it here. 20 Q. Now, this is entitled a Nonproliferation Arms Control 21 Assessment of Weapons Usable Fissile Material Storage and 22 Excess Plutonium Disposition Alternatives, dated January, 23 1997 authored by the United States Department of Energy, 24 correct? 25 A. Yes. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 84 1 Q. Was this among the documents that you reviewed in 2 preparing your testimony? 3 A. I did not have -- I did not get this entire document until 4 Monday, so I did not have a chance to review the entire 5 document, but I have reviewed the excerpts you gave to 6 me. 7 Q. Now Mr. Dodge asked you-- for the record, Your Honor, the 8 excerpt only contains Pages 106 and 107-- Mr. Dodge asked 9 you about your testimony about the possibility of future 10 shipments of MOX to Taiwan and Korea. Do you remember him 11 asking you about that? 12 A. Yes. 13 THE COURT: He didn't ask what the possibility 14 is, he asked if there were plans by Russia or the United 15 States to ship to those two nations. That was the 16 question. 17 MR. LOVE: Okay. 18 THE COURT: And the answer was no. Not are 19 there possibilities. I know the witness thinks there are 20 possibilities, that won't help me any. I understand 21 that. 22 BY MR. LOVE: 23 Q. In fact, Dr. Boyle is it true that in this document the 24 DOE indicates there are possibilities such as you 25 testified about? KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 85 1 A. Yes. 2 THE COURT: I accept that. You are wasting my 3 time. There are possibilities. 4 BY MR. LOVE: 5 Q. Dr. Boyle, if you would, I direct your attention to the 6 large document that's in front of you. This is 7 Proliferation Venerability Red Team Report, Plaintiff's 8 Exhibit 28, and introduced in the prior hearing. 9 A. Yes, and I read this entire report prior to my testimony 10 here today. 11 Q. I'm going to ask you, if you would, to direct your 12 attention to Page 6-1, the conclusions to that report. 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. And again, this is a document that was produced by Sandia 15 Laboratories for the Department of Energy? 16 A. That is correct. 17 Q. Directing your attention to the first conclusion, under 18 the conclusion, keeping plutonium inaccessible is the key 19 to proliferation resistance, do you see that? 20 A. Yes. It says quite clearly, all plutonium from all stages 21 of all alternatives can be made weapons usable should 22 sufficient material be successfully removed. And I should 23 point out that is the position Congress takes under the 24 Nuclear Nonproliferation Act of '78, the Act of '94 and 25 the '98, all plutonium can be made weapons usable. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 86 1 Q. In your view, is that conclusion by the Sandia Lab in this 2 Red Team Report consistent with your testimony? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. Now, Mr. Dodge asked you if there was transport of 5 plutonium across boundaries all the time. My notes 6 reflected you said yes. Do you remember that testimony? 7 A. I said there was some, yes. 8 Q. Is there routinely transportation of weapons grade 9 plutonium shipped across boundaries all the time by the 10 United States? 11 A. No. No. 12 MR. LOVE: No further questions. 13 MR. DODGE: No recross, Your Honor. 14 THE COURT: You may step down. 15 THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honor. 16 Your Honor, did you have any questions? 17 THE COURT: No, I don't. 18 THE WITNESS: Thank you. 19 THE COURT: You've exceeded your time so I take 20 it you have no more witnesses. 21 MR. LOVE: Your Honor, I have no more witnesses 22 but at this time I would like to move our Exhibit 5, 23 Exhibit 7, Exhibit 11, Exhibit 12, Exhibit 13, Exhibit 14 24 and Plaintiff's Exhibit 2 and Exhibit 1 into evidence. 25 MR. DODGE: No objection, Your Honor. KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 87 1 THE COURT: 5, 7, 11, 12, 13 and 14, 1 and 2 are 2 received. 3 MR. LOVE: Thank you, Your Honor. We have 4 nothing further. 5 THE WITNESS: Here are the exhibits. Where do 6 you want them? 7 MR. LOVE: I'll take them here. 8 (Hearing continued; reported, not requested 9 transcribed.) 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 88 1 2 3 4 5 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE 6 7 I, Kathleen S. Thomas, Official Court Reporter for the 8 United States District Court for the Western District of 9 Michigan, appointed pursuant to the provisions of Title 28, 10 United States Code, Section 753, do hereby certify that the 11 foregoing is a true and correct transcript of proceedings had 12 in the within-entitled and numbered cause on the date 13 hereinbefore set forth; and I do further certify that the 14 foregoing transcript has been prepared by me or under my 15 direction. 16 17 18 19 20 __________________________________ 21 Kathleen S. Thomas, CSR, RPR-1300 22 U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue 23 Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 24 25 KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (616)385-3050 Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (voice) 217-244-1478 (fax) fboyle at law.uiuc.edu (personal comments only) Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Brussel, Morton K Sent: Monday, November 06, 2017 7:56 PM To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: David Green >; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; Estabrook, Carl G > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] FW: MOX for Bombs in Japan I think this is wrong. MOX fuel is mainly used for fuel in nuclear power reactors, not to make bombs. Japan had/has many nuclear reactors. A fairly intelligible discussion is found in wikipedia, under "MOX nuclear”. —mkb On Nov 6, 2017, at 4:40 PM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss > wrote: This was a very lengthy interview I gave in Japan courtesy of their peace and anti-nuclear movement. It was heavily censored. My basic point was that Japan was using MOX to make bombs and that my best estimate was that Japan probably had as many bombs as PRC, which would be in the area of 500. So when the details of the disaster at Fukushima came out, it was clear to me it was one of their leading bomb complexes. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: globenet at yahoogroups.com [mailto:globenet at yahoogroups.com] Sent: Saturday, March 21, 2015 8:10 AM To: globenet at yahoogroups.com Cc: 'Hiroshi Taka'; 'Gensuikyo'; 'Akira Kawasaki'; oheyeran at yahoogroups.com; asia-pacific_demil_mdg-request at lists.riseup.net; 'Coleen Rowley'; 'Douglas Roche' Subject: [globenet] MOX for Bombs in Japan Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (Voice) 217-244-1478 (Fax) (personal comments only) __._,_.___ ________________________________ Posted by: "Boyle, Francis A" > ________________________________ Reply via web post • Reply to sender • Reply to group • Start a New Topic • Messages in this topic (1) VISIT YOUR GROUP [Yahoo! Groups] • Privacy • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use . __,_._,___ _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Tue Nov 7 10:54:42 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2017 10:54:42 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Updated Figures:: AMAR & ILLINIWAKS LAW FACULTY:THE SMELL OF DEATH SURROUNDS YOU! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: By comparison to Amar, there was last year one Member of the Urbana City Council, whom I will not name here, who publicly stated at their meetings/hearings on the new Urbana Sanctuary Resolution that he would rather go to jail than cooperate with the Feds against Undocumented Migrants. He then publicly asked me if I would be prepared to defend him. I said I would—just like CCR, Professor Falk and I tried to Defend the Founders of the Sanctuary Movement starting around 1985 or so. Amar is a gutless, unprincipled, pathetic excuse for a Law Dean! Ditto for Amar Embracing Killer Koh! The Smell of Death surrounds Amar! Ditto for Amar’s Illinwaks Law Faculty! The Smell of Death Surrounds the College of Law Building. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Monday, November 06, 2017 9:02 PM To: David Green ; C. G. ESTABROOK ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay ; David Johnson ; Mildred O'brien ; Estabrook, Carl G Subject: Updated Figures:: AMAR & ILLINIWAKS LAW FACULTY:THE SMELL OF DEATH SURROUNDS YOU! Way to go Amar and Illiniwaks Law Faculty! We now have a fix on how many TPS Refugees will soon be Deported by Trump/Sessions/ICE:437,000. See below. And those from Nicaragua, El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras go back to the Original Sanctuary Movement when Killer Koh was working for Reagan whose Department of Injustice where Killer Koh worked was persecuting and railroading the Founders of the Sanctuary Movement whom CCR and Professor Falk and I tried to defend. All this was explained to Amar and his Illiniwaks Law Faculty when they were to invite Killer Koh to come out and give their endowed lecture on Role Model Excellence for Lawyers in Government Service. As for Amar himself , he has gratuitously aligned himself with Trump/Sessions/ICE against 11 Million Undocumented Migrants; 800,000 DACA Kids; and 437,000 TPS Refugees ; as well as the Families of all these people. But of course Amar and the Illiniwaks Law Faculty could not give diddly-squat about them. I certainly did starting no later than early 1985 when I started to work pro bono publico as Counsel to the Sanctuary Movement. Fab. PROTECTED STATUS FOR MANY REFUGEES SET TO EXPIRE US law provides temporary protected status (TPS) for certain foreign nationals in the United States who are fleeing armed conflict, natural disaster or other extreme circumstances in their native country. But many refugees who have been granted such temporary status may soon have it revoked. "The United States currently provides TPS to approximately 437,000 foreign nationals from 10 countries," according to a newly updated report from the Congressional Research Service. Those countries are: El Salvador, Haiti, Honduras, Nepal, Nicaragua, Somalia, Sudan, South Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. See Temporary Protected Status: Overview and Current Issues, updated November 2, 2017. Unless renewed, TPS for persons from Haiti, Honduras and Nicaragua will expire in January 2018. The Washington Post reported that the Department of Homeland Security is expected to announce today that the expiring protections will not be renewed. * * * Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Monday, November 06, 2017 2:43 PM To: David Green >; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; Estabrook, Carl G > Subject: AMAR & ILLINIWAKS LAW FACULTY:THE SMELL OF DEATH SURROUNDS YOU! I fully explained all of the criminal dirty work Killer Koh had done for Reagan and then Obama/Clinton to Amar and the entire Faculty of the Illiniwaks College of Law. As Amar and the rest of them saw it, that fully qualified Killer Koh to give their special endowed lecture on being a Role Model of Excellence for Lawyers in Government Service. NOT EVEN ONE OF THEM SUPPORTED US AGAINST KILLER KOH! THE SMELL OF DEATH SURROUNDS THEM ALL! Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Monday, November 6, 2017 1:37 PM To: David Green >; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; Estabrook, Carl G > Subject: RE: AMAR:THE SMELL OF DEATH SURROUNDS YOU! Amar’s Good Buddy Killer Koh was working for Reagan’s Department of Injustice that persecuted the Founders of the Sanctuary Movement and subjected them to kangaroo court proceedings in US Federal Court where Falk and I were prevented from testifying on their behalf that could have acquitted them. Amar: The Smell of Death Surrounds You! fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Monday, November 6, 2017 1:05 PM To: David Green >; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; Estabrook, Carl G > Subject: AMAR:THE SMELL OF DEATH SURROUNDS YOU! Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Francis Boyle via YouTube [mailto:noreply at youtube.com] Sent: Monday, November 6, 2017 1:03 PM To: Boyle, Francis A > Subject: Francis Boyle sent you a video: "Lynyrd Skynyrd - That Smell" [http://s.ytimg.com/yt/img/email/digest/email_header.png] [https://yt3.ggpht.com/-w4phvYGWivc/AAAAAAAAAAI/AAAAAAAAAAA/_Vq2X19VNEk/s50-c-k-no-mo-rj-c0xffffff/photo.jpg] Francis Boyle has shared a video with you on YouTube [https://i.ytimg.com/vi/J4j7ggZqbiU/mqdefault.jpg] Lynyrd Skynyrd - That Smell by XMetallicaAXxx Whiskey bottles and brand new cars Oak tree, you're in my way There's too much coke and too much smoke Look what's going on inside you Ooh, that smell Can't you smell that smell? Ooh, that smell The smell of death surrounds you, yeah Angel of darkness is upon you Stuck a needle in your arm (You, fool, you) So take another toke, have a blow for your nose One more drink, fool, would drown you (Hell, yeah) Ooh, that smell Can't you smell that smell? Ooh, that smell The smell of death surrounds you Now, they call you prince charming Can't speak a word when you're full of 'ludes Say you'll be alright come tomorrow But tomorrow might not be here for you (Yeah, you) Ooh, that smell Can't you smell that smell? Ooh, that smell The smell of death surrounds you Aw, you, fool, you You stick them needles In your arm I know, I've been there before One little problem that confronts you Got a monkey on your back Just one more fix, Lord, might do the tr... Help center • Report spam ©2017 YouTube, LLC 901 Cherry Ave, San Bruno, CA 94066, USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Tue Nov 7 10:54:42 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2017 10:54:42 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Updated Figures:: AMAR & ILLINIWAKS LAW FACULTY:THE SMELL OF DEATH SURROUNDS YOU! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: By comparison to Amar, there was last year one Member of the Urbana City Council, whom I will not name here, who publicly stated at their meetings/hearings on the new Urbana Sanctuary Resolution that he would rather go to jail than cooperate with the Feds against Undocumented Migrants. He then publicly asked me if I would be prepared to defend him. I said I would—just like CCR, Professor Falk and I tried to Defend the Founders of the Sanctuary Movement starting around 1985 or so. Amar is a gutless, unprincipled, pathetic excuse for a Law Dean! Ditto for Amar Embracing Killer Koh! The Smell of Death surrounds Amar! Ditto for Amar’s Illinwaks Law Faculty! The Smell of Death Surrounds the College of Law Building. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Monday, November 06, 2017 9:02 PM To: David Green ; C. G. ESTABROOK ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay ; David Johnson ; Mildred O'brien ; Estabrook, Carl G Subject: Updated Figures:: AMAR & ILLINIWAKS LAW FACULTY:THE SMELL OF DEATH SURROUNDS YOU! Way to go Amar and Illiniwaks Law Faculty! We now have a fix on how many TPS Refugees will soon be Deported by Trump/Sessions/ICE:437,000. See below. And those from Nicaragua, El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras go back to the Original Sanctuary Movement when Killer Koh was working for Reagan whose Department of Injustice where Killer Koh worked was persecuting and railroading the Founders of the Sanctuary Movement whom CCR and Professor Falk and I tried to defend. All this was explained to Amar and his Illiniwaks Law Faculty when they were to invite Killer Koh to come out and give their endowed lecture on Role Model Excellence for Lawyers in Government Service. As for Amar himself , he has gratuitously aligned himself with Trump/Sessions/ICE against 11 Million Undocumented Migrants; 800,000 DACA Kids; and 437,000 TPS Refugees ; as well as the Families of all these people. But of course Amar and the Illiniwaks Law Faculty could not give diddly-squat about them. I certainly did starting no later than early 1985 when I started to work pro bono publico as Counsel to the Sanctuary Movement. Fab. PROTECTED STATUS FOR MANY REFUGEES SET TO EXPIRE US law provides temporary protected status (TPS) for certain foreign nationals in the United States who are fleeing armed conflict, natural disaster or other extreme circumstances in their native country. But many refugees who have been granted such temporary status may soon have it revoked. "The United States currently provides TPS to approximately 437,000 foreign nationals from 10 countries," according to a newly updated report from the Congressional Research Service. Those countries are: El Salvador, Haiti, Honduras, Nepal, Nicaragua, Somalia, Sudan, South Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. See Temporary Protected Status: Overview and Current Issues, updated November 2, 2017. Unless renewed, TPS for persons from Haiti, Honduras and Nicaragua will expire in January 2018. The Washington Post reported that the Department of Homeland Security is expected to announce today that the expiring protections will not be renewed. * * * Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Monday, November 06, 2017 2:43 PM To: David Green >; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; Estabrook, Carl G > Subject: AMAR & ILLINIWAKS LAW FACULTY:THE SMELL OF DEATH SURROUNDS YOU! I fully explained all of the criminal dirty work Killer Koh had done for Reagan and then Obama/Clinton to Amar and the entire Faculty of the Illiniwaks College of Law. As Amar and the rest of them saw it, that fully qualified Killer Koh to give their special endowed lecture on being a Role Model of Excellence for Lawyers in Government Service. NOT EVEN ONE OF THEM SUPPORTED US AGAINST KILLER KOH! THE SMELL OF DEATH SURROUNDS THEM ALL! Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Monday, November 6, 2017 1:37 PM To: David Green >; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; Estabrook, Carl G > Subject: RE: AMAR:THE SMELL OF DEATH SURROUNDS YOU! Amar’s Good Buddy Killer Koh was working for Reagan’s Department of Injustice that persecuted the Founders of the Sanctuary Movement and subjected them to kangaroo court proceedings in US Federal Court where Falk and I were prevented from testifying on their behalf that could have acquitted them. Amar: The Smell of Death Surrounds You! fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Monday, November 6, 2017 1:05 PM To: David Green >; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; Estabrook, Carl G > Subject: AMAR:THE SMELL OF DEATH SURROUNDS YOU! Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Francis Boyle via YouTube [mailto:noreply at youtube.com] Sent: Monday, November 6, 2017 1:03 PM To: Boyle, Francis A > Subject: Francis Boyle sent you a video: "Lynyrd Skynyrd - That Smell" [http://s.ytimg.com/yt/img/email/digest/email_header.png] [https://yt3.ggpht.com/-w4phvYGWivc/AAAAAAAAAAI/AAAAAAAAAAA/_Vq2X19VNEk/s50-c-k-no-mo-rj-c0xffffff/photo.jpg] Francis Boyle has shared a video with you on YouTube [https://i.ytimg.com/vi/J4j7ggZqbiU/mqdefault.jpg] Lynyrd Skynyrd - That Smell by XMetallicaAXxx Whiskey bottles and brand new cars Oak tree, you're in my way There's too much coke and too much smoke Look what's going on inside you Ooh, that smell Can't you smell that smell? Ooh, that smell The smell of death surrounds you, yeah Angel of darkness is upon you Stuck a needle in your arm (You, fool, you) So take another toke, have a blow for your nose One more drink, fool, would drown you (Hell, yeah) Ooh, that smell Can't you smell that smell? Ooh, that smell The smell of death surrounds you Now, they call you prince charming Can't speak a word when you're full of 'ludes Say you'll be alright come tomorrow But tomorrow might not be here for you (Yeah, you) Ooh, that smell Can't you smell that smell? Ooh, that smell The smell of death surrounds you Aw, you, fool, you You stick them needles In your arm I know, I've been there before One little problem that confronts you Got a monkey on your back Just one more fix, Lord, might do the tr... Help center • Report spam ©2017 YouTube, LLC 901 Cherry Ave, San Bruno, CA 94066, USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rwhelbig at gmail.com Tue Nov 7 12:40:47 2017 From: rwhelbig at gmail.com (Roger Helbig) Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2017 04:40:47 -0800 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: MOX for Bombs in Japan In-Reply-To: References: <5B253921-B91A-4A46-B18B-A94C48E12123@illinois.edu> Message-ID: the Japanese like good liars like Christopher Charles Busby and Leuren K Moret - anyone who pretends to be an academic who knows more than they do, which is very little - presumably someone paid you to play the role of expert - that's really defrauding the courts! Busby does that too, but a very high British Judge decided that he had enough of Busby's theater. Roger On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 8:06 PM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss < peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > *The Japanese Peace Movement know full well that their stockpile of MOX is > being used to manufacture nuclear weapons. They also knew of my expertise > on MOX for having worked on this case in Michigan. They contacted me > because they wanted to do something to stop their government’s use of MOX > for weapons purposes. So they asked me to do this interview for them, and > then did all the work to set it up including the translation. So maybe you > should tell the Japanese Peace Movement that their MOX is not being used > for weapons purposes. Maybe you should tell the Japanese Peace Movement > that they don’t know what they are talking about when it comes to their own > MOX in Japan. I did not. I agreed to help them out and gave this interview > which took quite some time to set up and because of the translation. Fab.* > > > > *Francis A. Boyle* > > *Law Building* > > *504 E. Pennsylvania Ave.* > > *Champaign IL 61820 USA* > > *217-333-7954 <(217)%20333-7954> (phone)* > > *217-244-1478 <(217)%20244-1478> (fax)* > > *(personal comments only*) > > > > *From:* Boyle, Francis A > *Sent:* Monday, November 06, 2017 9:39 PM > *To:* Brussel, Morton K > *Cc:* 'David Green' ; 'C. G. ESTABROOK' < > carl at newsfromneptune.com>; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; > 'sherwoodross10 at gmail.com' ; ' > peace-discuss at anti-war.net' ; ' > a-fields at uiuc.edu' ; Hoffman, Valerie J < > vhoffman at illinois.edu>; 'Joe Lauria' ; ' > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net' ; ' > peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net' chambana.net>; Szoke, Ron ; 'Arlene Hickory' < > a23h23 at yahoo.com>; 'Karen Aram' ; ' > abass10 at gmail.com' ; 'mickalideh at gmail.com' < > mickalideh at gmail.com>; 'Lina Thorne' ; ' > chicago at worldcantwait.net' ; 'Jay' < > futureup2us at gmail.com>; 'David Johnson' ; > 'Mildred O'brien' ; Estabrook, Carl G < > galliher at illinois.edu> > *Subject:* RE: [Peace-discuss] FW: MOX for Bombs in Japan > > > > *And by the way, the reason Japanese Peace Movement had me interviewed is > because they know full well that their MOX Stockpile is used for weapons > purposes. fab* > > > > *Francis A. Boyle* > > *Law Building* > > *504 E. Pennsylvania Ave.* > > *Champaign IL 61820 USA* > > *217-333-7954 <(217)%20333-7954> (phone)* > > *217-244-1478 <(217)%20244-1478> (fax)* > > *(personal comments only*) > > > > *From:* Boyle, Francis A > *Sent:* Monday, November 06, 2017 9:30 PM > *To:* Brussel, Morton K > *Cc:* David Green ; C. G. ESTABROOK < > carl at newsfromneptune.com>; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; > sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; > Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria < > joelauria at gmail.com>; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; > peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron ; > Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram ; > abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne < > lina at worldcantwait.net>; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay < > futureup2us at gmail.com>; David Johnson ; > Mildred O'brien ; Estabrook, Carl G < > galliher at illinois.edu> > *Subject:* RE: [Peace-discuss] FW: MOX for Bombs in Japan > > > > *If you are not going to take the time to read these two Testimonies > under oath and subject to cross-examination by the Feds of two Experts on > MOX in United States Federal District, then you should stop impugning my > integrity in favor of Wikipedia—pure guttersnipe! fab.* > > > > > > *Francis A. Boyle* > > *Law Building* > > *504 E. Pennsylvania Ave.* > > *Champaign IL 61820 USA* > > *217-333-7954 <(217)%20333-7954> (phone)* > > *217-244-1478 <(217)%20244-1478> (fax)* > > *(personal comments only*) > > > > *From:* Brussel, Morton K > *Sent:* Monday, November 06, 2017 9:13 PM > *To:* Boyle, Francis A > *Cc:* David Green ; C. G. ESTABROOK < > carl at newsfromneptune.com>; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; > sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; > Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria < > joelauria at gmail.com>; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; > peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron ; > Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram ; > abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne < > lina at worldcantwait.net>; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay < > futureup2us at gmail.com>; David Johnson ; > Mildred O'brien ; Estabrook, Carl G < > galliher at illinois.edu> > *Subject:* Re: [Peace-discuss] FW: MOX for Bombs in Japan > > > > I don’t know who qualified you as an expert of nuclear reactors and the > nature of their fuels, nuclear physics or nuclear chemistry. Your > statements belie that qualification. I hope you don’t expect me, or anyone > on this list, to read the transcript you presented, but I did scan it and > noted nothing in technical detail there about the properties and use of > MOX, certainly not for bombs. > > > > Sorry, > > > > —mkb > > > > > > On Nov 6, 2017, at 8:38 PM, Boyle, Francis A wrote: > > > > *Well I have been qualified as an Expert on MOX in United States Federal > District Court. And I prohibit my law students from citing Wikipedia to me > in any paper and advise them to never cite or quote Wikipedia to a Judge > because Wikipedia is filled with so much pure, unadulterated BULL-TWADDLE. > Fab.* > > *Subject:* Nuclear Proliferation/NPT/US Atomic Energy Law/MOX, etc. > > > > 1 > > 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT > > 2 FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN > > 3 SOUTHERN DIVISION > > 4 > > 5 ALICE HIRT; ANABEL DWYER; > > CITIZENS FOR ALTERNATIVES > > 6 TO CHEMICAL CONTAMINATION; > > KATHRYN CUMBOW; ROBERT > > 7 ANDERSON; DORIS SCHALLER > > VERNON; and TERRY MILLER, > > 8 > > Plaintiffs, > > 9 > > v. CASE NO: 1:99-CV-933 > > 10 > > BILL RICHARDSON, Secretary, > > 11 United States Department > > of Energy; UNITED STATES > > 12 OF AMERICA; and UNKNOWN > > PART(Y)(IES), named as > > 13 "John and Jane Doe" on > > complaint, > > 14 > > Defendants. > > 15 > > ____________________________/ > > 16 > > * * * * > > 17 > > 18 TESTIMONY OF GORDON EDWARDS and FRANCIS BOYLE > > 19 * * * * > > 20 > > 21 BEFORE: THE HONORABLE RICHARD ALAN ENSLEN > > United States District Judge > > 22 Kalamazoo, Michigan > > April 7, 2000 > > 23 > > 24 > > 25 > > KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter > > 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 > > (616)385-3050 <(616)%20385-3050> > > > > 2 > > 1 APPEARANCES: > > 2 > > APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFFS: > > 3 > > MR. KARY LOVE > > 4 977 Butternut Drive > > PMB 128 > > 5 Holland, Michigan 49424 > > 6 MR. TERRY J. LODGE > > 316 North Michigan Street, Suite 520 > > 7 Toledo, Ohio 43624-1627 > > 8 > > APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANTS: > > 9 > > MR. ROBERT I. DODGE > > 10 MR. CHARLES GROSS > > U.S. Attorney's Office > > 11 330 Ionia Avenue, N.W., Suite 501 > > P.O. Box 208 > > 12 Grand Rapids, Michigan 49501-208 > > 13 > > 14 > > 15 > > 16 > > 17 > > 18 > > 19 > > 20 > > 21 > > 22 > > 23 > > 24 > > 25 > > KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter > > 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 > > (616)385-3050 <(616)%20385-3050> > > > > 3 > > 1 INDEX > > 2 WITNESS: Page > > 3 GORDON EDWARDS > > Direct Examination by Mr. Lodge 4 > > 4 Cross Examination by Mr. Dodge 17 > > Redirect Examination by Mr. Lodge 20 > > 5 > > 6 > > FRANCIS BOYLE > > 7 Direct Examination by Mr. Love 21 > > Cross Examination by Mr. Dodge 67 > > 8 Redirect Examination by Mr. Love 82 > > 9 > > 10 EXHIBITS Rec'd. > > 11 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 1 87 > > Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 2 87 > > 12 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 3 31 > > Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 5 87 > > 13 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 6 87 > > Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 11 87 > > 14 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 12 87 > > Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 13 87 > > 15 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 14 87 > > 16 > > 17 > > 18 > > 19 > > 20 > > 21 > > 22 > > 23 > > 24 > > 25 > > KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter > > 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 > > (616)385-3050 <(616)%20385-3050> > > > > 4 > > 1 Kalamazoo, Michigan > > 2 April 7, 2000 > > 3 at approximately 8:50 A.M. > > 4 EXCERPT OF PROCEEDINGS > > 5 TESTIMONY OF GORDON EDWARDS > > 6 MR. LODGE: We waive opening. > > 7 THE COURT: Okay. Good for you. > > 8 MR. LODGE: And we would call Gordon Edwards. > > 9 GORDON EDWARDS - PLAINTIFFS' WITNESS - SWORN. > > 10 COURT CLERK: Please state and spell your name > > 11 for the record. > > 12 THE WITNESS: My name is Gordon Edwards, > > 13 G-o-r-d-o-n E-d-w-a-r-d-s. > > 14 DIRECT EXAMINATION > > 15 BY MR. LODGE: > > 16 Q. Dr. Edwards, you previously testified in this proceeding > > 17 in an earlier motion hearing in December, 1999, correct? > > 18 A. That is correct. > > 19 Q. And what, just summarize for the Court, to refresh the > > 20 Court's recollection, what is your occupation or > > 21 profession? > > 22 A. I'm a professor of mathematics at Vanier College in > > 23 Montreal, and I'm also a consultant on nuclear issues for > > 24 both governmental and nongovernmental agencies. > > 25 Q. Are you affiliated with any nongovernmental entity in > > KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter > > 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 > > (616)385-3050 <(616)%20385-3050> > > > > 5 > > 1 Canada regarding the purpose of which is to discuss > > 2 nuclear issues? > > 3 A. Yes, I'm the president of the Canadian Coalition for > > 4 Nuclear Responsibility, which is a federally incorporated > > 5 organization, since 1978. > > 6 Q. And how long and in what capacities have you served as a > > 7 consultant on nuclear issues? > > 8 A. I've served as a consultant since 1977 for a variety of > > 9 bodies, including Royal Commissions of Inquiry where I > > 10 have been retained to cross-examine expert witnesses, also > > 11 the auditor general of Canada when they were doing a > > 12 comprehensive audit of the Atomic Energy Control Board, > > 13 and most recently I was invited for January 2000 by the > > 14 Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs and International > > 15 Trade to participate in a small expert workshop on nuclear > > 16 weapons policies in Ottawa. > > 17 Q. And Dr. Edwards, have you had the occasion to read the > > 18 environmental assessment promulgated by the Fissile > > 19 Materials Office of the U.S. Department of Energy for the > > 20 Parallex Project? > > 21 A. Yes, I have, and have commented on that as well. > > 22 Q. We are here today on a proposed shipment of MOX plutonium > > 23 from Russia to Chalk River, Ontario, you understand that? > > 24 A. That is correct. > > 25 Q. What is your understanding as to the amount of the > > KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter > > 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 > > (616)385-3050 <(616)%20385-3050> > > > > 6 > > 1 plutonium content of the MOX fuel rods, pins that would be > > 2 brought from Russia? > > 3 A. The MOX fuel contains 135 grams of weapons grade plutonium > > 4 as compared with the 119 grams that were in the American > > 5 shipment that proceeded in January. > > 6 Q. Now, Dr. Edwards, you indicated that the Canadian > > 7 Coalition was incorporated in approximately 1978? > > 8 A. That's right. > > 9 Q. Have you been active in nuclear issues since that time? > > 10 A. Even before that time, yes. I have been active > > 11 specifically on proliferation questions and > > 12 plutonium-related questions since 1975. > > 13 MR. LODGE: If I may approach. > > 14 THE COURT: Of course. > > 15 BY MR. LODGE: > > 16 Q. Showing you what has been marked for purposes of the > > 17 supplemental motion hearing as Plaintiff's Exhibit 1, I'm > > 18 going to also leave Exhibit 2 up here. > > 19 A. Yes. > > 20 Q. Have you ever conducted any investigation into the issue > > 21 of civilian population or work exposures to plutonium? > > 22 A. Only at the level of potential for damage, potential for > > 23 harm. > > 24 Q. What is Exhibit 1? > > 25 A. Exhibit 1 is a letter from Mary Measures, Ph.D., Director > > KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter > > 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 > > (616)385-3050 <(616)%20385-3050> > > > > 7 > > 1 of the Radiation Environmental Protection Division of the > > 2 Atomic Energy Control Board of Canada dealing with > > 3 quantity of plutonium that an atomic radiation worker or a > > 4 member of the public may inhale to reach their respective > > 5 maximum limits. > > 6 Q. And the date of that is September 30, 1999? > > 7 A. That is correct, about six months ago. > > 8 Q. And could you summarize what the inhalation, or what the > > 9 limits are for both workers and for public? > > 10 A. Yes. The maximum lifetime limit of exposure in the lung > > 11 for an atomic worker is approximately 1.4 micrograms, and > > 12 for the member of the public it's 0.1 microgram, and a > > 13 microgram being one one-millionth of a gram, so if we > > 14 translate this into grams, it would mean 1.4 grams would > > 15 be equivalent-- would be enough to give maximum > > 16 permissible doses to one million workers and ten -- one > > 17 gram would be enough to give maximum permissible doses to > > 18 ten million members of the general public. That's just > > 19 potential. > > 20 Q. Okay. And is that based on the -- or, I'm sorry. Have > > 21 you had occasion in connection with the proposed Russian > > 22 shipment of a 135 grams of plutonium and the American > > 23 shipment of 119 grams, to perform any computations as to > > 24 what the potential dispersion or exposure is? > > 25 A. Well, I would like to emphasize this is just arithmetic > > KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter > > 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 > > (616)385-3050 <(616)%20385-3050> > > > > 8 > > 1 and does not take into account dispersion factors such as > > 2 wind velocity, any respiration rates, and so on. If we > > 3 just look at the theoretical potential, then with 119 > > 4 grams, we are talking about the potential for 85 million > > 5 atomic workers to receive their maximum permissible > > 6 exposure, if that were able to be disseminated into all of > > 7 their lungs and 1,000,190,000 members of the general > > 8 public, so even though this is a very small amount of > > 9 plutonium, the potential for exposure, harmful exposure is > > 10 quite significant. > > 11 Q. All right. But so that implies you would have to have an > > 12 optimal dispersal? > > 13 A. This would be an impossibly optimal dispersal. This would > > 14 be assuming that the plutonium were distributed fully into > > 15 the lungs of all the people that I've mentioned. > > 16 Q. Are you aware of whether or not the American shipment was > > 17 delivered to Chalk River? > > 18 A. Yes, the American shipment was delivered to Chalk River. > > 19 It was taken to the border in what I believe was an SST, a > > 20 truck which was described as silver, and I believe it was > > 21 probably an SST, although I do not know for absolute > > 22 certainty about that, and then it was transported to the > > 23 Sault Ste. Marie airport where it was lifted by helicopter > > 24 accompanied by two other helicopters, and transported from > > 25 there to Chalk River. > > KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter > > 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 > > (616)385-3050 <(616)%20385-3050> > > > > 9 > > 1 Q. You indicated that you were talking about an impossibly > > 2 optimal dispersal. Have you had the occasion to perform > > 3 any computations as to a very conservative prudent factor > > 4 to start with for dispersal? > > 5 A. Well, this is beyond my competence to really talk about > > 6 the details of how it might be dispersed, but if we just > > 7 assume for example 99.9 percent containment in the event > > 8 of a serious accident. > > 9 Q. Are you saying how much? > > 10 A. Suppose 99.9 percent of the material were successfully > > 11 contained and not disseminated in the environment and only > > 12 that small fraction was disseminated. > > 13 Q. Okay. > > 14 A. The potential again would correspond to, for atomic > > 15 workers in the case of the 119 gram shipment from the > > 16 States, it would be 85,000 maximum exposures and in the > > 17 case of the public, it would still over a million. Even > > 18 with 99.9 containment, in the event of an accident, you > > 19 still have the potential for over a million > > 20 overexposures. By the way, the 135 grams, the difference > > 21 between the 119 grams and the 135 grams from Russia > > 22 corresponds to potentially again 160,000 additional > > 23 maximum exposures for members of the public. > > 24 Q. How many for workers? > > 25 A. 11,428. > > KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter > > 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 > > (616)385-3050 <(616)%20385-3050> > > > > 10 > > 1 Q. That's just -- > > 2 A. That's just the differential between the two shipments, > > 3 just the added, going from 119 to 135 adds the potential > > 4 for another 11,000 worker overexposures or 160,000 public > > 5 overexposures. This, I believe, is why authorities take > > 6 such great care to emphasize the packaging in transport. > > 7 They realize that the potential is great for damage. > > 8 Q. Do your computations reflect an assumption respecting > > 9 whether or not the dispersion occurs as a result of an > > 10 accident or an attack? > > 11 A. No, we are talking about theoretical potential which is > > 12 the same regardless of how much or whether the material is > > 13 dispersed. In an accident, for example, we have > > 14 previously seen accidents that were analyzed for ground > > 15 transportation. I have not seen any computations or > > 16 analysis of accidents for air transport either from the > > 17 American side or from the Canadian side. > > 18 Q. Are you talking with respect to Parallex? > > 19 A. I'm talking with respect to Parallex. > > 20 If you had, for example, a violent crash and > > 21 fire of an aircraft, including a helicopter, then the > > 22 dispersal would cause a plume downwind, could cause a > > 23 plume downwind, and how much of that plutonium would > > 24 escape would be subject to analysis which is not, to my > > 25 knowledge, been performed. > > KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter > > 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 > > (616)385-3050 <(616)%20385-3050> > > > > 11 > > 1 Q. Dr. Edwards, do you consider the plutonium in MOX fuel > > 2 form to be a weapons component? > > 3 A. Well, in the case of the Parallex project, as you know, > > 4 this 119 grams or 135 grams, there is not enough there to > > 5 make an atomic bomb. However, it has long been known that > > 6 you can make a very damaging radiological explosive device > > 7 which would simply disperse the plutonium in breathable > > 8 form. That means that if the plutonium were acquired by a > > 9 criminal organization or terrorist group they could make > > 10 an incendiary device which would make this available to be > > 11 breathed by members of the public and also cause very > > 12 long-lasting contamination of the environs where this > > 13 exposure would take place. I believe that it would be > > 14 incorrect to say that these, even this small Parallex > > 15 shipment, would not be attractive to terrorists or to > > 16 criminal organizations as a top -- as a target for theft > > 17 or diversion. It is true, of course, that this is weapons > > 18 grade material and had one, if one had sufficient weapons > > 19 grade material, one indeed can make a very powerful atomic > > 20 bomb from that. > > 21 Q. Have you seen any literature or other information in or > > 22 out of the record of this case that discusses the weapons > > 23 potential for plutonium? > > 24 A. Well, yes, it's certainly common knowledge that the -- in > > 25 fact, the U.S. Department of Energy acknowledges as much > > KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter > > 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 > > (616)385-3050 <(616)%20385-3050> > > > > 12 > > 1 when they refer to the Russian plutonium, the Russian > > 2 weapons grade plutonium is continuing a clear and present > > 3 danger. It's long been known and recognized that > > 4 plutonium is the key ingredient of atomic weapons, so if > > 5 one talks about components of atomic weapons, the > > 6 plutonium is the essential component. Once you have the > > 7 plutonium, then you can acquire the other materials on the > > 8 open market that are necessary to build a bomb. > > 9 Q. How do you know that? > > 10 A. Well, it's been well known for a long time. For instance, > > 11 there was a study done, published in the Harvard Civil > > 12 Rights and Civil Liberties Law Review -- I could make that > > 13 available to the Court, if you would like -- in 1975 as > > 14 long ago as then, which says, "Since all the material > > 15 other than plutonium needed to build a bomb is available > > 16 from commercial hardware and chemical suppliers, the > > 17 present obstacle to the private construction of nuclear > > 18 weapons is the unavailability of plutonium." > > 19 But if we just turn to the study that was > > 20 commissioned and already on file, I believe, here at the > > 21 Court, a study that was commissioned by the Office of > > 22 Fissile Materials Management called the Red Team Report, > > 23 the Red Team Proliferation Vulnerability Report. > > 24 In their conclusions on Page 6-1, they have a > > 25 heading called Keeping Plutonium Inaccessible is the Key > > KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter > > 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 > > (616)385-3050 <(616)%20385-3050> > > > > 13 > > 1 to Proliferation Resistance. So what is basically being > > 2 said here is plutonium is not just a component but the key > > 3 component of atomic bombs particularly in the context of > > 4 illicit groups. > > 5 Q. Dr. Edwards, could you explain for us Canada's role in the > > 6 reprocessing of plutonium? > > 7 A. Well, Canada's role in plutonium goes back to the World > > 8 War II Atomic Bomb Project. We had a secret laboratory in > > 9 Montreal which was manned by British, French and Canadian > > 10 scientists dedicated to developing methods for producing > > 11 and separating plutonium for weapons purposes as well as > > 12 civilian purposes, because even then it was anticipated > > 13 plutonium would have some civilian value. At the end of > > 14 the war -- incidentally, the first reactor in Canada was > > 15 built according to a military decision taken in > > 16 Washington, D.C. in 1944, to demonstrate this potential. > > 17 The reactor called the NRX reactor was built at > > 18 Chalk River and a plutonium reprocessing plant was built > > 19 as well. Plutonium was separated and Britain received its > > 20 first sample of weapons grade plutonium from Canada from > > 21 Chalk River just months before their first atomic test. > > 22 There was also an illicit transfer of plutonium > > 23 from Chalk River to Russia, which was so the first samples > > 24 of plutonium that both Britain and Russia received were > > 25 from Chalk River. > > KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter > > 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 > > (616)385-3050 <(616)%20385-3050> > > > > 14 > > 1 Since that time, Canada, of course, has taken a > > 2 policy decision not to pursue a nuclear weapons option > > 3 itself, but they have, however, looked favorably on the > > 4 idea of reprocessing plutonium for civilian purposes. > > 5 They do not have a policy which is against the > > 6 reprocessing of plutonium in principle and nor do they > > 7 discourage their clients, their customers overseas from > > 8 reprocessing plutonium. And in fact, in Canada, there is > > 9 an open door policy towards reprocessing as a future > > 10 option. > > 11 We just concluded recently a ten-year > > 12 environmental assessment of the problem of high-level > > 13 radioactive waste disposal, and in all of the documents it > > 14 begins by saying, in the very first paragraphs, that by > > 15 nuclear waste disposal, we mean either spent fuel or > > 16 post-reprocessing waste. So this is very much a > > 17 theoretical opening and a policy opening for Canada to use > > 18 plutonium as a fuel. > > 19 Q. Showing you what has been marked as Supplemental Motion > > 20 Exhibit 2, can you identify that for the Court, please? > > 21 A. Yes. This appears to be an exchange from the British > > 22 Parliament, questions and answers having to do with > > 23 nuclear fuel, and the Secretary of State for Trade and > > 24 Industry is being asked about quantities of spent fuel > > 25 from Canada that have been contracted for reprocessing at > > KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter > > 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 > > (616)385-3050 <(616)%20385-3050> > > > > 15 > > 1 Cello Field in England. > > 2 Q. And can you summarize your understanding of what the > > 3 response by the British Government was? > > 4 A. Yes. The response here is that a certain amount of > > 5 plutonium, a certain amount of spent fuel from Canada has > > 6 been reprocessed beginning in 1970, and that the plutonium > > 7 has been returned to Canada. I have personal knowledge of > > 8 the fact that at Chalk River they have maintained a pilot > > 9 plutonium fuel fabrication line since the 1970s, since > > 10 1970 and before, and that they have processed at Chalk > > 11 River approximately three tons, more than three tons of > > 12 MOX fuel from recycled civilian plutonium. This is part > > 13 of that, the plutonium that is here being referred to as > > 14 being recycled or reprocessed in Britain, that's part of > > 15 the total amount of plutonium that Canada has acquired for > > 16 the purposes of MOX fabrication. > > 17 I mentioned that Canada also does not discourage > > 18 client customers from reprocessing. This is in > > 19 distinction to the American policy. The American policy, > > 20 since the Carter administration, successive > > 21 administrations have maintained the policy of not only not > > 22 allowing reprocessing in the United States, but also > > 23 discouraging reprocessing in other countries insofar as > > 24 that is possible. Canada does not share this policy > > 25 completely. We do not reprocess in Canada but, on the > > KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter > > 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 > > (616)385-3050 <(616)%20385-3050> > > > > 16 > > 1 other hand, we don't hesitate, it seems, to send our spent > > 2 fuel to other countries to get reprocessed so that we can > > 3 develop expertise in plutonium recycling. > > 4 Q. Does Canada have any relationship with the nation of Japan > > 5 respecting nuclear material? > > 6 A. Yes. Canada, as is probably known to the Court, is the > > 7 world's largest exporter of uranium. We are one of the > > 8 world's largest producers of uranium and the world's > > 9 largest exporter of uranium. We have bilateral agreements > > 10 with our customers as to the use of that uranium. Of > > 11 course, we have requirements that that uranium not be used > > 12 for military purposes. If a client customer such as Japan > > 13 who buys a good deal -- Japan purchases a good deal of > > 14 uranium from Canada. If a client customer wishes to > > 15 reprocess their spent fuel to recover plutonium, they do > > 16 have to get prior permission from the Government of > > 17 Canada, so when plutonium is reprocessed for the Japanese, > > 18 in the case where uranium from Canada is involved, the > > 19 Canadian Government gives their permission for that. > > 20 Q. Even if it is offshore from Canada? > > 21 A. Yes. > > 22 MR. LODGE: Thank you. I have nothing further. > > 23 THE WITNESS: Thank you. > > 24 Sorry. > > 25 MR. LODGE: Yes? > > KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter > > 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 > > (616)385-3050 <(616)%20385-3050> > > > > 17 > > 1 THE WITNESS: Excuse me. > > 2 MR. DODGE: Not quite finished, Dr. Edwards. > > 3 THE WITNESS: You knew the time was short. I > > 4 was jumping the gun a little. > > 5 CROSS EXAMINATION > > 6 BY MR. DODGE: > > 7 Q. Good morning, Mr. Edwards. My name is Bob Dodge. We have > > 8 met once before back in December. > > 9 A. That's right. > > 10 Q. Just a few questions. You testified about the quantity of > > 11 plutonium that would be included in the Russian shipment. > > 12 A. Yes. > > 13 Q. Do you recall that? > > 14 A. Yes. > > 15 Q. You testified that it was 135 grams? > > 16 A. That's what was announced, yes. > > 17 Q. And how many ounces is that? > > 18 A. How many ounces is that? > > 19 Q. Yes. > > 20 A. I don't think in terms of ounces. I have to do the > > 21 conversion. > > 22 Q. Can you do the conversion? > > 23 A. I don't have the -- > > 24 Q. If I told you that one ounce is 28 grams, does that sound > > 25 about right? > > KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter > > 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 > > (616)385-3050 <(616)%20385-3050> > > > > 18 > > 1 A. I have no reason to doubt it. We are on the metric system > > 2 in Canada, we don't use ounces anymore. > > 3 Q. I understand. If I estimated 135 grams was approximately > > 4 five ounces, would you quarrel with that? > > 5 A. I would have no reason to quarrel with that. > > 6 Q. Now, you also testified about the amount of plutonium that > > 7 would have to be inhaled in order to exceed the maximum > > 8 permissible dose under Canadian regulations? > > 9 A. That is correct. > > 10 Q. And in your testimony, as I understood it, the assumption > > 11 you were making was that every single molecule of > > 12 plutonium that was in that sample would end up in > > 13 somebody's lungs; is that right? > > 14 A. That's right. It's calculating the theoretical > > 15 potential. It is not talking about a realistic scenario. > > 16 Q. Not only would all of the plutonium have to end up in > > 17 someone's lungs, but the plutonium would have to be evenly > > 18 divided so that each person got exactly the same amount of > > 19 plutonium, it's not all concentrated in one person, you > > 20 would have to take one-millionths of the sample, put it in > > 21 one person's lungs and put the next one-millionth in the > > 22 next person's lungs and so on? > > 23 A. That is correct. > > 24 Q. Do you have any idea, if you performed the same analysis > > 25 on this table, what sort of toxicity numbers you would > > KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter > > 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 > > (616)385-3050 <(616)%20385-3050> > > > > 19 > > 1 get? > > 2 A. I have no idea of what that would be, no. > > 3 Q. Now you also talked about Canada's policies regarding > > 4 plutonium reprocessing. > > 5 A. Yes. > > 6 Q. Do you recall that? > > 7 A. Yes. > > 8 Q. Do you have any understanding of whether the plutonium in > > 9 the Parallex MOX samples will or will not be reprocessed > > 10 in Canada? > > 11 A. It will-- to the best of my knowledge, it will not be > > 12 reprocessed in Canada, although that option apparently is > > 13 not decided. > > 14 Q. What is the basis for that last? > > 15 A. Because Canada has a policy that at sometime in the future > > 16 they may reprocess. > > 17 Q. Do you have any understanding whether there is an > > 18 understanding between the Government of Canada and the > > 19 Government of United States or the Government of Russia as > > 20 to whether these particular samples will or will not be > > 21 reprocessed? > > 22 A. I do not, no. > > 23 MR. DODGE: Thank you very much. > > 24 > > 25 REDIRECT EXAMINATION > > KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter > > 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 > > (616)385-3050 <(616)%20385-3050> > > > > 20 > > 1 BY MR. LODGE: > > 2 Q. Dr. Edwards, the House of Commons question and answer, do > > 3 you know of any particular statistics on Canada's shipping > > 4 of spent fuel to British nuclear fields and fuels at Cello > > 5 Field? > > 6 A. I don't have those figures with me, I'm sorry. I could > > 7 supply them to the Court, if desired. I do have some > > 8 figures at my office at home, I don't have them here. But > > 9 we are talking -- if we are talking about three tons of > > 10 MOX being fabricated at Chalk River, then one could work > > 11 out approximately how much of that would contain > > 12 plutonium, how much plutonium would be contained assuming, > > 13 for example, three percent. > > 14 Q. Right. > > 15 A. And then one could reasonably suppose that the lion's > > 16 share of that would come from Cello Field. Now I have > > 17 figures on shipments from Cello Field, but I don't have > > 18 them here. > > 19 Q. My question is: Would you presume that the Atomic Energy > > 20 Control Board of Canada, or AECL of Canada, would make > > 21 public the fact that the spent MOX from Parallex were > > 22 being shipped to Britain for reprocessing? Would you > > 23 presume that would become public knowledge? > > 24 A. No, I would not assume anything related to plutonium would > > 25 become public knowledge in Canada. Canada has a very > > KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter > > 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 > > (616)385-3050 <(616)%20385-3050> > > > > 21 > > 1 non-public attitude toward plutonium dealings. In fact, > > 2 the existing plutonium dealings in Canada including the > > 3 BNFL contracts is not public knowledge other than as it > > 4 has been raised in foreign countries such as in Britain or > > 5 by documents that have been leaked to nongovernmental > > 6 organizations. This is not something which Atomic Energy > > 7 of Canada Limited makes public. > > 8 MR. LODGE: Thank you. > > 9 MR. DODGE: No recross, Your Honor. > > 10 THE COURT: You may step down, Dr. Edwards. > > 11 Thank you. > > 12 MR. LOVE: Your Honor, if it please the Court, > > 13 the Plaintiffs would call Francis Boyle to the stand > > 14 FRANCIS BOYLE - PLAINTIFFS' WITNESS - SWORN > > 15 COURT CLERK: Please be seated and state and > > 16 spell your name for the record. > > 17 THE WITNESS: My name is Francis Boyle. > > 18 F-r-a-n-c-i-s B-o-y-l-e. > > 19 DIRECT EXAMINATION > > 20 BY MR. LOVE: > > 21 Q. Dr. Boyle, are you currently employed? > > 22 A. Yes, I am a professor of international law at the > > 23 University of Illinois College of Law in Champaign. > > 24 Q. How long have you been employed in that capacity? > > 25 A. 1978. > > KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter > > 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 > > (616)385-3050 <(616)%20385-3050> > > > > 22 > > 1 MR. LOVE: Your Honor, may I approach the > > 2 witness? > > 3 BY MR. LOVE: > > 4 Q. Dr. Boyle, I'm showing you what has been marked as > > 5 Supplemental Preliminary Injunction Hearing Plaintiffs' > > 6 Exhibit 3 and ask you if you can identify that document. > > 7 A. It's a copy of my professional resume. > > 8 Q. Was this resume prepared at or under your direction? > > 9 A. Yes. I think it's current as of January 28th, 1999. I've > > 10 been kind of busy in the last year, haven't revised it. > > 11 Q. To the extent it's current through that date, does that > > 12 accurately reflect your experience, education, seminars > > 13 that you participated in, and articles that you've > > 14 authored? > > 15 A. Not seminars I've participated in, that would be too many > > 16 but, you know, the essence of my professional career and > > 17 articles-- significant teaching, consulting, practice. > > 18 I'm also a licensed attorney as well. > > 19 Q. If you would, give us a brief recitation of your > > 20 educational background? > > 21 A. I attended the University of Chicago where I studied > > 22 international relations with Professor Hans Morganthal who > > 23 is the mentor of Dr. Henry Kissinger at Harvard. I was > > 24 one of seven students in my class elected to Phi Beta > > 25 Kappa as a junior. > > KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter > > 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 > > (616)385-3050 <(616)%20385-3050> > > > > 23 > > 1 I also did work in mathematical biology, winning > > 2 the award for the work I did in that area by the world's > > 3 leading geneticist now at Harvard. > > 4 I graduated in three years. From there I went > > 5 to Harvard Law School. I have a J.D. Magna Cum Laude from > > 6 Harvard Law School specializing in international law. > > 7 I also entered the Graduate School of Arts and > > 8 Sciences at Harvard in the Department of Government. I > > 9 have a Master's degree and a Ph.D. in political science > > 10 specializing in international relations, international > > 11 politics. This is the same Ph.D. program that produced > > 12 Henry Kissinger, Zabanya Brezenski (phonetic) and other > > 13 high level U.S. Government officials. > > 14 I was at the Harvard Center for International > > 15 Affairs for two years. Kissinger and Brezenski had been > > 16 there before me. > > 17 I spent two years teaching in the Harvard > > 18 College undergraduates international law organizations, > > 19 human rights. I practiced law with a Boston law firm for > > 20 a year at Bingham, Dana and Gould, where I did > > 21 international tax, and tax, and then finally in 1978 I > > 22 came to the University of Illinois. I went up for tenure > > 23 at the beginning of my third year, which I got, and I've > > 24 been tenured there since, you know, many years. > > 25 Q. Since undertaking your position at University of Illinois, > > KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter > > 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 > > (616)385-3050 <(616)%20385-3050> > > > > 24 > > 1 have you specialized in any area with respect to > > 2 particular research, writing and international law? > > 3 A. Well, for the purpose of our proceedings today, yes. I > > 4 have been specializing an enormous amount on the nuclear > > 5 weapons, nuclear weapons policy, proliferation, arms > > 6 control. Going back to my studies with Professor > > 7 Morganthal 30 years ago so I've been involved in these > > 8 issues starting as a student since 1969 and continuously > > 9 until today. > > 10 THE WITNESS: Sorry, Your Honor, I have a bit of > > 11 laryngitis. > > 12 THE COURT: That's fine, no problem. > > 13 BY MR. LOVE: > > 14 Q. Dr. Boyle, if you would direct your attention to your > > 15 resume, I would like to touch on a few seminal points. On > > 16 the first page under teaching, the third entry down talks > > 17 about being a lecturer in Nuclear Weapons and > > 18 International Law, 21st Senior Conference on Nuclear > > 19 Deterrence at U.S. Military Academy at West Point in > > 20 1983. > > 21 A. Yes. This is a high level seminar run by the Pentagon, > > 22 not for the cadets, but for about 200 of the highest level > > 23 officials of the United States Government dealing with > > 24 nuclear weapons proliferation, nuclear weapons policies, > > 25 and I was asked to lecture to this conference, and I won't > > KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter > > 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 > > (616)385-3050 <(616)%20385-3050> > > > > 25 > > 1 go through all the high level officials there, but sitting > > 2 right in front of me for my lecture was the three star > > 3 general in charge of war operations at the Pentagon, at > > 4 that time General Mahaffey. And I also note I had read > > 5 the independent expert's report on the MOX program > > 6 U.S./Russia of 1977, one of the U.S. independent experts, > > 7 Richard Garwin was there with me and he was also a > > 8 lecturer with me to this group, so I do know that Garwin > > 9 was involved in the Parallex MOX recommendations. > > 10 Q. With respect to the second to the last entry on Page 1 of > > 11 Exhibit 3, talks about "Lecture Tour of the Soviet Union > > 12 on Nuclear Weapons and International Law for Lawyers' > > 13 Committee on Nuclear Policy and Association of Soviet > > 14 Lawyers" in 1986. What was involved with that? > > 15 A. Yes. The former Soviet Union, their equivalent to the > > 16 American Bar Association was the Association of Soviet > > 17 Lawyers, and in conjunction with the Lawyers' Committee on > > 18 Nuclear Policy headquartered here, they decided to invite > > 19 one professor to go over to the Soviet Union and lecture > > 20 around the country for two weeks on various issues related > > 21 to nuclear weapons and international law, and both > > 22 organizations selected me for this purpose, so I went over > > 23 for two weeks and gave several lectures per day, Moscow, > > 24 Leningrad, Kiev to professors, lawyers, peace people, > > 25 whoever, news media on various aspects of nuclear weapons > > KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter > > 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 > > (616)385-3050 <(616)%20385-3050> > > > > 26 > > 1 targeting doctrine as they relate to international law > > 2 and, in general, nuclear policies. > > 3 Q. If you would direct your attention, Dr. Boyle, to Page 2 > > 4 under Practice, fifth entry down it says "Author, > > 5 Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989, Public Law > > 6 Number 101-298 (1990) (adopted unanimously by both Houses > > 7 of Congress)," could you explain what that means, please? > > 8 A. Yes. Your Honor, we are dealing here with a treaty, the > > 9 Nuclear Proliferation Treaty-- Nonproliferation Treaty of > > 10 1968. That treaty has been implemented by Congress in the > > 11 Nuclear Nonproliferation Act of 1978, the Nuclear > > 12 Proliferation Prevention Act of 1994 and also recent > > 13 amendments in 1998 to deal with the India/Pakistan > > 14 explosions. I have direct personal experience on how you > > 15 take a treaty, an international treaty, and implement it > > 16 as a matter of United States Constitutional law by working > > 17 with Congress. > > 18 The Biological Weapons Convention of 1972 is a > > 19 treaty that is a total, not only arms control reduction > > 20 and elimination treaty for biological weapons, I gave a > > 21 lecture on Capitol Hill calling for legislation, domestic > > 22 legislation to implement this treaty, and this > > 23 recommendation was taken up by a group I work for called > > 24 the Council of Responsible Genetics. I'm on their > > 25 Advisory Board. I also serve as counsel to them, so > > KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter > > 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 > > (616)385-3050 <(616)%20385-3050> > > > > 27 > > 1 pursuant to their request, I drafted the implementing > > 2 legislation, I authored it, how to implement this treaty. > > 3 And then we took it to members of the House and the Senate > > 4 and we shepherded it through the entire process dealing > > 5 with members of Congress, both Houses, including testimony > > 6 I prepared. At that point in time, the Reagan > > 7 administration was opposed to this implementing > > 8 legislation. I had to deal personally with their position > > 9 papers against it refuting these things. > > 10 Finally there was a change of policy when > > 11 President Bush came into office, to his credit, and they > > 12 supported the legislation. It finally was approved > > 13 unanimously by both Houses of Congress and signed into law > > 14 by President Bush in 1989. This legislation was called > > 15 the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989. It was > > 16 later amended in the anti-terrorism and effect Death > > 17 Penalty Act of 1996. > > 18 I thought I had drafted the most draconian piece > > 19 of legislation you could possibly imagine on biological > > 20 weapons, but there is always a loophole, Your Honor, so > > 21 Congress revisited this in 1996 to close some of the > > 22 loopholes that had not been apparent to me and the > > 23 scientists I worked with back in 19, starting in from '85 > > 24 to about 1989. So I just cite this as having direct > > 25 personal experience with relationship between arms control > > KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter > > 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 > > (616)385-3050 <(616)%20385-3050> > > > > 28 > > 1 treatise, reduction treatise and then how they are > > 2 implemented by Congress. I have done this myself. On > > 3 biological weapons and I'm still involved in that issue. > > 4 Obviously, I have not been involved in the > > 5 drafting of the implementing legislation for the Nuclear > > 6 Proliferation Treaty of 1968, there are three pieces, but > > 7 I have read and reviewed the implementing legislation. I > > 8 have an understanding how they relate to the > > 9 Nonproliferation Treaty and I also teach a course on this > > 10 subject, that is how international laws related to the > > 11 United States Constitution is implemented by Congress and > > 12 also carried out in the courts. I teach an entire course > > 13 just devoted to this subject. > > 14 Q. Dr. Boyle, you've had some experience practicing before > > 15 what was known formerly as the International Court of > > 16 Justice but currently the World Court; is that correct? > > 17 A. Yes, I have. > > 18 Q. Could you relate to the Court a summary of that > > 19 experience? > > 20 A. Well, I've advised governments with respect to either > > 21 actual or potential World Court litigation, some of that > > 22 is still attorney/client confidence that I'm not prepared > > 23 to discuss. What I am prepared to discuss are those > > 24 matters that are in the public record. > > 25 I did serve as counsel to Libya on the Lockerbie > > KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter > > 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 > > (616)385-3050 <(616)%20385-3050> > > > > 29 > > 1 bombing case. It was my recommendation the-- > > 2 unfortunately President Bush had about the sixth fleet > > 3 mobilized off the coast of Libya and was about to bomb > > 4 Libya that we filed a lawsuit at the World Court to stop > > 5 the bombing. We filed a lawsuit, Libya was not bombed. > > 6 Later on, I was General Agent for the Republic > > 7 in Bosnia of Herzegovina before the International Court of > > 8 Justice. In other words, I was their first ambassador to > > 9 the World Court for the Republic of Bosnia, Herzegovina, > > 10 and I sued Yugoslavia for committing genocide against the > > 11 Bosnian people. I won two cease and desist orders > > 12 overwhelmingly in favor of Bosnia against Yugoslavia. > > 13 Later on, I publicly advised -- I advised the > > 14 Bosnian Government to sue Britain for aiding and abetting > > 15 genocide against Bosnia, and President Izetbegovic > > 16 instructed me to sue Britain for a genocide against > > 17 Bosnia. That lawsuit was terminated under duress, > > 18 threatened them, so they withdrew from those proceedings. > > 19 Q. Dr. Boyle, with respect to your writings, if you would > > 20 direct your attention to Page 3 of Exhibit 3, the last two > > 21 entries at the bottom -- excuse me, the second to last > > 22 entries entitled Nuclear Weapons and International Law: > > 23 The Arms Control Dimensions, do you see that? > > 24 A. Yes. This was the lecture I gave to the West Point > > 25 Military Academy senior conference proceedings, which they > > KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter > > 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 > > (616)385-3050 <(616)%20385-3050> > > > > 30 > > 1 did publish in their proceedings at West Point, and > > 2 actually under my books, I've just completed work on my > > 3 sixth book, which is entitled Nuclear Deterrence and > > 4 International Law. And right now it is sitting at Pluto > > 5 Press -- I guess that's appropriate for today's > > 6 proceedings -- Pluto Press in Britain. They have > > 7 expressed an interest in publishing it. They are > > 8 currently evaluating it. I do not have a contract on that > > 9 book, but I did get the e-mail just before I came here, so > > 10 I'll have to deal with that when I go back. > > 11 Q. With respect to your other publications, Dr. Boyle, I note > > 12 that on Page 4 you've got one entitled, about halfway > > 13 down, The Relevance of International Law to the "Paradox" > > 14 of Nuclear Deterrence. > > 15 A. That is correct. > > 16 Q. Can you tell us briefly what the subject matter is? > > 17 A. After I made the lecture at West Point, obviously the U.S. > > 18 military officials and others, we had a fairly vigorous > > 19 debate, let me put it that way. And that vigorous debate > > 20 between myself and these others led to this article that > > 21 was later published here in the United States and also > > 22 translated into Dutch, because the Dutch lawyers wanted it > > 23 to be available as part of the debate in Holland over the > > 24 deployment of the U.S. intermediate nuclear forces under > > 25 the Reagan administration, so they translated the whole > > KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter > > 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 > > (616)385-3050 <(616)%20385-3050> > > > > 31 > > 1 thing into Dutch and it was published in the Netherlands. > > 2 MR. LOVE: Your Honor, I have no further > > 3 questions of Dr. Boyle with respect to qualifications, and > > 4 I tender him for voir dire to the U.S. Attorney's Office > > 5 subject to my motion to admit Plaintiff's Exhibit 3 into > > 6 evidence. > > 7 MR. DODGE: I have no objection to the admission > > 8 of the C.V. > > 9 THE COURT: Exhibit 3? > > 10 MR. DODGE: Exhibit 3. > > 11 THE COURT: You have no voir dire questions to > > 12 ask either? > > 13 MR. DODGE: Not with respect to that exhibit. I > > 14 may get into the resume on the cross. > > 15 THE COURT: That's fair enough. > > 16 Exhibit 3 is received. > > 17 MR. DODGE: Thank you, your Honor. > > 18 BY MR. LOVE: > > 19 Q. Dr. Boyle, in preparing for your testimony here today, > > 20 could you please outline for the Court -- I think you have > > 21 done so somewhat already -- some of the documents that you > > 22 reviewed and the source materials you looked at in > > 23 preparing your testimony today? > > 24 A. I have a pretty detailed knowledge about these things > > 25 generally. For example, when the Nuclear Nonproliferation > > KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter > > 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 > > (616)385-3050 <(616)%20385-3050> > > > > 32 > > 1 Act first came out in 1978, I did read it, but in > > 2 preparation for this testimony today, I've gone back and > > 3 read the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, the Nuclear > > 4 Nonproliferation Act, the Nuclear Proliferation Prevention > > 5 Act of 1994, the 1998 amendments. I have read a large > > 6 quantity of documents produced by the Department of Energy > > 7 on the Parallex Project. I have read the Environmental > > 8 Assessment dealing with the aspects of international > > 9 environmental law that have not been dealt with in the > > 10 Environmental Assessment, in my opinion, should have been > > 11 dealt with the Stockholm Declaration, which is not there, > > 12 and the World Court Advisory Opinion on 1996, I have an > > 13 article on it that. I didn't go back and read the whole > > 14 advisory opinion, but I reread the portions of the > > 15 article, and other scholarly sources that deal with this > > 16 question. There are other sources I did not have a chance > > 17 to review not directly related to proliferation per se. > > 18 But for example, in my opinion the EA should > > 19 have dealt with the UN Convention on the Law of the Seas. > > 20 It's not in there. There's been nuclear accidents > > 21 convention, it's not dealt with in there. There is the > > 22 Bowel convention on the International Transportation of > > 23 Hazardous Substance and Toxic Materials, that's not in > > 24 there. I identified those as further sources that should > > 25 be analyzed in my opinion, but I haven't had a chance to > > KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter > > 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 > > (616)385-3050 <(616)%20385-3050> > > > > 33 > > 1 go back and review all of those sources. > > 2 Q. Dr. Boyle, did the types of materials that you've just > > 3 identified for the Court, are these the types of materials > > 4 that in your experience are relied upon by experts in the > > 5 field of international law in forming opinions as to the > > 6 legitimacy of governmental actions under internationally? > > 7 A. Yes. I also have experience reading environmental impact > > 8 statements. When the Pentagon produced the DEIS or the > > 9 biological defense research program, the Council for > > 10 Responsible Genetics asked me to evaluate this entire > > 11 thing -- it was an enormous document -- and submit formal > > 12 comments on it to the Pentagon, which I did do and they > > 13 did respond to. So this is the type of sources that > > 14 experts in my field would normally look at and review in > > 15 forming an opinion about Government behavior, and I have > > 16 done this before with respect to biological weapons. > > 17 Q. Dr. Boyle, I'm going to show you what has been marked for > > 18 identification as Plaintiff's Exhibit 4. Ask you to take > > 19 a moment to look at that and let me know when you've had a > > 20 chance to do so, please. > > 21 A. Yes. This is the treaty on the nonproliferation of > > 22 nuclear weapons, and as I've said, it has also been > > 23 implemented by Congress on the Nuclear Nonproliferation > > 24 Act of 1978, the Nuclear Proliferation Prevention Act of > > 25 1994 and also 1998 amendments. > > KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter > > 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 > > (616)385-3050 <(616)%20385-3050> > > > > 34 > > 1 The critical point to keep in mind about this > > 2 treaty, Your Honor, is that Congress has passed > > 3 legislation expressing its understanding of what this > > 4 treaty means and what our obligations are under this > > 5 treaty. And this legislation is binding on the Department > > 6 of Energy, on the President, on the Department of State > > 7 and respectfully, Your Honor, on this Court. And what we > > 8 see, when you read through it all, is Congress has > > 9 decided, and prior to that the Atomic Energy Act as well, > > 10 that nuclear power, nuclear weapons, nuclear proliferation > > 11 is so important to the American people and our republic, > > 12 that they have decided to engage in micro management of > > 13 everything related to this subject and have pretty much, I > > 14 would not say completely eliminated, but whittled down > > 15 substantially any discretion that the executive branch > > 16 might have in this area. I have, as I said, I did read > > 17 the NPA back in 1978, but when you add in everything else, > > 18 what surprised me was how little discretion was left to > > 19 the executive branch with respect to nuclear > > 20 proliferation, nuclear weapons. In this area, they have > > 21 very little discretion. > > 22 Q. Professor Boyle, if you could, can you explain to the > > 23 Court what the implications are for Canada, Russia and the > > 24 United States under the Nonproliferation Treaty? > > 25 A. Well, my reading of both the treaty and in light of the > > KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter > > 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 > > (616)385-3050 <(616)%20385-3050> > > > > 35 > > 1 Department of Energy documents describing Parallex and > > 2 MOX, the Red Team report, many other documents that I've > > 3 read, in my opinion, there are serious problems, > > 4 compliance problems for this entire project under Articles > > 5 I, II and III of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty as > > 6 interpreted by the United States Congress. > > 7 The Article I deals with the obligations of the > > 8 United States and Russia. Each nuclear weapons State > > 9 Party to the Treaty, i.e. U.S. and Russia, undertakes not > > 10 to transfer to any recipient whatsoever, i.e. Canada, > > 11 nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices, and we > > 12 have a problem here in that Congress has interpreted this > > 13 to mean components of nuclear weapons or nuclear explosive > > 14 devices; that is, Congress simply does not interpret this > > 15 to mean you can't hand over a bomb, but a component for a > > 16 bomb is prohibited. And here we are dealing with weapons > > 17 grade plutonium, which Dr. Edwards has already testified > > 18 can be and indeed is, in his opinion, a component for > > 19 either a nuclear weapon or a nuclear explosive device. > > 20 Okay? > > 21 So when you read the treaty in light of the > > 22 statutory scheme, in my opinion, there are serious > > 23 compliance problems here with Article I, which have not > > 24 been addressed in the EA. The DOE has not dealt with any > > 25 of these problems at all in the EA, indeed, they have > > KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter > > 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 > > (616)385-3050 <(616)%20385-3050> > > > > 36 > > 1 basically said in one of their comments "Well, once we > > 2 give it to Canada, it's their problem," and that just is > > 3 an incorrect statement, in my opinion. > > 4 And it says "directly or indirectly," which > > 5 means also we, the United States, directly or indirectly > > 6 by encouraging and paying for the Russians to do this, you > > 7 see. So we are accountable for the Russian behavior > > 8 because we are working with them. And indeed, if we were > > 9 sued at the International Court of Justice -- let's > > 10 suppose something went wrong, Your Honor, and there was, > > 11 as Dr. Edwards testified, an aerial explosion in the > > 12 latest helicopter shipment and radiological dispersal of > > 13 plutonium that came across the border, killing Americans, > > 14 killing Canadians, others, if we were sued in World Court > > 15 over this, we would be found both jointly and severally > > 16 liable with Russia, with Canada, for any accident. > > 17 Likewise, this is followed up by both shipments on the > > 18 high seas of the plutonium. If there is an accident on > > 19 high seas, we could be sued at the World Court, the United > > 20 States, both ourselves and jointly and severally with > > 21 Russia and Canada over any accident here that might > > 22 happen. And that substantive liability could be based on > > 23 the U.N. Law of the Sea Convention. As I said, Your > > 24 Honor, I haven't had time to go through the environmental > > 25 provision of the Law of the Sea Convention, the Department > > KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter > > 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 > > (616)385-3050 <(616)%20385-3050> > > > > 37 > > 1 of Energy didn't even bother, and in the EA they did not > > 2 look at this at all. They did not consider this, but it > > 3 certainly is something that has to be considered, that > > 4 they haven't looked at. > > 5 And then "not in any way to assist, encourage or > > 6 induce any non-nuclear weapon State to manufacture or > > 7 otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear > > 8 explosive devices." Well, the problem here is Canada is > > 9 supposed to be a non-nuclear weapons state and says > > 10 "otherwise acquired nuclear explosive devices." Well, we > > 11 are giving them weapons grade plutonium, which again > > 12 Dr. Edwards has testified, and he is Canadian, is a > > 13 component of a nuclear weapons or nuclear explosive > > 14 device. And again, "or control over such weapons or > > 15 explosive devices." We are giving them weapons grade > > 16 plutonium. And if you look at how Congress has > > 17 interpreted this, they interpret it down to components, > > 18 they even talk about substances that they are trying to > > 19 regulate everything, and understand the 1978 legislation > > 20 was a very strict interpretation of what this treaty means > > 21 as far as the United States Government is concerned. And > > 22 I think we really need a comprehensive assessment here by > > 23 the Department of Energy as to whether or not any of these > > 24 transfers is consistent with Article I. Under the current > > 25 circumstances, they haven't bothered to look at any of the > > KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter > > 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 > > (616)385-3050 <(616)%20385-3050> > > > > 38 > > 1 terms as defined by Congress, the applicability of the > > 2 Congressional legislation to the transfers. > > 3 Likewise, Article II, Your Honor, Article II > > 4 deals with the Canadian obligations, "Each > > 5 non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes > > 6 not to receive the transfer from any transferor whatsoever > > 7 of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices." > > 8 Again, the same analysis here needs to be done. This > > 9 weapons grade plutonium, in my opinion and Dr. Edwards' > > 10 opinion, is clearly a component of either a nuclear weapon > > 11 or nuclear explosive device. And Canada, according to > > 12 this language, has agreed not to receive this material. > > 13 And by the way, as Dr. Edwards correctly pointed out, Your > > 14 Honor, this was consistent United States policy, stopping > > 15 proliferation of this type of material for any reason > > 16 going back to the Carter administration. We are seeing a > > 17 major dramatic change here in United States > > 18 nonproliferation policy, and that policy, Your Honor, > > 19 going back to the Carter administration, is enshrined in > > 20 law by Congress in the Nuclear Nonproliferation Act of > > 21 1978. So again, in my opinion, I believe these issues > > 22 likewise need to be addressed by the Department of > > 23 Energy. They have not been addressed in the environmental > > 24 assessment at all. > > 25 "Or control over such weapons or explosive > > KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter > > 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 > > (616)385-3050 <(616)%20385-3050> > > > > 39 > > 1 devices, directly or indirectly." Well, again, we are > > 2 giving Canada, either ourselves in the first shipment or > > 3 indirectly by means of the Russians in the second > > 4 shipment, control over a component for a nuclear weapon or > > 5 a nuclear explosive device. That's very clear they are > > 6 getting it. And according to the EA, we are trusting > > 7 their good intentions. There is no assurance in the EA > > 8 that this weapons grade plutonium is subject to > > 9 international safeguards. No. Despite the fact that > > 10 Congress has made it very clear that any transfer, and > > 11 Congress also made it clear in the legislation that they > > 12 are against any transfers of this type of stuff to other > > 13 States. But if there are any transfers at a minimum there > > 14 have to be absolute guaranteed protections on > > 15 international assurances to make sure it is not misused, > > 16 and you will note in the EA it says nothing about it. > > 17 There are no assurances about anything. > > 18 Now, "to manufacture or otherwise acquire > > 19 nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices; and > > 20 not to seek or receive any assistance in the manufacture," > > 21 etcetera, etcetera. > > 22 Article III then deals with the safeguard > > 23 requirements; that is, if there are transfers of materials > > 24 for peaceful purposes, and you know you can obviously, > > 25 Your Honor, you can read this yourself. There must be > > KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter > > 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 > > (616)385-3050 <(616)%20385-3050> > > > > 40 > > 1 safeguards. Under the supervision of the International > > 2 Atomic Energy Agency, the Environmental Assessment says > > 3 nothing at all about these safeguards. Nothing. It isn't > > 4 in there. > > 5 Apparently we have to rely on not even > > 6 statements by Canada that what we are transferring there, > > 7 what we are encouraging the Russians to transfer are > > 8 somehow going to be safeguarded despite the fact that > > 9 Article III says that there must be safeguards, and we > > 10 simply don't have them. > > 11 Q. Dr. Boyle, I'm going to show you what's been marked for > > 12 identification as Plaintiff's Exhibit 5 and ask you to > > 13 take a look in the upper right-hand corner, and after > > 14 you've had a moment to review that, let me know, please. > > 15 A. Yes. This is an article I had read in preparation for my > > 16 testimony here today, from the Toronto News. > > 17 Q. Based on your experience and expertise, Dr. Boyle, is this > > 18 the type of information that an international law scholar > > 19 could rely on in formulating opinions about the state or > > 20 nationally? > > 21 A. Well, here is stating comments by Mr. Tom Clemens, head of > > 22 the Washington-based Nuclear Control Institute. It's a > > 23 recognized organization dealing with nuclear policies, and > > 24 certainly experts in my field would rely upon statements > > 25 produced by the Nuclear Control Institute and, indeed, > > KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter > > 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 > > (616)385-3050 <(616)%20385-3050> > > > > 41 > > 1 prior to my testimony today, I did read several documents > > 2 produced by the Nuclear Control Institute just in the > > 3 normal course of preparing, yes. An expert in my field > > 4 would rely on this. > > 5 Q. Dr. Boyle, my recollection is you testified this appeared > > 6 in the Toronto -- > > 7 A. News. > > 8 Q. -- News and it -- > > 9 A. The Globe and Mail, which is, you know, it's sort of like > > 10 the New York Times here in the United States, a newspaper > > 11 of public record, so again, it's not like a tabloid or > > 12 something like this. > > 13 Q. Plaintiff's Exhibit 5, Dr. Boyle in the right-hand column > > 14 attributes some comments to a Sunni Locatelli purportedly > > 15 a spokeswoman at the Atomic Control Board. Do you see > > 16 that? > > 17 A. Yes. > > 18 Q. What if anything is the significance, based on your > > 19 experience as expertise, of considering published reports > > 20 attributed to spokespersons for governmental entities in > > 21 formulating use of international law? > > 22 A. Yes. There is a decision by the International Court of > > 23 Justice in the nuclear test cases dealing with nuclear > > 24 explosions 1974, stating that the Court can rely upon > > 25 official statements made by Government officials acting > > KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter > > 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 > > (616)385-3050 <(616)%20385-3050> > > > > 42 > > 1 within their scope of authority and certainly Locatelli > > 2 here is the spokeswoman of the Atomic Energy Control > > 3 Board. So basically, I would be able to take this > > 4 statement and file it at the World Court and they would > > 5 find the statement could be, would be attributable to the > > 6 Canadian government, and Canada would be bound by this > > 7 statement. > > 8 Q. What does that article, Plaintiff's Exhibit 5, attribute > > 9 to Miss Locatelli? > > 10 A. She can't reveal how much fissile material Canada has. We > > 11 aren't able to give out that information under our > > 12 security regulations. Ms. Locatelli said Canada believes > > 13 it should come under the IA/EA guidelines because it > > 14 doesn't operate its own reprocessing facilities. I think > > 15 Dr. Edwards just pointed out that isn't correct. But even > > 16 if it were correct, it does come under IA/EA, and we need > > 17 to know, the United States Government under the NPT, under > > 18 the Congressional implementing legislation, we have to > > 19 know how much fissile material Canada has. > > 20 And basically, we are just taking their, > > 21 whatever their word is for it, and in my opinion, that's > > 22 unacceptable. We have to know how much material they have > > 23 and what they are doing with it, and what she's saying > > 24 here is "Well, we are just not going to tell you." And > > 25 you will note in the EA, the Department of Energy has > > KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter > > 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 > > (616)385-3050 <(616)%20385-3050> > > > > 43 > > 1 taken the same position. One of the comments made was > > 2 "Well, what is Canada doing," and the response of the DOE > > 3 is well, that is Canada's problem, once it leaves here we > > 4 are no longer responsible. The treaty and statutory > > 5 regime make it clear that's not the case. We are > > 6 responsible for our plutonium, wherever it goes. And > > 7 Congress has made it clear even if we do give it up, we > > 8 have to have absolute international safeguards as to what > > 9 is going to happen with our plutonium. And the same would > > 10 apply if we are encouraging Russia to ship weapons grade > > 11 plutonium to Canada. We have an obligation to make sure > > 12 that it's safeguarded and that it can be accountable and > > 13 accounted for. And what Ms. Locatelli here is saying > > 14 "Well, sorry, we are just not going to tell you." Again, > > 15 this raises serious problems in my mind that have not been > > 16 dealt with by the Department of Energy as to compliance > > 17 with the IA/EA safeguards regime, which is absolutely > > 18 required under Article III of the NPT and also required > > 19 under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Act. Indeed, if I > > 20 remember correctly, the 1994 implementation, Your Honor, > > 21 Congress said that transferring of unsafeguarded plutonium > > 22 is an act of international terrorism as far as Congress is > > 23 concerned. > > 24 So and that would trigger a whole host of other > > 25 provisions of the federal code dealing with international > > KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter > > 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 > > (616)385-3050 <(616)%20385-3050> > > > > 44 > > 1 terrorism, so we really need to know what is going to > > 2 happen to our plutonium when it gets up into Canada, and > > 3 to make sure there are safeguards and it is accountable > > 4 and there is an explanation here. > > 5 Now Mr. Clemens then said that, in his opinion, > > 6 Canada has 40 kilograms of plutonium, it's really not > > 7 accounted for or accountable for by anyone, and that > > 8 basically makes Canada a de facto nuclear weapons state. > > 9 I would agree, assuming that they do have the 40 kilograms > > 10 of plutonium, and I take it you know Mr. Clemens -- I had > > 11 e-mail correspondence with Mr. Clemens about this matter. > > 12 He feels that they do have it and that his group, the > > 13 Nuclear Control Institute, will be making this evidence > > 14 available soon. He told me it is not yet -- he is not yet > > 15 prepared to make it public, but they will be going public > > 16 with it soon. > > 17 In my opinion, if that is the case, they have 40 > > 18 kilograms of plutonium, that's enough to make five bombs, > > 19 and that makes Canada a de facto nuclear weapons state > > 20 under the NPT and, in my opinion, would be inconsistent > > 21 with the NPT. There is a potential here for Canada being > > 22 in violation of the NET. We need to know that. Congress > > 23 has sanctions in there in the implementing legislation for > > 24 non-nuclear weapons states being, moving into a position > > 25 where they are de facto nuclear weapons states in > > KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter > > 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 > > (616)385-3050 <(616)%20385-3050> > > > > 45 > > 1 violation of the NPT. > > 2 It's clear Congress interprets our obligations > > 3 under the treaty to mean that a non-nuclear weapons state > > 4 simply cannot go off, assemble all the components for a > > 5 bomb, have one here, one there and one there, and then > > 6 say, oh but we are not a nuclear weapons state because we > > 7 haven't assembled the bomb. > > 8 Again, Congress made it very clear, no. Indeed, > > 9 in one of the pieces of legislation, Congress indicated > > 10 that it was also concerned with a facto nuclear weapons > > 11 states that an end run around the NPT, and the > > 12 Congressional regime applicable to it. Again, I regret to > > 13 report I haven't seen any of these issues dealt with by > > 14 the Department of Energy in the Environmental Assessments > > 15 and, indeed, when they were asked about it, they just said > > 16 this is now Canada's problem. Wondered-- United States > > 17 law of the NPT, it is not Canada's problem alone, it is > > 18 our problem because it's our plutonium and it's Russian > > 19 plutonium that we are paying to send up to Canada. > > 20 Q. Professor Boyle, based on the representations of Miss > > 21 Locatelli on behalf of Atomic Energy Control Board of > > 22 Canada that they don't believe they are subject to the > > 23 IA/EA guidelines, what if any impact would that have on > > 24 the United States' responsibility under the Nuclear > > 25 Nonproliferation Treaty of 1978? > > KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter > > 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 > > (616)385-3050 <(616)%20385-3050> > > > > 46 > > 1 A. It's very clear, Your Honor, the NPT and the Congressional > > 2 implementing legislation that we ourselves cannot ship > > 3 weapons grade plutonium there or engage in the Russians to > > 4 ship weapons grade plutonium unless there are absolutely > > 5 safeguards by the IA/EA that, to make sure that there is > > 6 no diversion. And again, Miss Locatelli is indicating > > 7 there is a high amount of uncertainty as to what is > > 8 happening with the Canadian plutonium. We simply don't > > 9 know. In the EA, there are no guarantees given by the > > 10 Department of Energy as to what is happening to plutonium > > 11 up in Canada. > > 12 Q. You may have testified to this, Dr. Boyle, and I apologize > > 13 if I missed it, but are Russia, Canada and the United > > 14 States all signatory partis to the Nonproliferation > > 15 Treaty? > > 16 A. Yes. We are all parties. There are about 182 or 183 > > 17 states that are parties. The United States and Russia are > > 18 nuclear weapon states, parties to the convention, that is, > > 19 we are permitted to have nuclear weapons and nuclear > > 20 components, etc. Canada is designated a non-nuclear > > 21 weapons state. And they are supposed to preserve this > > 22 stative or statement. Yet according to the Nuclear > > 23 Control Institute, they have enough plutonium up there to > > 24 at least manufacture five bombs. So somehow this has to > > 25 be explained and accounted for in order for them to > > KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter > > 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 > > (616)385-3050 <(616)%20385-3050> > > > > 47 > > 1 continue their non-nuclear weapons state status under the > > 2 NPT, so again, the Nuclear Control Institute is raising > > 3 very serious compliance problems and potentially serious > > 4 violation of the NPT by Canada, and there are severe > > 5 sanctions in the United States laws enacted by Congress > > 6 under the Simplemen legislation, Your Honor, in the event > > 7 a state that is a non-nuclear weapons state moves to > > 8 become a nuclear weapons state. And again, none of this > > 9 has been addressed by the Department of Energy in the > > 10 environmental assessment that I'm aware of, either in the > > 11 environmental assessment or elsewhere. > > 12 Q. Dr. Boyle, could you advise the Court, if you would, as to > > 13 what the ramifications legally are of being a signatory > > 14 party to an international treaty such as the > > 15 Nonproliferation Treaty? > > 16 A. Yes. Your Honor, of course, the basic rule of Pacta Sunt, > > 17 P-a-c-t-a-s-u-n-t, Servanda, S-e-r-v-a-n-d-a. > > 18 The other point -- there are two other points, > > 19 however, that must be kept in mind in interpreting any > > 20 treaty and especially the NPT. First, the treaty must be > > 21 interpreted in good faith. And again, the question here > > 22 with Canada maintaining 40 kilograms of plutonium is > > 23 whether or not this is a good faith interpretation > > 24 implementation of the NPT by Canada. > > 25 Second, the treaty must be interpreted in > > KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter > > 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 > > (616)385-3050 <(616)%20385-3050> > > > > 48 > > 1 accordance with its object and purpose, and that in this > > 2 case the NPT is to stop nuclear proliferation. And again, > > 3 this entire program, the Parallex program, in my opinion, > > 4 seems to defeat the object and purpose of the NPT, which > > 5 is to stop nuclear proliferation. > > 6 The third point to keep in mind is that this > > 7 treaty has already been interpreted by Congress and > > 8 implemented by Congress. And Congress is agreeing with > > 9 what I'm saying here, Your Honor, and I'm agreeing with > > 10 what Congress is saying. Congress has made it very clear > > 11 that they do not want to see any type of nuclear > > 12 proliferation or programs that encourage nuclear > > 13 proliferation. And we are now seeing a drastic departure > > 14 from the policy enacted in Congress pursuant to the NPC > > 15 back in -- the NPT back in 1978 in the Nuclear > > 16 Nonproliferation Act, and we have seen no change in the > > 17 legislation by Congress to authorize or approve this > > 18 drastic change. And again, I agree with what Dr. Edwards > > 19 said from his Canadian perspective, my American > > 20 perspective, the Parallex MOX project is a drastic change > > 21 in encouraging proliferation of nuclear weapons components > > 22 and there has been no direct approval, change of statutes > > 23 or whatever. So again, this, in my opinion, raises very > > 24 serious problems under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty > > 25 as interpreted in good faith and in accordance with its > > KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter > > 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 > > (616)385-3050 <(616)%20385-3050> > > > > 49 > > 1 object and purpose not only for Canada, but the United > > 2 States and Russia. And in my opinion, we should have a > > 3 full study of all these issues by the Department of Energy > > 4 before there is any further movement on this project. > > 5 The implications here are enormous. They could > > 6 be catastrophic, and I personally would like to see a full > > 7 scale investigation analysis so that I could evaluate it > > 8 myself before anyone goes ahead with this project, but of > > 9 course that, you know, that's my personal opinion. I know > > 10 that's for you, Your Honor, to decide. > > 11 Q. Dr. Boyle, what if anything is the requirement or > > 12 obligation of the United States to interpret the > > 13 Nonproliferation Treaty in good faith? I think you > > 14 testified that Canada has that obligation. Does the > > 15 United States have a similar obligation? > > 16 A. Yes. And as a matter of fact, here Congress has > > 17 interpreted our obligation under the NPT and, in my > > 18 opinion, Congress has interpreted our obligations under > > 19 the NPT in good faith and also in accordance with the > > 20 object and purpose of this treaty. Congress interpreted > > 21 this by means of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Act of 1978, > > 22 the Nuclear Proliferation Prevention Act of 1994 and the > > 23 1998 amendments to do with the India-Pakistani > > 24 explosions. So in my opinion, Congress did interpret this > > 25 treaty in good faith and in accordance with its object and > > KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter > > 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 > > (616)385-3050 <(616)%20385-3050> > > > > 50 > > 1 purpose and it appears to me the Department of Energy is > > 2 off there on their own with no express authorization from > > 3 Congress pursuing a policy here that defeats the object > > 4 and purpose of the NPT. > > 5 Q. By that, you are referring to the Parallex project? > > 6 A. Yes. > > 7 Q. With respect to the Congressional implementation of the > > 8 NPT in the '78, '94 and '98 acts, what if anything is the > > 9 role of the Department of State and/or Department of > > 10 Energy with respect to interpreting those obligations? > > 11 A. Yes. Your Honor, it's very clear from the treaty related > > 12 to the statutory scheme. Treaties deal with international > > 13 law and foreign relations. Therefore, they are normally > > 14 negotiated and concluded by the Department of State and > > 15 then they are handed over to the Senate Foreign Relations > > 16 to the Senate for advice and consent. It is the State > > 17 Department that traditionally has always had the sole and > > 18 exclusive role here in the United States with respect to > > 19 nonproliferation policy, not the Department of Energy. > > 20 The Department of Energy has always been treated as a > > 21 technical agency, technical consultant. The policy is > > 22 formulated by the State Department. There had been, again > > 23 going back to the Carter administration, United States > > 24 Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, Your Honor, set up by > > 25 Congress to deal precisely with these issues. They were > > KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter > > 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 > > (616)385-3050 <(616)%20385-3050> > > > > 51 > > 1 the ones given the authority to deal with proliferation > > 2 and nonproliferation policies negotiate these agreements, > > 3 etcetera. Senator Helms in the latest did not like act, > > 4 he concluded it was super numerator morgue or something so > > 5 he passed legislation terminating the Arms Control > > 6 Disarmament Agency and transferring all functions to the > > 7 Department of State today. But if you read the > > 8 Congressional implementing legislation, they make it very > > 9 clear that the lead role played on proliferation and > > 10 nonproliferation policy is the Department of State, not > > 11 the Department of Energy, and the Department of State > > 12 should consult with the Department of Energy. At times > > 13 the Department of Energy is given authority to have its > > 14 input to the Department of State, but it's the Department > > 15 of State that makes nonproliferation policy, not the > > 16 Department of Energy. > > 17 Q. In your review of the environmental assessment prepared by > > 18 the Department of Energy in January of '99, Dr. Boyle, > > 19 regarding the Parallex Project, is there any indication > > 20 that the Department of Energy consulted with the > > 21 Department of State? And if you don't mind, I direct your > > 22 attention to Page 41 of Plaintiff's Exhibit 12 previously > > 23 admitted and ask you to refer to that. > > 24 A. Yes. They had a list here of agencies consulted. Your > > 25 Honor, over here on Page 41, it says agencies consulted > > KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter > > 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 > > (616)385-3050 <(616)%20385-3050> > > > > 52 > > 1 during the preparation of this analysis: Atomic Energy of > > 2 Canada, Canadian Atomic Energy Control Board, U.S. > > 3 Department of Transportation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory > > 4 Commission. They do not consult with the Department of > > 5 State and, in my opinion, and also in the opinion of > > 6 Congress, if you read through all the implementing > > 7 legislation, I know, Your Honor, as I understand it, you > > 8 are a conscientious Judge so I'm sure you are going to do > > 9 this, you'll see that they have to deal with the > > 10 Department of State. And the main problem with this EA is > > 11 they have not dealt with the Department of State, they > > 12 have not dealt with the nonproliferation issues, they have > > 13 not dealt with the Nonproliferation Treaty, they have not > > 14 dealt with the 1978 Act, they have not dealt with the 1994 > > 15 Act, they have not dealt with the 1998 Act. All that is > > 16 expressly required by Congress. So again, in my opinion, > > 17 for some reason the Department of Energy has just decided > > 18 to go out there on its own and completely either ignore or > > 19 violate the Congressional statutes and procedures for > > 20 dealing with proliferation and nonproliferation issues. > > 21 Q. Dr. Boyle, to your knowledge, has the Department of State > > 22 retreated at all from the U.S. commitment to the > > 23 Nonproliferation Treaty as implemented by Congress through > > 24 the legislation you've indicated? > > 25 A. No, and as a matter of fact, Madeline Albright was just > > KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter > > 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 > > (616)385-3050 <(616)%20385-3050> > > > > 53 > > 1 out in India-Pakistan with President Clinton. As you > > 2 know, President Clinton stated that today India-Pakistan, > > 3 the Indian subcontinent is the most dangerous place on the > > 4 face of the earth because of the proliferation problem, > > 5 and they both have nuclear weapons now, and the dispute > > 6 over Casmir. > > 7 President Clinton then was just lectured in the > > 8 Indian Parliament publicly by the speaker of Parliament > > 9 for making the statement, but I think it's a fair and > > 10 accurate statement. Madeline Albright followed this up > > 11 with another statement reiterating our commitment to > > 12 nonproliferation and, specifically with respect to India > > 13 and Pakistan, that this was the policy of the United > > 14 States Government, and also tying this into the integral > > 15 importance of safeguards. > > 16 And again, that is a fair and accurate statement > > 17 of the policy being pursued by the President and the > > 18 Secretary of State that is charged under the legislation > > 19 and the Constitution to deal with these matters. There is > > 20 a complete and total disconnect here between what the > > 21 President and Secretary of State are saying and what the > > 22 Department of Energy is planning to do here in the > > 23 environmental assessment. > > 24 Q. Dr. Boyle, I'm going to show you what has been marked as > > 25 Plaintiff's Exhibit 11 and ask you to take a minute to > > KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter > > 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 > > (616)385-3050 <(616)%20385-3050> > > > > 54 > > 1 review that and let me know when you have had a chance to > > 2 do so, please. > > 3 A. Yes. This is an account of the Secretary of State > > 4 Albright's statement on April 2, as recently as April 2 > > 5 dealing with our proliferation policies. And let me draw > > 6 a few things to your attention. United States regards > > 7 proliferation anywhere as our Number 1 security concern. > > 8 So again, she's pointing this out and she is the cabinet > > 9 officer with the authority to deal with these matters, not > > 10 the Secretary of Energy. We continue to seek universal > > 11 adherence to the NPT neither India nor Pakistan are > > 12 parties to the NPT. And here is crucial points: The > > 13 limits in our ability to cooperate with India and Pakistan > > 14 are a matter of U.S. law, as well as our international > > 15 obligations, all right? So Secretary Albright is pointing > > 16 out we have United States law that deals with > > 17 proliferation and this United States law -- of course, > > 18 she's not a lawyer -- but the U.S. law is the Nuclear > > 19 Nonproliferation Act, the Proliferation Prevention Act and > > 20 the '98 amendments as well as the Atomic Energy Act. So > > 21 there's a very comprehensive legislative scheme here as > > 22 well as our international obligation she points out. > > 23 There are international treaties here, and in particular > > 24 the most important one being the one she just referred to, > > 25 the Nonproliferation Treaty, and she is aware of that. > > KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter > > 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 > > (616)385-3050 <(616)%20385-3050> > > > > 55 > > 1 Unfortunately, it does not appear that the Department of > > 2 Energy is aware of it or is concerned about it in the > > 3 least bit, at least as reflected in the environmental > > 4 assessment, they have not dealt with any of these issues > > 5 in environmental assessment nothing, none. > > 6 Q. Dr. Boyle, based on your experience and investigations > > 7 study, are you aware of whether or not India and Pakistan > > 8 have Canadian CANDU reactors? > > 9 A. As I understand it, they've got reactors from the Indian > > 10 Nuclear Bomb Project was a serous reactor, Canada, India > > 11 and United States, right. And Pakistan has a CANDU > > 12 reactor, right. And just the other day, the New York > > 13 Times reported the smuggling of substantial quantity of > > 14 nuclear materials out of the former Soviet Union towards > > 15 Pakistan that was recently intercepted in Kazakhstan, I > > 16 think. So I think this is a very serious problem. And I > > 17 don't see how this Parallex MOX -- it's only going to > > 18 compound the problem. These countries are doing > > 19 everything they possibly can. And here I would also add > > 20 in Israel is not a party to the NPT. There are other > > 21 states that have CANDU reactors, it has already been > > 22 reported in the professional literature, Your Honor, that > > 23 Japan too is a de facto nuclear weapons state in violation > > 24 of the NPT. And as Dr. Edwards already reported, they > > 25 have gotten a good deal of their nuclear material from > > KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter > > 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 > > (616)385-3050 <(616)%20385-3050> > > > > 56 > > 1 Canada. > > 2 So, we see -- Canadian reactors that are what, > > 3 in South Korea, Taiwan, states that are interested in > > 4 getting nuclear weapons. Clearly Taiwan wants them, South > > 5 Korea wants them. And you know, not that I can speak for > > 6 these governments, but it seems to me they have made a > > 7 decision the best way to get a weapon is to do it the way > > 8 the Indians did. We get a Canadian CANDU reactor, then we > > 9 start getting in whatever material we can get from, for > > 10 example, this MOX program. They will get plutonium and > > 11 then they can make a bomb, they can assemble a bomb. > > 12 As for the ease of assembling a bomb, Your > > 13 Honor, when I was a student at Harvard there was a very > > 14 bright student at MIT who, as a class project, assembled a > > 15 bomb. He had everything there except the plutonium. > > 16 That's how easy it is to assemble an atomic bottom, and he > > 17 brought it down there and, if I remember correctly, in > > 18 central square at MIT, and just showed it to everyone. > > 19 Even a bright student at MIT can assemble a bomb, that's > > 20 how easy it is to do. And what we see on these states > > 21 that say they are non-nuclear weapons states is an effort > > 22 to get a CANDU reactor and do what the Indians do use the > > 23 CANDU reactor, then they just need to get hold of the > > 24 plutonium, and Parallex MOX is going to give them access > > 25 to this plutonium if it gets in circulation. > > KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter > > 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 > > (616)385-3050 <(616)%20385-3050> > > > > 57 > > 1 Q. Dr. Boyle, you've testified in some depth as to the > > 2 Nonproliferation Treaty and the implementation by Congress > > 3 indicating Congress' intent to prohibit even components, > > 4 parts of nuclear weapons to be covered by the U.S.; is > > 5 that correct? > > 6 A. Congress has interpreted the NPT, as I said, in good > > 7 faith, and to achieve its object and purpose and they have > > 8 interpreted to mean components that is clear of nuclear > > 9 weapons or nuclear explosive devices and there are other > > 10 areas in legislation where they even break it down to > > 11 items or substances that could be used for nuclear weapons > > 12 or nuclear explosive device, so Congress is aware of this > > 13 problem of a state becoming a de facto nuclear weapons > > 14 state and somehow trying to assemble components, items and > > 15 substances to be used for a nuclear weapon in order to > > 16 circumvent the treaty. So again Congress has interpreted, > > 17 I think, the treaty properly. > > 18 Q. Are you familiar in the course of your research with the > > 19 DOE's stockpile of stewardship program? > > 20 A. I am, yes. > > 21 Q. Are you familiar with their use in that program of > > 22 subcritical amounts of weapons grade plutonium? > > 23 A. Yes. Right now the Department of Energy is engaging in > > 24 what are known as subcritical tests. A subcritical test > > 25 is using -- they just did one this week, I think I gave > > KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter > > 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 > > (616)385-3050 <(616)%20385-3050> > > > > 58 > > 1 you the press release on it, and they are consistently > > 2 doing this. > > 3 A subcritical test uses a subcritical amount of > > 4 plutonium, which is under the -- it was eight kilograms. > > 5 And they are exploding it in order to test, verify and > > 6 develop the next generation of U.S. nuclear weapons. So > > 7 what we see the Department of Energy doing here is the > > 8 subcritical tests, in my opinion, would constitute it's > > 9 not a nuclear weapon, but it is a nuclear explosive > > 10 device. Now, there is nothing illegal with, under the NPT > > 11 with us having a nuclear explosive device, because we are > > 12 a nuclear weapons state party, but again, it creates > > 13 problems other states are now mimicking our behavior. > > 14 Russia is doing the same thing, France and Britain say > > 15 they are going to do the same thing. If we give weapons > > 16 grade plutonium to Canada, Canada could be doing the same > > 17 thing. Or the Russians give their weapons grade plutonium > > 18 to Canada, Canada could be doing the same thing, and other > > 19 states could be doing the same thing. So again, I think I > > 20 have serious concerns here, but I want to point out the > > 21 DOE is already engaged in the subcritical tests which are > > 22 clearly nuclear explosive devices. So it just doesn't > > 23 have to be a bomb to be regulated by the NPT. > > 24 Q. Dr. Boyle, in the scope of your experience and research, > > 25 have you become acquainted with the International Court of > > KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter > > 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 > > (616)385-3050 <(616)%20385-3050> > > > > 59 > > 1 Justice opinion regarding nuclear weapons in 1996? > > 2 A. Yes. As a matter of fact, I was part of the effort > > 3 originally to try to get that advisory opinion from the > > 4 World Court. > > 5 Q. If you would explain briefly what the significance, if > > 6 anything, of that World Court decision on the Parallex > > 7 project is, in your opinion? > > 8 A. Well, Your Honor, the World Court was asked by the United > > 9 Nations general assembly to give an opinion on the entire > > 10 question of nuclear weapons and international law. It's a > > 11 very long decision with many separate decisions in the > > 12 sense I've written an article here, Mr. Love might want to > > 13 provide it to you, going through all of it. But in this > > 14 opinion, there are two critical components that are > > 15 relevant to the Parallex MOX project and, of course, the > > 16 EA has not dealt with either, let alone the World Court > > 17 opinion, and the World Court opinion in this area > > 18 enunciates the rules of international law that are binding > > 19 on the United States Government, binding on Canada, > > 20 binding on Russia. The one component of this opinion > > 21 deals with the environmental-- international environmental > > 22 law applicable to nuclear weapons, and you will note in > > 23 the EA, the DOE does absolutely nothing at all with > > 24 international environmental law applicable to this > > 25 transaction because it is an international transaction, > > KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter > > 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 > > (616)385-3050 <(616)%20385-3050> > > > > 60 > > 1 they're shipping plutonium from the States up to Canada > > 2 and from Russia over to Canada. So international > > 3 environmental law is involved, and the DOE has done > > 4 nothing at all about it. > > 5 And Mr. Love, I think you have the exact > > 6 language there. You want to provide that to me, the exact > > 7 ruling of the Court on the international environmental law > > 8 that would apply? > > 9 MR. LOVE: Your Honor, we have tendered what I'm > > 10 going to show Dr. Boyle as Plaintiff's Exhibit 14, a copy > > 11 of the World Court opinion to both the Court and counsel > > 12 previously. > > 13 BY MR. LOVE: > > 14 Q. Dr. Boyle, I'm going to show you what has been marked as > > 15 Plaintiff's Exhibit 14 and ask you to take a look at that > > 16 and let us know when you've had a chance to do so and what > > 17 it is. > > 18 A. Right, this is the World Court advisory opinion. It's so > > 19 long, I'm going to have to get my notes on it, excuse me. > > 20 I think, Mr. Love, I gave you my notes last > > 21 night on the relevant provisions of the opinion, the > > 22 relevant paragraphs. > > 23 Q. While I'm looking for your notes, could you direct your > > 24 attention to Paragraph 27, please? > > 25 A. Right. What we need are the paragraphs here. > > KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter > > 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 > > (616)385-3050 <(616)%20385-3050> > > > > 61 > > 1 Right. Yes, I have Paragraph 27. > > 2 Your Honor, here the World Court unanimously > > 3 adopted Principle 21 of the Stockholm Declaration of 1972, > > 4 which everyone would say today is a basic principle of > > 5 international environmental law, which the EA has not > > 6 bothered to deal with. And it basically says states have > > 7 a duty "to ensure that activities within their > > 8 jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to the > > 9 environment of other states or areas beyond the limits of > > 10 national jurisdiction." That's a basic principle of > > 11 international environmental law. It goes back to the > > 12 Stockholm Declaration of 1972. It has direct relevance > > 13 here to this entire project. You've got international > > 14 shipment of plutonium, it's going over the high seas if it > > 15 goes by boat from Russia. That also triggers the Law of > > 16 the Sea Convention that they have not dealt with. They > > 17 haven't dealt with the Stockholm Declaration, and they > > 18 have not dealt with this recent ruling by the World Court > > 19 as to obligations under international law. If you read > > 20 the EA when they are asked this question, they said "Once > > 21 we give to Canada, that's their problem." Well, again, > > 22 that isn't a correct statement of international law. It > > 23 is our problem. > > 24 The second important point of the ICJ opinion, > > 25 and there are other sections here dealing with the > > KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter > > 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 > > (616)385-3050 <(616)%20385-3050> > > > > 62 > > 1 environment -- and I know we have a limited amount of > > 2 time, I'm not going to go through it all -- deals with the > > 3 interpretation of the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty. > > 4 This is an international treaty, the World Court > > 5 also has authority to interpret the Nuclear > > 6 Nonproliferation Treaty, and they have interpreted the > > 7 Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. > > 8 Mr. Love, could you give me -- I identified a > > 9 paragraph for you, I think it's 102. > > 10 Q. I believe you are looking for Paragraph 102? > > 11 A. 102, right. > > 12 Q. May also want to take a look at Paragraph 99. > > 13 A. 99 and 102, right. > > 14 The World Court, in the same advisory opinion, > > 15 has also dealt with the NPT and the obligation of Article > > 16 VI of the NPT, "Each of the parties to the treaty > > 17 undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on > > 18 effective measures relating to cessation of the" -- "in > > 19 good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of > > 20 the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear > > 21 disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete > > 22 disarmament under strict and effective international > > 23 control." And they have interpreted this provision, NPT > > 24 Article VI, which we are a party to, by the way, to have a > > 25 dual obligation, two components here: One, we must pursue > > KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter > > 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 > > (616)385-3050 <(616)%20385-3050> > > > > 63 > > 1 negotiations on nuclear disarmament as a matter of good > > 2 faith. > > 3 Recently, I regret to report the U.S. Ambassador > > 4 to the Conference on Nuclear Disarmament sponsored by the > > 5 United Nations has said "We are not going to pursue > > 6 nuclear disarmament negotiations." In my opinion, that > > 7 puts us in breach of NPT Article VI, certainly as > > 8 interpreted by the World Court. We have an obligation to > > 9 pursue nuclear disarmament negotiations and we have just > > 10 said we are not going to do it. The Ambassador said "We > > 11 are going to pursue instead a treaty on the cutoff of > > 12 fissile materials such as what is at stake here, but we > > 13 are not going to pursue nuclear disarmament negotiations." > > 14 Well, Your Honor, it does seem to me that that is a > > 15 violation of NPT Article VI and is certainly not meeting > > 16 the requirements of Article VI as interpreted by the World > > 17 Court. We must pursue these negotiations in good faith. > > 18 And then the second component of the obligation > > 19 is we must achieve a precise result. Nuclear disarmament > > 20 in all its aspects. And again just recently the U.S. > > 21 Ambassador to the Council of Nuclear Disarmament under the > > 22 auspices of the UN said "We are just not going to do it." > > 23 The reason why this creates serious legal problems is that > > 24 the non-nuclear weapons states went along with the entire > > 25 Nuclear Proliferation Treaty on the assumption that the > > KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter > > 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 > > (616)385-3050 <(616)%20385-3050> > > > > 64 > > 1 nuclear weapons states would engage in good faith > > 2 negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament. If we are > > 3 not engaging in negotiations leading to nuclear > > 4 disarmament and publicly say we are not going to do it, > > 5 this in theory could give the non-nuclear weapons states, > > 6 all 175 of them, grounds to argue the material breach of > > 7 the NPT and pull out of the NPT and to engage in nuclear > > 8 armament. Now I'm not recommending that and indeed I > > 9 certainly would not recommend that to anyone, but it is a > > 10 very serious concern if we are not engaging in these > > 11 nuclear disarmament negotiations, which we are not > > 12 currently doing. > > 13 Q. Dr. Boyle, could you briefly summarize for the Court why > > 14 the International Court of Justice opinions, if at all, > > 15 are binding on the U.S.? > > 16 A. This opinion per se is listed as an advisory opinion. So > > 17 it is -- we are not party to the lawsuit. As you know, > > 18 some courts can give advisory opinions. Your Honor, you > > 19 can't give an advisory opinion, but there are courts in > > 20 the United States that some states courts have authority > > 21 to give advisory opinions as well as contentious > > 22 opinions. The World Court has both. They have authority > > 23 contentious opinion and an advisory opinion. This was not > > 24 a contentious case. If it were a contentious case, we > > 25 would be bound by it, like the Lockerbie case, like the > > KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter > > 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 > > (616)385-3050 <(616)%20385-3050> > > > > 65 > > 1 Bosnia cases that I was involved with, those were > > 2 contentious cases. This was an advisory opinion, however, > > 3 in this advisory opinion, with these unanimous rulings by > > 4 the World Court on these points, the World Court made it > > 5 clear that these rules are customary international law. > > 6 And rules of customary international law bind the United > > 7 States Government. The Paquete, P-a-q-u-e-t-e, Habana, > > 8 H-a-b-a-n-a, decision by the United States Supreme Court > > 9 customarily international law binds the United States and > > 10 the United States courts. And technically, this is > > 11 federal common law. So the, Your Honor, this Court should > > 12 take into account the World Court rulings on these two > > 13 points on international environmental law and how the NPT > > 14 should be interpreted. > > 15 The rest of the opinion, which is quite lengthy > > 16 and I had written about elsewhere -- if you are interested > > 17 in reading my article, you can, but it's not really > > 18 relevant or terribly germane to the issues here, but > > 19 certainly, the section on international environmental law > > 20 and their interpretation of the NPT is relevant. I think > > 21 they enunciate rules of customary international law. I > > 22 also have reached the same conclusions myself in my own > > 23 scholarly research before the World Court did, but I think > > 24 most experts would agree with the rulings of the World > > 25 Court on these two points, it's requirements of > > KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter > > 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 > > (616)385-3050 <(616)%20385-3050> > > > > 66 > > 1 international environmental law and the interpretation of > > 2 the NPT. > > 3 And again, the DOE's environmental assessment > > 4 has not taken any of this into account. They have not > > 5 taken into account the rules of international > > 6 environmental law, which they should do, and they have not > > 7 taken into account anything about the NPT. > > 8 Q. Dr. Boyle, based on your review of the NPT, the Nuclear > > 9 Nonproliferation Acts of 1978, 1994, and 1998, the > > 10 International Court of Justice opinion, and the > > 11 declarations by the Department of State regarding the U.S. > > 12 position with respect to the Nonproliferation Treaty > > 13 commitments we have made, do you have an opinion as an > > 14 expert in international law as to whether the foreign > > 15 policy of the United States would be violated by the > > 16 shipment of MOX from Russia to Canada funded by the U.S. > > 17 DOE? > > 18 A. Well, again, I agree with everything Dr. Edwards said. > > 19 Your Honor, this is a major change in United States > > 20 nonproliferation policy going back at a minimum to the > > 21 Carter administration and the adoption of the Nuclear > > 22 Nonproliferation Act, it seems to me completely > > 23 inconsistent with the treaty, with the Act, the 1978 Act > > 24 and 1994 Act and the 1998 Act. So yes, this is a major > > 25 change in policy that potentially is illegal under the > > KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter > > 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 > > (616)385-3050 <(616)%20385-3050> > > > > 67 > > 1 sources. And I would really like to see the Department of > > 2 Energy comprehensively address all of these issues so we > > 3 could see what is their authority to do this. Besides > > 4 their own ipse dixit. I would like to see the authority. > > 5 I don't see it in any of the sources I've read before for > > 6 them to unilaterally engage in this major change in policy > > 7 that seems to be inconsistent with the Treaty, the '78 > > 8 Act, the '94 Act and '98 Act, yes. > > 9 MR. LOVE: Your Honor, I have no further > > 10 questions of this witness. Thank you. > > 11 CROSS EXAMINATION > > 12 BY MR. DODGE: > > 13 Q. Morning, Mr. Boyle. > > 14 A. Morning. > > 15 Q. I would like to turn your attention back to your C.V., > > 16 which I think is Exhibit 3. Do you have that in front of > > 17 you? > > 18 A. Sure. > > 19 Q. Just to round out a few items on the second page, about > > 20 halfway down you testified that you were counsel to Libya > > 21 in connection with the bombing of the Pan Am flight over > > 22 Lockerbie, Scotland. > > 23 A. That is correct. I should point out that matter is being > > 24 peaceably resolved now by the United States and Libya > > 25 because of my efforts. > > KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter > > 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 > > (616)385-3050 <(616)%20385-3050> > > > > 68 > > 1 Q. And you've also served, going up now the fourth item from > > 2 the top of that page, since 1987 you served as a legal > > 3 advisor to the Palestine Liberation Organization? > > 4 A. That is correct, and I was also the legal advisor to the > > 5 Palestinian delegation for the Middle East Peace Talks > > 6 convened under the auspices of President Bush, yes. > > 7 Q. And two items down from there said you were counsel > > 8 related to House Resolution 86 in the 102nd Congress > > 9 dealing with the impeachment of former, then President > > 10 George Bush? > > 11 A. Yes. Congressman Henry G. Gonzalez of Texas reached a > > 12 decision that President Bush going to war violated > > 13 numerous provisions of the Constitution and international > > 14 law. You can find them there in House Resolution 86. And > > 15 he asked me, because of my knowledge and expertise to > > 16 serve as counsel to them on these matters, and I did serve > > 17 as counsel free of charge, that is correct. > > 18 My service to the Palestinian Delegation in the > > 19 Middle East Peace Negotiations is there in '91 and '93, as > > 20 I said, President Bush was the one who convened those > > 21 negotiations, and yes, even though I did set out with > > 22 Congressman Gonzalez on this issue, President Bush did > > 23 sign my Biological Weapons Anti-terrorists Act of 1989, > > 24 which is -- > > 25 Q. He apparently didn't hold your efforts against you > > KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter > > 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 > > (616)385-3050 <(616)%20385-3050> > > > > 69 > > 1 personally. > > 2 A. Pardon me? > > 3 Q. Sounds like he didn't hold it against you personally. > > 4 A. I don't think he did, no. I'm a lawyer and a law > > 5 professor and I'm a professional, but he had no problems, > > 6 President Bush had no problems with my Biological > > 7 Anti-Terrorism Act. It was approved unanimously by both > > 8 Houses of Congress. > > 9 Q. Moving on to the third page, second item from the top of > > 10 the page, you worked as a consultant in 1993 on > > 11 Independence for the State of Hawaii. I would assume for > > 12 Hawaii to become an independent nation? > > 13 A. That is correct. The State of Hawaii-- the Hawaiian > > 14 Sovereignty Advisory Commission is an agency of the State > > 15 of Hawaii. And they were charged under the law by the > > 16 State of Hawaiian law to investigate all alternatives for > > 17 the native Hawaiian people. One of the alternatives that > > 18 needed to be investigated was whether or not the native > > 19 Hawaiian people should establish their own independent > > 20 nation state. And I was retained by the State of Hawaii > > 21 then to advise them on this because of my experience doing > > 22 the same work with the Palestinians. I advised them on > > 23 the creation of their state and the peace talks with > > 24 Israel based on a two-state solution, and the Palestinian > > 25 state today has diplomatic recognition now by about 125 > > KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter > > 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 > > (616)385-3050 <(616)%20385-3050> > > > > 70 > > 1 states, and currently has de facto UN membership, and I > > 2 did the legal work on that, so the State of Hawaii > > 3 retained me to come out and advise on the establishment of > > 4 an independent nations state, and the State of Hawaii paid > > 5 my expenses and a modest fee for this work, yes. > > 6 Q. Moving on to the Nonproliferation Treaty, you testified > > 7 about Article I. Do you recall that? > > 8 A. Yes. > > 9 Q. And as I understood your testimony, your view is that the > > 10 fuel rods at issue in the Parallex Project, in your view, > > 11 should be treated as components of a nuclear weapon; is > > 12 that right? Explosive device? > > 13 A. No. What I said was weapons grade plutonium should be > > 14 treated as a component of either a nuclear weapon or a > > 15 nuclear explosive device. > > 16 Q. What about -- I mean, the Parallex test involves shipment > > 17 and then irradiation of fuel rods; is that correct? > > 18 A. Right. > > 19 Q. And is it your view or is it not your view that those fuel > > 20 rods constitute components of nuclear weapons or explosive > > 21 devices? > > 22 A. My viewpoint is what I said, that weapons grade plutonium > > 23 is a component of a nuclear weapon or nuclear explosive > > 24 device. > > 25 Q. You didn't answer my question. Do you understand the > > KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter > > 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 > > (616)385-3050 <(616)%20385-3050> > > > > 71 > > 1 question? > > 2 A. Well, I've given my answer. > > 3 THE COURT: No, you haven't answered his > > 4 question. He asked you question, if you don't know the > > 5 answer, say so. He asked you a very specific question > > 6 about rods. > > 7 BY MR. DODGE: > > 8 Q. In fact, the question has to do with your view, if you > > 9 have one, whether the fuel rods at issue in the Parallex > > 10 test program constitute components of nuclear weapons or > > 11 explosive devices. > > 12 A. If they contain weapons grade plutonium, they would be or > > 13 could be components of nuclear weapons or nuclear > > 14 explosive devices. > > 15 Q. Well, these fuel rods do contain plutonium; is that right? > > 16 A. As I understand it, it's in there, yep. > > 17 Q. So in your view, does that make the fuel rods components > > 18 of nuclear weapons or explosive devices? > > 19 A. Again, my testimony is that the weapons grade plutonium > > 20 clearly is either nuclear -- is a component of a nuclear > > 21 weapon or a nuclear explosive device, and the reason I > > 22 give that testimony is based on my reading of the > > 23 Congressional legislation, Congress has taken the position > > 24 that weapons grade plutonium or plutonium, in general, is > > 25 a component of a nuclear weapon or nuclear explosive > > KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter > > 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 > > (616)385-3050 <(616)%20385-3050> > > > > 72 > > 1 device. Congress does not deal with the fuel rods, they > > 2 dealt with the plutonium. > > 3 Q. I want to make sure I understand your testimony clearly. > > 4 Is it your testimony, is it your view that any > > 5 plutonium would qualify as a component of a nuclear > > 6 weapons or nuclear weapon or explosive device under the > > 7 treaty? > > 8 A. My testimony today is the weapons grade plutonium involved > > 9 in this project is a component of a nuclear weapons or > > 10 other nuclear explosive device. I believe weapons grade > > 11 plutonium is what is involved in this project. > > 12 Q. I asked you a different question. The question was a > > 13 broader one. Is it your view or not your view that all > > 14 plutonium would qualify as a component of a nuclear weapon > > 15 or explosive device under Article I? > > 16 A. It appears Congress has taken that position, yes, and they > > 17 have stringently regulated plutonium in all forms. And I > > 18 also note that the United States Government has exploded a > > 19 nuclear weapon -- > > 20 THE COURT: The question is: Is it your > > 21 opinion? He is asking four or five times now, could you > > 22 answer that? > > 23 THE WITNESS: But Your Honor, my opinion is > > 24 based on -- > > 25 THE COURT: In courts -- I know you are a > > KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter > > 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 > > (616)385-3050 <(616)%20385-3050> > > > > 73 > > 1 professor -- we answer the questions of the lawyer, not > > 2 what we want to talk about. He asked you seven or eight > > 3 questions, none of which you've answered. I would ask you > > 4 simply listen to the lawyer's question and answer it. > > 5 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honor. > > 6 BY MR. DODGE: > > 7 Q. Do you understand the question? > > 8 THE COURT: Ask it again for the fifteenth time, > > 9 ask it again. > > 10 BY MR. DODGE: > > 11 Q. Is it your view that all plutonium constitutes a component > > 12 of nuclear weapon or explosive device under Article I of > > 13 the treaty? > > 14 A. It can. > > 15 Q. It can? > > 16 A. Yes. Yes. > > 17 Q. Is it your view across the board that plutonium, whether > > 18 weapons grade or not, if it's present in a fuel rod for > > 19 a-- destined for a civilian nuclear reactor would qualify > > 20 as a component of a nuclear weapon explosive device? > > 21 A. It could. > > 22 Q. Do you know whether as a general matter the signatories of > > 23 the Nonproliferation Treaty have interpreted, whether any > > 24 signatory has interpreted Article I to ban transport of > > 25 fuel rods containing plutonium? > > KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter > > 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 > > (616)385-3050 <(616)%20385-3050> > > > > 74 > > 1 A. Congress has strictly regulated plutonium, yes, and there > > 2 is legislation on the books saying "We, Congress, > > 3 interpreting our obligations under the NPT, are against > > 4 international transport of plutonium," yes. > > 5 Q. Has Congress passed any legislation prohibiting the > > 6 transport of nuclear fuel rods containing any plutonium? > > 7 A. In what I have reviewed for my testimony here today, I > > 8 have not seen in the '78, '94 or '98 Act that Congress has > > 9 prohibited transport of fuel rods. > > 10 Q. In fact, fuel rods are transported across national > > 11 boundaries all the time; is that not correct? > > 12 A. They are transported. > > 13 Q. In fact, fuel rods containing plutonium are transported > > 14 across national boundaries all the time, isn't that > > 15 correct? > > 16 A. If they are subject to-- they are supposed to be subject > > 17 to safeguards, yes. > > 18 Q. Well, that gets us to another point of your earlier > > 19 testimony regarding whether the fuel rods particularly at > > 20 issue in the Parallex Project are or are not subject to > > 21 IA/EA safeguards in Canada. Do you recall that testimony? > > 22 A. Yes. > > 23 Q. Do you have personal knowledge whether Canada, the > > 24 Government of Canada has taken a position on whether the > > 25 U.S. Parallex fuel rods, which are now in Canada, whether > > KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter > > 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 > > (616)385-3050 <(616)%20385-3050> > > > > 75 > > 1 those fuel rods are now subject to IA/EA safeguards? > > 2 A. I have not seen any evidence because of the recentness of > > 3 the movement of the shipments. > > 4 Q. If I told you that the position of the Government of > > 5 Canada is that those fuel rods are, in fact, subject to > > 6 IA/EA safeguards, would you have any basis to quarrel with > > 7 that? > > 8 A. The statement by Ms. Locatelli does call into question the > > 9 validity of these assertions, yes. > > 10 Q. Miss Locatelli was generally speaking of Parallex fuel > > 11 rods, was she? > > 12 A. Speaking about plutonium in general, right. > > 13 Q. I take it you didn't speak personally to Miss Locatelli? > > 14 A. No, I did not. > > 15 Q. About this or any-- > > 16 A. But I did speak with Mr. Clemens of NCI by e-mail and he > > 17 has similar concerns to me. > > 18 Q. Okay. And did you speak to the newspaper reporter, Martin > > 19 Mittelstaedt, who quoted Ms. Locatelli? > > 20 A. No, I did not. > > 21 Q. Whether his quotes accurately reflect what she said or not > > 22 is not something you would be qualified to testify about; > > 23 is that right? > > 24 A. Well, I note The Globe and Mail is a newspaper of public > > 25 record and I would be able to rely on that in the World > > KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter > > 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 > > (616)385-3050 <(616)%20385-3050> > > > > 76 > > 1 Court for sure, yep. > > 2 Q. But newspaper reporters are human beings? > > 3 A. Newspaper reporters make mistakes, sure. But again, the > > 4 World Court, for example, the nuclear test cases did rely > > 5 on statements made by Government officials as normally > > 6 reported in reputable news media sources. They have > > 7 different standards of evidence, the World Court, than > > 8 they do here in United States District Court. > > 9 Q. Now you've also relied on this article, Plaintiff's > > 10 Exhibit 5, I guess too, in support of your opinion that > > 11 Canada is in possession of 40 kilograms or up to 40 > > 12 kilograms of plutonium; is that right? > > 13 A. This is a statement by Mr. Clemens, and I have had e-mail > > 14 correspondence with him about it. > > 15 Q. Do you have any personal knowledge whether -- > > 16 A. No. > > 17 Q. I'm sorry, I didn't finish my question. > > 18 A. I did answer your question. > > 19 THE COURT: He hasn't finished asking it; you > > 20 couldn't possibly answer his question when he hasn't > > 21 finished asking it. > > 22 THE WITNESS: Sorry. > > 23 BY MR. DODGE: > > 24 Q. Do you have any personal knowledge of whether Canada, in > > 25 fact, has 40 kilograms of plutonium? > > KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter > > 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 > > (616)385-3050 <(616)%20385-3050> > > > > 77 > > 1 A. I do not have personal knowledge, no. I'm relying on the > > 2 statement by Mr. Clemens. > > 3 Q. Mr. Clemens, does Mr. Clemens have personal knowledge > > 4 whether Canada has 40-- > > 5 A. As I understand, Mr. Clemens does. From my e-mail > > 6 correspondence with him, he does. > > 7 Q. Has he seen that plutonium? > > 8 A. Pardon me? > > 9 Q. Has he seen it? > > 10 A. He didn't tell me what his sources of evidence are, but he > > 11 did tell me that they will be making it public soon. > > 12 Q. So he thinks he has -- he thinks he has evidence to > > 13 support that conclusion and whether that evidence holds > > 14 any water or not, we really can't tell, can we? > > 15 A. Well, again, as an expert, if the NCI is making the > > 16 statements, I think they are significant and they need to > > 17 be dealt with, and certainly by the Department of Energy. > > 18 THE COURT: That was not -- excuse me, that was > > 19 not his question. > > 20 Would you repeat your question, please? > > 21 BY MR. DODGE: > > 22 Q. The question is: Mr. Clemens believes he has reason or he > > 23 has evidence to support his conclusion that Canada has 40 > > 24 kilograms of plutonium, but as far as anybody in this > > 25 courtroom knows, that evidence may or may not hold water, > > KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter > > 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 > > (616)385-3050 <(616)%20385-3050> > > > > 78 > > 1 we just don't know, correct? > > 2 A. I'm not evaluating the evidence, and Mr. Clemens said the > > 3 evidence will be produced, so at that point I will review > > 4 the evidence and formulate a formal opinion. > > 5 THE COURT: Do you want to ask it again or just > > 6 want to give up? > > 7 MR. DODGE: I think that -- I think the point is > > 8 established to the extent I need to, Your Honor. > > 9 BY MR. DODGE: > > 10 Q. Now, you testified earlier that it's up to the State > > 11 Department, not the Department of Energy to interpret > > 12 United States treaty obligations; is that right? > > 13 A. I testified that it is the State Department that is in > > 14 charge of nuclear proliferation policies, that's what I > > 15 testified, and not the Department of Energy, yes. > > 16 Q. Okay. Is it your view that it's -- maybe I misunderstood > > 17 what you testified earlier. I thought I heard you say > > 18 that interpreting whether or not the U.S. is complying > > 19 with Nonproliferation Treaty in particular, that pertinent > > 20 authority on that would be the State Department, not the > > 21 Department of Energy; is that a fair statement? > > 22 A. I've also testified that the State Department has the lead > > 23 role in the United States Government with respect to > > 24 interpretation of treatises as well. > > 25 Q. Do you know what the State Department's position is on > > KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter > > 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 > > (616)385-3050 <(616)%20385-3050> > > > > 79 > > 1 whether the Parallex test program is or is not compliant > > 2 with Article I of the Nonproliferation Treaty? > > 3 A. Well, that's why I read the Environmental Assessment, to > > 4 see if you had talked to the State Department here, and > > 5 they hadn't, so I have not seen any statement by the State > > 6 Department as to what their position is, no. > > 7 Q. The Environmental Assessment is not the only document > > 8 that's been generated in the course of the Parallex > > 9 Project, you understand that? > > 10 A. That is correct, and I have read a good deal of the > > 11 documentation, but I still have not seen an expression by > > 12 the Department of State on this issue. > > 13 Q. Okay. Do you know whether or not the State Department was > > 14 involved at any level in the Parallex Project? > > 15 A. There probably were discussions somewhere in there. > > 16 Q. Do you know? > > 17 A. Myself personally? > > 18 Q. Yes. > > 19 A. I don't know for sure. > > 20 Q. Do you know one way or the other whether the State > > 21 Department has a view on whether the Parallex Project is > > 22 consistent with our treaty obligations under Article I of > > 23 the NPT? > > 24 A. I have not seen any expression by the State Department on > > 25 this issue. > > KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter > > 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 > > (616)385-3050 <(616)%20385-3050> > > > > 80 > > 1 Q. If I told you the State Department has taken the view that > > 2 the Parallex Project is entirely consistent with our > > 3 obligations under Article I, would you have any basis to > > 4 quarrel with that? > > 5 A. I haven't seen it. > > 6 MR. LODGE: Objection, Your Honor. > > 7 THE COURT: If he hasn't seen -- > > 8 MR. DODGE: Withdraw the question, Your Honor. > > 9 THE WITNESS: I would like to see it and > > 10 evaluate it myself, sure. > > 11 BY MR. DODGE: > > 12 Q. You also testified about dangers of nuclear proliferation > > 13 relating to countries such as Taiwan and Korea that are > > 14 not currently nuclear weapons states, but would like to > > 15 acquire nuclear weapons, do you recall that testimony? > > 16 A. Yes. > > 17 Q. Is it correct that the MOX program, the Parallex Program > > 18 does not contemplate the shipment of any fuel rods to any > > 19 country other than Canada? > > 20 A. Not at this stage, but eventually it does appear there > > 21 will be mass circulation of this material, yes, down the > > 22 line. > > 23 Q. And the basis for that is what exactly? > > 24 A. The quantities. If the test works out, the quantity we > > 25 are talking about coming from Russia. > > KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter > > 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 > > (616)385-3050 <(616)%20385-3050> > > > > 81 > > 1 Q. Well, let me be more specific about this. Has the United > > 2 States, any spokesperson for the United States Government > > 3 proposed in connection with the Parallex Project to send > > 4 fuel rods to any country other than Canada? > > 5 A. The United States? > > 6 Q. Right. > > 7 A. No. > > 8 Q. Has the Government of Russia proposed, in connection with > > 9 the Parallex Project, to send fuel rods to any country > > 10 other than Canada? > > 11 A. Well, they are talking about massive quantities of weapons > > 12 grade plutonium being circulated into this program and the > > 13 independent team of experts by Russia and the United > > 14 States have made that quite clear they are talking tons of > > 15 this stuff. > > 16 Q. Well, again, you didn't answer my question there, > > 17 Professor. I asked you whether the Russian Government has > > 18 proposed sending fuel rods to any country other than > > 19 Canada. Your answer only dealt with volumes, it didn't > > 20 address where. That was my question. > > 21 A. Right. There might have been discussions on Germany or > > 22 some of the European states have there -- there have been > > 23 discussions and proposals, but it's just at that stage > > 24 now, yes. > > 25 Q. But Russia has not, to your knowledge, proposed sending > > KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter > > 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 > > (616)385-3050 <(616)%20385-3050> > > > > 82 > > 1 fuel rods to Korea? > > 2 A. There is an international market here, sure, it could be > > 3 sold anywhere. > > 4 THE COURT: No, he didn't say could have. He > > 5 said: Did they propose it? > > 6 THE WITNESS: I have not read that right now > > 7 Russia is proposing sending this to Korea. > > 8 BY MR. DODGE: > > 9 Q. Same question with Taiwan. > > 10 A. I have not read that Russia is proposing to send this to > > 11 Taiwan. > > 12 MR. DODGE: No further questions at this time, > > 13 Your Honor. > > 14 THE COURT: We will take a 15-minute recess. > > 15 COURT CLERK: All rise. > > 16 This court is in recess. > > 17 (At 10:54 a.m., recess.) > > 18 THE COURT: Okay. What is next? > > 19 MR. LOVE: Brief redirect, Your Honor. > > 20 REDIRECT EXAMINATION > > 21 BY MR. LOVE: > > 22 Q. Professor Boyle, did you receive any recognition or > > 23 rewards from Bosnia for your efforts on their behalf? > > 24 A. While I was never paid a penny, but President Izetbegovic > > 25 and Vice President Gonich (phonetic) held a ceremony at > > KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter > > 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 > > (616)385-3050 <(616)%20385-3050> > > > > 83 > > 1 the Bosnian presidency with a-- awarded me full-fledged > > 2 citizenship in the Republic, a diplomatic passport and > > 3 visa and a declaration and they put the ceremony on > > 4 television, so that was very nice. So technically I'm a > > 5 Bosnian citizen too. > > 6 Q. Dr. Boyle, with respect to your work on the Hawaiian > > 7 independence that Mr. Dodge asked you about, has there > > 8 been any action by the President or Congress, to your > > 9 knowledge, with respect to that? > > 10 A. Yes. In 1993 Congress passed a statute signed into law by > > 11 President Clinton formally apologizing to the native > > 12 Hawaiian people for destroying their kingdom and stealing > > 13 their land. The legislation at the end provides for a > > 14 process of reconciliation and reparations, and how this is > > 15 going to be dealt with, and I'm still currently involved > > 16 in those matters. > > 17 Q. Dr. Boyle, there should be a document up there marked > > 18 Plaintiff's Exhibit 13. Do you see that? > > 19 A. Yes, I have it here. > > 20 Q. Now, this is entitled a Nonproliferation Arms Control > > 21 Assessment of Weapons Usable Fissile Material Storage and > > 22 Excess Plutonium Disposition Alternatives, dated January, > > 23 1997 authored by the United States Department of Energy, > > 24 correct? > > 25 A. Yes. > > KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter > > 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 > > (616)385-3050 <(616)%20385-3050> > > > > 84 > > 1 Q. Was this among the documents that you reviewed in > > 2 preparing your testimony? > > 3 A. I did not have -- I did not get this entire document until > > 4 Monday, so I did not have a chance to review the entire > > 5 document, but I have reviewed the excerpts you gave to > > 6 me. > > 7 Q. Now Mr. Dodge asked you-- for the record, Your Honor, the > > 8 excerpt only contains Pages 106 and 107-- Mr. Dodge asked > > 9 you about your testimony about the possibility of future > > 10 shipments of MOX to Taiwan and Korea. Do you remember him > > 11 asking you about that? > > 12 A. Yes. > > 13 THE COURT: He didn't ask what the possibility > > 14 is, he asked if there were plans by Russia or the United > > 15 States to ship to those two nations. That was the > > 16 question. > > 17 MR. LOVE: Okay. > > 18 THE COURT: And the answer was no. Not are > > 19 there possibilities. I know the witness thinks there are > > 20 possibilities, that won't help me any. I understand > > 21 that. > > 22 BY MR. LOVE: > > 23 Q. In fact, Dr. Boyle is it true that in this document the > > 24 DOE indicates there are possibilities such as you > > 25 testified about? > > KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter > > 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 > > (616)385-3050 <(616)%20385-3050> > > > > 85 > > 1 A. Yes. > > 2 THE COURT: I accept that. You are wasting my > > 3 time. There are possibilities. > > 4 BY MR. LOVE: > > 5 Q. Dr. Boyle, if you would, I direct your attention to the > > 6 large document that's in front of you. This is > > 7 Proliferation Venerability Red Team Report, Plaintiff's > > 8 Exhibit 28, and introduced in the prior hearing. > > 9 A. Yes, and I read this entire report prior to my testimony > > 10 here today. > > 11 Q. I'm going to ask you, if you would, to direct your > > 12 attention to Page 6-1, the conclusions to that report. > > 13 A. Yes. > > 14 Q. And again, this is a document that was produced by Sandia > > 15 Laboratories for the Department of Energy? > > 16 A. That is correct. > > 17 Q. Directing your attention to the first conclusion, under > > 18 the conclusion, keeping plutonium inaccessible is the key > > 19 to proliferation resistance, do you see that? > > 20 A. Yes. It says quite clearly, all plutonium from all stages > > 21 of all alternatives can be made weapons usable should > > 22 sufficient material be successfully removed. And I should > > 23 point out that is the position Congress takes under the > > 24 Nuclear Nonproliferation Act of '78, the Act of '94 and > > 25 the '98, all plutonium can be made weapons usable. > > KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter > > 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 > > (616)385-3050 <(616)%20385-3050> > > > > 86 > > 1 Q. In your view, is that conclusion by the Sandia Lab in this > > 2 Red Team Report consistent with your testimony? > > 3 A. Yes. > > 4 Q. Now, Mr. Dodge asked you if there was transport of > > 5 plutonium across boundaries all the time. My notes > > 6 reflected you said yes. Do you remember that testimony? > > 7 A. I said there was some, yes. > > 8 Q. Is there routinely transportation of weapons grade > > 9 plutonium shipped across boundaries all the time by the > > 10 United States? > > 11 A. No. No. > > 12 MR. LOVE: No further questions. > > 13 MR. DODGE: No recross, Your Honor. > > 14 THE COURT: You may step down. > > 15 THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honor. > > 16 Your Honor, did you have any questions? > > 17 THE COURT: No, I don't. > > 18 THE WITNESS: Thank you. > > 19 THE COURT: You've exceeded your time so I take > > 20 it you have no more witnesses. > > 21 MR. LOVE: Your Honor, I have no more witnesses > > 22 but at this time I would like to move our Exhibit 5, > > 23 Exhibit 7, Exhibit 11, Exhibit 12, Exhibit 13, Exhibit 14 > > 24 and Plaintiff's Exhibit 2 and Exhibit 1 into evidence. > > 25 MR. DODGE: No objection, Your Honor. > > KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter > > 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 > > (616)385-3050 <(616)%20385-3050> > > > > 87 > > 1 THE COURT: 5, 7, 11, 12, 13 and 14, 1 and 2 are > > 2 received. > > 3 MR. LOVE: Thank you, Your Honor. We have > > 4 nothing further. > > 5 THE WITNESS: Here are the exhibits. Where do > > 6 you want them? > > 7 MR. LOVE: I'll take them here. > > 8 (Hearing continued; reported, not requested > > 9 transcribed.) > > 10 > > 11 > > 12 > > 13 > > 14 > > 15 > > 16 > > 17 > > 18 > > 19 > > 20 > > 21 > > 22 > > 23 > > 24 > > 25 > > KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter > > 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 > > (616)385-3050 <(616)%20385-3050> > > > > 88 > > 1 > > 2 > > 3 > > 4 > > 5 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE > > 6 > > 7 I, Kathleen S. Thomas, Official Court Reporter for the > > 8 United States District Court for the Western District of > > 9 Michigan, appointed pursuant to the provisions of Title 28, > > 10 United States Code, Section 753, do hereby certify that the > > 11 foregoing is a true and correct transcript of proceedings had > > 12 in the within-entitled and numbered cause on the date > > 13 hereinbefore set forth; and I do further certify that the > > 14 foregoing transcript has been prepared by me or under my > > 15 direction. > > 16 > > 17 > > 18 > > 19 > > 20 __________________________________ > > 21 > > Kathleen S. Thomas, CSR, RPR-1300 > > 22 U.S. District Court Reporter > > 410 West Michigan Avenue > > 23 Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 > > 24 > > 25 > > KATHLEEN S. THOMAS, U.S. District Court Reporter > > 410 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 > > (616)385-3050 <(616)%20385-3050> > > > > Francis A. Boyle > > Law Building > > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > > Champaign, IL 61820 USA > > 217-333-7954 <(217)%20333-7954> (voice) > > 217-244-1478 <(217)%20244-1478> (fax) > > fboyle at law.uiuc.edu > > (personal comments only) > > > > > > > > > > *Francis A. Boyle* > > *Law Building* > > *504 E. Pennsylvania Ave.* > > *Champaign IL 61820 USA* > > *217-333-7954 <(217)%20333-7954> (phone)* > > *217-244-1478 <(217)%20244-1478> (fax)* > > *(personal comments only*) > > > > *From:* Brussel, Morton K > *Sent:* Monday, November 06, 2017 7:56 PM > *To:* Boyle, Francis A > *Cc:* David Green ; C. G. ESTABROOK < > carl at newsfromneptune.com>; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; > sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; a-fields at uiuc.edu; > Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria < > joelauria at gmail.com>; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; > peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron ; > Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram ; > abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne < > lina at worldcantwait.net>; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay < > futureup2us at gmail.com>; David Johnson ; > Mildred O'brien ; Estabrook, Carl G < > galliher at illinois.edu> > *Subject:* Re: [Peace-discuss] FW: MOX for Bombs in Japan > > > > I think this is wrong. MOX fuel is mainly used for fuel in nuclear power > reactors, not to make bombs. Japan had/has many nuclear reactors. A fairly > intelligible discussion is found in wikipedia, under "MOX nuclear”. > > > > —mkb > > > > > > > > On Nov 6, 2017, at 4:40 PM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > *This was a very lengthy interview I gave in Japan courtesy of their peace > and anti-nuclear movement. It was heavily censored. My basic point was that > Japan was using MOX to make bombs and that my best estimate was that Japan > probably had as many bombs as PRC, which would be in the area of 500. So > when the details of the disaster at Fukushima came out, it was clear to me > it was one of their leading bomb complexes.* > > > > *Fab.* > > > > *Francis A. Boyle* > > *Law Building* > > *504 E. Pennsylvania Ave.* > > *Champaign, IL 61820 USA* > > *217-333-7954 <(217)%20333-7954> (phone)* > > *217-244-1478 <(217)%20244-1478> (fax)* > > *(personal comments only)* > > > > *From:* globenet at yahoogroups.com [mailto:globenet at yahoogroups.com > ] > *Sent:* Saturday, March 21, 2015 8:10 AM > *To:* globenet at yahoogroups.com > *Cc:* 'Hiroshi Taka'; 'Gensuikyo'; 'Akira Kawasaki'; oheyeran@ > yahoogroups.com; asia-pacific_demil_mdg-request at lists.riseup.net; 'Coleen > Rowley'; 'Douglas Roche' > *Subject:* [globenet] MOX for Bombs in Japan > > > > > > > > > > *Francis A. Boyle* > > *Law Building* > > *504 E. Pennsylvania Ave.* > > *Champaign, IL 61820 USA* > > *217-333-7954 <(217)%20333-7954> (phone)* > > *217-244-1478 <(217)%20244-1478> (fax)* > > *(personal comments only)* > > > > > > > > *Francis A. Boyle* > > *Law Building* > > *504 E. Pennsylvania Ave.* > > *Champaign, IL 61820 USA* > > *217-333-7954 <(217)%20333-7954> (Voice)* > > *217-244-1478 <(217)%20244-1478> (Fax)* > > *(personal comments only)* > > > > > > __._,_.___ > ------------------------------ > > Posted by: "Boyle, Francis A" > ------------------------------ > > *Reply via web post > * > > • > > Reply to sender > > > • > > Reply to group > > > • > > Start a New Topic > > > • > > Messages in this topic > > (1) > > *VISIT YOUR GROUP > * > > [image: Yahoo! Groups] > > > • Privacy > > • Unsubscribe > • Terms of Use > > > > > . > > > __,_._,___ > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > > > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Tue Nov 7 14:33:29 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2017 14:33:29 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] US airstrikes and escalation in Afghanistan... Message-ID: US airstrikes kill dozens of Afghan civilians By Bill Van Auken WSWS.ORG 7 November 2017 Reports from local officials and Afghan legislators have exposed mass civilian casualties in an offensive carried out last weekend by US and Afghan puppet forces in northern Kunduz province. Some reports have put the death toll from the bombing raids in the Char Dara district at over 60, with women and children among the victims. The Pentagon acknowledged that US forces had carried out an operation in Kunduz province, issuing its standard response, asserting that it “takes all allegations of civilian casualties seriously” and is investigating the reports. The area of the attacks was west of the provincial capital of Kunduz, in a rural district where the Taliban has long maintained control. According to the News International, Pakistan’s largest English language daily, Afghan security forces surrounded the three villages where the air strikes had taken place—Essa Khil, Qatl-e Aam and Uzbek Bazar—preventing relatives from collecting the bodies of their loved ones and interfering with any attempt to discover the precise death toll. Khosh Mohammad Nasratyar, a provincial council member, gave an estimate of 55 civilians killed, while an Afghan aid worker in the area said the dead numbered at least 40. Others said that more than 60 had died. President Ashraf Ghani has made no comment on the slaughter in Kunduz. His predecessor, Hamid Karzai, however, strongly condemned the air strikes, demanding an investigation and the prosecution of those responsible. Karzai, who left the presidential palace three years ago, has been strongly critical of the escalating US war in Afghanistan, accusing Washington of wanting to prolong the bloodshed in Afghanistan as a means of pursuing its own strategic interests in the region. The latest air strikes were among the most intense in recent months, rattling windows in Kunduz city, which in 2015 was the scene of one of the bloodiest aerial massacres carried out by the US military in the course of its 16-year-old war in Afghanistan. In October of that year, a US AC-130U gunship carried out a protracted attack on a Doctors Without Borders medical center that left 42 dead, 33 missing and 30 wounded amid ghastly scenes of patients burning to death in their hospital beds. Since US President Donald Trump announced a new Afghanistan strategy in August, ceding to the military brass the authority to set troop levels and guaranteeing the Pentagon “the necessary tools and rules of engagement” to escalate what is now America’s longest war, there has been a marked intensification of the bloodletting that has claimed at least 175,000 Afghan lives and turned millions into refugees. This has come mainly as a result of intensified air strikes. In its October report on civilian casualties, the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan reported that the number of civilians dying as a result of bombs and missiles dropped on the country from US and Afghan government aircraft had soared by 52 percent during the first nine months of 2017, compared to the same period last year. The Pentagon is also increasing troop levels in the country, reportedly sending at least 3,000 more soldiers and Marines, bringing the official strength of the US occupation force to roughly 15,000. According to a recently disclosed Pentagon report, the US is now spending some $3.2 billion a month on the Afghanistan war, with that figure expected to rise along with the ongoing escalation. The CIA is also reportedly expanding its role in the Afghan war, seeking authorization to initiate its own drone strikes inside Afghanistan—previously it had been restricted to cross-border missile strikes against Pakistan—and to organize “hunt and kill” militias to carry out assassinations and massacres in Taliban-held areas of the country. In the midst of the US escalation, a prosecutor for the International Criminal Court (ICC) has formally requested judicial authorization to open an investigation into war crimes carried out in connection with the protracted US war in Afghanistan. The situation in Afghanistan has been the subject of a “preliminary examination” by the ICC for over a decade, during which countless crimes have been carried out against the Afghan people. Both Washington and its puppet government in Kabul have strongly opposed the court’s moving forward toward any investigation and potential charges. Among charges that the prosecutor, Fatou Bensouda, intends to pursue are that the CIA and the US military, along with the Afghan security forces, engaged in the systematic torture of detainees as a matter of state policy. A Preliminary Examination Report issued last year charged that the US intelligence agency and the Pentagon “resorted to techniques amounting to the commission of the war crimes of torture, cruel treatment, outrages upon personal dignity and rape.” It specifically cited the cases of 61 individual detainees subjected to torture on Afghan territory between 2003 and 2014 by the US military, as well as those of 21 detainees of the CIA who were tortured, abused and raped both in Afghanistan and at CIA “black sites” in Poland, Romania and Lithuania. The ICC prosecutor’s office stressed that these crimes were “not the abuses of a few isolated individuals,” but rather were carried out in pursuit of “US objectives in the conflict in Afghanistan.” Since its foundation in 2000, the US has refused to participate in the ICC, out of justifiable fear that US civilian and military officials could end up in the dock for crimes carried out by the Pentagon and the CIA in the multiple US wars and interventions waged in the Middle East, Africa, South Asia and beyond. Legislation passed in 2002, the American Service Members Protection Act (dubbed the “Hague Invasion Act”), bars any cooperation from Washington on charges brought against US war criminals and authorizes the US president to employ military force to rescue any American military or intelligence personnel detained by ICC prosecutors. The Obama administration also imposed upon Washington’s Afghan puppet regime a 2014 Status of Forces Agreement that bars any transfer of Americans accused of war crimes to any international tribunal, granting Washington sole jurisdiction over its own personnel operating in Afghanistan. While Obama defended the CIA torturers who operated under the Bush administration, Trump has publicly declared his support for waterboarding and other forms of torture. While there has been no official US reaction to the ICC prosecutor’s request for authorization to pursue an investigation, it is clear that Washington will do everything it can to suppress such a probe. [http://www.wsws.org/en/media/photos/legacy/frontpage/201710appeal490.png] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Tue Nov 7 17:26:16 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2017 17:26:16 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: Call for Nominations for WILIG's Prominent Woman in Intl. Law Award extended to Nov 13 Message-ID: Ditto and pari passu for Killer Koh. fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Tuesday, November 7, 2017 11:23 AM To: 'mgomez at asil.org' ; 'membership at asil.org' Cc: sectns.aals at lists.aals.org Subject: Call for Nominations for WILIG's Prominent Woman in Intl. Law Award extended to Nov 13 Yes, I hereby nominate Anne-Marie Slaughtered for all the fine work she has done exterminating 50,000+ Muslims/Arabs/Africans of Color in Libya, destroying Libya as a State, drowning thousands of Refugees of Color in the Med, and turning Libya into Somalia on the Med. I also nominate Sam Our Problem from Hell Power for the exact same reasons. Finally I nominate Hillary Clinton for the exact same reasons: “We came! We Saw! He died!” All three of these Women International Lawyers will fit right in there getting honored by the American Society of Imperial Law. How about if you make it a Trifecta for all three of them? They can get together once again and laugh hysterically about murdering Ghadafy in front of the American Society of Imperial Law Convention at the Awards Ceremony. Based upon prior ASImL Convention experiences, I know everyone there will chuckle it up too. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Matthew Gomez [mailto:mgomez at asil.org] Sent: Tuesday, November 7, 2017 11:00 AM To: Boyle, Francis A > Subject: Call for Nominations for WILIG's Prominent Woman in Intl. Law Award extended to Nov 13 Dear WILIG: Thanks to those of you who have already submitted nominations for the Prominent Women in International Law Award. We have extended the nominations deadline until Monday, Nov. 13 -- please consider the criteria below and submit your nominations. Thank you, Shana Tabak and Tracy Roosevelt The Women in International Law Interest Group of ASIL invites nominations for the Prominent Women in International Law Award. 2018 marks the 25th year that the award is being given, and in honor of this milestone, WILIG has determined to formalize the nomination process through this call for nominees. Please circulate the attached call for nominations widely. The WILIG Prominent Women in International Law Award honors those who have advanced women, gender, and women’s rights in international law. The diverse accomplishments of previous awardees demonstrate the multiple ways in which honorees achieve this feat. Awardees have included: Justices on the ICJ and International Criminal Tribunals, founders of women’s rights NGOs, business leaders, government officials, and scholars. Some of these women have broken glass ceilings in the field, while others have worked tirelessly to promote women and women’s voices in international law, and still others contribute substantively to advancing, researching, or advocating for women’s rights. Please submit letters of nomination for a Prominent Woman in International Law who meets some or all of the following criteria: • Employs international law to advance women and women’s rights--awardees need not be attorneys, though most are; • Breaks through glass ceilings for women in international law; • Promotes women and women’s voices in the field; • Contributes substantively to advancing, researching, advocating for, or promoting women’s rights and/or gender justice; • Is considered prominent in the field of international law – or whose accomplishments merit further recognition through this prestigious award. Letters of nomination should be addressed to WILIG’s Co-Chairs, Tracy Roosevelt and Shana Tabak, and should be submitted by November 13, 2017 to membership at asil.org. Any supporting documentation in addition to the nomination letter is welcome; please submit all information in one PDF document titled with the nominee’s name and “PWIL Award.” [https://online.asil.org/asilssa/ecmssamsganalytics.email_opened?p_mail_id=E109162A4243386B1] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Tue Nov 7 17:26:16 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2017 17:26:16 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: Call for Nominations for WILIG's Prominent Woman in Intl. Law Award extended to Nov 13 Message-ID: Ditto and pari passu for Killer Koh. fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Tuesday, November 7, 2017 11:23 AM To: 'mgomez at asil.org' ; 'membership at asil.org' Cc: sectns.aals at lists.aals.org Subject: Call for Nominations for WILIG's Prominent Woman in Intl. Law Award extended to Nov 13 Yes, I hereby nominate Anne-Marie Slaughtered for all the fine work she has done exterminating 50,000+ Muslims/Arabs/Africans of Color in Libya, destroying Libya as a State, drowning thousands of Refugees of Color in the Med, and turning Libya into Somalia on the Med. I also nominate Sam Our Problem from Hell Power for the exact same reasons. Finally I nominate Hillary Clinton for the exact same reasons: “We came! We Saw! He died!” All three of these Women International Lawyers will fit right in there getting honored by the American Society of Imperial Law. How about if you make it a Trifecta for all three of them? They can get together once again and laugh hysterically about murdering Ghadafy in front of the American Society of Imperial Law Convention at the Awards Ceremony. Based upon prior ASImL Convention experiences, I know everyone there will chuckle it up too. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Matthew Gomez [mailto:mgomez at asil.org] Sent: Tuesday, November 7, 2017 11:00 AM To: Boyle, Francis A > Subject: Call for Nominations for WILIG's Prominent Woman in Intl. Law Award extended to Nov 13 Dear WILIG: Thanks to those of you who have already submitted nominations for the Prominent Women in International Law Award. We have extended the nominations deadline until Monday, Nov. 13 -- please consider the criteria below and submit your nominations. Thank you, Shana Tabak and Tracy Roosevelt The Women in International Law Interest Group of ASIL invites nominations for the Prominent Women in International Law Award. 2018 marks the 25th year that the award is being given, and in honor of this milestone, WILIG has determined to formalize the nomination process through this call for nominees. Please circulate the attached call for nominations widely. The WILIG Prominent Women in International Law Award honors those who have advanced women, gender, and women’s rights in international law. The diverse accomplishments of previous awardees demonstrate the multiple ways in which honorees achieve this feat. Awardees have included: Justices on the ICJ and International Criminal Tribunals, founders of women’s rights NGOs, business leaders, government officials, and scholars. Some of these women have broken glass ceilings in the field, while others have worked tirelessly to promote women and women’s voices in international law, and still others contribute substantively to advancing, researching, or advocating for women’s rights. Please submit letters of nomination for a Prominent Woman in International Law who meets some or all of the following criteria: • Employs international law to advance women and women’s rights--awardees need not be attorneys, though most are; • Breaks through glass ceilings for women in international law; • Promotes women and women’s voices in the field; • Contributes substantively to advancing, researching, advocating for, or promoting women’s rights and/or gender justice; • Is considered prominent in the field of international law – or whose accomplishments merit further recognition through this prestigious award. Letters of nomination should be addressed to WILIG’s Co-Chairs, Tracy Roosevelt and Shana Tabak, and should be submitted by November 13, 2017 to membership at asil.org. Any supporting documentation in addition to the nomination letter is welcome; please submit all information in one PDF document titled with the nominee’s name and “PWIL Award.” [https://online.asil.org/asilssa/ecmssamsganalytics.email_opened?p_mail_id=E109162A4243386B1] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Tue Nov 7 20:18:10 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2017 20:18:10 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Col. Larry Wilkerson: Most of Congress "Likes War".... Message-ID: ________________________________ November 7, 2017 Most of Congress 'Likes War' and Opposes Ending US Support for Saudi War in Yemen Several members of Congress have introduced legislation to invoke the War Powers Act with an aim to shut down US support for Saudi Arabia's war in Yemen, but the resolution will not pass because the vast majority in Congress doesn't oppose war explains Col. Larry Wilkerson Distinguished Adjunct Professor of Government and Public Policy Lawrence Wilkerson's last positions in government were as Secretary of State Colin Powell's Chief of Staff (2002-05), Associate Director of the State Department's Policy Planning staff under the directorship of Ambassador Richard N. Haass, and member of that staff responsible for East Asia and the Pacific, political-military and legislative affairs (2001-02). Before serving at the State Department, Wilkerson served 31 years in the U.S. Army. During that time, he was a member of the faculty of the U.S. Naval War College (1987 to 1989), Special Assistant to General Powell when he was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (1989-93), and Director and Deputy Director of the U.S. Marine Corps War College at Quantico, Virginia (1993-97). Wilkerson retired from active service in 1997 as a colonel, and began work as an advisor to General Powell. He has also taught national security affairs in the Honors Program at the George Washington University. He is currently working on a book about the first George W. Bush administration. ________________________________ transcript [Most of Congress 'Likes War' and Opposes Ending US Support for Saudi War in Yemen]SHARMINI PERIES: It's the Real News Network. I'm Sharmini Peries coming to you from Baltimore. In October, Representative Ro Khanna, Democrat from California, Thomas Massie, Republican from Kentucky, Mark Pocan, Democrat from Wisconsin and Walter Jones, Republican from North Carolina introduced a bipartisan resolution to stop the U.S. military assistance to Saudi Arabia in its war against the Houthis in Yemen. This bill has the support of 34 other lawmakers who are willing to invoke the War Powers Act, where Congress can swiftly terminate the U.S. military assistance for Saudi Arabia's war in Yemen. But some congressional representatives on both sides of the House are reluctant to do so and to end the war that the UN says is the worst humanitarian disaster of the 21st century. The UN is expressing concern at the Saudi led coalition's closing of two airports, seaports, and land crossings in Yemen, warning that this may hamper the delivery of vitally needed humanitarian aid to the Yemeni people where 14.5 million are cut off from access to clean water and sanitation. There are some 200,000 people suffering from cholera outbreak and over 1,300 of them have already died where a quarter of them were children. Who in Congress might be objecting to stopping this war and why? Let's find out from Colonel Larry Wilkerson. Larry is a retired U.S. colonel and former chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell, now a distinguished professor at the College of William and Mary. Larry, good to have you with us. LARRY WILKERSON Good to be with you, Sharmini. SHARMINI PERIES: Larry, you've been on the Hill working on this effort. Why don't you tell us about the debates that's going on and the debate that's not going on. From what I understand, the bill will pass on but no debate will be taking place in the House, but mostly who is reluctant to pass this bill? LARRY WILKERSON: I think probably Democrats and Republicans alike, so caught up in the war machine that this country has become, are guilty, guilty as charged. What you have with Walt Jones from North Carolina is a pariah Republican from the very start. What you have with Ro Khanna, and with Mark Pocan and with Tom Massie from Kentucky, Republicans and Democrats, and the co-sponsors are those within the Congress who have the moral courage and the understanding of U.S. history and the U.S. Constitution sufficient to apply it to what is U.S. Code Title 50, Chapter 33, sections 1541 to 48, as I recall, which codifies the War Powers Resolution. Now,a little history there, that's the resolution Congress passed to reassert its constitutional powers over the war power when it grew very, very tired of the Vietnam conflict, and Richard Nixon, in particular, conduct of that conflict towards the end of it. They essentially told the president, "You've got to do this in order to wage war," abbreviating the Constitution, Article one, Section eight, a bit but nonetheless reaffirming it mostly. Nixon vetoed it, and then the Congress, very unusually, passed the legislation over Nixon's veto. Now they are up to the point where you can only find these iconoclastic members, these pariah members, these members who understand the Constitution, who understand our history and more than anything understand how dangerous is the war power to the very liberties of this republic. That's all you have left in the Congress who would, as you pointed out in your introduction, bring the United States' action to support Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates in waging this brutal, bloody war, which incidentally the Saudis and the UAE are losing. They're losing it. They don't, they're the only ones who want to do this and so this legislation is being fought by hook and crook by everyone from Mark Thornberry, the Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee who loves to have Raytheon and Lockheed Martin making lots of money off the weapons we're selling to Saudi Arabia, to Ed Royce, the Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee who ultimately has committee jurisdiction over the bill. They all want to stop it, because very frankly, Sharmini, they like war. SHARMINI PERIES: They like war. When the United Nations is putting out such warnings about the conditions of so many, 14.5 million people who are suffering from this war, the devastation is staring them in the face, there's so many children affected by this, what are their main motivations for not wanting to support this bill? LARRY WILKERSON They say, in the legislation that we could cite that Steny Hoyer and others have written as an alternative to our legislation, which is called House Continuing Resolution 81, invoking the War Powers and which should enjoy privileged status under the law and therefore have to go to the House for a vote and not be stoppable by a committee chairman. What they're doing is offering 599, which if you read all the whereases, and boy does it go ad nauseam into the whereases, "Whereas this, whereas this, whereas this," if you read it closely, what you see is, they're trying to excuse the Saudis for what they're doing. They know darn well that all those whereases in that other legislation, which recognize the nature of the humanitarian disaster, recognize the nature of the UN recognition of the government supposedly the Saudis are trying to defend, recognize the fact that Iran is participating and so forth. Of course, they don't point out that Iran wasn't even in Yemen until the Saudis attacked, that Iran wasn't doing anything until the Saudis attacked. All of this legislation that Hoyer and others have put together, and Hoyer by the way, is a Democrat, of course, from Maryland, is just a subterfuge, an obfuscation of the true issue, which is, the Saudis are fighting a brutal, bloody war. They're killing lots of people. By the indirection of their actions, they're killing potentially half a billion people over time. The greatest humanitarian tragedy since World War II. They're bombing sewage and water plants. They're bombing food sources and so forth, and all this to support a government that I think the UN would probably like to retract its vote on in terms of being the legitimate government of Yemen. It is, a piece of this 599 is a piece of legislation that shows just how many ends these folks will go to in order to justify what is truly a brutal war in which the United States is participating. On top of that, the U.S. participation is causing Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, one of the most dangerous terrorist groups with a global capability, to grow, to actually harden and grow in its membership and in its actions. At the same time, we're trying to stop that group under a legitimate AUMF, the one passed after 9/11, in Yemen with Special Operating Forces. We want to separate those two actions. The Special Operating Forces going after Al-Qaeda in Yemen are operating under the original Authorization for the Use of Military Force and therefore are legitimate. This support to the Saudi-UAE effort to wage this war in Yemen, though, is not legitimate. It's illegal. It was started by the Obama administration and continued and emphasized by the Trump administration. It's illegal. It's brutal. It's being lost by Saudi Arabia. You saw the architect of the war, Mohammad Bin Salman effecting something we haven't seen since the formation of the House of Saud, recently, the last few days. He actually got rid of 11 princes. He's getting rid of a lot of business leaders and so forth. I think this is a sign of the instability of the Saud regime under MBS's leadership, and it's going to be interesting to see how this develops, because this is his war. He started it. There's no defense. It's a brutal, bloody war, as I pointed out. It's a major humanitarian disaster, and the United States has no business participating in it. It's that clear. It's that simple. SHARMINI PERIES: Right. Larry, give us a sense of what they're telling you when you're on the Hill about this unconditional support for Saudi Arabia's war. LARRY WILKERSON: You'd be amazed, Sharmini. I have gotten answers from staffers and members that range the gamut from, "Well, this is just a niche issue." That's a direct quote. "This is just a niche issue." My response, of course, was, "500,000 people dying is a niche issue?" Well, not a lot, and get them a little off guard with that kind of response, to a response such as this, "Well, I always go with my committee chairman." That is, the committee of jurisdiction. "So, if Ed Royce is going to go against this, I've got to go against it, too." This is the war power. This is your nation using bombs, bullets and bayonets to kill the citizens of other nations and, oh, by the way, put its own men and women in harm's way too. This is the war power. This is the ultimate power, and you bow to your committee of jurisdiction? Come on, Mr. Congressman. You can do better than that. To an answer like this one that I got, "Well, Iran's there." My response, "Iran wasn't there until the Saudi-UAE coalition attacked and we supported them." "Well, Iran is there now, so we've got to fight them. The Saudis are doing our dirty business for us." Why do we have to fight Iran in Yemen? What is it that Iran is doing in Yemen that's destabilizing, and destabilizing in a way that threatens U.S. national security interest? "Well, Iran always does that." Are you kidding me, Congressman? Can't you think more critically than that? Can't you think more analytically than that? Iran is not always going against U.S. interest. Iran, in this case, is going against U.S. interest, if they are, because we are supporting the Saudi coalition that's waging this brutal war. You just wouldn't believe it, Sharmini. The first reaction I have is that they don't know what they're talking about. The second reaction I have is that they're venal, they're cruel, they're brutal. The third reaction I have is, they're ignorant, they're just not willing to look at the issues. And the fourth reaction I have is that they're in obeisance to the military-industrial complex, which, if you'll look at the contribution charts, does, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Boeing and so forth does contribute a heck of a lot of money to these people's campaigns. And so with a little war like this, what's a little war as long as it maintains me in power? SHARMINI PERIES: Only the lives of hundreds of thousands of children. LARRY WILKERSON: Yes. Yes, and just, I mean, when you've got a situation where, for example, you bomb cranes at the only port where you really can offload the food and clean water to save people's lives and you, the United States, recognizing these cranes have been bombed and that the water and the food can't be off-lifted until the cranes are replaced then provide the cranes out of the goodness of your heart, I hope to replace them, only to have the cranes not able to be off-loaded and reinstalled because of Saudi-UAE bombing. Bombing which you're supporting with refueling tankers, with targeting intelligence and so forth. This is not just nonsense, though. It's brutal. Brutal nonsense. SHARMINI PERIES: Larry, thank you for your relentless work on the Hill and I wish you more success. Thank you. LARRY WILKERSON: Thank you, Sharmini. SHARMINI PERIES: And thank you for joining us here on The Real News Network. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davegreen84 at yahoo.com Wed Nov 8 01:03:34 2017 From: davegreen84 at yahoo.com (David Green) Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2017 01:03:34 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Peace-discuss] Domestic violence References: <1123935492.4327726.1510103014210.ref@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1123935492.4327726.1510103014210@mail.yahoo.com> Given recent events, I feel the need to post a more academic/legal perspective on domestic violence, so as to avoid the conflation of distinct issues--obviously regarding the relationship between domestic violence and mass shootings. This summary was provided to me a year ago May, subsequent to the murder of my former colleague Jessica Thomas by her husband, who has since been convicted. It was provided by my friend and local community member, Robert Ferrer, an IT specialist who has worked on legal issues related to parental rights. It is distributed with his permission: Scholars in this field have identified a typology (Michael P.Johnson).  The situation with Jessica (of blessed memory) is classified asIntimate Terrorism.  This iswhere the partner from a basis of misguided male privilege controls and abuseshis/her spouse in the most extreme way.  Only a tiny percentage of thepopulation would be classified as such.  The overwhelming category isknown as Situational Couple Violence. In this scenario we are dealing not with the desire for control but aninability to engage in effective conflict resolution.  It tends to spiralout of control.  Both partners are equally involved.  The appropriateintervention is couple counseling and conflict resolution classes.  Theonly intervention that the court mandates is known as the Duluth Model where itis assumed that the man is engaged in Intimate Terrorism.  All men aremandated to this model, hence the reason for its abysmal failure.  Themodel does not apply to most men mandated to this intervention. Most issues that impute domestic violence (especially those thatoccur at the time of divorce) are handled is Civil Court where the standard ofproof is the lowest.  The court (under pressure) maintains a ‘better safethan sorry’ attitude and therefore issues Orders of Protection like there werecandy.  No proof is needed.  The accuser only needs to soundcredible.  The standard of proof (Preponderance of Evidence) only requiresthe court be 51% correct.  In civil court, the normal due processprotections guaranteed by the Constitution do not apply.  Famous NJ case,Crespo v. Crespo, the court applied the US Supreme Court Mathews Decision todetermine the appropriate standard of proof to adjudicate such cases. They concluded that it should be the more stringent Clear and Convincingstandard.  It was quickly overturned by the higher court.  That iswhy local attorney, Scott Lerner, writing for the ISBA Journal said the OPs aremore used as a sword rather than as a shield.  As a sword, the issuance ofan OP to the father, for example, not only deprive him of his home but alsoaccess to his children (OPs can include the children as well as thespouse).  This automatically gives the spouse a strategic advantage ingetting full custody (the defendant is automatically denied custody) andseverely limit or terminate contact with his children. We do not make distinctions and throw everything into one basket.   -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Wed Nov 8 18:48:51 2017 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2017 12:48:51 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Prominent Iraq/Iran warmonger Eliot Cohen speaking at UIUC November 9, 2017 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <922A7B99-2F89-44C4-B20E-D0D052AF154A@gmail.com> Oh, we’re responsible for only perhaps 40,000 corpses in that war. That’s ok then. > On Nov 5, 2017, at 4:50 AM, Roger Helbig via Peace-discuss wrote: > > There you go - exterminate 200,000 Iraqis - US never did that and you know it. Why spread lies - does it make you feel big? > > > > On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 2:09 PM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: > And speaking of ACDIS and Kolodziej and the wars against Iraq and warmongering and NeoCons, Kolodziej tried to blackball me off of the All University Forum held in Foelinger Auditorium on the eve of Bush Sr’s War against Iraq in mid-January of 1991. Meanwhile Kolodziej had flown in the NeoCon Warmonger Geoff Kemp to argue in favor of the war that would exterminate about 200,000 Iraqis. Bombs away once again at the warmongering University of Illinois! > > Fab. > > From fboyle at illinois.edu Wed Nov 8 18:51:51 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2017 18:51:51 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Prominent Iraq/Iran warmonger Eliot Cohen speaking at UIUC November 9, 2017 In-Reply-To: <922A7B99-2F89-44C4-B20E-D0D052AF154A@gmail.com> References: <922A7B99-2F89-44C4-B20E-D0D052AF154A@gmail.com> Message-ID: That 200,000 figure comes from the International War Crimes Commission Investigation conducted by Ramsey Clark. See his The Fire This Time. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -----Original Message----- From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 8, 2017 12:49 PM To: Roger Helbig Cc: Boyle, Francis A ; Peace-discuss Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Prominent Iraq/Iran warmonger Eliot Cohen speaking at UIUC November 9, 2017 Oh, we’re responsible for only perhaps 40,000 corpses in that war. That’s ok then. > On Nov 5, 2017, at 4:50 AM, Roger Helbig via Peace-discuss wrote: > > There you go - exterminate 200,000 Iraqis - US never did that and you know it. Why spread lies - does it make you feel big? > > > > On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 2:09 PM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: > And speaking of ACDIS and Kolodziej and the wars against Iraq and warmongering and NeoCons, Kolodziej tried to blackball me off of the All University Forum held in Foelinger Auditorium on the eve of Bush Sr’s War against Iraq in mid-January of 1991. Meanwhile Kolodziej had flown in the NeoCon Warmonger Geoff Kemp to argue in favor of the war that would exterminate about 200,000 Iraqis. Bombs away once again at the warmongering University of Illinois! > > Fab. > > From fboyle at illinois.edu Wed Nov 8 18:55:48 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2017 18:55:48 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Prominent Iraq/Iran warmonger Eliot Cohen speaking at UIUC November 9, 2017 References: <922A7B99-2F89-44C4-B20E-D0D052AF154A@gmail.com> Message-ID: I don’t have time to review that book and the Commission Report. But if I remember correctly the figure was about 100,000 civilians and 100,000 military, including about 25,000 dead from the bombing campaign of Iraqi Cities which the Air Force General in Charge of {Horner?} said would be modelled upon the bombing campaign of Dresden. fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -----Original Message----- From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Wednesday, November 8, 2017 12:52 PM To: 'C G Estabrook' Cc: Peace-discuss Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Prominent Iraq/Iran warmonger Eliot Cohen speaking at UIUC November 9, 2017 That 200,000 figure comes from the International War Crimes Commission Investigation conducted by Ramsey Clark. See his The Fire This Time. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -----Original Message----- From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 8, 2017 12:49 PM To: Roger Helbig Cc: Boyle, Francis A ; Peace-discuss Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Prominent Iraq/Iran warmonger Eliot Cohen speaking at UIUC November 9, 2017 Oh, we’re responsible for only perhaps 40,000 corpses in that war. That’s ok then. > On Nov 5, 2017, at 4:50 AM, Roger Helbig via Peace-discuss wrote: > > There you go - exterminate 200,000 Iraqis - US never did that and you know it. Why spread lies - does it make you feel big? > > > > On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 2:09 PM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: > And speaking of ACDIS and Kolodziej and the wars against Iraq and warmongering and NeoCons, Kolodziej tried to blackball me off of the All University Forum held in Foelinger Auditorium on the eve of Bush Sr’s War against Iraq in mid-January of 1991. Meanwhile Kolodziej had flown in the NeoCon Warmonger Geoff Kemp to argue in favor of the war that would exterminate about 200,000 Iraqis. Bombs away once again at the warmongering University of Illinois! > > Fab. > > From naiman at justforeignpolicy.org Wed Nov 8 21:06:57 2017 From: naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (Robert Naiman) Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2017 15:06:57 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Prominent Iraq/Iran warmonger Eliot Cohen speaking at UIUC November 9, 2017 In-Reply-To: <922A7B99-2F89-44C4-B20E-D0D052AF154A@gmail.com> References: <922A7B99-2F89-44C4-B20E-D0D052AF154A@gmail.com> Message-ID: What the hell. I'm with Carl on this. Come on. If you are on a list called "peace" in the United States, your top obligation and responsibility in the world is the contribution of the United States government to not-peace. If you can't deal with that obligation and responsibility, you should shut the hell up. Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 Co-Sponsor Khanna-Massie to #StopSaudiFamineInYemen https://petitions.moveon.org/sign/force-vote-on-saudi-war?r_by=1135580 On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 12:48 PM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss < peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > Oh, we’re responsible for only perhaps 40,000 corpses in that war. That’s > ok then. > > > > On Nov 5, 2017, at 4:50 AM, Roger Helbig via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > > > > There you go - exterminate 200,000 Iraqis - US never did that and you > know it. Why spread lies - does it make you feel big? > > > > > > > > On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 2:09 PM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > > And speaking of ACDIS and Kolodziej and the wars against Iraq and > warmongering and NeoCons, Kolodziej tried to blackball me off of the All > University Forum held in Foelinger Auditorium on the eve of Bush Sr’s War > against Iraq in mid-January of 1991. Meanwhile Kolodziej had flown in the > NeoCon Warmonger Geoff Kemp to argue in favor of the war that would > exterminate about 200,000 Iraqis. Bombs away once again at the > warmongering University of Illinois! > > > > Fab. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Wed Nov 8 21:22:27 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2017 21:22:27 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Prominent Iraq/Iran warmonger Eliot Cohen speaking at UIUC November 9, 2017 In-Reply-To: References: <922A7B99-2F89-44C4-B20E-D0D052AF154A@gmail.com> Message-ID: As I said before, based upon prior experience, Roger is a Mole for US Military Intelligence whose assigned task is to disrupt Peace Lists. Fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: naiman.uiuc at gmail.com [mailto:naiman.uiuc at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Robert Naiman Sent: Wednesday, November 8, 2017 3:07 PM To: C G Estabrook Cc: Roger Helbig ; Boyle, Francis A ; Peace-discuss Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Prominent Iraq/Iran warmonger Eliot Cohen speaking at UIUC November 9, 2017 What the hell. I'm with Carl on this. Come on. If you are on a list called "peace" in the United States, your top obligation and responsibility in the world is the contribution of the United States government to not-peace. If you can't deal with that obligation and responsibility, you should shut the hell up. Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 Co-Sponsor Khanna-Massie to #StopSaudiFamineInYemen https://petitions.moveon.org/sign/force-vote-on-saudi-war?r_by=1135580 On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 12:48 PM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss > wrote: Oh, we’re responsible for only perhaps 40,000 corpses in that war. That’s ok then. > On Nov 5, 2017, at 4:50 AM, Roger Helbig via Peace-discuss > wrote: > > There you go - exterminate 200,000 Iraqis - US never did that and you know it. Why spread lies - does it make you feel big? > > > > On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 2:09 PM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss > wrote: > And speaking of ACDIS and Kolodziej and the wars against Iraq and warmongering and NeoCons, Kolodziej tried to blackball me off of the All University Forum held in Foelinger Auditorium on the eve of Bush Sr’s War against Iraq in mid-January of 1991. Meanwhile Kolodziej had flown in the NeoCon Warmonger Geoff Kemp to argue in favor of the war that would exterminate about 200,000 Iraqis. Bombs away once again at the warmongering University of Illinois! > > Fab. > > _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Wed Nov 8 22:29:00 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2017 22:29:00 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Prominent Iraq/Iran warmonger Eliot Cohen speaking at UIUC November 9, 2017 In-Reply-To: References: <922A7B99-2F89-44C4-B20E-D0D052AF154A@gmail.com> Message-ID: I’m with Carl, Francis and Robert. What is Roger doing on this “Peace Discuss List” always supporting, or excusing USG wars. We should only be signing up those interested in ”peace.” We have enough discord between those of us who don’t support USG wars, to keep our audience either entertained or irritated. On Nov 8, 2017, at 13:06, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss > wrote: What the hell. I'm with Carl on this. Come on. If you are on a list called "peace" in the United States, your top obligation and responsibility in the world is the contribution of the United States government to not-peace. If you can't deal with that obligation and responsibility, you should shut the hell up. Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 Co-Sponsor Khanna-Massie to #StopSaudiFamineInYemen https://petitions.moveon.org/sign/force-vote-on-saudi-war?r_by=1135580 On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 12:48 PM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss > wrote: Oh, we’re responsible for only perhaps 40,000 corpses in that war. That’s ok then. > On Nov 5, 2017, at 4:50 AM, Roger Helbig via Peace-discuss > wrote: > > There you go - exterminate 200,000 Iraqis - US never did that and you know it. Why spread lies - does it make you feel big? > > > > On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 2:09 PM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss > wrote: > And speaking of ACDIS and Kolodziej and the wars against Iraq and warmongering and NeoCons, Kolodziej tried to blackball me off of the All University Forum held in Foelinger Auditorium on the eve of Bush Sr’s War against Iraq in mid-January of 1991. Meanwhile Kolodziej had flown in the NeoCon Warmonger Geoff Kemp to argue in favor of the war that would exterminate about 200,000 Iraqis. Bombs away once again at the warmongering University of Illinois! > > Fab. > > _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.chambana.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fpeace-discuss&data=02%7C01%7Ckarenaram%40hotmail.com%7C593dc102758d47e90c4a08d526ecb4e8%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636457720443040254&sdata=ro0M2UbVDhKql8b10zxMZgIfWt9cInQBCl0fKIwqkII%3D&reserved=0 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From galliher at illinois.edu Wed Nov 8 22:44:45 2017 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2017 16:44:45 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Prominent Iraq/Iran warmonger Eliot Cohen speaking at UIUC November 9, 2017 In-Reply-To: References: <922A7B99-2F89-44C4-B20E-D0D052AF154A@gmail.com> Message-ID: <41F169D6-D2EE-489A-A122-F3B9C26C87B5@illinois.edu> Roger is here as an 'advocatus diaboli,’ the Devil’s advocate, an apologist for evil - and should be welcomed as such, in order that we recognize the evil and refute it. Like Owen Glendower (in Henry IV, 1), he can call spirits from the vasty deep, and we should take Hotspur’s advice in responding: GLENDOWER I can call spirits from the vasty deep. HOTSPUR Why, so can I, or so can any man, But will they come when you do call for them? GLENDOWER Why, I can teach you, cousin, to command the devil. HOTSPUR And I can teach thee, coz, to shame the devil By telling truth. Tell truth and shame the devil. If thou have power to raise him, bring him hither, And I’ll be sworn I have power to shame him hence. O, while you live, tell truth and shame the devil! —CGE > On Nov 8, 2017, at 4:29 PM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: > > I’m with Carl, Francis and Robert. > > What is Roger doing on this “Peace Discuss List” always supporting, or excusing USG wars. > We should only be signing up those interested in ”peace.” > We have enough discord between those of us who don’t support USG wars, to keep our audience either entertained or irritated. > > >> On Nov 8, 2017, at 13:06, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss wrote: >> >> What the hell. I'm with Carl on this. Come on. If you are on a list called "peace" in the United States, your top obligation and responsibility in the world is the contribution of the United States government to not-peace. If you can't deal with that obligation and responsibility, you should shut the hell up. >> >> >> >> Robert Naiman >> Policy Director >> Just Foreign Policy >> www.justforeignpolicy.org >> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org >> (202) 448-2898 x1 >> >> Co-Sponsor Khanna-Massie to #StopSaudiFamineInYemen >> https://petitions.moveon.org/sign/force-vote-on-saudi-war?r_by=1135580 >> >> >> >> On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 12:48 PM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: >> Oh, we’re responsible for only perhaps 40,000 corpses in that war. That’s ok then. >> >> >> > On Nov 5, 2017, at 4:50 AM, Roger Helbig via Peace-discuss wrote: >> > >> > There you go - exterminate 200,000 Iraqis - US never did that and you know it. Why spread lies - does it make you feel big? >> > >> > >> > >> > On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 2:09 PM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: >> > And speaking of ACDIS and Kolodziej and the wars against Iraq and warmongering and NeoCons, Kolodziej tried to blackball me off of the All University Forum held in Foelinger Auditorium on the eve of Bush Sr’s War against Iraq in mid-January of 1991. Meanwhile Kolodziej had flown in the NeoCon Warmonger Geoff Kemp to argue in favor of the war that would exterminate about 200,000 Iraqis. Bombs away once again at the warmongering University of Illinois! >> > >> > Fab. >> > >> > >> ______ From stuartnlevy at gmail.com Wed Nov 8 23:01:23 2017 From: stuartnlevy at gmail.com (Stuart Levy) Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2017 17:01:23 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: [Peace] Prominent Iraq/Iran warmonger Eliot Cohen speaking at UIUC November 9, 2017 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20b81f50-57d2-f7f6-061d-a6bf90f69dbe@gmail.com> Is anyone available to go to this, happening tomorrow (Thurs.) at 7:30 at Alice Campbell Alumni Center? Some of us talked at last weekend's AWARE demo, and I didn't find anyone who was able to go on Thu.   Can you? Carl suggested an informational picket.  That sounds like a great idea. If I were there, I'd think to bring a sign saying:   "Cohen: You Supported Invading Iraq. // Why Should We Believe You Now?" -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: [Peace] Prominent Iraq/Iran warmonger Eliot Cohen speaking at UIUC November 9, 2017 Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2017 15:39:58 -0500 From: Robert Naiman via Peace Reply-To: Robert Naiman To: peace The Big Stick: Military Power and American Foreign Policy in the Age of Trump http://illinois.edu/calendar/detail/598?eventId=33283229 http://www.clinecenter.illinois.edu/news/events/cline/2017ClineSymposium/EliotCohen.aspx https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliot_A._Cohen [...] In 1997, Cohen co-founded the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), which was a center for prominent neoconservatives. He has been a member of the Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee, a committee of civilians and retired military officers that the U.S. Secretary of Defense may call upon for advice, that was instituted during the administration of President George W. Bush. He was put on the board after acquaintance Richard Perle put forward his name.[5] Cohen has referred to the War on Terrorism as “World War IV”.[6] In the run-up to the 2003 Invasion of Iraq, he was a member of Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, a group of prominent persons who pressed for an invasion. [...] [...] Cohen was one of the first neoconservatives to publicly advocate war against Iran and Iraq. In a November 2001 op-ed for The Wall Street Journal, Cohen identified what he called World War IV and advocated the overthrow of Iran's government as a possible next step for the Bush Administration. Cohen claimed "regime change" in Iran could be accomplished with a focus on "pro-Western and anticlerical forces" in the Middle East and suggested that such an action would be "wise, moral and unpopular (among some of our allies)". He went on to argue that such a policy was as important as the then identified goal of Osama Bin Laden's capture: "The overthrow of the first theocratic revolutionary Muslim state and its replacement by a moderate or secular government, however, would be no less important a victory in this war than the annihilation of bin Laden." [...] === Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 Co-Sponsor Khanna-Massie to #StopSaudiFamineInYemen https://petitions.moveon.org/sign/force-vote-on-saudi-war?r_by=1135580 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ Peace mailing list Peace at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace From fboyle at illinois.edu Wed Nov 8 23:06:21 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2017 23:06:21 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Fwd: Prominent Iraq/Iran warmonger Eliot Cohen speaking at UIUC November 9, 2017 In-Reply-To: <20b81f50-57d2-f7f6-061d-a6bf90f69dbe@gmail.com> References: <20b81f50-57d2-f7f6-061d-a6bf90f69dbe@gmail.com> Message-ID: Yeah, Stuart, he is a NeoCon warmongering liar and war propagandist. Sorry I cannot make it. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Peace [mailto:peace-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Stuart Levy via Peace Sent: Wednesday, November 8, 2017 5:01 PM To: Peace Subject: [Peace] Fwd: Prominent Iraq/Iran warmonger Eliot Cohen speaking at UIUC November 9, 2017 Is anyone available to go to this, happening tomorrow (Thurs.) at 7:30 at Alice Campbell Alumni Center? Some of us talked at last weekend's AWARE demo, and I didn't find anyone who was able to go on Thu. Can you? Carl suggested an informational picket. That sounds like a great idea. If I were there, I'd think to bring a sign saying: "Cohen: You Supported Invading Iraq. // Why Should We Believe You Now?" -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: [Peace] Prominent Iraq/Iran warmonger Eliot Cohen speaking at UIUC November 9, 2017 Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2017 15:39:58 -0500 From: Robert Naiman via Peace Reply-To: Robert Naiman To: peace The Big Stick: Military Power and American Foreign Policy in the Age of Trump http://illinois.edu/calendar/detail/598?eventId=33283229 http://www.clinecenter.illinois.edu/news/events/cline/2017ClineSymposium/EliotCohen.aspx https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliot_A._Cohen [...] In 1997, Cohen co-founded the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), which was a center for prominent neoconservatives. He has been a member of the Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee, a committee of civilians and retired military officers that the U.S. Secretary of Defense may call upon for advice, that was instituted during the administration of President George W. Bush. He was put on the board after acquaintance Richard Perle put forward his name.[5] Cohen has referred to the War on Terrorism as “World War IV”.[6] In the run-up to the 2003 Invasion of Iraq, he was a member of Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, a group of prominent persons who pressed for an invasion. [...] [...] Cohen was one of the first neoconservatives to publicly advocate war against Iran and Iraq. In a November 2001 op-ed for The Wall Street Journal, Cohen identified what he called World War IV and advocated the overthrow of Iran's government as a possible next step for the Bush Administration. Cohen claimed "regime change" in Iran could be accomplished with a focus on "pro-Western and anticlerical forces" in the Middle East and suggested that such an action would be "wise, moral and unpopular (among some of our allies)". He went on to argue that such a policy was as important as the then identified goal of Osama Bin Laden's capture: "The overthrow of the first theocratic revolutionary Muslim state and its replacement by a moderate or secular government, however, would be no less important a victory in this war than the annihilation of bin Laden." [...] === Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 Co-Sponsor Khanna-Massie to #StopSaudiFamineInYemen https://petitions.moveon.org/sign/force-vote-on-saudi-war?r_by=1135580 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Wed Nov 8 23:07:22 2017 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2017 17:07:22 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Prominent Iraq/Iran warmonger Eliot Cohen speaking at UIUC November 9, 2017 In-Reply-To: References: <922A7B99-2F89-44C4-B20E-D0D052AF154A@gmail.com> Message-ID: We should be prepared for mole-to-mole combat. (I’m surprised that Ron, AWARE’s resident Hegelian, hasn’t reminded us to traverse these buried Teutonic passages.) ======================== Shakespeare uses the “Old Mole” to represent the ghost of Hamlet’s father who keeps speaking from under the stage, despite Hamlet and Horatio shifting their ground, seeking a secret place to swear their oath. The ghost repeats, “Swear by his sword!” and Hamlet says, “Well said, old mole! Canst work i’ th’ earth so fast? A worthy pioner! Once more remove, good friends!” (Hamlet, 1.5). Hegel uses the ghost of Hamlet's father, a.k.a. Old Mole, as a metaphor for Spirit in 'Philosophy of History.' Reviewing the entirety of history up to the present, he says, “All this time was required to produce the philosophy of our day; so tardily and slowly did the World-spirit work to reach this goal. What we pass in rapid review when we recall it, stretched itself out in reality to this great length of time. For in this lengthened period, the Notion of Spirit, invested with its entire concrete development, its external subsistence, its wealth, is striving to bring spirit to perfection, to make progress itself and to develop from spirit. It goes ever on and on, because spirit is progress alone. Spirit often seems to have forgotten and lost itself, but inwardly opposed to itself, it is inwardly working ever forward (as when Hamlet says of the ghost of his father, “Well said, old mole! canst work i’ the ground so fast?”) until grown strong in itself it bursts asunder the crust of earth which divided it from the sun, its Notion, so that the earth crumbles away.” (Philosophy of History. Conclusion). In 'The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte,' Marx continues the metaphor: “But the revolution is thoroughgoing. It is still traveling through purgatory. It does its work methodically. By December 2, 1851, it had completed half of its preparatory work; now it is completing the other half. It first completed the parliamentary power in order to be able to overthrow it. Now that it has achieved this, it completes the executive power, reduces it to its purest expression, isolates it, sets it up against itself as the sole target, in order to concentrate all its forces of destruction against it. And when it has accomplished this second half of its preliminary work, Europe will leap from its seat and exult: Well burrowed, old mole!” (The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte, 7) Lenin cites this passage in 'State and Revolution,' to show how Marx took the State in historical context, rather than as some historically invariant formation. Rosa Luxemburg also uses the metaphor in Old Mole. ================ —CGE > On Nov 8, 2017, at 3:22 PM, Boyle, Francis A wrote: > > As I said before, based upon prior experience, Roger is a Mole for US Military Intelligence whose assigned task is to disrupt Peace Lists. > > Fab > > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign, IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) > > From: naiman.uiuc at gmail.com [mailto:naiman.uiuc at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Robert Naiman > Sent: Wednesday, November 8, 2017 3:07 PM > To: C G Estabrook > Cc: Roger Helbig ; Boyle, Francis A ; Peace-discuss > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Prominent Iraq/Iran warmonger Eliot Cohen speaking at UIUC November 9, 2017 > > What the hell. I'm with Carl on this. Come on. If you are on a list called "peace" in the United States, your top obligation and responsibility in the world is the contribution of the United States government to not-peace. If you can't deal with that obligation and responsibility, you should shut the hell up. > > > > Robert Naiman > Policy Director > Just Foreign Policy > www.justforeignpolicy.org > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > Co-Sponsor Khanna-Massie to #StopSaudiFamineInYemen > https://petitions.moveon.org/sign/force-vote-on-saudi-war?r_by=1135580 > > > > On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 12:48 PM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: > Oh, we’re responsible for only perhaps 40,000 corpses in that war. That’s ok then. > > > > On Nov 5, 2017, at 4:50 AM, Roger Helbig via Peace-discuss wrote: > > > > There you go - exterminate 200,000 Iraqis - US never did that and you know it. Why spread lies - does it make you feel big? > > > > > > > > On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 2:09 PM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: > > And speaking of ACDIS and Kolodziej and the wars against Iraq and warmongering and NeoCons, Kolodziej tried to blackball me off of the All University Forum held in Foelinger Auditorium on the eve of Bush Sr’s War against Iraq in mid-January of 1991. Meanwhile Kolodziej had flown in the NeoCon Warmonger Geoff Kemp to argue in favor of the war that would exterminate about 200,000 Iraqis. Bombs away once again at the warmongering University of Illinois! > > > > Fab. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss From fboyle at illinois.edu Wed Nov 8 23:11:56 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2017 23:11:56 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Prominent Iraq/Iran warmonger Eliot Cohen speaking at UIUC November 9, 2017 In-Reply-To: References: <922A7B99-2F89-44C4-B20E-D0D052AF154A@gmail.com> Message-ID: With all due respect Carl, we must not be wasting our precious time dealing with a Mole for Military Intelligence like Helbrig. That is precisely why he and other MI Moles like him Infiltrate Peace Lists. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -----Original Message----- From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 8, 2017 5:07 PM To: Boyle, Francis A Cc: Robert Naiman ; Peace-discuss Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Prominent Iraq/Iran warmonger Eliot Cohen speaking at UIUC November 9, 2017 We should be prepared for mole-to-mole combat. (I’m surprised that Ron, AWARE’s resident Hegelian, hasn’t reminded us to traverse these buried Teutonic passages.) ======================== Shakespeare uses the “Old Mole” to represent the ghost of Hamlet’s father who keeps speaking from under the stage, despite Hamlet and Horatio shifting their ground, seeking a secret place to swear their oath. The ghost repeats, “Swear by his sword!” and Hamlet says, “Well said, old mole! Canst work i’ th’ earth so fast? A worthy pioner! Once more remove, good friends!” (Hamlet, 1.5). Hegel uses the ghost of Hamlet's father, a.k.a. Old Mole, as a metaphor for Spirit in 'Philosophy of History.' Reviewing the entirety of history up to the present, he says, “All this time was required to produce the philosophy of our day; so tardily and slowly did the World-spirit work to reach this goal. What we pass in rapid review when we recall it, stretched itself out in reality to this great length of time. For in this lengthened period, the Notion of Spirit, invested with its entire concrete development, its external subsistence, its wealth, is striving to bring spirit to perfection, to make progress itself and to develop from spirit. It goes ever on and on, because spirit is progress alone. Spirit often seems to have forgotten and lost itself, but inwardly opposed to itself, it is inwardly working ever forward (as when Hamlet says of the ghost of his father, “Well said, old mole! canst work i’ the ground so fast?”) until grown strong in itself it bursts asunder the crust of earth which divided it from the sun, its Notion, so that the earth crumbles away.” (Philosophy of History. Conclusion). In 'The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte,' Marx continues the metaphor: “But the revolution is thoroughgoing. It is still traveling through purgatory. It does its work methodically. By December 2, 1851, it had completed half of its preparatory work; now it is completing the other half. It first completed the parliamentary power in order to be able to overthrow it. Now that it has achieved this, it completes the executive power, reduces it to its purest expression, isolates it, sets it up against itself as the sole target, in order to concentrate all its forces of destruction against it. And when it has accomplished this second half of its preliminary work, Europe will leap from its seat and exult: Well burrowed, old mole!” (The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte, 7) Lenin cites this passage in 'State and Revolution,' to show how Marx took the State in historical context, rather than as some historically invariant formation. Rosa Luxemburg also uses the metaphor in Old Mole. ================ —CGE > On Nov 8, 2017, at 3:22 PM, Boyle, Francis A wrote: > > As I said before, based upon prior experience, Roger is a Mole for US Military Intelligence whose assigned task is to disrupt Peace Lists. > > Fab > > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign, IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) > > From: naiman.uiuc at gmail.com [mailto:naiman.uiuc at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Robert Naiman > Sent: Wednesday, November 8, 2017 3:07 PM > To: C G Estabrook > Cc: Roger Helbig ; Boyle, Francis A ; Peace-discuss > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Prominent Iraq/Iran warmonger Eliot Cohen speaking at UIUC November 9, 2017 > > What the hell. I'm with Carl on this. Come on. If you are on a list called "peace" in the United States, your top obligation and responsibility in the world is the contribution of the United States government to not-peace. If you can't deal with that obligation and responsibility, you should shut the hell up. > > > > Robert Naiman > Policy Director > Just Foreign Policy > www.justforeignpolicy.org > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > Co-Sponsor Khanna-Massie to #StopSaudiFamineInYemen > https://petitions.moveon.org/sign/force-vote-on-saudi-war?r_by=1135580 > > > > On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 12:48 PM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: > Oh, we’re responsible for only perhaps 40,000 corpses in that war. That’s ok then. > > > > On Nov 5, 2017, at 4:50 AM, Roger Helbig via Peace-discuss wrote: > > > > There you go - exterminate 200,000 Iraqis - US never did that and you know it. Why spread lies - does it make you feel big? > > > > > > > > On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 2:09 PM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: > > And speaking of ACDIS and Kolodziej and the wars against Iraq and warmongering and NeoCons, Kolodziej tried to blackball me off of the All University Forum held in Foelinger Auditorium on the eve of Bush Sr’s War against Iraq in mid-January of 1991. Meanwhile Kolodziej had flown in the NeoCon Warmonger Geoff Kemp to argue in favor of the war that would exterminate about 200,000 Iraqis. Bombs away once again at the warmongering University of Illinois! > > > > Fab. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss From karenaram at hotmail.com Wed Nov 8 23:20:57 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2017 23:20:57 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Prominent Iraq/Iran warmonger Eliot Cohen speaking at UIUC November 9, 2017 In-Reply-To: References: <922A7B99-2F89-44C4-B20E-D0D052AF154A@gmail.com> Message-ID: And, dissuade those who we should be speaking with, from participation. > On Nov 8, 2017, at 15:11, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: > > With all due respect Carl, we must not be wasting our precious time dealing with a Mole for Military Intelligence like Helbrig. That is precisely why he and other MI Moles like him Infiltrate Peace Lists. Fab. > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign, IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) > > > -----Original Message----- > From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] > Sent: Wednesday, November 8, 2017 5:07 PM > To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: Robert Naiman ; Peace-discuss > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Prominent Iraq/Iran warmonger Eliot Cohen speaking at UIUC November 9, 2017 > > We should be prepared for mole-to-mole combat. (I’m surprised that Ron, AWARE’s resident Hegelian, hasn’t reminded us to traverse these buried Teutonic passages.) > > ======================== > Shakespeare uses the “Old Mole” to represent the ghost of Hamlet’s father who keeps speaking from under the stage, despite Hamlet and Horatio shifting their ground, seeking a secret place to swear their oath. The ghost repeats, “Swear by his sword!” and Hamlet says, “Well said, old mole! Canst work i’ th’ earth so fast? A worthy pioner! Once more remove, good friends!” (Hamlet, 1.5). > > Hegel uses the ghost of Hamlet's father, a.k.a. Old Mole, as a metaphor for Spirit in 'Philosophy of History.' Reviewing the entirety of history up to the present, he says, > > “All this time was required to produce the philosophy of our day; so tardily and slowly did the World-spirit work to reach this goal. What we pass in rapid review when we recall it, stretched itself out in reality to this great length of time. For in this lengthened period, the Notion of Spirit, invested with its entire concrete development, its external subsistence, its wealth, is striving to bring spirit to perfection, to make progress itself and to develop from spirit. It goes ever on and on, because spirit is progress alone. Spirit often seems to have forgotten and lost itself, but inwardly opposed to itself, it is inwardly working ever forward (as when Hamlet says of the ghost of his father, “Well said, old mole! canst work i’ the ground so fast?”) until grown strong in itself it bursts asunder the crust of earth which divided it from the sun, its Notion, so that the earth crumbles away.” (Philosophy of History. Conclusion). > > In 'The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte,' Marx continues the metaphor: > > “But the revolution is thoroughgoing. It is still traveling through purgatory. It does its work methodically. By December 2, 1851, it had completed half of its preparatory work; now it is completing the other half. It first completed the parliamentary power in order to be able to overthrow it. Now that it has achieved this, it completes the executive power, reduces it to its purest expression, isolates it, sets it up against itself as the sole target, in order to concentrate all its forces of destruction against it. And when it has accomplished this second half of its preliminary work, Europe will leap from its seat and exult: Well burrowed, old mole!” (The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte, 7) > > Lenin cites this passage in 'State and Revolution,' to show how Marx took the State in historical context, rather than as some historically invariant formation. Rosa Luxemburg also uses the metaphor in Old Mole. > ================ > > —CGE > > >> On Nov 8, 2017, at 3:22 PM, Boyle, Francis A wrote: >> >> As I said before, based upon prior experience, Roger is a Mole for US Military Intelligence whose assigned task is to disrupt Peace Lists. >> >> Fab >> >> >> Francis A. Boyle >> Law Building >> 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. >> Champaign, IL 61820 USA >> 217-333-7954 (phone) >> 217-244-1478 (fax) >> (personal comments only) >> >> From: naiman.uiuc at gmail.com [mailto:naiman.uiuc at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Robert Naiman >> Sent: Wednesday, November 8, 2017 3:07 PM >> To: C G Estabrook >> Cc: Roger Helbig ; Boyle, Francis A ; Peace-discuss >> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Prominent Iraq/Iran warmonger Eliot Cohen speaking at UIUC November 9, 2017 >> >> What the hell. I'm with Carl on this. Come on. If you are on a list called "peace" in the United States, your top obligation and responsibility in the world is the contribution of the United States government to not-peace. If you can't deal with that obligation and responsibility, you should shut the hell up. >> >> >> >> Robert Naiman >> Policy Director >> Just Foreign Policy >> https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.justforeignpolicy.org&data=02%7C01%7Ckarenaram%40hotmail.com%7Cd5475a60ebf4444d5f6e08d526fe2e14%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636457795493839328&sdata=3f%2FRXlhwP6F39g10%2F31npL%2BZU1BQi3Cww0O%2FjYGzMZw%3D&reserved=0 >> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org >> (202) 448-2898 x1 >> >> Co-Sponsor Khanna-Massie to #StopSaudiFamineInYemen >> https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpetitions.moveon.org%2Fsign%2Fforce-vote-on-saudi-war%3Fr_by%3D1135580&data=02%7C01%7Ckarenaram%40hotmail.com%7Cd5475a60ebf4444d5f6e08d526fe2e14%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636457795493995581&sdata=bBxXTl07lIxKW0pFGlsUYyDq0hgdHM7QEfRmOHHzE%2Bg%3D&reserved=0 >> >> >> >> On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 12:48 PM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: >> Oh, we’re responsible for only perhaps 40,000 corpses in that war. That’s ok then. >> >> >>> On Nov 5, 2017, at 4:50 AM, Roger Helbig via Peace-discuss wrote: >>> >>> There you go - exterminate 200,000 Iraqis - US never did that and you know it. Why spread lies - does it make you feel big? >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 2:09 PM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: >>> And speaking of ACDIS and Kolodziej and the wars against Iraq and warmongering and NeoCons, Kolodziej tried to blackball me off of the All University Forum held in Foelinger Auditorium on the eve of Bush Sr’s War against Iraq in mid-January of 1991. Meanwhile Kolodziej had flown in the NeoCon Warmonger Geoff Kemp to argue in favor of the war that would exterminate about 200,000 Iraqis. Bombs away once again at the warmongering University of Illinois! >>> >>> Fab. >>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> Peace-discuss mailing list >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >> https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.chambana.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fpeace-discuss&data=02%7C01%7Ckarenaram%40hotmail.com%7Cd5475a60ebf4444d5f6e08d526fe2e14%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636457795493995581&sdata=96rEp%2BElpYbRrvU2eDUqDo8b2giin1eHanD%2BehEPzFA%3D&reserved=0 > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.chambana.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fpeace-discuss&data=02%7C01%7Ckarenaram%40hotmail.com%7Cd5475a60ebf4444d5f6e08d526fe2e14%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636457795493995581&sdata=96rEp%2BElpYbRrvU2eDUqDo8b2giin1eHanD%2BehEPzFA%3D&reserved=0 From naiman at justforeignpolicy.org Wed Nov 8 23:35:23 2017 From: naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (Robert Naiman) Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2017 17:35:23 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: [Peace] Prominent Iraq/Iran warmonger Eliot Cohen speaking at UIUC November 9, 2017 In-Reply-To: <20b81f50-57d2-f7f6-061d-a6bf90f69dbe@gmail.com> References: <20b81f50-57d2-f7f6-061d-a6bf90f69dbe@gmail.com> Message-ID: I am willing to go, but I am not willing to go by myself. If three other people here will commit to go, then I will go. Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 Co-Sponsor Khanna-Massie to #StopSaudiFamineInYemen https://petitions.moveon.org/sign/force-vote-on-saudi-war?r_by=1135580 On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 5:01 PM, Stuart Levy via Peace-discuss < peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > Is anyone available to go to this, happening tomorrow (Thurs.) at 7:30 at > Alice Campbell Alumni Center? > > Some of us talked at last weekend's AWARE demo, and I didn't find anyone > who was able to go on Thu. Can you? > > Carl suggested an informational picket. That sounds like a great idea. > > If I were there, I'd think to bring a sign saying: > "Cohen: You Supported Invading Iraq. // Why Should We Believe You Now?" > > > > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > Subject: [Peace] Prominent Iraq/Iran warmonger Eliot Cohen speaking at > UIUC November 9, 2017 > Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2017 15:39:58 -0500 > From: Robert Naiman via Peace > > Reply-To: Robert Naiman > > To: peace > > > The Big Stick: Military Power and American Foreign Policy in the Age of > Trump > > http://illinois.edu/calendar/detail/598?eventId=33283229 > > http://www.clinecenter.illinois.edu/news/events/cline/2017ClineSymposium/ > EliotCohen.aspx > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliot_A._Cohen > > [...] > In 1997, Cohen co-founded the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), > which was a center for prominent neoconservatives. He has been a member of > the Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee, a committee of civilians and > retired military officers that the U.S. Secretary of Defense may call upon > for advice, that was instituted during the administration of President > George W. Bush. He was put on the board after acquaintance Richard Perle > put forward his name.[5] Cohen has referred to the War on Terrorism as > “World War IV”.[6] In the run-up to the 2003 Invasion of Iraq, he was a > member of Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, a group of prominent > persons who pressed for an invasion. > [...] > > [...] > Cohen was one of the first neoconservatives to publicly advocate war > against Iran and Iraq. In a November 2001 op-ed for The Wall Street > Journal, Cohen identified what he called World War IV and advocated the > overthrow of Iran's government as a possible next step for the Bush > Administration. Cohen claimed "regime change" in Iran could be accomplished > with a focus on "pro-Western and anticlerical forces" in the Middle East > and suggested that such an action would be "wise, moral and unpopular > (among some of our allies)". He went on to argue that such a policy was as > important as the then identified goal of Osama Bin Laden's capture: "The > overthrow of the first theocratic revolutionary Muslim state and its > replacement by a moderate or secular government, however, would be no less > important a victory in this war than the annihilation of bin Laden." > [...] > > === > > Robert Naiman > Policy Director > Just Foreign Policy > www.justforeignpolicy.org > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > Co-Sponsor Khanna-Massie to #StopSaudiFamineInYemen > https://petitions.moveon.org/sign/force-vote-on-saudi-war?r_by=1135580 > > > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Thu Nov 9 01:09:15 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2017 01:09:15 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Alternative to listening to Warmonger Elliot Cohen In-Reply-To: <3FFA4336-3F64-4450-B6B9-DA4904072F6B@gmail.com> References: <3FFA4336-3F64-4450-B6B9-DA4904072F6B@gmail.com> Message-ID: I hate going out after dark. Here maybe is what we should be attending. At 3:00pm Rm#314 in the illini Union tomorrow also is the Debate, with five scholars from various universities. NOV 9 Debating America’s Grand Strategic Alternatives Public · Hosted by Cline Center for Advanced Social Research Join us in Room 314 of the Illini Union for a public forum and expert roundtable. We will have five participants with more than a half-century of combined military and diplomatic experience hailing from the College of Law, and Departments of Political Science and Military Science (ROTC), and an invited lecturer from the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS). The discussion will feature competing perspectives on US foreign policy and grand strategy, including a wide range of opinions, ideas, and worldviews on questions like ‘can—and should—America police the world?’ ‘Can diplomatic cooperation or international law succeed where force fails?’ This event is free and open to the public. >> > From davegreen84 at yahoo.com Thu Nov 9 02:56:55 2017 From: davegreen84 at yahoo.com (David Green) Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2017 02:56:55 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Peace-discuss] Alternative to listening to Warmonger Elliot Cohen In-Reply-To: References: <3FFA4336-3F64-4450-B6B9-DA4904072F6B@gmail.com> Message-ID: <245390411.5159054.1510196215595@mail.yahoo.com> I don't know; obviously I've attended a lot of academic events over the years. But on the one hand I would worry about blood pressure issues, although not my own; on the other hand, it could ironically turn out to be a cure for insomnia. In any case, we need to have a community in which academic discourse of this nature does not set the agenda, unless there is a real opportunity for an organized civil response. For example, it's important that the Democratic candidates for Congress be called to account for the views on foreign policy. That means that their "progressive" supporters need to be called to account. Just my 2 cents, as Ricky Baldwin used to say and perhaps still does. DG On ‎Wednesday‎, ‎November‎ ‎8‎, ‎2017‎ ‎07‎:‎09‎:‎38‎ ‎PM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: I hate going out after dark. Here maybe is what we should be attending. At 3:00pm Rm#314 in the illini Union tomorrow also is the Debate, with five scholars from various universities. NOV 9 Debating America’s Grand Strategic Alternatives Public · Hosted by Cline Center for Advanced Social Research Join us in Room 314 of the Illini Union for a public forum and expert roundtable. We will have five participants with more than a half-century of combined military and diplomatic experience hailing from the College of Law, and Departments of Political Science and Military Science (ROTC), and an invited lecturer from the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS). The discussion will feature competing perspectives on US foreign policy and grand strategy, including a wide range of opinions, ideas, and worldviews on questions like ‘can—and should—America police the world?’ ‘Can diplomatic cooperation or international law succeed where force fails?’ This event is free and open to the public. >> > _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rwhelbig at gmail.com Thu Nov 9 09:52:55 2017 From: rwhelbig at gmail.com (Roger Helbig) Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2017 01:52:55 -0800 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Prominent Iraq/Iran warmonger Eliot Cohen speaking at UIUC November 9, 2017 In-Reply-To: References: <922A7B99-2F89-44C4-B20E-D0D052AF154A@gmail.com> Message-ID: So you actually have no facts or links to alleged facts to present - how like a lawyer who browbeats his opponents but has nothing to really back up the claims he makes. Rather doubt that then Lieutenant General Chuck Horner said his campaign was modeled after Dresden. Where is proof of that alleged quote. Former Attorney General Ramsey Clark, sadly, has not always had his facts in order either. His writings on Depleted Uranium were way off base. I have read them. Roger On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 10:55 AM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss < peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > I don’t have time to review that book and the Commission Report. But if I > remember correctly the figure was about 100,000 civilians and 100,000 > military, including about 25,000 dead from the bombing campaign of Iraqi > Cities which the Air Force General in Charge of {Horner?} said would be > modelled upon the bombing campaign of Dresden. fab > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign, IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Boyle, Francis A > Sent: Wednesday, November 8, 2017 12:52 PM > To: 'C G Estabrook' > Cc: Peace-discuss > Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Prominent Iraq/Iran warmonger Eliot > Cohen speaking at UIUC November 9, 2017 > > That 200,000 figure comes from the International War Crimes Commission > Investigation conducted by Ramsey Clark. See his The Fire This Time. Fab. > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign, IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) > > -----Original Message----- > From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] > Sent: Wednesday, November 8, 2017 12:49 PM > To: Roger Helbig > Cc: Boyle, Francis A ; Peace-discuss < > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Prominent Iraq/Iran warmonger Eliot > Cohen speaking at UIUC November 9, 2017 > > Oh, we’re responsible for only perhaps 40,000 corpses in that war. That’s > ok then. > > > > On Nov 5, 2017, at 4:50 AM, Roger Helbig via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > > > > There you go - exterminate 200,000 Iraqis - US never did that and you > know it. Why spread lies - does it make you feel big? > > > > > > > > On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 2:09 PM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > > And speaking of ACDIS and Kolodziej and the wars against Iraq and > warmongering and NeoCons, Kolodziej tried to blackball me off of the All > University Forum held in Foelinger Auditorium on the eve of Bush Sr’s War > against Iraq in mid-January of 1991. Meanwhile Kolodziej had flown in the > NeoCon Warmonger Geoff Kemp to argue in favor of the war that would > exterminate about 200,000 Iraqis. Bombs away once again at the > warmongering University of Illinois! > > > > Fab. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Thu Nov 9 12:09:26 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2017 12:09:26 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Prominent Iraq/Iran warmonger Eliot Cohen speaking at UIUC November 9, 2017 In-Reply-To: References: <922A7B99-2F89-44C4-B20E-D0D052AF154A@gmail.com> Message-ID: Yeah, Ramsey worked with Doug Rokke and me to help defend Phil Berrigan and the DU Plowshares. They started out facing 40 years. After a kangaroo court proceeding, they got 2. As I said you can read Ramsey’s book The Fire This Time that has all the findings of his International War Crimes Investigation into Bush Sr’s war against Iraq. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Roger Helbig [mailto:rwhelbig at gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2017 3:53 AM To: Boyle, Francis A ; Peace-discuss Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Prominent Iraq/Iran warmonger Eliot Cohen speaking at UIUC November 9, 2017 So you actually have no facts or links to alleged facts to present - how like a lawyer who browbeats his opponents but has nothing to really back up the claims he makes. Rather doubt that then Lieutenant General Chuck Horner said his campaign was modeled after Dresden. Where is proof of that alleged quote. Former Attorney General Ramsey Clark, sadly, has not always had his facts in order either. His writings on Depleted Uranium were way off base. I have read them. Roger On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 10:55 AM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss > wrote: I don’t have time to review that book and the Commission Report. But if I remember correctly the figure was about 100,000 civilians and 100,000 military, including about 25,000 dead from the bombing campaign of Iraqi Cities which the Air Force General in Charge of {Horner?} said would be modelled upon the bombing campaign of Dresden. fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -----Original Message----- From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Wednesday, November 8, 2017 12:52 PM To: 'C G Estabrook' > Cc: Peace-discuss > Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Prominent Iraq/Iran warmonger Eliot Cohen speaking at UIUC November 9, 2017 That 200,000 figure comes from the International War Crimes Commission Investigation conducted by Ramsey Clark. See his The Fire This Time. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -----Original Message----- From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 8, 2017 12:49 PM To: Roger Helbig > Cc: Boyle, Francis A >; Peace-discuss > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Prominent Iraq/Iran warmonger Eliot Cohen speaking at UIUC November 9, 2017 Oh, we’re responsible for only perhaps 40,000 corpses in that war. That’s ok then. > On Nov 5, 2017, at 4:50 AM, Roger Helbig via Peace-discuss > wrote: > > There you go - exterminate 200,000 Iraqis - US never did that and you know it. Why spread lies - does it make you feel big? > > > > On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 2:09 PM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss > wrote: > And speaking of ACDIS and Kolodziej and the wars against Iraq and warmongering and NeoCons, Kolodziej tried to blackball me off of the All University Forum held in Foelinger Auditorium on the eve of Bush Sr’s War against Iraq in mid-January of 1991. Meanwhile Kolodziej had flown in the NeoCon Warmonger Geoff Kemp to argue in favor of the war that would exterminate about 200,000 Iraqis. Bombs away once again at the warmongering University of Illinois! > > Fab. > > _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Thu Nov 9 15:06:27 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2017 15:06:27 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Prof. Francis Boyle on Prosecution of those committing Afghanistan war crimes Message-ID: 'Cold day in hell before ICC goes after US for committing Afghanistan war crimes' Published time: 9 Nov, 2017 13:36 Get short URL ['Cold day in hell before ICC goes after US for committing Afghanistan war crimes'] © Lucas Jackson / Reuters 192 The ICC prosecutor’s decision to pursue a probe into alleged war crimes in Afghanistan is “completely political” and won't amount to anything, law professor Francis Boyle believes. He said it will be a “cold day in hell” before any Americans are prosecuted. The International Criminal Court's chief prosecutor, Fatou Bensouda, announced last week that her request to launch an investigation had been handed over to a pre-trial court. She said that if her request is granted, the probe will focus “upon those most responsible for the most serious crimes committed in connection with the situation in Afghanistan.” Read more [FILE PHOTO © U.S. Army]US spent $5.6 trillion on wars since 9/11 – study However, Francis Boyle, an international law professor at the University of Illinois, told RT that while Bensouda is likely to get approval for the investigation, the move is simply a “propaganda stunt.” He added that Bensouda has no desire to go after any Americans who committed war crimes. “You have to understand, this is all political,” said Boyle. He noted that the African country of Burundi has already pulled out of the ICC, and South Africa has voiced the same intention. “So she's in a position and the court is in a position that almost all of Africa is going to pull out of the ICC because the only people in the dock over there are black, tin-pot dictators from Africa,” Boyle said. He called the court a “Western, racist, imperial tool” which is being used against Africa. Because of this, the so-called “white man's court” will not be going after Americans, Boyle said. “It will be a cold day in hell” before we see Bensouda doing so, he added. Boyle noted that the ICC has “never gone after the Americans, the NATO states, Britain, Israel, despite clear-cut jurisdiction to do so.” Boyle went on to accuse the US government of committing a Nuremberg crime against peace by “invading Afghanistan and attacking it and blowing them back to the Stone Age and killing a million Afghans.” He added that “I doubt very seriously Bensouda is going to deal with any of that.” “The United States illegally and criminally invaded Afghanistan and attacked and destroyed them... and then they set up all these torture campus over there, they've been torturing these poor people forever. And at a minimum, the United States has probably killed a million Afghanis [sic] since October 2001,” he said. Read more [FILE PHOTO: Marines from I Marine Expeditionary Force from Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton © U.S. Army]‘Main creator of terrorism is US war on terror, not terrorists’ “The Americans should have been investigated a decade ago at least,” said Boyle, who filed an ICC complaint against former US President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, among others, in 2010, over their policy of “extraordinary rendition perpetrated upon about 100 human beings.” He added that “the American government knows full well they'll be able to sabotage her [Bensouda], stop her. Nothing's going to come of it.” However, Boyle predicted that Bensouda would likely come back with a verdict that it was actually the Taliban who was responsible for crimes. “Or she might apportion blame, but that's ridiculous too...if you read all the United Nations reports of human rights violations coming out of Afghanistan, they all blame the Taliban. And it's a joke.” Although the ICC statement doesn't name specific parties that would be subject to the investigation, a report released by the prosecutor's office last year said there is “reasonable basis” to believe crimes were committed by US military forces deployed to Afghanistan, and in secret detention facilities operated by the CIA. It also points the finger at the Taliban and Afghan government forces. Boyle noted that although the US can technically be prosecuted by the court – despite not being a member – the ICC “pretty much do what they're told to do,” citing money received from Europe, Japan, and South Korea, as well as the influence of America. Meanwhile, the United Nations mission in Afghanistan said earlier on Thursday that at least 10 civilians may have been killed in an airstrike in the north city of Kunduz last week, despite a US military investigation stating that no evidence of civilian deaths had been found. Boyle previously served on the board of Amnesty International USA and drafted legislation for the Biological Weapons Convention, known as the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989, which was signed into law after being unanimously approved by both chambers of the US Congress. Share on FacebookShare on Twitter Sponsored Links More From RT.com NATO readying Europe’s infrastructure for war a ‘bad signal’ for Russia – general to RT by Taboola Popular In the Community Sponsored Sponsored HOW THE WEST BUILT BERLIN WALL 2.0 BlueBandAid 46m The splitting of nations under the disguise of Communism / Capitalism seems to be favourite activity of holy shlomo Empire (RU & US) . Today they changed their attitude towards extremism a bit and split Syria under disguise of Terrorism. While half of Isis comes from Chechnya and Israel. ‘THREAT TO EUROPE’: RUSSIAN LAWMAKERS BLAST US DECISION TO SUPPLY LETHAL WEAPONS TO UKRAINE RedFlame 16m Jews, darn jews. ARAB ‘MAFIA’ INFILTRATES GERMAN POLICE, STATE SERVICES – GERMAN POLICE UNION OFFICIAL tiotio 18h Crushed between to fronts: the liberasts and the islamists. Could end worse then Weimar Republic ‘MORAL CRISIS’: GATES, BUFFETT & BEZOS RICHER THAN POOREST HALF OF AMERICA COMBINED GoldBottle 5h How is this a moral crisis. I never knew the americans had any morals. ‘LIKE MAGIC’: SCIENTISTS FIND WAY TO MAKE OLD HUMAN CELLS YOUNG AGAIN Pi55off 4h Cheer up! Don't get too upset, mass extermination of the human race is just around the corner!? ANTARCTIC SUPERVOLCANO TO RIVAL YELLOWSTONE MELTING ICE SHEET FROM WITHIN – NASA RedPizza 2h So no more global warming then? Get it together, NASA. Are you gay or not? Decide! BRITISH COUNCIL BOSS SACKED FOR CALLING PRINCE GEORGE ‘EMBLEM OF WHITE PRIVILEGE’ DENIED PAYOUT PurpleLobster 3d “white privilege It's okay to be white. SIEMENS WANTS TO SELL ITS TURBINES TO RUSSIA DESPITE CRIMEA SCANDAL RedFlame 18m (((Siemens)))Be aware! $360MN COCAINE BUST: RECORD 12 TONS SEIZED BY COLOMBIAN COPS (VIDEO, PHOTOS) albant77 1h Come on!!Who are they trying to fool?That´s a big decoy.The real drug load is arriving to USA at any moment and will be received by DEA lords. The true DEA's role is NOT stopping drug smuggling... The real role is to keep the prices profitable. PUTIN: US WANTS TO DISRUPT UPCOMING RUSSIAN PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION OrangeAnchor 1h fortunately, it will be much harder to hack into an election where the votes are cast with pen and paper. I'm against electronic voting, not trustworthy! WASHINGTON ORDERS RT AMERICA TO REGISTER AS FOREIGN AGENT BY MONDAY SirLeo 1h Message to Washington: This decision will have grave consequences to the image of the US being a democracy. Think again. PUTIN AND TRUMP TO MEET AT APEC SUMMIT IN VIETNAM OrangeFish 7h dont expect alot of changes... Trump is not able to make personal decisions without looking back at congress and israel ANOREXIC MOTHER-OF-FOUR FOUND DEAD IN FREEZING HOUSE AFTER BEING STRIPPED OF BENEFITS OliveFlame 3h British government's policy of exterminating the poor is beginning to work.Many of those who are in Westminster should be charged with murder. MONSANTO SUED BY BRAZILIAN SOYBEAN FARMERS OVER GMO SEED Hello Kitty 45s We should keep our fingers and toes crossed every single day that Monsanto goes bust sooner rather than later and that more countries ban its products and their derivatives on their territories. DISCOVERY OF GIGANTIC 'PLANET' BAFFLES ASTRONOMERS OrangeBus 3h My mother-in-law is the biggest gas giant I know. * Where to watch * Schedule by Taboola Promoted Links Recommended Archeological Finds Still Baffling Scientists TodayMutually Why didn’t Britain’s king save deposed Russian cousin after revolution? Washington, Illinois: This Brilliant Company Is Disrupting a $200 Billion IndustryEverQuote Insurance Quotes Russian nukes would cause ‘overwhelming damage’ to any potential enemy – Moscow Body Gestures You Should Avoid in the Workplace (22 Examples)Work + Money Human-animal hybrid cave paintings from lost civilization discovered (PHOTOS) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Thu Nov 9 15:16:28 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2017 15:16:28 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] The beginning of the end for RT.com news. Message-ID: Washington will apply its Foreign Agents Registration Act to RT America, the channel has announced. The Department of Justice has given the broadcaster until Monday to register as a foreign agent, otherwise the channel’s head faces arrest and its accounts could be frozen. The piece of legislation was adopted in the US in 1938 to counter pro-Nazi agitation on US soil. Washington has made the decision to apply the act towards the company that supplies all services for RT America on its territory, including TV production and operations. Just over 400 entities are currently registered under the legislation, but it does not include a single media outlet. In September, the DOJ sent a letter to the company, claiming it is obligated to register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) due to the work it does for RT. The law demands the disclosure of the channel's confidential data, including the personal data of its staff. The move "will have serious legal consequences" and "compromise the safety of [RT] employees," the Russian Foreign Ministry previously explained. RT's editor-in-chief, Margarita Simonyan, said on Thursday that the timeframe provided for the company by the DoJ is a "cannibalistic deadline." She previously said that the channel was being forced into "conditions in which we cannot work" in the US, and called Washington's demand an attempt to "drive [RT] out of the country." Simonyan had said the decision put freedom of speech in the US under question. RT has been under pressure for showing the American audience "a different point of view," the editor-in-chief added. READ MORE: Labeling RT a foreign agent amid ‘witch hunt’ in US may pose real threat to its staff – Moscow Moscow earlier warned that the US move towards the Russian channel would trigger reciprocal measures in regards to American media working in Russia. "If someone starts to fight dirty, perverting the law by using it as a tool to eradicate the TV station, every move aimed against the Russian media outlet would be repaid in kind," Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said. Share on FacebookShare on Twitter Sponsored Links NewsD More From RT.com Woman pulls up skirt in crowded station calling to criminalize ‘upskirting’ (VIDEO) NATO readying Europe’s infrastructure for war a ‘bad signal’ for Russia – general to RT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Thu Nov 9 15:18:08 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2017 15:18:08 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: Prof. Francis Boyle on Prosecution of those committing Afghanistan war crimes References: Message-ID: 'Cold day in hell before ICC goes after US for committing Afghanistan war crimes' Published time: 9 Nov, 2017 13:36 Get short URL ['Cold day in hell before ICC goes after US for committing Afghanistan war crimes'] © Lucas Jackson / Reuters 192 The ICC prosecutor’s decision to pursue a probe into alleged war crimes in Afghanistan is “completely political” and won't amount to anything, law professor Francis Boyle believes. He said it will be a “cold day in hell” before any Americans are prosecuted. The International Criminal Court's chief prosecutor, Fatou Bensouda, announced last week that her request to launch an investigation had been handed over to a pre-trial court. She said that if her request is granted, the probe will focus “upon those most responsible for the most serious crimes committed in connection with the situation in Afghanistan.” Read more [FILE PHOTO © U.S. Army]US spent $5.6 trillion on wars since 9/11 – study However, Francis Boyle, an international law professor at the University of Illinois, told RT that while Bensouda is likely to get approval for the investigation, the move is simply a “propaganda stunt.” He added that Bensouda has no desire to go after any Americans who committed war crimes. “You have to understand, this is all political,” said Boyle. He noted that the African country of Burundi has already pulled out of the ICC, and South Africa has voiced the same intention. “So she's in a position and the court is in a position that almost all of Africa is going to pull out of the ICC because the only people in the dock over there are black, tin-pot dictators from Africa,” Boyle said. He called the court a “Western, racist, imperial tool” which is being used against Africa. Because of this, the so-called “white man's court” will not be going after Americans, Boyle said. “It will be a cold day in hell” before we see Bensouda doing so, he added. Boyle noted that the ICC has “never gone after the Americans, the NATO states, Britain, Israel, despite clear-cut jurisdiction to do so.” Boyle went on to accuse the US government of committing a Nuremberg crime against peace by “invading Afghanistan and attacking it and blowing them back to the Stone Age and killing a million Afghans.” He added that “I doubt very seriously Bensouda is going to deal with any of that.” “The United States illegally and criminally invaded Afghanistan and attacked and destroyed them... and then they set up all these torture campus over there, they've been torturing these poor people forever. And at a minimum, the United States has probably killed a million Afghanis [sic] since October 2001,” he said. Read more [FILE PHOTO: Marines from I Marine Expeditionary Force from Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton © U.S. Army]‘Main creator of terrorism is US war on terror, not terrorists’ “The Americans should have been investigated a decade ago at least,” said Boyle, who filed an ICC complaint against former US President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, among others, in 2010, over their policy of “extraordinary rendition perpetrated upon about 100 human beings.” He added that “the American government knows full well they'll be able to sabotage her [Bensouda], stop her. Nothing's going to come of it.” However, Boyle predicted that Bensouda would likely come back with a verdict that it was actually the Taliban who was responsible for crimes. “Or she might apportion blame, but that's ridiculous too...if you read all the United Nations reports of human rights violations coming out of Afghanistan, they all blame the Taliban. And it's a joke.” Although the ICC statement doesn't name specific parties that would be subject to the investigation, a report released by the prosecutor's office last year said there is “reasonable basis” to believe crimes were committed by US military forces deployed to Afghanistan, and in secret detention facilities operated by the CIA. It also points the finger at the Taliban and Afghan government forces. Boyle noted that although the US can technically be prosecuted by the court – despite not being a member – the ICC “pretty much do what they're told to do,” citing money received from Europe, Japan, and South Korea, as well as the influence of America. Meanwhile, the United Nations mission in Afghanistan said earlier on Thursday that at least 10 civilians may have been killed in an airstrike in the north city of Kunduz last week, despite a US military investigation stating that no evidence of civilian deaths had been found. Boyle previously served on the board of Amnesty International USA and drafted legislation for the Biological Weapons Convention, known as the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989, which was signed into law after being unanimously approved by both chambers of the US Congress. Share on FacebookShare on Twitter Sponsored Links More From RT.com NATO readying Europe’s infrastructure for war a ‘bad signal’ for Russia – general to RT by Taboola Popular In the Community Sponsored Sponsored HOW THE WEST BUILT BERLIN WALL 2.0 BlueBandAid 46m The splitting of nations under the disguise of Communism / Capitalism seems to be favourite activity of holy shlomo Empire (RU & US) . Today they changed their attitude towards extremism a bit and split Syria under disguise of Terrorism. While half of Isis comes from Chechnya and Israel. ‘THREAT TO EUROPE’: RUSSIAN LAWMAKERS BLAST US DECISION TO SUPPLY LETHAL WEAPONS TO UKRAINE RedFlame 16m Jews, darn jews. ARAB ‘MAFIA’ INFILTRATES GERMAN POLICE, STATE SERVICES – GERMAN POLICE UNION OFFICIAL tiotio 18h Crushed between to fronts: the liberasts and the islamists. Could end worse then Weimar Republic ‘MORAL CRISIS’: GATES, BUFFETT & BEZOS RICHER THAN POOREST HALF OF AMERICA COMBINED GoldBottle 5h How is this a moral crisis. I never knew the americans had any morals. ‘LIKE MAGIC’: SCIENTISTS FIND WAY TO MAKE OLD HUMAN CELLS YOUNG AGAIN Pi55off 4h Cheer up! Don't get too upset, mass extermination of the human race is just around the corner!? ANTARCTIC SUPERVOLCANO TO RIVAL YELLOWSTONE MELTING ICE SHEET FROM WITHIN – NASA RedPizza 2h So no more global warming then? Get it together, NASA. Are you gay or not? Decide! BRITISH COUNCIL BOSS SACKED FOR CALLING PRINCE GEORGE ‘EMBLEM OF WHITE PRIVILEGE’ DENIED PAYOUT PurpleLobster 3d “white privilege It's okay to be white. SIEMENS WANTS TO SELL ITS TURBINES TO RUSSIA DESPITE CRIMEA SCANDAL RedFlame 18m (((Siemens)))Be aware! $360MN COCAINE BUST: RECORD 12 TONS SEIZED BY COLOMBIAN COPS (VIDEO, PHOTOS) albant77 1h Come on!!Who are they trying to fool?That´s a big decoy.The real drug load is arriving to USA at any moment and will be received by DEA lords. The true DEA's role is NOT stopping drug smuggling... The real role is to keep the prices profitable. PUTIN: US WANTS TO DISRUPT UPCOMING RUSSIAN PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION OrangeAnchor 1h fortunately, it will be much harder to hack into an election where the votes are cast with pen and paper. I'm against electronic voting, not trustworthy! WASHINGTON ORDERS RT AMERICA TO REGISTER AS FOREIGN AGENT BY MONDAY SirLeo 1h Message to Washington: This decision will have grave consequences to the image of the US being a democracy. Think again. PUTIN AND TRUMP TO MEET AT APEC SUMMIT IN VIETNAM OrangeFish 7h dont expect alot of changes... Trump is not able to make personal decisions without looking back at congress and israel ANOREXIC MOTHER-OF-FOUR FOUND DEAD IN FREEZING HOUSE AFTER BEING STRIPPED OF BENEFITS OliveFlame 3h British government's policy of exterminating the poor is beginning to work.Many of those who are in Westminster should be charged with murder. MONSANTO SUED BY BRAZILIAN SOYBEAN FARMERS OVER GMO SEED Hello Kitty 45s We should keep our fingers and toes crossed every single day that Monsanto goes bust sooner rather than later and that more countries ban its products and their derivatives on their territories. DISCOVERY OF GIGANTIC 'PLANET' BAFFLES ASTRONOMERS OrangeBus 3h My mother-in-law is the biggest gas giant I know. * Where to watch * Schedule by Taboola Promoted Links Recommended Archeological Finds Still Baffling Scientists TodayMutually Why didn’t Britain’s king save deposed Russian cousin after revolution? Washington, Illinois: This Brilliant Company Is Disrupting a $200 Billion IndustryEverQuote Insurance Quotes Russian nukes would cause ‘overwhelming damage’ to any potential enemy – Moscow Body Gestures You Should Avoid in the Workplace (22 Examples)Work + Money Human-animal hybrid cave paintings from lost civilization discovered (PHOTOS) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Thu Nov 9 15:38:12 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2017 15:38:12 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] "Night of the Long Knives in Saudi" summarized by Pepe Escobar and it could be war Message-ID: $100bn embezzled, misappropriated in Saudi Arabia over several decades – attorney generalA poster of Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman with a phrase reading in Arabic, ” God protect you” is seen on a highway in the northern Lebanese port city of Tripoli on November 9, 2017 © Ibrahim Chalhoub / AFP 453 At least $100 billion has been misused in Saudi Arabia as part of various types of corruption and embezzlement over several decades, according to Saudi Arabia's attorney general. It comes amid a major anti-corruption effort in the Gulf nation. “Based on our investigations over the past three years, we estimate that at least $100 billion has been misused through systematic corruption and embezzlement over several decades,” Sheikh Saud al-Mojeb said in a statement, according to SPA news agency. "The potential scale of corrupt practices which have been uncovered is very large,'' the attorney general said. Read more [Tehran, Iran (L), Riyadh, Saudi Arabia (R) © Reuters]Saudi Arabia v Iran: What’s behind bitter feud between Middle Eastern powers? The Sheikh went on to say that of the 208 people questioned in the crackdown, seven have been released without charge. He added that the personal details of those affected would not be revealed at this time, citing the suspects’ legal rights. The official also stated that normal commercial activity has not been affected by the probe. "Companies and banks are free to continue with transactions as usual," he said. The attorney general stressed that only personal bank accounts have been frozen. According to AP, an estimated 1,700 such accounts have been affected. The crackdown on corruption took place after Mohammed bin Salman, Crown Prince and heir to King Salman, was granted control over a wide-ranging anti-corruption committee, and immediately exercised his new power over the weekend. Eleven former ministers and dozens of Saudi princes were arrested or detained on charges of graft or financial malfeasance. The move, widely regarded as an effort to consolidate power before the crown prince assumes the throne this year or next, was praised by US President Donald Trump. “I have great confidence in King Salman and the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, they know exactly what they are doing,” Trump wrote on Twitter. “Some of those they are harshly treating have been 'milking' their country for years!” Meanwhile, Saudi King Salman has appointed some 30 judges at different levels within the Saudi Ministry of Justice. He promoted 26 others by royal order, the state news agency SPA reported earlier on Thursday. Investigative journalist Pepe Escobar suggests the purge and the Crown Prince’s newly-created committee have nothing to do with corruption. Speaking to RT, he said that Mohammed bin Salman’s actions are instead aimed at getting rid of potential rivals on his way to the throne, in what the journalist called “Night of the Saudi long knives.” Read more [© Hassan Ammar]Wealthy Saudis try to move money abroad with Riyadh in hot pursuit “Don’t forget, Saudi Arabia has no independent judiciary, no freedom of expression, no credible opposition. And in fact, King Salman isn’t ruling – who’s ruling is actually MBS [Mohammed bin Salman],” he told RT. Escobar also accused Washington of turning a blind eye to the matter, so as not to hurt business ties between Riyadh and those close to Trump. He noted that the purge came just after Trump's son-in-law and senior adviser Jared Kushner visited Riyadh “where he has been bonding very closely with the Crown Prince.” Both Washington and Riyadh are at loggerheads with Iran, pushing to lower its influence in the region and accusing Tehran of supporting terrorism. Speaking to RT, Escobar said that the agreement between the US and Saudi Arabia “involves new foreign policy that’s very complex and, especially, [includes] antagonizing Iran and Lebanon.” Crown Prince Salman was appointed as heir to the Saudi throne in June, thus removing King Salman’s nephew Mohammed bin Nayef from the post. The prince, the Saudi king’s son and his most trusted advisor, is thought to be behind the latest series of domestic reforms, many of which are quite liberal by the standards of the conservative, religious kingdom. Share on FacebookShare on Twitter Sponsored Links -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From galliher at illinois.edu Thu Nov 9 15:51:41 2017 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2017 09:51:41 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] "Night of the Long Knives in Saudi" summarized by Pepe Escobar and it could be war In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5956D329-E3BA-490A-8283-8E5167CBEA77@illinois.edu> It looks as though Pepe has it right: 'Investigative journalist Pepe Escobar suggests the purge and the Crown Prince’s newly-created committee have nothing to do with corruption. Speaking to RT, he said that Mohammed bin Salman’s actions are instead aimed at getting rid of potential rivals on his way to the throne, in what the journalist called “Night of the Saudi long knives.” '“Don’t forget, Saudi Arabia has no independent judiciary, no freedom of expression, no credible opposition. And in fact, King Salman isn’t ruling – who’s ruling is actually MBS [Mohammed bin Salman],” he told RT.' ‘...Crown Prince Salman was appointed as heir to the Saudi throne in June, thus removing King Salman’s nephew Mohammed bin Nayef [A CIA ‘ASSET’] from the post. The prince, the Saudi king’s son and his most trusted advisor, is thought to be behind the latest series of domestic reforms…' —CGE > On Nov 9, 2017, at 9:38 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: > > At least $100 billion has been misused in Saudi Arabia as part of various types of corruption and embezzlement over several decades, according to Saudi Arabia's attorney general. It comes amid a major anti-corruption effort in the Gulf nation. > “Based on our investigations over the past three years, we estimate that at least $100 billion has been misused through systematic corruption and embezzlement over several decades,” Sheikh Saud al-Mojeb said in a statement, according to SPA news agency. > "The potential scale of corrupt practices which have been uncovered is very large,'' the attorney general said. > Read more > Saudi Arabia v Iran: What’s behind bitter feud between Middle Eastern powers? > The Sheikh went on to say that of the 208 people questioned in the crackdown, seven have been released without charge. He added that the personal details of those affected would not be revealed at this time, citing the suspects’ legal rights. > The official also stated that normal commercial activity has not been affected by the probe. "Companies and banks are free to continue with transactions as usual," he said. > The attorney general stressed that only personal bank accounts have been frozen. According to AP, an estimated 1,700 such accounts have been affected. > The crackdown on corruption took place after Mohammed bin Salman, Crown Prince and heir to King Salman, was granted control over a wide-ranging anti-corruption committee, and immediately exercised his new power over the weekend. Eleven former ministers and dozens of Saudi princes were arrested or detained on charges of graft or financial malfeasance. > The move, widely regarded as an effort to consolidate power before the crown prince assumes the throne this year or next, was praised by US President Donald Trump. > “I have great confidence in King Salman and the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, they know exactly what they are doing,” Trump wrote on Twitter. “Some of those they are harshly treating have been 'milking' their country for years!” > Meanwhile, Saudi King Salman has appointed some 30 judges at different levels within the Saudi Ministry of Justice. He promoted 26 others by royal order, the state news agency SPA reported earlier on Thursday. > Investigative journalist Pepe Escobar suggests the purge and the Crown Prince’s newly-created committee have nothing to do with corruption. Speaking to RT, he said that Mohammed bin Salman’s actions are instead aimed at getting rid of potential rivals on his way to the throne, in what the journalist called “Night of the Saudi long knives.” > Read more > Wealthy Saudis try to move money abroad with Riyadh in hot pursuit > “Don’t forget, Saudi Arabia has no independent judiciary, no freedom of expression, no credible opposition. And in fact, King Salman isn’t ruling – who’s ruling is actually MBS [Mohammed bin Salman],” he told RT. > Escobar also accused Washington of turning a blind eye to the matter, so as not to hurt business ties between Riyadh and those close to Trump. He noted that the purge came just after Trump's son-in-law and senior adviser Jared Kushner visited Riyadh “where he has been bonding very closely with the Crown Prince.” > Both Washington and Riyadh are at loggerheads with Iran, pushing to lower its influence in the region and accusing Tehran of supporting terrorism. Speaking to RT, Escobar said that the agreement between the US and Saudi Arabia “involves new foreign policy that’s very complex and, especially, [includes] antagonizing Iran and Lebanon.” > Crown Prince Salman was appointed as heir to the Saudi throne in June, thus removing King Salman’s nephew Mohammed bin Nayef from the post. The prince, the Saudi king’s son and his most trusted advisor, is thought to be behind the latest series of domestic reforms, many of which are quite liberal by the standards of the conservative, religious kingdom. > > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss From karenaram at hotmail.com Thu Nov 9 16:08:41 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2017 16:08:41 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Saudi war with Lebanon imminent? Message-ID: HomeNewsline Saudi Arabia urges its nationals to leave Lebanon Published time: 9 Nov, 2017 14:37Edited time: 9 Nov, 2017 15:03 Get short URL 10 Saudi Arabia asked its nationals in a travel warning on Thursday to leave Lebanon immediately, Al Arabiya reported. The warning also called for Saudi nationals not to travel to Lebanon. A source in the Saudi Arabian Ministry of Foreign Affairs said that the Saudi nationals visiting or residing in Lebanon are asked to leave the country as soon as possible, according to the Saudi news agency. The announcement follows a similar warning issued by Bahrain on November 5 urging its nationals residing in Lebanon to leave immediately. Bahrain’s call came a day after Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri announced his resignation. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Thu Nov 9 17:26:22 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2017 17:26:22 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] =?utf-8?q?FW=3A_=E2=80=98Cold_day_in_hell_before_?= =?utf-8?q?ICC_goes_after_US_for_committing_Afghanistan_war_crimes?= =?utf-8?b?4oCZ?= Message-ID: Killer Koh should be in the ICC Dock at The Hague instead of giving his specially endowed $5K lecture on how to be a Role Model in Excellence for Lawyers in Government Service at the Illiniwaks Law School. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) Feed: "Francis Boyle" - BingNews Posted on: Wednesday, November 8, 2017 11:36 PM Author: "Francis Boyle" - BingNews Subject: ‘Cold day in hell before ICC goes after US for committing Afghanistan war crimes’ The ICC prosecutor’s decision to pursue a probe into alleged war crimes in Afghanistan is “completely political” and won't amount to anything, law professor Francis Boyle believes. He said it will be a “cold day in hell” before any Americans are ... View article... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Thu Nov 9 17:26:22 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2017 17:26:22 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] =?utf-8?q?FW=3A_=E2=80=98Cold_day_in_hell_before_?= =?utf-8?q?ICC_goes_after_US_for_committing_Afghanistan_war_crimes?= =?utf-8?b?4oCZ?= Message-ID: Killer Koh should be in the ICC Dock at The Hague instead of giving his specially endowed $5K lecture on how to be a Role Model in Excellence for Lawyers in Government Service at the Illiniwaks Law School. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) Feed: "Francis Boyle" - BingNews Posted on: Wednesday, November 8, 2017 11:36 PM Author: "Francis Boyle" - BingNews Subject: ‘Cold day in hell before ICC goes after US for committing Afghanistan war crimes’ The ICC prosecutor’s decision to pursue a probe into alleged war crimes in Afghanistan is “completely political” and won't amount to anything, law professor Francis Boyle believes. He said it will be a “cold day in hell” before any Americans are ... View article... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From r-szoke at illinois.edu Thu Nov 9 17:42:49 2017 From: r-szoke at illinois.edu (Szoke, Ron) Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2017 17:42:49 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] UIUC's contribution to the wars Message-ID: <61C9ADF0-F75D-4EEF-8A7F-F47BAA6162C6@illinois.edu> A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: battlefield.rtfd.zip Type: application/zip Size: 143352 bytes Desc: battlefield.rtfd.zip URL: From davegreen84 at yahoo.com Thu Nov 9 18:21:01 2017 From: davegreen84 at yahoo.com (David Green) Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2017 18:21:01 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Peace-discuss] UIUC's contribution to the wars In-Reply-To: <61C9ADF0-F75D-4EEF-8A7F-F47BAA6162C6@illinois.edu> References: <61C9ADF0-F75D-4EEF-8A7F-F47BAA6162C6@illinois.edu> Message-ID: <811460349.5574184.1510251661157@mail.yahoo.com> I can't open this, but I assume it refers to the "internet of battlefield things" that was glowingly written up in the NG; I've also referred to it in an upcoming letter to the editor, but in a broader context. It deserves a more specific response. DG On Thursday, November 9, 2017, 11:43:13 AM CST, Szoke, Ron via Peace-discuss wrote: _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From r-szoke at illinois.edu Thu Nov 9 18:40:19 2017 From: r-szoke at illinois.edu (Szoke, Ron) Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2017 18:40:19 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: UIUC's contribution to the wars References: Message-ID: <1D8B82F1-9715-435B-96DC-D0C58F731866@illinois.edu> From: "Szoke, Ron" > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] UIUC's contribution to the wars Date: November 9, 2017 [UI engineering.jpg] [processed_739695.png] Illinois leads $25 million alliance to develop Internet of Battlefield Things On the battlefields of tomorrow, humans and technology will work together in a seamless, cohesive network, giving soldiers a competitive edge and keeping troops and civilians out of harm’s way. Illinois has been selected to lead this initiative to develop the scientific foundations to enable new predictive battlefield analytics and services. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: UI engineering.jpeg Type: image/jpeg Size: 19109 bytes Desc: UI engineering.jpeg URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: processed_739695.png Type: image/png Size: 104753 bytes Desc: processed_739695.png URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Fri Nov 10 13:08:44 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2017 13:08:44 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] News Gazoo against BDS In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Been pretty tied up on other matters. But I did want to react to a letter I saw in the News Gazoo: Yes, I was involved in the long struggle on this campus to convince the University of Illiniwaks to DIVEST from the Criminal Apartheid Regime in South Africa. Now the University of Illiniwaks are INVESTING in the Criminal Apartheid Regime in Israel. No surprise there after the Illiniwaks illegally fired our Native American Studies Professor Steven Salaita and threw him, his wife and their baby out into the street with no visible means of support at the behest of the local Zionists. fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2017 9:39 AM To: David Green ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay ; David Johnson ; Mildred O'brien ; Estabrook, Carl G ; David Swanson Subject: News Gazoo against BDS By trying to shore up the collapsing Zionist criminal apartheid regime in Israel, the University of Illiniwaks has once again placed itself on the wrong side of History and Principle along with Chief Illiniwak. Fab D in BDS. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Fri Nov 10 13:08:44 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2017 13:08:44 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] News Gazoo against BDS In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Been pretty tied up on other matters. But I did want to react to a letter I saw in the News Gazoo: Yes, I was involved in the long struggle on this campus to convince the University of Illiniwaks to DIVEST from the Criminal Apartheid Regime in South Africa. Now the University of Illiniwaks are INVESTING in the Criminal Apartheid Regime in Israel. No surprise there after the Illiniwaks illegally fired our Native American Studies Professor Steven Salaita and threw him, his wife and their baby out into the street with no visible means of support at the behest of the local Zionists. fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2017 9:39 AM To: David Green ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay ; David Johnson ; Mildred O'brien ; Estabrook, Carl G ; David Swanson Subject: News Gazoo against BDS By trying to shore up the collapsing Zionist criminal apartheid regime in Israel, the University of Illiniwaks has once again placed itself on the wrong side of History and Principle along with Chief Illiniwak. Fab D in BDS. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Fri Nov 10 13:36:12 2017 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2017 07:36:12 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] News Gazoo against BDS In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <88909CB6-12CC-4A63-8314-DACDCAFE40ED@gmail.com> And the fiery liberal spirits whom this area sends to the Illinois legislature - having been lobbied by the Israeli consulate in Chicago - couldn’t bring themselves to vote against legislation that prohibits the U of I (among others) from investing in companies that boycott Israeli businesses because of Israeli human rights violations (including businesses based in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, in contravention of international law). That legislation is now law in Illinois. Boycotts of businesses that are based in Israeli settlements in Occupied Palestinian territory, or that profit from Israeli human rights violations are a means of protesting Israel’s occupation and human rights violations. Such boycotts are legal under US law and have wide political support in the US and internationally, including by Peace Now (Shalom Achshav) in Israel and Americans for Peace Now in the US, Jewish Voice for Peace, the Presbyterian Church, and United Methodist Church in the US. Any private Israeli entity that wants to receive funding from the European Union must demonstrate that it has no links to the West Bank. (The ACLU of Illinois opposed the legislation.) —CGE "For a Responsible Legislature, Vote Against Incumbents. They Haven’t Done Well." > On Nov 10, 2017, at 7:08 AM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: > > Been pretty tied up on other matters. But I did want to react to a letter I saw in the News Gazoo: Yes, I was involved in the long struggle on this campus to convince the University of Illiniwaks to DIVEST from the Criminal Apartheid Regime in South Africa. Now the University of Illiniwaks are INVESTING in the Criminal Apartheid Regime in Israel. No surprise there after the Illiniwaks illegally fired our Native American Studies Professor Steven Salaita and threw him, his wife and their baby out into the street with no visible means of support at the behest of the local Zionists. fab > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) > > From: Boyle, Francis A > Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2017 9:39 AM > To: David Green ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay ; David Johnson ; Mildred O'brien ; Estabrook, Carl G ; David Swanson > Subject: News Gazoo against BDS > > By trying to shore up the collapsing Zionist criminal apartheid regime in Israel, the University of Illiniwaks has once again placed itself on the wrong side of History and Principle along with Chief Illiniwak. > Fab > D in BDS. > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign, IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Fri Nov 10 13:36:12 2017 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2017 07:36:12 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] News Gazoo against BDS In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <88909CB6-12CC-4A63-8314-DACDCAFE40ED@gmail.com> And the fiery liberal spirits whom this area sends to the Illinois legislature - having been lobbied by the Israeli consulate in Chicago - couldn’t bring themselves to vote against legislation that prohibits the U of I (among others) from investing in companies that boycott Israeli businesses because of Israeli human rights violations (including businesses based in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, in contravention of international law). That legislation is now law in Illinois. Boycotts of businesses that are based in Israeli settlements in Occupied Palestinian territory, or that profit from Israeli human rights violations are a means of protesting Israel’s occupation and human rights violations. Such boycotts are legal under US law and have wide political support in the US and internationally, including by Peace Now (Shalom Achshav) in Israel and Americans for Peace Now in the US, Jewish Voice for Peace, the Presbyterian Church, and United Methodist Church in the US. Any private Israeli entity that wants to receive funding from the European Union must demonstrate that it has no links to the West Bank. (The ACLU of Illinois opposed the legislation.) —CGE "For a Responsible Legislature, Vote Against Incumbents. They Haven’t Done Well." > On Nov 10, 2017, at 7:08 AM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: > > Been pretty tied up on other matters. But I did want to react to a letter I saw in the News Gazoo: Yes, I was involved in the long struggle on this campus to convince the University of Illiniwaks to DIVEST from the Criminal Apartheid Regime in South Africa. Now the University of Illiniwaks are INVESTING in the Criminal Apartheid Regime in Israel. No surprise there after the Illiniwaks illegally fired our Native American Studies Professor Steven Salaita and threw him, his wife and their baby out into the street with no visible means of support at the behest of the local Zionists. fab > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) > > From: Boyle, Francis A > Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2017 9:39 AM > To: David Green ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay ; David Johnson ; Mildred O'brien ; Estabrook, Carl G ; David Swanson > Subject: News Gazoo against BDS > > By trying to shore up the collapsing Zionist criminal apartheid regime in Israel, the University of Illiniwaks has once again placed itself on the wrong side of History and Principle along with Chief Illiniwak. > Fab > D in BDS. > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign, IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Fri Nov 10 14:05:44 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2017 14:05:44 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] News Gazoo against BDS In-Reply-To: <88909CB6-12CC-4A63-8314-DACDCAFE40ED@gmail.com> References: <88909CB6-12CC-4A63-8314-DACDCAFE40ED@gmail.com> Message-ID: Right again Carl. Ever since I entered Harvard in 1971, I have always found that the Acid Test of your Courage, your Integrity and your Principles has been where you stand on the Palestinians. So many self-styled “liberals” and “progressives” and “leftists” have failed that test. Fab. Sunday, December 29, 2013 Prof Boyle Schools Harvard President Faust About Prejudice Francis A. Boyle is an attorney and a professor of international law. He's also the author of many books including, most recently, United Ireland, Human Rights and International Law. Professor Boyle Schools Harvard President Faust About Prejudice Dec. 27, 2013 Dear President Faust: I notice your condemnation of the ASA Boycott against Israel in today's New York Times. I note for the record that Harvard has never once apologized to those of us Harvard Alums who participated in good faith in the Harvard Divestment/Disinvestment Campaign against Israel when your predecessor Larry Summers accused us of being anti-Semitic-- a charge which he refused to defend against me as related below. As a matter of fact, Harvard is so notoriously anti-Palestinian that the late, great Edward Said refused to accept Harvard's top chair in Comparative Literature when Harvard offered it to him. As a loyal Harvard alum I spent an entire evening with Edward at a Chinese Restaurant in Manhattan trying to convince Edward to take this Chair. I thought it would be good for Harvard to have Edward teaching there. As a lawyer and a law professor, I can be quite persuasive. But Edward would have none of my arguments. As Edward saw it, Harvard was so anti-Palestinian that Harvard would have thwarted his intellectual creativity to move there. So Edward stayed at Columbia. Of course Edward was right. And the anti-Palestinian tenor and orientation of Harvard has certainly gotten far worse since when Edward and I were both students at Harvard. Harvard should be doing something about its own longstanding bigotry and racism against the Palestinians. Not criticizing those of us trying to help the Palestinians suffering from Israeli persecution, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and outright genocide. Yours very truly, Francis A. Boyle Professor of Law Harvard: JDMCL, AM, PHD, CFIA, Teaching Fellow Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] Sent: Friday, November 10, 2017 7:36 AM To: Boyle, Francis A Cc: David Green ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay ; David Johnson ; Mildred O'brien Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] News Gazoo against BDS And the fiery liberal spirits whom this area sends to the Illinois legislature - having been lobbied by the Israeli consulate in Chicago - couldn’t bring themselves to vote against legislation that prohibits the U of I (among others) from investing in companies that boycott Israeli businesses because of Israeli human rights violations (including businesses based in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, in contravention of international law). That legislation is now law in Illinois. Boycotts of businesses that are based in Israeli settlements in Occupied Palestinian territory, or that profit from Israeli human rights violations are a means of protesting Israel’s occupation and human rights violations. Such boycotts are legal under US law and have wide political support in the US and internationally, including by Peace Now (Shalom Achshav) in Israel and Americans for Peace Now in the US, Jewish Voice for Peace, the Presbyterian Church, and United Methodist Church in the US. Any private Israeli entity that wants to receive funding from the European Union must demonstrate that it has no links to the West Bank. (The ACLU of Illinois opposed the legislation.) —CGE "For a Responsible Legislature, Vote Against Incumbents. They Haven’t Done Well." On Nov 10, 2017, at 7:08 AM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss > wrote: Been pretty tied up on other matters. But I did want to react to a letter I saw in the News Gazoo: Yes, I was involved in the long struggle on this campus to convince the University of Illiniwaks to DIVEST from the Criminal Apartheid Regime in South Africa. Now the University of Illiniwaks are INVESTING in the Criminal Apartheid Regime in Israel. No surprise there after the Illiniwaks illegally fired our Native American Studies Professor Steven Salaita and threw him, his wife and their baby out into the street with no visible means of support at the behest of the local Zionists. fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2017 9:39 AM To: David Green >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; Estabrook, Carl G >; David Swanson > Subject: News Gazoo against BDS By trying to shore up the collapsing Zionist criminal apartheid regime in Israel, the University of Illiniwaks has once again placed itself on the wrong side of History and Principle along with Chief Illiniwak. Fab D in BDS. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Fri Nov 10 14:05:44 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2017 14:05:44 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] News Gazoo against BDS In-Reply-To: <88909CB6-12CC-4A63-8314-DACDCAFE40ED@gmail.com> References: <88909CB6-12CC-4A63-8314-DACDCAFE40ED@gmail.com> Message-ID: Right again Carl. Ever since I entered Harvard in 1971, I have always found that the Acid Test of your Courage, your Integrity and your Principles has been where you stand on the Palestinians. So many self-styled “liberals” and “progressives” and “leftists” have failed that test. Fab. Sunday, December 29, 2013 Prof Boyle Schools Harvard President Faust About Prejudice Francis A. Boyle is an attorney and a professor of international law. He's also the author of many books including, most recently, United Ireland, Human Rights and International Law. Professor Boyle Schools Harvard President Faust About Prejudice Dec. 27, 2013 Dear President Faust: I notice your condemnation of the ASA Boycott against Israel in today's New York Times. I note for the record that Harvard has never once apologized to those of us Harvard Alums who participated in good faith in the Harvard Divestment/Disinvestment Campaign against Israel when your predecessor Larry Summers accused us of being anti-Semitic-- a charge which he refused to defend against me as related below. As a matter of fact, Harvard is so notoriously anti-Palestinian that the late, great Edward Said refused to accept Harvard's top chair in Comparative Literature when Harvard offered it to him. As a loyal Harvard alum I spent an entire evening with Edward at a Chinese Restaurant in Manhattan trying to convince Edward to take this Chair. I thought it would be good for Harvard to have Edward teaching there. As a lawyer and a law professor, I can be quite persuasive. But Edward would have none of my arguments. As Edward saw it, Harvard was so anti-Palestinian that Harvard would have thwarted his intellectual creativity to move there. So Edward stayed at Columbia. Of course Edward was right. And the anti-Palestinian tenor and orientation of Harvard has certainly gotten far worse since when Edward and I were both students at Harvard. Harvard should be doing something about its own longstanding bigotry and racism against the Palestinians. Not criticizing those of us trying to help the Palestinians suffering from Israeli persecution, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and outright genocide. Yours very truly, Francis A. Boyle Professor of Law Harvard: JDMCL, AM, PHD, CFIA, Teaching Fellow Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] Sent: Friday, November 10, 2017 7:36 AM To: Boyle, Francis A Cc: David Green ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay ; David Johnson ; Mildred O'brien Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] News Gazoo against BDS And the fiery liberal spirits whom this area sends to the Illinois legislature - having been lobbied by the Israeli consulate in Chicago - couldn’t bring themselves to vote against legislation that prohibits the U of I (among others) from investing in companies that boycott Israeli businesses because of Israeli human rights violations (including businesses based in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, in contravention of international law). That legislation is now law in Illinois. Boycotts of businesses that are based in Israeli settlements in Occupied Palestinian territory, or that profit from Israeli human rights violations are a means of protesting Israel’s occupation and human rights violations. Such boycotts are legal under US law and have wide political support in the US and internationally, including by Peace Now (Shalom Achshav) in Israel and Americans for Peace Now in the US, Jewish Voice for Peace, the Presbyterian Church, and United Methodist Church in the US. Any private Israeli entity that wants to receive funding from the European Union must demonstrate that it has no links to the West Bank. (The ACLU of Illinois opposed the legislation.) —CGE "For a Responsible Legislature, Vote Against Incumbents. They Haven’t Done Well." On Nov 10, 2017, at 7:08 AM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss > wrote: Been pretty tied up on other matters. But I did want to react to a letter I saw in the News Gazoo: Yes, I was involved in the long struggle on this campus to convince the University of Illiniwaks to DIVEST from the Criminal Apartheid Regime in South Africa. Now the University of Illiniwaks are INVESTING in the Criminal Apartheid Regime in Israel. No surprise there after the Illiniwaks illegally fired our Native American Studies Professor Steven Salaita and threw him, his wife and their baby out into the street with no visible means of support at the behest of the local Zionists. fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2017 9:39 AM To: David Green >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; Estabrook, Carl G >; David Swanson > Subject: News Gazoo against BDS By trying to shore up the collapsing Zionist criminal apartheid regime in Israel, the University of Illiniwaks has once again placed itself on the wrong side of History and Principle along with Chief Illiniwak. Fab D in BDS. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net Fri Nov 10 15:22:23 2017 From: davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net (David Johnson) Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2017 09:22:23 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Alternative to listening to Warmonger Elliot Cohen In-Reply-To: <245390411.5159054.1510196215595@mail.yahoo.com> References: <3FFA4336-3F64-4450-B6B9-DA4904072F6B@gmail.com> <245390411.5159054.1510196215595@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <002a01d35a37$b5981360$20c83a20$@comcast.net> “ I would worry about blood pressure issues, although not my own; on the other hand, it could ironically turn out to be a cure for insomnia.” I have always loved your sense of humor David, and YES, we do need to call out the so called “ Progressives “ and their candidates need to be called to account on foreign policy. Even such firebrands in the “ Our Revolution “ revolt within the Democratic party like Nina Turner from Ohio is very uncomfortable about talking about foreign policy and anti-war issues. It’s a “ taboo “ subject because even Bernie Sanders has supported the war machine consistently. David J. From: Peace-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of David Green via Peace-discuss Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2017 8:57 PM To: Peace-discuss; Karen Aram Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Alternative to listening to Warmonger Elliot Cohen I don't know; obviously I've attended a lot of academic events over the years. But on the one hand I would worry about blood pressure issues, although not my own; on the other hand, it could ironically turn out to be a cure for insomnia. In any case, we need to have a community in which academic discourse of this nature does not set the agenda, unless there is a real opportunity for an organized civil response. For example, it's important that the Democratic candidates for Congress be called to account for the views on foreign policy. That means that their "progressive" supporters need to be called to account. Just my 2 cents, as Ricky Baldwin used to say and perhaps still does. DG On ‎Wednesday‎, ‎November‎ ‎8‎, ‎2017‎ ‎07‎:‎09‎:‎38‎ ‎PM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: I hate going out after dark. Here maybe is what we should be attending. At 3:00pm Rm#314 in the illini Union tomorrow also is the Debate, with five scholars from various universities. NOV 9 Debating America’s Grand Strategic Alternatives Public · Hosted by Cline Center for Advanced Social Research Join us in Room 314 of the Illini Union for a public forum and expert roundtable. We will have five participants with more than a half-century of combined military and diplomatic experience hailing from the College of Law, and Departments of Political Science and Military Science (ROTC), and an invited lecturer from the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS). The discussion will feature competing perspectives on US foreign policy and grand strategy, including a wide range of opinions, ideas, and worldviews on questions like ‘can—and should—America police the world?’ ‘Can diplomatic cooperation or international law succeed where force fails?’ This event is free and open to the public. >> > _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davegreen84 at yahoo.com Fri Nov 10 15:29:37 2017 From: davegreen84 at yahoo.com (David Green) Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2017 15:29:37 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Peace-discuss] Alternative to listening to Warmonger Elliot Cohen In-Reply-To: <002a01d35a37$b5981360$20c83a20$@comcast.net> References: <3FFA4336-3F64-4450-B6B9-DA4904072F6B@gmail.com> <245390411.5159054.1510196215595@mail.yahoo.com> <002a01d35a37$b5981360$20c83a20$@comcast.net> Message-ID: <471172784.256106.1510327777133@mail.yahoo.com> David, you're absolutely right, including about Nina Turner, and there's nothing funny about that. On Friday, November 10, 2017, 9:22:11 AM CST, David Johnson wrote: #yiv8602317541 #yiv8602317541 -- _filtered #yiv8602317541 {font-family:Helvetica;panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;} _filtered #yiv8602317541 {panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv8602317541 {font-family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv8602317541 {font-family:Tahoma;panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;} _filtered #yiv8602317541 {font-family:Garamond;panose-1:2 2 4 4 3 3 1 1 8 3;}#yiv8602317541 #yiv8602317541 p.yiv8602317541MsoNormal, #yiv8602317541 li.yiv8602317541MsoNormal, #yiv8602317541 div.yiv8602317541MsoNormal {margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv8602317541 a:link, #yiv8602317541 span.yiv8602317541MsoHyperlink {color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv8602317541 a:visited, #yiv8602317541 span.yiv8602317541MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:purple;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv8602317541 span.yiv8602317541EmailStyle17 {color:#1F497D;}#yiv8602317541 .yiv8602317541MsoChpDefault {font-size:10.0pt;} _filtered #yiv8602317541 {margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}#yiv8602317541 div.yiv8602317541WordSection1 {}#yiv8602317541 “ I would worry about blood pressure issues, although not my own; on the other hand, it could ironically turn out to be a cure for insomnia.”   I have always loved your sense of humor David, and YES, we do need to call out the so called “ Progressives “ and their candidates need to be called to account on foreign policy. Even such firebrands in the “ Our Revolution “ revolt within the Democratic party like Nina Turner from Ohio is very uncomfortable about talking about foreign policy and anti-war issues. It’s a “ taboo “ subject because even Bernie Sanders has supported the war machine consistently.   David J.     From: Peace-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of David Green via Peace-discuss Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2017 8:57 PM To: Peace-discuss; Karen Aram Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Alternative to listening to Warmonger Elliot Cohen   I don't know; obviously I've attended a lot of academic events over the years. But on the one hand I would worry about blood pressure issues, although not my own; on the other hand, it could ironically turn out to be a cure for insomnia. In any case, we need to have a community in which academic discourse of this nature does not set the agenda, unless there is a real opportunity for an organized civil response. For example, it's important that the Democratic candidates for Congress be called to account for the views on foreign policy. That means that their "progressive" supporters need to be called to account.   Just my 2 cents, as Ricky Baldwin used to say and perhaps still does.   DG On ‎Wednesday‎, ‎November‎ ‎8‎, ‎2017‎ ‎07‎:‎09‎:‎38‎ ‎PM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote:     I hate going out after dark. Here maybe is what we should be attending. At 3:00pm Rm#314 in the illini Union tomorrow also is the Debate, with five scholars from various universities. NOV 9 Debating America’s Grand Strategic Alternatives Public · Hosted by Cline Center for Advanced Social Research Join us in Room 314 of the Illini Union for a public forum and expert roundtable. We will have five participants with more than a half-century of combined military and diplomatic experience hailing from the College of Law, and Departments of Political Science and Military Science (ROTC), and an invited lecturer from the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS). The discussion will feature competing perspectives on US foreign policy and grand strategy, including a wide range of opinions, ideas, and worldviews on questions like ‘can—and should—America police the world?’ ‘Can diplomatic cooperation or international law succeed where force fails?’ This event is free and open to the public. >> > _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss   -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Fri Nov 10 15:53:20 2017 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2017 09:53:20 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Alternative to listening to Warmonger Elliot Cohen In-Reply-To: <471172784.256106.1510327777133@mail.yahoo.com> References: <3FFA4336-3F64-4450-B6B9-DA4904072F6B@gmail.com> <245390411.5159054.1510196215595@mail.yahoo.com> <002a01d35a37$b5981360$20c83a20$@comcast.net> <471172784.256106.1510327777133@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <68A961BE-3BAE-4D4E-AC21-A9618F8D76A5@gmail.com> Listening to this forum, I imagined listening to a group of German academics and apparatchiki discussing ‘Grand Strategy' in just this way in the autumn of 1939. They would agree that the recent invasion (Poland/Iraq), far from being an international crime, merely produced a new situation that must be capitalized on. That’s what I heard yesterday. There was no dissent. —CGE "For a Responsible Legislature, Vote Against Incumbents. They Haven’t Done Well." > On Nov 10, 2017, at 9:29 AM, David Green via Peace-discuss wrote: > > David, you're absolutely right, including about Nina Turner, and there's nothing funny about that. > > > On Friday, November 10, 2017, 9:22:11 AM CST, David Johnson wrote: > > > “ I would worry about blood pressure issues, although not my own; on the other hand, it could ironically turn out to be a cure for insomnia.” > > > > I have always loved your sense of humor David, and YES, we do need to call out the so called “ Progressives “ and their candidates need to be called to account on foreign policy. > > Even such firebrands in the “ Our Revolution “ revolt within the Democratic party like Nina Turner from Ohio is very uncomfortable about talking about foreign policy and anti-war issues. > > It’s a “ taboo “ subject because even Bernie Sanders has supported the war machine consistently. > > > David J. > > > > From: Peace-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of David Green via Peace-discuss > Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2017 8:57 PM > To: Peace-discuss; Karen Aram > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Alternative to listening to Warmonger Elliot Cohen > > > I don't know; obviously I've attended a lot of academic events over the years. But on the one hand I would worry about blood pressure issues, although not my own; on the other hand, it could ironically turn out to be a cure for insomnia. In any case, we need to have a community in which academic discourse of this nature does not set the agenda, unless there is a real opportunity for an organized civil response. For example, it's important that the Democratic candidates for Congress be called to account for the views on foreign policy. That means that their "progressive" supporters need to be called to account. > > > Just my 2 cents, as Ricky Baldwin used to say and perhaps still does. > > > DG > > On ‎Wednesday‎, ‎November‎ ‎8‎, ‎2017‎ ‎07‎:‎09‎:‎38‎ ‎PM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: > > > > I hate going out after dark. Here maybe is what we should be attending. > > At 3:00pm Rm#314 in the illini Union tomorrow also is the Debate, with five scholars from various universities. > > > NOV > 9 > Debating America’s Grand Strategic Alternatives > Public · Hosted by Cline Center for Advanced Social Research > > Join us in Room 314 of the Illini Union for a public forum and expert roundtable. We will have five participants with more than a half-century of combined military and diplomatic experience hailing from the College of Law, and Departments of Political Science and Military Science (ROTC), and an invited lecturer from the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS). The discussion will feature competing perspectives on US foreign policy and grand strategy, including a wide range of opinions, ideas, and worldviews on questions like ‘can—and should—America police the world?’ ‘Can diplomatic cooperation or international law succeed where force fails?’ > > This event is free and open to the public. > >> > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Fri Nov 10 16:25:20 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2017 16:25:20 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Killer Koh & Iceman Amar Message-ID: At the one meeting I had with Iceman Amar in his office, he made it perfectly clear to me that he was going to bring out Killer Koh no matter how vigorously I objected. He then pompously and sanctimoniously gave me his Illiniwak Law Dean Business Card, writing his home phone number on there and inviting me to call him at home should I have any concerns. He got our message! I threw out his card and home number into my trashcan where they belong. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Fri Nov 10 16:25:20 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2017 16:25:20 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Killer Koh & Iceman Amar Message-ID: At the one meeting I had with Iceman Amar in his office, he made it perfectly clear to me that he was going to bring out Killer Koh no matter how vigorously I objected. He then pompously and sanctimoniously gave me his Illiniwak Law Dean Business Card, writing his home phone number on there and inviting me to call him at home should I have any concerns. He got our message! I threw out his card and home number into my trashcan where they belong. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net Fri Nov 10 18:14:57 2017 From: davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net (David Johnson) Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2017 12:14:57 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Alternative to listening to Warmonger Elliot Cohen In-Reply-To: <471172784.256106.1510327777133@mail.yahoo.com> References: <3FFA4336-3F64-4450-B6B9-DA4904072F6B@gmail.com> <245390411.5159054.1510196215595@mail.yahoo.com> <002a01d35a37$b5981360$20c83a20$@comcast.net> <471172784.256106.1510327777133@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <004f01d35a4f$d144ce60$73ce6b20$@comcast.net> Indeed ! David J. From: David Green [mailto:davegreen84 at yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, November 10, 2017 9:30 AM To: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; David Johnson Subject: Re: RE: [Peace-discuss] Alternative to listening to Warmonger Elliot Cohen David, you're absolutely right, including about Nina Turner, and there's nothing funny about that. On Friday, November 10, 2017, 9:22:11 AM CST, David Johnson wrote: “ I would worry about blood pressure issues, although not my own; on the other hand, it could ironically turn out to be a cure for insomnia.” I have always loved your sense of humor David, and YES, we do need to call out the so called “ Progressives “ and their candidates need to be called to account on foreign policy. Even such firebrands in the “ Our Revolution “ revolt within the Democratic party like Nina Turner from Ohio is very uncomfortable about talking about foreign policy and anti-war issues. It’s a “ taboo “ subject because even Bernie Sanders has supported the war machine consistently. David J. From: Peace-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of David Green via Peace-discuss Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2017 8:57 PM To: Peace-discuss; Karen Aram Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Alternative to listening to Warmonger Elliot Cohen I don't know; obviously I've attended a lot of academic events over the years. But on the one hand I would worry about blood pressure issues, although not my own; on the other hand, it could ironically turn out to be a cure for insomnia. In any case, we need to have a community in which academic discourse of this nature does not set the agenda, unless there is a real opportunity for an organized civil response. For example, it's important that the Democratic candidates for Congress be called to account for the views on foreign policy. That means that their "progressive" supporters need to be called to account. Just my 2 cents, as Ricky Baldwin used to say and perhaps still does. DG On ‎Wednesday‎, ‎November‎ ‎8‎, ‎2017‎ ‎07‎:‎09‎:‎38‎ ‎PM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: I hate going out after dark. Here maybe is what we should be attending. At 3:00pm Rm#314 in the illini Union tomorrow also is the Debate, with five scholars from various universities. NOV 9 Debating America’s Grand Strategic Alternatives Public · Hosted by Cline Center for Advanced Social Research Join us in Room 314 of the Illini Union for a public forum and expert roundtable. We will have five participants with more than a half-century of combined military and diplomatic experience hailing from the College of Law, and Departments of Political Science and Military Science (ROTC), and an invited lecturer from the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS). The discussion will feature competing perspectives on US foreign policy and grand strategy, including a wide range of opinions, ideas, and worldviews on questions like ‘can—and should—America police the world?’ ‘Can diplomatic cooperation or international law succeed where force fails?’ This event is free and open to the public. >> > _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Fri Nov 10 18:39:21 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2017 18:39:21 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Alternative to listening to Warmonger Elliot Cohen In-Reply-To: <471172784.256106.1510327777133@mail.yahoo.com> References: <3FFA4336-3F64-4450-B6B9-DA4904072F6B@gmail.com> <245390411.5159054.1510196215595@mail.yahoo.com> <002a01d35a37$b5981360$20c83a20$@comcast.net> <471172784.256106.1510327777133@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Both David’s nailed it. To put it simply as I see it: Many think discussion of foreign policy, is just another issue like racism, gender discrimination, proliferation of weapons around the world, US massacres of our own citizens as well as the millions around the world, lack of jobs, poverty, as well as global warming. They are not, though global warming maybe of equal “concern,” with the potential for nuclear war. It cannot be eradicated without changes to our “foreign policy,” like all the other issues of concern. The roots of our foreign policy is imperialism and hegemony, a result of capitalism and the drive for profits for the elites. Deep discussion of US foreign policy issues, results in deep discussion of the roots, which is capitalism, and imperialism as a result. Our two Party system can’t allow this discussion, given they support capitalism. The resultant wars are well, “too bad, but you gotta do what you gotta do to achieve your goals.” The corporates/elites who control the two Party system know that reforms or attempts to change the many problems facing society, will not succeed without changes to our profit driven system, but keeping the people divided and focused on issue change, keeps us from dealing with the most important “real issue” which requires system change. Does this mean, Janine Turner is thinking along these lines, is she an elite profiting from war and capitalism? Maybe, maybe not. Quite likely she is like many who support the organization they believe of value, or that which provides their paycheck. Either they support it without question following the rules laid down before them, or they know but just don’t care. On Nov 10, 2017, at 07:29, David Green via Peace-discuss > wrote: David, you're absolutely right, including about Nina Turner, and there's nothing funny about that. On Friday, November 10, 2017, 9:22:11 AM CST, David Johnson > wrote: “ I would worry about blood pressure issues, although not my own; on the other hand, it could ironically turn out to be a cure for insomnia.” I have always loved your sense of humor David, and YES, we do need to call out the so called “ Progressives “ and their candidates need to be called to account on foreign policy. Even such firebrands in the “ Our Revolution “ revolt within the Democratic party like Nina Turner from Ohio is very uncomfortable about talking about foreign policy and anti-war issues. It’s a “ taboo “ subject because even Bernie Sanders has supported the war machine consistently. David J. From: Peace-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of David Green via Peace-discuss Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2017 8:57 PM To: Peace-discuss; Karen Aram Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Alternative to listening to Warmonger Elliot Cohen I don't know; obviously I've attended a lot of academic events over the years. But on the one hand I would worry about blood pressure issues, although not my own; on the other hand, it could ironically turn out to be a cure for insomnia. In any case, we need to have a community in which academic discourse of this nature does not set the agenda, unless there is a real opportunity for an organized civil response. For example, it's important that the Democratic candidates for Congress be called to account for the views on foreign policy. That means that their "progressive" supporters need to be called to account. Just my 2 cents, as Ricky Baldwin used to say and perhaps still does. DG On ‎Wednesday‎, ‎November‎ ‎8‎, ‎2017‎ ‎07‎:‎09‎:‎38‎ ‎PM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > wrote: I hate going out after dark. Here maybe is what we should be attending. At 3:00pm Rm#314 in the illini Union tomorrow also is the Debate, with five scholars from various universities. > NOV 9 Debating America’s Grand Strategic Alternatives Public · Hosted by Cline Center for Advanced Social Research > Join us in Room 314 of the Illini Union for a public forum and expert roundtable. We will have five participants with more than a half-century of combined military and diplomatic experience hailing from the College of Law, and Departments of Political Science and Military Science (ROTC), and an invited lecturer from the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS). The discussion will feature competing perspectives on US foreign policy and grand strategy, including a wide range of opinions, ideas, and worldviews on questions like ‘can—and should—America police the world?’ ‘Can diplomatic cooperation or international law succeed where force fails?’ This event is free and open to the public. >> > _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.chambana.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fpeace-discuss&data=02%7C01%7Ckarenaram%40hotmail.com%7Cd56070b67474475501aa08d5284fe9cf%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636459246040298345&sdata=Si5zp8Y%2FFPxnlH894GUcJLaZbbt1FHVMdtSC20wuR3k%3D&reserved=0 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Fri Nov 10 18:59:45 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2017 18:59:45 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] News Gazoo against BDS In-Reply-To: References: <88909CB6-12CC-4A63-8314-DACDCAFE40ED@gmail.com> Message-ID: And if I remember correctly, and I sincerely stand subject to correction, our Fired and Disgraced Chancellor Wise {sic!} signed onto this Zionist-Bootlicking Anti-BDS Letter with Harvard’s Faust. The Illiniwaks have been die-hard bigots and racists against Palestinians and American Indians since I began teaching here in August of 1978. By comparison, at least Harvard was not bigoted and racist against American Indians when I entered there in 1971. Witness the Illiniwaks illegally firing our Palestinian Native American Studies Professor Steve Salaita, throwing him, his wife, and their Palestinian baby out into the street with no visible means of support at the behest of the CU/UIUC Zionists. And then Chief Illiniwak just making his Special Guest Appearance at the Illiniwaks 2017 Homecoming Parade. QEDs. FAB D in BDS. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Friday, November 10, 2017 8:06 AM To: C G Estabrook Cc: David Green ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay ; David Johnson ; Mildred O'brien Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] News Gazoo against BDS Right again Carl. Ever since I entered Harvard in 1971, I have always found that the Acid Test of your Courage, your Integrity and your Principles has been where you stand on the Palestinians. So many self-styled “liberals” and “progressives” and “leftists” have failed that test. Fab. Sunday, December 29, 2013 Prof Boyle Schools Harvard President Faust About Prejudice Francis A. Boyle is an attorney and a professor of international law. He's also the author of many books including, most recently, United Ireland, Human Rights and International Law. Professor Boyle Schools Harvard President Faust About Prejudice Dec. 27, 2013 Dear President Faust: I notice your condemnation of the ASA Boycott against Israel in today's New York Times. I note for the record that Harvard has never once apologized to those of us Harvard Alums who participated in good faith in the Harvard Divestment/Disinvestment Campaign against Israel when your predecessor Larry Summers accused us of being anti-Semitic-- a charge which he refused to defend against me as related below. As a matter of fact, Harvard is so notoriously anti-Palestinian that the late, great Edward Said refused to accept Harvard's top chair in Comparative Literature when Harvard offered it to him. As a loyal Harvard alum I spent an entire evening with Edward at a Chinese Restaurant in Manhattan trying to convince Edward to take this Chair. I thought it would be good for Harvard to have Edward teaching there. As a lawyer and a law professor, I can be quite persuasive. But Edward would have none of my arguments. As Edward saw it, Harvard was so anti-Palestinian that Harvard would have thwarted his intellectual creativity to move there. So Edward stayed at Columbia. Of course Edward was right. And the anti-Palestinian tenor and orientation of Harvard has certainly gotten far worse since when Edward and I were both students at Harvard. Harvard should be doing something about its own longstanding bigotry and racism against the Palestinians. Not criticizing those of us trying to help the Palestinians suffering from Israeli persecution, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and outright genocide. Yours very truly, Francis A. Boyle Professor of Law Harvard: JDMCL, AM, PHD, CFIA, Teaching Fellow Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] Sent: Friday, November 10, 2017 7:36 AM To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: David Green >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] News Gazoo against BDS And the fiery liberal spirits whom this area sends to the Illinois legislature - having been lobbied by the Israeli consulate in Chicago - couldn’t bring themselves to vote against legislation that prohibits the U of I (among others) from investing in companies that boycott Israeli businesses because of Israeli human rights violations (including businesses based in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, in contravention of international law). That legislation is now law in Illinois. Boycotts of businesses that are based in Israeli settlements in Occupied Palestinian territory, or that profit from Israeli human rights violations are a means of protesting Israel’s occupation and human rights violations. Such boycotts are legal under US law and have wide political support in the US and internationally, including by Peace Now (Shalom Achshav) in Israel and Americans for Peace Now in the US, Jewish Voice for Peace, the Presbyterian Church, and United Methodist Church in the US. Any private Israeli entity that wants to receive funding from the European Union must demonstrate that it has no links to the West Bank. (The ACLU of Illinois opposed the legislation.) —CGE "For a Responsible Legislature, Vote Against Incumbents. They Haven’t Done Well." On Nov 10, 2017, at 7:08 AM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss > wrote: Been pretty tied up on other matters. But I did want to react to a letter I saw in the News Gazoo: Yes, I was involved in the long struggle on this campus to convince the University of Illiniwaks to DIVEST from the Criminal Apartheid Regime in South Africa. Now the University of Illiniwaks are INVESTING in the Criminal Apartheid Regime in Israel. No surprise there after the Illiniwaks illegally fired our Native American Studies Professor Steven Salaita and threw him, his wife and their baby out into the street with no visible means of support at the behest of the local Zionists. fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2017 9:39 AM To: David Green >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; Estabrook, Carl G >; David Swanson > Subject: News Gazoo against BDS By trying to shore up the collapsing Zionist criminal apartheid regime in Israel, the University of Illiniwaks has once again placed itself on the wrong side of History and Principle along with Chief Illiniwak. Fab D in BDS. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Fri Nov 10 18:59:45 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2017 18:59:45 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] News Gazoo against BDS In-Reply-To: References: <88909CB6-12CC-4A63-8314-DACDCAFE40ED@gmail.com> Message-ID: And if I remember correctly, and I sincerely stand subject to correction, our Fired and Disgraced Chancellor Wise {sic!} signed onto this Zionist-Bootlicking Anti-BDS Letter with Harvard’s Faust. The Illiniwaks have been die-hard bigots and racists against Palestinians and American Indians since I began teaching here in August of 1978. By comparison, at least Harvard was not bigoted and racist against American Indians when I entered there in 1971. Witness the Illiniwaks illegally firing our Palestinian Native American Studies Professor Steve Salaita, throwing him, his wife, and their Palestinian baby out into the street with no visible means of support at the behest of the CU/UIUC Zionists. And then Chief Illiniwak just making his Special Guest Appearance at the Illiniwaks 2017 Homecoming Parade. QEDs. FAB D in BDS. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Friday, November 10, 2017 8:06 AM To: C G Estabrook Cc: David Green ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay ; David Johnson ; Mildred O'brien Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] News Gazoo against BDS Right again Carl. Ever since I entered Harvard in 1971, I have always found that the Acid Test of your Courage, your Integrity and your Principles has been where you stand on the Palestinians. So many self-styled “liberals” and “progressives” and “leftists” have failed that test. Fab. Sunday, December 29, 2013 Prof Boyle Schools Harvard President Faust About Prejudice Francis A. Boyle is an attorney and a professor of international law. He's also the author of many books including, most recently, United Ireland, Human Rights and International Law. Professor Boyle Schools Harvard President Faust About Prejudice Dec. 27, 2013 Dear President Faust: I notice your condemnation of the ASA Boycott against Israel in today's New York Times. I note for the record that Harvard has never once apologized to those of us Harvard Alums who participated in good faith in the Harvard Divestment/Disinvestment Campaign against Israel when your predecessor Larry Summers accused us of being anti-Semitic-- a charge which he refused to defend against me as related below. As a matter of fact, Harvard is so notoriously anti-Palestinian that the late, great Edward Said refused to accept Harvard's top chair in Comparative Literature when Harvard offered it to him. As a loyal Harvard alum I spent an entire evening with Edward at a Chinese Restaurant in Manhattan trying to convince Edward to take this Chair. I thought it would be good for Harvard to have Edward teaching there. As a lawyer and a law professor, I can be quite persuasive. But Edward would have none of my arguments. As Edward saw it, Harvard was so anti-Palestinian that Harvard would have thwarted his intellectual creativity to move there. So Edward stayed at Columbia. Of course Edward was right. And the anti-Palestinian tenor and orientation of Harvard has certainly gotten far worse since when Edward and I were both students at Harvard. Harvard should be doing something about its own longstanding bigotry and racism against the Palestinians. Not criticizing those of us trying to help the Palestinians suffering from Israeli persecution, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and outright genocide. Yours very truly, Francis A. Boyle Professor of Law Harvard: JDMCL, AM, PHD, CFIA, Teaching Fellow Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] Sent: Friday, November 10, 2017 7:36 AM To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: David Green >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] News Gazoo against BDS And the fiery liberal spirits whom this area sends to the Illinois legislature - having been lobbied by the Israeli consulate in Chicago - couldn’t bring themselves to vote against legislation that prohibits the U of I (among others) from investing in companies that boycott Israeli businesses because of Israeli human rights violations (including businesses based in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, in contravention of international law). That legislation is now law in Illinois. Boycotts of businesses that are based in Israeli settlements in Occupied Palestinian territory, or that profit from Israeli human rights violations are a means of protesting Israel’s occupation and human rights violations. Such boycotts are legal under US law and have wide political support in the US and internationally, including by Peace Now (Shalom Achshav) in Israel and Americans for Peace Now in the US, Jewish Voice for Peace, the Presbyterian Church, and United Methodist Church in the US. Any private Israeli entity that wants to receive funding from the European Union must demonstrate that it has no links to the West Bank. (The ACLU of Illinois opposed the legislation.) —CGE "For a Responsible Legislature, Vote Against Incumbents. They Haven’t Done Well." On Nov 10, 2017, at 7:08 AM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss > wrote: Been pretty tied up on other matters. But I did want to react to a letter I saw in the News Gazoo: Yes, I was involved in the long struggle on this campus to convince the University of Illiniwaks to DIVEST from the Criminal Apartheid Regime in South Africa. Now the University of Illiniwaks are INVESTING in the Criminal Apartheid Regime in Israel. No surprise there after the Illiniwaks illegally fired our Native American Studies Professor Steven Salaita and threw him, his wife and their baby out into the street with no visible means of support at the behest of the local Zionists. fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2017 9:39 AM To: David Green >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; Estabrook, Carl G >; David Swanson > Subject: News Gazoo against BDS By trying to shore up the collapsing Zionist criminal apartheid regime in Israel, the University of Illiniwaks has once again placed itself on the wrong side of History and Principle along with Chief Illiniwak. Fab D in BDS. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Fri Nov 10 20:21:56 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2017 20:21:56 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: Announcing: Hot Topics at AALS 2018:Killer Koh Message-ID: Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Friday, November 10, 2017 2:20 PM To: sectns.aals at lists.aals.org Subject: Announcing: Hot Topics at AALS 2018:Killer Koh “…particularly to the drone assassinations, “the most extreme terrorist campaign of modern times” - which have killed more than 5,000 people, including U.S. citizens and hundreds of children.” Chomsky {now 10,000+ people} Yo! AALS! These topics are not as “hot” as your Keynote Convention Address by Killer Koh on how to exterminate Muslims/Arabs/Asians of Color. Hey! Hey! AALS Say! How many Kids! Did you kill today! In the Muslim World! Hey! Hey! AALS Say! How many Moms! Did you kill today! In the Muslim World! Hey! Hey! AALS Say! How many Dads! Did you kill today! In the Muslim World! Fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: AALS [mailto:aals at aals.org] Sent: Friday, November 10, 2017 2:01 PM To: Boyle, Francis A > Subject: Announcing: Hot Topics at AALS 2018 Having trouble viewing this e-mail? Click here to view in a browser. [Logo] [AALS] [AALS] Announcing: Hot Topics at AALS 2018 Hot topic programs at the AALS Annual Meeting are breaking news sessions we add to the schedule to highlight the most pressing and important topics in law and society each year. These programs were proposed by law school faculty and selected by the Program Committee for the AALS 2018 Annual Meeting. Don’t miss the following exciting programs in San Diego: * The Promise and Pitfalls of the Marijuana Justice Act of 2017 * Federalism and Sanctuary Cities * Using the Law and Its Enforcement to Address the Overdose Crisis: Emerging Trends and Implications * Rethinking Campus Response to Sexual Violence: Betsy DeVos, Title IX, and the Continuing Search for Access to Justice * Law Professors, the Legal Academy, and Controversies Over Free Speech on Campus * The Disaster Narrative and the State Find more information including full session descriptions, speakers, and times on the Annual Meeting website. If you have not already registered, do so now to take advantage of reduced early bird rates—they’re only good through next Friday! More on the 2018 AALS Annual Meeting 2018 AALS Annual Meeting webpage More from AALS AALS News - Summer 2017 Journal of Legal Education, Volume 66, Number 4 Summer 2017 Subscribe to a weekly digest of legal education news Can't attend? Opt out of emails for the 2018 AALS Annual Meeting. [AALS] [AALS] [Footer Logo] Association of American Law Schools Advancing Excellence in Legal Education 1614 20th Street, N.W. Washington D.C. 20009-1001 Phone: 202.296.8851 Fax: 202.296.8869 E-mail [Facebook] [Twitter] [Linkedin] [Youtube] [Flickr] WEBSITE LEGAL ED NEWS TERMS OF USE PRIVACY POLICY [AALS] . [Informz] [http://AALS-NFE2015Test.informz.net/z/cmVkNi5hc3A_bWk9NzExMjM2MCZ1PTEwNzcwOTQyNDAmYj00MDA5OA/image.gif] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Fri Nov 10 20:21:56 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2017 20:21:56 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: Announcing: Hot Topics at AALS 2018:Killer Koh Message-ID: Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Friday, November 10, 2017 2:20 PM To: sectns.aals at lists.aals.org Subject: Announcing: Hot Topics at AALS 2018:Killer Koh “…particularly to the drone assassinations, “the most extreme terrorist campaign of modern times” - which have killed more than 5,000 people, including U.S. citizens and hundreds of children.” Chomsky {now 10,000+ people} Yo! AALS! These topics are not as “hot” as your Keynote Convention Address by Killer Koh on how to exterminate Muslims/Arabs/Asians of Color. Hey! Hey! AALS Say! How many Kids! Did you kill today! In the Muslim World! Hey! Hey! AALS Say! How many Moms! Did you kill today! In the Muslim World! Hey! Hey! AALS Say! How many Dads! Did you kill today! In the Muslim World! Fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: AALS [mailto:aals at aals.org] Sent: Friday, November 10, 2017 2:01 PM To: Boyle, Francis A > Subject: Announcing: Hot Topics at AALS 2018 Having trouble viewing this e-mail? Click here to view in a browser. [Logo] [AALS] [AALS] Announcing: Hot Topics at AALS 2018 Hot topic programs at the AALS Annual Meeting are breaking news sessions we add to the schedule to highlight the most pressing and important topics in law and society each year. These programs were proposed by law school faculty and selected by the Program Committee for the AALS 2018 Annual Meeting. Don’t miss the following exciting programs in San Diego: * The Promise and Pitfalls of the Marijuana Justice Act of 2017 * Federalism and Sanctuary Cities * Using the Law and Its Enforcement to Address the Overdose Crisis: Emerging Trends and Implications * Rethinking Campus Response to Sexual Violence: Betsy DeVos, Title IX, and the Continuing Search for Access to Justice * Law Professors, the Legal Academy, and Controversies Over Free Speech on Campus * The Disaster Narrative and the State Find more information including full session descriptions, speakers, and times on the Annual Meeting website. If you have not already registered, do so now to take advantage of reduced early bird rates—they’re only good through next Friday! More on the 2018 AALS Annual Meeting 2018 AALS Annual Meeting webpage More from AALS AALS News - Summer 2017 Journal of Legal Education, Volume 66, Number 4 Summer 2017 Subscribe to a weekly digest of legal education news Can't attend? Opt out of emails for the 2018 AALS Annual Meeting. [AALS] [AALS] [Footer Logo] Association of American Law Schools Advancing Excellence in Legal Education 1614 20th Street, N.W. Washington D.C. 20009-1001 Phone: 202.296.8851 Fax: 202.296.8869 E-mail [Facebook] [Twitter] [Linkedin] [Youtube] [Flickr] WEBSITE LEGAL ED NEWS TERMS OF USE PRIVACY POLICY [AALS] . [Informz] [http://AALS-NFE2015Test.informz.net/z/cmVkNi5hc3A_bWk9NzExMjM2MCZ1PTEwNzcwOTQyNDAmYj00MDA5OA/image.gif] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Sat Nov 11 12:21:28 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2017 12:21:28 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] =?utf-8?q?=5Bufpj-activist=5D_=E2=80=98Tainted_by?= =?utf-8?q?_association=E2=80=99=3A_CIA_whistleblower_says_progressives_ki?= =?utf-8?q?cked_him_off_EU_panel?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: It is to be expected. Progressives, Bernie supporters, Democrats et al, they fear any mention of “foreign policy,” or the fact that more “Whistleblowers” like John, were arrested, pursued and incarcerated under the Democratic regime of Obama, than ever in our history. Yes, the neocons are awful, but the neoliberals are complicit in all. On Nov 11, 2017, at 03:02, Robert Naiman > wrote: This is horrible. Can we organize some kind of intervention to stop this from happening? https://www.rt.com/usa/409528-kiriakou-eu-panel-winnie/ === Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 Co-Sponsor Khanna-Massie to #StopSaudiFamineInYemen https://petitions.moveon.org/sign/force-vote-on-saudi-war?r_by=1135580 _______________________________________________ ufpj-activist mailing list Post: ufpj-activist at lists.mayfirst.org List info: https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.mayfirst.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fufpj-activist&data=02%7C01%7Ckarenaram%40hotmail.com%7C424f44fc13ec4075683408d528f3c92f%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636459949869441925&sdata=BYLZl3LVSaD7PEOJmSZo881RRY0sNQiBGHGBnQl8SmM%3D&reserved=0 To Unsubscribe Send email to: ufpj-activist-unsubscribe at lists.mayfirst.org Or visit: https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.mayfirst.org%2Fmailman%2Foptions%2Fufpj-activist%2Fkarenaram%2540hotmail.com&data=02%7C01%7Ckarenaram%40hotmail.com%7C424f44fc13ec4075683408d528f3c92f%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636459949869441925&sdata=EH6QQvcqAkZCvbhdReXLWHbOp2O3VZavYHXst6O3JVQ%3D&reserved=0 You are subscribed as: karenaram at hotmail.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Sat Nov 11 12:26:31 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2017 12:26:31 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] RT America will register as a "foreign agent" this is as ridiculous as it is chilling. Message-ID: * Print * Leaflet * Feedback * Share » US brands RT a “foreign agent:” A chilling move against free speech By Andre Damon WWW.WSWS.ORG 11 November 2017 On Thursday, RT America, the US-based subsidiary of RT (formerly known as Russia Today), announced that it would, under pressure from the United States government, register as a “foreign agent” under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA). The Justice Department’s demand that RT register as a “foreign agent” is aimed at delegitimizing RT as a news source, intimidating its journalists and guests, and setting the precedent for taking similar actions against other news outlets. The US government has given no public justification for its demand, which will require that RT America provide information on its finances and on individuals involved in directing the news outlet. RT clearly reflects the views of the Russian government and avoids criticism of the Putin regime. However, the US has made no similar demand in relation to other outlets that have government financing and backing—the BBC, for example. Moreover, the United States operates a vast network of news agencies that work, officially and unofficially, to promote the interests of the American ruling class all over the world. The US government’s motivations are entirely political, bound up with the effort to present all opposition within the United States as the product of the actions of Russia. In its reporting, whatever its reasons may be, RT provides a platform for voices critical of the policy of the American government. The United States outlined the political reasons for moving against the broadcaster in the January 6, 2017 report by the US Director of National Intelligence on “Russian intervention” in the 2016 elections. The report alleged, “RT broadcast, hosted, and advertised third-party candidate debates and ran reporting supportive of the political agenda of these candidates. The RT hosts asserted that the US two-party system does not represent the views of at least one-third of the population and is a ‘sham.’” The Director of National Intelligence report further denounced favorable coverage by RT of the Occupy Wall Street movement, declaring, “RT framed the movement as a fight against ‘the ruling class’ and described the current US political system as corrupt and dominated by corporations.” More recently, US politicians—led by the Democratic Party—have developed a narrative that Russia, through outlets like RT, has worked to “sow divisions” within the United States, as if the American people need RT to know that the political system is corrupt and dominated by corporations. The campaign has been used to demand a regime of Internet censorship, with technology giants including Google, Facebook and Twitter taking measures to block or demote content from a broad range of websites. Earlier this month, Google removed RT from its list of “preferred” channels on YouTube, while Twitter blocked all advertising by the channel. In addition to its crackdown on RT, Google has made sweeping changes to its search engine and news service that have dramatically slashed traffic to left-wing, antiwar and progressive web sites, including the World Socialist Web Site, which has had its search traffic from Google fall by 74 percent since April. Precisely because of its ties to the Russian government, the US State Department has chosen it as its first target in its drive to persecute, criminalize and ultimately outlaw all oppositional journalists. Will RT’s hosts, including Pulitzer Prize winner Chris Hedges and veteran interviewer Larry King also be forced to register as “foreign agents?” Will all of RT’s guests, which have included prominent left-wing journalists, politicians, academics, and even celebrities, get a knock on their door demanding that they file paperwork with the Justice Department? Will all of these individuals now be opened to questioning about their collaboration with a “hostile foreign power”? This month, an organization calling itself the European Values Think-Tank, funded by the US embassy and foundations associated with billionaire George Soros, published just such a list, including the names of 2,300 RT guests, grouped into US and UK politicians, journalists, academics, and celebrities. These individuals are, according to the think-tank, “useful idiot[s]” for a “hostile foreign power.” The list includes journalists Julian Assange, Max Blumenthal, Seymour Hersh, Jeremy Scahill, Ed Schultz, and Matt Taibbi, as well as the academics Noam Chomsky and Stephen Cohen, together with actor Russell Brand and filmmaker Oliver Stone. Amid soaring social inequality and an ever-escalating military buildup, the US government is moving to silence any alternative to its closely monitored and vetted establishment media outlets, including the major newspapers and broadcast networks. The fact that RT is being targeted because of its political positions sets an ominous precedent. It means that “foreign propaganda” is being defined by political views, laying the groundwork for a much broader range of news outlets to be labeled as promoting “Russian propaganda,” blacklisted, and ultimately criminalized. Andre Damon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Sat Nov 11 14:12:09 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2017 14:12:09 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: NYT Joke of the Day: VOA & Fox vs. RT Message-ID: Under Illiniwaks Law Dean Iceman KillerKoh Amar, the Ililniwaks Law School and Faculty have become The Death Star on Campus: "Help me, Obi Won Kenobe, you're the only one I can trust!" Fab Ed Norton Professor of Law Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2017 8:04 AM To: sectns.aals at lists.aals.org Subject: NYT Joke of the Day: VOA & Fox vs. RT "Amanda Bennett, the director of Voice of America, said in a statement: "The Voice of America is an independent news source required by law to be accurate, objective and comprehensive..."" Sounds like the propaganda slogan for Fox "news." Someone just told me that Greta Van Susteren now works for VOA. Back when Greta was polluting the airwaves for Fox, she tried to set me up as an apologist for Hamas Suicide Bombings. Smelling a RAT, I declined. So she set up some other lawyer as an apologist for Hamas Suicide Bombings. And she is allegedly a Lawyer, Member of the Bar, and Officer of the Court? LOL! Greta will fit right in there at VOA after Fox. What's the difference? Fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Sat Nov 11 14:12:09 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2017 14:12:09 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: NYT Joke of the Day: VOA & Fox vs. RT Message-ID: Under Illiniwaks Law Dean Iceman KillerKoh Amar, the Ililniwaks Law School and Faculty have become The Death Star on Campus: "Help me, Obi Won Kenobe, you're the only one I can trust!" Fab Ed Norton Professor of Law Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2017 8:04 AM To: sectns.aals at lists.aals.org Subject: NYT Joke of the Day: VOA & Fox vs. RT "Amanda Bennett, the director of Voice of America, said in a statement: "The Voice of America is an independent news source required by law to be accurate, objective and comprehensive..."" Sounds like the propaganda slogan for Fox "news." Someone just told me that Greta Van Susteren now works for VOA. Back when Greta was polluting the airwaves for Fox, she tried to set me up as an apologist for Hamas Suicide Bombings. Smelling a RAT, I declined. So she set up some other lawyer as an apologist for Hamas Suicide Bombings. And she is allegedly a Lawyer, Member of the Bar, and Officer of the Court? LOL! Greta will fit right in there at VOA after Fox. What's the difference? Fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Sat Nov 11 14:50:30 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2017 14:50:30 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] NYT Joke of the Day: VOA & Fox vs. RT In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: VOA, an independent information source, they have got to be kidding. It’s been known for over 30 years, even by US supported Burmese rebels hiding in the jungles of Thailand, that VOA was not credible. That it is, and always has been, a “propaganda” arm of the USG. On Nov 11, 2017, at 06:12, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: Under Illiniwaks Law Dean Iceman KillerKoh Amar, the Ililniwaks Law School and Faculty have become The Death Star on Campus: “Help me, Obi Won Kenobe, you’re the only one I can trust!” Fab Ed Norton Professor of Law Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2017 8:04 AM To: sectns.aals at lists.aals.org Subject: NYT Joke of the Day: VOA & Fox vs. RT “Amanda Bennett, the director of Voice of America, said in a statement: “The Voice of America is an independent news source required by law to be accurate, objective and comprehensive…”” Sounds like the propaganda slogan for Fox “news.” Someone just told me that Greta Van Susteren now works for VOA. Back when Greta was polluting the airwaves for Fox, she tried to set me up as an apologist for Hamas Suicide Bombings. Smelling a RAT, I declined. So she set up some other lawyer as an apologist for Hamas Suicide Bombings. And she is allegedly a Lawyer, Member of the Bar, and Officer of the Court? LOL! Greta will fit right in there at VOA after Fox. What’s the difference? Fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Sat Nov 11 14:50:30 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2017 14:50:30 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] NYT Joke of the Day: VOA & Fox vs. RT In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: VOA, an independent information source, they have got to be kidding. It’s been known for over 30 years, even by US supported Burmese rebels hiding in the jungles of Thailand, that VOA was not credible. That it is, and always has been, a “propaganda” arm of the USG. On Nov 11, 2017, at 06:12, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: Under Illiniwaks Law Dean Iceman KillerKoh Amar, the Ililniwaks Law School and Faculty have become The Death Star on Campus: “Help me, Obi Won Kenobe, you’re the only one I can trust!” Fab Ed Norton Professor of Law Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2017 8:04 AM To: sectns.aals at lists.aals.org Subject: NYT Joke of the Day: VOA & Fox vs. RT “Amanda Bennett, the director of Voice of America, said in a statement: “The Voice of America is an independent news source required by law to be accurate, objective and comprehensive…”” Sounds like the propaganda slogan for Fox “news.” Someone just told me that Greta Van Susteren now works for VOA. Back when Greta was polluting the airwaves for Fox, she tried to set me up as an apologist for Hamas Suicide Bombings. Smelling a RAT, I declined. So she set up some other lawyer as an apologist for Hamas Suicide Bombings. And she is allegedly a Lawyer, Member of the Bar, and Officer of the Court? LOL! Greta will fit right in there at VOA after Fox. What’s the difference? Fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mitchelcohen at mindspring.com Sat Nov 11 14:25:15 2017 From: mitchelcohen at mindspring.com (Mitchel Cohen) Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2017 09:25:15 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [Peace-discuss] =?utf-8?q?=5Bufpj-activist=5D_=E2=80=98Tainted_by?= =?utf-8?q?_association=E2=80=99=3A_CIA_whistleblower_says_progressives_ki?= =?utf-8?q?cked_him_off_EU_panel?= Message-ID: <1794230178.1457.1510410316135@wamui-albus.atl.sa.earthlink.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Sat Nov 11 15:01:59 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2017 15:01:59 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] NYT Joke of the Day: VOA & Fox vs. RT In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Of course Karen! That’s why this post of mine is the Joke of the Day. Along with the Illiiwaks Law School, Dean and Faculty. Yuck it all up everyone. We need a little humor these days to keep our sanity. Fab Ed Norton Professor of Law Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Karen Aram [mailto:karenaram at hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2017 8:51 AM To: Boyle, Francis A Cc: David Green ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron ; Arlene Hickory ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay ; David Johnson ; Mildred O'brien ; C G Estabrook Subject: Re: NYT Joke of the Day: VOA & Fox vs. RT VOA, an independent information source, they have got to be kidding. It’s been known for over 30 years, even by US supported Burmese rebels hiding in the jungles of Thailand, that VOA was not credible. That it is, and always has been, a “propaganda” arm of the USG. On Nov 11, 2017, at 06:12, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: Under Illiniwaks Law Dean Iceman KillerKoh Amar, the Ililniwaks Law School and Faculty have become The Death Star on Campus: “Help me, Obi Won Kenobe, you’re the only one I can trust!” Fab Ed Norton Professor of Law Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2017 8:04 AM To: sectns.aals at lists.aals.org Subject: NYT Joke of the Day: VOA & Fox vs. RT “Amanda Bennett, the director of Voice of America, said in a statement: “The Voice of America is an independent news source required by law to be accurate, objective and comprehensive…”” Sounds like the propaganda slogan for Fox “news.” Someone just told me that Greta Van Susteren now works for VOA. Back when Greta was polluting the airwaves for Fox, she tried to set me up as an apologist for Hamas Suicide Bombings. Smelling a RAT, I declined. So she set up some other lawyer as an apologist for Hamas Suicide Bombings. And she is allegedly a Lawyer, Member of the Bar, and Officer of the Court? LOL! Greta will fit right in there at VOA after Fox. What’s the difference? Fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Sat Nov 11 15:01:59 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2017 15:01:59 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] NYT Joke of the Day: VOA & Fox vs. RT In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Of course Karen! That’s why this post of mine is the Joke of the Day. Along with the Illiiwaks Law School, Dean and Faculty. Yuck it all up everyone. We need a little humor these days to keep our sanity. Fab Ed Norton Professor of Law Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Karen Aram [mailto:karenaram at hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2017 8:51 AM To: Boyle, Francis A Cc: David Green ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron ; Arlene Hickory ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay ; David Johnson ; Mildred O'brien ; C G Estabrook Subject: Re: NYT Joke of the Day: VOA & Fox vs. RT VOA, an independent information source, they have got to be kidding. It’s been known for over 30 years, even by US supported Burmese rebels hiding in the jungles of Thailand, that VOA was not credible. That it is, and always has been, a “propaganda” arm of the USG. On Nov 11, 2017, at 06:12, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: Under Illiniwaks Law Dean Iceman KillerKoh Amar, the Ililniwaks Law School and Faculty have become The Death Star on Campus: “Help me, Obi Won Kenobe, you’re the only one I can trust!” Fab Ed Norton Professor of Law Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2017 8:04 AM To: sectns.aals at lists.aals.org Subject: NYT Joke of the Day: VOA & Fox vs. RT “Amanda Bennett, the director of Voice of America, said in a statement: “The Voice of America is an independent news source required by law to be accurate, objective and comprehensive…”” Sounds like the propaganda slogan for Fox “news.” Someone just told me that Greta Van Susteren now works for VOA. Back when Greta was polluting the airwaves for Fox, she tried to set me up as an apologist for Hamas Suicide Bombings. Smelling a RAT, I declined. So she set up some other lawyer as an apologist for Hamas Suicide Bombings. And she is allegedly a Lawyer, Member of the Bar, and Officer of the Court? LOL! Greta will fit right in there at VOA after Fox. What’s the difference? Fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Sat Nov 11 15:06:56 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2017 15:06:56 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] NYT Joke of the Day: VOA & Fox vs. RT In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: By the way, Jay is going to be out there in the Cold today in Chicago protesting against Trump’s threatened war against DPRK. Way to go Jay! Fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2017 9:02 AM To: Karen Aram Cc: David Green ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron ; Arlene Hickory ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay ; David Johnson ; Mildred O'brien ; C G Estabrook Subject: RE: NYT Joke of the Day: VOA & Fox vs. RT Of course Karen! That’s why this post of mine is the Joke of the Day. Along with the Illiiwaks Law School, Dean and Faculty. Yuck it all up everyone. We need a little humor these days to keep our sanity. Fab Ed Norton Professor of Law Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Karen Aram [mailto:karenaram at hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2017 8:51 AM To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: David Green >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; C G Estabrook > Subject: Re: NYT Joke of the Day: VOA & Fox vs. RT VOA, an independent information source, they have got to be kidding. It’s been known for over 30 years, even by US supported Burmese rebels hiding in the jungles of Thailand, that VOA was not credible. That it is, and always has been, a “propaganda” arm of the USG. On Nov 11, 2017, at 06:12, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: Under Illiniwaks Law Dean Iceman KillerKoh Amar, the Ililniwaks Law School and Faculty have become The Death Star on Campus: “Help me, Obi Won Kenobe, you’re the only one I can trust!” Fab Ed Norton Professor of Law Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2017 8:04 AM To: sectns.aals at lists.aals.org Subject: NYT Joke of the Day: VOA & Fox vs. RT “Amanda Bennett, the director of Voice of America, said in a statement: “The Voice of America is an independent news source required by law to be accurate, objective and comprehensive…”” Sounds like the propaganda slogan for Fox “news.” Someone just told me that Greta Van Susteren now works for VOA. Back when Greta was polluting the airwaves for Fox, she tried to set me up as an apologist for Hamas Suicide Bombings. Smelling a RAT, I declined. So she set up some other lawyer as an apologist for Hamas Suicide Bombings. And she is allegedly a Lawyer, Member of the Bar, and Officer of the Court? LOL! Greta will fit right in there at VOA after Fox. What’s the difference? Fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Sat Nov 11 15:06:56 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2017 15:06:56 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] NYT Joke of the Day: VOA & Fox vs. RT In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: By the way, Jay is going to be out there in the Cold today in Chicago protesting against Trump’s threatened war against DPRK. Way to go Jay! Fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2017 9:02 AM To: Karen Aram Cc: David Green ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron ; Arlene Hickory ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay ; David Johnson ; Mildred O'brien ; C G Estabrook Subject: RE: NYT Joke of the Day: VOA & Fox vs. RT Of course Karen! That’s why this post of mine is the Joke of the Day. Along with the Illiiwaks Law School, Dean and Faculty. Yuck it all up everyone. We need a little humor these days to keep our sanity. Fab Ed Norton Professor of Law Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Karen Aram [mailto:karenaram at hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2017 8:51 AM To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: David Green >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; C G Estabrook > Subject: Re: NYT Joke of the Day: VOA & Fox vs. RT VOA, an independent information source, they have got to be kidding. It’s been known for over 30 years, even by US supported Burmese rebels hiding in the jungles of Thailand, that VOA was not credible. That it is, and always has been, a “propaganda” arm of the USG. On Nov 11, 2017, at 06:12, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: Under Illiniwaks Law Dean Iceman KillerKoh Amar, the Ililniwaks Law School and Faculty have become The Death Star on Campus: “Help me, Obi Won Kenobe, you’re the only one I can trust!” Fab Ed Norton Professor of Law Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2017 8:04 AM To: sectns.aals at lists.aals.org Subject: NYT Joke of the Day: VOA & Fox vs. RT “Amanda Bennett, the director of Voice of America, said in a statement: “The Voice of America is an independent news source required by law to be accurate, objective and comprehensive…”” Sounds like the propaganda slogan for Fox “news.” Someone just told me that Greta Van Susteren now works for VOA. Back when Greta was polluting the airwaves for Fox, she tried to set me up as an apologist for Hamas Suicide Bombings. Smelling a RAT, I declined. So she set up some other lawyer as an apologist for Hamas Suicide Bombings. And she is allegedly a Lawyer, Member of the Bar, and Officer of the Court? LOL! Greta will fit right in there at VOA after Fox. What’s the difference? Fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Sat Nov 11 15:24:49 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2017 15:24:49 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] NYT Joke of the Day: VOA & Fox vs. RT References: Message-ID: And remember that last year under Illiniwaks Law Dean Iceman Killer Koh Amar, the Iliniwaks Law School and Faculty were ranked No. 44 in the country. When I came here under John Cribbet in 1978 we were ranked about 15. So I yuck it up around the Illiniwaks Law School and Faculty all the time--A Joke and a Fraud. Fab Ed Norton Professor of Law Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2017 9:02 AM To: 'Karen Aram' Cc: David Green ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron ; Arlene Hickory ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay ; David Johnson ; Mildred O'brien ; C G Estabrook Subject: RE: NYT Joke of the Day: VOA & Fox vs. RT Of course Karen! That’s why this post of mine is the Joke of the Day. Along with the Illiiwaks Law School, Dean and Faculty. Yuck it all up everyone. We need a little humor these days to keep our sanity. Fab Ed Norton Professor of Law Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Karen Aram [mailto:karenaram at hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2017 8:51 AM To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: David Green >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; C G Estabrook > Subject: Re: NYT Joke of the Day: VOA & Fox vs. RT VOA, an independent information source, they have got to be kidding. It’s been known for over 30 years, even by US supported Burmese rebels hiding in the jungles of Thailand, that VOA was not credible. That it is, and always has been, a “propaganda” arm of the USG. On Nov 11, 2017, at 06:12, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: Under Illiniwaks Law Dean Iceman KillerKoh Amar, the Ililniwaks Law School and Faculty have become The Death Star on Campus: “Help me, Obi Won Kenobe, you’re the only one I can trust!” Fab Ed Norton Professor of Law Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2017 8:04 AM To: sectns.aals at lists.aals.org Subject: NYT Joke of the Day: VOA & Fox vs. RT “Amanda Bennett, the director of Voice of America, said in a statement: “The Voice of America is an independent news source required by law to be accurate, objective and comprehensive…”” Sounds like the propaganda slogan for Fox “news.” Someone just told me that Greta Van Susteren now works for VOA. Back when Greta was polluting the airwaves for Fox, she tried to set me up as an apologist for Hamas Suicide Bombings. Smelling a RAT, I declined. So she set up some other lawyer as an apologist for Hamas Suicide Bombings. And she is allegedly a Lawyer, Member of the Bar, and Officer of the Court? LOL! Greta will fit right in there at VOA after Fox. What’s the difference? Fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Sat Nov 11 15:24:49 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2017 15:24:49 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] NYT Joke of the Day: VOA & Fox vs. RT References: Message-ID: And remember that last year under Illiniwaks Law Dean Iceman Killer Koh Amar, the Iliniwaks Law School and Faculty were ranked No. 44 in the country. When I came here under John Cribbet in 1978 we were ranked about 15. So I yuck it up around the Illiniwaks Law School and Faculty all the time--A Joke and a Fraud. Fab Ed Norton Professor of Law Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2017 9:02 AM To: 'Karen Aram' Cc: David Green ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron ; Arlene Hickory ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay ; David Johnson ; Mildred O'brien ; C G Estabrook Subject: RE: NYT Joke of the Day: VOA & Fox vs. RT Of course Karen! That’s why this post of mine is the Joke of the Day. Along with the Illiiwaks Law School, Dean and Faculty. Yuck it all up everyone. We need a little humor these days to keep our sanity. Fab Ed Norton Professor of Law Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Karen Aram [mailto:karenaram at hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2017 8:51 AM To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: David Green >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; C G Estabrook > Subject: Re: NYT Joke of the Day: VOA & Fox vs. RT VOA, an independent information source, they have got to be kidding. It’s been known for over 30 years, even by US supported Burmese rebels hiding in the jungles of Thailand, that VOA was not credible. That it is, and always has been, a “propaganda” arm of the USG. On Nov 11, 2017, at 06:12, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: Under Illiniwaks Law Dean Iceman KillerKoh Amar, the Ililniwaks Law School and Faculty have become The Death Star on Campus: “Help me, Obi Won Kenobe, you’re the only one I can trust!” Fab Ed Norton Professor of Law Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2017 8:04 AM To: sectns.aals at lists.aals.org Subject: NYT Joke of the Day: VOA & Fox vs. RT “Amanda Bennett, the director of Voice of America, said in a statement: “The Voice of America is an independent news source required by law to be accurate, objective and comprehensive…”” Sounds like the propaganda slogan for Fox “news.” Someone just told me that Greta Van Susteren now works for VOA. Back when Greta was polluting the airwaves for Fox, she tried to set me up as an apologist for Hamas Suicide Bombings. Smelling a RAT, I declined. So she set up some other lawyer as an apologist for Hamas Suicide Bombings. And she is allegedly a Lawyer, Member of the Bar, and Officer of the Court? LOL! Greta will fit right in there at VOA after Fox. What’s the difference? Fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Sat Nov 11 15:36:54 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2017 15:36:54 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Statement for Chicago Peace Rally against USA Threatened War against DPRK Message-ID: At Jay’s request, I prepared the following Statement to be read at the anti-war rally today in Chicago: Ok. Here is a Statement below dealing with the legal aspects of the situation. Thanks for doing this protest. Fab. 1.The US government threats of “preventive warfare” against DPRK are illegal and criminal. The Nuremberg Tribunal in their Judgment of 1946, which the US helped organize, condemned “preventive war” when the Lawyers for the Nazis made the argument on their behalf. This is an illegal and criminal threat in violation of international law. According to the World Court in its Advisory Opinion (1996) on the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, the legality vel non of a threat stands or falls on the same legal grounds as if the threat were carried out. 2.The repeated US government threats to “destroy” or “annihilate” DPRK are an international crime under the 1948 Genocide Convention to which the United States is a party. These genocidal threats are also illegal and criminal under the rationale of the 1996 World Court Advisory Opinion mentioned above. 3.The United States has an absolute obligation under UN Charter article 2(3) and article 33 to open “negotiation” with DPRK in good faith in order to produce a peace resolution of this dispute. Instead, the US government has repeatedly rejected these obligations under the UN Charter. 4.The proposal by Russia and China for a “dual-freeze” is an excellent basis to produce good faith and direct negotiations between USA and DPRK as required by the UN Charter. 5.The United States is deliberately provoking DPRK, ratcheting up these provocations in the hope that they will provoke the DPRK to commit an act of aggression against the United States that the USA can then use as a pretext for war. Pursuant to the terms of their mutual self-defense treaty, China has stated that if the US attacks first it will defend DPRK, but that if DPRK strikes first, China will remain out of any war. So the United States is trying to provoke DPRK into striking first. 6.It is an extremely dangerous situation. It is really up to the United States to take the first step down the Ladder of Escalation that it has constructed here. Instead it appears that the Trump administration is going to escalate up the Ladder of Escalation in the hope and expectation that DPRK will capitulate. This is what International Political Scientists call a Game of Chicken-- with cosmic consequences. Who will blink first? Anything can go wrong. Thank you so much for being here today to prevent World War III. Francis A. Boyle Professor of Law University of Illinois College of Law Native Chicagoan Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2017 9:07 AM To: Jay Cc: David Green ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron ; Arlene Hickory ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay ; David Johnson ; Mildred O'brien ; C G Estabrook ; Karen Aram Subject: RE: NYT Joke of the Day: VOA & Fox vs. RT By the way, Jay is going to be out there in the Cold today in Chicago protesting against Trump’s threatened war against DPRK. Way to go Jay! Fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2017 9:02 AM To: Karen Aram > Cc: David Green >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; C G Estabrook > Subject: RE: NYT Joke of the Day: VOA & Fox vs. RT Of course Karen! That’s why this post of mine is the Joke of the Day. Along with the Illiiwaks Law School, Dean and Faculty. Yuck it all up everyone. We need a little humor these days to keep our sanity. Fab Ed Norton Professor of Law Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Karen Aram [mailto:karenaram at hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2017 8:51 AM To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: David Green >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; C G Estabrook > Subject: Re: NYT Joke of the Day: VOA & Fox vs. RT VOA, an independent information source, they have got to be kidding. It’s been known for over 30 years, even by US supported Burmese rebels hiding in the jungles of Thailand, that VOA was not credible. That it is, and always has been, a “propaganda” arm of the USG. On Nov 11, 2017, at 06:12, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: Under Illiniwaks Law Dean Iceman KillerKoh Amar, the Ililniwaks Law School and Faculty have become The Death Star on Campus: “Help me, Obi Won Kenobe, you’re the only one I can trust!” Fab Ed Norton Professor of Law Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2017 8:04 AM To: sectns.aals at lists.aals.org Subject: NYT Joke of the Day: VOA & Fox vs. RT “Amanda Bennett, the director of Voice of America, said in a statement: “The Voice of America is an independent news source required by law to be accurate, objective and comprehensive…”” Sounds like the propaganda slogan for Fox “news.” Someone just told me that Greta Van Susteren now works for VOA. Back when Greta was polluting the airwaves for Fox, she tried to set me up as an apologist for Hamas Suicide Bombings. Smelling a RAT, I declined. So she set up some other lawyer as an apologist for Hamas Suicide Bombings. And she is allegedly a Lawyer, Member of the Bar, and Officer of the Court? LOL! Greta will fit right in there at VOA after Fox. What’s the difference? Fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Sat Nov 11 15:36:54 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2017 15:36:54 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Statement for Chicago Peace Rally against USA Threatened War against DPRK Message-ID: At Jay’s request, I prepared the following Statement to be read at the anti-war rally today in Chicago: Ok. Here is a Statement below dealing with the legal aspects of the situation. Thanks for doing this protest. Fab. 1.The US government threats of “preventive warfare” against DPRK are illegal and criminal. The Nuremberg Tribunal in their Judgment of 1946, which the US helped organize, condemned “preventive war” when the Lawyers for the Nazis made the argument on their behalf. This is an illegal and criminal threat in violation of international law. According to the World Court in its Advisory Opinion (1996) on the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, the legality vel non of a threat stands or falls on the same legal grounds as if the threat were carried out. 2.The repeated US government threats to “destroy” or “annihilate” DPRK are an international crime under the 1948 Genocide Convention to which the United States is a party. These genocidal threats are also illegal and criminal under the rationale of the 1996 World Court Advisory Opinion mentioned above. 3.The United States has an absolute obligation under UN Charter article 2(3) and article 33 to open “negotiation” with DPRK in good faith in order to produce a peace resolution of this dispute. Instead, the US government has repeatedly rejected these obligations under the UN Charter. 4.The proposal by Russia and China for a “dual-freeze” is an excellent basis to produce good faith and direct negotiations between USA and DPRK as required by the UN Charter. 5.The United States is deliberately provoking DPRK, ratcheting up these provocations in the hope that they will provoke the DPRK to commit an act of aggression against the United States that the USA can then use as a pretext for war. Pursuant to the terms of their mutual self-defense treaty, China has stated that if the US attacks first it will defend DPRK, but that if DPRK strikes first, China will remain out of any war. So the United States is trying to provoke DPRK into striking first. 6.It is an extremely dangerous situation. It is really up to the United States to take the first step down the Ladder of Escalation that it has constructed here. Instead it appears that the Trump administration is going to escalate up the Ladder of Escalation in the hope and expectation that DPRK will capitulate. This is what International Political Scientists call a Game of Chicken-- with cosmic consequences. Who will blink first? Anything can go wrong. Thank you so much for being here today to prevent World War III. Francis A. Boyle Professor of Law University of Illinois College of Law Native Chicagoan Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2017 9:07 AM To: Jay Cc: David Green ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron ; Arlene Hickory ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay ; David Johnson ; Mildred O'brien ; C G Estabrook ; Karen Aram Subject: RE: NYT Joke of the Day: VOA & Fox vs. RT By the way, Jay is going to be out there in the Cold today in Chicago protesting against Trump’s threatened war against DPRK. Way to go Jay! Fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2017 9:02 AM To: Karen Aram > Cc: David Green >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; C G Estabrook > Subject: RE: NYT Joke of the Day: VOA & Fox vs. RT Of course Karen! That’s why this post of mine is the Joke of the Day. Along with the Illiiwaks Law School, Dean and Faculty. Yuck it all up everyone. We need a little humor these days to keep our sanity. Fab Ed Norton Professor of Law Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Karen Aram [mailto:karenaram at hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2017 8:51 AM To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: David Green >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; C G Estabrook > Subject: Re: NYT Joke of the Day: VOA & Fox vs. RT VOA, an independent information source, they have got to be kidding. It’s been known for over 30 years, even by US supported Burmese rebels hiding in the jungles of Thailand, that VOA was not credible. That it is, and always has been, a “propaganda” arm of the USG. On Nov 11, 2017, at 06:12, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: Under Illiniwaks Law Dean Iceman KillerKoh Amar, the Ililniwaks Law School and Faculty have become The Death Star on Campus: “Help me, Obi Won Kenobe, you’re the only one I can trust!” Fab Ed Norton Professor of Law Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2017 8:04 AM To: sectns.aals at lists.aals.org Subject: NYT Joke of the Day: VOA & Fox vs. RT “Amanda Bennett, the director of Voice of America, said in a statement: “The Voice of America is an independent news source required by law to be accurate, objective and comprehensive…”” Sounds like the propaganda slogan for Fox “news.” Someone just told me that Greta Van Susteren now works for VOA. Back when Greta was polluting the airwaves for Fox, she tried to set me up as an apologist for Hamas Suicide Bombings. Smelling a RAT, I declined. So she set up some other lawyer as an apologist for Hamas Suicide Bombings. And she is allegedly a Lawyer, Member of the Bar, and Officer of the Court? LOL! Greta will fit right in there at VOA after Fox. What’s the difference? Fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Sat Nov 11 16:22:52 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2017 16:22:52 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Statement for Chicago Peace Rally against USA Threatened War against DPRK In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Trump today just started his war maneuvers with 3 aircraft carrier strike forces and his Armada off Korea on Armistice Day for World War I. Do you think these Trumpster idiots figured that one out? Do you think the Idiots of the Illiniwaks Law School Faculty can think anything out? Fab Ed Norton Professor of Law Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2017 9:37 AM To: Jay Cc: David Green ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron ; Arlene Hickory ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay ; David Johnson ; Mildred O'brien ; C G Estabrook ; Karen Aram Subject: Statement for Chicago Peace Rally against USA Threatened War against DPRK At Jay’s request, I prepared the following Statement to be read at the anti-war rally today in Chicago: Ok. Here is a Statement below dealing with the legal aspects of the situation. Thanks for doing this protest. Fab. 1.The US government threats of “preventive warfare” against DPRK are illegal and criminal. The Nuremberg Tribunal in their Judgment of 1946, which the US helped organize, condemned “preventive war” when the Lawyers for the Nazis made the argument on their behalf. This is an illegal and criminal threat in violation of international law. According to the World Court in its Advisory Opinion (1996) on the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, the legality vel non of a threat stands or falls on the same legal grounds as if the threat were carried out. 2.The repeated US government threats to “destroy” or “annihilate” DPRK are an international crime under the 1948 Genocide Convention to which the United States is a party. These genocidal threats are also illegal and criminal under the rationale of the 1996 World Court Advisory Opinion mentioned above. 3.The United States has an absolute obligation under UN Charter article 2(3) and article 33 to open “negotiation” with DPRK in good faith in order to produce a peace resolution of this dispute. Instead, the US government has repeatedly rejected these obligations under the UN Charter. 4.The proposal by Russia and China for a “dual-freeze” is an excellent basis to produce good faith and direct negotiations between USA and DPRK as required by the UN Charter. 5.The United States is deliberately provoking DPRK, ratcheting up these provocations in the hope that they will provoke the DPRK to commit an act of aggression against the United States that the USA can then use as a pretext for war. Pursuant to the terms of their mutual self-defense treaty, China has stated that if the US attacks first it will defend DPRK, but that if DPRK strikes first, China will remain out of any war. So the United States is trying to provoke DPRK into striking first. 6.It is an extremely dangerous situation. It is really up to the United States to take the first step down the Ladder of Escalation that it has constructed here. Instead it appears that the Trump administration is going to escalate up the Ladder of Escalation in the hope and expectation that DPRK will capitulate. This is what International Political Scientists call a Game of Chicken-- with cosmic consequences. Who will blink first? Anything can go wrong. Thank you so much for being here today to prevent World War III. Francis A. Boyle Professor of Law University of Illinois College of Law Native Chicagoan Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2017 9:07 AM To: Jay > Cc: David Green >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; C G Estabrook >; Karen Aram > Subject: RE: NYT Joke of the Day: VOA & Fox vs. RT By the way, Jay is going to be out there in the Cold today in Chicago protesting against Trump’s threatened war against DPRK. Way to go Jay! Fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2017 9:02 AM To: Karen Aram > Cc: David Green >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; C G Estabrook > Subject: RE: NYT Joke of the Day: VOA & Fox vs. RT Of course Karen! That’s why this post of mine is the Joke of the Day. Along with the Illiiwaks Law School, Dean and Faculty. Yuck it all up everyone. We need a little humor these days to keep our sanity. Fab Ed Norton Professor of Law Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Karen Aram [mailto:karenaram at hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2017 8:51 AM To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: David Green >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; C G Estabrook > Subject: Re: NYT Joke of the Day: VOA & Fox vs. RT VOA, an independent information source, they have got to be kidding. It’s been known for over 30 years, even by US supported Burmese rebels hiding in the jungles of Thailand, that VOA was not credible. That it is, and always has been, a “propaganda” arm of the USG. On Nov 11, 2017, at 06:12, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: Under Illiniwaks Law Dean Iceman KillerKoh Amar, the Ililniwaks Law School and Faculty have become The Death Star on Campus: “Help me, Obi Won Kenobe, you’re the only one I can trust!” Fab Ed Norton Professor of Law Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2017 8:04 AM To: sectns.aals at lists.aals.org Subject: NYT Joke of the Day: VOA & Fox vs. RT “Amanda Bennett, the director of Voice of America, said in a statement: “The Voice of America is an independent news source required by law to be accurate, objective and comprehensive…”” Sounds like the propaganda slogan for Fox “news.” Someone just told me that Greta Van Susteren now works for VOA. Back when Greta was polluting the airwaves for Fox, she tried to set me up as an apologist for Hamas Suicide Bombings. Smelling a RAT, I declined. So she set up some other lawyer as an apologist for Hamas Suicide Bombings. And she is allegedly a Lawyer, Member of the Bar, and Officer of the Court? LOL! Greta will fit right in there at VOA after Fox. What’s the difference? Fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Sat Nov 11 16:22:52 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2017 16:22:52 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Statement for Chicago Peace Rally against USA Threatened War against DPRK In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Trump today just started his war maneuvers with 3 aircraft carrier strike forces and his Armada off Korea on Armistice Day for World War I. Do you think these Trumpster idiots figured that one out? Do you think the Idiots of the Illiniwaks Law School Faculty can think anything out? Fab Ed Norton Professor of Law Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2017 9:37 AM To: Jay Cc: David Green ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron ; Arlene Hickory ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay ; David Johnson ; Mildred O'brien ; C G Estabrook ; Karen Aram Subject: Statement for Chicago Peace Rally against USA Threatened War against DPRK At Jay’s request, I prepared the following Statement to be read at the anti-war rally today in Chicago: Ok. Here is a Statement below dealing with the legal aspects of the situation. Thanks for doing this protest. Fab. 1.The US government threats of “preventive warfare” against DPRK are illegal and criminal. The Nuremberg Tribunal in their Judgment of 1946, which the US helped organize, condemned “preventive war” when the Lawyers for the Nazis made the argument on their behalf. This is an illegal and criminal threat in violation of international law. According to the World Court in its Advisory Opinion (1996) on the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, the legality vel non of a threat stands or falls on the same legal grounds as if the threat were carried out. 2.The repeated US government threats to “destroy” or “annihilate” DPRK are an international crime under the 1948 Genocide Convention to which the United States is a party. These genocidal threats are also illegal and criminal under the rationale of the 1996 World Court Advisory Opinion mentioned above. 3.The United States has an absolute obligation under UN Charter article 2(3) and article 33 to open “negotiation” with DPRK in good faith in order to produce a peace resolution of this dispute. Instead, the US government has repeatedly rejected these obligations under the UN Charter. 4.The proposal by Russia and China for a “dual-freeze” is an excellent basis to produce good faith and direct negotiations between USA and DPRK as required by the UN Charter. 5.The United States is deliberately provoking DPRK, ratcheting up these provocations in the hope that they will provoke the DPRK to commit an act of aggression against the United States that the USA can then use as a pretext for war. Pursuant to the terms of their mutual self-defense treaty, China has stated that if the US attacks first it will defend DPRK, but that if DPRK strikes first, China will remain out of any war. So the United States is trying to provoke DPRK into striking first. 6.It is an extremely dangerous situation. It is really up to the United States to take the first step down the Ladder of Escalation that it has constructed here. Instead it appears that the Trump administration is going to escalate up the Ladder of Escalation in the hope and expectation that DPRK will capitulate. This is what International Political Scientists call a Game of Chicken-- with cosmic consequences. Who will blink first? Anything can go wrong. Thank you so much for being here today to prevent World War III. Francis A. Boyle Professor of Law University of Illinois College of Law Native Chicagoan Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2017 9:07 AM To: Jay > Cc: David Green >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; C G Estabrook >; Karen Aram > Subject: RE: NYT Joke of the Day: VOA & Fox vs. RT By the way, Jay is going to be out there in the Cold today in Chicago protesting against Trump’s threatened war against DPRK. Way to go Jay! Fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2017 9:02 AM To: Karen Aram > Cc: David Green >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; C G Estabrook > Subject: RE: NYT Joke of the Day: VOA & Fox vs. RT Of course Karen! That’s why this post of mine is the Joke of the Day. Along with the Illiiwaks Law School, Dean and Faculty. Yuck it all up everyone. We need a little humor these days to keep our sanity. Fab Ed Norton Professor of Law Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Karen Aram [mailto:karenaram at hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2017 8:51 AM To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: David Green >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; C G Estabrook > Subject: Re: NYT Joke of the Day: VOA & Fox vs. RT VOA, an independent information source, they have got to be kidding. It’s been known for over 30 years, even by US supported Burmese rebels hiding in the jungles of Thailand, that VOA was not credible. That it is, and always has been, a “propaganda” arm of the USG. On Nov 11, 2017, at 06:12, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: Under Illiniwaks Law Dean Iceman KillerKoh Amar, the Ililniwaks Law School and Faculty have become The Death Star on Campus: “Help me, Obi Won Kenobe, you’re the only one I can trust!” Fab Ed Norton Professor of Law Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2017 8:04 AM To: sectns.aals at lists.aals.org Subject: NYT Joke of the Day: VOA & Fox vs. RT “Amanda Bennett, the director of Voice of America, said in a statement: “The Voice of America is an independent news source required by law to be accurate, objective and comprehensive…”” Sounds like the propaganda slogan for Fox “news.” Someone just told me that Greta Van Susteren now works for VOA. Back when Greta was polluting the airwaves for Fox, she tried to set me up as an apologist for Hamas Suicide Bombings. Smelling a RAT, I declined. So she set up some other lawyer as an apologist for Hamas Suicide Bombings. And she is allegedly a Lawyer, Member of the Bar, and Officer of the Court? LOL! Greta will fit right in there at VOA after Fox. What’s the difference? Fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From galliher at illinois.edu Sat Nov 11 17:43:30 2017 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2017 11:43:30 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Statement for Chicago Peace Rally against USA Threatened War against DPRK In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <64AE43BD-BEDA-44B6-B704-1F8DF4928BB1@illinois.edu> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From galliher at illinois.edu Sat Nov 11 17:43:30 2017 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2017 11:43:30 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Statement for Chicago Peace Rally against USA Threatened War against DPRK In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <64AE43BD-BEDA-44B6-B704-1F8DF4928BB1@illinois.edu> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Sat Nov 11 18:09:47 2017 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2017 12:09:47 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Statement for Chicago Peace Rally against USA Threatened War against DPRK In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <604DB0A7-DAEE-4171-88C7-8CA658D53872@gmail.com> Trump in Asia talking peace and commerce with Xi and Putin is the War Party’s worst nightmare. The War Party - "the spooks [including the Pentagon], Wall Street Democrats and institutional servants of capital that gathered in Hillary Clinton’s overstuffed campaign tent, last year, to plot the next moves of a beleaguered U.S. empire,” as Glen Ford describes them - are dangerous and capable of enormities, if not in Asia, then with their button men in the Mideast, MBS & Bibi. The anti-war US public can be stampeded into more war in MENA, even without Obama’s duplicity. God between us and all harm, in the Irish phrase. —CGE "The CIA has demanded Trump is not elected. Pentagon generals have demanded he is not elected. The pro-war New York Times - taking a breather from its relentless low-rent Putin smears - demands that he is not elected. Something is up. These tribunes of 'perpetual war' are terrified that the multi-billion-dollar business of war by which the United States maintains its dominance will be undermined if Trump does a deal with Putin, then with China’s Xi Jinping. Their panic at the possibility of the world’s great power talking peace – however unlikely – would be the blackest farce were the issues not so dire.” —John Pilger, 2016 > On Nov 11, 2017, at 10:22 AM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: > > Trump today just started his war maneuvers with 3 aircraft carrier strike forces and his Armada off Korea on Armistice Day for World War I. Do you think these Trumpster idiots figured that one out? Do you think the Idiots of the Illiniwaks Law School Faculty can think anything out? > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Sat Nov 11 18:09:47 2017 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2017 12:09:47 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Statement for Chicago Peace Rally against USA Threatened War against DPRK In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <604DB0A7-DAEE-4171-88C7-8CA658D53872@gmail.com> Trump in Asia talking peace and commerce with Xi and Putin is the War Party’s worst nightmare. The War Party - "the spooks [including the Pentagon], Wall Street Democrats and institutional servants of capital that gathered in Hillary Clinton’s overstuffed campaign tent, last year, to plot the next moves of a beleaguered U.S. empire,” as Glen Ford describes them - are dangerous and capable of enormities, if not in Asia, then with their button men in the Mideast, MBS & Bibi. The anti-war US public can be stampeded into more war in MENA, even without Obama’s duplicity. God between us and all harm, in the Irish phrase. —CGE "The CIA has demanded Trump is not elected. Pentagon generals have demanded he is not elected. The pro-war New York Times - taking a breather from its relentless low-rent Putin smears - demands that he is not elected. Something is up. These tribunes of 'perpetual war' are terrified that the multi-billion-dollar business of war by which the United States maintains its dominance will be undermined if Trump does a deal with Putin, then with China’s Xi Jinping. Their panic at the possibility of the world’s great power talking peace – however unlikely – would be the blackest farce were the issues not so dire.” —John Pilger, 2016 > On Nov 11, 2017, at 10:22 AM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: > > Trump today just started his war maneuvers with 3 aircraft carrier strike forces and his Armada off Korea on Armistice Day for World War I. Do you think these Trumpster idiots figured that one out? Do you think the Idiots of the Illiniwaks Law School Faculty can think anything out? > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davegreen84 at yahoo.com Sat Nov 11 19:21:46 2017 From: davegreen84 at yahoo.com (David Green) Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2017 19:21:46 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Peace-discuss] Chomsky on Leninism, etc. References: <1312997508.246973.1510428106722.ref@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1312997508.246973.1510428106722@mail.yahoo.com> Pursuant to discussion on World Labor Hour: Chomsky on Lenin, Trotsky, Socialism & the Soviet Union | | | | | | | | | | | Chomsky on Lenin, Trotsky, Socialism & the Soviet Union Q&A session 1989 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUGr5rZSWPo | | | -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Sat Nov 11 21:07:49 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2017 21:07:49 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Statement for Chicago Peace Rally against USA Threatened War against DPRK In-Reply-To: <604DB0A7-DAEE-4171-88C7-8CA658D53872@gmail.com> References: <604DB0A7-DAEE-4171-88C7-8CA658D53872@gmail.com> Message-ID: For sure Carl! If Clinton had been elected Nov. 8, we would have gone to war with Russia and all be incinerated by now. Good riddance to Clinton and her Consigliere Killer Koh and the Illiniwaks Law Faculty and Dean for bringing him in here October 28 in order to get her elected ten days later. May they all rot in the Seventh Circle of Dante’s Inferno reserved for warmongers! Fab Ed Norton Professor of Law Illiniwaks Law School Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2017 12:10 PM To: Boyle, Francis A Cc: Jay ; Karen Aram ; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; Szoke, Ron ; Joe Lauria ; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; abass10 at gmail.com; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; Arlene Hickory ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Statement for Chicago Peace Rally against USA Threatened War against DPRK Trump in Asia talking peace and commerce with Xi and Putin is the War Party’s worst nightmare. The War Party - "the spooks [including the Pentagon], Wall Street Democrats and institutional servants of capital that gathered in Hillary Clinton’s overstuffed campaign tent, last year, to plot the next moves of a beleaguered U.S. empire,” as Glen Ford describes them - are dangerous and capable of enormities, if not in Asia, then with their button men in the Mideast, MBS & Bibi. The anti-war US public can be stampeded into more war in MENA, even without Obama’s duplicity. God between us and all harm, in the Irish phrase. —CGE "The CIA has demanded Trump is not elected. Pentagon generals have demanded he is not elected. The pro-war New York Times - taking a breather from its relentless low-rent Putin smears - demands that he is not elected. Something is up. These tribunes of 'perpetual war' are terrified that the multi-billion-dollar business of war by which the United States maintains its dominance will be undermined if Trump does a deal with Putin, then with China’s Xi Jinping. Their panic at the possibility of the world’s great power talking peace – however unlikely – would be the blackest farce were the issues not so dire.” —John Pilger, 2016 On Nov 11, 2017, at 10:22 AM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss > wrote: Trump today just started his war maneuvers with 3 aircraft carrier strike forces and his Armada off Korea on Armistice Day for World War I. Do you think these Trumpster idiots figured that one out? Do you think the Idiots of the Illiniwaks Law School Faculty can think anything out? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Sat Nov 11 21:07:49 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2017 21:07:49 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Statement for Chicago Peace Rally against USA Threatened War against DPRK In-Reply-To: <604DB0A7-DAEE-4171-88C7-8CA658D53872@gmail.com> References: <604DB0A7-DAEE-4171-88C7-8CA658D53872@gmail.com> Message-ID: For sure Carl! If Clinton had been elected Nov. 8, we would have gone to war with Russia and all be incinerated by now. Good riddance to Clinton and her Consigliere Killer Koh and the Illiniwaks Law Faculty and Dean for bringing him in here October 28 in order to get her elected ten days later. May they all rot in the Seventh Circle of Dante’s Inferno reserved for warmongers! Fab Ed Norton Professor of Law Illiniwaks Law School Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2017 12:10 PM To: Boyle, Francis A Cc: Jay ; Karen Aram ; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; Szoke, Ron ; Joe Lauria ; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; abass10 at gmail.com; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; Arlene Hickory ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Statement for Chicago Peace Rally against USA Threatened War against DPRK Trump in Asia talking peace and commerce with Xi and Putin is the War Party’s worst nightmare. The War Party - "the spooks [including the Pentagon], Wall Street Democrats and institutional servants of capital that gathered in Hillary Clinton’s overstuffed campaign tent, last year, to plot the next moves of a beleaguered U.S. empire,” as Glen Ford describes them - are dangerous and capable of enormities, if not in Asia, then with their button men in the Mideast, MBS & Bibi. The anti-war US public can be stampeded into more war in MENA, even without Obama’s duplicity. God between us and all harm, in the Irish phrase. —CGE "The CIA has demanded Trump is not elected. Pentagon generals have demanded he is not elected. The pro-war New York Times - taking a breather from its relentless low-rent Putin smears - demands that he is not elected. Something is up. These tribunes of 'perpetual war' are terrified that the multi-billion-dollar business of war by which the United States maintains its dominance will be undermined if Trump does a deal with Putin, then with China’s Xi Jinping. Their panic at the possibility of the world’s great power talking peace – however unlikely – would be the blackest farce were the issues not so dire.” —John Pilger, 2016 On Nov 11, 2017, at 10:22 AM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss > wrote: Trump today just started his war maneuvers with 3 aircraft carrier strike forces and his Armada off Korea on Armistice Day for World War I. Do you think these Trumpster idiots figured that one out? Do you think the Idiots of the Illiniwaks Law School Faculty can think anything out? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Sat Nov 11 21:19:23 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2017 21:19:23 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Statement for Chicago Peace Rally against USA Threatened War against DPRK In-Reply-To: References: <604DB0A7-DAEE-4171-88C7-8CA658D53872@gmail.com> Message-ID: I can forgive a lot of things. But warmongers and warmongering and war criminals are not among them. Let the Illiniwaks Law Faculty and Dean rot in the Seventh Level of Dante’s Inferno! Fab Armistice Day Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2017 3:08 PM To: C G Estabrook Cc: Jay ; Karen Aram ; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; Szoke, Ron ; Joe Lauria ; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; abass10 at gmail.com; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; Arlene Hickory ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Statement for Chicago Peace Rally against USA Threatened War against DPRK Importance: High For sure Carl! If Clinton had been elected Nov. 8, we would have gone to war with Russia and all be incinerated by now. Good riddance to Clinton and her Consigliere Killer Koh and the Illiniwaks Law Faculty and Dean for bringing him in here October 28 in order to get her elected ten days later. May they all rot in the Seventh Circle of Dante’s Inferno reserved for warmongers! Fab Ed Norton Professor of Law Illiniwaks Law School Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2017 12:10 PM To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: Jay >; Karen Aram >; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; Szoke, Ron >; Joe Lauria >; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; abass10 at gmail.com; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; Arlene Hickory >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Statement for Chicago Peace Rally against USA Threatened War against DPRK Trump in Asia talking peace and commerce with Xi and Putin is the War Party’s worst nightmare. The War Party - "the spooks [including the Pentagon], Wall Street Democrats and institutional servants of capital that gathered in Hillary Clinton’s overstuffed campaign tent, last year, to plot the next moves of a beleaguered U.S. empire,” as Glen Ford describes them - are dangerous and capable of enormities, if not in Asia, then with their button men in the Mideast, MBS & Bibi. The anti-war US public can be stampeded into more war in MENA, even without Obama’s duplicity. God between us and all harm, in the Irish phrase. —CGE "The CIA has demanded Trump is not elected. Pentagon generals have demanded he is not elected. The pro-war New York Times - taking a breather from its relentless low-rent Putin smears - demands that he is not elected. Something is up. These tribunes of 'perpetual war' are terrified that the multi-billion-dollar business of war by which the United States maintains its dominance will be undermined if Trump does a deal with Putin, then with China’s Xi Jinping. Their panic at the possibility of the world’s great power talking peace – however unlikely – would be the blackest farce were the issues not so dire.” —John Pilger, 2016 On Nov 11, 2017, at 10:22 AM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss > wrote: Trump today just started his war maneuvers with 3 aircraft carrier strike forces and his Armada off Korea on Armistice Day for World War I. Do you think these Trumpster idiots figured that one out? Do you think the Idiots of the Illiniwaks Law School Faculty can think anything out? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Sat Nov 11 21:19:23 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2017 21:19:23 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Statement for Chicago Peace Rally against USA Threatened War against DPRK In-Reply-To: References: <604DB0A7-DAEE-4171-88C7-8CA658D53872@gmail.com> Message-ID: I can forgive a lot of things. But warmongers and warmongering and war criminals are not among them. Let the Illiniwaks Law Faculty and Dean rot in the Seventh Level of Dante’s Inferno! Fab Armistice Day Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2017 3:08 PM To: C G Estabrook Cc: Jay ; Karen Aram ; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; Szoke, Ron ; Joe Lauria ; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; abass10 at gmail.com; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; Arlene Hickory ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Statement for Chicago Peace Rally against USA Threatened War against DPRK Importance: High For sure Carl! If Clinton had been elected Nov. 8, we would have gone to war with Russia and all be incinerated by now. Good riddance to Clinton and her Consigliere Killer Koh and the Illiniwaks Law Faculty and Dean for bringing him in here October 28 in order to get her elected ten days later. May they all rot in the Seventh Circle of Dante’s Inferno reserved for warmongers! Fab Ed Norton Professor of Law Illiniwaks Law School Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2017 12:10 PM To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: Jay >; Karen Aram >; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; Szoke, Ron >; Joe Lauria >; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; abass10 at gmail.com; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; Arlene Hickory >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Statement for Chicago Peace Rally against USA Threatened War against DPRK Trump in Asia talking peace and commerce with Xi and Putin is the War Party’s worst nightmare. The War Party - "the spooks [including the Pentagon], Wall Street Democrats and institutional servants of capital that gathered in Hillary Clinton’s overstuffed campaign tent, last year, to plot the next moves of a beleaguered U.S. empire,” as Glen Ford describes them - are dangerous and capable of enormities, if not in Asia, then with their button men in the Mideast, MBS & Bibi. The anti-war US public can be stampeded into more war in MENA, even without Obama’s duplicity. God between us and all harm, in the Irish phrase. —CGE "The CIA has demanded Trump is not elected. Pentagon generals have demanded he is not elected. The pro-war New York Times - taking a breather from its relentless low-rent Putin smears - demands that he is not elected. Something is up. These tribunes of 'perpetual war' are terrified that the multi-billion-dollar business of war by which the United States maintains its dominance will be undermined if Trump does a deal with Putin, then with China’s Xi Jinping. Their panic at the possibility of the world’s great power talking peace – however unlikely – would be the blackest farce were the issues not so dire.” —John Pilger, 2016 On Nov 11, 2017, at 10:22 AM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss > wrote: Trump today just started his war maneuvers with 3 aircraft carrier strike forces and his Armada off Korea on Armistice Day for World War I. Do you think these Trumpster idiots figured that one out? Do you think the Idiots of the Illiniwaks Law School Faculty can think anything out? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Sat Nov 11 22:02:35 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2017 22:02:35 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] =?windows-1252?q?FW=3A_Statement_by_Francis_Boyle?= =?windows-1252?q?=2C_Professor_of_International_Law_at_the_Univ_of_Illino?= =?windows-1252?q?is_School_of_Law=2C_on_the_illegality_of_Trump=92s_threa?= =?windows-1252?q?ts_against_North_Korea_=7C_In_the_Name_of_Humanity_We_Re?= =?windows-1252?q?fuse_To_Accept_a_Fascist_America?= Message-ID: Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -----Original Message----- From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2017 4:01 PM To: sectns.aals at lists.aals.org Subject: Statement by Francis Boyle, Professor of International Law at the Univ of Illinois School of Law, on the illegality of Trump’s threats against North Korea | In the Name of Humanity We Refuse To Accept a Fascist America https://refusefascism.org/2017/11/11/statement-by-francis-boyle-professor-of-international-law-at-the-univ-of-illinois-school-of-law-on-the-illegality-of-trumps-threats-against-north-korea/ From fboyle at illinois.edu Sat Nov 11 22:02:35 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2017 22:02:35 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] =?windows-1252?q?FW=3A_Statement_by_Francis_Boyle?= =?windows-1252?q?=2C_Professor_of_International_Law_at_the_Univ_of_Illino?= =?windows-1252?q?is_School_of_Law=2C_on_the_illegality_of_Trump=92s_threa?= =?windows-1252?q?ts_against_North_Korea_=7C_In_the_Name_of_Humanity_We_Re?= =?windows-1252?q?fuse_To_Accept_a_Fascist_America?= Message-ID: Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -----Original Message----- From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2017 4:01 PM To: sectns.aals at lists.aals.org Subject: Statement by Francis Boyle, Professor of International Law at the Univ of Illinois School of Law, on the illegality of Trump’s threats against North Korea | In the Name of Humanity We Refuse To Accept a Fascist America https://refusefascism.org/2017/11/11/statement-by-francis-boyle-professor-of-international-law-at-the-univ-of-illinois-school-of-law-on-the-illegality-of-trumps-threats-against-north-korea/ From fboyle at illinois.edu Sat Nov 11 22:10:18 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2017 22:10:18 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] =?windows-1252?q?Statement_by_Francis_Boyle=2C_Pr?= =?windows-1252?q?ofessor_of_International_Law_at_the_Univ_of_Illinois_Sch?= =?windows-1252?q?ool_of_Law=2C_on_the_illegality_of_Trump=92s_threats_aga?= =?windows-1252?q?inst_North_Korea_=7C_In_the_Name_of_Humanity_We_Refuse_T?= =?windows-1252?q?o_Accept_a_Fascist_America?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: And in the Name of Humanity, I refuse to accept the Fascistic Illiniwaks Law Faculty and Dean! Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -----Original Message----- From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2017 4:03 PM To: David Green ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay ; David Johnson ; Mildred O'brien ; C G Estabrook Subject: FW: Statement by Francis Boyle, Professor of International Law at the Univ of Illinois School of Law, on the illegality of Trump’s threats against North Korea | In the Name of Humanity We Refuse To Accept a Fascist America Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -----Original Message----- From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2017 4:01 PM To: sectns.aals at lists.aals.org Subject: Statement by Francis Boyle, Professor of International Law at the Univ of Illinois School of Law, on the illegality of Trump’s threats against North Korea | In the Name of Humanity We Refuse To Accept a Fascist America https://refusefascism.org/2017/11/11/statement-by-francis-boyle-professor-of-international-law-at-the-univ-of-illinois-school-of-law-on-the-illegality-of-trumps-threats-against-north-korea/ From fboyle at illinois.edu Sat Nov 11 22:10:18 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2017 22:10:18 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] =?windows-1252?q?Statement_by_Francis_Boyle=2C_Pr?= =?windows-1252?q?ofessor_of_International_Law_at_the_Univ_of_Illinois_Sch?= =?windows-1252?q?ool_of_Law=2C_on_the_illegality_of_Trump=92s_threats_aga?= =?windows-1252?q?inst_North_Korea_=7C_In_the_Name_of_Humanity_We_Refuse_T?= =?windows-1252?q?o_Accept_a_Fascist_America?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: And in the Name of Humanity, I refuse to accept the Fascistic Illiniwaks Law Faculty and Dean! Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -----Original Message----- From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2017 4:03 PM To: David Green ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay ; David Johnson ; Mildred O'brien ; C G Estabrook Subject: FW: Statement by Francis Boyle, Professor of International Law at the Univ of Illinois School of Law, on the illegality of Trump’s threats against North Korea | In the Name of Humanity We Refuse To Accept a Fascist America Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -----Original Message----- From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2017 4:01 PM To: sectns.aals at lists.aals.org Subject: Statement by Francis Boyle, Professor of International Law at the Univ of Illinois School of Law, on the illegality of Trump’s threats against North Korea | In the Name of Humanity We Refuse To Accept a Fascist America https://refusefascism.org/2017/11/11/statement-by-francis-boyle-professor-of-international-law-at-the-univ-of-illinois-school-of-law-on-the-illegality-of-trumps-threats-against-north-korea/ From cgestabrook at gmail.com Sat Nov 11 22:48:56 2017 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2017 16:48:56 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] =?utf-8?q?=5Bufpj-activist=5D_=E2=80=98Tainted_by?= =?utf-8?q?_association=E2=80=99=3A_CIA_whistleblower_says_progressives_ki?= =?utf-8?q?cked_him_off_EU_panel?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I suggest we distinguish neoliberalism from neoconservatism as follows: ~ neoliberals call for a deregulated American capitalism: more exploitation; ~ neoconservatives call for an 'unleashed’ American military: more war. Both arise in the 1970s in reaction to the ‘crisis of democracy’ - i.e., the demand for more democracy that grew out of the opposition to the Vietnam war, and led to popular opposition to war and economic exploitation. (The first motto of Students for a Democratic Society was, “Let the people decide!”) But American presidents for 40 years have pursued pro-war (neocon) and pro-Wall Street (neolib) policies. The attempt to make the definitions pellucid can get out of hand: I wrote the following after Trump’s election. ======================================================================================== In the US political lexicon, neo-liberalism is not liberalism (roughly, the New Deal-Great Society tradition), but its opposite. Similarly, neo-conservatism is not conservatism (roughly, the isolationist tradition), but its opposite. Can we assume, then, the current vogue term, 'neo-fascism,' means not fascism (of the 20th century sort) - but its opposite? That at least is the danger that the US political establishment perceives in the Trump presidency. Classic fascism combined what we call neoliberalism (state-supported economic exploitation, at home and abroad) and neoconservatism (militarist repression, abroad and even at home). Fascism's defeat in WWII led in 'les trente glorieuses' (1945-75) to the welfare state and the United Nations. But beginning in the 1970s, dominant social groups in Europe and America began the overthrow of the welfare state and the UN, accomplished in the 1990s ('austerity ' and Clinton's non-UN-approved attack on Yugoslavia) - after the 1991 destruction of 'the threat of a good example’ (i.e., the socialist ideal, whatever the practice), the USSR. Trump is the first major party presidential candidate since the 1970s not to pay homage to the principles of neoliberalism and neoconservatism. That's why the US political establishment is so desperate to force those principles on the new administration. ======================================================================================== —CGE > On Nov 11, 2017, at 6:21 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: > > It is to be expected. > Progressives, Bernie supporters, Democrats et al, they fear any mention of “foreign policy,” or the fact that more “Whistleblowers” like John, were arrested, pursued and incarcerated under the Democratic regime of Obama, than ever in our history. > > Yes, the neocons are awful, but the neoliberals are complicit in all. > > >> On Nov 11, 2017, at 03:02, Robert Naiman > wrote: >> >> This is horrible. Can we organize some kind of intervention to stop this from happening? >> >> https://www.rt.com/usa/409528-kiriakou-eu-panel-winnie/ >> >> === >> >> Robert Naiman >> Policy Director >> Just Foreign Policy >> www.justforeignpolicy.org >> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org >> (202) 448-2898 x1 >> >> Co-Sponsor Khanna-Massie to #StopSaudiFamineInYemen >> https://petitions.moveon.org/sign/force-vote-on-saudi-war?r_by=1135580 >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ufpj-activist mailing list >> >> Post: ufpj-activist at lists.mayfirst.org >> List info: https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.mayfirst.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fufpj-activist&data=02%7C01%7Ckarenaram%40hotmail.com%7C424f44fc13ec4075683408d528f3c92f%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636459949869441925&sdata=BYLZl3LVSaD7PEOJmSZo881RRY0sNQiBGHGBnQl8SmM%3D&reserved=0 >> >> To Unsubscribe >> Send email to: ufpj-activist-unsubscribe at lists.mayfirst.org >> Or visit: https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.mayfirst.org%2Fmailman%2Foptions%2Fufpj-activist%2Fkarenaram%2540hotmail.com&data=02%7C01%7Ckarenaram%40hotmail.com%7C424f44fc13ec4075683408d528f3c92f%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636459949869441925&sdata=EH6QQvcqAkZCvbhdReXLWHbOp2O3VZavYHXst6O3JVQ%3D&reserved=0 >> >> You are subscribed as: karenaram at hotmail.com > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From r-szoke at illinois.edu Sat Nov 11 23:53:04 2017 From: r-szoke at illinois.edu (Szoke, Ron) Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2017 23:53:04 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Word of the Day: Whataboutism Message-ID: Word of the Day: Whataboutism Definition of whataboutism in English: whataboutism NOUN mass noun British The technique or practice of responding to an accusation or difficult question by making a counter-accusation or raising a different issue. ‘the parliamentary hearing appeared to be an exercise in whataboutism’ Also called whataboutery Origin 1990s: from the way in which counter-accusations may take the form of questions introduced by ‘What about —?’. Pronunciation whataboutism/ˌwɒtəˈbaʊtɪz(ə)m/ — Oxford Living Dictonary Polemical tactic prominent in Soviet propaganda. Also heavily used by Bibi Netanyahu in response to criticisms of Israeli brutality & killing. << This is what they call “whataboutism,” a logical fallacy and a method of propaganda ironically developed by Soviet Russia to undercut an opponent by alluding to a hypocrisy without actually addressing the crux of the initial argument. >> — Jason Nawara, Uproxx 11/11/17 Trump Embraces One Of Russia's Favorite Propaganda Tactics — Whataboutism What's the easiest way to swing back at critics? For Trump (as well as Putin), it's to cry "hypocrite." Read this story Note: another fallacy is to hold or assume that a form of argument is tainted by its previous use by unsavory characters (such as Soviet propagandists). It is fallacious or sophistical — or not — independently of your opinion of those who have most frequently advanced it. ~~ Ron -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Sun Nov 12 13:16:21 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2017 13:16:21 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] =?windows-1252?q?Statement_by_Francis_Boyle=2C_Pr?= =?windows-1252?q?ofessor_of_International_Law_at_the_Univ_of_Illinois_Sch?= =?windows-1252?q?ool_of_Law=2C_on_the_illegality_of_Trump=92s_threats_aga?= =?windows-1252?q?inst_North_Korea_=7C_In_the_Name_of_Humanity_We_Refuse_T?= =?windows-1252?q?o_Accept_a_Fascist_America?= References: Message-ID: Killer Koh worked for Reagan in 1985: The Reagan/Bitburg Doctrine ...Here Kirkpatrick and Gerson quite correctly (though perhaps unwittingly) pointed out that on May 5, 1985 Reagan took the opportunity to publicly announce his so-called doctrine at Bitburg, West Germany (p. 22). There Reagan laid a memorial wreath at a cemetery that he knew contained the remains of dead Nazi Waffen SS stormtroopers despite the vigorous protestations of the justifiably outraged American Jewish community and U.S. veterans organizations, among others. As I argued in a general debate with none other than Gerson himself, inter alia, before the annual convention of the American Society of International Law held shortly beforehand in New York City on April 26: "It is the Reagan administration's Machiavellian approach to foreign affairs that sponsored the Israeli invasion of Lebanon. It is the Reagan administration that brought you the United States invasion of Grenada. It was the Reagan administration that brought you the U.S. invasion of Nicaragua, which still goes on today. It is the Reagan administration's policy of constructive engagement that has encouraged the South African invasion of Angola. It is the Reagan administration which has launched an all-out vicious assault on the integrity of the International Court of Justice. And it is now the Reagan administration that is going to be paying tribute to 39 SS soldiers at a cemetery in West Germany. I think nothing could be a more eloquent and symbolic statement of what motivates the foreign policy of this administration than that act." Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -----Original Message----- From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2017 4:10 PM To: David Green ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay ; David Johnson ; Mildred O'brien ; C G Estabrook Subject: RE: Statement by Francis Boyle, Professor of International Law at the Univ of Illinois School of Law, on the illegality of Trump’s threats against North Korea | In the Name of Humanity We Refuse To Accept a Fascist America And in the Name of Humanity, I refuse to accept the Fascistic Illiniwaks Law Faculty and Dean! Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -----Original Message----- From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2017 4:03 PM To: David Green ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay ; David Johnson ; Mildred O'brien ; C G Estabrook Subject: FW: Statement by Francis Boyle, Professor of International Law at the Univ of Illinois School of Law, on the illegality of Trump’s threats against North Korea | In the Name of Humanity We Refuse To Accept a Fascist America Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -----Original Message----- From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2017 4:01 PM To: sectns.aals at lists.aals.org Subject: Statement by Francis Boyle, Professor of International Law at the Univ of Illinois School of Law, on the illegality of Trump’s threats against North Korea | In the Name of Humanity We Refuse To Accept a Fascist America https://refusefascism.org/2017/11/11/statement-by-francis-boyle-professor-of-international-law-at-the-univ-of-illinois-school-of-law-on-the-illegality-of-trumps-threats-against-north-korea/ From fboyle at illinois.edu Sun Nov 12 13:16:21 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2017 13:16:21 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] =?windows-1252?q?Statement_by_Francis_Boyle=2C_Pr?= =?windows-1252?q?ofessor_of_International_Law_at_the_Univ_of_Illinois_Sch?= =?windows-1252?q?ool_of_Law=2C_on_the_illegality_of_Trump=92s_threats_aga?= =?windows-1252?q?inst_North_Korea_=7C_In_the_Name_of_Humanity_We_Refuse_T?= =?windows-1252?q?o_Accept_a_Fascist_America?= References: Message-ID: Killer Koh worked for Reagan in 1985: The Reagan/Bitburg Doctrine ...Here Kirkpatrick and Gerson quite correctly (though perhaps unwittingly) pointed out that on May 5, 1985 Reagan took the opportunity to publicly announce his so-called doctrine at Bitburg, West Germany (p. 22). There Reagan laid a memorial wreath at a cemetery that he knew contained the remains of dead Nazi Waffen SS stormtroopers despite the vigorous protestations of the justifiably outraged American Jewish community and U.S. veterans organizations, among others. As I argued in a general debate with none other than Gerson himself, inter alia, before the annual convention of the American Society of International Law held shortly beforehand in New York City on April 26: "It is the Reagan administration's Machiavellian approach to foreign affairs that sponsored the Israeli invasion of Lebanon. It is the Reagan administration that brought you the United States invasion of Grenada. It was the Reagan administration that brought you the U.S. invasion of Nicaragua, which still goes on today. It is the Reagan administration's policy of constructive engagement that has encouraged the South African invasion of Angola. It is the Reagan administration which has launched an all-out vicious assault on the integrity of the International Court of Justice. And it is now the Reagan administration that is going to be paying tribute to 39 SS soldiers at a cemetery in West Germany. I think nothing could be a more eloquent and symbolic statement of what motivates the foreign policy of this administration than that act." Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -----Original Message----- From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2017 4:10 PM To: David Green ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay ; David Johnson ; Mildred O'brien ; C G Estabrook Subject: RE: Statement by Francis Boyle, Professor of International Law at the Univ of Illinois School of Law, on the illegality of Trump’s threats against North Korea | In the Name of Humanity We Refuse To Accept a Fascist America And in the Name of Humanity, I refuse to accept the Fascistic Illiniwaks Law Faculty and Dean! Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -----Original Message----- From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2017 4:03 PM To: David Green ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay ; David Johnson ; Mildred O'brien ; C G Estabrook Subject: FW: Statement by Francis Boyle, Professor of International Law at the Univ of Illinois School of Law, on the illegality of Trump’s threats against North Korea | In the Name of Humanity We Refuse To Accept a Fascist America Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -----Original Message----- From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2017 4:01 PM To: sectns.aals at lists.aals.org Subject: Statement by Francis Boyle, Professor of International Law at the Univ of Illinois School of Law, on the illegality of Trump’s threats against North Korea | In the Name of Humanity We Refuse To Accept a Fascist America https://refusefascism.org/2017/11/11/statement-by-francis-boyle-professor-of-international-law-at-the-univ-of-illinois-school-of-law-on-the-illegality-of-trumps-threats-against-north-korea/ From fboyle at illinois.edu Sun Nov 12 13:52:03 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2017 13:52:03 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] =?windows-1252?q?Statement_by_Francis_Boyle=2C_Pr?= =?windows-1252?q?ofessor_of_International_Law_at_the_Univ_of_Illinois_Sch?= =?windows-1252?q?ool_of_Law=2C_on_the_illegality_of_Trump=92s_threats_aga?= =?windows-1252?q?inst_North_Korea_=7C_In_the_Name_of_Humanity_We_Refuse_T?= =?windows-1252?q?o_Accept_a_Fascist_America?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: “I think nothing could be a more eloquent and symbolic statement of what motivates the foreign policy of this {Reagan} administration than that {Nazi} act.” Fab debating Kirkpatrick’s right-hand Henchman before the American Society of Imperial Law Convention, 26 April 1985 VERSUS Killer Koh worked for Reagan in 1985 and then at the knowing invitation of the Illiniwaks Law School Faculty and Dean gave their distinguished endowed lecture on being a Role Model for Excellence for Lawyers in Government Service on October 28, 2016 in order to get Clinton elected President 10 days later. The Human Race Dodged A Cosmic Bullet on November 8. Deus ex machina. The Reagan/Bitburg Doctrine ...Here Kirkpatrick and Gerson quite correctly (though perhaps unwittingly) pointed out that on May 5, 1985 Reagan took the opportunity to publicly announce his so-called doctrine at Bitburg, West Germany (p. 22). There Reagan laid a memorial wreath at a cemetery that he knew contained the remains of dead Nazi Waffen SS stormtroopers despite the vigorous protestations of the justifiably outraged American Jewish community and U.S. veterans organizations, among others. As I argued in a general debate with none other than Gerson himself, inter alia, before the annual convention of the American Society of International Law held shortly beforehand in New York City on April 26: "It is the Reagan administration's Machiavellian approach to foreign affairs that sponsored the Israeli invasion of Lebanon. It is the Reagan administration that brought you the United States invasion of Grenada. It was the Reagan administration that brought you the U.S. invasion of Nicaragua, which still goes on today. It is the Reagan administration's policy of constructive engagement that has encouraged the South African invasion of Angola. It is the Reagan administration which has launched an all-out vicious assault on the integrity of the International Court of Justice. And it is now the Reagan administration that is going to be paying tribute to 39 SS soldiers at a cemetery in West Germany. I think nothing could be a more eloquent and symbolic statement of what motivates the foreign policy of this administration than that act." Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -----Original Message----- From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2017 4:10 PM To: David Green ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay ; David Johnson ; Mildred O'brien ; C G Estabrook Subject: RE: Statement by Francis Boyle, Professor of International Law at the Univ of Illinois School of Law, on the illegality of Trump’s threats against North Korea | In the Name of Humanity We Refuse To Accept a Fascist America And in the Name of Humanity, I refuse to accept the Fascistic Illiniwaks Law Faculty and Dean! Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -----Original Message----- From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2017 4:03 PM To: David Green ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay ; David Johnson ; Mildred O'brien ; C G Estabrook Subject: FW: Statement by Francis Boyle, Professor of International Law at the Univ of Illinois School of Law, on the illegality of Trump’s threats against North Korea | In the Name of Humanity We Refuse To Accept a Fascist America Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -----Original Message----- From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2017 4:01 PM To: sectns.aals at lists.aals.org Subject: Statement by Francis Boyle, Professor of International Law at the Univ of Illinois School of Law, on the illegality of Trump’s threats against North Korea | In the Name of Humanity We Refuse To Accept a Fascist America https://refusefascism.org/2017/11/11/statement-by-francis-boyle-professor-of-international-law-at-the-univ-of-illinois-school-of-law-on-the-illegality-of-trumps-threats-against-north-korea/ From fboyle at illinois.edu Sun Nov 12 13:52:03 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2017 13:52:03 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] =?windows-1252?q?Statement_by_Francis_Boyle=2C_Pr?= =?windows-1252?q?ofessor_of_International_Law_at_the_Univ_of_Illinois_Sch?= =?windows-1252?q?ool_of_Law=2C_on_the_illegality_of_Trump=92s_threats_aga?= =?windows-1252?q?inst_North_Korea_=7C_In_the_Name_of_Humanity_We_Refuse_T?= =?windows-1252?q?o_Accept_a_Fascist_America?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: “I think nothing could be a more eloquent and symbolic statement of what motivates the foreign policy of this {Reagan} administration than that {Nazi} act.” Fab debating Kirkpatrick’s right-hand Henchman before the American Society of Imperial Law Convention, 26 April 1985 VERSUS Killer Koh worked for Reagan in 1985 and then at the knowing invitation of the Illiniwaks Law School Faculty and Dean gave their distinguished endowed lecture on being a Role Model for Excellence for Lawyers in Government Service on October 28, 2016 in order to get Clinton elected President 10 days later. The Human Race Dodged A Cosmic Bullet on November 8. Deus ex machina. The Reagan/Bitburg Doctrine ...Here Kirkpatrick and Gerson quite correctly (though perhaps unwittingly) pointed out that on May 5, 1985 Reagan took the opportunity to publicly announce his so-called doctrine at Bitburg, West Germany (p. 22). There Reagan laid a memorial wreath at a cemetery that he knew contained the remains of dead Nazi Waffen SS stormtroopers despite the vigorous protestations of the justifiably outraged American Jewish community and U.S. veterans organizations, among others. As I argued in a general debate with none other than Gerson himself, inter alia, before the annual convention of the American Society of International Law held shortly beforehand in New York City on April 26: "It is the Reagan administration's Machiavellian approach to foreign affairs that sponsored the Israeli invasion of Lebanon. It is the Reagan administration that brought you the United States invasion of Grenada. It was the Reagan administration that brought you the U.S. invasion of Nicaragua, which still goes on today. It is the Reagan administration's policy of constructive engagement that has encouraged the South African invasion of Angola. It is the Reagan administration which has launched an all-out vicious assault on the integrity of the International Court of Justice. And it is now the Reagan administration that is going to be paying tribute to 39 SS soldiers at a cemetery in West Germany. I think nothing could be a more eloquent and symbolic statement of what motivates the foreign policy of this administration than that act." Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -----Original Message----- From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2017 4:10 PM To: David Green ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay ; David Johnson ; Mildred O'brien ; C G Estabrook Subject: RE: Statement by Francis Boyle, Professor of International Law at the Univ of Illinois School of Law, on the illegality of Trump’s threats against North Korea | In the Name of Humanity We Refuse To Accept a Fascist America And in the Name of Humanity, I refuse to accept the Fascistic Illiniwaks Law Faculty and Dean! Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -----Original Message----- From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2017 4:03 PM To: David Green ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay ; David Johnson ; Mildred O'brien ; C G Estabrook Subject: FW: Statement by Francis Boyle, Professor of International Law at the Univ of Illinois School of Law, on the illegality of Trump’s threats against North Korea | In the Name of Humanity We Refuse To Accept a Fascist America Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -----Original Message----- From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2017 4:01 PM To: sectns.aals at lists.aals.org Subject: Statement by Francis Boyle, Professor of International Law at the Univ of Illinois School of Law, on the illegality of Trump’s threats against North Korea | In the Name of Humanity We Refuse To Accept a Fascist America https://refusefascism.org/2017/11/11/statement-by-francis-boyle-professor-of-international-law-at-the-univ-of-illinois-school-of-law-on-the-illegality-of-trumps-threats-against-north-korea/ From fboyle at illinois.edu Sun Nov 12 14:46:10 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2017 14:46:10 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: NYTBooks on Biden Memoir Message-ID: Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2017 8:44 AM To: sectns.aals at lists.aals.org Subject: NYTBooks on Biden Memoir No to Joe! You can't trust a man Who sold out his own People Twice in a Row See below Fab Irish American Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis [mailto:FBOYLE at law.illinois.edu] Sent: Monday, November 14, 2011 11:23 AM To: Killeacle > Subject: FW: BOOK: United Ireland, Human Rights & Int'l Law / Boyle [http://www.claritypress.com/sitebuilder/images/Untitled2-204x323.jpg] UNITED IRELAND, HUMAN RIGHTS and INTERNATIONAL LAW by Francis A. Boyle ISBN: 978-0-9833539-2-8 202 pp. $16.95 Available in North America and UK/Europe and from Clarity Press, Inc. During the past three decades, international legal expert Francis A.Boyle has dealt with some of the most difficult problems created byBritain's continued military occupation of six northeast counties inIreland. In so doing, he along with other Irish Americans engaged the formidable Irish American domestic lobby in support of the Irish resistance. This book addresses some of the most important aspects of their historic campaigns-the struggle to prevent deportation of Irish freedom-fighter,Joe Doherty, the protest against the U.S.-U.K. Extradition Treaty of 2006, the effort to engage U.S. multinationals in implementing the MacBride Principles to roll back discrimination against Catholics in Northern Ireland. But most significantly, Boyle makes the legal case for viewing the horrific Irish "Potato Famine"-the Irish Hecatomb-as a result, not of laissez-faire economic policy, but of intentional British genocide. This is the definitive book on all legal/political/human rights aspects of the Irish conflict, including Britain's international legal obligation to decolonize Northern Ireland and going forward, a legal and human rights framework for establishing a United Ireland where all Irish can live in peace with justice for all irrespective of their differences. United Ireland, Human Rights, and International Law is required reading for Irish Americans, people living in Ireland, and the Irish Diaspora around the world. TABLE OF CONTENTS Dedication Irish America Chapter 1. The Irish Hecatomb: The Legal Case for the Potato Famine as British Genocide / 19 Chapter 2 The Decolonization of Northern Ireland / 64 Chapter 3. Putting Britain's Colonial War in Ireland on Trial in the USA / 89 Chapter 4. The Struggle to Free Joe Doherty / 99 Chapter 5. Opposing the U.S.-U.K. Extradition Treaty / 123 Chapter 6. Advocating the MacBride Principles for Northern Ireland / 154 Chapter 7. Sparing Robert John MacBride / 184 Chapter 8. Designing United Ireland / 188 Index Available directly from Clarity Press, amazon.com, amazon.co.uk or our distributors in the USA, UK/Europe/ Middle East, Malaysia/Singapore, World Clarity Press, Inc. http://www.claritypress.com You are presently listed as a Clarity Press subscriber. To unsubscribe, press here [http://www.claritypress.com/sitebuilder/images/Boyle-McBrideweb-228x322.png] Dual National FRANCIS BOYLE (right) with SEAN MACBRIDE, S.C. Foreign Minister for the Republic of Ireland Nobel Peace Prize Laureate and Chief of Staff of the Irish Republican Army FRANCIS A. BOYLE is a leading American expert in international law. He was responsible for drafting the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989, the American implementing legislation for the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention. He served on the Board of Directors of Amnesty International (1988-1992), and represented Bosnia-Herzegovina at the World Court. He served as legal adviser to the Palestinian Delegation to the Middle East peace negotiations from 1991 to 1993. In 2007, he delivered the Bertrand Russell Peace Lectures. Professor Boyle teaches international law at the University of Illinois, Champaign and is author of, inter alia, The Future of International Law and American Foreign Policy, Foundations of World Order, The Criminality of Nuclear Deterrence, Palestine, Palestinians and International Law, Destroying World Order, Biowarfare & Terrorism, Tackling America's Toughest Questions, The Tamil Genocide by Sri Lanka and The Palestinian Right of Return Under International Law. He holds a Doctor of Law Magna Cum Laude as well as a Ph.D. in Political Science, both from Harvard University. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Sun Nov 12 14:46:10 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2017 14:46:10 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: NYTBooks on Biden Memoir Message-ID: Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2017 8:44 AM To: sectns.aals at lists.aals.org Subject: NYTBooks on Biden Memoir No to Joe! You can't trust a man Who sold out his own People Twice in a Row See below Fab Irish American Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis [mailto:FBOYLE at law.illinois.edu] Sent: Monday, November 14, 2011 11:23 AM To: Killeacle > Subject: FW: BOOK: United Ireland, Human Rights & Int'l Law / Boyle [http://www.claritypress.com/sitebuilder/images/Untitled2-204x323.jpg] UNITED IRELAND, HUMAN RIGHTS and INTERNATIONAL LAW by Francis A. Boyle ISBN: 978-0-9833539-2-8 202 pp. $16.95 Available in North America and UK/Europe and from Clarity Press, Inc. During the past three decades, international legal expert Francis A.Boyle has dealt with some of the most difficult problems created byBritain's continued military occupation of six northeast counties inIreland. In so doing, he along with other Irish Americans engaged the formidable Irish American domestic lobby in support of the Irish resistance. This book addresses some of the most important aspects of their historic campaigns-the struggle to prevent deportation of Irish freedom-fighter,Joe Doherty, the protest against the U.S.-U.K. Extradition Treaty of 2006, the effort to engage U.S. multinationals in implementing the MacBride Principles to roll back discrimination against Catholics in Northern Ireland. But most significantly, Boyle makes the legal case for viewing the horrific Irish "Potato Famine"-the Irish Hecatomb-as a result, not of laissez-faire economic policy, but of intentional British genocide. This is the definitive book on all legal/political/human rights aspects of the Irish conflict, including Britain's international legal obligation to decolonize Northern Ireland and going forward, a legal and human rights framework for establishing a United Ireland where all Irish can live in peace with justice for all irrespective of their differences. United Ireland, Human Rights, and International Law is required reading for Irish Americans, people living in Ireland, and the Irish Diaspora around the world. TABLE OF CONTENTS Dedication Irish America Chapter 1. The Irish Hecatomb: The Legal Case for the Potato Famine as British Genocide / 19 Chapter 2 The Decolonization of Northern Ireland / 64 Chapter 3. Putting Britain's Colonial War in Ireland on Trial in the USA / 89 Chapter 4. The Struggle to Free Joe Doherty / 99 Chapter 5. Opposing the U.S.-U.K. Extradition Treaty / 123 Chapter 6. Advocating the MacBride Principles for Northern Ireland / 154 Chapter 7. Sparing Robert John MacBride / 184 Chapter 8. Designing United Ireland / 188 Index Available directly from Clarity Press, amazon.com, amazon.co.uk or our distributors in the USA, UK/Europe/ Middle East, Malaysia/Singapore, World Clarity Press, Inc. http://www.claritypress.com You are presently listed as a Clarity Press subscriber. To unsubscribe, press here [http://www.claritypress.com/sitebuilder/images/Boyle-McBrideweb-228x322.png] Dual National FRANCIS BOYLE (right) with SEAN MACBRIDE, S.C. Foreign Minister for the Republic of Ireland Nobel Peace Prize Laureate and Chief of Staff of the Irish Republican Army FRANCIS A. BOYLE is a leading American expert in international law. He was responsible for drafting the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989, the American implementing legislation for the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention. He served on the Board of Directors of Amnesty International (1988-1992), and represented Bosnia-Herzegovina at the World Court. He served as legal adviser to the Palestinian Delegation to the Middle East peace negotiations from 1991 to 1993. In 2007, he delivered the Bertrand Russell Peace Lectures. Professor Boyle teaches international law at the University of Illinois, Champaign and is author of, inter alia, The Future of International Law and American Foreign Policy, Foundations of World Order, The Criminality of Nuclear Deterrence, Palestine, Palestinians and International Law, Destroying World Order, Biowarfare & Terrorism, Tackling America's Toughest Questions, The Tamil Genocide by Sri Lanka and The Palestinian Right of Return Under International Law. He holds a Doctor of Law Magna Cum Laude as well as a Ph.D. in Political Science, both from Harvard University. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Sun Nov 12 15:25:43 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2017 15:25:43 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] =?windows-1252?q?Statement_by_Francis_Boyle=2C_Pr?= =?windows-1252?q?ofessor_of_International_Law_at_the_Univ_of_Illinois_Sch?= =?windows-1252?q?ool_of_Law=2C_on_the_illegality_of_Trump=92s_threats_aga?= =?windows-1252?q?inst_North_Korea_=7C_In_the_Name_of_Humanity_We_Refuse_T?= =?windows-1252?q?o_Accept_a_Fascist_America?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Ben Linder Instead of Me Down to Nicaragua in 1985 With my Friends and Comrades-in-Arms Ramsey Clark and Len Weinglass (R.I.P.) To stop Reagan’s contra terrorist mercenary bands Tormenting, torturing, murdering, raping, robbing, pillaging, devastating Nicaragua’s long-suffering people Under a contra death threat for all Americans Subjected to CIA biowarfare by Hemorrhagic Dengue Fever For which there is no cure The three of us marched on our way anyway Instead of us lawyers Reagan and his contras murdered Ben Linder A Noble Engineer Bringing fresh water to the poor campesinos in the countryside Ripping Ben from his Family’s arms Ben was a Martyr for Peace! Reagan and his contras murdered Ben Linder instead of me I have led a full life But not so he Struck down in his young manhood By a gang of American criminals and their terrorists So I write this poem in Honor of Ben May Ben’s Name live forever! I know his Soul already does R.I.P.: Ben Linder Instead of me Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -----Original Message----- From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2017 7:52 AM To: David Green ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay ; David Johnson ; Mildred O'brien ; C G Estabrook Subject: RE: Statement by Francis Boyle, Professor of International Law at the Univ of Illinois School of Law, on the illegality of Trump’s threats against North Korea | In the Name of Humanity We Refuse To Accept a Fascist America “I think nothing could be a more eloquent and symbolic statement of what motivates the foreign policy of this {Reagan} administration than that {Nazi} act.” Fab debating Kirkpatrick’s right-hand Henchman before the American Society of Imperial Law Convention, 26 April 1985 VERSUS Killer Koh worked for Reagan in 1985 and then at the knowing invitation of the Illiniwaks Law School Faculty and Dean gave their distinguished endowed lecture on being a Role Model for Excellence for Lawyers in Government Service on October 28, 2016 in order to get Clinton elected President 10 days later. The Human Race Dodged A Cosmic Bullet on November 8. Deus ex machina. The Reagan/Bitburg Doctrine ...Here Kirkpatrick and Gerson quite correctly (though perhaps unwittingly) pointed out that on May 5, 1985 Reagan took the opportunity to publicly announce his so-called doctrine at Bitburg, West Germany (p. 22). There Reagan laid a memorial wreath at a cemetery that he knew contained the remains of dead Nazi Waffen SS stormtroopers despite the vigorous protestations of the justifiably outraged American Jewish community and U.S. veterans organizations, among others. As I argued in a general debate with none other than Gerson himself, inter alia, before the annual convention of the American Society of International Law held shortly beforehand in New York City on April 26: "It is the Reagan administration's Machiavellian approach to foreign affairs that sponsored the Israeli invasion of Lebanon. It is the Reagan administration that brought you the United States invasion of Grenada. It was the Reagan administration that brought you the U.S. invasion of Nicaragua, which still goes on today. It is the Reagan administration's policy of constructive engagement that has encouraged the South African invasion of Angola. It is the Reagan administration which has launched an all-out vicious assault on the integrity of the International Court of Justice. And it is now the Reagan administration that is going to be paying tribute to 39 SS soldiers at a cemetery in West Germany. I think nothing could be a more eloquent and symbolic statement of what motivates the foreign policy of this administration than that act." Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -----Original Message----- From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2017 4:10 PM To: David Green ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay ; David Johnson ; Mildred O'brien ; C G Estabrook Subject: RE: Statement by Francis Boyle, Professor of International Law at the Univ of Illinois School of Law, on the illegality of Trump’s threats against North Korea | In the Name of Humanity We Refuse To Accept a Fascist America And in the Name of Humanity, I refuse to accept the Fascistic Illiniwaks Law Faculty and Dean! Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -----Original Message----- From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2017 4:03 PM To: David Green ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay ; David Johnson ; Mildred O'brien ; C G Estabrook Subject: FW: Statement by Francis Boyle, Professor of International Law at the Univ of Illinois School of Law, on the illegality of Trump’s threats against North Korea | In the Name of Humanity We Refuse To Accept a Fascist America Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -----Original Message----- From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2017 4:01 PM To: sectns.aals at lists.aals.org Subject: Statement by Francis Boyle, Professor of International Law at the Univ of Illinois School of Law, on the illegality of Trump’s threats against North Korea | In the Name of Humanity We Refuse To Accept a Fascist America https://refusefascism.org/2017/11/11/statement-by-francis-boyle-professor-of-international-law-at-the-univ-of-illinois-school-of-law-on-the-illegality-of-trumps-threats-against-north-korea/ From fboyle at illinois.edu Sun Nov 12 15:25:43 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2017 15:25:43 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] =?windows-1252?q?Statement_by_Francis_Boyle=2C_Pr?= =?windows-1252?q?ofessor_of_International_Law_at_the_Univ_of_Illinois_Sch?= =?windows-1252?q?ool_of_Law=2C_on_the_illegality_of_Trump=92s_threats_aga?= =?windows-1252?q?inst_North_Korea_=7C_In_the_Name_of_Humanity_We_Refuse_T?= =?windows-1252?q?o_Accept_a_Fascist_America?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Ben Linder Instead of Me Down to Nicaragua in 1985 With my Friends and Comrades-in-Arms Ramsey Clark and Len Weinglass (R.I.P.) To stop Reagan’s contra terrorist mercenary bands Tormenting, torturing, murdering, raping, robbing, pillaging, devastating Nicaragua’s long-suffering people Under a contra death threat for all Americans Subjected to CIA biowarfare by Hemorrhagic Dengue Fever For which there is no cure The three of us marched on our way anyway Instead of us lawyers Reagan and his contras murdered Ben Linder A Noble Engineer Bringing fresh water to the poor campesinos in the countryside Ripping Ben from his Family’s arms Ben was a Martyr for Peace! Reagan and his contras murdered Ben Linder instead of me I have led a full life But not so he Struck down in his young manhood By a gang of American criminals and their terrorists So I write this poem in Honor of Ben May Ben’s Name live forever! I know his Soul already does R.I.P.: Ben Linder Instead of me Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -----Original Message----- From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2017 7:52 AM To: David Green ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay ; David Johnson ; Mildred O'brien ; C G Estabrook Subject: RE: Statement by Francis Boyle, Professor of International Law at the Univ of Illinois School of Law, on the illegality of Trump’s threats against North Korea | In the Name of Humanity We Refuse To Accept a Fascist America “I think nothing could be a more eloquent and symbolic statement of what motivates the foreign policy of this {Reagan} administration than that {Nazi} act.” Fab debating Kirkpatrick’s right-hand Henchman before the American Society of Imperial Law Convention, 26 April 1985 VERSUS Killer Koh worked for Reagan in 1985 and then at the knowing invitation of the Illiniwaks Law School Faculty and Dean gave their distinguished endowed lecture on being a Role Model for Excellence for Lawyers in Government Service on October 28, 2016 in order to get Clinton elected President 10 days later. The Human Race Dodged A Cosmic Bullet on November 8. Deus ex machina. The Reagan/Bitburg Doctrine ...Here Kirkpatrick and Gerson quite correctly (though perhaps unwittingly) pointed out that on May 5, 1985 Reagan took the opportunity to publicly announce his so-called doctrine at Bitburg, West Germany (p. 22). There Reagan laid a memorial wreath at a cemetery that he knew contained the remains of dead Nazi Waffen SS stormtroopers despite the vigorous protestations of the justifiably outraged American Jewish community and U.S. veterans organizations, among others. As I argued in a general debate with none other than Gerson himself, inter alia, before the annual convention of the American Society of International Law held shortly beforehand in New York City on April 26: "It is the Reagan administration's Machiavellian approach to foreign affairs that sponsored the Israeli invasion of Lebanon. It is the Reagan administration that brought you the United States invasion of Grenada. It was the Reagan administration that brought you the U.S. invasion of Nicaragua, which still goes on today. It is the Reagan administration's policy of constructive engagement that has encouraged the South African invasion of Angola. It is the Reagan administration which has launched an all-out vicious assault on the integrity of the International Court of Justice. And it is now the Reagan administration that is going to be paying tribute to 39 SS soldiers at a cemetery in West Germany. I think nothing could be a more eloquent and symbolic statement of what motivates the foreign policy of this administration than that act." Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -----Original Message----- From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2017 4:10 PM To: David Green ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay ; David Johnson ; Mildred O'brien ; C G Estabrook Subject: RE: Statement by Francis Boyle, Professor of International Law at the Univ of Illinois School of Law, on the illegality of Trump’s threats against North Korea | In the Name of Humanity We Refuse To Accept a Fascist America And in the Name of Humanity, I refuse to accept the Fascistic Illiniwaks Law Faculty and Dean! Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -----Original Message----- From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2017 4:03 PM To: David Green ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay ; David Johnson ; Mildred O'brien ; C G Estabrook Subject: FW: Statement by Francis Boyle, Professor of International Law at the Univ of Illinois School of Law, on the illegality of Trump’s threats against North Korea | In the Name of Humanity We Refuse To Accept a Fascist America Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -----Original Message----- From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2017 4:01 PM To: sectns.aals at lists.aals.org Subject: Statement by Francis Boyle, Professor of International Law at the Univ of Illinois School of Law, on the illegality of Trump’s threats against North Korea | In the Name of Humanity We Refuse To Accept a Fascist America https://refusefascism.org/2017/11/11/statement-by-francis-boyle-professor-of-international-law-at-the-univ-of-illinois-school-of-law-on-the-illegality-of-trumps-threats-against-north-korea/ From fboyle at illinois.edu Sun Nov 12 15:55:36 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2017 15:55:36 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] =?windows-1252?q?Statement_by_Francis_Boyle=2C_Pr?= =?windows-1252?q?ofessor_of_International_Law_at_the_Univ_of_Illinois_Sch?= =?windows-1252?q?ool_of_Law=2C_on_the_illegality_of_Trump=92s_threats_aga?= =?windows-1252?q?inst_North_Korea_=7C_In_the_Name_of_Humanity_We_Refuse_T?= =?windows-1252?q?o_Accept_a_Fascist_America?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The Illiniwaks Law Faculty and Dean Iceman knew all about Reagan/KillerKoh trying to murder Ramsey Clark, Len Weinglass and me in Nicaragua in 1985 because I told them so. Obviously the Illiniwaks Law Faculty and Dean Iceman figured murdering me was a good idea. So they invited out Killer Koh to give their endowed lecture on being a Role Model for Excellence for Lawyers in Government Service. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -----Original Message----- From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2017 9:26 AM To: David Green ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay ; David Johnson ; Mildred O'brien ; C G Estabrook Subject: RE: Statement by Francis Boyle, Professor of International Law at the Univ of Illinois School of Law, on the illegality of Trump’s threats against North Korea | In the Name of Humanity We Refuse To Accept a Fascist America Ben Linder Instead of Me Down to Nicaragua in 1985 With my Friends and Comrades-in-Arms Ramsey Clark and Len Weinglass (R.I.P.) To stop Reagan’s contra terrorist mercenary bands Tormenting, torturing, murdering, raping, robbing, pillaging, devastating Nicaragua’s long-suffering people Under a contra death threat for all Americans Subjected to CIA biowarfare by Hemorrhagic Dengue Fever For which there is no cure The three of us marched on our way anyway Instead of us lawyers Reagan and his contras murdered Ben Linder A Noble Engineer Bringing fresh water to the poor campesinos in the countryside Ripping Ben from his Family’s arms Ben was a Martyr for Peace! Reagan and his contras murdered Ben Linder instead of me I have led a full life But not so he Struck down in his young manhood By a gang of American criminals and their terrorists So I write this poem in Honor of Ben May Ben’s Name live forever! I know his Soul already does R.I.P.: Ben Linder Instead of me Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -----Original Message----- From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2017 7:52 AM To: David Green ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay ; David Johnson ; Mildred O'brien ; C G Estabrook Subject: RE: Statement by Francis Boyle, Professor of International Law at the Univ of Illinois School of Law, on the illegality of Trump’s threats against North Korea | In the Name of Humanity We Refuse To Accept a Fascist America “I think nothing could be a more eloquent and symbolic statement of what motivates the foreign policy of this {Reagan} administration than that {Nazi} act.” Fab debating Kirkpatrick’s right-hand Henchman before the American Society of Imperial Law Convention, 26 April 1985 VERSUS Killer Koh worked for Reagan in 1985 and then at the knowing invitation of the Illiniwaks Law School Faculty and Dean gave their distinguished endowed lecture on being a Role Model for Excellence for Lawyers in Government Service on October 28, 2016 in order to get Clinton elected President 10 days later. The Human Race Dodged A Cosmic Bullet on November 8. Deus ex machina. The Reagan/Bitburg Doctrine ...Here Kirkpatrick and Gerson quite correctly (though perhaps unwittingly) pointed out that on May 5, 1985 Reagan took the opportunity to publicly announce his so-called doctrine at Bitburg, West Germany (p. 22). There Reagan laid a memorial wreath at a cemetery that he knew contained the remains of dead Nazi Waffen SS stormtroopers despite the vigorous protestations of the justifiably outraged American Jewish community and U.S. veterans organizations, among others. As I argued in a general debate with none other than Gerson himself, inter alia, before the annual convention of the American Society of International Law held shortly beforehand in New York City on April 26: "It is the Reagan administration's Machiavellian approach to foreign affairs that sponsored the Israeli invasion of Lebanon. It is the Reagan administration that brought you the United States invasion of Grenada. It was the Reagan administration that brought you the U.S. invasion of Nicaragua, which still goes on today. It is the Reagan administration's policy of constructive engagement that has encouraged the South African invasion of Angola. It is the Reagan administration which has launched an all-out vicious assault on the integrity of the International Court of Justice. And it is now the Reagan administration that is going to be paying tribute to 39 SS soldiers at a cemetery in West Germany. I think nothing could be a more eloquent and symbolic statement of what motivates the foreign policy of this administration than that act." Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -----Original Message----- From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2017 4:10 PM To: David Green ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay ; David Johnson ; Mildred O'brien ; C G Estabrook Subject: RE: Statement by Francis Boyle, Professor of International Law at the Univ of Illinois School of Law, on the illegality of Trump’s threats against North Korea | In the Name of Humanity We Refuse To Accept a Fascist America And in the Name of Humanity, I refuse to accept the Fascistic Illiniwaks Law Faculty and Dean! Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -----Original Message----- From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2017 4:03 PM To: David Green ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay ; David Johnson ; Mildred O'brien ; C G Estabrook Subject: FW: Statement by Francis Boyle, Professor of International Law at the Univ of Illinois School of Law, on the illegality of Trump’s threats against North Korea | In the Name of Humanity We Refuse To Accept a Fascist America Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -----Original Message----- From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2017 4:01 PM To: sectns.aals at lists.aals.org Subject: Statement by Francis Boyle, Professor of International Law at the Univ of Illinois School of Law, on the illegality of Trump’s threats against North Korea | In the Name of Humanity We Refuse To Accept a Fascist America https://refusefascism.org/2017/11/11/statement-by-francis-boyle-professor-of-international-law-at-the-univ-of-illinois-school-of-law-on-the-illegality-of-trumps-threats-against-north-korea/ From fboyle at illinois.edu Sun Nov 12 15:55:36 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2017 15:55:36 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] =?windows-1252?q?Statement_by_Francis_Boyle=2C_Pr?= =?windows-1252?q?ofessor_of_International_Law_at_the_Univ_of_Illinois_Sch?= =?windows-1252?q?ool_of_Law=2C_on_the_illegality_of_Trump=92s_threats_aga?= =?windows-1252?q?inst_North_Korea_=7C_In_the_Name_of_Humanity_We_Refuse_T?= =?windows-1252?q?o_Accept_a_Fascist_America?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The Illiniwaks Law Faculty and Dean Iceman knew all about Reagan/KillerKoh trying to murder Ramsey Clark, Len Weinglass and me in Nicaragua in 1985 because I told them so. Obviously the Illiniwaks Law Faculty and Dean Iceman figured murdering me was a good idea. So they invited out Killer Koh to give their endowed lecture on being a Role Model for Excellence for Lawyers in Government Service. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -----Original Message----- From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2017 9:26 AM To: David Green ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay ; David Johnson ; Mildred O'brien ; C G Estabrook Subject: RE: Statement by Francis Boyle, Professor of International Law at the Univ of Illinois School of Law, on the illegality of Trump’s threats against North Korea | In the Name of Humanity We Refuse To Accept a Fascist America Ben Linder Instead of Me Down to Nicaragua in 1985 With my Friends and Comrades-in-Arms Ramsey Clark and Len Weinglass (R.I.P.) To stop Reagan’s contra terrorist mercenary bands Tormenting, torturing, murdering, raping, robbing, pillaging, devastating Nicaragua’s long-suffering people Under a contra death threat for all Americans Subjected to CIA biowarfare by Hemorrhagic Dengue Fever For which there is no cure The three of us marched on our way anyway Instead of us lawyers Reagan and his contras murdered Ben Linder A Noble Engineer Bringing fresh water to the poor campesinos in the countryside Ripping Ben from his Family’s arms Ben was a Martyr for Peace! Reagan and his contras murdered Ben Linder instead of me I have led a full life But not so he Struck down in his young manhood By a gang of American criminals and their terrorists So I write this poem in Honor of Ben May Ben’s Name live forever! I know his Soul already does R.I.P.: Ben Linder Instead of me Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -----Original Message----- From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2017 7:52 AM To: David Green ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay ; David Johnson ; Mildred O'brien ; C G Estabrook Subject: RE: Statement by Francis Boyle, Professor of International Law at the Univ of Illinois School of Law, on the illegality of Trump’s threats against North Korea | In the Name of Humanity We Refuse To Accept a Fascist America “I think nothing could be a more eloquent and symbolic statement of what motivates the foreign policy of this {Reagan} administration than that {Nazi} act.” Fab debating Kirkpatrick’s right-hand Henchman before the American Society of Imperial Law Convention, 26 April 1985 VERSUS Killer Koh worked for Reagan in 1985 and then at the knowing invitation of the Illiniwaks Law School Faculty and Dean gave their distinguished endowed lecture on being a Role Model for Excellence for Lawyers in Government Service on October 28, 2016 in order to get Clinton elected President 10 days later. The Human Race Dodged A Cosmic Bullet on November 8. Deus ex machina. The Reagan/Bitburg Doctrine ...Here Kirkpatrick and Gerson quite correctly (though perhaps unwittingly) pointed out that on May 5, 1985 Reagan took the opportunity to publicly announce his so-called doctrine at Bitburg, West Germany (p. 22). There Reagan laid a memorial wreath at a cemetery that he knew contained the remains of dead Nazi Waffen SS stormtroopers despite the vigorous protestations of the justifiably outraged American Jewish community and U.S. veterans organizations, among others. As I argued in a general debate with none other than Gerson himself, inter alia, before the annual convention of the American Society of International Law held shortly beforehand in New York City on April 26: "It is the Reagan administration's Machiavellian approach to foreign affairs that sponsored the Israeli invasion of Lebanon. It is the Reagan administration that brought you the United States invasion of Grenada. It was the Reagan administration that brought you the U.S. invasion of Nicaragua, which still goes on today. It is the Reagan administration's policy of constructive engagement that has encouraged the South African invasion of Angola. It is the Reagan administration which has launched an all-out vicious assault on the integrity of the International Court of Justice. And it is now the Reagan administration that is going to be paying tribute to 39 SS soldiers at a cemetery in West Germany. I think nothing could be a more eloquent and symbolic statement of what motivates the foreign policy of this administration than that act." Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -----Original Message----- From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2017 4:10 PM To: David Green ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay ; David Johnson ; Mildred O'brien ; C G Estabrook Subject: RE: Statement by Francis Boyle, Professor of International Law at the Univ of Illinois School of Law, on the illegality of Trump’s threats against North Korea | In the Name of Humanity We Refuse To Accept a Fascist America And in the Name of Humanity, I refuse to accept the Fascistic Illiniwaks Law Faculty and Dean! Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -----Original Message----- From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2017 4:03 PM To: David Green ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay ; David Johnson ; Mildred O'brien ; C G Estabrook Subject: FW: Statement by Francis Boyle, Professor of International Law at the Univ of Illinois School of Law, on the illegality of Trump’s threats against North Korea | In the Name of Humanity We Refuse To Accept a Fascist America Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -----Original Message----- From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2017 4:01 PM To: sectns.aals at lists.aals.org Subject: Statement by Francis Boyle, Professor of International Law at the Univ of Illinois School of Law, on the illegality of Trump’s threats against North Korea | In the Name of Humanity We Refuse To Accept a Fascist America https://refusefascism.org/2017/11/11/statement-by-francis-boyle-professor-of-international-law-at-the-univ-of-illinois-school-of-law-on-the-illegality-of-trumps-threats-against-north-korea/ From karenaram at hotmail.com Sun Nov 12 16:28:26 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2017 16:28:26 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Purge in Saudi is prelude to something much bigger Message-ID: Prediction: Muhammad Bin-Salman’s Purge in Saudi Arabia is Prelude to Something Bigger NOVEMBER 11, 2017 BY 21WIRE 6 COMMENTS [http://21stcenturywire.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Tanks.jpg] Abdel Bari Atwan Raialyoum Our region stands on the brink of war. We should not let small details — such as the resignation of Lebanese Prime Minister Saad al-Hariri’s resignation or the detention of princes and former ministers in Saudi Arabia — divert us from the big picture and the real developments taking place behind the scenes. The really dangerous phase is the one that will follow Crown Prince Muhammad Bin-Salman’s purge on the domestic Saudi front. It may be the precursor to scenarios for a regional war that could, without exaggeration, end up being the most devastating in its modern history. All that is currently happening is part of a carefully planned and crafted scheme, and the prelude to a sectarian war waged in ‘Arab nationalist’ guise against the growing power of ‘Shia’ Iran and its surrogates in Yemen, Lebanon and Iraq with American, regional and Israeli backing. The old Saudi Arabia is no more. Wahhabism is breathing its last, has been all but buried and is in the process of becoming history. A fourth Saudi state, dressed in the garb of modernity and based on different alliances, is being born. When its would-be founder and man of the moment, Muhammad Bin-Salman, accuses Iran of mounting a ‘direct military attack that may amount to an act of war’ against his country by allegedly supplying missiles to factions in Yemen, and his stance is endorsed and supported by the US, it is clear that a new American-led alliance is taking shape in the region. Muhammad Bin-Salman’s domestic purge, including the detention of 11 princes and scores of businessmen and former officials under the banner of fighting corruption, is only a first phase. It seems to have proceeded smoothly so far, without encountering any serious obstacles. The man now has now brought the four major pillars of state power – the economy, the security and military forces, the media and the religious establishment (both the official Council of Senior Ulema and the unofficial ‘awakening’ clerics) — totally under his control. He has thrown all his opponents, and anyone who uttered any criticism of his rule, behind bars (or, in the case of the princes and other high-ranking figures, incarcerated them in a luxury hotel for now). The latest round of detentions is unlikely to be the last, for we are dealing here with a bulldozer that levels everything that stands in its path. In due course, Muhammad Bin-Salman will move on to what we believe will be the second and more serious phase, that of military confrontation. This could include the following steps: — First, precipitating a military confrontation with Iran against the backdrop of the crushing siege on Yemen, after imposing a total land, air, and sea blockade of the country on the pretext of preventing Iranian missiles from reaching the Houthis. – Secondly, forming a new alliance along the lines of the Desert Storm coalition formed in 1990 to expel Iraqi forces from Kuwait. Candidates for membership in addition to Saudi Arabia and the UAE include UAE, Jordan, Egypt, Sudan and Morocco. (The King of Morocco has, coincidentally, been in the UAE capital Abu-Dhabi reportedly seeking to mediate with Saudi Arabia over the recent detentions: but he was sent a clear message from Riyadh not to interfere in what is happening inside Saudi Arabia, according reliable sources). – Third, the bombardment of Lebanon and destruction of its infrastructure on the pretext of trying to eradicate Hezbollah. Such an assault would prompt the party to retaliate with intensive missile strikes against Israel, and would be more likely than ever before to drag in Iran and Syria. – Fourth, an invasion of Qatar by Egyptian, Emirati and Saudi forces aimed at overthrowing its regime, precipitating a clash with the 30,000-strong Turkish force deployed there. – Fifth, an American-Saudi-Israeli counteroffensive in Syria aimed at recapturing the areas lost by the US and its allies’ rebel proxies such as Aleppo, Homs and Deir az-Zour. The US cannot easily stomach its defeat in Syria at the hands of Russia and Iran, even at the risk of causing a collision with Russia. It deliberately foiled the Syrian national dialogue conference in Sochi which Moscow had called for by getting the Syrian opposition to boycott it. – Sixth, mobilizing the Kurdish militias in northern Iraq and Syria as US proxies in these wars with the aim of weakening and destabilizing Iran, Turkey, and Iraq. These are just the most obvious of the steps that may be taken by the new US-led alliance – whatever it chooses to call itself. But none of this means that it is assured of success in achieving its aims and reshaping the region to its specifications. The counter-scenario may be that of the consolidation of an Iranian-Syrian-Turkish-Iraqi alliance with which Russia would sympathize to begin with, and which it may eventually end up leading. These countries combined possess formidable missile arsenals which would mostly be aimed at Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Israel. The targeted states’ much-vaunted US-made Patriot anti-missile systems would be ineffective in the face of intensive strikes by thousands of missiles fired simultaneously. The gauge of success in this anticipated and possibly imminent regional war would be the destruction of Iran, regime-change in Qatar and the eradication of Hezbollah. But its failure would mean devastation for Saudi Arabia, Israel and the UAE and the dismemberment of the Saudi kingdom into fragments. We are neither soothsayers nor fortune-tellers. Nevertheless, this may prove to be the last war that transforms the region, changing its states, its borders, and perhaps its populations as well. The Arabs and Iranians will certainly survive such a cataclysm. But can Israel in its current form survive it too? *** READ MORE MIDDLE EAST NEWS AT: 21st Century Wire ME Files SUPPORT 21WIRE – SUBSCRIBE & BECOME A MEMBER @ 21WIRE.TV * Bio * Twitter * Facebook * YouTube * Latest Posts [21wire] 21wire We are a North American and European-based, grass-roots, independent blog offering geopolitical news and media analysis, working with an array of volunteer contributors who write and help to analyse news and opinion from around the world. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From galliher at illinois.edu Sun Nov 12 17:17:34 2017 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2017 11:17:34 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Purge in Saudi is prelude to something much bigger In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9E863DB5-1E63-4746-91B2-47B12C450D3B@illinois.edu> I think ‘something bigger’ - war with Iran, which the Israeli government desperately wants - depends on the Pentagon and the CIA. And that depends upon the US public. Is there enough of an 'Iraq-Afghan syndrome,’ like the Vietnam syndrome - US public reluctance that inhibited the US government from open warfare for a generation after 1975? (The Reagan administration, which modeled itself on the Kennedy administration, from tax cuts to military aggression, wanted to attack Central America as Kennedy had attacked Southeast Asia, but was prevented from doing so by the 'Vietnam syndrome': its aggression against Nicaragua was driven underground.) After torturing Iran for 60 years, the US would love to kill people in this country that didn’t have the grace to accept the government that we picked out for them (the Shah) - and then held off the thug we sent against them (Saddam). The USG has even more reason to go after Iran now because the outcome of the greatest international crime of the century (so far) - the US invasion of Iraq - has been an increase of Iranian influence in the region. But it doesn’t want to do so openly for one very good reason: Russia. But a duplicitous Obama-style 'leading from behind’ (“Why don’t you and him fight?”) surely recommends itself to the US War Party - "the spooks [including the Pentagon], Wall Street Democrats and institutional servants of capital that gathered in Hillary Clinton’s overstuffed campaign tent, last year, to plot the next moves of a beleaguered U.S. empire,” as Glen Ford describes them. To send the armies of the KSA and Israel against Iran would delight their evil hearts, did they not fear a Russian (and even Chinese) response. —CGE > On Nov 12, 2017, at 10:28 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: > > Prediction: > Muhammad Bin-Salman’s Purge in Saudi Arabia is Prelude to Something Bigger > NOVEMBER 11, 2017 BY 21WIRE 6 COMMENTS > > Abdel Bari Atwan > Raialyoum > Our region stands on the brink of war. We should not let small details — such as the resignation of Lebanese Prime Minister Saad al-Hariri’s resignation or the detention of princes and former ministers in Saudi Arabia — divert us from the big picture and the real developments taking place behind the scenes. The really dangerous phase is the one that will follow Crown Prince Muhammad Bin-Salman’s purge on the domestic Saudi front. It may be the precursor to scenarios for a regional war that could, without exaggeration, end up being the most devastating in its modern history. > All that is currently happening is part of a carefully planned and crafted scheme, and the prelude to a sectarian war waged in ‘Arab nationalist’ guise against the growing power of ‘Shia’ Iran and its surrogates in Yemen, Lebanon and Iraq with American, regional and Israeli backing. > The old Saudi Arabia is no more. Wahhabism is breathing its last, has been all but buried and is in the process of becoming history. A fourth Saudi state, dressed in the garb of modernity and based on different alliances, is being born. > When its would-be founder and man of the moment, Muhammad Bin-Salman, accuses Iran of mounting a ‘direct military attack that may amount to an act of war’ against his country by allegedly supplying missiles to factions in Yemen, and his stance is endorsed and supported by the US, it is clear that a new American-led alliance is taking shape in the region. > Muhammad Bin-Salman’s domestic purge, including the detention of 11 princes and scores of businessmen and former officials under the banner of fighting corruption, is only a first phase. It seems to have proceeded smoothly so far, without encountering any serious obstacles. > The man now has now brought the four major pillars of state power – the economy, the security and military forces, the media and the religious establishment (both the official Council of Senior Ulema and the unofficial ‘awakening’ clerics) — totally under his control. He has thrown all his opponents, and anyone who uttered any criticism of his rule, behind bars (or, in the case of the princes and other high-ranking figures, incarcerated them in a luxury hotel for now). The latest round of detentions is unlikely to be the last, for we are dealing here with a bulldozer that levels everything that stands in its path. > In due course, Muhammad Bin-Salman will move on to what we believe will be the second and more serious phase, that of military confrontation. > This could include the following steps: > — First, precipitating a military confrontation with Iran against the backdrop of the crushing siege on Yemen, after imposing a total land, air, and sea blockade of the country on the pretext of preventing Iranian missiles from reaching the Houthis. > – Secondly, forming a new alliance along the lines of the Desert Storm coalition formed in 1990 to expel Iraqi forces from Kuwait. Candidates for membership in addition to Saudi Arabia and the UAE include UAE, Jordan, Egypt, Sudan and Morocco. (The King of Morocco has, coincidentally, been in the UAE capital Abu-Dhabi reportedly seeking to mediate with Saudi Arabia over the recent detentions: but he was sent a clear message from Riyadh not to interfere in what is happening inside Saudi Arabia, according reliable sources). > – Third, the bombardment of Lebanon and destruction of its infrastructure on the pretext of trying to eradicate Hezbollah. Such an assault would prompt the party to retaliate with intensive missile strikes against Israel, and would be more likely than ever before to drag in Iran and Syria. > – Fourth, an invasion of Qatar by Egyptian, Emirati and Saudi forces aimed at overthrowing its regime, precipitating a clash with the 30,000-strong Turkish force deployed there. > – Fifth, an American-Saudi-Israeli counteroffensive in Syria aimed at recapturing the areas lost by the US and its allies’ rebel proxies such as Aleppo, Homs and Deir az-Zour. The US cannot easily stomach its defeat in Syria at the hands of Russia and Iran, even at the risk of causing a collision with Russia. It deliberately foiled the Syrian national dialogue conference in Sochi which Moscow had called for by getting the Syrian opposition to boycott it. > – Sixth, mobilizing the Kurdish militias in northern Iraq and Syria as US proxies in these wars with the aim of weakening and destabilizing Iran, Turkey, and Iraq. > These are just the most obvious of the steps that may be taken by the new US-led alliance – whatever it chooses to call itself. > But none of this means that it is assured of success in achieving its aims and reshaping the region to its specifications. > The counter-scenario may be that of the consolidation of an Iranian-Syrian-Turkish-Iraqi alliance with which Russia would sympathize to begin with, and which it may eventually end up leading. These countries combined possess formidable missile arsenals which would mostly be aimed at Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Israel. The targeted states’ much-vaunted US-made Patriot anti-missile systems would be ineffective in the face of intensive strikes by thousands of missiles fired simultaneously. > The gauge of success in this anticipated and possibly imminent regional war would be the destruction of Iran, regime-change in Qatar and the eradication of Hezbollah. But its failure would mean devastation for Saudi Arabia, Israel and the UAE and the dismemberment of the Saudi kingdom into fragments. > We are neither soothsayers nor fortune-tellers. Nevertheless, this may prove to be the last war that transforms the region, changing its states, its borders, and perhaps its populations as well. The Arabs and Iranians will certainly survive such a cataclysm. But can Israel in its current form survive it too? > *** From cgestabrook at gmail.com Sun Nov 12 17:49:29 2017 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2017 11:49:29 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Statement for Chicago Peace Rally against USA Threatened War against DPRK In-Reply-To: <604DB0A7-DAEE-4171-88C7-8CA658D53872@gmail.com> References: <604DB0A7-DAEE-4171-88C7-8CA658D53872@gmail.com> Message-ID: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/nov/12/trump-putin-russia-intelligence-agencies The Empire Strikes Back - against its president's good sense. Can the warmongering spooks be held off? > On Nov 11, 2017, at 12:09 PM, C G Estabrook wrote: > > Trump in Asia talking peace and commerce with Xi and Putin is the War Party’s worst nightmare. > > The War Party - "the spooks [including the Pentagon], Wall Street Democrats and institutional servants of capital that gathered in Hillary Clinton’s overstuffed campaign tent, last year, to plot the next moves of a beleaguered U.S. empire,” as Glen Ford describes them - are dangerous and capable of enormities, if not in Asia, then with their button men in the Mideast, MBS & Bibi. > > The anti-war US public can be stampeded into more war in MENA, even without Obama’s duplicity. God between us and all harm, in the Irish phrase. —CGE > > > "The CIA has demanded Trump is not elected. Pentagon generals have demanded he is not elected. The pro-war New York Times - taking a breather from its relentless low-rent Putin smears - demands that he is not elected. Something is up. These tribunes of 'perpetual war' are terrified that the multi-billion-dollar business of war by which the United States maintains its dominance will be undermined if Trump does a deal with Putin, then with China’s Xi Jinping. Their panic at the possibility of the world’s great power talking peace – however unlikely – would be the blackest farce were the issues not so dire.” —John Pilger, 2016 > > >> On Nov 11, 2017, at 10:22 AM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss > wrote: >> >> Trump today just started his war maneuvers with 3 aircraft carrier strike forces and his Armada off Korea on Armistice Day for World War I. Do you think these Trumpster idiots figured that one out? Do you think the Idiots of the Illiniwaks Law School Faculty can think anything out? >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Sun Nov 12 17:49:29 2017 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2017 11:49:29 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Statement for Chicago Peace Rally against USA Threatened War against DPRK In-Reply-To: <604DB0A7-DAEE-4171-88C7-8CA658D53872@gmail.com> References: <604DB0A7-DAEE-4171-88C7-8CA658D53872@gmail.com> Message-ID: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/nov/12/trump-putin-russia-intelligence-agencies The Empire Strikes Back - against its president's good sense. Can the warmongering spooks be held off? > On Nov 11, 2017, at 12:09 PM, C G Estabrook wrote: > > Trump in Asia talking peace and commerce with Xi and Putin is the War Party’s worst nightmare. > > The War Party - "the spooks [including the Pentagon], Wall Street Democrats and institutional servants of capital that gathered in Hillary Clinton’s overstuffed campaign tent, last year, to plot the next moves of a beleaguered U.S. empire,” as Glen Ford describes them - are dangerous and capable of enormities, if not in Asia, then with their button men in the Mideast, MBS & Bibi. > > The anti-war US public can be stampeded into more war in MENA, even without Obama’s duplicity. God between us and all harm, in the Irish phrase. —CGE > > > "The CIA has demanded Trump is not elected. Pentagon generals have demanded he is not elected. The pro-war New York Times - taking a breather from its relentless low-rent Putin smears - demands that he is not elected. Something is up. These tribunes of 'perpetual war' are terrified that the multi-billion-dollar business of war by which the United States maintains its dominance will be undermined if Trump does a deal with Putin, then with China’s Xi Jinping. Their panic at the possibility of the world’s great power talking peace – however unlikely – would be the blackest farce were the issues not so dire.” —John Pilger, 2016 > > >> On Nov 11, 2017, at 10:22 AM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss > wrote: >> >> Trump today just started his war maneuvers with 3 aircraft carrier strike forces and his Armada off Korea on Armistice Day for World War I. Do you think these Trumpster idiots figured that one out? Do you think the Idiots of the Illiniwaks Law School Faculty can think anything out? >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Sun Nov 12 18:05:21 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2017 18:05:21 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Statement for Chicago Peace Rally against USA Threatened War against DPRK In-Reply-To: References: <604DB0A7-DAEE-4171-88C7-8CA658D53872@gmail.com> Message-ID: We did get the CIA Spooks off Campus when Belden and I publicly blew the whistle on them. When it comes to the CIA, Sunlight is the Best Disinfectant. They can’t stand it. Of course the Marquis De Sade Professor of Law and Philosophy Michael Moore, the Consort to the Illiniwaks Law School’s Fired, Disgraced and ABA Sanctioned Dean Hurricane Heidi Hurd publicly bragged about working for both the CIA and Mossad. He has infiltrated both the Illiniwaks College of Law School, the Department of Philosophy in LAS, and the Center for Advanced Studies—in torture and warmongering as well as publicly approving the Illiniwaks Law School Faculty and Dean Iceman bringing in Killer Koh to poison and pollute this Campus and our Community. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2017 11:49 AM To: Boyle, Francis A Cc: Jay ; Karen Aram ; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; Szoke, Ron ; Joe Lauria ; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; abass10 at gmail.com; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; Arlene Hickory ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Statement for Chicago Peace Rally against USA Threatened War against DPRK https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/nov/12/trump-putin-russia-intelligence-agencies The Empire Strikes Back - against its president's good sense. Can the warmongering spooks be held off? On Nov 11, 2017, at 12:09 PM, C G Estabrook > wrote: Trump in Asia talking peace and commerce with Xi and Putin is the War Party’s worst nightmare. The War Party - "the spooks [including the Pentagon], Wall Street Democrats and institutional servants of capital that gathered in Hillary Clinton’s overstuffed campaign tent, last year, to plot the next moves of a beleaguered U.S. empire,” as Glen Ford describes them - are dangerous and capable of enormities, if not in Asia, then with their button men in the Mideast, MBS & Bibi. The anti-war US public can be stampeded into more war in MENA, even without Obama’s duplicity. God between us and all harm, in the Irish phrase. —CGE "The CIA has demanded Trump is not elected. Pentagon generals have demanded he is not elected. The pro-war New York Times - taking a breather from its relentless low-rent Putin smears - demands that he is not elected. Something is up. These tribunes of 'perpetual war' are terrified that the multi-billion-dollar business of war by which the United States maintains its dominance will be undermined if Trump does a deal with Putin, then with China’s Xi Jinping. Their panic at the possibility of the world’s great power talking peace – however unlikely – would be the blackest farce were the issues not so dire.” —John Pilger, 2016 On Nov 11, 2017, at 10:22 AM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss > wrote: Trump today just started his war maneuvers with 3 aircraft carrier strike forces and his Armada off Korea on Armistice Day for World War I. Do you think these Trumpster idiots figured that one out? Do you think the Idiots of the Illiniwaks Law School Faculty can think anything out? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Sun Nov 12 18:05:21 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2017 18:05:21 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Statement for Chicago Peace Rally against USA Threatened War against DPRK In-Reply-To: References: <604DB0A7-DAEE-4171-88C7-8CA658D53872@gmail.com> Message-ID: We did get the CIA Spooks off Campus when Belden and I publicly blew the whistle on them. When it comes to the CIA, Sunlight is the Best Disinfectant. They can’t stand it. Of course the Marquis De Sade Professor of Law and Philosophy Michael Moore, the Consort to the Illiniwaks Law School’s Fired, Disgraced and ABA Sanctioned Dean Hurricane Heidi Hurd publicly bragged about working for both the CIA and Mossad. He has infiltrated both the Illiniwaks College of Law School, the Department of Philosophy in LAS, and the Center for Advanced Studies—in torture and warmongering as well as publicly approving the Illiniwaks Law School Faculty and Dean Iceman bringing in Killer Koh to poison and pollute this Campus and our Community. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2017 11:49 AM To: Boyle, Francis A Cc: Jay ; Karen Aram ; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; Szoke, Ron ; Joe Lauria ; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; abass10 at gmail.com; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; Arlene Hickory ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Statement for Chicago Peace Rally against USA Threatened War against DPRK https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/nov/12/trump-putin-russia-intelligence-agencies The Empire Strikes Back - against its president's good sense. Can the warmongering spooks be held off? On Nov 11, 2017, at 12:09 PM, C G Estabrook > wrote: Trump in Asia talking peace and commerce with Xi and Putin is the War Party’s worst nightmare. The War Party - "the spooks [including the Pentagon], Wall Street Democrats and institutional servants of capital that gathered in Hillary Clinton’s overstuffed campaign tent, last year, to plot the next moves of a beleaguered U.S. empire,” as Glen Ford describes them - are dangerous and capable of enormities, if not in Asia, then with their button men in the Mideast, MBS & Bibi. The anti-war US public can be stampeded into more war in MENA, even without Obama’s duplicity. God between us and all harm, in the Irish phrase. —CGE "The CIA has demanded Trump is not elected. Pentagon generals have demanded he is not elected. The pro-war New York Times - taking a breather from its relentless low-rent Putin smears - demands that he is not elected. Something is up. These tribunes of 'perpetual war' are terrified that the multi-billion-dollar business of war by which the United States maintains its dominance will be undermined if Trump does a deal with Putin, then with China’s Xi Jinping. Their panic at the possibility of the world’s great power talking peace – however unlikely – would be the blackest farce were the issues not so dire.” —John Pilger, 2016 On Nov 11, 2017, at 10:22 AM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss > wrote: Trump today just started his war maneuvers with 3 aircraft carrier strike forces and his Armada off Korea on Armistice Day for World War I. Do you think these Trumpster idiots figured that one out? Do you think the Idiots of the Illiniwaks Law School Faculty can think anything out? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Sun Nov 12 19:18:35 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2017 19:18:35 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] SNYT: Trump's Feddie Nominees--Still Hijacking Justice! Message-ID: Illiniwaks Law Dean Yale Law Mafia Iceman Amar has as his Constant Wingman around this Campus Yale Law Mafia Mazzone who is a Prominent Feddie and was on the Illiniwaks Law Committee that invited Yale/Harvard Law Mafia Killer Koh out here. Birds of a Feather Flock together. I think Illiniwaks Dean Iceman Amar is a Closet Feddie. Just like Harvard Law Dean Elena Kagan was. Easier to get promoted that way. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -----Original Message HIJACKING JUSTICE:FEDDIES Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954(voice) 217-244-1478(fax) fboyle at law.uiuc.edu -----Original Message----- From: Boyle, Francis [mailto:FBOYLE at law.uiuc.edu] Sent: Friday, September 17, 1999 6:35 PM To: undisclosed-recipients Subject: HIJACKING JUSTICE:FEDDIES S P E C I A L R E P O R T H I J A C K I N G J U S T I C E The Federalist Society, a Right-wing network of lawyers, judges and supporters, is undoing civil rights and other gains made through the courts BY GEORGE E. CURRY & TREVOR W. COLEMAN EMERGE, OCTOBER 1999 WHEN BROWN VS. BOARD OF EDUCATION WAS BEING ARGUED, a clerk to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson suggested that the court should rule against the plaintiffs in the landmark school desegregation case. While making the case for maintaining segregated schools, the clerk sent a memo to his boss saying, "It is about time the Court faced the fact that white people in the South don't like the colored people." That clerk was William Rehnquist, now chief justice of the United States Supreme Court. Seeking to put his own ultraconservatives on the Supreme Court with Rehnquist, President Ronald Reagan -- who had appointed more than half of the sitting federal judges by the time he left office -- considered nominating Lino A. Graglia, a controversial University of Texas law professor, as a federal appeals court judge for the 5th Circuit. But the nomination, which had been backed by Attorney General Edwin Meese III, was jettisoned after Graglia acknowledged that he had referred to African-Americans as "pickaninnies." The American Bar Association found the law professor "not qualified" to serve on the federal bench. Reagan did nominate Robert H. Bork, a former Yale law professor, who was on the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C. Bork had opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act, calling it "an unwanted intrusion on the right of individuals to choose with whom to associate." After bitter debate, the Senate rejected his nomination in 1987 by a vote of 58 to 42. Far from fading into the background, Bork, Meese, and to a lesser extent, Graglia, are key players in the Federalist Society, a powerful Right-wing network intent on restricting the power of courts, often at the expense of African-Americans and other people of color, the poor, women and the disadvantaged. The organization actively seeks to limit "judicial activism" and reverse Supreme Court landmark rulings since the New Deal, especially those issued in the 1960s and '70s. Special targets include the 1966 Miranda decision that provides certain rights for suspected criminals, the 1973 Roe vs. Wade ruling legalizing abortion and recent civil rights legislation. Founded in 1982 by three law students, the Federalist Society has grown into one of the most influential institutions in America. Four of the nine members of the U.S. Supreme Court -- Clarence Thomas, William H. Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia and Anthony M. Kennedy -- are close affiliates of the Federalist Society. So are Donald P. Hodel, former president of the Christina Coalition, and special prosecutor Kenneth Starr. The Federalist Society's board of trustees is co-chaired by Bork and U.S. Sen. Orrin Hatch -- one of the most conservative members on Capitol Hill. Other trustees include former Attorney General Meese, William Bradford Reynolds, who was assistant attorney general for civil rights in the Reagan Administration, sought to have court-ordered affirmative action programs overturned, and C. Boyden Gray, former President Bush's chief White House attorney, who opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1991. In a world being reshaped by the Federalist Society, conservative law students have formed chapters on campuses across the nation. After graduation, they clerk for conservative judges and then go on to become high-ranking government officials, partners in major law firms, prosecutors, law school professors and judges at the local, state and federal level. In short, the Federalist Society is on the verge of hijacking the judicial system. "This is more than an attack on affirmative action being spear-headed by the Federalist Society lawyers," observes Francis A. Boyle, a law professor at the University of Illinois. "They want to go beyond getting rid of affirmative action. They want to go back to Brown vs. Board of Education. "We have Justice Antonin Scalia (who advised the Federalist Society at its inception and later hired two of its three founders as his law clerks), who two years ago gave a public lecture at Columbia Law School where he stated if Brown vs. Board of Education was to be presented to him today, he would rule against the plaintiff. In other words, this was a threat that if Brown vs. Board of Education was voted on before the Supreme Court, he would overturn it." That type of thinking disturbs Lawrence E. Walsh. Before becoming president of the American Bar Association in 1975, Walsh chaired an ABA panel that approved President Nixon's choices of federal appeals judges, Clement Haynesworth and G. Harold Carswell, to serve on the Supreme Court. In 1969, the Senate rejected Haynesworth because of conflict-of-interest fears. The following year, Carswell was rejected by the Senate after it was disclosed that he had given a speech as a lawyer expressing his "vigorous belief in the principles of White supremacy." "My concern is there is going to be a cleavage in the courts between the Federalist Society members and nonmembers," says Walsh, a former federal judge. "Anything that perpetuates that kind of ideological cleavage is not good for the unity of the court system. Ideally, it seems to me that judges should avoid memberships [in politically and substantively motivated organizations] but, of course, they don't do that." In fact, the ABA, in one of its publications on judicial independence, concludes: "A judge's impartiality and ability to interpret and apply the laws fairly are integral to the administration of justice." But a judge's membership in an organization -- whether it's the American Civil Liberties Union on the Left or the Federalist Society on the Right -- can influence whether a judge is perceived as being unbiased, a critical element in a judicial system that prides itself on being fair. Harold D. Pope, president of the National Bar Association, says: "People who are opposing the expansion of rights and opportunities for all people in this society we feel are working against America's best interest. We would hope that all jurists, no matter what their prior political persuasion, would deal objectively with the facts of law as they come before them, as they were sworn to do so when they first sat on the bench." The expansion of the Federalist Society, which has adopted a silhouette of James Madison as its symbol, comes at a time when the legal community is worried about a loss of public confidence. An ABA special committee on judicial independence issued a report in August titled "Protecting the Bulwark of the Republic: Ensuring Public Support of the Judicial Process." The report states, "According to the ABA survey, only about half of the respondents believed that our justice system treats men and women equally. Even fewer believed that courts treat members of different ethnic groups or wealthy and poor people the same." The report continues, "As [former] ABA President [Philip S.] Anderson recently stated: "We must work on this problem for as long as it takes to make our profession equally open and our system of justice equally responsive to all members of our society, regardless of color. This is the ultimate challenge to the integrity of the rule of law in America.'" But the Federalist Society is interested in a challenge of a different kind. To its credit, the organization operates with an open and very public agenda. On its web page, for example, it lays out its conservative agenda. "The Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies is a group of conservatives and libertarians interested in the current state of the legal order. It is founded on the principles that the state exists to preserve freedom, that the separation of governmental powers is central to our Constitution, and that it is emphatically the province and duty of the judiciary to say what the law is, not what it should be. The Society seeks both to promote an awareness of these principles and to further their application through its activities." Even conservative write Michael Lind would call this 19th-century view "the Confederate theory of the Constitution." Speakers at one national Federalist Society-sponsored lawyers convention proposed far-reaching judicial reforms that included the abolition of judicial review, limiting the powers of federal courts and stripping the Supreme Court of jurisdiction over certain matters. Mary Frances Berry, chair of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, is worried about more than theory. "What is scary about the Federalist Society is that it is antiquated and atavistic," she says. "Their views on natural law, libertarianism and the limited power of government to respond when people are being discriminated against is scary -- for African-Americans, especially. The more people you have who expose those views on the court, the more dangerous it becomes for every one of our lives." In this book, Firewall: The Iran-Contra Conspiracy and Cover Up, Walsh writes: "In calling for the narrow construction of constitutional grants of governmental power, the Federalist Society seemed to speak for right-wing Republicans. I was especially troubled that one of White House Counsel Boyden Gray's assistants had openly declared that no one who was not a member of the Federalist Society had received a judicial appointment from President Bush." Brian W. Jones, a San Francisco lawyer and member of the Federalist Society, believes that his group is being maligned. "I reject out of hand that Federalists are hostile to civil rights," says Jones, an African-American who was deputy legal affairs secretary to California Gov. Pete Wilson and former counsel to Hatch's Senate Judiciary Committee. "Most members of the Federalist Society would agree that the government has no business making racial distinctions of any kind among its citizens. I would argue that is a very credible view of civil rights. "On civil rights and civil liberty issues, Federalist Society judges tend to have a more limited view of the federal government's authority to respond to a whole range of questions. For conservatives, the first question with any inquiry into responding to social problems is: Where does the authority lie, with the federal government or state and local governments?" Another African-American, Gerald Reynolds, is vice chairman of membership for the Federalist Society. "There are some people who embrace this principle of racial neutrality," says the Kansas City, Mo., lawyer. "This debate flows from principles and not from animosity toward Blacks." The national office of the Federalist Society in Washington, D.C., refused to provide the names of judges on its membership list. However, some of the organization's records were obtained by Emerge from other sources. An examination of Federalist Society documents for 1997 and 1998, the most current information available at press time, reveals the extent that the group has penetrated the courts. When looking at the board of directors of local chapters, officers, their advisory panels and membership lists, it is clear that when one goes to court seeking justice, he or she is increasingly likely to have a judge affiliated with the Federalist Society handling the case. During the period studied, that was true whether one was entering a courtroom in New York, Michigan or Alabama. (The titles of persons listed hereafter reflect the positions they held at the time the records were compiled by the Federalist Society; some of the judges have since been elevated to a higher court.) In New York state, judges serving as officers, directors or advisers to the local chapters included Thomas P. Griesa, chief judge of the U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, as well as District Judges Shirley Wohl Kram, Lawrence M. McKenna and John E. Sprizzo. A U.S. Appeals Court Judge for the Second Circuit, Dennis G. Jacobs, was also among that group. The Long Island advisory board included U.S. District Judge Michael Fiechter, U.S. Court of International Trade Judge Gregory W. Carman and State Supreme Court Judges Jack Dunne and Ute Lally. In Michigan, judges aligned with the Federalist Society included James L. Ryan and Richard F. Suhreinrich of the U.S. Court of Appeals; Federal District Judges Paul V. Gadola, David W. McKeague, Gerald E. Rosen and Lawrence P. Zatkoff; and U.S. Magistrate Judge Virginia M. Morgan. State Supreme Court Justices Clifford W. Taylor and Elizabeth A. Weaver were listed as advisers to the Detroit chapter. So were Maura D. Corrigan, chief judge of the Michigan Court of Appeals, along with fellow judges Stephen J. Markman, Henry W. Saad, and Robert Young Jr. (an African-American who has since been elevated to the Michigan Supreme Court). The chief judge of the Washtenaw County Circuit Court in Grand Rapids, Kurtis T. Wilder (another African-Americana who is now on the Michigan Court of Appeals), and Wayne County Circuit Judges Sean Cox, Michael J. Talbot and Brian Zahra helped complete the list. Local chapters in Alabama were advised by Perry O. Hooper Sr., chief justice of the Supreme Court of Alabama, along with Associate Justices J. Gorman Houston, Harold See and A. Hugh Maddox. U.S. Sen. Jefferson B. Sessions III also supported the organization. (Sessions was nominated to become a federal judge in 1986 but was blocked when it was disclosed that he had called the NAACP and the American Civil Liberties Union "un-American" and "communist-inspired," and said they "force civil rights down the throats of people." Referring to the Ku Klux Klan, he reportedly said, "I used to think they're OK," until he learned that some Klansmen were "pot smokers." Sessions contended the remarks were either made in jest or had been misinterpreted.) Additional supporters listed included Randall T. Shepard, chief justice of the Indiana Supreme Court; Craig Enoch, chief justice of the Texas Supreme Court; South Carolina Attorney General Charles Molony Condon; Alabama Attorney General William Pryor (who has links on his web page to the Federalist Society and the conservative Washington Legal Foundation), Pennsylvania Attorney General D. Michael Fisher; Indianapolis Mayor Stephen Goldsmith and Clarence Thomas' wife, Virginia, a former aide to House majority leader Richard Armey, and who now works for the Heritage Foundation. As the presiding officials in courts, judges wield broad power. For example, U.S. District Judge Neal B. Biggers Jr., who sits on the advisory board of the Mississippi chapter of the Federalist Society, presided over the Ayers desegregation case. In 1975, Jake Ayers Sr., a Mississippi sharecropper, sued the state on behalf of his son, charging that the state's higher education system discriminated against African-Americans and historically Black colleges. In 1987, Biggers upheld the state College Board's contention that Mississippi's higher education system was no longer racially discriminatory. The Supreme Court reversed Biggers in 1991 and ordered him to remove any vestiges of past discrimination. The power of the Federalist Society is not limited to the judiciary, which would be concern enough. Its tentacles extend deep into corporate America. Listed members of its business advisory council included John Stewart Bryan, III, chairman, president and C.E.O. of Media General Cable; John G. Medlin Jr., board chair of Wachovia Corp., an interstate bank holding company; Geneva Steel C.E.O. Joseph Cannon and Robert L. Strickland, chairman of Lowe's Companies. Also affiliated with the Federalist Society are Brian J. Brille and David Panton of Morgan Stanley financial services in New York; William Haraf of Bank of America in San Francisco; Chris Ekren of Sony Corp. in San Jose, Calif.; Frank Blake of General Electric in Schenechtedy, N.Y.; Philip R. Lochner Jr., senior vice president, Time Warner Inc. in New York; William Kemp of General Motors in Warren, Mich.; Edward Whelan of GTE Corp.'s Washington office; David Askin of Exxon Co. in Baytown, Texas; Marsha Rabiteau of Dow Chemical in Midland, Mich.; F. James Tennies, chief administrative officer at Legg Mason for asset management in Baltimore; Jodi Balsam, counsel for operations and litigation for the National Football League and Tom Donahue of Metropolitan Life. Even federal employees in the Clinton administration were included in Federalist Society documents: Paul-Noel Chretien of the Justice Department; Theodore Cooperstein of the FBI; Carol Crawford of the International Trade Commission; Kevin Martin of the Federal Communications Commission and Christopher Holleman of the U.S. Small Business Administration. William Saunders of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights also backs the Society. Many of the nation's blue-chip law firms have attorneys associated with the Federalist Society. Those listed included lawyers in the Washington, D.C. law firms of Arnold and Porter; Covington & Burling; Steptoe & Johnson; Hogan & Hartson; Patton, Boaggs & Blow; and Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering. New York law firms with lawyers associated with the Federalist Society include: Cravath, Swaine & Moore; White & Case and Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison. In Boston, one law firm -- Hale and Door -- has at least 10 attorneys affiliated with the Federalist Society. The list of law professors associated with the society included Ronald A. Cass, dean of Boston University's law school; Michael Young of Columbia University; John Yoo of the University of California at Berkeley; Eugene Volokh of UCLA; Northwestern University professors Gary Lawson, Daniel D. Polsby and Stephen B. Presser; Robert P. George of Princeton; Gerard Bradley of Notre Dame; Gordon B. Baldwin of the University of Wisconsin, Olan B. Lowry of Temple; Johathan Macey and Richard Painter of Cornell; Ronald D. Rotunda of the University of Illinois; Gerald T. Dunn of St. Louis University and Thomas Morgan of George Washington University. The University of Virginia, one of the best law schools in the nation, has quite a few Federalist Society professors or sympathizers on its faculty, including John Norton Moore, Robert Turner, Erika Worth Harris and Lillian BeVier. "People have to understand, whether they like lawyers or not, law schools have an enormous amount of power, whether it's power for good or evil. Unfortunately, what we are seeing under the Federalist Society is law schools and legal education being used to promote racism, bigotry and Right-wing politics. These people believe in the Bell Curve," says Prof. Boyle of the University of Illinois, referring to a controversial theory by Charles Murray and Richard J. Herrnstein about the supposed low intelligence level of some non-Whites. "You have to understand that. Just as the Federalist Society did to the federal judiciary, they are now trying to do to law schools." Boyle and others say this is done by establishing well-endowed law professorships and speaking tours for the true believers. "Where they once were scholars with Right-wing foundations like the Heritage Foundation, American Enterprise Institute and the Cato Institute, they are now getting credentialed as law professors," he notes. No comparable movement exists among progressives, which may explain why civil rights groups and liberals are doing such a feeble job defending affirmative action. "We've got to realize that while we have been dillydallying in law schools with critical race theories and penetrating the Law Review, all this is chump change to [Federalists]," observes Berry, of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. "It's like we were out playing whiffle ball while they were exercising power." The Federalist Society was founded 17 years ago by Yale Law School student Steven G. Calabresi and two counterparts at the University of Chicago School of Law, Lee Liberman and David McIntosh. All three were undergraduates together at Yale. Upset with what they perceived as liberal bias, the three decided to form an organization for conservative law students. Yale professors Robert H. Bork and Ralph K. Winter, both of whom would be appointed to the federal bench by Ronald Reagan, served as advisers to the Yale chapter. In Chicago, future U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia served in a similar capacity. The contacts the three made as students have proven to be invaluable. Calabresi, in addition to clerking for Bork and Winter, clerked for Scalia at the Supreme Court. He is now a law professor at Northwestern University. Liberman gave up a post in the Justice Department also to clerk for Scalia. She is now Lee Liberman Otis and is chief counsel for Sen. Spencer Abraham (R-Mich.), who founded a Federalist Society chapter at Harvard. McIntosh was a special assistant to Ed Meese when he was Reagan's attorney general; he is a three-term Republican Congressman who's considering running for governor of Indiana. In addition to a board of trustees, the society has a board of directors, co-chaired by Calabresi and McIntosh. The Federalist pipeline is a well-oiled old boy -- and sometimes girl -- network. For example, Brent O. Hatch, the son of Sen. Orrin Hatch, clerked for Robert Bork when he was a federal judge in Washington, D.C. After working in the Justice Department, young Hatch was appointed general counsel of the National Endowment for the Humanities at the age of 28. He is treasurer of the Federalist Society's board of directors. The organization has been funded by wealthy conservatives, such as Richard Mellon Scaife, who is vice chair of the Heritage Foundation's board, and another board member, Holland Coors, a member of the conservative Coors family. Many contributions are made through foundations that give to Right-wing causes, including the John M. Olin Foundation in New York, the Sarah Scaife Foundation in Pittsburgh, the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation of Milwaukee and the Deer Creek Foundation in St. Louis. The Federalists have direct ties to Right-wing think tanks seeking to dismantle affirmative action at the local, state and federal levels. The Center for Individual Rights, which successfully argued the Hopwood case that banned affirmative action at the University of Texas, represents plaintiffs in a lawsuit pending against the University of Michigan and were lawyers for supporters of Proposition 209, the anti-affirmative action measure in California. The Washington Legal Foundation sued the University of Maryland, forcing it to drop its Benjamin Banneker scholarships for African-American scholars; the Southeastern Legal Foundation is leading an all-out assault on affirmative action in Atlanta, and the Institute for Justice led the attack on Lani Guinier, then a University of Pennsylvania law professor, who was President Clinton's first choice to be assistant U.S. attorney general for civil rights. Clint Bolick, the group's vice president, dismissed Guinier as a "quota queen," and the eventual nominee, Deval L. Patrick, as a "quota king." He also led the opposition to the appointment of Bill Lann Lee, who was later named acting assistant attorney general for civil rights. When first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton said that there was a "vast Right-wing conspiracy" afoot that had been hounding her husband since he first announced for president, some Right-wingers almost laughingly dismissed her charges. Special Prosecutor Ken Starr called the comments "nonsense." And Boston Herald columnist Joe Fitzgerald said the first lady had "wandered into paranoia." But information developed by the Institute for Democracy Studies, a nonprofit research and education organization in New York, confirms that the first lady was on the mark. In the executive summary of its report, "The Assault on Affirmative Action: An Organized Challenge to Racial and Gender Justice," the organization notes, "Once a month at the Heritage Foundation, representatives of the nation's leading conservative law groups get together for a 'luncheon.' This so-called Public Interest Legal Group meeting is just one of several monthly gatherings that right-wing law groups hold." The report continues: "These meetings serve the purpose of avoiding duplication of effort, airing future plans, and providing guidance for an appropriate organizational division of labor." In an interview with Emerge, Todd G. Young, director of research and communications for the Atlanta-based Southeastern Legal Foundation, confirms that Right-wing groups collaborate. "We read each other's briefs (as they are filed) and when there are updates published by other groups," he says. "Although we are separate entities, we share some common understandings about the Constitutions and our (mission) statements are really almost identical for the organizations." Of its recent lawsuit against Atlanta's affirmative action program, Young notes: "We're refining the definition of what it means to enjoy equal protection under the law and the first step is to end any government-sanctioned discrimination, such as affirmative action programs or racial preference programs. It's philosophically inconsistent to say it was bad then [in the 1950s and 1960s] but it's OK now." Atlanta Mayor Bill Campbell says it's not OK to discard programs devised to address discrimination against African-Americans. "Conservative legal interest groups, such as the Center for Individual Rights and the Southeastern Legal Foundation, are striking at the very heart of the civil rights gains of the '50s and '60s," explains Campbell. "These groups are, in essence, a homogenized version of the Klan. They may have traded in their sheets for suits and use different language, but it's the same old racism -- just old wine in new bottles." The Federalist Society takes its name from The Federalist papers, 85 articles originally published in New York newspapers between 1787 and 1788. The authors -- Alexander Hamilton, John Jay and James Madison -- were attempting to gain popular support for the adoption of a new Constitution. "Is The Federalist the key to what the Constitution's framers and adopters intended it to mean and how they expected it to function?" asked R. B. Bernstein, a constitutional historian who wrote the foreword to The Federalist, a recent reissue of the papers. "This subset of the original-intent controversy tends to pit many historians, who remain dubious about original-intent arguments, against many legal scholars, who seek a way to limit judicial discretion by anchoring constitutional interpretation in the Constitution's origins." Bernstein argued that the public should not look at the essays, all written under one pen name, as the definitive word on how the Constitution should be interpreted. "Jay was not a delegate to the Federal Convention, which framed the Constitution...[Hamilton] left the Convention in July, not returning until two weeks before its close in September. And Madison...found himself outvoted on a host of major issues," Bernstein noted. Moreover, as The Federalist papers became the classic commentary on the Constitution, the three men publicly identified themselves as the authors. Even that was not without controversy. Before his ill-fated duel with Aaron Burr, Hamilton tried to take credit for writing papers 18-20, 49-58 and 62-63. Madison made an identical claim of authorship, which was verified through a computer analysis in 1964. The most damning fact about today's Federalists is that they advocate a limited role for the federal government, while the early founders were interested in establishing a strong central government. Some civil rights leaders, including Theodore M. Shaw, associate director-counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund Inc., view the rhetoric of the modern-day Federalists as smokescreen for an assault on civil rights. "It's ideologically out of the mainstream and a part of the radically conservative agenda and the radically conservative agenda has never served the interest of African-Americans," Shaw says. Hilary O. Shelton, Washington bureau chief of the NAACP, is less charitable: "They are not conservative. They are very consistent with the Council of Conservative Citizens," a White supremacy group that has featured Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) and Rep. Bob Barr (R-Ga.) as speakers. Surprisingly, some of the harshest criticism of Federalist Society members has come from Republicans. For example, former Attorney General Meese, a main player in the Federalist movement, has been criticized by some of his colleagues in the Reagan administration. According to The Washington Post, James A. Baker III and Michael K. Deaver referred to Meese as the "Big Bigot," and conservatives referred to his top assistant, T. Kenneth Cribb Jr., as the "Baby Bigot." Cribb sits on the board of directors of the Federalist Society and is a trustee of the Scaife Foundation, a major contributor to the Federalist Society and other Right-wing causes. Graglia, who has taught at the University of Texas since 1966, touched off a controversy two years ago, when he said, "Blacks and Mexican Americans are not academically competitive with Whites in selective institutions." According to Graglia, "It is the result primarily of cultural effects. Failure is not looked upon with disgrace." He maintains his membership in the Federalist Society. "They certainly are unenthusiastic about civil rights laws," he says of his organization. "Richard Epstein [a law professor at the University of Chicago] thinks we will be better off if civil rights laws were all repealed. These people do believe, as I believe, that so-called civil rights have gone too far and are not civil rights at all." Because so many of the Federalist Society members are seen as opposing civil rights, some people are not quick to accept their professed interest in color-blind justice. U.S. Appeals Court Judge Stephen Reinhardt of the 9th Circuit observes, "We had the Civil War over states' rights. There is no question we are going back to the pre-Civil War view of governments." Former federal Judge Lawrence Walsh puts it more bluntly. "The impression I have is they are trying to return to the 18th century and undo the work of the Supreme Court since the New Deal," Walsh says. "And I think it is wrong to put someone on the court who has a pre-commitment with a political dogma, whether it's the Ku Klux Klan or the Federalist Society." -- Additional reporting by Lottie L. Joiner From fboyle at illinois.edu Sun Nov 12 19:18:35 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2017 19:18:35 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] SNYT: Trump's Feddie Nominees--Still Hijacking Justice! Message-ID: Illiniwaks Law Dean Yale Law Mafia Iceman Amar has as his Constant Wingman around this Campus Yale Law Mafia Mazzone who is a Prominent Feddie and was on the Illiniwaks Law Committee that invited Yale/Harvard Law Mafia Killer Koh out here. Birds of a Feather Flock together. I think Illiniwaks Dean Iceman Amar is a Closet Feddie. Just like Harvard Law Dean Elena Kagan was. Easier to get promoted that way. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -----Original Message HIJACKING JUSTICE:FEDDIES Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954(voice) 217-244-1478(fax) fboyle at law.uiuc.edu -----Original Message----- From: Boyle, Francis [mailto:FBOYLE at law.uiuc.edu] Sent: Friday, September 17, 1999 6:35 PM To: undisclosed-recipients Subject: HIJACKING JUSTICE:FEDDIES S P E C I A L R E P O R T H I J A C K I N G J U S T I C E The Federalist Society, a Right-wing network of lawyers, judges and supporters, is undoing civil rights and other gains made through the courts BY GEORGE E. CURRY & TREVOR W. COLEMAN EMERGE, OCTOBER 1999 WHEN BROWN VS. BOARD OF EDUCATION WAS BEING ARGUED, a clerk to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson suggested that the court should rule against the plaintiffs in the landmark school desegregation case. While making the case for maintaining segregated schools, the clerk sent a memo to his boss saying, "It is about time the Court faced the fact that white people in the South don't like the colored people." That clerk was William Rehnquist, now chief justice of the United States Supreme Court. Seeking to put his own ultraconservatives on the Supreme Court with Rehnquist, President Ronald Reagan -- who had appointed more than half of the sitting federal judges by the time he left office -- considered nominating Lino A. Graglia, a controversial University of Texas law professor, as a federal appeals court judge for the 5th Circuit. But the nomination, which had been backed by Attorney General Edwin Meese III, was jettisoned after Graglia acknowledged that he had referred to African-Americans as "pickaninnies." The American Bar Association found the law professor "not qualified" to serve on the federal bench. Reagan did nominate Robert H. Bork, a former Yale law professor, who was on the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C. Bork had opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act, calling it "an unwanted intrusion on the right of individuals to choose with whom to associate." After bitter debate, the Senate rejected his nomination in 1987 by a vote of 58 to 42. Far from fading into the background, Bork, Meese, and to a lesser extent, Graglia, are key players in the Federalist Society, a powerful Right-wing network intent on restricting the power of courts, often at the expense of African-Americans and other people of color, the poor, women and the disadvantaged. The organization actively seeks to limit "judicial activism" and reverse Supreme Court landmark rulings since the New Deal, especially those issued in the 1960s and '70s. Special targets include the 1966 Miranda decision that provides certain rights for suspected criminals, the 1973 Roe vs. Wade ruling legalizing abortion and recent civil rights legislation. Founded in 1982 by three law students, the Federalist Society has grown into one of the most influential institutions in America. Four of the nine members of the U.S. Supreme Court -- Clarence Thomas, William H. Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia and Anthony M. Kennedy -- are close affiliates of the Federalist Society. So are Donald P. Hodel, former president of the Christina Coalition, and special prosecutor Kenneth Starr. The Federalist Society's board of trustees is co-chaired by Bork and U.S. Sen. Orrin Hatch -- one of the most conservative members on Capitol Hill. Other trustees include former Attorney General Meese, William Bradford Reynolds, who was assistant attorney general for civil rights in the Reagan Administration, sought to have court-ordered affirmative action programs overturned, and C. Boyden Gray, former President Bush's chief White House attorney, who opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1991. In a world being reshaped by the Federalist Society, conservative law students have formed chapters on campuses across the nation. After graduation, they clerk for conservative judges and then go on to become high-ranking government officials, partners in major law firms, prosecutors, law school professors and judges at the local, state and federal level. In short, the Federalist Society is on the verge of hijacking the judicial system. "This is more than an attack on affirmative action being spear-headed by the Federalist Society lawyers," observes Francis A. Boyle, a law professor at the University of Illinois. "They want to go beyond getting rid of affirmative action. They want to go back to Brown vs. Board of Education. "We have Justice Antonin Scalia (who advised the Federalist Society at its inception and later hired two of its three founders as his law clerks), who two years ago gave a public lecture at Columbia Law School where he stated if Brown vs. Board of Education was to be presented to him today, he would rule against the plaintiff. In other words, this was a threat that if Brown vs. Board of Education was voted on before the Supreme Court, he would overturn it." That type of thinking disturbs Lawrence E. Walsh. Before becoming president of the American Bar Association in 1975, Walsh chaired an ABA panel that approved President Nixon's choices of federal appeals judges, Clement Haynesworth and G. Harold Carswell, to serve on the Supreme Court. In 1969, the Senate rejected Haynesworth because of conflict-of-interest fears. The following year, Carswell was rejected by the Senate after it was disclosed that he had given a speech as a lawyer expressing his "vigorous belief in the principles of White supremacy." "My concern is there is going to be a cleavage in the courts between the Federalist Society members and nonmembers," says Walsh, a former federal judge. "Anything that perpetuates that kind of ideological cleavage is not good for the unity of the court system. Ideally, it seems to me that judges should avoid memberships [in politically and substantively motivated organizations] but, of course, they don't do that." In fact, the ABA, in one of its publications on judicial independence, concludes: "A judge's impartiality and ability to interpret and apply the laws fairly are integral to the administration of justice." But a judge's membership in an organization -- whether it's the American Civil Liberties Union on the Left or the Federalist Society on the Right -- can influence whether a judge is perceived as being unbiased, a critical element in a judicial system that prides itself on being fair. Harold D. Pope, president of the National Bar Association, says: "People who are opposing the expansion of rights and opportunities for all people in this society we feel are working against America's best interest. We would hope that all jurists, no matter what their prior political persuasion, would deal objectively with the facts of law as they come before them, as they were sworn to do so when they first sat on the bench." The expansion of the Federalist Society, which has adopted a silhouette of James Madison as its symbol, comes at a time when the legal community is worried about a loss of public confidence. An ABA special committee on judicial independence issued a report in August titled "Protecting the Bulwark of the Republic: Ensuring Public Support of the Judicial Process." The report states, "According to the ABA survey, only about half of the respondents believed that our justice system treats men and women equally. Even fewer believed that courts treat members of different ethnic groups or wealthy and poor people the same." The report continues, "As [former] ABA President [Philip S.] Anderson recently stated: "We must work on this problem for as long as it takes to make our profession equally open and our system of justice equally responsive to all members of our society, regardless of color. This is the ultimate challenge to the integrity of the rule of law in America.'" But the Federalist Society is interested in a challenge of a different kind. To its credit, the organization operates with an open and very public agenda. On its web page, for example, it lays out its conservative agenda. "The Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies is a group of conservatives and libertarians interested in the current state of the legal order. It is founded on the principles that the state exists to preserve freedom, that the separation of governmental powers is central to our Constitution, and that it is emphatically the province and duty of the judiciary to say what the law is, not what it should be. The Society seeks both to promote an awareness of these principles and to further their application through its activities." Even conservative write Michael Lind would call this 19th-century view "the Confederate theory of the Constitution." Speakers at one national Federalist Society-sponsored lawyers convention proposed far-reaching judicial reforms that included the abolition of judicial review, limiting the powers of federal courts and stripping the Supreme Court of jurisdiction over certain matters. Mary Frances Berry, chair of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, is worried about more than theory. "What is scary about the Federalist Society is that it is antiquated and atavistic," she says. "Their views on natural law, libertarianism and the limited power of government to respond when people are being discriminated against is scary -- for African-Americans, especially. The more people you have who expose those views on the court, the more dangerous it becomes for every one of our lives." In this book, Firewall: The Iran-Contra Conspiracy and Cover Up, Walsh writes: "In calling for the narrow construction of constitutional grants of governmental power, the Federalist Society seemed to speak for right-wing Republicans. I was especially troubled that one of White House Counsel Boyden Gray's assistants had openly declared that no one who was not a member of the Federalist Society had received a judicial appointment from President Bush." Brian W. Jones, a San Francisco lawyer and member of the Federalist Society, believes that his group is being maligned. "I reject out of hand that Federalists are hostile to civil rights," says Jones, an African-American who was deputy legal affairs secretary to California Gov. Pete Wilson and former counsel to Hatch's Senate Judiciary Committee. "Most members of the Federalist Society would agree that the government has no business making racial distinctions of any kind among its citizens. I would argue that is a very credible view of civil rights. "On civil rights and civil liberty issues, Federalist Society judges tend to have a more limited view of the federal government's authority to respond to a whole range of questions. For conservatives, the first question with any inquiry into responding to social problems is: Where does the authority lie, with the federal government or state and local governments?" Another African-American, Gerald Reynolds, is vice chairman of membership for the Federalist Society. "There are some people who embrace this principle of racial neutrality," says the Kansas City, Mo., lawyer. "This debate flows from principles and not from animosity toward Blacks." The national office of the Federalist Society in Washington, D.C., refused to provide the names of judges on its membership list. However, some of the organization's records were obtained by Emerge from other sources. An examination of Federalist Society documents for 1997 and 1998, the most current information available at press time, reveals the extent that the group has penetrated the courts. When looking at the board of directors of local chapters, officers, their advisory panels and membership lists, it is clear that when one goes to court seeking justice, he or she is increasingly likely to have a judge affiliated with the Federalist Society handling the case. During the period studied, that was true whether one was entering a courtroom in New York, Michigan or Alabama. (The titles of persons listed hereafter reflect the positions they held at the time the records were compiled by the Federalist Society; some of the judges have since been elevated to a higher court.) In New York state, judges serving as officers, directors or advisers to the local chapters included Thomas P. Griesa, chief judge of the U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, as well as District Judges Shirley Wohl Kram, Lawrence M. McKenna and John E. Sprizzo. A U.S. Appeals Court Judge for the Second Circuit, Dennis G. Jacobs, was also among that group. The Long Island advisory board included U.S. District Judge Michael Fiechter, U.S. Court of International Trade Judge Gregory W. Carman and State Supreme Court Judges Jack Dunne and Ute Lally. In Michigan, judges aligned with the Federalist Society included James L. Ryan and Richard F. Suhreinrich of the U.S. Court of Appeals; Federal District Judges Paul V. Gadola, David W. McKeague, Gerald E. Rosen and Lawrence P. Zatkoff; and U.S. Magistrate Judge Virginia M. Morgan. State Supreme Court Justices Clifford W. Taylor and Elizabeth A. Weaver were listed as advisers to the Detroit chapter. So were Maura D. Corrigan, chief judge of the Michigan Court of Appeals, along with fellow judges Stephen J. Markman, Henry W. Saad, and Robert Young Jr. (an African-American who has since been elevated to the Michigan Supreme Court). The chief judge of the Washtenaw County Circuit Court in Grand Rapids, Kurtis T. Wilder (another African-Americana who is now on the Michigan Court of Appeals), and Wayne County Circuit Judges Sean Cox, Michael J. Talbot and Brian Zahra helped complete the list. Local chapters in Alabama were advised by Perry O. Hooper Sr., chief justice of the Supreme Court of Alabama, along with Associate Justices J. Gorman Houston, Harold See and A. Hugh Maddox. U.S. Sen. Jefferson B. Sessions III also supported the organization. (Sessions was nominated to become a federal judge in 1986 but was blocked when it was disclosed that he had called the NAACP and the American Civil Liberties Union "un-American" and "communist-inspired," and said they "force civil rights down the throats of people." Referring to the Ku Klux Klan, he reportedly said, "I used to think they're OK," until he learned that some Klansmen were "pot smokers." Sessions contended the remarks were either made in jest or had been misinterpreted.) Additional supporters listed included Randall T. Shepard, chief justice of the Indiana Supreme Court; Craig Enoch, chief justice of the Texas Supreme Court; South Carolina Attorney General Charles Molony Condon; Alabama Attorney General William Pryor (who has links on his web page to the Federalist Society and the conservative Washington Legal Foundation), Pennsylvania Attorney General D. Michael Fisher; Indianapolis Mayor Stephen Goldsmith and Clarence Thomas' wife, Virginia, a former aide to House majority leader Richard Armey, and who now works for the Heritage Foundation. As the presiding officials in courts, judges wield broad power. For example, U.S. District Judge Neal B. Biggers Jr., who sits on the advisory board of the Mississippi chapter of the Federalist Society, presided over the Ayers desegregation case. In 1975, Jake Ayers Sr., a Mississippi sharecropper, sued the state on behalf of his son, charging that the state's higher education system discriminated against African-Americans and historically Black colleges. In 1987, Biggers upheld the state College Board's contention that Mississippi's higher education system was no longer racially discriminatory. The Supreme Court reversed Biggers in 1991 and ordered him to remove any vestiges of past discrimination. The power of the Federalist Society is not limited to the judiciary, which would be concern enough. Its tentacles extend deep into corporate America. Listed members of its business advisory council included John Stewart Bryan, III, chairman, president and C.E.O. of Media General Cable; John G. Medlin Jr., board chair of Wachovia Corp., an interstate bank holding company; Geneva Steel C.E.O. Joseph Cannon and Robert L. Strickland, chairman of Lowe's Companies. Also affiliated with the Federalist Society are Brian J. Brille and David Panton of Morgan Stanley financial services in New York; William Haraf of Bank of America in San Francisco; Chris Ekren of Sony Corp. in San Jose, Calif.; Frank Blake of General Electric in Schenechtedy, N.Y.; Philip R. Lochner Jr., senior vice president, Time Warner Inc. in New York; William Kemp of General Motors in Warren, Mich.; Edward Whelan of GTE Corp.'s Washington office; David Askin of Exxon Co. in Baytown, Texas; Marsha Rabiteau of Dow Chemical in Midland, Mich.; F. James Tennies, chief administrative officer at Legg Mason for asset management in Baltimore; Jodi Balsam, counsel for operations and litigation for the National Football League and Tom Donahue of Metropolitan Life. Even federal employees in the Clinton administration were included in Federalist Society documents: Paul-Noel Chretien of the Justice Department; Theodore Cooperstein of the FBI; Carol Crawford of the International Trade Commission; Kevin Martin of the Federal Communications Commission and Christopher Holleman of the U.S. Small Business Administration. William Saunders of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights also backs the Society. Many of the nation's blue-chip law firms have attorneys associated with the Federalist Society. Those listed included lawyers in the Washington, D.C. law firms of Arnold and Porter; Covington & Burling; Steptoe & Johnson; Hogan & Hartson; Patton, Boaggs & Blow; and Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering. New York law firms with lawyers associated with the Federalist Society include: Cravath, Swaine & Moore; White & Case and Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison. In Boston, one law firm -- Hale and Door -- has at least 10 attorneys affiliated with the Federalist Society. The list of law professors associated with the society included Ronald A. Cass, dean of Boston University's law school; Michael Young of Columbia University; John Yoo of the University of California at Berkeley; Eugene Volokh of UCLA; Northwestern University professors Gary Lawson, Daniel D. Polsby and Stephen B. Presser; Robert P. George of Princeton; Gerard Bradley of Notre Dame; Gordon B. Baldwin of the University of Wisconsin, Olan B. Lowry of Temple; Johathan Macey and Richard Painter of Cornell; Ronald D. Rotunda of the University of Illinois; Gerald T. Dunn of St. Louis University and Thomas Morgan of George Washington University. The University of Virginia, one of the best law schools in the nation, has quite a few Federalist Society professors or sympathizers on its faculty, including John Norton Moore, Robert Turner, Erika Worth Harris and Lillian BeVier. "People have to understand, whether they like lawyers or not, law schools have an enormous amount of power, whether it's power for good or evil. Unfortunately, what we are seeing under the Federalist Society is law schools and legal education being used to promote racism, bigotry and Right-wing politics. These people believe in the Bell Curve," says Prof. Boyle of the University of Illinois, referring to a controversial theory by Charles Murray and Richard J. Herrnstein about the supposed low intelligence level of some non-Whites. "You have to understand that. Just as the Federalist Society did to the federal judiciary, they are now trying to do to law schools." Boyle and others say this is done by establishing well-endowed law professorships and speaking tours for the true believers. "Where they once were scholars with Right-wing foundations like the Heritage Foundation, American Enterprise Institute and the Cato Institute, they are now getting credentialed as law professors," he notes. No comparable movement exists among progressives, which may explain why civil rights groups and liberals are doing such a feeble job defending affirmative action. "We've got to realize that while we have been dillydallying in law schools with critical race theories and penetrating the Law Review, all this is chump change to [Federalists]," observes Berry, of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. "It's like we were out playing whiffle ball while they were exercising power." The Federalist Society was founded 17 years ago by Yale Law School student Steven G. Calabresi and two counterparts at the University of Chicago School of Law, Lee Liberman and David McIntosh. All three were undergraduates together at Yale. Upset with what they perceived as liberal bias, the three decided to form an organization for conservative law students. Yale professors Robert H. Bork and Ralph K. Winter, both of whom would be appointed to the federal bench by Ronald Reagan, served as advisers to the Yale chapter. In Chicago, future U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia served in a similar capacity. The contacts the three made as students have proven to be invaluable. Calabresi, in addition to clerking for Bork and Winter, clerked for Scalia at the Supreme Court. He is now a law professor at Northwestern University. Liberman gave up a post in the Justice Department also to clerk for Scalia. She is now Lee Liberman Otis and is chief counsel for Sen. Spencer Abraham (R-Mich.), who founded a Federalist Society chapter at Harvard. McIntosh was a special assistant to Ed Meese when he was Reagan's attorney general; he is a three-term Republican Congressman who's considering running for governor of Indiana. In addition to a board of trustees, the society has a board of directors, co-chaired by Calabresi and McIntosh. The Federalist pipeline is a well-oiled old boy -- and sometimes girl -- network. For example, Brent O. Hatch, the son of Sen. Orrin Hatch, clerked for Robert Bork when he was a federal judge in Washington, D.C. After working in the Justice Department, young Hatch was appointed general counsel of the National Endowment for the Humanities at the age of 28. He is treasurer of the Federalist Society's board of directors. The organization has been funded by wealthy conservatives, such as Richard Mellon Scaife, who is vice chair of the Heritage Foundation's board, and another board member, Holland Coors, a member of the conservative Coors family. Many contributions are made through foundations that give to Right-wing causes, including the John M. Olin Foundation in New York, the Sarah Scaife Foundation in Pittsburgh, the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation of Milwaukee and the Deer Creek Foundation in St. Louis. The Federalists have direct ties to Right-wing think tanks seeking to dismantle affirmative action at the local, state and federal levels. The Center for Individual Rights, which successfully argued the Hopwood case that banned affirmative action at the University of Texas, represents plaintiffs in a lawsuit pending against the University of Michigan and were lawyers for supporters of Proposition 209, the anti-affirmative action measure in California. The Washington Legal Foundation sued the University of Maryland, forcing it to drop its Benjamin Banneker scholarships for African-American scholars; the Southeastern Legal Foundation is leading an all-out assault on affirmative action in Atlanta, and the Institute for Justice led the attack on Lani Guinier, then a University of Pennsylvania law professor, who was President Clinton's first choice to be assistant U.S. attorney general for civil rights. Clint Bolick, the group's vice president, dismissed Guinier as a "quota queen," and the eventual nominee, Deval L. Patrick, as a "quota king." He also led the opposition to the appointment of Bill Lann Lee, who was later named acting assistant attorney general for civil rights. When first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton said that there was a "vast Right-wing conspiracy" afoot that had been hounding her husband since he first announced for president, some Right-wingers almost laughingly dismissed her charges. Special Prosecutor Ken Starr called the comments "nonsense." And Boston Herald columnist Joe Fitzgerald said the first lady had "wandered into paranoia." But information developed by the Institute for Democracy Studies, a nonprofit research and education organization in New York, confirms that the first lady was on the mark. In the executive summary of its report, "The Assault on Affirmative Action: An Organized Challenge to Racial and Gender Justice," the organization notes, "Once a month at the Heritage Foundation, representatives of the nation's leading conservative law groups get together for a 'luncheon.' This so-called Public Interest Legal Group meeting is just one of several monthly gatherings that right-wing law groups hold." The report continues: "These meetings serve the purpose of avoiding duplication of effort, airing future plans, and providing guidance for an appropriate organizational division of labor." In an interview with Emerge, Todd G. Young, director of research and communications for the Atlanta-based Southeastern Legal Foundation, confirms that Right-wing groups collaborate. "We read each other's briefs (as they are filed) and when there are updates published by other groups," he says. "Although we are separate entities, we share some common understandings about the Constitutions and our (mission) statements are really almost identical for the organizations." Of its recent lawsuit against Atlanta's affirmative action program, Young notes: "We're refining the definition of what it means to enjoy equal protection under the law and the first step is to end any government-sanctioned discrimination, such as affirmative action programs or racial preference programs. It's philosophically inconsistent to say it was bad then [in the 1950s and 1960s] but it's OK now." Atlanta Mayor Bill Campbell says it's not OK to discard programs devised to address discrimination against African-Americans. "Conservative legal interest groups, such as the Center for Individual Rights and the Southeastern Legal Foundation, are striking at the very heart of the civil rights gains of the '50s and '60s," explains Campbell. "These groups are, in essence, a homogenized version of the Klan. They may have traded in their sheets for suits and use different language, but it's the same old racism -- just old wine in new bottles." The Federalist Society takes its name from The Federalist papers, 85 articles originally published in New York newspapers between 1787 and 1788. The authors -- Alexander Hamilton, John Jay and James Madison -- were attempting to gain popular support for the adoption of a new Constitution. "Is The Federalist the key to what the Constitution's framers and adopters intended it to mean and how they expected it to function?" asked R. B. Bernstein, a constitutional historian who wrote the foreword to The Federalist, a recent reissue of the papers. "This subset of the original-intent controversy tends to pit many historians, who remain dubious about original-intent arguments, against many legal scholars, who seek a way to limit judicial discretion by anchoring constitutional interpretation in the Constitution's origins." Bernstein argued that the public should not look at the essays, all written under one pen name, as the definitive word on how the Constitution should be interpreted. "Jay was not a delegate to the Federal Convention, which framed the Constitution...[Hamilton] left the Convention in July, not returning until two weeks before its close in September. And Madison...found himself outvoted on a host of major issues," Bernstein noted. Moreover, as The Federalist papers became the classic commentary on the Constitution, the three men publicly identified themselves as the authors. Even that was not without controversy. Before his ill-fated duel with Aaron Burr, Hamilton tried to take credit for writing papers 18-20, 49-58 and 62-63. Madison made an identical claim of authorship, which was verified through a computer analysis in 1964. The most damning fact about today's Federalists is that they advocate a limited role for the federal government, while the early founders were interested in establishing a strong central government. Some civil rights leaders, including Theodore M. Shaw, associate director-counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund Inc., view the rhetoric of the modern-day Federalists as smokescreen for an assault on civil rights. "It's ideologically out of the mainstream and a part of the radically conservative agenda and the radically conservative agenda has never served the interest of African-Americans," Shaw says. Hilary O. Shelton, Washington bureau chief of the NAACP, is less charitable: "They are not conservative. They are very consistent with the Council of Conservative Citizens," a White supremacy group that has featured Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) and Rep. Bob Barr (R-Ga.) as speakers. Surprisingly, some of the harshest criticism of Federalist Society members has come from Republicans. For example, former Attorney General Meese, a main player in the Federalist movement, has been criticized by some of his colleagues in the Reagan administration. According to The Washington Post, James A. Baker III and Michael K. Deaver referred to Meese as the "Big Bigot," and conservatives referred to his top assistant, T. Kenneth Cribb Jr., as the "Baby Bigot." Cribb sits on the board of directors of the Federalist Society and is a trustee of the Scaife Foundation, a major contributor to the Federalist Society and other Right-wing causes. Graglia, who has taught at the University of Texas since 1966, touched off a controversy two years ago, when he said, "Blacks and Mexican Americans are not academically competitive with Whites in selective institutions." According to Graglia, "It is the result primarily of cultural effects. Failure is not looked upon with disgrace." He maintains his membership in the Federalist Society. "They certainly are unenthusiastic about civil rights laws," he says of his organization. "Richard Epstein [a law professor at the University of Chicago] thinks we will be better off if civil rights laws were all repealed. These people do believe, as I believe, that so-called civil rights have gone too far and are not civil rights at all." Because so many of the Federalist Society members are seen as opposing civil rights, some people are not quick to accept their professed interest in color-blind justice. U.S. Appeals Court Judge Stephen Reinhardt of the 9th Circuit observes, "We had the Civil War over states' rights. There is no question we are going back to the pre-Civil War view of governments." Former federal Judge Lawrence Walsh puts it more bluntly. "The impression I have is they are trying to return to the 18th century and undo the work of the Supreme Court since the New Deal," Walsh says. "And I think it is wrong to put someone on the court who has a pre-commitment with a political dogma, whether it's the Ku Klux Klan or the Federalist Society." -- Additional reporting by Lottie L. Joiner From fboyle at illinois.edu Sun Nov 12 19:21:51 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2017 19:21:51 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] SNYT: Trump's Feddie Nominees--Still Hijacking Justice! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: -----Original Message----- From: Institute for Public Accuracy [mailto:dcinstitute at igc.org] Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2010 11:13 AM To: Institute for Public Accuracy Subject: Kagan: Shifting the Supreme Court to the Right? On the web: http://accuracy.org/newsrelease.php?articleId=2218 Institute for Public Accuracy 980 National Press Building, Washington, D.C. 20045 (202) 347-0020 * http://www.accuracy.org * ipa at accuracy.org ___________________________________________________ Tuesday, April 13, 2010 Supreme Court Pick: Kagan "Loves" the Federalist Society Solicitor General Elena Kagan is widely reported to be a leading contender for the Supreme Court position being vacated by John Paul Stevens. FRANCIS BOYLE, fboyle at law.uiuc.edu Professor of law at the University of Illinois, Boyle is author of "Tackling America's Toughest Questions." He said today: "As dean of the Harvard Law School, Kagan hired Bush's outgoing director of the Office of Legal Counsel, Jack Goldsmith, as a law professor. Goldsmith is regarded by myself and many others in the field as a war criminal. He wrote some of the memos that attempted to make violations of the Geneva Conventions appear legal. Kagan actually bragged about 'how proud' she was to have hired Goldsmith after one of his criminal Department of Justice memoranda was written up in the Washington Post. "During the course of her Senate confirmation hearings as Solicitor General, Kagan explicitly endorsed the Bush administration's bogus category of 'enemy combatant,' whose implementation has been a war crime in its own right. Now in her current job as U.S. Solicitor General, Kagan is quarterbacking the continuation of the Bush administration's illegal and unconstitutional positions in U.S. federal court litigation around the country, including in the U.S. Supreme Court. For example, early this month, the Obama administration lost an illegal wiretapping case. One of the lawyers in the case who won, Jon Eisenberg, said the Obama administration is as bad or worse than the Bush administration when it comes to issues like state secrets and wiretapping. "Kagan is apparently being backed by several people who are indebted to her from her time at Harvard. [Professors Laurence] Tribe, [Charles] Ogletree and [Alan] Dershowitz all had plagiarism scandals while Kagan headed up the law school -- and she in effect bailed them all out. Tribe and Ogletree were teachers/mentors to Obama and still advise him today, Tribe recently taking a job in the Department of Justice along with Kagan. She was named dean at Harvard by Larry Summers, who helped deregulate much of Wall Street in the Clinton administration and organize much of its bailout under Obama. "Kagan has said 'I love the Federalist Society.' This is a right-wing group; almost all of the Bush administration lawyers responsible for its war and torture memos are members of the Federalist Society. Many members of the Federalist Society say that Brown v. Board of Education [which struck down 'separate but equal'] was decided wrongly. "Five currently on the U.S. Supreme Court were or are members of the Federalist Society: Harvard Law graduate Roberts; Harvard Law graduate Scalia; Harvard Law graduate Kennedy; Yale Law graduate Thomas; and Yale Law graduate Alito. A narrow elite is imposing itself through the legal system, and ordinary Americans need to start asserting themselves." Boyle is a former chair of the Harvard Law School Fund Campaign for Greater Illinois and a magna cum laude graduate of Harvard Law School. Background: Glenn Greenwald on Tuesday wrote in "The Case Against Elena Kagan": "The prospect that Stevens will be replaced by Elena Kagan has led to the growing perception that Barack Obama will actually take a Supreme Court dominated by Justices Scalia (Reagan), Thomas (Bush 41), Roberts (Bush 43), Alito (Bush 43) and Kennedy (Reagan) and move it further to the Right. Joe Lieberman went on Fox News this weekend to celebrate the prospect that 'President Obama may nominate someone in fact who makes the Court slightly less liberal.'" http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/04/13/kagan/index.html The New York Times reported on Friday: "In an interview last week, [Stevens] said that every one of the dozen justices appointed to the court since 1971, including himself, was more conservative than his or her predecessor. 'We'll wait and see to see if the most recent change fits that,' he said of Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who joined the court last year. 'But prior to Sonia's joining the court that was true with the possible exception of Ruth Ginsburg.'" The Murdoch-owned Wall Street Journal reported Monday: "As dean of Harvard, Ms. Kagan cultivated good relations with conservatives, hiring several professors with right-leaning views and reaching out to the Federalist Society, a training ground for lawyers who often go on to populate Republican administrations." Jeff Cohen wrote last year: "Will Obama Move Supreme Court Rightward?" http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/05/20 For more information, contact at the Institute for Public Accuracy: Sam Husseini, (202) 347-0020; or David Zupan, (541) 484-9167 _________________________________________________________________ Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -----Original Message----- From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2017 1:19 PM To: David Green ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay ; David Johnson ; Mildred O'brien ; C G Estabrook Subject: SNYT: Trump's Feddie Nominees--Still Hijacking Justice! Illiniwaks Law Dean Yale Law Mafia Iceman Amar has as his Constant Wingman around this Campus Yale Law Mafia Mazzone who is a Prominent Feddie and was on the Illiniwaks Law Committee that invited Yale/Harvard Law Mafia Killer Koh out here. Birds of a Feather Flock together. I think Illiniwaks Dean Iceman Amar is a Closet Feddie. Just like Harvard Law Dean Elena Kagan was. Easier to get promoted that way. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -----Original Message HIJACKING JUSTICE:FEDDIES Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954(voice) 217-244-1478(fax) fboyle at law.uiuc.edu -----Original Message----- From: Boyle, Francis [mailto:FBOYLE at law.uiuc.edu] Sent: Friday, September 17, 1999 6:35 PM To: undisclosed-recipients Subject: HIJACKING JUSTICE:FEDDIES S P E C I A L R E P O R T H I J A C K I N G J U S T I C E The Federalist Society, a Right-wing network of lawyers, judges and supporters, is undoing civil rights and other gains made through the courts BY GEORGE E. CURRY & TREVOR W. COLEMAN EMERGE, OCTOBER 1999 WHEN BROWN VS. BOARD OF EDUCATION WAS BEING ARGUED, a clerk to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson suggested that the court should rule against the plaintiffs in the landmark school desegregation case. While making the case for maintaining segregated schools, the clerk sent a memo to his boss saying, "It is about time the Court faced the fact that white people in the South don't like the colored people." That clerk was William Rehnquist, now chief justice of the United States Supreme Court. Seeking to put his own ultraconservatives on the Supreme Court with Rehnquist, President Ronald Reagan -- who had appointed more than half of the sitting federal judges by the time he left office -- considered nominating Lino A. Graglia, a controversial University of Texas law professor, as a federal appeals court judge for the 5th Circuit. But the nomination, which had been backed by Attorney General Edwin Meese III, was jettisoned after Graglia acknowledged that he had referred to African-Americans as "pickaninnies." The American Bar Association found the law professor "not qualified" to serve on the federal bench. Reagan did nominate Robert H. Bork, a former Yale law professor, who was on the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C. Bork had opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act, calling it "an unwanted intrusion on the right of individuals to choose with whom to associate." After bitter debate, the Senate rejected his nomination in 1987 by a vote of 58 to 42. Far from fading into the background, Bork, Meese, and to a lesser extent, Graglia, are key players in the Federalist Society, a powerful Right-wing network intent on restricting the power of courts, often at the expense of African-Americans and other people of color, the poor, women and the disadvantaged. The organization actively seeks to limit "judicial activism" and reverse Supreme Court landmark rulings since the New Deal, especially those issued in the 1960s and '70s. Special targets include the 1966 Miranda decision that provides certain rights for suspected criminals, the 1973 Roe vs. Wade ruling legalizing abortion and recent civil rights legislation. Founded in 1982 by three law students, the Federalist Society has grown into one of the most influential institutions in America. Four of the nine members of the U.S. Supreme Court -- Clarence Thomas, William H. Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia and Anthony M. Kennedy -- are close affiliates of the Federalist Society. So are Donald P. Hodel, former president of the Christina Coalition, and special prosecutor Kenneth Starr. The Federalist Society's board of trustees is co-chaired by Bork and U.S. Sen. Orrin Hatch -- one of the most conservative members on Capitol Hill. Other trustees include former Attorney General Meese, William Bradford Reynolds, who was assistant attorney general for civil rights in the Reagan Administration, sought to have court-ordered affirmative action programs overturned, and C. Boyden Gray, former President Bush's chief White House attorney, who opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1991. In a world being reshaped by the Federalist Society, conservative law students have formed chapters on campuses across the nation. After graduation, they clerk for conservative judges and then go on to become high-ranking government officials, partners in major law firms, prosecutors, law school professors and judges at the local, state and federal level. In short, the Federalist Society is on the verge of hijacking the judicial system. "This is more than an attack on affirmative action being spear-headed by the Federalist Society lawyers," observes Francis A. Boyle, a law professor at the University of Illinois. "They want to go beyond getting rid of affirmative action. They want to go back to Brown vs. Board of Education. "We have Justice Antonin Scalia (who advised the Federalist Society at its inception and later hired two of its three founders as his law clerks), who two years ago gave a public lecture at Columbia Law School where he stated if Brown vs. Board of Education was to be presented to him today, he would rule against the plaintiff. In other words, this was a threat that if Brown vs. Board of Education was voted on before the Supreme Court, he would overturn it." That type of thinking disturbs Lawrence E. Walsh. Before becoming president of the American Bar Association in 1975, Walsh chaired an ABA panel that approved President Nixon's choices of federal appeals judges, Clement Haynesworth and G. Harold Carswell, to serve on the Supreme Court. In 1969, the Senate rejected Haynesworth because of conflict-of-interest fears. The following year, Carswell was rejected by the Senate after it was disclosed that he had given a speech as a lawyer expressing his "vigorous belief in the principles of White supremacy." "My concern is there is going to be a cleavage in the courts between the Federalist Society members and nonmembers," says Walsh, a former federal judge. "Anything that perpetuates that kind of ideological cleavage is not good for the unity of the court system. Ideally, it seems to me that judges should avoid memberships [in politically and substantively motivated organizations] but, of course, they don't do that." In fact, the ABA, in one of its publications on judicial independence, concludes: "A judge's impartiality and ability to interpret and apply the laws fairly are integral to the administration of justice." But a judge's membership in an organization -- whether it's the American Civil Liberties Union on the Left or the Federalist Society on the Right -- can influence whether a judge is perceived as being unbiased, a critical element in a judicial system that prides itself on being fair. Harold D. Pope, president of the National Bar Association, says: "People who are opposing the expansion of rights and opportunities for all people in this society we feel are working against America's best interest. We would hope that all jurists, no matter what their prior political persuasion, would deal objectively with the facts of law as they come before them, as they were sworn to do so when they first sat on the bench." The expansion of the Federalist Society, which has adopted a silhouette of James Madison as its symbol, comes at a time when the legal community is worried about a loss of public confidence. An ABA special committee on judicial independence issued a report in August titled "Protecting the Bulwark of the Republic: Ensuring Public Support of the Judicial Process." The report states, "According to the ABA survey, only about half of the respondents believed that our justice system treats men and women equally. Even fewer believed that courts treat members of different ethnic groups or wealthy and poor people the same." The report continues, "As [former] ABA President [Philip S.] Anderson recently stated: "We must work on this problem for as long as it takes to make our profession equally open and our system of justice equally responsive to all members of our society, regardless of color. This is the ultimate challenge to the integrity of the rule of law in America.'" But the Federalist Society is interested in a challenge of a different kind. To its credit, the organization operates with an open and very public agenda. On its web page, for example, it lays out its conservative agenda. "The Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies is a group of conservatives and libertarians interested in the current state of the legal order. It is founded on the principles that the state exists to preserve freedom, that the separation of governmental powers is central to our Constitution, and that it is emphatically the province and duty of the judiciary to say what the law is, not what it should be. The Society seeks both to promote an awareness of these principles and to further their application through its activities." Even conservative write Michael Lind would call this 19th-century view "the Confederate theory of the Constitution." Speakers at one national Federalist Society-sponsored lawyers convention proposed far-reaching judicial reforms that included the abolition of judicial review, limiting the powers of federal courts and stripping the Supreme Court of jurisdiction over certain matters. Mary Frances Berry, chair of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, is worried about more than theory. "What is scary about the Federalist Society is that it is antiquated and atavistic," she says. "Their views on natural law, libertarianism and the limited power of government to respond when people are being discriminated against is scary -- for African-Americans, especially. The more people you have who expose those views on the court, the more dangerous it becomes for every one of our lives." In this book, Firewall: The Iran-Contra Conspiracy and Cover Up, Walsh writes: "In calling for the narrow construction of constitutional grants of governmental power, the Federalist Society seemed to speak for right-wing Republicans. I was especially troubled that one of White House Counsel Boyden Gray's assistants had openly declared that no one who was not a member of the Federalist Society had received a judicial appointment from President Bush." Brian W. Jones, a San Francisco lawyer and member of the Federalist Society, believes that his group is being maligned. "I reject out of hand that Federalists are hostile to civil rights," says Jones, an African-American who was deputy legal affairs secretary to California Gov. Pete Wilson and former counsel to Hatch's Senate Judiciary Committee. "Most members of the Federalist Society would agree that the government has no business making racial distinctions of any kind among its citizens. I would argue that is a very credible view of civil rights. "On civil rights and civil liberty issues, Federalist Society judges tend to have a more limited view of the federal government's authority to respond to a whole range of questions. For conservatives, the first question with any inquiry into responding to social problems is: Where does the authority lie, with the federal government or state and local governments?" Another African-American, Gerald Reynolds, is vice chairman of membership for the Federalist Society. "There are some people who embrace this principle of racial neutrality," says the Kansas City, Mo., lawyer. "This debate flows from principles and not from animosity toward Blacks." The national office of the Federalist Society in Washington, D.C., refused to provide the names of judges on its membership list. However, some of the organization's records were obtained by Emerge from other sources. An examination of Federalist Society documents for 1997 and 1998, the most current information available at press time, reveals the extent that the group has penetrated the courts. When looking at the board of directors of local chapters, officers, their advisory panels and membership lists, it is clear that when one goes to court seeking justice, he or she is increasingly likely to have a judge affiliated with the Federalist Society handling the case. During the period studied, that was true whether one was entering a courtroom in New York, Michigan or Alabama. (The titles of persons listed hereafter reflect the positions they held at the time the records were compiled by the Federalist Society; some of the judges have since been elevated to a higher court.) In New York state, judges serving as officers, directors or advisers to the local chapters included Thomas P. Griesa, chief judge of the U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, as well as District Judges Shirley Wohl Kram, Lawrence M. McKenna and John E. Sprizzo. A U.S. Appeals Court Judge for the Second Circuit, Dennis G. Jacobs, was also among that group. The Long Island advisory board included U.S. District Judge Michael Fiechter, U.S. Court of International Trade Judge Gregory W. Carman and State Supreme Court Judges Jack Dunne and Ute Lally. In Michigan, judges aligned with the Federalist Society included James L. Ryan and Richard F. Suhreinrich of the U.S. Court of Appeals; Federal District Judges Paul V. Gadola, David W. McKeague, Gerald E. Rosen and Lawrence P. Zatkoff; and U.S. Magistrate Judge Virginia M. Morgan. State Supreme Court Justices Clifford W. Taylor and Elizabeth A. Weaver were listed as advisers to the Detroit chapter. So were Maura D. Corrigan, chief judge of the Michigan Court of Appeals, along with fellow judges Stephen J. Markman, Henry W. Saad, and Robert Young Jr. (an African-American who has since been elevated to the Michigan Supreme Court). The chief judge of the Washtenaw County Circuit Court in Grand Rapids, Kurtis T. Wilder (another African-Americana who is now on the Michigan Court of Appeals), and Wayne County Circuit Judges Sean Cox, Michael J. Talbot and Brian Zahra helped complete the list. Local chapters in Alabama were advised by Perry O. Hooper Sr., chief justice of the Supreme Court of Alabama, along with Associate Justices J. Gorman Houston, Harold See and A. Hugh Maddox. U.S. Sen. Jefferson B. Sessions III also supported the organization. (Sessions was nominated to become a federal judge in 1986 but was blocked when it was disclosed that he had called the NAACP and the American Civil Liberties Union "un-American" and "communist-inspired," and said they "force civil rights down the throats of people." Referring to the Ku Klux Klan, he reportedly said, "I used to think they're OK," until he learned that some Klansmen were "pot smokers." Sessions contended the remarks were either made in jest or had been misinterpreted.) Additional supporters listed included Randall T. Shepard, chief justice of the Indiana Supreme Court; Craig Enoch, chief justice of the Texas Supreme Court; South Carolina Attorney General Charles Molony Condon; Alabama Attorney General William Pryor (who has links on his web page to the Federalist Society and the conservative Washington Legal Foundation), Pennsylvania Attorney General D. Michael Fisher; Indianapolis Mayor Stephen Goldsmith and Clarence Thomas' wife, Virginia, a former aide to House majority leader Richard Armey, and who now works for the Heritage Foundation. As the presiding officials in courts, judges wield broad power. For example, U.S. District Judge Neal B. Biggers Jr., who sits on the advisory board of the Mississippi chapter of the Federalist Society, presided over the Ayers desegregation case. In 1975, Jake Ayers Sr., a Mississippi sharecropper, sued the state on behalf of his son, charging that the state's higher education system discriminated against African-Americans and historically Black colleges. In 1987, Biggers upheld the state College Board's contention that Mississippi's higher education system was no longer racially discriminatory. The Supreme Court reversed Biggers in 1991 and ordered him to remove any vestiges of past discrimination. The power of the Federalist Society is not limited to the judiciary, which would be concern enough. Its tentacles extend deep into corporate America. Listed members of its business advisory council included John Stewart Bryan, III, chairman, president and C.E.O. of Media General Cable; John G. Medlin Jr., board chair of Wachovia Corp., an interstate bank holding company; Geneva Steel C.E.O. Joseph Cannon and Robert L. Strickland, chairman of Lowe's Companies. Also affiliated with the Federalist Society are Brian J. Brille and David Panton of Morgan Stanley financial services in New York; William Haraf of Bank of America in San Francisco; Chris Ekren of Sony Corp. in San Jose, Calif.; Frank Blake of General Electric in Schenechtedy, N.Y.; Philip R. Lochner Jr., senior vice president, Time Warner Inc. in New York; William Kemp of General Motors in Warren, Mich.; Edward Whelan of GTE Corp.'s Washington office; David Askin of Exxon Co. in Baytown, Texas; Marsha Rabiteau of Dow Chemical in Midland, Mich.; F. James Tennies, chief administrative officer at Legg Mason for asset management in Baltimore; Jodi Balsam, counsel for operations and litigation for the National Football League and Tom Donahue of Metropolitan Life. Even federal employees in the Clinton administration were included in Federalist Society documents: Paul-Noel Chretien of the Justice Department; Theodore Cooperstein of the FBI; Carol Crawford of the International Trade Commission; Kevin Martin of the Federal Communications Commission and Christopher Holleman of the U.S. Small Business Administration. William Saunders of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights also backs the Society. Many of the nation's blue-chip law firms have attorneys associated with the Federalist Society. Those listed included lawyers in the Washington, D.C. law firms of Arnold and Porter; Covington & Burling; Steptoe & Johnson; Hogan & Hartson; Patton, Boaggs & Blow; and Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering. New York law firms with lawyers associated with the Federalist Society include: Cravath, Swaine & Moore; White & Case and Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison. In Boston, one law firm -- Hale and Door -- has at least 10 attorneys affiliated with the Federalist Society. The list of law professors associated with the society included Ronald A. Cass, dean of Boston University's law school; Michael Young of Columbia University; John Yoo of the University of California at Berkeley; Eugene Volokh of UCLA; Northwestern University professors Gary Lawson, Daniel D. Polsby and Stephen B. Presser; Robert P. George of Princeton; Gerard Bradley of Notre Dame; Gordon B. Baldwin of the University of Wisconsin, Olan B. Lowry of Temple; Johathan Macey and Richard Painter of Cornell; Ronald D. Rotunda of the University of Illinois; Gerald T. Dunn of St. Louis University and Thomas Morgan of George Washington University. The University of Virginia, one of the best law schools in the nation, has quite a few Federalist Society professors or sympathizers on its faculty, including John Norton Moore, Robert Turner, Erika Worth Harris and Lillian BeVier. "People have to understand, whether they like lawyers or not, law schools have an enormous amount of power, whether it's power for good or evil. Unfortunately, what we are seeing under the Federalist Society is law schools and legal education being used to promote racism, bigotry and Right-wing politics. These people believe in the Bell Curve," says Prof. Boyle of the University of Illinois, referring to a controversial theory by Charles Murray and Richard J. Herrnstein about the supposed low intelligence level of some non-Whites. "You have to understand that. Just as the Federalist Society did to the federal judiciary, they are now trying to do to law schools." Boyle and others say this is done by establishing well-endowed law professorships and speaking tours for the true believers. "Where they once were scholars with Right-wing foundations like the Heritage Foundation, American Enterprise Institute and the Cato Institute, they are now getting credentialed as law professors," he notes. No comparable movement exists among progressives, which may explain why civil rights groups and liberals are doing such a feeble job defending affirmative action. "We've got to realize that while we have been dillydallying in law schools with critical race theories and penetrating the Law Review, all this is chump change to [Federalists]," observes Berry, of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. "It's like we were out playing whiffle ball while they were exercising power." The Federalist Society was founded 17 years ago by Yale Law School student Steven G. Calabresi and two counterparts at the University of Chicago School of Law, Lee Liberman and David McIntosh. All three were undergraduates together at Yale. Upset with what they perceived as liberal bias, the three decided to form an organization for conservative law students. Yale professors Robert H. Bork and Ralph K. Winter, both of whom would be appointed to the federal bench by Ronald Reagan, served as advisers to the Yale chapter. In Chicago, future U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia served in a similar capacity. The contacts the three made as students have proven to be invaluable. Calabresi, in addition to clerking for Bork and Winter, clerked for Scalia at the Supreme Court. He is now a law professor at Northwestern University. Liberman gave up a post in the Justice Department also to clerk for Scalia. She is now Lee Liberman Otis and is chief counsel for Sen. Spencer Abraham (R-Mich.), who founded a Federalist Society chapter at Harvard. McIntosh was a special assistant to Ed Meese when he was Reagan's attorney general; he is a three-term Republican Congressman who's considering running for governor of Indiana. In addition to a board of trustees, the society has a board of directors, co-chaired by Calabresi and McIntosh. The Federalist pipeline is a well-oiled old boy -- and sometimes girl -- network. For example, Brent O. Hatch, the son of Sen. Orrin Hatch, clerked for Robert Bork when he was a federal judge in Washington, D.C. After working in the Justice Department, young Hatch was appointed general counsel of the National Endowment for the Humanities at the age of 28. He is treasurer of the Federalist Society's board of directors. The organization has been funded by wealthy conservatives, such as Richard Mellon Scaife, who is vice chair of the Heritage Foundation's board, and another board member, Holland Coors, a member of the conservative Coors family. Many contributions are made through foundations that give to Right-wing causes, including the John M. Olin Foundation in New York, the Sarah Scaife Foundation in Pittsburgh, the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation of Milwaukee and the Deer Creek Foundation in St. Louis. The Federalists have direct ties to Right-wing think tanks seeking to dismantle affirmative action at the local, state and federal levels. The Center for Individual Rights, which successfully argued the Hopwood case that banned affirmative action at the University of Texas, represents plaintiffs in a lawsuit pending against the University of Michigan and were lawyers for supporters of Proposition 209, the anti-affirmative action measure in California. The Washington Legal Foundation sued the University of Maryland, forcing it to drop its Benjamin Banneker scholarships for African-American scholars; the Southeastern Legal Foundation is leading an all-out assault on affirmative action in Atlanta, and the Institute for Justice led the attack on Lani Guinier, then a University of Pennsylvania law professor, who was President Clinton's first choice to be assistant U.S. attorney general for civil rights. Clint Bolick, the group's vice president, dismissed Guinier as a "quota queen," and the eventual nominee, Deval L. Patrick, as a "quota king." He also led the opposition to the appointment of Bill Lann Lee, who was later named acting assistant attorney general for civil rights. When first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton said that there was a "vast Right-wing conspiracy" afoot that had been hounding her husband since he first announced for president, some Right-wingers almost laughingly dismissed her charges. Special Prosecutor Ken Starr called the comments "nonsense." And Boston Herald columnist Joe Fitzgerald said the first lady had "wandered into paranoia." But information developed by the Institute for Democracy Studies, a nonprofit research and education organization in New York, confirms that the first lady was on the mark. In the executive summary of its report, "The Assault on Affirmative Action: An Organized Challenge to Racial and Gender Justice," the organization notes, "Once a month at the Heritage Foundation, representatives of the nation's leading conservative law groups get together for a 'luncheon.' This so-called Public Interest Legal Group meeting is just one of several monthly gatherings that right-wing law groups hold." The report continues: "These meetings serve the purpose of avoiding duplication of effort, airing future plans, and providing guidance for an appropriate organizational division of labor." In an interview with Emerge, Todd G. Young, director of research and communications for the Atlanta-based Southeastern Legal Foundation, confirms that Right-wing groups collaborate. "We read each other's briefs (as they are filed) and when there are updates published by other groups," he says. "Although we are separate entities, we share some common understandings about the Constitutions and our (mission) statements are really almost identical for the organizations." Of its recent lawsuit against Atlanta's affirmative action program, Young notes: "We're refining the definition of what it means to enjoy equal protection under the law and the first step is to end any government-sanctioned discrimination, such as affirmative action programs or racial preference programs. It's philosophically inconsistent to say it was bad then [in the 1950s and 1960s] but it's OK now." Atlanta Mayor Bill Campbell says it's not OK to discard programs devised to address discrimination against African-Americans. "Conservative legal interest groups, such as the Center for Individual Rights and the Southeastern Legal Foundation, are striking at the very heart of the civil rights gains of the '50s and '60s," explains Campbell. "These groups are, in essence, a homogenized version of the Klan. They may have traded in their sheets for suits and use different language, but it's the same old racism -- just old wine in new bottles." The Federalist Society takes its name from The Federalist papers, 85 articles originally published in New York newspapers between 1787 and 1788. The authors -- Alexander Hamilton, John Jay and James Madison -- were attempting to gain popular support for the adoption of a new Constitution. "Is The Federalist the key to what the Constitution's framers and adopters intended it to mean and how they expected it to function?" asked R. B. Bernstein, a constitutional historian who wrote the foreword to The Federalist, a recent reissue of the papers. "This subset of the original-intent controversy tends to pit many historians, who remain dubious about original-intent arguments, against many legal scholars, who seek a way to limit judicial discretion by anchoring constitutional interpretation in the Constitution's origins." Bernstein argued that the public should not look at the essays, all written under one pen name, as the definitive word on how the Constitution should be interpreted. "Jay was not a delegate to the Federal Convention, which framed the Constitution...[Hamilton] left the Convention in July, not returning until two weeks before its close in September. And Madison...found himself outvoted on a host of major issues," Bernstein noted. Moreover, as The Federalist papers became the classic commentary on the Constitution, the three men publicly identified themselves as the authors. Even that was not without controversy. Before his ill-fated duel with Aaron Burr, Hamilton tried to take credit for writing papers 18-20, 49-58 and 62-63. Madison made an identical claim of authorship, which was verified through a computer analysis in 1964. The most damning fact about today's Federalists is that they advocate a limited role for the federal government, while the early founders were interested in establishing a strong central government. Some civil rights leaders, including Theodore M. Shaw, associate director-counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund Inc., view the rhetoric of the modern-day Federalists as smokescreen for an assault on civil rights. "It's ideologically out of the mainstream and a part of the radically conservative agenda and the radically conservative agenda has never served the interest of African-Americans," Shaw says. Hilary O. Shelton, Washington bureau chief of the NAACP, is less charitable: "They are not conservative. They are very consistent with the Council of Conservative Citizens," a White supremacy group that has featured Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) and Rep. Bob Barr (R-Ga.) as speakers. Surprisingly, some of the harshest criticism of Federalist Society members has come from Republicans. For example, former Attorney General Meese, a main player in the Federalist movement, has been criticized by some of his colleagues in the Reagan administration. According to The Washington Post, James A. Baker III and Michael K. Deaver referred to Meese as the "Big Bigot," and conservatives referred to his top assistant, T. Kenneth Cribb Jr., as the "Baby Bigot." Cribb sits on the board of directors of the Federalist Society and is a trustee of the Scaife Foundation, a major contributor to the Federalist Society and other Right-wing causes. Graglia, who has taught at the University of Texas since 1966, touched off a controversy two years ago, when he said, "Blacks and Mexican Americans are not academically competitive with Whites in selective institutions." According to Graglia, "It is the result primarily of cultural effects. Failure is not looked upon with disgrace." He maintains his membership in the Federalist Society. "They certainly are unenthusiastic about civil rights laws," he says of his organization. "Richard Epstein [a law professor at the University of Chicago] thinks we will be better off if civil rights laws were all repealed. These people do believe, as I believe, that so-called civil rights have gone too far and are not civil rights at all." Because so many of the Federalist Society members are seen as opposing civil rights, some people are not quick to accept their professed interest in color-blind justice. U.S. Appeals Court Judge Stephen Reinhardt of the 9th Circuit observes, "We had the Civil War over states' rights. There is no question we are going back to the pre-Civil War view of governments." Former federal Judge Lawrence Walsh puts it more bluntly. "The impression I have is they are trying to return to the 18th century and undo the work of the Supreme Court since the New Deal," Walsh says. "And I think it is wrong to put someone on the court who has a pre-commitment with a political dogma, whether it's the Ku Klux Klan or the Federalist Society." -- Additional reporting by Lottie L. Joiner From fboyle at illinois.edu Sun Nov 12 19:21:51 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2017 19:21:51 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] SNYT: Trump's Feddie Nominees--Still Hijacking Justice! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: -----Original Message----- From: Institute for Public Accuracy [mailto:dcinstitute at igc.org] Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2010 11:13 AM To: Institute for Public Accuracy Subject: Kagan: Shifting the Supreme Court to the Right? On the web: http://accuracy.org/newsrelease.php?articleId=2218 Institute for Public Accuracy 980 National Press Building, Washington, D.C. 20045 (202) 347-0020 * http://www.accuracy.org * ipa at accuracy.org ___________________________________________________ Tuesday, April 13, 2010 Supreme Court Pick: Kagan "Loves" the Federalist Society Solicitor General Elena Kagan is widely reported to be a leading contender for the Supreme Court position being vacated by John Paul Stevens. FRANCIS BOYLE, fboyle at law.uiuc.edu Professor of law at the University of Illinois, Boyle is author of "Tackling America's Toughest Questions." He said today: "As dean of the Harvard Law School, Kagan hired Bush's outgoing director of the Office of Legal Counsel, Jack Goldsmith, as a law professor. Goldsmith is regarded by myself and many others in the field as a war criminal. He wrote some of the memos that attempted to make violations of the Geneva Conventions appear legal. Kagan actually bragged about 'how proud' she was to have hired Goldsmith after one of his criminal Department of Justice memoranda was written up in the Washington Post. "During the course of her Senate confirmation hearings as Solicitor General, Kagan explicitly endorsed the Bush administration's bogus category of 'enemy combatant,' whose implementation has been a war crime in its own right. Now in her current job as U.S. Solicitor General, Kagan is quarterbacking the continuation of the Bush administration's illegal and unconstitutional positions in U.S. federal court litigation around the country, including in the U.S. Supreme Court. For example, early this month, the Obama administration lost an illegal wiretapping case. One of the lawyers in the case who won, Jon Eisenberg, said the Obama administration is as bad or worse than the Bush administration when it comes to issues like state secrets and wiretapping. "Kagan is apparently being backed by several people who are indebted to her from her time at Harvard. [Professors Laurence] Tribe, [Charles] Ogletree and [Alan] Dershowitz all had plagiarism scandals while Kagan headed up the law school -- and she in effect bailed them all out. Tribe and Ogletree were teachers/mentors to Obama and still advise him today, Tribe recently taking a job in the Department of Justice along with Kagan. She was named dean at Harvard by Larry Summers, who helped deregulate much of Wall Street in the Clinton administration and organize much of its bailout under Obama. "Kagan has said 'I love the Federalist Society.' This is a right-wing group; almost all of the Bush administration lawyers responsible for its war and torture memos are members of the Federalist Society. Many members of the Federalist Society say that Brown v. Board of Education [which struck down 'separate but equal'] was decided wrongly. "Five currently on the U.S. Supreme Court were or are members of the Federalist Society: Harvard Law graduate Roberts; Harvard Law graduate Scalia; Harvard Law graduate Kennedy; Yale Law graduate Thomas; and Yale Law graduate Alito. A narrow elite is imposing itself through the legal system, and ordinary Americans need to start asserting themselves." Boyle is a former chair of the Harvard Law School Fund Campaign for Greater Illinois and a magna cum laude graduate of Harvard Law School. Background: Glenn Greenwald on Tuesday wrote in "The Case Against Elena Kagan": "The prospect that Stevens will be replaced by Elena Kagan has led to the growing perception that Barack Obama will actually take a Supreme Court dominated by Justices Scalia (Reagan), Thomas (Bush 41), Roberts (Bush 43), Alito (Bush 43) and Kennedy (Reagan) and move it further to the Right. Joe Lieberman went on Fox News this weekend to celebrate the prospect that 'President Obama may nominate someone in fact who makes the Court slightly less liberal.'" http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/04/13/kagan/index.html The New York Times reported on Friday: "In an interview last week, [Stevens] said that every one of the dozen justices appointed to the court since 1971, including himself, was more conservative than his or her predecessor. 'We'll wait and see to see if the most recent change fits that,' he said of Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who joined the court last year. 'But prior to Sonia's joining the court that was true with the possible exception of Ruth Ginsburg.'" The Murdoch-owned Wall Street Journal reported Monday: "As dean of Harvard, Ms. Kagan cultivated good relations with conservatives, hiring several professors with right-leaning views and reaching out to the Federalist Society, a training ground for lawyers who often go on to populate Republican administrations." Jeff Cohen wrote last year: "Will Obama Move Supreme Court Rightward?" http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/05/20 For more information, contact at the Institute for Public Accuracy: Sam Husseini, (202) 347-0020; or David Zupan, (541) 484-9167 _________________________________________________________________ Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -----Original Message----- From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2017 1:19 PM To: David Green ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay ; David Johnson ; Mildred O'brien ; C G Estabrook Subject: SNYT: Trump's Feddie Nominees--Still Hijacking Justice! Illiniwaks Law Dean Yale Law Mafia Iceman Amar has as his Constant Wingman around this Campus Yale Law Mafia Mazzone who is a Prominent Feddie and was on the Illiniwaks Law Committee that invited Yale/Harvard Law Mafia Killer Koh out here. Birds of a Feather Flock together. I think Illiniwaks Dean Iceman Amar is a Closet Feddie. Just like Harvard Law Dean Elena Kagan was. Easier to get promoted that way. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -----Original Message HIJACKING JUSTICE:FEDDIES Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954(voice) 217-244-1478(fax) fboyle at law.uiuc.edu -----Original Message----- From: Boyle, Francis [mailto:FBOYLE at law.uiuc.edu] Sent: Friday, September 17, 1999 6:35 PM To: undisclosed-recipients Subject: HIJACKING JUSTICE:FEDDIES S P E C I A L R E P O R T H I J A C K I N G J U S T I C E The Federalist Society, a Right-wing network of lawyers, judges and supporters, is undoing civil rights and other gains made through the courts BY GEORGE E. CURRY & TREVOR W. COLEMAN EMERGE, OCTOBER 1999 WHEN BROWN VS. BOARD OF EDUCATION WAS BEING ARGUED, a clerk to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson suggested that the court should rule against the plaintiffs in the landmark school desegregation case. While making the case for maintaining segregated schools, the clerk sent a memo to his boss saying, "It is about time the Court faced the fact that white people in the South don't like the colored people." That clerk was William Rehnquist, now chief justice of the United States Supreme Court. Seeking to put his own ultraconservatives on the Supreme Court with Rehnquist, President Ronald Reagan -- who had appointed more than half of the sitting federal judges by the time he left office -- considered nominating Lino A. Graglia, a controversial University of Texas law professor, as a federal appeals court judge for the 5th Circuit. But the nomination, which had been backed by Attorney General Edwin Meese III, was jettisoned after Graglia acknowledged that he had referred to African-Americans as "pickaninnies." The American Bar Association found the law professor "not qualified" to serve on the federal bench. Reagan did nominate Robert H. Bork, a former Yale law professor, who was on the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C. Bork had opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act, calling it "an unwanted intrusion on the right of individuals to choose with whom to associate." After bitter debate, the Senate rejected his nomination in 1987 by a vote of 58 to 42. Far from fading into the background, Bork, Meese, and to a lesser extent, Graglia, are key players in the Federalist Society, a powerful Right-wing network intent on restricting the power of courts, often at the expense of African-Americans and other people of color, the poor, women and the disadvantaged. The organization actively seeks to limit "judicial activism" and reverse Supreme Court landmark rulings since the New Deal, especially those issued in the 1960s and '70s. Special targets include the 1966 Miranda decision that provides certain rights for suspected criminals, the 1973 Roe vs. Wade ruling legalizing abortion and recent civil rights legislation. Founded in 1982 by three law students, the Federalist Society has grown into one of the most influential institutions in America. Four of the nine members of the U.S. Supreme Court -- Clarence Thomas, William H. Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia and Anthony M. Kennedy -- are close affiliates of the Federalist Society. So are Donald P. Hodel, former president of the Christina Coalition, and special prosecutor Kenneth Starr. The Federalist Society's board of trustees is co-chaired by Bork and U.S. Sen. Orrin Hatch -- one of the most conservative members on Capitol Hill. Other trustees include former Attorney General Meese, William Bradford Reynolds, who was assistant attorney general for civil rights in the Reagan Administration, sought to have court-ordered affirmative action programs overturned, and C. Boyden Gray, former President Bush's chief White House attorney, who opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1991. In a world being reshaped by the Federalist Society, conservative law students have formed chapters on campuses across the nation. After graduation, they clerk for conservative judges and then go on to become high-ranking government officials, partners in major law firms, prosecutors, law school professors and judges at the local, state and federal level. In short, the Federalist Society is on the verge of hijacking the judicial system. "This is more than an attack on affirmative action being spear-headed by the Federalist Society lawyers," observes Francis A. Boyle, a law professor at the University of Illinois. "They want to go beyond getting rid of affirmative action. They want to go back to Brown vs. Board of Education. "We have Justice Antonin Scalia (who advised the Federalist Society at its inception and later hired two of its three founders as his law clerks), who two years ago gave a public lecture at Columbia Law School where he stated if Brown vs. Board of Education was to be presented to him today, he would rule against the plaintiff. In other words, this was a threat that if Brown vs. Board of Education was voted on before the Supreme Court, he would overturn it." That type of thinking disturbs Lawrence E. Walsh. Before becoming president of the American Bar Association in 1975, Walsh chaired an ABA panel that approved President Nixon's choices of federal appeals judges, Clement Haynesworth and G. Harold Carswell, to serve on the Supreme Court. In 1969, the Senate rejected Haynesworth because of conflict-of-interest fears. The following year, Carswell was rejected by the Senate after it was disclosed that he had given a speech as a lawyer expressing his "vigorous belief in the principles of White supremacy." "My concern is there is going to be a cleavage in the courts between the Federalist Society members and nonmembers," says Walsh, a former federal judge. "Anything that perpetuates that kind of ideological cleavage is not good for the unity of the court system. Ideally, it seems to me that judges should avoid memberships [in politically and substantively motivated organizations] but, of course, they don't do that." In fact, the ABA, in one of its publications on judicial independence, concludes: "A judge's impartiality and ability to interpret and apply the laws fairly are integral to the administration of justice." But a judge's membership in an organization -- whether it's the American Civil Liberties Union on the Left or the Federalist Society on the Right -- can influence whether a judge is perceived as being unbiased, a critical element in a judicial system that prides itself on being fair. Harold D. Pope, president of the National Bar Association, says: "People who are opposing the expansion of rights and opportunities for all people in this society we feel are working against America's best interest. We would hope that all jurists, no matter what their prior political persuasion, would deal objectively with the facts of law as they come before them, as they were sworn to do so when they first sat on the bench." The expansion of the Federalist Society, which has adopted a silhouette of James Madison as its symbol, comes at a time when the legal community is worried about a loss of public confidence. An ABA special committee on judicial independence issued a report in August titled "Protecting the Bulwark of the Republic: Ensuring Public Support of the Judicial Process." The report states, "According to the ABA survey, only about half of the respondents believed that our justice system treats men and women equally. Even fewer believed that courts treat members of different ethnic groups or wealthy and poor people the same." The report continues, "As [former] ABA President [Philip S.] Anderson recently stated: "We must work on this problem for as long as it takes to make our profession equally open and our system of justice equally responsive to all members of our society, regardless of color. This is the ultimate challenge to the integrity of the rule of law in America.'" But the Federalist Society is interested in a challenge of a different kind. To its credit, the organization operates with an open and very public agenda. On its web page, for example, it lays out its conservative agenda. "The Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies is a group of conservatives and libertarians interested in the current state of the legal order. It is founded on the principles that the state exists to preserve freedom, that the separation of governmental powers is central to our Constitution, and that it is emphatically the province and duty of the judiciary to say what the law is, not what it should be. The Society seeks both to promote an awareness of these principles and to further their application through its activities." Even conservative write Michael Lind would call this 19th-century view "the Confederate theory of the Constitution." Speakers at one national Federalist Society-sponsored lawyers convention proposed far-reaching judicial reforms that included the abolition of judicial review, limiting the powers of federal courts and stripping the Supreme Court of jurisdiction over certain matters. Mary Frances Berry, chair of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, is worried about more than theory. "What is scary about the Federalist Society is that it is antiquated and atavistic," she says. "Their views on natural law, libertarianism and the limited power of government to respond when people are being discriminated against is scary -- for African-Americans, especially. The more people you have who expose those views on the court, the more dangerous it becomes for every one of our lives." In this book, Firewall: The Iran-Contra Conspiracy and Cover Up, Walsh writes: "In calling for the narrow construction of constitutional grants of governmental power, the Federalist Society seemed to speak for right-wing Republicans. I was especially troubled that one of White House Counsel Boyden Gray's assistants had openly declared that no one who was not a member of the Federalist Society had received a judicial appointment from President Bush." Brian W. Jones, a San Francisco lawyer and member of the Federalist Society, believes that his group is being maligned. "I reject out of hand that Federalists are hostile to civil rights," says Jones, an African-American who was deputy legal affairs secretary to California Gov. Pete Wilson and former counsel to Hatch's Senate Judiciary Committee. "Most members of the Federalist Society would agree that the government has no business making racial distinctions of any kind among its citizens. I would argue that is a very credible view of civil rights. "On civil rights and civil liberty issues, Federalist Society judges tend to have a more limited view of the federal government's authority to respond to a whole range of questions. For conservatives, the first question with any inquiry into responding to social problems is: Where does the authority lie, with the federal government or state and local governments?" Another African-American, Gerald Reynolds, is vice chairman of membership for the Federalist Society. "There are some people who embrace this principle of racial neutrality," says the Kansas City, Mo., lawyer. "This debate flows from principles and not from animosity toward Blacks." The national office of the Federalist Society in Washington, D.C., refused to provide the names of judges on its membership list. However, some of the organization's records were obtained by Emerge from other sources. An examination of Federalist Society documents for 1997 and 1998, the most current information available at press time, reveals the extent that the group has penetrated the courts. When looking at the board of directors of local chapters, officers, their advisory panels and membership lists, it is clear that when one goes to court seeking justice, he or she is increasingly likely to have a judge affiliated with the Federalist Society handling the case. During the period studied, that was true whether one was entering a courtroom in New York, Michigan or Alabama. (The titles of persons listed hereafter reflect the positions they held at the time the records were compiled by the Federalist Society; some of the judges have since been elevated to a higher court.) In New York state, judges serving as officers, directors or advisers to the local chapters included Thomas P. Griesa, chief judge of the U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, as well as District Judges Shirley Wohl Kram, Lawrence M. McKenna and John E. Sprizzo. A U.S. Appeals Court Judge for the Second Circuit, Dennis G. Jacobs, was also among that group. The Long Island advisory board included U.S. District Judge Michael Fiechter, U.S. Court of International Trade Judge Gregory W. Carman and State Supreme Court Judges Jack Dunne and Ute Lally. In Michigan, judges aligned with the Federalist Society included James L. Ryan and Richard F. Suhreinrich of the U.S. Court of Appeals; Federal District Judges Paul V. Gadola, David W. McKeague, Gerald E. Rosen and Lawrence P. Zatkoff; and U.S. Magistrate Judge Virginia M. Morgan. State Supreme Court Justices Clifford W. Taylor and Elizabeth A. Weaver were listed as advisers to the Detroit chapter. So were Maura D. Corrigan, chief judge of the Michigan Court of Appeals, along with fellow judges Stephen J. Markman, Henry W. Saad, and Robert Young Jr. (an African-American who has since been elevated to the Michigan Supreme Court). The chief judge of the Washtenaw County Circuit Court in Grand Rapids, Kurtis T. Wilder (another African-Americana who is now on the Michigan Court of Appeals), and Wayne County Circuit Judges Sean Cox, Michael J. Talbot and Brian Zahra helped complete the list. Local chapters in Alabama were advised by Perry O. Hooper Sr., chief justice of the Supreme Court of Alabama, along with Associate Justices J. Gorman Houston, Harold See and A. Hugh Maddox. U.S. Sen. Jefferson B. Sessions III also supported the organization. (Sessions was nominated to become a federal judge in 1986 but was blocked when it was disclosed that he had called the NAACP and the American Civil Liberties Union "un-American" and "communist-inspired," and said they "force civil rights down the throats of people." Referring to the Ku Klux Klan, he reportedly said, "I used to think they're OK," until he learned that some Klansmen were "pot smokers." Sessions contended the remarks were either made in jest or had been misinterpreted.) Additional supporters listed included Randall T. Shepard, chief justice of the Indiana Supreme Court; Craig Enoch, chief justice of the Texas Supreme Court; South Carolina Attorney General Charles Molony Condon; Alabama Attorney General William Pryor (who has links on his web page to the Federalist Society and the conservative Washington Legal Foundation), Pennsylvania Attorney General D. Michael Fisher; Indianapolis Mayor Stephen Goldsmith and Clarence Thomas' wife, Virginia, a former aide to House majority leader Richard Armey, and who now works for the Heritage Foundation. As the presiding officials in courts, judges wield broad power. For example, U.S. District Judge Neal B. Biggers Jr., who sits on the advisory board of the Mississippi chapter of the Federalist Society, presided over the Ayers desegregation case. In 1975, Jake Ayers Sr., a Mississippi sharecropper, sued the state on behalf of his son, charging that the state's higher education system discriminated against African-Americans and historically Black colleges. In 1987, Biggers upheld the state College Board's contention that Mississippi's higher education system was no longer racially discriminatory. The Supreme Court reversed Biggers in 1991 and ordered him to remove any vestiges of past discrimination. The power of the Federalist Society is not limited to the judiciary, which would be concern enough. Its tentacles extend deep into corporate America. Listed members of its business advisory council included John Stewart Bryan, III, chairman, president and C.E.O. of Media General Cable; John G. Medlin Jr., board chair of Wachovia Corp., an interstate bank holding company; Geneva Steel C.E.O. Joseph Cannon and Robert L. Strickland, chairman of Lowe's Companies. Also affiliated with the Federalist Society are Brian J. Brille and David Panton of Morgan Stanley financial services in New York; William Haraf of Bank of America in San Francisco; Chris Ekren of Sony Corp. in San Jose, Calif.; Frank Blake of General Electric in Schenechtedy, N.Y.; Philip R. Lochner Jr., senior vice president, Time Warner Inc. in New York; William Kemp of General Motors in Warren, Mich.; Edward Whelan of GTE Corp.'s Washington office; David Askin of Exxon Co. in Baytown, Texas; Marsha Rabiteau of Dow Chemical in Midland, Mich.; F. James Tennies, chief administrative officer at Legg Mason for asset management in Baltimore; Jodi Balsam, counsel for operations and litigation for the National Football League and Tom Donahue of Metropolitan Life. Even federal employees in the Clinton administration were included in Federalist Society documents: Paul-Noel Chretien of the Justice Department; Theodore Cooperstein of the FBI; Carol Crawford of the International Trade Commission; Kevin Martin of the Federal Communications Commission and Christopher Holleman of the U.S. Small Business Administration. William Saunders of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights also backs the Society. Many of the nation's blue-chip law firms have attorneys associated with the Federalist Society. Those listed included lawyers in the Washington, D.C. law firms of Arnold and Porter; Covington & Burling; Steptoe & Johnson; Hogan & Hartson; Patton, Boaggs & Blow; and Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering. New York law firms with lawyers associated with the Federalist Society include: Cravath, Swaine & Moore; White & Case and Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison. In Boston, one law firm -- Hale and Door -- has at least 10 attorneys affiliated with the Federalist Society. The list of law professors associated with the society included Ronald A. Cass, dean of Boston University's law school; Michael Young of Columbia University; John Yoo of the University of California at Berkeley; Eugene Volokh of UCLA; Northwestern University professors Gary Lawson, Daniel D. Polsby and Stephen B. Presser; Robert P. George of Princeton; Gerard Bradley of Notre Dame; Gordon B. Baldwin of the University of Wisconsin, Olan B. Lowry of Temple; Johathan Macey and Richard Painter of Cornell; Ronald D. Rotunda of the University of Illinois; Gerald T. Dunn of St. Louis University and Thomas Morgan of George Washington University. The University of Virginia, one of the best law schools in the nation, has quite a few Federalist Society professors or sympathizers on its faculty, including John Norton Moore, Robert Turner, Erika Worth Harris and Lillian BeVier. "People have to understand, whether they like lawyers or not, law schools have an enormous amount of power, whether it's power for good or evil. Unfortunately, what we are seeing under the Federalist Society is law schools and legal education being used to promote racism, bigotry and Right-wing politics. These people believe in the Bell Curve," says Prof. Boyle of the University of Illinois, referring to a controversial theory by Charles Murray and Richard J. Herrnstein about the supposed low intelligence level of some non-Whites. "You have to understand that. Just as the Federalist Society did to the federal judiciary, they are now trying to do to law schools." Boyle and others say this is done by establishing well-endowed law professorships and speaking tours for the true believers. "Where they once were scholars with Right-wing foundations like the Heritage Foundation, American Enterprise Institute and the Cato Institute, they are now getting credentialed as law professors," he notes. No comparable movement exists among progressives, which may explain why civil rights groups and liberals are doing such a feeble job defending affirmative action. "We've got to realize that while we have been dillydallying in law schools with critical race theories and penetrating the Law Review, all this is chump change to [Federalists]," observes Berry, of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. "It's like we were out playing whiffle ball while they were exercising power." The Federalist Society was founded 17 years ago by Yale Law School student Steven G. Calabresi and two counterparts at the University of Chicago School of Law, Lee Liberman and David McIntosh. All three were undergraduates together at Yale. Upset with what they perceived as liberal bias, the three decided to form an organization for conservative law students. Yale professors Robert H. Bork and Ralph K. Winter, both of whom would be appointed to the federal bench by Ronald Reagan, served as advisers to the Yale chapter. In Chicago, future U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia served in a similar capacity. The contacts the three made as students have proven to be invaluable. Calabresi, in addition to clerking for Bork and Winter, clerked for Scalia at the Supreme Court. He is now a law professor at Northwestern University. Liberman gave up a post in the Justice Department also to clerk for Scalia. She is now Lee Liberman Otis and is chief counsel for Sen. Spencer Abraham (R-Mich.), who founded a Federalist Society chapter at Harvard. McIntosh was a special assistant to Ed Meese when he was Reagan's attorney general; he is a three-term Republican Congressman who's considering running for governor of Indiana. In addition to a board of trustees, the society has a board of directors, co-chaired by Calabresi and McIntosh. The Federalist pipeline is a well-oiled old boy -- and sometimes girl -- network. For example, Brent O. Hatch, the son of Sen. Orrin Hatch, clerked for Robert Bork when he was a federal judge in Washington, D.C. After working in the Justice Department, young Hatch was appointed general counsel of the National Endowment for the Humanities at the age of 28. He is treasurer of the Federalist Society's board of directors. The organization has been funded by wealthy conservatives, such as Richard Mellon Scaife, who is vice chair of the Heritage Foundation's board, and another board member, Holland Coors, a member of the conservative Coors family. Many contributions are made through foundations that give to Right-wing causes, including the John M. Olin Foundation in New York, the Sarah Scaife Foundation in Pittsburgh, the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation of Milwaukee and the Deer Creek Foundation in St. Louis. The Federalists have direct ties to Right-wing think tanks seeking to dismantle affirmative action at the local, state and federal levels. The Center for Individual Rights, which successfully argued the Hopwood case that banned affirmative action at the University of Texas, represents plaintiffs in a lawsuit pending against the University of Michigan and were lawyers for supporters of Proposition 209, the anti-affirmative action measure in California. The Washington Legal Foundation sued the University of Maryland, forcing it to drop its Benjamin Banneker scholarships for African-American scholars; the Southeastern Legal Foundation is leading an all-out assault on affirmative action in Atlanta, and the Institute for Justice led the attack on Lani Guinier, then a University of Pennsylvania law professor, who was President Clinton's first choice to be assistant U.S. attorney general for civil rights. Clint Bolick, the group's vice president, dismissed Guinier as a "quota queen," and the eventual nominee, Deval L. Patrick, as a "quota king." He also led the opposition to the appointment of Bill Lann Lee, who was later named acting assistant attorney general for civil rights. When first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton said that there was a "vast Right-wing conspiracy" afoot that had been hounding her husband since he first announced for president, some Right-wingers almost laughingly dismissed her charges. Special Prosecutor Ken Starr called the comments "nonsense." And Boston Herald columnist Joe Fitzgerald said the first lady had "wandered into paranoia." But information developed by the Institute for Democracy Studies, a nonprofit research and education organization in New York, confirms that the first lady was on the mark. In the executive summary of its report, "The Assault on Affirmative Action: An Organized Challenge to Racial and Gender Justice," the organization notes, "Once a month at the Heritage Foundation, representatives of the nation's leading conservative law groups get together for a 'luncheon.' This so-called Public Interest Legal Group meeting is just one of several monthly gatherings that right-wing law groups hold." The report continues: "These meetings serve the purpose of avoiding duplication of effort, airing future plans, and providing guidance for an appropriate organizational division of labor." In an interview with Emerge, Todd G. Young, director of research and communications for the Atlanta-based Southeastern Legal Foundation, confirms that Right-wing groups collaborate. "We read each other's briefs (as they are filed) and when there are updates published by other groups," he says. "Although we are separate entities, we share some common understandings about the Constitutions and our (mission) statements are really almost identical for the organizations." Of its recent lawsuit against Atlanta's affirmative action program, Young notes: "We're refining the definition of what it means to enjoy equal protection under the law and the first step is to end any government-sanctioned discrimination, such as affirmative action programs or racial preference programs. It's philosophically inconsistent to say it was bad then [in the 1950s and 1960s] but it's OK now." Atlanta Mayor Bill Campbell says it's not OK to discard programs devised to address discrimination against African-Americans. "Conservative legal interest groups, such as the Center for Individual Rights and the Southeastern Legal Foundation, are striking at the very heart of the civil rights gains of the '50s and '60s," explains Campbell. "These groups are, in essence, a homogenized version of the Klan. They may have traded in their sheets for suits and use different language, but it's the same old racism -- just old wine in new bottles." The Federalist Society takes its name from The Federalist papers, 85 articles originally published in New York newspapers between 1787 and 1788. The authors -- Alexander Hamilton, John Jay and James Madison -- were attempting to gain popular support for the adoption of a new Constitution. "Is The Federalist the key to what the Constitution's framers and adopters intended it to mean and how they expected it to function?" asked R. B. Bernstein, a constitutional historian who wrote the foreword to The Federalist, a recent reissue of the papers. "This subset of the original-intent controversy tends to pit many historians, who remain dubious about original-intent arguments, against many legal scholars, who seek a way to limit judicial discretion by anchoring constitutional interpretation in the Constitution's origins." Bernstein argued that the public should not look at the essays, all written under one pen name, as the definitive word on how the Constitution should be interpreted. "Jay was not a delegate to the Federal Convention, which framed the Constitution...[Hamilton] left the Convention in July, not returning until two weeks before its close in September. And Madison...found himself outvoted on a host of major issues," Bernstein noted. Moreover, as The Federalist papers became the classic commentary on the Constitution, the three men publicly identified themselves as the authors. Even that was not without controversy. Before his ill-fated duel with Aaron Burr, Hamilton tried to take credit for writing papers 18-20, 49-58 and 62-63. Madison made an identical claim of authorship, which was verified through a computer analysis in 1964. The most damning fact about today's Federalists is that they advocate a limited role for the federal government, while the early founders were interested in establishing a strong central government. Some civil rights leaders, including Theodore M. Shaw, associate director-counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund Inc., view the rhetoric of the modern-day Federalists as smokescreen for an assault on civil rights. "It's ideologically out of the mainstream and a part of the radically conservative agenda and the radically conservative agenda has never served the interest of African-Americans," Shaw says. Hilary O. Shelton, Washington bureau chief of the NAACP, is less charitable: "They are not conservative. They are very consistent with the Council of Conservative Citizens," a White supremacy group that has featured Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) and Rep. Bob Barr (R-Ga.) as speakers. Surprisingly, some of the harshest criticism of Federalist Society members has come from Republicans. For example, former Attorney General Meese, a main player in the Federalist movement, has been criticized by some of his colleagues in the Reagan administration. According to The Washington Post, James A. Baker III and Michael K. Deaver referred to Meese as the "Big Bigot," and conservatives referred to his top assistant, T. Kenneth Cribb Jr., as the "Baby Bigot." Cribb sits on the board of directors of the Federalist Society and is a trustee of the Scaife Foundation, a major contributor to the Federalist Society and other Right-wing causes. Graglia, who has taught at the University of Texas since 1966, touched off a controversy two years ago, when he said, "Blacks and Mexican Americans are not academically competitive with Whites in selective institutions." According to Graglia, "It is the result primarily of cultural effects. Failure is not looked upon with disgrace." He maintains his membership in the Federalist Society. "They certainly are unenthusiastic about civil rights laws," he says of his organization. "Richard Epstein [a law professor at the University of Chicago] thinks we will be better off if civil rights laws were all repealed. These people do believe, as I believe, that so-called civil rights have gone too far and are not civil rights at all." Because so many of the Federalist Society members are seen as opposing civil rights, some people are not quick to accept their professed interest in color-blind justice. U.S. Appeals Court Judge Stephen Reinhardt of the 9th Circuit observes, "We had the Civil War over states' rights. There is no question we are going back to the pre-Civil War view of governments." Former federal Judge Lawrence Walsh puts it more bluntly. "The impression I have is they are trying to return to the 18th century and undo the work of the Supreme Court since the New Deal," Walsh says. "And I think it is wrong to put someone on the court who has a pre-commitment with a political dogma, whether it's the Ku Klux Klan or the Federalist Society." -- Additional reporting by Lottie L. Joiner From fboyle at illinois.edu Mon Nov 13 12:55:30 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2017 12:55:30 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Trump Begging for Nuclear War on North Korea? - Stephen Lendman Message-ID: http://stephenlendman.org/2017/11/trump-begging-nuclear-war-north-korea/ I want to thank Jay for getting my Statement into circulation at all these Refuse Fascism in America Rallies on Saturday--my Sentiments Exactly! Fab. From fboyle at illinois.edu Mon Nov 13 12:55:30 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2017 12:55:30 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Trump Begging for Nuclear War on North Korea? - Stephen Lendman Message-ID: http://stephenlendman.org/2017/11/trump-begging-nuclear-war-north-korea/ I want to thank Jay for getting my Statement into circulation at all these Refuse Fascism in America Rallies on Saturday--my Sentiments Exactly! Fab. From moboct1 at aim.com Mon Nov 13 14:07:25 2017 From: moboct1 at aim.com (Mildred O'brien) Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2017 09:07:25 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] NYT Joke of the Day: VOA & Fox vs. RT In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <15fb5b4c844-c0b-1c3b8@webjas-vac119.srv.aolmail.net> Yeah, we oldtimers have known for over 60 years that VOA was the U.S. propaganda medium created since WW II for foreign influence; some countries refused to broadcoast VOA. "Independent"-- like PBS and NPR.   Get this PBS press release:  "On Feb 28, 2012, PBS partnered with AOL to launch MAKER Studios, a digital documentary series focusing on high-achieving women in male-dominated industries such as war, comedy, space, business, Hollywood and politics" (emphasis mine).  Women included were Condoleeza Rice, Gloria Steinham, Ellen deGeneris, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Michelle Rhee, Phyllis Schlafly, Martha Stewart, Barbara Walters and others, mentors we non-"Maker" women can only hold in awe and envy... MO'B -----Original Message----- From: Karen Aram To: Boyle, Francis A CC: David Green ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; sherwoodross10 ; peace-discuss ; C. G. ESTABROOK ; a-fields ; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss ; peace-discuss-request ; Szoke, Ron ; Arlene Hickory ; abass10 ; mickalideh ; Lina Thorne ; chicago ; Jay ; David Johnson ; Mildred O'brien ; C G Estabrook Sent: Sat, 11 Nov 2017 9:05 Subject: Re: NYT Joke of the Day: VOA & Fox vs. RT VOA, an independent information source, they have got to be kidding. It’s been known for over 30 years, even by US supported Burmese rebels hiding in the jungles of Thailand, that VOA was not credible. That it is, and always has been, a “propaganda” arm of the USG. On Nov 11, 2017, at 06:12, Boyle, Francis A wrote: Under Illiniwaks Law Dean Iceman KillerKoh Amar, the Ililniwaks Law School and Faculty have  become The Death Star on Campus: “Help me, Obi Won Kenobe, you’re the only one I can trust!” Fab Ed Norton Professor of Law   Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only)   From: Boyle, Francis A  Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2017 8:04 AM To: sectns.aals at lists.aals.org Subject: NYT Joke of the Day: VOA & Fox vs. RT   “Amanda Bennett, the director of Voice of America, said in a statement: “The Voice of America is an independent news source required by law to be accurate, objective and comprehensive…”” Sounds like the propaganda  slogan for Fox “news.” Someone just told me that Greta Van Susteren now works for VOA. Back when Greta was polluting the airwaves for Fox, she tried to set me up as an apologist for Hamas Suicide Bombings. Smelling a RAT, I declined. So she set up some other lawyer as an apologist for Hamas Suicide Bombings. And she is allegedly a Lawyer, Member of the Bar, and Officer of the Court? LOL! Greta will fit right in there at VOA after Fox. What’s the difference? Fab     Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From moboct1 at aim.com Mon Nov 13 14:07:25 2017 From: moboct1 at aim.com (Mildred O'brien) Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2017 09:07:25 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] NYT Joke of the Day: VOA & Fox vs. RT In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <15fb5b4c844-c0b-1c3b8@webjas-vac119.srv.aolmail.net> Yeah, we oldtimers have known for over 60 years that VOA was the U.S. propaganda medium created since WW II for foreign influence; some countries refused to broadcoast VOA. "Independent"-- like PBS and NPR.   Get this PBS press release:  "On Feb 28, 2012, PBS partnered with AOL to launch MAKER Studios, a digital documentary series focusing on high-achieving women in male-dominated industries such as war, comedy, space, business, Hollywood and politics" (emphasis mine).  Women included were Condoleeza Rice, Gloria Steinham, Ellen deGeneris, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Michelle Rhee, Phyllis Schlafly, Martha Stewart, Barbara Walters and others, mentors we non-"Maker" women can only hold in awe and envy... MO'B -----Original Message----- From: Karen Aram To: Boyle, Francis A CC: David Green ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; sherwoodross10 ; peace-discuss ; C. G. ESTABROOK ; a-fields ; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss ; peace-discuss-request ; Szoke, Ron ; Arlene Hickory ; abass10 ; mickalideh ; Lina Thorne ; chicago ; Jay ; David Johnson ; Mildred O'brien ; C G Estabrook Sent: Sat, 11 Nov 2017 9:05 Subject: Re: NYT Joke of the Day: VOA & Fox vs. RT VOA, an independent information source, they have got to be kidding. It’s been known for over 30 years, even by US supported Burmese rebels hiding in the jungles of Thailand, that VOA was not credible. That it is, and always has been, a “propaganda” arm of the USG. On Nov 11, 2017, at 06:12, Boyle, Francis A wrote: Under Illiniwaks Law Dean Iceman KillerKoh Amar, the Ililniwaks Law School and Faculty have  become The Death Star on Campus: “Help me, Obi Won Kenobe, you’re the only one I can trust!” Fab Ed Norton Professor of Law   Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only)   From: Boyle, Francis A  Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2017 8:04 AM To: sectns.aals at lists.aals.org Subject: NYT Joke of the Day: VOA & Fox vs. RT   “Amanda Bennett, the director of Voice of America, said in a statement: “The Voice of America is an independent news source required by law to be accurate, objective and comprehensive…”” Sounds like the propaganda  slogan for Fox “news.” Someone just told me that Greta Van Susteren now works for VOA. Back when Greta was polluting the airwaves for Fox, she tried to set me up as an apologist for Hamas Suicide Bombings. Smelling a RAT, I declined. So she set up some other lawyer as an apologist for Hamas Suicide Bombings. And she is allegedly a Lawyer, Member of the Bar, and Officer of the Court? LOL! Greta will fit right in there at VOA after Fox. What’s the difference? Fab     Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Mon Nov 13 14:14:48 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2017 14:14:48 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] NYT Joke of the Day: VOA & Fox vs. RT In-Reply-To: <15fb5b4c844-c0b-1c3b8@webjas-vac119.srv.aolmail.net> References: <15fb5b4c844-c0b-1c3b8@webjas-vac119.srv.aolmail.net> Message-ID: Wow Midge! That is a real gem if there ever were one. What a cast of reprobates. Puts them all in cahoots with each other. Could not have done a better job myself. Thanks. Propaganda Broadcasting Service. National Propaganda Radio, etc. fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Mildred O'brien [mailto:moboct1 at aim.com] Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 8:07 AM To: karenaram at hotmail.com; Boyle, Francis A Cc: davegreen84 at yahoo.com; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; carl at newsfromneptune.com; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; joelauria at gmail.com; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron ; a23h23 at yahoo.com; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; lina at worldcantwait.net; chicago at worldcantwait.net; futureup2us at gmail.com; davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net; cgestabrook at gmail.com Subject: Re: NYT Joke of the Day: VOA & Fox vs. RT Yeah, we oldtimers have known for over 60 years that VOA was the U.S. propaganda medium created since WW II for foreign influence; some countries refused to broadcoast VOA. "Independent"-- like PBS and NPR. Get this PBS press release: "On Feb 28, 2012, PBS partnered with AOL to launch MAKER Studios, a digital documentary series focusing on high-achieving women in male-dominated industries such as war, comedy, space, business, Hollywood and politics" (emphasis mine). Women included were Condoleeza Rice, Gloria Steinham, Ellen deGeneris, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Michelle Rhee, Phyllis Schlafly, Martha Stewart, Barbara Walters and others, mentors we non-"Maker" women can only hold in awe and envy... MO'B -----Original Message----- From: Karen Aram > To: Boyle, Francis A > CC: David Green >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; sherwoodross10 >; peace-discuss >; C. G. ESTABROOK >; a-fields >; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss >; peace-discuss-request >; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; abass10 >; mickalideh >; Lina Thorne >; chicago >; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; C G Estabrook > Sent: Sat, 11 Nov 2017 9:05 Subject: Re: NYT Joke of the Day: VOA & Fox vs. RT VOA, an independent information source, they have got to be kidding. It’s been known for over 30 years, even by US supported Burmese rebels hiding in the jungles of Thailand, that VOA was not credible. That it is, and always has been, a “propaganda” arm of the USG. On Nov 11, 2017, at 06:12, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: Under Illiniwaks Law Dean Iceman KillerKoh Amar, the Ililniwaks Law School and Faculty have become The Death Star on Campus: “Help me, Obi Won Kenobe, you’re the only one I can trust!” Fab Ed Norton Professor of Law Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2017 8:04 AM To: sectns.aals at lists.aals.org Subject: NYT Joke of the Day: VOA & Fox vs. RT “Amanda Bennett, the director of Voice of America, said in a statement: “The Voice of America is an independent news source required by law to be accurate, objective and comprehensive…”” Sounds like the propaganda slogan for Fox “news.” Someone just told me that Greta Van Susteren now works for VOA. Back when Greta was polluting the airwaves for Fox, she tried to set me up as an apologist for Hamas Suicide Bombings. Smelling a RAT, I declined. So she set up some other lawyer as an apologist for Hamas Suicide Bombings. And she is allegedly a Lawyer, Member of the Bar, and Officer of the Court? LOL! Greta will fit right in there at VOA after Fox. What’s the difference? Fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Mon Nov 13 14:14:48 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2017 14:14:48 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] NYT Joke of the Day: VOA & Fox vs. RT In-Reply-To: <15fb5b4c844-c0b-1c3b8@webjas-vac119.srv.aolmail.net> References: <15fb5b4c844-c0b-1c3b8@webjas-vac119.srv.aolmail.net> Message-ID: Wow Midge! That is a real gem if there ever were one. What a cast of reprobates. Puts them all in cahoots with each other. Could not have done a better job myself. Thanks. Propaganda Broadcasting Service. National Propaganda Radio, etc. fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Mildred O'brien [mailto:moboct1 at aim.com] Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 8:07 AM To: karenaram at hotmail.com; Boyle, Francis A Cc: davegreen84 at yahoo.com; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; carl at newsfromneptune.com; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; joelauria at gmail.com; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron ; a23h23 at yahoo.com; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; lina at worldcantwait.net; chicago at worldcantwait.net; futureup2us at gmail.com; davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net; cgestabrook at gmail.com Subject: Re: NYT Joke of the Day: VOA & Fox vs. RT Yeah, we oldtimers have known for over 60 years that VOA was the U.S. propaganda medium created since WW II for foreign influence; some countries refused to broadcoast VOA. "Independent"-- like PBS and NPR. Get this PBS press release: "On Feb 28, 2012, PBS partnered with AOL to launch MAKER Studios, a digital documentary series focusing on high-achieving women in male-dominated industries such as war, comedy, space, business, Hollywood and politics" (emphasis mine). Women included were Condoleeza Rice, Gloria Steinham, Ellen deGeneris, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Michelle Rhee, Phyllis Schlafly, Martha Stewart, Barbara Walters and others, mentors we non-"Maker" women can only hold in awe and envy... MO'B -----Original Message----- From: Karen Aram > To: Boyle, Francis A > CC: David Green >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; sherwoodross10 >; peace-discuss >; C. G. ESTABROOK >; a-fields >; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss >; peace-discuss-request >; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; abass10 >; mickalideh >; Lina Thorne >; chicago >; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; C G Estabrook > Sent: Sat, 11 Nov 2017 9:05 Subject: Re: NYT Joke of the Day: VOA & Fox vs. RT VOA, an independent information source, they have got to be kidding. It’s been known for over 30 years, even by US supported Burmese rebels hiding in the jungles of Thailand, that VOA was not credible. That it is, and always has been, a “propaganda” arm of the USG. On Nov 11, 2017, at 06:12, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: Under Illiniwaks Law Dean Iceman KillerKoh Amar, the Ililniwaks Law School and Faculty have become The Death Star on Campus: “Help me, Obi Won Kenobe, you’re the only one I can trust!” Fab Ed Norton Professor of Law Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2017 8:04 AM To: sectns.aals at lists.aals.org Subject: NYT Joke of the Day: VOA & Fox vs. RT “Amanda Bennett, the director of Voice of America, said in a statement: “The Voice of America is an independent news source required by law to be accurate, objective and comprehensive…”” Sounds like the propaganda slogan for Fox “news.” Someone just told me that Greta Van Susteren now works for VOA. Back when Greta was polluting the airwaves for Fox, she tried to set me up as an apologist for Hamas Suicide Bombings. Smelling a RAT, I declined. So she set up some other lawyer as an apologist for Hamas Suicide Bombings. And she is allegedly a Lawyer, Member of the Bar, and Officer of the Court? LOL! Greta will fit right in there at VOA after Fox. What’s the difference? Fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Mon Nov 13 19:36:44 2017 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2017 13:36:44 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] 'Refuse Fascism' & Bob Avakian's RCP In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2C7373E8-E3EC-4E51-98A1-6DC37A79B5AA@gmail.com> [1] 'Refuse Fascism’: > [2] Gary Leupp discussed Avakian’s ‘Revolutionary Communist Party’ two years ago, in the context of a consideration of Sanders’ campaign: ======================== Counterpunch | February 5, 2016 "Is a ‘Socialist' Really Unelectable? The Potential Significance of the Sanders Campaign” ...The Revolutionary Communist Party contends: “The Bernie Sanders campaign—like those of every candidate who the ruling class allows to be taken seriously—essentially takes as its starting point stabilizing, strengthening, and ultimately enforcing the whole structure of a world dominated, exploited, and oppressed by the U.S. empire. And telling people that those interests are their interests.” And: “Throw off your blinders and get into BA [RCP chair Bob Avakian]! A whole better world really is possible and you need to be part of the solution and not—like Bernie Sanders—part of the problem.” What is more important now: sectarian sniping or popularizing an ideal? Reading these ringing declarations by left sects, I think to myself: What is more important? To broadcast to people what they already know—that Sanders’ conception of “socialism” is really Scandinavian-style capitalism (capitalism with a “human face”) and not socialism in the Marxian sense, which results from the overthrow of the capitalist class? Or: to note and appreciate the historical significance of Sanders’ campaign in returning the very term “socialism” to public discourse and emboldening people to openly identify with a concept anathema to Wall Street, the 1%, and the entire (widely hated) political establishment? Cornel West appears to choose the latter option. This is all the more interesting in that he has been friendly for years with the RCP that’s trashing Bernie while West stumps for him. The irony is that the above-mentioned Avakian owes West big time. Chairman Bob left the U.S. in 1980 for Paris and was not seen again in public until, with great fanfare, his party announced in 2003 that he had given talks on the East and West Coast and that these were available for purchase on DVD. It was not clear then or now that Avakian had permanently returned to the U.S. from Paris; the RCP refuses to comment on his whereabouts. But since few had seen him for twenty-three years, his sudden reappearance if only on video was a cause of jubilation among his followers. Cornel West wrote words of praise for Avakian (as a “long-distance runner in the freedom struggle against imperialism, racism and capitalism”) that appeared as a blurb on the cover of his autobiography published in 2005. (Notice the similarity to his recent description of Sanders.) He signed a statement in 2007 that appeared in the New York Review of Books—“Dangerous times demand courageous voices. Bob Avakian is such a voice.” The expensive ad was essentially designed to show anyone interested that Avakian had lots of well-known friends and that if the state went after him, they would have his back. Many intellectuals asked to sign, including Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky (not to mention myself), politely declined, noting that Avakian was under no specific legal threat and that the ad seemed designed to imply that he was in order to get signers to publicly aver that they “have come away from encounters with Avakian provoked and enriched in our own thinking,” declare that his “ability…to freely function” was “a concern,” urged that people “engage with the thoughts of Bob Avakian and bring them into what needs to be a rich and diverse dialogue,” and “[serve] notice to this government that we intend to defend” Avakian’s rights “to freely advocate and organize for his views.” West was one of the signatories. West also urged support for RCP bus tour in 2012 designed to promote Avakian and interviewed him for a PRI radio program in 2013. But the slowly resurfacing Avakian hadn’t given a public talk since 1980. As I understand it, the plan was for a dramatic Second Coming at a prestigious venue in the company of well-known public intellectual. Thus in November 2014 West joined Avakian for a “dialogue on revolution and religion” at the historic Riverside Church in Harlem. An overflow crowd heard the long-winded Avakian preach for two hours, interrupted increasingly by calls from the crowd for him to wrap up and let West take the podium. West spoke about half an hour, and then there were questions from the audience. It wasn’t really a dialogue, and had little analytical content, but that was probably not the point. “BA”—as he’s affectionately called by adherents of his cult (officially, the “culture of appreciation, promotion and popularization” of a man the RCP officially describes as “a rare and precious leader” who as “as simple fact” is the only person who could have developed Marxism such that “today being a communist means following Bob Avakian and the new path that he has forged”) had shown that he was real and ready for prime time. In sum: West has helped midwife the public rebirth of BA, who thinks Sanders is in the enemy camp. But West is a far firmer ally of Sanders than he is of “the rare and precious leader.” Who’s got blinders on? What does it tell us that even the public intellectual closest to the RCP—someone who longs for a revolutionary uprising as much as Avakian—is implicitly denounced by the RCP as “part of the problem” by supporting Sanders? It shows that the party is totally out of touch with reality. All it can do is say “drop your blinders and get into BA!” And the other radical left sects tend to similarly dismiss or attack the Sanders campaign as being short of really revolutionary, really socialist. As though there’s any party out there really rooted in the masses, able to develop what Mao called the “mass line”—any party whose burning potential is being stymied by Bernie’s sudden popularity! West’s endorsement of “Brother Bernie” is in his words “not an affirmation of the neo-liberal Democratic Party or a downplaying of the ugly Israeli occupation of the Palestinians” (which Sanders has not significantly opposed). Of course not. It’s a gamble that Sanders’ ongoing attack on Wall Street and open acknowledgement of a “democratic socialist” identity will lead to an electoral victory that will curb the power of the top stratum of capitalist parasites and diminish the prospects for more imperialist war. Such a result would not (of course) constitute socialism. It would not mean a real “revolution” in the Leninist sense. It might be a replay of Roosevelt and the New Deal (a series of measures largely designed to prevent a revolution in this country in the 1930s). But should we prefer to that outcome a victory of a Clinton or Cruz—-on the premise that such a presidency would exacerbate social contradictions to the point where the people (under the leadership of rare and precious leaders leading tiny sects whose rank-and-file members spout rhetoric they themselves hardly understand) will rise up in a repeat of the Bolshevik Revolution? In 1980 at age 24, already filled with contempt at the whole U.S. electoral process and viscerally opposed to any participation in it, I compared Carter and Reagan and hoped Reagan would win. Because I thought Reagan would so provoke the masses by his vicious cuts in social spending and his crazed Cold War mentality that his election would hasten the day of the needed revolution. I was overly optimistic and badly mistaken. These days I think that the election of a Cruz or Rubio—idiots who could easily trigger more war in the Middle East, North Africa or Ukraine, while abetting the further concentration of wealth in the hands of a few, immiserating more millions—could possibly produce a revolutionary situation, where (to paraphrase Lenin) the old system can’t continue in the old way, the masses can’t live in the old way, and there is revolutionary leadership. But I don’t hope for the election of either; the prospect indeed fills me with dread. Because I see no genuinely revolutionary party on the horizon remotely capable of effectively communicating with, much less leading the masses. I only see left sects trailing after each new mass movement, like Occupy or Black Lives Matter, striving to lead, recruiting a few new followers here and there, but more often than not alienating those they seek to influence by their wooden dogmatism, antiquated rhetoric, personality cults, lack of strategy and (often) the haggard zombie-like affect of their members trying to recruit. On the other hand there is Sanders, a European-style social democrat calling for a “political revolution” and energizing the young generation to support him. In U.S. political history, this is not insignificant. Nor is it principally a bad thing. The Sanders campaign, whatever else it is, is a sign that young people are becoming okay with (some concept of) socialism. That can only be good for those seeing themselves as advocates of “real” socialism. > Gary Leupp is Professor of History at Tufts University, and holds a secondary appointment in the Department of Religion. He is the author of Servants, Shophands and Laborers in in the Cities of Tokugawa Japan; Male Colors: The Construction of Homosexuality in Tokugawa Japan; and Interracial Intimacy in Japan: Western Men and Japanese Women, 1543-1900. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion, (AK Press). He can be reached at: gleupp at tufts.edu ### -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Mon Nov 13 19:36:44 2017 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2017 13:36:44 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] 'Refuse Fascism' & Bob Avakian's RCP In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2C7373E8-E3EC-4E51-98A1-6DC37A79B5AA@gmail.com> [1] 'Refuse Fascism’: > [2] Gary Leupp discussed Avakian’s ‘Revolutionary Communist Party’ two years ago, in the context of a consideration of Sanders’ campaign: ======================== Counterpunch | February 5, 2016 "Is a ‘Socialist' Really Unelectable? The Potential Significance of the Sanders Campaign” ...The Revolutionary Communist Party contends: “The Bernie Sanders campaign—like those of every candidate who the ruling class allows to be taken seriously—essentially takes as its starting point stabilizing, strengthening, and ultimately enforcing the whole structure of a world dominated, exploited, and oppressed by the U.S. empire. And telling people that those interests are their interests.” And: “Throw off your blinders and get into BA [RCP chair Bob Avakian]! A whole better world really is possible and you need to be part of the solution and not—like Bernie Sanders—part of the problem.” What is more important now: sectarian sniping or popularizing an ideal? Reading these ringing declarations by left sects, I think to myself: What is more important? To broadcast to people what they already know—that Sanders’ conception of “socialism” is really Scandinavian-style capitalism (capitalism with a “human face”) and not socialism in the Marxian sense, which results from the overthrow of the capitalist class? Or: to note and appreciate the historical significance of Sanders’ campaign in returning the very term “socialism” to public discourse and emboldening people to openly identify with a concept anathema to Wall Street, the 1%, and the entire (widely hated) political establishment? Cornel West appears to choose the latter option. This is all the more interesting in that he has been friendly for years with the RCP that’s trashing Bernie while West stumps for him. The irony is that the above-mentioned Avakian owes West big time. Chairman Bob left the U.S. in 1980 for Paris and was not seen again in public until, with great fanfare, his party announced in 2003 that he had given talks on the East and West Coast and that these were available for purchase on DVD. It was not clear then or now that Avakian had permanently returned to the U.S. from Paris; the RCP refuses to comment on his whereabouts. But since few had seen him for twenty-three years, his sudden reappearance if only on video was a cause of jubilation among his followers. Cornel West wrote words of praise for Avakian (as a “long-distance runner in the freedom struggle against imperialism, racism and capitalism”) that appeared as a blurb on the cover of his autobiography published in 2005. (Notice the similarity to his recent description of Sanders.) He signed a statement in 2007 that appeared in the New York Review of Books—“Dangerous times demand courageous voices. Bob Avakian is such a voice.” The expensive ad was essentially designed to show anyone interested that Avakian had lots of well-known friends and that if the state went after him, they would have his back. Many intellectuals asked to sign, including Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky (not to mention myself), politely declined, noting that Avakian was under no specific legal threat and that the ad seemed designed to imply that he was in order to get signers to publicly aver that they “have come away from encounters with Avakian provoked and enriched in our own thinking,” declare that his “ability…to freely function” was “a concern,” urged that people “engage with the thoughts of Bob Avakian and bring them into what needs to be a rich and diverse dialogue,” and “[serve] notice to this government that we intend to defend” Avakian’s rights “to freely advocate and organize for his views.” West was one of the signatories. West also urged support for RCP bus tour in 2012 designed to promote Avakian and interviewed him for a PRI radio program in 2013. But the slowly resurfacing Avakian hadn’t given a public talk since 1980. As I understand it, the plan was for a dramatic Second Coming at a prestigious venue in the company of well-known public intellectual. Thus in November 2014 West joined Avakian for a “dialogue on revolution and religion” at the historic Riverside Church in Harlem. An overflow crowd heard the long-winded Avakian preach for two hours, interrupted increasingly by calls from the crowd for him to wrap up and let West take the podium. West spoke about half an hour, and then there were questions from the audience. It wasn’t really a dialogue, and had little analytical content, but that was probably not the point. “BA”—as he’s affectionately called by adherents of his cult (officially, the “culture of appreciation, promotion and popularization” of a man the RCP officially describes as “a rare and precious leader” who as “as simple fact” is the only person who could have developed Marxism such that “today being a communist means following Bob Avakian and the new path that he has forged”) had shown that he was real and ready for prime time. In sum: West has helped midwife the public rebirth of BA, who thinks Sanders is in the enemy camp. But West is a far firmer ally of Sanders than he is of “the rare and precious leader.” Who’s got blinders on? What does it tell us that even the public intellectual closest to the RCP—someone who longs for a revolutionary uprising as much as Avakian—is implicitly denounced by the RCP as “part of the problem” by supporting Sanders? It shows that the party is totally out of touch with reality. All it can do is say “drop your blinders and get into BA!” And the other radical left sects tend to similarly dismiss or attack the Sanders campaign as being short of really revolutionary, really socialist. As though there’s any party out there really rooted in the masses, able to develop what Mao called the “mass line”—any party whose burning potential is being stymied by Bernie’s sudden popularity! West’s endorsement of “Brother Bernie” is in his words “not an affirmation of the neo-liberal Democratic Party or a downplaying of the ugly Israeli occupation of the Palestinians” (which Sanders has not significantly opposed). Of course not. It’s a gamble that Sanders’ ongoing attack on Wall Street and open acknowledgement of a “democratic socialist” identity will lead to an electoral victory that will curb the power of the top stratum of capitalist parasites and diminish the prospects for more imperialist war. Such a result would not (of course) constitute socialism. It would not mean a real “revolution” in the Leninist sense. It might be a replay of Roosevelt and the New Deal (a series of measures largely designed to prevent a revolution in this country in the 1930s). But should we prefer to that outcome a victory of a Clinton or Cruz—-on the premise that such a presidency would exacerbate social contradictions to the point where the people (under the leadership of rare and precious leaders leading tiny sects whose rank-and-file members spout rhetoric they themselves hardly understand) will rise up in a repeat of the Bolshevik Revolution? In 1980 at age 24, already filled with contempt at the whole U.S. electoral process and viscerally opposed to any participation in it, I compared Carter and Reagan and hoped Reagan would win. Because I thought Reagan would so provoke the masses by his vicious cuts in social spending and his crazed Cold War mentality that his election would hasten the day of the needed revolution. I was overly optimistic and badly mistaken. These days I think that the election of a Cruz or Rubio—idiots who could easily trigger more war in the Middle East, North Africa or Ukraine, while abetting the further concentration of wealth in the hands of a few, immiserating more millions—could possibly produce a revolutionary situation, where (to paraphrase Lenin) the old system can’t continue in the old way, the masses can’t live in the old way, and there is revolutionary leadership. But I don’t hope for the election of either; the prospect indeed fills me with dread. Because I see no genuinely revolutionary party on the horizon remotely capable of effectively communicating with, much less leading the masses. I only see left sects trailing after each new mass movement, like Occupy or Black Lives Matter, striving to lead, recruiting a few new followers here and there, but more often than not alienating those they seek to influence by their wooden dogmatism, antiquated rhetoric, personality cults, lack of strategy and (often) the haggard zombie-like affect of their members trying to recruit. On the other hand there is Sanders, a European-style social democrat calling for a “political revolution” and energizing the young generation to support him. In U.S. political history, this is not insignificant. Nor is it principally a bad thing. The Sanders campaign, whatever else it is, is a sign that young people are becoming okay with (some concept of) socialism. That can only be good for those seeing themselves as advocates of “real” socialism. > Gary Leupp is Professor of History at Tufts University, and holds a secondary appointment in the Department of Religion. He is the author of Servants, Shophands and Laborers in in the Cities of Tokugawa Japan; Male Colors: The Construction of Homosexuality in Tokugawa Japan; and Interracial Intimacy in Japan: Western Men and Japanese Women, 1543-1900. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion, (AK Press). He can be reached at: gleupp at tufts.edu ### -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Mon Nov 13 19:53:39 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2017 19:53:39 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Cornel West--The Real Deal! Message-ID: Excuse me! I don’t know Avakian personally. But I do know Cornel. HE IS THE REAL DEAL! Back in the early 1980s Cornel and I were on a Panel together on behalf of the Palestinians when he was a mere assistant professor without tenure at Princeton. I was amazed at what Cornel was saying for the Palestinians and against Israel. I thought it was suicidal for someone who did not yet have tenure in the Zionized world of American Academia. Cornel did not care one whit and forthrightly Spoke Truth To Power like I did, but by then I had tenure here on a negotiated 3 year deal because I knew what I was going to do. As I said before, the Acid Test of your Courage, your Integrity and your Principles has always been where you stood on the Palestinians. Cornel passed that test with flying colors from the very get-go of his academic career even at grave risk to getting tenure. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 1:37 PM To: Boyle, Francis A Cc: David Green ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay ; David Johnson ; Mildred O'brien Subject: 'Refuse Fascism' & Bob Avakian's RCP [1] 'Refuse Fascism’: [2] Gary Leupp discussed Avakian’s ‘Revolutionary Communist Party’ two years ago, in the context of a consideration of Sanders’ campaign: ======================== Counterpunch | February 5, 2016 "Is a ‘Socialist' Really Unelectable? The Potential Significance of the Sanders Campaign” ...The Revolutionary Communist Party contends: “The Bernie Sanders campaign—like those of every candidate who the ruling class allows to be taken seriously—essentially takes as its starting point stabilizing, strengthening, and ultimately enforcing the whole structure of a world dominated, exploited, and oppressed by the U.S. empire. And telling people that those interests are their interests.” And: “Throw off your blinders and get into BA [RCP chair Bob Avakian]! A whole better world really is possible and you need to be part of the solution and not—like Bernie Sanders—part of the problem.” What is more important now: sectarian sniping or popularizing an ideal? Reading these ringing declarations by left sects, I think to myself: What is more important? To broadcast to people what they already know—that Sanders’ conception of “socialism” is really Scandinavian-style capitalism (capitalism with a “human face”) and not socialism in the Marxian sense, which results from the overthrow of the capitalist class? Or: to note and appreciate the historical significance of Sanders’ campaign in returning the very term “socialism” to public discourse and emboldening people to openly identify with a concept anathema to Wall Street, the 1%, and the entire (widely hated) political establishment? Cornel West appears to choose the latter option. This is all the more interesting in that he has been friendly for years with the RCP that’s trashing Bernie while West stumps for him. The irony is that the above-mentioned Avakian owes West big time. Chairman Bob left the U.S. in 1980 for Paris and was not seen again in public until, with great fanfare, his party announced in 2003 that he had given talks on the East and West Coast and that these were available for purchase on DVD. It was not clear then or now that Avakian had permanently returned to the U.S. from Paris; the RCP refuses to comment on his whereabouts. But since few had seen him for twenty-three years, his sudden reappearance if only on video was a cause of jubilation among his followers. Cornel West wrote words of praise for Avakian (as a “long-distance runner in the freedom struggle against imperialism, racism and capitalism”) that appeared as a blurb on the cover of his autobiography published in 2005. (Notice the similarity to his recent description of Sanders.) He signed a statement in 2007 that appeared in the New York Review of Books—“Dangerous times demand courageous voices. Bob Avakian is such a voice.” The expensive ad was essentially designed to show anyone interested that Avakian had lots of well-known friends and that if the state went after him, they would have his back. Many intellectuals asked to sign, including Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky (not to mention myself), politely declined, noting that Avakian was under no specific legal threat and that the ad seemed designed to imply that he was in order to get signers to publicly aver that they “have come away from encounters with Avakian provoked and enriched in our own thinking,” declare that his “ability…to freely function” was “a concern,” urged that people “engage with the thoughts of Bob Avakian and bring them into what needs to be a rich and diverse dialogue,” and “[serve] notice to this government that we intend to defend” Avakian’s rights “to freely advocate and organize for his views.” West was one of the signatories. West also urged support for RCP bus tour in 2012 designed to promote Avakian and interviewed him for a PRI radio program in 2013. But the slowly resurfacing Avakian hadn’t given a public talk since 1980. As I understand it, the plan was for a dramatic Second Coming at a prestigious venue in the company of well-known public intellectual. Thus in November 2014 West joined Avakian for a “dialogue on revolution and religion” at the historic Riverside Church in Harlem. An overflow crowd heard the long-winded Avakian preach for two hours, interrupted increasingly by calls from the crowd for him to wrap up and let West take the podium. West spoke about half an hour, and then there were questions from the audience. It wasn’t really a dialogue, and had little analytical content, but that was probably not the point. “BA”—as he’s affectionately called by adherents of his cult (officially, the “culture of appreciation, promotion and popularization” of a man the RCP officially describes as “a rare and precious leader” who as “as simple fact” is the only person who could have developed Marxism such that “today being a communist means following Bob Avakian and the new path that he has forged”) had shown that he was real and ready for prime time. In sum: West has helped midwife the public rebirth of BA, who thinks Sanders is in the enemy camp. But West is a far firmer ally of Sanders than he is of “the rare and precious leader.” Who’s got blinders on? What does it tell us that even the public intellectual closest to the RCP—someone who longs for a revolutionary uprising as much as Avakian—is implicitly denounced by the RCP as “part of the problem” by supporting Sanders? It shows that the party is totally out of touch with reality. All it can do is say “drop your blinders and get into BA!” And the other radical left sects tend to similarly dismiss or attack the Sanders campaign as being short of really revolutionary, really socialist. As though there’s any party out there really rooted in the masses, able to develop what Mao called the “mass line”—any party whose burning potential is being stymied by Bernie’s sudden popularity! West’s endorsement of “Brother Bernie” is in his words “not an affirmation of the neo-liberal Democratic Party or a downplaying of the ugly Israeli occupation of the Palestinians” (which Sanders has not significantly opposed). Of course not. It’s a gamble that Sanders’ ongoing attack on Wall Street and open acknowledgement of a “democratic socialist” identity will lead to an electoral victory that will curb the power of the top stratum of capitalist parasites and diminish the prospects for more imperialist war. Such a result would not (of course) constitute socialism. It would not mean a real “revolution” in the Leninist sense. It might be a replay of Roosevelt and the New Deal (a series of measures largely designed to prevent a revolution in this country in the 1930s). But should we prefer to that outcome a victory of a Clinton or Cruz—-on the premise that such a presidency would exacerbate social contradictions to the point where the people (under the leadership of rare and precious leaders leading tiny sects whose rank-and-file members spout rhetoric they themselves hardly understand) will rise up in a repeat of the Bolshevik Revolution? In 1980 at age 24, already filled with contempt at the whole U.S. electoral process and viscerally opposed to any participation in it, I compared Carter and Reagan and hoped Reagan would win. Because I thought Reagan would so provoke the masses by his vicious cuts in social spending and his crazed Cold War mentality that his election would hasten the day of the needed revolution. I was overly optimistic and badly mistaken. These days I think that the election of a Cruz or Rubio—idiots who could easily trigger more war in the Middle East, North Africa or Ukraine, while abetting the further concentration of wealth in the hands of a few, immiserating more millions—could possibly produce a revolutionary situation, where (to paraphrase Lenin) the old system can’t continue in the old way, the masses can’t live in the old way, and there is revolutionary leadership. But I don’t hope for the election of either; the prospect indeed fills me with dread. Because I see no genuinely revolutionary party on the horizon remotely capable of effectively communicating with, much less leading the masses. I only see left sects trailing after each new mass movement, like Occupy or Black Lives Matter, striving to lead, recruiting a few new followers here and there, but more often than not alienating those they seek to influence by their wooden dogmatism, antiquated rhetoric, personality cults, lack of strategy and (often) the haggard zombie-like affect of their members trying to recruit. On the other hand there is Sanders, a European-style social democrat calling for a “political revolution” and energizing the young generation to support him. In U.S. political history, this is not insignificant. Nor is it principally a bad thing. The Sanders campaign, whatever else it is, is a sign that young people are becoming okay with (some concept of) socialism. That can only be good for those seeing themselves as advocates of “real” socialism. Gary Leupp is Professor of History at Tufts University, and holds a secondary appointment in the Department of Religion. He is the author of Servants, Shophands and Laborers in in the Cities of Tokugawa Japan; Male Colors: The Construction of Homosexuality in Tokugawa Japan; and Interracial Intimacy in Japan: Western Men and Japanese Women, 1543-1900. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion, (AK Press). He can be reached at: gleupp at tufts.edu ### -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Mon Nov 13 19:53:39 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2017 19:53:39 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Cornel West--The Real Deal! Message-ID: Excuse me! I don’t know Avakian personally. But I do know Cornel. HE IS THE REAL DEAL! Back in the early 1980s Cornel and I were on a Panel together on behalf of the Palestinians when he was a mere assistant professor without tenure at Princeton. I was amazed at what Cornel was saying for the Palestinians and against Israel. I thought it was suicidal for someone who did not yet have tenure in the Zionized world of American Academia. Cornel did not care one whit and forthrightly Spoke Truth To Power like I did, but by then I had tenure here on a negotiated 3 year deal because I knew what I was going to do. As I said before, the Acid Test of your Courage, your Integrity and your Principles has always been where you stood on the Palestinians. Cornel passed that test with flying colors from the very get-go of his academic career even at grave risk to getting tenure. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 1:37 PM To: Boyle, Francis A Cc: David Green ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay ; David Johnson ; Mildred O'brien Subject: 'Refuse Fascism' & Bob Avakian's RCP [1] 'Refuse Fascism’: [2] Gary Leupp discussed Avakian’s ‘Revolutionary Communist Party’ two years ago, in the context of a consideration of Sanders’ campaign: ======================== Counterpunch | February 5, 2016 "Is a ‘Socialist' Really Unelectable? The Potential Significance of the Sanders Campaign” ...The Revolutionary Communist Party contends: “The Bernie Sanders campaign—like those of every candidate who the ruling class allows to be taken seriously—essentially takes as its starting point stabilizing, strengthening, and ultimately enforcing the whole structure of a world dominated, exploited, and oppressed by the U.S. empire. And telling people that those interests are their interests.” And: “Throw off your blinders and get into BA [RCP chair Bob Avakian]! A whole better world really is possible and you need to be part of the solution and not—like Bernie Sanders—part of the problem.” What is more important now: sectarian sniping or popularizing an ideal? Reading these ringing declarations by left sects, I think to myself: What is more important? To broadcast to people what they already know—that Sanders’ conception of “socialism” is really Scandinavian-style capitalism (capitalism with a “human face”) and not socialism in the Marxian sense, which results from the overthrow of the capitalist class? Or: to note and appreciate the historical significance of Sanders’ campaign in returning the very term “socialism” to public discourse and emboldening people to openly identify with a concept anathema to Wall Street, the 1%, and the entire (widely hated) political establishment? Cornel West appears to choose the latter option. This is all the more interesting in that he has been friendly for years with the RCP that’s trashing Bernie while West stumps for him. The irony is that the above-mentioned Avakian owes West big time. Chairman Bob left the U.S. in 1980 for Paris and was not seen again in public until, with great fanfare, his party announced in 2003 that he had given talks on the East and West Coast and that these were available for purchase on DVD. It was not clear then or now that Avakian had permanently returned to the U.S. from Paris; the RCP refuses to comment on his whereabouts. But since few had seen him for twenty-three years, his sudden reappearance if only on video was a cause of jubilation among his followers. Cornel West wrote words of praise for Avakian (as a “long-distance runner in the freedom struggle against imperialism, racism and capitalism”) that appeared as a blurb on the cover of his autobiography published in 2005. (Notice the similarity to his recent description of Sanders.) He signed a statement in 2007 that appeared in the New York Review of Books—“Dangerous times demand courageous voices. Bob Avakian is such a voice.” The expensive ad was essentially designed to show anyone interested that Avakian had lots of well-known friends and that if the state went after him, they would have his back. Many intellectuals asked to sign, including Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky (not to mention myself), politely declined, noting that Avakian was under no specific legal threat and that the ad seemed designed to imply that he was in order to get signers to publicly aver that they “have come away from encounters with Avakian provoked and enriched in our own thinking,” declare that his “ability…to freely function” was “a concern,” urged that people “engage with the thoughts of Bob Avakian and bring them into what needs to be a rich and diverse dialogue,” and “[serve] notice to this government that we intend to defend” Avakian’s rights “to freely advocate and organize for his views.” West was one of the signatories. West also urged support for RCP bus tour in 2012 designed to promote Avakian and interviewed him for a PRI radio program in 2013. But the slowly resurfacing Avakian hadn’t given a public talk since 1980. As I understand it, the plan was for a dramatic Second Coming at a prestigious venue in the company of well-known public intellectual. Thus in November 2014 West joined Avakian for a “dialogue on revolution and religion” at the historic Riverside Church in Harlem. An overflow crowd heard the long-winded Avakian preach for two hours, interrupted increasingly by calls from the crowd for him to wrap up and let West take the podium. West spoke about half an hour, and then there were questions from the audience. It wasn’t really a dialogue, and had little analytical content, but that was probably not the point. “BA”—as he’s affectionately called by adherents of his cult (officially, the “culture of appreciation, promotion and popularization” of a man the RCP officially describes as “a rare and precious leader” who as “as simple fact” is the only person who could have developed Marxism such that “today being a communist means following Bob Avakian and the new path that he has forged”) had shown that he was real and ready for prime time. In sum: West has helped midwife the public rebirth of BA, who thinks Sanders is in the enemy camp. But West is a far firmer ally of Sanders than he is of “the rare and precious leader.” Who’s got blinders on? What does it tell us that even the public intellectual closest to the RCP—someone who longs for a revolutionary uprising as much as Avakian—is implicitly denounced by the RCP as “part of the problem” by supporting Sanders? It shows that the party is totally out of touch with reality. All it can do is say “drop your blinders and get into BA!” And the other radical left sects tend to similarly dismiss or attack the Sanders campaign as being short of really revolutionary, really socialist. As though there’s any party out there really rooted in the masses, able to develop what Mao called the “mass line”—any party whose burning potential is being stymied by Bernie’s sudden popularity! West’s endorsement of “Brother Bernie” is in his words “not an affirmation of the neo-liberal Democratic Party or a downplaying of the ugly Israeli occupation of the Palestinians” (which Sanders has not significantly opposed). Of course not. It’s a gamble that Sanders’ ongoing attack on Wall Street and open acknowledgement of a “democratic socialist” identity will lead to an electoral victory that will curb the power of the top stratum of capitalist parasites and diminish the prospects for more imperialist war. Such a result would not (of course) constitute socialism. It would not mean a real “revolution” in the Leninist sense. It might be a replay of Roosevelt and the New Deal (a series of measures largely designed to prevent a revolution in this country in the 1930s). But should we prefer to that outcome a victory of a Clinton or Cruz—-on the premise that such a presidency would exacerbate social contradictions to the point where the people (under the leadership of rare and precious leaders leading tiny sects whose rank-and-file members spout rhetoric they themselves hardly understand) will rise up in a repeat of the Bolshevik Revolution? In 1980 at age 24, already filled with contempt at the whole U.S. electoral process and viscerally opposed to any participation in it, I compared Carter and Reagan and hoped Reagan would win. Because I thought Reagan would so provoke the masses by his vicious cuts in social spending and his crazed Cold War mentality that his election would hasten the day of the needed revolution. I was overly optimistic and badly mistaken. These days I think that the election of a Cruz or Rubio—idiots who could easily trigger more war in the Middle East, North Africa or Ukraine, while abetting the further concentration of wealth in the hands of a few, immiserating more millions—could possibly produce a revolutionary situation, where (to paraphrase Lenin) the old system can’t continue in the old way, the masses can’t live in the old way, and there is revolutionary leadership. But I don’t hope for the election of either; the prospect indeed fills me with dread. Because I see no genuinely revolutionary party on the horizon remotely capable of effectively communicating with, much less leading the masses. I only see left sects trailing after each new mass movement, like Occupy or Black Lives Matter, striving to lead, recruiting a few new followers here and there, but more often than not alienating those they seek to influence by their wooden dogmatism, antiquated rhetoric, personality cults, lack of strategy and (often) the haggard zombie-like affect of their members trying to recruit. On the other hand there is Sanders, a European-style social democrat calling for a “political revolution” and energizing the young generation to support him. In U.S. political history, this is not insignificant. Nor is it principally a bad thing. The Sanders campaign, whatever else it is, is a sign that young people are becoming okay with (some concept of) socialism. That can only be good for those seeing themselves as advocates of “real” socialism. Gary Leupp is Professor of History at Tufts University, and holds a secondary appointment in the Department of Religion. He is the author of Servants, Shophands and Laborers in in the Cities of Tokugawa Japan; Male Colors: The Construction of Homosexuality in Tokugawa Japan; and Interracial Intimacy in Japan: Western Men and Japanese Women, 1543-1900. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion, (AK Press). He can be reached at: gleupp at tufts.edu ### -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Mon Nov 13 20:16:39 2017 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2017 14:16:39 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Cornel West--The Real Deal! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <18583CB8-36BA-4067-8230-E99BE7CDBFB8@gmail.com> Francis-- West - once a fervent supporter of Obama - has spoken up on important matters, as you say. But the RCP group assert “Trump is the problem," like the War Party. And their ‘communism’ seems a matter of fashionable identity (not class) politics. The task remains to build opposition to neoconservatism (more war) and neoliberalism (more inequality). I don’t think RCP/Refuse Fascism does that. Regards, Carl > On Nov 13, 2017, at 1:53 PM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: > > Excuse me! I don’t know Avakian personally. But I do know Cornel. HE IS THE REAL DEAL! Back in the early 1980s Cornel and I were on a Panel together on behalf of the Palestinians when he was a mere assistant professor without tenure at Princeton. I was amazed at what Cornel was saying for the Palestinians and against Israel. I thought it was suicidal for someone who did not yet have tenure in the Zionized world of American Academia. Cornel did not care one whit and forthrightly Spoke Truth To Power like I did, but by then I had tenure here on a negotiated 3 year deal because I knew what I was going to do. As I said before, the Acid Test of your Courage, your Integrity and your Principles has always been where you stood on the Palestinians. Cornel passed that test with flying colors from the very get-go of his academic career even at grave risk to getting tenure. Fab. > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign, IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) > > From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] > Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 1:37 PM > To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: David Green ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay ; David Johnson ; Mildred O'brien > Subject: 'Refuse Fascism' & Bob Avakian's RCP > > [1] 'Refuse Fascism’: > > [2] Gary Leupp discussed Avakian’s ‘Revolutionary Communist Party’ two years ago, in the context of a consideration of Sanders’ campaign: > ======================== > Counterpunch | February 5, 2016 > > "Is a ‘Socialist' Really Unelectable? The Potential Significance of the Sanders Campaign” > > ...The Revolutionary Communist Party contends: “The Bernie Sanders campaign—like those of every candidate who the ruling class allows to be taken seriously—essentially takes as its starting point stabilizing, strengthening, and ultimately enforcing the whole structure of a world dominated, exploited, and oppressed by the U.S. empire. And telling people that those interests are their interests.” > > And: “Throw off your blinders and get into BA [RCP chair Bob Avakian]! A whole better world really is possible and you need to be part of the solution and not—like Bernie Sanders—part of the problem.” > > What is more important now: sectarian sniping or popularizing an ideal? > > Reading these ringing declarations by left sects, I think to myself: What is more important? To broadcast to people what they already know—that Sanders’ conception of “socialism” is really Scandinavian-style capitalism (capitalism with a “human face”) and not socialism in the Marxian sense, which results from the overthrow of the capitalist class? > > Or: to note and appreciate the historical significance of Sanders’ campaign in returning the very term “socialism” to public discourse and emboldening people to openly identify with a concept anathema to Wall Street, the 1%, and the entire (widely hated) political establishment? > > Cornel West appears to choose the latter option. This is all the more interesting in that he has been friendly for years with the RCP that’s trashing Bernie while West stumps for him. The irony is that the above-mentioned Avakian owes West big time. > > Chairman Bob left the U.S. in 1980 for Paris and was not seen again in public until, with great fanfare, his party announced in 2003 that he had given talks on the East and West Coast and that these were available for purchase on DVD. It was not clear then or now that Avakian had permanently returned to the U.S. from Paris; the RCP refuses to comment on his whereabouts. But since few had seen him for twenty-three years, his sudden reappearance if only on video was a cause of jubilation among his followers. > > Cornel West wrote words of praise for Avakian (as a “long-distance runner in the freedom struggle against imperialism, racism and capitalism”) that appeared as a blurb on the cover of his autobiography published in 2005. (Notice the similarity to his recent description of Sanders.) > > He signed a statement in 2007 that appeared in the New York Review of Books—“Dangerous times demand courageous voices. Bob Avakian is such a voice.” The expensive ad was essentially designed to show anyone interested that Avakian had lots of well-known friends and that if the state went after him, they would have his back. Many intellectuals asked to sign, including Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky (not to mention myself), politely declined, noting that Avakian was under no specific legal threat and that the ad seemed designed to imply that he was in order to get signers to publicly aver that they “have come away from encounters with Avakian provoked and enriched in our own thinking,” declare that his “ability…to freely function” was “a concern,” urged that people “engage with the thoughts of Bob Avakian and bring them into what needs to be a rich and diverse dialogue,” and “[serve] notice to this government that we intend to defend” Avakian’s rights “to freely advocate and organize for his views.” > > West was one of the signatories. West also urged support for RCP bus tour in 2012 designed to promote Avakian and interviewed him for a PRI radio program in 2013. > > But the slowly resurfacing Avakian hadn’t given a public talk since 1980. As I understand it, the plan was for a dramatic Second Coming at a prestigious venue in the company of well-known public intellectual. Thus in November 2014 West joined Avakian for a “dialogue on revolution and religion” at the historic Riverside Church in Harlem. An overflow crowd heard the long-winded Avakian preach for two hours, interrupted increasingly by calls from the crowd for him to wrap up and let West take the podium. West spoke about half an hour, and then there were questions from the audience. > > It wasn’t really a dialogue, and had little analytical content, but that was probably not the point. “BA”—as he’s affectionately called by adherents of his cult (officially, the “culture of appreciation, promotion and popularization” of a man the RCP officially describes as “a rare and precious leader” who as “as simple fact” is the only person who could have developed Marxism such that “today being a communist means following Bob Avakian and the new path that he has forged”) had shown that he was real and ready for prime time. > > In sum: West has helped midwife the public rebirth of BA, who thinks Sanders is in the enemy camp. But West is a far firmer ally of Sanders than he is of “the rare and precious leader.” > > Who’s got blinders on? > > What does it tell us that even the public intellectual closest to the RCP—someone who longs for a revolutionary uprising as much as Avakian—is implicitly denounced by the RCP as “part of the problem” by supporting Sanders? It shows that the party is totally out of touch with reality. All it can do is say “drop your blinders and get into BA!” > > And the other radical left sects tend to similarly dismiss or attack the Sanders campaign as being short of really revolutionary, really socialist. As though there’s any party out there really rooted in the masses, able to develop what Mao called the “mass line”—any party whose burning potential is being stymied by Bernie’s sudden popularity! > > West’s endorsement of “Brother Bernie” is in his words “not an affirmation of the neo-liberal Democratic Party or a downplaying of the ugly Israeli occupation of the Palestinians” (which Sanders has not significantly opposed). Of course not. It’s a gamble that Sanders’ ongoing attack on Wall Street and open acknowledgement of a “democratic socialist” identity will lead to an electoral victory that will curb the power of the top stratum of capitalist parasites and diminish the prospects for more imperialist war. > > Such a result would not (of course) constitute socialism. It would not mean a real “revolution” in the Leninist sense. It might be a replay of Roosevelt and the New Deal (a series of measures largely designed to prevent a revolution in this country in the 1930s). But should we prefer to that outcome a victory of a Clinton or Cruz—-on the premise that such a presidency would exacerbate social contradictions to the point where the people (under the leadership of rare and precious leaders leading tiny sects whose rank-and-file members spout rhetoric they themselves hardly understand) will rise up in a repeat of the Bolshevik Revolution? > > In 1980 at age 24, already filled with contempt at the whole U.S. electoral process and viscerally opposed to any participation in it, I compared Carter and Reagan and hoped Reagan would win. Because I thought Reagan would so provoke the masses by his vicious cuts in social spending and his crazed Cold War mentality that his election would hasten the day of the needed revolution. I was overly optimistic and badly mistaken. > > These days I think that the election of a Cruz or Rubio—idiots who could easily trigger more war in the Middle East, North Africa or Ukraine, while abetting the further concentration of wealth in the hands of a few, immiserating more millions—could possibly produce a revolutionary situation, where (to paraphrase Lenin) the old system can’t continue in the old way, the masses can’t live in the old way, and there is revolutionary leadership. But I don’t hope for the election of either; the prospect indeed fills me with dread. > > Because I see no genuinely revolutionary party on the horizon remotely capable of effectively communicating with, much less leading the masses. I only see left sects trailing after each new mass movement, like Occupy or Black Lives Matter, striving to lead, recruiting a few new followers here and there, but more often than not alienating those they seek to influence by their wooden dogmatism, antiquated rhetoric, personality cults, lack of strategy and (often) the haggard zombie-like affect of their members trying to recruit. > > On the other hand there is Sanders, a European-style social democrat calling for a “political revolution” and energizing the young generation to support him. In U.S. political history, this is not insignificant. Nor is it principally a bad thing. The Sanders campaign, whatever else it is, is a sign that young people are becoming okay with (some concept of) socialism. That can only be good for those seeing themselves as advocates of “real” socialism. > > > Gary Leupp is Professor of History at Tufts University, and holds a secondary appointment in the Department of Religion. He is the author of Servants, Shophands and Laborers in in the Cities of Tokugawa Japan; Male Colors: The Construction of Homosexuality in Tokugawa Japan; and Interracial Intimacy in Japan: Western Men and Japanese Women, 1543-1900. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion, (AK Press). He can be reached at: gleupp at tufts.edu > > ### > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss From cgestabrook at gmail.com Mon Nov 13 20:16:39 2017 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2017 14:16:39 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Cornel West--The Real Deal! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <18583CB8-36BA-4067-8230-E99BE7CDBFB8@gmail.com> Francis-- West - once a fervent supporter of Obama - has spoken up on important matters, as you say. But the RCP group assert “Trump is the problem," like the War Party. And their ‘communism’ seems a matter of fashionable identity (not class) politics. The task remains to build opposition to neoconservatism (more war) and neoliberalism (more inequality). I don’t think RCP/Refuse Fascism does that. Regards, Carl > On Nov 13, 2017, at 1:53 PM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: > > Excuse me! I don’t know Avakian personally. But I do know Cornel. HE IS THE REAL DEAL! Back in the early 1980s Cornel and I were on a Panel together on behalf of the Palestinians when he was a mere assistant professor without tenure at Princeton. I was amazed at what Cornel was saying for the Palestinians and against Israel. I thought it was suicidal for someone who did not yet have tenure in the Zionized world of American Academia. Cornel did not care one whit and forthrightly Spoke Truth To Power like I did, but by then I had tenure here on a negotiated 3 year deal because I knew what I was going to do. As I said before, the Acid Test of your Courage, your Integrity and your Principles has always been where you stood on the Palestinians. Cornel passed that test with flying colors from the very get-go of his academic career even at grave risk to getting tenure. Fab. > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign, IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) > > From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] > Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 1:37 PM > To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: David Green ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay ; David Johnson ; Mildred O'brien > Subject: 'Refuse Fascism' & Bob Avakian's RCP > > [1] 'Refuse Fascism’: > > [2] Gary Leupp discussed Avakian’s ‘Revolutionary Communist Party’ two years ago, in the context of a consideration of Sanders’ campaign: > ======================== > Counterpunch | February 5, 2016 > > "Is a ‘Socialist' Really Unelectable? The Potential Significance of the Sanders Campaign” > > ...The Revolutionary Communist Party contends: “The Bernie Sanders campaign—like those of every candidate who the ruling class allows to be taken seriously—essentially takes as its starting point stabilizing, strengthening, and ultimately enforcing the whole structure of a world dominated, exploited, and oppressed by the U.S. empire. And telling people that those interests are their interests.” > > And: “Throw off your blinders and get into BA [RCP chair Bob Avakian]! A whole better world really is possible and you need to be part of the solution and not—like Bernie Sanders—part of the problem.” > > What is more important now: sectarian sniping or popularizing an ideal? > > Reading these ringing declarations by left sects, I think to myself: What is more important? To broadcast to people what they already know—that Sanders’ conception of “socialism” is really Scandinavian-style capitalism (capitalism with a “human face”) and not socialism in the Marxian sense, which results from the overthrow of the capitalist class? > > Or: to note and appreciate the historical significance of Sanders’ campaign in returning the very term “socialism” to public discourse and emboldening people to openly identify with a concept anathema to Wall Street, the 1%, and the entire (widely hated) political establishment? > > Cornel West appears to choose the latter option. This is all the more interesting in that he has been friendly for years with the RCP that’s trashing Bernie while West stumps for him. The irony is that the above-mentioned Avakian owes West big time. > > Chairman Bob left the U.S. in 1980 for Paris and was not seen again in public until, with great fanfare, his party announced in 2003 that he had given talks on the East and West Coast and that these were available for purchase on DVD. It was not clear then or now that Avakian had permanently returned to the U.S. from Paris; the RCP refuses to comment on his whereabouts. But since few had seen him for twenty-three years, his sudden reappearance if only on video was a cause of jubilation among his followers. > > Cornel West wrote words of praise for Avakian (as a “long-distance runner in the freedom struggle against imperialism, racism and capitalism”) that appeared as a blurb on the cover of his autobiography published in 2005. (Notice the similarity to his recent description of Sanders.) > > He signed a statement in 2007 that appeared in the New York Review of Books—“Dangerous times demand courageous voices. Bob Avakian is such a voice.” The expensive ad was essentially designed to show anyone interested that Avakian had lots of well-known friends and that if the state went after him, they would have his back. Many intellectuals asked to sign, including Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky (not to mention myself), politely declined, noting that Avakian was under no specific legal threat and that the ad seemed designed to imply that he was in order to get signers to publicly aver that they “have come away from encounters with Avakian provoked and enriched in our own thinking,” declare that his “ability…to freely function” was “a concern,” urged that people “engage with the thoughts of Bob Avakian and bring them into what needs to be a rich and diverse dialogue,” and “[serve] notice to this government that we intend to defend” Avakian’s rights “to freely advocate and organize for his views.” > > West was one of the signatories. West also urged support for RCP bus tour in 2012 designed to promote Avakian and interviewed him for a PRI radio program in 2013. > > But the slowly resurfacing Avakian hadn’t given a public talk since 1980. As I understand it, the plan was for a dramatic Second Coming at a prestigious venue in the company of well-known public intellectual. Thus in November 2014 West joined Avakian for a “dialogue on revolution and religion” at the historic Riverside Church in Harlem. An overflow crowd heard the long-winded Avakian preach for two hours, interrupted increasingly by calls from the crowd for him to wrap up and let West take the podium. West spoke about half an hour, and then there were questions from the audience. > > It wasn’t really a dialogue, and had little analytical content, but that was probably not the point. “BA”—as he’s affectionately called by adherents of his cult (officially, the “culture of appreciation, promotion and popularization” of a man the RCP officially describes as “a rare and precious leader” who as “as simple fact” is the only person who could have developed Marxism such that “today being a communist means following Bob Avakian and the new path that he has forged”) had shown that he was real and ready for prime time. > > In sum: West has helped midwife the public rebirth of BA, who thinks Sanders is in the enemy camp. But West is a far firmer ally of Sanders than he is of “the rare and precious leader.” > > Who’s got blinders on? > > What does it tell us that even the public intellectual closest to the RCP—someone who longs for a revolutionary uprising as much as Avakian—is implicitly denounced by the RCP as “part of the problem” by supporting Sanders? It shows that the party is totally out of touch with reality. All it can do is say “drop your blinders and get into BA!” > > And the other radical left sects tend to similarly dismiss or attack the Sanders campaign as being short of really revolutionary, really socialist. As though there’s any party out there really rooted in the masses, able to develop what Mao called the “mass line”—any party whose burning potential is being stymied by Bernie’s sudden popularity! > > West’s endorsement of “Brother Bernie” is in his words “not an affirmation of the neo-liberal Democratic Party or a downplaying of the ugly Israeli occupation of the Palestinians” (which Sanders has not significantly opposed). Of course not. It’s a gamble that Sanders’ ongoing attack on Wall Street and open acknowledgement of a “democratic socialist” identity will lead to an electoral victory that will curb the power of the top stratum of capitalist parasites and diminish the prospects for more imperialist war. > > Such a result would not (of course) constitute socialism. It would not mean a real “revolution” in the Leninist sense. It might be a replay of Roosevelt and the New Deal (a series of measures largely designed to prevent a revolution in this country in the 1930s). But should we prefer to that outcome a victory of a Clinton or Cruz—-on the premise that such a presidency would exacerbate social contradictions to the point where the people (under the leadership of rare and precious leaders leading tiny sects whose rank-and-file members spout rhetoric they themselves hardly understand) will rise up in a repeat of the Bolshevik Revolution? > > In 1980 at age 24, already filled with contempt at the whole U.S. electoral process and viscerally opposed to any participation in it, I compared Carter and Reagan and hoped Reagan would win. Because I thought Reagan would so provoke the masses by his vicious cuts in social spending and his crazed Cold War mentality that his election would hasten the day of the needed revolution. I was overly optimistic and badly mistaken. > > These days I think that the election of a Cruz or Rubio—idiots who could easily trigger more war in the Middle East, North Africa or Ukraine, while abetting the further concentration of wealth in the hands of a few, immiserating more millions—could possibly produce a revolutionary situation, where (to paraphrase Lenin) the old system can’t continue in the old way, the masses can’t live in the old way, and there is revolutionary leadership. But I don’t hope for the election of either; the prospect indeed fills me with dread. > > Because I see no genuinely revolutionary party on the horizon remotely capable of effectively communicating with, much less leading the masses. I only see left sects trailing after each new mass movement, like Occupy or Black Lives Matter, striving to lead, recruiting a few new followers here and there, but more often than not alienating those they seek to influence by their wooden dogmatism, antiquated rhetoric, personality cults, lack of strategy and (often) the haggard zombie-like affect of their members trying to recruit. > > On the other hand there is Sanders, a European-style social democrat calling for a “political revolution” and energizing the young generation to support him. In U.S. political history, this is not insignificant. Nor is it principally a bad thing. The Sanders campaign, whatever else it is, is a sign that young people are becoming okay with (some concept of) socialism. That can only be good for those seeing themselves as advocates of “real” socialism. > > > Gary Leupp is Professor of History at Tufts University, and holds a secondary appointment in the Department of Religion. He is the author of Servants, Shophands and Laborers in in the Cities of Tokugawa Japan; Male Colors: The Construction of Homosexuality in Tokugawa Japan; and Interracial Intimacy in Japan: Western Men and Japanese Women, 1543-1900. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion, (AK Press). He can be reached at: gleupp at tufts.edu > > ### > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss From kmedina67 at gmail.com Mon Nov 13 20:25:48 2017 From: kmedina67 at gmail.com (Karen Medina) Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2017 14:25:48 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Cornel West--The Real Deal! In-Reply-To: <18583CB8-36BA-4067-8230-E99BE7CDBFB8@gmail.com> References: <18583CB8-36BA-4067-8230-E99BE7CDBFB8@gmail.com> Message-ID: Carl, Every time I heard Cornel West, he was not supporting Obama. And that included during the first Obama campaign for president. He was a consistent critic of Obama from the beginning. I agree with FAB. From fboyle at illinois.edu Mon Nov 13 20:30:15 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2017 20:30:15 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Cornel West--The Real Deal! In-Reply-To: <18583CB8-36BA-4067-8230-E99BE7CDBFB8@gmail.com> References: <18583CB8-36BA-4067-8230-E99BE7CDBFB8@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Friday I gave them permission to use my Statement against USA waging war against DPRK in their Nationwide Protests on Saturday, Nov. 11. Did anyone watch on the Tube over the weekend the massive Armada that Trump has assembled off Korea that is now on war maneuvers starting on Saturday, Nov. 11: "... Anything can go wrong. Thank you so much for being here today to prevent World War III." Fab. Subject: [SECTNS.aals] - Statement for Chicago Peace Rally Today against threatened USA War Against North Korea. Ok. Here is a Statement below dealing with the legal aspects of the situation. Thanks for doing this protest. Fab. 1. The US government threats of “preventive warfare” against DPRK are illegal and criminal. The Nuremberg Tribunal in their Judgment of 1946, which the US helped organize, condemned “preventive war” when the Lawyers for the Nazis made the argument on their behalf. This is an illegal and criminal threat in violation of international law. According to the World Court in its Advisory Opinion (1996) on the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, the legality vel non of a threat stands or falls on the same legal grounds as if the threat were carried out. 2. The repeated US government threats to “destroy” or “annihilate” DPRK are an international crime under the 1948 Genocide Convention to which the United States is a party. These genocidal threats are also illegal and criminal under the rationale of the 1996 World Court Advisory Opinion mentioned above. 3. The United States has an absolute obligation under UN Charter article 2(3) and article 33 to open “negotiation” with DPRK in good faith in order to produce a peace resolution of this dispute. Instead, the US government has repeatedly rejected these obligations under the UN Charter. 4. The proposal by Russia and China for a “dual-freeze” is an excellent basis to produce good faith and direct negotiations between USA and DPRK as required by the UN Charter. 5. The United States is deliberately provoking DPRK, ratcheting up these provocations in the hope that they will provoke the DPRK to commit an act of aggression against the United States that the USA can then use as a pretext for war. Pursuant to the terms of their mutual self-defense treaty, China has stated that if the US attacks first it will defend DPRK, but that if DPRK strikes first, China will remain out of any war. So the United States is trying to provoke DPRK into striking first. 6. It is an extremely dangerous situation. It is really up to the United States to take the first step down the Ladder of Escalation that it has constructed here. Instead it appears that the Trump administration is going to escalate up the Ladder of Escalation in the hope and expectation that DPRK will capitulate. This is what International Political Scientists call a Game of Chicken-- with cosmic consequences. Who will blink first? Anything can go wrong. Thank you so much for being here today to prevent World War III. Francis A. Boyle Professor of Law University of Illinois College of Law Native Chicagoan Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -----Original Message----- From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 2:17 PM To: Boyle, Francis A Cc: Karen Aram ; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; Jay ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; Szoke, Ron ; Joe Lauria ; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; abass10 at gmail.com; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; Arlene Hickory ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Cornel West--The Real Deal! Francis-- West - once a fervent supporter of Obama - has spoken up on important matters, as you say. But the RCP group assert “Trump is the problem," like the War Party. And their ‘communism’ seems a matter of fashionable identity (not class) politics. The task remains to build opposition to neoconservatism (more war) and neoliberalism (more inequality). I don’t think RCP/Refuse Fascism does that. Regards, Carl > On Nov 13, 2017, at 1:53 PM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: > > Excuse me! I don’t know Avakian personally. But I do know Cornel. HE IS THE REAL DEAL! Back in the early 1980s Cornel and I were on a Panel together on behalf of the Palestinians when he was a mere assistant professor without tenure at Princeton. I was amazed at what Cornel was saying for the Palestinians and against Israel. I thought it was suicidal for someone who did not yet have tenure in the Zionized world of American Academia. Cornel did not care one whit and forthrightly Spoke Truth To Power like I did, but by then I had tenure here on a negotiated 3 year deal because I knew what I was going to do. As I said before, the Acid Test of your Courage, your Integrity and your Principles has always been where you stood on the Palestinians. Cornel passed that test with flying colors from the very get-go of his academic career even at grave risk to getting tenure. Fab. > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign, IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) > > From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] > Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 1:37 PM > To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: David Green ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay ; David Johnson ; Mildred O'brien > Subject: 'Refuse Fascism' & Bob Avakian's RCP > > [1] 'Refuse Fascism’: > > [2] Gary Leupp discussed Avakian’s ‘Revolutionary Communist Party’ two years ago, in the context of a consideration of Sanders’ campaign: > ======================== > Counterpunch | February 5, 2016 > > "Is a ‘Socialist' Really Unelectable? The Potential Significance of the Sanders Campaign” > > ...The Revolutionary Communist Party contends: “The Bernie Sanders campaign—like those of every candidate who the ruling class allows to be taken seriously—essentially takes as its starting point stabilizing, strengthening, and ultimately enforcing the whole structure of a world dominated, exploited, and oppressed by the U.S. empire. And telling people that those interests are their interests.” > > And: “Throw off your blinders and get into BA [RCP chair Bob Avakian]! A whole better world really is possible and you need to be part of the solution and not—like Bernie Sanders—part of the problem.” > > What is more important now: sectarian sniping or popularizing an ideal? > > Reading these ringing declarations by left sects, I think to myself: What is more important? To broadcast to people what they already know—that Sanders’ conception of “socialism” is really Scandinavian-style capitalism (capitalism with a “human face”) and not socialism in the Marxian sense, which results from the overthrow of the capitalist class? > > Or: to note and appreciate the historical significance of Sanders’ campaign in returning the very term “socialism” to public discourse and emboldening people to openly identify with a concept anathema to Wall Street, the 1%, and the entire (widely hated) political establishment? > > Cornel West appears to choose the latter option. This is all the more interesting in that he has been friendly for years with the RCP that’s trashing Bernie while West stumps for him. The irony is that the above-mentioned Avakian owes West big time. > > Chairman Bob left the U.S. in 1980 for Paris and was not seen again in public until, with great fanfare, his party announced in 2003 that he had given talks on the East and West Coast and that these were available for purchase on DVD. It was not clear then or now that Avakian had permanently returned to the U.S. from Paris; the RCP refuses to comment on his whereabouts. But since few had seen him for twenty-three years, his sudden reappearance if only on video was a cause of jubilation among his followers. > > Cornel West wrote words of praise for Avakian (as a “long-distance runner in the freedom struggle against imperialism, racism and capitalism”) that appeared as a blurb on the cover of his autobiography published in 2005. (Notice the similarity to his recent description of Sanders.) > > He signed a statement in 2007 that appeared in the New York Review of Books—“Dangerous times demand courageous voices. Bob Avakian is such a voice.” The expensive ad was essentially designed to show anyone interested that Avakian had lots of well-known friends and that if the state went after him, they would have his back. Many intellectuals asked to sign, including Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky (not to mention myself), politely declined, noting that Avakian was under no specific legal threat and that the ad seemed designed to imply that he was in order to get signers to publicly aver that they “have come away from encounters with Avakian provoked and enriched in our own thinking,” declare that his “ability…to freely function” was “a concern,” urged that people “engage with the thoughts of Bob Avakian and bring them into what needs to be a rich and diverse dialogue,” and “[serve] notice to this government that we intend to defend” Avakian’s rights “to freely advocate and organize for his views.” > > West was one of the signatories. West also urged support for RCP bus tour in 2012 designed to promote Avakian and interviewed him for a PRI radio program in 2013. > > But the slowly resurfacing Avakian hadn’t given a public talk since 1980. As I understand it, the plan was for a dramatic Second Coming at a prestigious venue in the company of well-known public intellectual. Thus in November 2014 West joined Avakian for a “dialogue on revolution and religion” at the historic Riverside Church in Harlem. An overflow crowd heard the long-winded Avakian preach for two hours, interrupted increasingly by calls from the crowd for him to wrap up and let West take the podium. West spoke about half an hour, and then there were questions from the audience. > > It wasn’t really a dialogue, and had little analytical content, but that was probably not the point. “BA”—as he’s affectionately called by adherents of his cult (officially, the “culture of appreciation, promotion and popularization” of a man the RCP officially describes as “a rare and precious leader” who as “as simple fact” is the only person who could have developed Marxism such that “today being a communist means following Bob Avakian and the new path that he has forged”) had shown that he was real and ready for prime time. > > In sum: West has helped midwife the public rebirth of BA, who thinks Sanders is in the enemy camp. But West is a far firmer ally of Sanders than he is of “the rare and precious leader.” > > Who’s got blinders on? > > What does it tell us that even the public intellectual closest to the RCP—someone who longs for a revolutionary uprising as much as Avakian—is implicitly denounced by the RCP as “part of the problem” by supporting Sanders? It shows that the party is totally out of touch with reality. All it can do is say “drop your blinders and get into BA!” > > And the other radical left sects tend to similarly dismiss or attack the Sanders campaign as being short of really revolutionary, really socialist. As though there’s any party out there really rooted in the masses, able to develop what Mao called the “mass line”—any party whose burning potential is being stymied by Bernie’s sudden popularity! > > West’s endorsement of “Brother Bernie” is in his words “not an affirmation of the neo-liberal Democratic Party or a downplaying of the ugly Israeli occupation of the Palestinians” (which Sanders has not significantly opposed). Of course not. It’s a gamble that Sanders’ ongoing attack on Wall Street and open acknowledgement of a “democratic socialist” identity will lead to an electoral victory that will curb the power of the top stratum of capitalist parasites and diminish the prospects for more imperialist war. > > Such a result would not (of course) constitute socialism. It would not mean a real “revolution” in the Leninist sense. It might be a replay of Roosevelt and the New Deal (a series of measures largely designed to prevent a revolution in this country in the 1930s). But should we prefer to that outcome a victory of a Clinton or Cruz—-on the premise that such a presidency would exacerbate social contradictions to the point where the people (under the leadership of rare and precious leaders leading tiny sects whose rank-and-file members spout rhetoric they themselves hardly understand) will rise up in a repeat of the Bolshevik Revolution? > > In 1980 at age 24, already filled with contempt at the whole U.S. electoral process and viscerally opposed to any participation in it, I compared Carter and Reagan and hoped Reagan would win. Because I thought Reagan would so provoke the masses by his vicious cuts in social spending and his crazed Cold War mentality that his election would hasten the day of the needed revolution. I was overly optimistic and badly mistaken. > > These days I think that the election of a Cruz or Rubio—idiots who could easily trigger more war in the Middle East, North Africa or Ukraine, while abetting the further concentration of wealth in the hands of a few, immiserating more millions—could possibly produce a revolutionary situation, where (to paraphrase Lenin) the old system can’t continue in the old way, the masses can’t live in the old way, and there is revolutionary leadership. But I don’t hope for the election of either; the prospect indeed fills me with dread. > > Because I see no genuinely revolutionary party on the horizon remotely capable of effectively communicating with, much less leading the masses. I only see left sects trailing after each new mass movement, like Occupy or Black Lives Matter, striving to lead, recruiting a few new followers here and there, but more often than not alienating those they seek to influence by their wooden dogmatism, antiquated rhetoric, personality cults, lack of strategy and (often) the haggard zombie-like affect of their members trying to recruit. > > On the other hand there is Sanders, a European-style social democrat calling for a “political revolution” and energizing the young generation to support him. In U.S. political history, this is not insignificant. Nor is it principally a bad thing. The Sanders campaign, whatever else it is, is a sign that young people are becoming okay with (some concept of) socialism. That can only be good for those seeing themselves as advocates of “real” socialism. > > > Gary Leupp is Professor of History at Tufts University, and holds a secondary appointment in the Department of Religion. He is the author of Servants, Shophands and Laborers in in the Cities of Tokugawa Japan; Male Colors: The Construction of Homosexuality in Tokugawa Japan; and Interracial Intimacy in Japan: Western Men and Japanese Women, 1543-1900. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion, (AK Press). He can be reached at: gleupp at tufts.edu > > ### > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss From fboyle at illinois.edu Mon Nov 13 20:30:15 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2017 20:30:15 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Cornel West--The Real Deal! In-Reply-To: <18583CB8-36BA-4067-8230-E99BE7CDBFB8@gmail.com> References: <18583CB8-36BA-4067-8230-E99BE7CDBFB8@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Friday I gave them permission to use my Statement against USA waging war against DPRK in their Nationwide Protests on Saturday, Nov. 11. Did anyone watch on the Tube over the weekend the massive Armada that Trump has assembled off Korea that is now on war maneuvers starting on Saturday, Nov. 11: "... Anything can go wrong. Thank you so much for being here today to prevent World War III." Fab. Subject: [SECTNS.aals] - Statement for Chicago Peace Rally Today against threatened USA War Against North Korea. Ok. Here is a Statement below dealing with the legal aspects of the situation. Thanks for doing this protest. Fab. 1. The US government threats of “preventive warfare” against DPRK are illegal and criminal. The Nuremberg Tribunal in their Judgment of 1946, which the US helped organize, condemned “preventive war” when the Lawyers for the Nazis made the argument on their behalf. This is an illegal and criminal threat in violation of international law. According to the World Court in its Advisory Opinion (1996) on the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, the legality vel non of a threat stands or falls on the same legal grounds as if the threat were carried out. 2. The repeated US government threats to “destroy” or “annihilate” DPRK are an international crime under the 1948 Genocide Convention to which the United States is a party. These genocidal threats are also illegal and criminal under the rationale of the 1996 World Court Advisory Opinion mentioned above. 3. The United States has an absolute obligation under UN Charter article 2(3) and article 33 to open “negotiation” with DPRK in good faith in order to produce a peace resolution of this dispute. Instead, the US government has repeatedly rejected these obligations under the UN Charter. 4. The proposal by Russia and China for a “dual-freeze” is an excellent basis to produce good faith and direct negotiations between USA and DPRK as required by the UN Charter. 5. The United States is deliberately provoking DPRK, ratcheting up these provocations in the hope that they will provoke the DPRK to commit an act of aggression against the United States that the USA can then use as a pretext for war. Pursuant to the terms of their mutual self-defense treaty, China has stated that if the US attacks first it will defend DPRK, but that if DPRK strikes first, China will remain out of any war. So the United States is trying to provoke DPRK into striking first. 6. It is an extremely dangerous situation. It is really up to the United States to take the first step down the Ladder of Escalation that it has constructed here. Instead it appears that the Trump administration is going to escalate up the Ladder of Escalation in the hope and expectation that DPRK will capitulate. This is what International Political Scientists call a Game of Chicken-- with cosmic consequences. Who will blink first? Anything can go wrong. Thank you so much for being here today to prevent World War III. Francis A. Boyle Professor of Law University of Illinois College of Law Native Chicagoan Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -----Original Message----- From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 2:17 PM To: Boyle, Francis A Cc: Karen Aram ; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; Jay ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; Szoke, Ron ; Joe Lauria ; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; abass10 at gmail.com; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; Arlene Hickory ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Cornel West--The Real Deal! Francis-- West - once a fervent supporter of Obama - has spoken up on important matters, as you say. But the RCP group assert “Trump is the problem," like the War Party. And their ‘communism’ seems a matter of fashionable identity (not class) politics. The task remains to build opposition to neoconservatism (more war) and neoliberalism (more inequality). I don’t think RCP/Refuse Fascism does that. Regards, Carl > On Nov 13, 2017, at 1:53 PM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: > > Excuse me! I don’t know Avakian personally. But I do know Cornel. HE IS THE REAL DEAL! Back in the early 1980s Cornel and I were on a Panel together on behalf of the Palestinians when he was a mere assistant professor without tenure at Princeton. I was amazed at what Cornel was saying for the Palestinians and against Israel. I thought it was suicidal for someone who did not yet have tenure in the Zionized world of American Academia. Cornel did not care one whit and forthrightly Spoke Truth To Power like I did, but by then I had tenure here on a negotiated 3 year deal because I knew what I was going to do. As I said before, the Acid Test of your Courage, your Integrity and your Principles has always been where you stood on the Palestinians. Cornel passed that test with flying colors from the very get-go of his academic career even at grave risk to getting tenure. Fab. > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign, IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) > > From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] > Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 1:37 PM > To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: David Green ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay ; David Johnson ; Mildred O'brien > Subject: 'Refuse Fascism' & Bob Avakian's RCP > > [1] 'Refuse Fascism’: > > [2] Gary Leupp discussed Avakian’s ‘Revolutionary Communist Party’ two years ago, in the context of a consideration of Sanders’ campaign: > ======================== > Counterpunch | February 5, 2016 > > "Is a ‘Socialist' Really Unelectable? The Potential Significance of the Sanders Campaign” > > ...The Revolutionary Communist Party contends: “The Bernie Sanders campaign—like those of every candidate who the ruling class allows to be taken seriously—essentially takes as its starting point stabilizing, strengthening, and ultimately enforcing the whole structure of a world dominated, exploited, and oppressed by the U.S. empire. And telling people that those interests are their interests.” > > And: “Throw off your blinders and get into BA [RCP chair Bob Avakian]! A whole better world really is possible and you need to be part of the solution and not—like Bernie Sanders—part of the problem.” > > What is more important now: sectarian sniping or popularizing an ideal? > > Reading these ringing declarations by left sects, I think to myself: What is more important? To broadcast to people what they already know—that Sanders’ conception of “socialism” is really Scandinavian-style capitalism (capitalism with a “human face”) and not socialism in the Marxian sense, which results from the overthrow of the capitalist class? > > Or: to note and appreciate the historical significance of Sanders’ campaign in returning the very term “socialism” to public discourse and emboldening people to openly identify with a concept anathema to Wall Street, the 1%, and the entire (widely hated) political establishment? > > Cornel West appears to choose the latter option. This is all the more interesting in that he has been friendly for years with the RCP that’s trashing Bernie while West stumps for him. The irony is that the above-mentioned Avakian owes West big time. > > Chairman Bob left the U.S. in 1980 for Paris and was not seen again in public until, with great fanfare, his party announced in 2003 that he had given talks on the East and West Coast and that these were available for purchase on DVD. It was not clear then or now that Avakian had permanently returned to the U.S. from Paris; the RCP refuses to comment on his whereabouts. But since few had seen him for twenty-three years, his sudden reappearance if only on video was a cause of jubilation among his followers. > > Cornel West wrote words of praise for Avakian (as a “long-distance runner in the freedom struggle against imperialism, racism and capitalism”) that appeared as a blurb on the cover of his autobiography published in 2005. (Notice the similarity to his recent description of Sanders.) > > He signed a statement in 2007 that appeared in the New York Review of Books—“Dangerous times demand courageous voices. Bob Avakian is such a voice.” The expensive ad was essentially designed to show anyone interested that Avakian had lots of well-known friends and that if the state went after him, they would have his back. Many intellectuals asked to sign, including Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky (not to mention myself), politely declined, noting that Avakian was under no specific legal threat and that the ad seemed designed to imply that he was in order to get signers to publicly aver that they “have come away from encounters with Avakian provoked and enriched in our own thinking,” declare that his “ability…to freely function” was “a concern,” urged that people “engage with the thoughts of Bob Avakian and bring them into what needs to be a rich and diverse dialogue,” and “[serve] notice to this government that we intend to defend” Avakian’s rights “to freely advocate and organize for his views.” > > West was one of the signatories. West also urged support for RCP bus tour in 2012 designed to promote Avakian and interviewed him for a PRI radio program in 2013. > > But the slowly resurfacing Avakian hadn’t given a public talk since 1980. As I understand it, the plan was for a dramatic Second Coming at a prestigious venue in the company of well-known public intellectual. Thus in November 2014 West joined Avakian for a “dialogue on revolution and religion” at the historic Riverside Church in Harlem. An overflow crowd heard the long-winded Avakian preach for two hours, interrupted increasingly by calls from the crowd for him to wrap up and let West take the podium. West spoke about half an hour, and then there were questions from the audience. > > It wasn’t really a dialogue, and had little analytical content, but that was probably not the point. “BA”—as he’s affectionately called by adherents of his cult (officially, the “culture of appreciation, promotion and popularization” of a man the RCP officially describes as “a rare and precious leader” who as “as simple fact” is the only person who could have developed Marxism such that “today being a communist means following Bob Avakian and the new path that he has forged”) had shown that he was real and ready for prime time. > > In sum: West has helped midwife the public rebirth of BA, who thinks Sanders is in the enemy camp. But West is a far firmer ally of Sanders than he is of “the rare and precious leader.” > > Who’s got blinders on? > > What does it tell us that even the public intellectual closest to the RCP—someone who longs for a revolutionary uprising as much as Avakian—is implicitly denounced by the RCP as “part of the problem” by supporting Sanders? It shows that the party is totally out of touch with reality. All it can do is say “drop your blinders and get into BA!” > > And the other radical left sects tend to similarly dismiss or attack the Sanders campaign as being short of really revolutionary, really socialist. As though there’s any party out there really rooted in the masses, able to develop what Mao called the “mass line”—any party whose burning potential is being stymied by Bernie’s sudden popularity! > > West’s endorsement of “Brother Bernie” is in his words “not an affirmation of the neo-liberal Democratic Party or a downplaying of the ugly Israeli occupation of the Palestinians” (which Sanders has not significantly opposed). Of course not. It’s a gamble that Sanders’ ongoing attack on Wall Street and open acknowledgement of a “democratic socialist” identity will lead to an electoral victory that will curb the power of the top stratum of capitalist parasites and diminish the prospects for more imperialist war. > > Such a result would not (of course) constitute socialism. It would not mean a real “revolution” in the Leninist sense. It might be a replay of Roosevelt and the New Deal (a series of measures largely designed to prevent a revolution in this country in the 1930s). But should we prefer to that outcome a victory of a Clinton or Cruz—-on the premise that such a presidency would exacerbate social contradictions to the point where the people (under the leadership of rare and precious leaders leading tiny sects whose rank-and-file members spout rhetoric they themselves hardly understand) will rise up in a repeat of the Bolshevik Revolution? > > In 1980 at age 24, already filled with contempt at the whole U.S. electoral process and viscerally opposed to any participation in it, I compared Carter and Reagan and hoped Reagan would win. Because I thought Reagan would so provoke the masses by his vicious cuts in social spending and his crazed Cold War mentality that his election would hasten the day of the needed revolution. I was overly optimistic and badly mistaken. > > These days I think that the election of a Cruz or Rubio—idiots who could easily trigger more war in the Middle East, North Africa or Ukraine, while abetting the further concentration of wealth in the hands of a few, immiserating more millions—could possibly produce a revolutionary situation, where (to paraphrase Lenin) the old system can’t continue in the old way, the masses can’t live in the old way, and there is revolutionary leadership. But I don’t hope for the election of either; the prospect indeed fills me with dread. > > Because I see no genuinely revolutionary party on the horizon remotely capable of effectively communicating with, much less leading the masses. I only see left sects trailing after each new mass movement, like Occupy or Black Lives Matter, striving to lead, recruiting a few new followers here and there, but more often than not alienating those they seek to influence by their wooden dogmatism, antiquated rhetoric, personality cults, lack of strategy and (often) the haggard zombie-like affect of their members trying to recruit. > > On the other hand there is Sanders, a European-style social democrat calling for a “political revolution” and energizing the young generation to support him. In U.S. political history, this is not insignificant. Nor is it principally a bad thing. The Sanders campaign, whatever else it is, is a sign that young people are becoming okay with (some concept of) socialism. That can only be good for those seeing themselves as advocates of “real” socialism. > > > Gary Leupp is Professor of History at Tufts University, and holds a secondary appointment in the Department of Religion. He is the author of Servants, Shophands and Laborers in in the Cities of Tokugawa Japan; Male Colors: The Construction of Homosexuality in Tokugawa Japan; and Interracial Intimacy in Japan: Western Men and Japanese Women, 1543-1900. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion, (AK Press). He can be reached at: gleupp at tufts.edu > > ### > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss From fboyle at illinois.edu Mon Nov 13 20:52:33 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2017 20:52:33 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Cornel West--The Real Deal! Message-ID: Leading the Campaign against my getting tenure here in October 1980 at the start of my third year was a (1) Zionist Law Professor; (2) who was Best Buddies with the Dean; and (3) on the Committee to make the decision. I guess Cornel’s alternative if he had been denied tenure because of his Outspoken Support for the Palestinians and Criticisms of Israel would have been to become a Minister—along the lines of the Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King Junior. Fab. End of The Paper Chase Knowing full well what I intended to do To survive the Jungle of the Academic World Cut a deal to go up for tenure here At the start of my third year Decision to be on Wednesday Mid-October 1980 Just to be sure On the Monday before Had little chat with my Dean I just spoke with my Tax Partner in Boston They would love to have me back So if my Tenure is denied or delayed on Wednesday I will be on the next plane back to Boston on Thursday And you can have all your students back to teach I got it! They have regretted it ever since Tant pis! I was 30 End of The Paper Chase for me Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 1:54 PM To: 'C G Estabrook' Cc: David Green ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay ; David Johnson ; Mildred O'brien Subject: Cornel West--The Real Deal! Excuse me! I don’t know Avakian personally. But I do know Cornel. HE IS THE REAL DEAL! Back in the early 1980s Cornel and I were on a Panel together on behalf of the Palestinians when he was a mere assistant professor without tenure at Princeton. I was amazed at what Cornel was saying for the Palestinians and against Israel. I thought it was suicidal for someone who did not yet have tenure in the Zionized world of American Academia. Cornel did not care one whit and forthrightly Spoke Truth To Power like I did, but by then I had tenure here on a negotiated 3 year deal because I knew what I was going to do. As I said before, the Acid Test of your Courage, your Integrity and your Principles has always been where you stood on the Palestinians. Cornel passed that test with flying colors from the very get-go of his academic career even at grave risk to getting tenure. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 1:37 PM To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: David Green >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien > Subject: 'Refuse Fascism' & Bob Avakian's RCP [1] 'Refuse Fascism’: [2] Gary Leupp discussed Avakian’s ‘Revolutionary Communist Party’ two years ago, in the context of a consideration of Sanders’ campaign: ======================== Counterpunch | February 5, 2016 "Is a ‘Socialist' Really Unelectable? The Potential Significance of the Sanders Campaign” ...The Revolutionary Communist Party contends: “The Bernie Sanders campaign—like those of every candidate who the ruling class allows to be taken seriously—essentially takes as its starting point stabilizing, strengthening, and ultimately enforcing the whole structure of a world dominated, exploited, and oppressed by the U.S. empire. And telling people that those interests are their interests.” And: “Throw off your blinders and get into BA [RCP chair Bob Avakian]! A whole better world really is possible and you need to be part of the solution and not—like Bernie Sanders—part of the problem.” What is more important now: sectarian sniping or popularizing an ideal? Reading these ringing declarations by left sects, I think to myself: What is more important? To broadcast to people what they already know—that Sanders’ conception of “socialism” is really Scandinavian-style capitalism (capitalism with a “human face”) and not socialism in the Marxian sense, which results from the overthrow of the capitalist class? Or: to note and appreciate the historical significance of Sanders’ campaign in returning the very term “socialism” to public discourse and emboldening people to openly identify with a concept anathema to Wall Street, the 1%, and the entire (widely hated) political establishment? Cornel West appears to choose the latter option. This is all the more interesting in that he has been friendly for years with the RCP that’s trashing Bernie while West stumps for him. The irony is that the above-mentioned Avakian owes West big time. Chairman Bob left the U.S. in 1980 for Paris and was not seen again in public until, with great fanfare, his party announced in 2003 that he had given talks on the East and West Coast and that these were available for purchase on DVD. It was not clear then or now that Avakian had permanently returned to the U.S. from Paris; the RCP refuses to comment on his whereabouts. But since few had seen him for twenty-three years, his sudden reappearance if only on video was a cause of jubilation among his followers. Cornel West wrote words of praise for Avakian (as a “long-distance runner in the freedom struggle against imperialism, racism and capitalism”) that appeared as a blurb on the cover of his autobiography published in 2005. (Notice the similarity to his recent description of Sanders.) He signed a statement in 2007 that appeared in the New York Review of Books—“Dangerous times demand courageous voices. Bob Avakian is such a voice.” The expensive ad was essentially designed to show anyone interested that Avakian had lots of well-known friends and that if the state went after him, they would have his back. Many intellectuals asked to sign, including Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky (not to mention myself), politely declined, noting that Avakian was under no specific legal threat and that the ad seemed designed to imply that he was in order to get signers to publicly aver that they “have come away from encounters with Avakian provoked and enriched in our own thinking,” declare that his “ability…to freely function” was “a concern,” urged that people “engage with the thoughts of Bob Avakian and bring them into what needs to be a rich and diverse dialogue,” and “[serve] notice to this government that we intend to defend” Avakian’s rights “to freely advocate and organize for his views.” West was one of the signatories. West also urged support for RCP bus tour in 2012 designed to promote Avakian and interviewed him for a PRI radio program in 2013. But the slowly resurfacing Avakian hadn’t given a public talk since 1980. As I understand it, the plan was for a dramatic Second Coming at a prestigious venue in the company of well-known public intellectual. Thus in November 2014 West joined Avakian for a “dialogue on revolution and religion” at the historic Riverside Church in Harlem. An overflow crowd heard the long-winded Avakian preach for two hours, interrupted increasingly by calls from the crowd for him to wrap up and let West take the podium. West spoke about half an hour, and then there were questions from the audience. It wasn’t really a dialogue, and had little analytical content, but that was probably not the point. “BA”—as he’s affectionately called by adherents of his cult (officially, the “culture of appreciation, promotion and popularization” of a man the RCP officially describes as “a rare and precious leader” who as “as simple fact” is the only person who could have developed Marxism such that “today being a communist means following Bob Avakian and the new path that he has forged”) had shown that he was real and ready for prime time. In sum: West has helped midwife the public rebirth of BA, who thinks Sanders is in the enemy camp. But West is a far firmer ally of Sanders than he is of “the rare and precious leader.” Who’s got blinders on? What does it tell us that even the public intellectual closest to the RCP—someone who longs for a revolutionary uprising as much as Avakian—is implicitly denounced by the RCP as “part of the problem” by supporting Sanders? It shows that the party is totally out of touch with reality. All it can do is say “drop your blinders and get into BA!” And the other radical left sects tend to similarly dismiss or attack the Sanders campaign as being short of really revolutionary, really socialist. As though there’s any party out there really rooted in the masses, able to develop what Mao called the “mass line”—any party whose burning potential is being stymied by Bernie’s sudden popularity! West’s endorsement of “Brother Bernie” is in his words “not an affirmation of the neo-liberal Democratic Party or a downplaying of the ugly Israeli occupation of the Palestinians” (which Sanders has not significantly opposed). Of course not. It’s a gamble that Sanders’ ongoing attack on Wall Street and open acknowledgement of a “democratic socialist” identity will lead to an electoral victory that will curb the power of the top stratum of capitalist parasites and diminish the prospects for more imperialist war. Such a result would not (of course) constitute socialism. It would not mean a real “revolution” in the Leninist sense. It might be a replay of Roosevelt and the New Deal (a series of measures largely designed to prevent a revolution in this country in the 1930s). But should we prefer to that outcome a victory of a Clinton or Cruz—-on the premise that such a presidency would exacerbate social contradictions to the point where the people (under the leadership of rare and precious leaders leading tiny sects whose rank-and-file members spout rhetoric they themselves hardly understand) will rise up in a repeat of the Bolshevik Revolution? In 1980 at age 24, already filled with contempt at the whole U.S. electoral process and viscerally opposed to any participation in it, I compared Carter and Reagan and hoped Reagan would win. Because I thought Reagan would so provoke the masses by his vicious cuts in social spending and his crazed Cold War mentality that his election would hasten the day of the needed revolution. I was overly optimistic and badly mistaken. These days I think that the election of a Cruz or Rubio—idiots who could easily trigger more war in the Middle East, North Africa or Ukraine, while abetting the further concentration of wealth in the hands of a few, immiserating more millions—could possibly produce a revolutionary situation, where (to paraphrase Lenin) the old system can’t continue in the old way, the masses can’t live in the old way, and there is revolutionary leadership. But I don’t hope for the election of either; the prospect indeed fills me with dread. Because I see no genuinely revolutionary party on the horizon remotely capable of effectively communicating with, much less leading the masses. I only see left sects trailing after each new mass movement, like Occupy or Black Lives Matter, striving to lead, recruiting a few new followers here and there, but more often than not alienating those they seek to influence by their wooden dogmatism, antiquated rhetoric, personality cults, lack of strategy and (often) the haggard zombie-like affect of their members trying to recruit. On the other hand there is Sanders, a European-style social democrat calling for a “political revolution” and energizing the young generation to support him. In U.S. political history, this is not insignificant. Nor is it principally a bad thing. The Sanders campaign, whatever else it is, is a sign that young people are becoming okay with (some concept of) socialism. That can only be good for those seeing themselves as advocates of “real” socialism. Gary Leupp is Professor of History at Tufts University, and holds a secondary appointment in the Department of Religion. He is the author of Servants, Shophands and Laborers in in the Cities of Tokugawa Japan; Male Colors: The Construction of Homosexuality in Tokugawa Japan; and Interracial Intimacy in Japan: Western Men and Japanese Women, 1543-1900. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion, (AK Press). He can be reached at: gleupp at tufts.edu ### -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Mon Nov 13 20:52:33 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2017 20:52:33 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Cornel West--The Real Deal! Message-ID: Leading the Campaign against my getting tenure here in October 1980 at the start of my third year was a (1) Zionist Law Professor; (2) who was Best Buddies with the Dean; and (3) on the Committee to make the decision. I guess Cornel’s alternative if he had been denied tenure because of his Outspoken Support for the Palestinians and Criticisms of Israel would have been to become a Minister—along the lines of the Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King Junior. Fab. End of The Paper Chase Knowing full well what I intended to do To survive the Jungle of the Academic World Cut a deal to go up for tenure here At the start of my third year Decision to be on Wednesday Mid-October 1980 Just to be sure On the Monday before Had little chat with my Dean I just spoke with my Tax Partner in Boston They would love to have me back So if my Tenure is denied or delayed on Wednesday I will be on the next plane back to Boston on Thursday And you can have all your students back to teach I got it! They have regretted it ever since Tant pis! I was 30 End of The Paper Chase for me Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 1:54 PM To: 'C G Estabrook' Cc: David Green ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay ; David Johnson ; Mildred O'brien Subject: Cornel West--The Real Deal! Excuse me! I don’t know Avakian personally. But I do know Cornel. HE IS THE REAL DEAL! Back in the early 1980s Cornel and I were on a Panel together on behalf of the Palestinians when he was a mere assistant professor without tenure at Princeton. I was amazed at what Cornel was saying for the Palestinians and against Israel. I thought it was suicidal for someone who did not yet have tenure in the Zionized world of American Academia. Cornel did not care one whit and forthrightly Spoke Truth To Power like I did, but by then I had tenure here on a negotiated 3 year deal because I knew what I was going to do. As I said before, the Acid Test of your Courage, your Integrity and your Principles has always been where you stood on the Palestinians. Cornel passed that test with flying colors from the very get-go of his academic career even at grave risk to getting tenure. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 1:37 PM To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: David Green >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien > Subject: 'Refuse Fascism' & Bob Avakian's RCP [1] 'Refuse Fascism’: [2] Gary Leupp discussed Avakian’s ‘Revolutionary Communist Party’ two years ago, in the context of a consideration of Sanders’ campaign: ======================== Counterpunch | February 5, 2016 "Is a ‘Socialist' Really Unelectable? The Potential Significance of the Sanders Campaign” ...The Revolutionary Communist Party contends: “The Bernie Sanders campaign—like those of every candidate who the ruling class allows to be taken seriously—essentially takes as its starting point stabilizing, strengthening, and ultimately enforcing the whole structure of a world dominated, exploited, and oppressed by the U.S. empire. And telling people that those interests are their interests.” And: “Throw off your blinders and get into BA [RCP chair Bob Avakian]! A whole better world really is possible and you need to be part of the solution and not—like Bernie Sanders—part of the problem.” What is more important now: sectarian sniping or popularizing an ideal? Reading these ringing declarations by left sects, I think to myself: What is more important? To broadcast to people what they already know—that Sanders’ conception of “socialism” is really Scandinavian-style capitalism (capitalism with a “human face”) and not socialism in the Marxian sense, which results from the overthrow of the capitalist class? Or: to note and appreciate the historical significance of Sanders’ campaign in returning the very term “socialism” to public discourse and emboldening people to openly identify with a concept anathema to Wall Street, the 1%, and the entire (widely hated) political establishment? Cornel West appears to choose the latter option. This is all the more interesting in that he has been friendly for years with the RCP that’s trashing Bernie while West stumps for him. The irony is that the above-mentioned Avakian owes West big time. Chairman Bob left the U.S. in 1980 for Paris and was not seen again in public until, with great fanfare, his party announced in 2003 that he had given talks on the East and West Coast and that these were available for purchase on DVD. It was not clear then or now that Avakian had permanently returned to the U.S. from Paris; the RCP refuses to comment on his whereabouts. But since few had seen him for twenty-three years, his sudden reappearance if only on video was a cause of jubilation among his followers. Cornel West wrote words of praise for Avakian (as a “long-distance runner in the freedom struggle against imperialism, racism and capitalism”) that appeared as a blurb on the cover of his autobiography published in 2005. (Notice the similarity to his recent description of Sanders.) He signed a statement in 2007 that appeared in the New York Review of Books—“Dangerous times demand courageous voices. Bob Avakian is such a voice.” The expensive ad was essentially designed to show anyone interested that Avakian had lots of well-known friends and that if the state went after him, they would have his back. Many intellectuals asked to sign, including Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky (not to mention myself), politely declined, noting that Avakian was under no specific legal threat and that the ad seemed designed to imply that he was in order to get signers to publicly aver that they “have come away from encounters with Avakian provoked and enriched in our own thinking,” declare that his “ability…to freely function” was “a concern,” urged that people “engage with the thoughts of Bob Avakian and bring them into what needs to be a rich and diverse dialogue,” and “[serve] notice to this government that we intend to defend” Avakian’s rights “to freely advocate and organize for his views.” West was one of the signatories. West also urged support for RCP bus tour in 2012 designed to promote Avakian and interviewed him for a PRI radio program in 2013. But the slowly resurfacing Avakian hadn’t given a public talk since 1980. As I understand it, the plan was for a dramatic Second Coming at a prestigious venue in the company of well-known public intellectual. Thus in November 2014 West joined Avakian for a “dialogue on revolution and religion” at the historic Riverside Church in Harlem. An overflow crowd heard the long-winded Avakian preach for two hours, interrupted increasingly by calls from the crowd for him to wrap up and let West take the podium. West spoke about half an hour, and then there were questions from the audience. It wasn’t really a dialogue, and had little analytical content, but that was probably not the point. “BA”—as he’s affectionately called by adherents of his cult (officially, the “culture of appreciation, promotion and popularization” of a man the RCP officially describes as “a rare and precious leader” who as “as simple fact” is the only person who could have developed Marxism such that “today being a communist means following Bob Avakian and the new path that he has forged”) had shown that he was real and ready for prime time. In sum: West has helped midwife the public rebirth of BA, who thinks Sanders is in the enemy camp. But West is a far firmer ally of Sanders than he is of “the rare and precious leader.” Who’s got blinders on? What does it tell us that even the public intellectual closest to the RCP—someone who longs for a revolutionary uprising as much as Avakian—is implicitly denounced by the RCP as “part of the problem” by supporting Sanders? It shows that the party is totally out of touch with reality. All it can do is say “drop your blinders and get into BA!” And the other radical left sects tend to similarly dismiss or attack the Sanders campaign as being short of really revolutionary, really socialist. As though there’s any party out there really rooted in the masses, able to develop what Mao called the “mass line”—any party whose burning potential is being stymied by Bernie’s sudden popularity! West’s endorsement of “Brother Bernie” is in his words “not an affirmation of the neo-liberal Democratic Party or a downplaying of the ugly Israeli occupation of the Palestinians” (which Sanders has not significantly opposed). Of course not. It’s a gamble that Sanders’ ongoing attack on Wall Street and open acknowledgement of a “democratic socialist” identity will lead to an electoral victory that will curb the power of the top stratum of capitalist parasites and diminish the prospects for more imperialist war. Such a result would not (of course) constitute socialism. It would not mean a real “revolution” in the Leninist sense. It might be a replay of Roosevelt and the New Deal (a series of measures largely designed to prevent a revolution in this country in the 1930s). But should we prefer to that outcome a victory of a Clinton or Cruz—-on the premise that such a presidency would exacerbate social contradictions to the point where the people (under the leadership of rare and precious leaders leading tiny sects whose rank-and-file members spout rhetoric they themselves hardly understand) will rise up in a repeat of the Bolshevik Revolution? In 1980 at age 24, already filled with contempt at the whole U.S. electoral process and viscerally opposed to any participation in it, I compared Carter and Reagan and hoped Reagan would win. Because I thought Reagan would so provoke the masses by his vicious cuts in social spending and his crazed Cold War mentality that his election would hasten the day of the needed revolution. I was overly optimistic and badly mistaken. These days I think that the election of a Cruz or Rubio—idiots who could easily trigger more war in the Middle East, North Africa or Ukraine, while abetting the further concentration of wealth in the hands of a few, immiserating more millions—could possibly produce a revolutionary situation, where (to paraphrase Lenin) the old system can’t continue in the old way, the masses can’t live in the old way, and there is revolutionary leadership. But I don’t hope for the election of either; the prospect indeed fills me with dread. Because I see no genuinely revolutionary party on the horizon remotely capable of effectively communicating with, much less leading the masses. I only see left sects trailing after each new mass movement, like Occupy or Black Lives Matter, striving to lead, recruiting a few new followers here and there, but more often than not alienating those they seek to influence by their wooden dogmatism, antiquated rhetoric, personality cults, lack of strategy and (often) the haggard zombie-like affect of their members trying to recruit. On the other hand there is Sanders, a European-style social democrat calling for a “political revolution” and energizing the young generation to support him. In U.S. political history, this is not insignificant. Nor is it principally a bad thing. The Sanders campaign, whatever else it is, is a sign that young people are becoming okay with (some concept of) socialism. That can only be good for those seeing themselves as advocates of “real” socialism. Gary Leupp is Professor of History at Tufts University, and holds a secondary appointment in the Department of Religion. He is the author of Servants, Shophands and Laborers in in the Cities of Tokugawa Japan; Male Colors: The Construction of Homosexuality in Tokugawa Japan; and Interracial Intimacy in Japan: Western Men and Japanese Women, 1543-1900. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion, (AK Press). He can be reached at: gleupp at tufts.edu ### -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From futureup2us at gmail.com Mon Nov 13 20:54:47 2017 From: futureup2us at gmail.com (Jay Becker) Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2017 14:54:47 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Cornel West--The Real Deal! In-Reply-To: <18583CB8-36BA-4067-8230-E99BE7CDBFB8@gmail.com> References: <18583CB8-36BA-4067-8230-E99BE7CDBFB8@gmail.com> Message-ID: <1ECAA768-29E1-4C3B-B716-BDB771A229B0@gmail.com> Your assertion that the RCP says “Trump is the problem” is baseless. People can read for themselves what Refuse Fascism stands for and does, and what the RCP and Bob Avakian stand for. From Refuse Fascism (of which Cornel West was an initiator) Initial Call to Drive out Trump & Pence Who is Refuse Fascism? Unite all who can be united, defeat divide and conquer And much more at www.refusefascism.org From Bob Avakian and the RCP: A new film by Bob Avakian on the Trump/Pence Regime including Q&A Why We Have Taken Up the Fight to Build Refuse Fascism and to Drive Out the Trump/Pence Fascist Regime A statement from the RCP And more at www.revcom.us "The task remains" to stop this fascist regime that has taken the horrors of US war crimes, imperialism, white supremacy and misogyny to new levels while there is still an opening, and we had better come together to do that. Dialogue based on groups’ actual positions should be welcome. Labeling serves neither unity in action or real exchange of views. Jay First they came for the Communists And I did not speak out Because I was not a Communist Then they came for the Socialists And I did not speak out Because I was not a Socialist Then they came for the trade unionists And I did not speak out Because I was not a trade unionist Then they came for the Jews And I did not speak out Because I was not a Jew Then they came for me And there was no one left To speak out for me > On Nov 13, 2017, at 14:16, C G Estabrook wrote: > > Francis-- > > West - once a fervent supporter of Obama - has spoken up on important matters, as you say. > > But the RCP group assert “Trump is the problem," like the War Party. And their ‘communism’ seems a matter of fashionable identity (not class) politics. > > The task remains to build opposition to neoconservatism (more war) and neoliberalism (more inequality). I don’t think RCP/Refuse Fascism does that. > > Regards, Carl > > >> On Nov 13, 2017, at 1:53 PM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: >> >> Excuse me! I don’t know Avakian personally. But I do know Cornel. HE IS THE REAL DEAL! Back in the early 1980s Cornel and I were on a Panel together on behalf of the Palestinians when he was a mere assistant professor without tenure at Princeton. I was amazed at what Cornel was saying for the Palestinians and against Israel. I thought it was suicidal for someone who did not yet have tenure in the Zionized world of American Academia. Cornel did not care one whit and forthrightly Spoke Truth To Power like I did, but by then I had tenure here on a negotiated 3 year deal because I knew what I was going to do. As I said before, the Acid Test of your Courage, your Integrity and your Principles has always been where you stood on the Palestinians. Cornel passed that test with flying colors from the very get-go of his academic career even at grave risk to getting tenure. Fab. >> >> Francis A. Boyle >> Law Building >> 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. >> Champaign, IL 61820 USA >> 217-333-7954 (phone) >> 217-244-1478 (fax) >> (personal comments only) >> >> From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] >> Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 1:37 PM >> To: Boyle, Francis A >> Cc: David Green ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay ; David Johnson ; Mildred O'brien >> Subject: 'Refuse Fascism' & Bob Avakian's RCP >> >> [1] 'Refuse Fascism’: >> >> [2] Gary Leupp discussed Avakian’s ‘Revolutionary Communist Party’ two years ago, in the context of a consideration of Sanders’ campaign: >> ======================== >> Counterpunch | February 5, 2016 >> >> "Is a ‘Socialist' Really Unelectable? The Potential Significance of the Sanders Campaign” >> >> ...The Revolutionary Communist Party contends: “The Bernie Sanders campaign—like those of every candidate who the ruling class allows to be taken seriously—essentially takes as its starting point stabilizing, strengthening, and ultimately enforcing the whole structure of a world dominated, exploited, and oppressed by the U.S. empire. And telling people that those interests are their interests.” >> >> And: “Throw off your blinders and get into BA [RCP chair Bob Avakian]! A whole better world really is possible and you need to be part of the solution and not—like Bernie Sanders—part of the problem.” >> >> What is more important now: sectarian sniping or popularizing an ideal? >> >> Reading these ringing declarations by left sects, I think to myself: What is more important? To broadcast to people what they already know—that Sanders’ conception of “socialism” is really Scandinavian-style capitalism (capitalism with a “human face”) and not socialism in the Marxian sense, which results from the overthrow of the capitalist class? >> >> Or: to note and appreciate the historical significance of Sanders’ campaign in returning the very term “socialism” to public discourse and emboldening people to openly identify with a concept anathema to Wall Street, the 1%, and the entire (widely hated) political establishment? >> >> Cornel West appears to choose the latter option. This is all the more interesting in that he has been friendly for years with the RCP that’s trashing Bernie while West stumps for him. The irony is that the above-mentioned Avakian owes West big time. >> >> Chairman Bob left the U.S. in 1980 for Paris and was not seen again in public until, with great fanfare, his party announced in 2003 that he had given talks on the East and West Coast and that these were available for purchase on DVD. It was not clear then or now that Avakian had permanently returned to the U.S. from Paris; the RCP refuses to comment on his whereabouts. But since few had seen him for twenty-three years, his sudden reappearance if only on video was a cause of jubilation among his followers. >> >> Cornel West wrote words of praise for Avakian (as a “long-distance runner in the freedom struggle against imperialism, racism and capitalism”) that appeared as a blurb on the cover of his autobiography published in 2005. (Notice the similarity to his recent description of Sanders.) >> >> He signed a statement in 2007 that appeared in the New York Review of Books—“Dangerous times demand courageous voices. Bob Avakian is such a voice.” The expensive ad was essentially designed to show anyone interested that Avakian had lots of well-known friends and that if the state went after him, they would have his back. Many intellectuals asked to sign, including Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky (not to mention myself), politely declined, noting that Avakian was under no specific legal threat and that the ad seemed designed to imply that he was in order to get signers to publicly aver that they “have come away from encounters with Avakian provoked and enriched in our own thinking,” declare that his “ability…to freely function” was “a concern,” urged that people “engage with the thoughts of Bob Avakian and bring them into what needs to be a rich and diverse dialogue,” and “[serve] notice to this government that we intend to defend” Avakian’s rights “to freely advocate and organize for his views.” >> >> West was one of the signatories. West also urged support for RCP bus tour in 2012 designed to promote Avakian and interviewed him for a PRI radio program in 2013. >> >> But the slowly resurfacing Avakian hadn’t given a public talk since 1980. As I understand it, the plan was for a dramatic Second Coming at a prestigious venue in the company of well-known public intellectual. Thus in November 2014 West joined Avakian for a “dialogue on revolution and religion” at the historic Riverside Church in Harlem. An overflow crowd heard the long-winded Avakian preach for two hours, interrupted increasingly by calls from the crowd for him to wrap up and let West take the podium. West spoke about half an hour, and then there were questions from the audience. >> >> It wasn’t really a dialogue, and had little analytical content, but that was probably not the point. “BA”—as he’s affectionately called by adherents of his cult (officially, the “culture of appreciation, promotion and popularization” of a man the RCP officially describes as “a rare and precious leader” who as “as simple fact” is the only person who could have developed Marxism such that “today being a communist means following Bob Avakian and the new path that he has forged”) had shown that he was real and ready for prime time. >> >> In sum: West has helped midwife the public rebirth of BA, who thinks Sanders is in the enemy camp. But West is a far firmer ally of Sanders than he is of “the rare and precious leader.” >> >> Who’s got blinders on? >> >> What does it tell us that even the public intellectual closest to the RCP—someone who longs for a revolutionary uprising as much as Avakian—is implicitly denounced by the RCP as “part of the problem” by supporting Sanders? It shows that the party is totally out of touch with reality. All it can do is say “drop your blinders and get into BA!” >> >> And the other radical left sects tend to similarly dismiss or attack the Sanders campaign as being short of really revolutionary, really socialist. As though there’s any party out there really rooted in the masses, able to develop what Mao called the “mass line”—any party whose burning potential is being stymied by Bernie’s sudden popularity! >> >> West’s endorsement of “Brother Bernie” is in his words “not an affirmation of the neo-liberal Democratic Party or a downplaying of the ugly Israeli occupation of the Palestinians” (which Sanders has not significantly opposed). Of course not. It’s a gamble that Sanders’ ongoing attack on Wall Street and open acknowledgement of a “democratic socialist” identity will lead to an electoral victory that will curb the power of the top stratum of capitalist parasites and diminish the prospects for more imperialist war. >> >> Such a result would not (of course) constitute socialism. It would not mean a real “revolution” in the Leninist sense. It might be a replay of Roosevelt and the New Deal (a series of measures largely designed to prevent a revolution in this country in the 1930s). But should we prefer to that outcome a victory of a Clinton or Cruz—-on the premise that such a presidency would exacerbate social contradictions to the point where the people (under the leadership of rare and precious leaders leading tiny sects whose rank-and-file members spout rhetoric they themselves hardly understand) will rise up in a repeat of the Bolshevik Revolution? >> >> In 1980 at age 24, already filled with contempt at the whole U.S. electoral process and viscerally opposed to any participation in it, I compared Carter and Reagan and hoped Reagan would win. Because I thought Reagan would so provoke the masses by his vicious cuts in social spending and his crazed Cold War mentality that his election would hasten the day of the needed revolution. I was overly optimistic and badly mistaken. >> >> These days I think that the election of a Cruz or Rubio—idiots who could easily trigger more war in the Middle East, North Africa or Ukraine, while abetting the further concentration of wealth in the hands of a few, immiserating more millions—could possibly produce a revolutionary situation, where (to paraphrase Lenin) the old system can’t continue in the old way, the masses can’t live in the old way, and there is revolutionary leadership. But I don’t hope for the election of either; the prospect indeed fills me with dread. >> >> Because I see no genuinely revolutionary party on the horizon remotely capable of effectively communicating with, much less leading the masses. I only see left sects trailing after each new mass movement, like Occupy or Black Lives Matter, striving to lead, recruiting a few new followers here and there, but more often than not alienating those they seek to influence by their wooden dogmatism, antiquated rhetoric, personality cults, lack of strategy and (often) the haggard zombie-like affect of their members trying to recruit. >> >> On the other hand there is Sanders, a European-style social democrat calling for a “political revolution” and energizing the young generation to support him. In U.S. political history, this is not insignificant. Nor is it principally a bad thing. The Sanders campaign, whatever else it is, is a sign that young people are becoming okay with (some concept of) socialism. That can only be good for those seeing themselves as advocates of “real” socialism. >> >> >> Gary Leupp is Professor of History at Tufts University, and holds a secondary appointment in the Department of Religion. He is the author of Servants, Shophands and Laborers in in the Cities of Tokugawa Japan; Male Colors: The Construction of Homosexuality in Tokugawa Japan; and Interracial Intimacy in Japan: Western Men and Japanese Women, 1543-1900. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion, (AK Press). He can be reached at: gleupp at tufts.edu >> >> ### >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Peace-discuss mailing list >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From futureup2us at gmail.com Mon Nov 13 20:54:47 2017 From: futureup2us at gmail.com (Jay Becker) Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2017 14:54:47 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Cornel West--The Real Deal! In-Reply-To: <18583CB8-36BA-4067-8230-E99BE7CDBFB8@gmail.com> References: <18583CB8-36BA-4067-8230-E99BE7CDBFB8@gmail.com> Message-ID: <1ECAA768-29E1-4C3B-B716-BDB771A229B0@gmail.com> Your assertion that the RCP says “Trump is the problem” is baseless. People can read for themselves what Refuse Fascism stands for and does, and what the RCP and Bob Avakian stand for. From Refuse Fascism (of which Cornel West was an initiator) Initial Call to Drive out Trump & Pence Who is Refuse Fascism? Unite all who can be united, defeat divide and conquer And much more at www.refusefascism.org From Bob Avakian and the RCP: A new film by Bob Avakian on the Trump/Pence Regime including Q&A Why We Have Taken Up the Fight to Build Refuse Fascism and to Drive Out the Trump/Pence Fascist Regime A statement from the RCP And more at www.revcom.us "The task remains" to stop this fascist regime that has taken the horrors of US war crimes, imperialism, white supremacy and misogyny to new levels while there is still an opening, and we had better come together to do that. Dialogue based on groups’ actual positions should be welcome. Labeling serves neither unity in action or real exchange of views. Jay First they came for the Communists And I did not speak out Because I was not a Communist Then they came for the Socialists And I did not speak out Because I was not a Socialist Then they came for the trade unionists And I did not speak out Because I was not a trade unionist Then they came for the Jews And I did not speak out Because I was not a Jew Then they came for me And there was no one left To speak out for me > On Nov 13, 2017, at 14:16, C G Estabrook wrote: > > Francis-- > > West - once a fervent supporter of Obama - has spoken up on important matters, as you say. > > But the RCP group assert “Trump is the problem," like the War Party. And their ‘communism’ seems a matter of fashionable identity (not class) politics. > > The task remains to build opposition to neoconservatism (more war) and neoliberalism (more inequality). I don’t think RCP/Refuse Fascism does that. > > Regards, Carl > > >> On Nov 13, 2017, at 1:53 PM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: >> >> Excuse me! I don’t know Avakian personally. But I do know Cornel. HE IS THE REAL DEAL! Back in the early 1980s Cornel and I were on a Panel together on behalf of the Palestinians when he was a mere assistant professor without tenure at Princeton. I was amazed at what Cornel was saying for the Palestinians and against Israel. I thought it was suicidal for someone who did not yet have tenure in the Zionized world of American Academia. Cornel did not care one whit and forthrightly Spoke Truth To Power like I did, but by then I had tenure here on a negotiated 3 year deal because I knew what I was going to do. As I said before, the Acid Test of your Courage, your Integrity and your Principles has always been where you stood on the Palestinians. Cornel passed that test with flying colors from the very get-go of his academic career even at grave risk to getting tenure. Fab. >> >> Francis A. Boyle >> Law Building >> 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. >> Champaign, IL 61820 USA >> 217-333-7954 (phone) >> 217-244-1478 (fax) >> (personal comments only) >> >> From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] >> Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 1:37 PM >> To: Boyle, Francis A >> Cc: David Green ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay ; David Johnson ; Mildred O'brien >> Subject: 'Refuse Fascism' & Bob Avakian's RCP >> >> [1] 'Refuse Fascism’: >> >> [2] Gary Leupp discussed Avakian’s ‘Revolutionary Communist Party’ two years ago, in the context of a consideration of Sanders’ campaign: >> ======================== >> Counterpunch | February 5, 2016 >> >> "Is a ‘Socialist' Really Unelectable? The Potential Significance of the Sanders Campaign” >> >> ...The Revolutionary Communist Party contends: “The Bernie Sanders campaign—like those of every candidate who the ruling class allows to be taken seriously—essentially takes as its starting point stabilizing, strengthening, and ultimately enforcing the whole structure of a world dominated, exploited, and oppressed by the U.S. empire. And telling people that those interests are their interests.” >> >> And: “Throw off your blinders and get into BA [RCP chair Bob Avakian]! A whole better world really is possible and you need to be part of the solution and not—like Bernie Sanders—part of the problem.” >> >> What is more important now: sectarian sniping or popularizing an ideal? >> >> Reading these ringing declarations by left sects, I think to myself: What is more important? To broadcast to people what they already know—that Sanders’ conception of “socialism” is really Scandinavian-style capitalism (capitalism with a “human face”) and not socialism in the Marxian sense, which results from the overthrow of the capitalist class? >> >> Or: to note and appreciate the historical significance of Sanders’ campaign in returning the very term “socialism” to public discourse and emboldening people to openly identify with a concept anathema to Wall Street, the 1%, and the entire (widely hated) political establishment? >> >> Cornel West appears to choose the latter option. This is all the more interesting in that he has been friendly for years with the RCP that’s trashing Bernie while West stumps for him. The irony is that the above-mentioned Avakian owes West big time. >> >> Chairman Bob left the U.S. in 1980 for Paris and was not seen again in public until, with great fanfare, his party announced in 2003 that he had given talks on the East and West Coast and that these were available for purchase on DVD. It was not clear then or now that Avakian had permanently returned to the U.S. from Paris; the RCP refuses to comment on his whereabouts. But since few had seen him for twenty-three years, his sudden reappearance if only on video was a cause of jubilation among his followers. >> >> Cornel West wrote words of praise for Avakian (as a “long-distance runner in the freedom struggle against imperialism, racism and capitalism”) that appeared as a blurb on the cover of his autobiography published in 2005. (Notice the similarity to his recent description of Sanders.) >> >> He signed a statement in 2007 that appeared in the New York Review of Books—“Dangerous times demand courageous voices. Bob Avakian is such a voice.” The expensive ad was essentially designed to show anyone interested that Avakian had lots of well-known friends and that if the state went after him, they would have his back. Many intellectuals asked to sign, including Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky (not to mention myself), politely declined, noting that Avakian was under no specific legal threat and that the ad seemed designed to imply that he was in order to get signers to publicly aver that they “have come away from encounters with Avakian provoked and enriched in our own thinking,” declare that his “ability…to freely function” was “a concern,” urged that people “engage with the thoughts of Bob Avakian and bring them into what needs to be a rich and diverse dialogue,” and “[serve] notice to this government that we intend to defend” Avakian’s rights “to freely advocate and organize for his views.” >> >> West was one of the signatories. West also urged support for RCP bus tour in 2012 designed to promote Avakian and interviewed him for a PRI radio program in 2013. >> >> But the slowly resurfacing Avakian hadn’t given a public talk since 1980. As I understand it, the plan was for a dramatic Second Coming at a prestigious venue in the company of well-known public intellectual. Thus in November 2014 West joined Avakian for a “dialogue on revolution and religion” at the historic Riverside Church in Harlem. An overflow crowd heard the long-winded Avakian preach for two hours, interrupted increasingly by calls from the crowd for him to wrap up and let West take the podium. West spoke about half an hour, and then there were questions from the audience. >> >> It wasn’t really a dialogue, and had little analytical content, but that was probably not the point. “BA”—as he’s affectionately called by adherents of his cult (officially, the “culture of appreciation, promotion and popularization” of a man the RCP officially describes as “a rare and precious leader” who as “as simple fact” is the only person who could have developed Marxism such that “today being a communist means following Bob Avakian and the new path that he has forged”) had shown that he was real and ready for prime time. >> >> In sum: West has helped midwife the public rebirth of BA, who thinks Sanders is in the enemy camp. But West is a far firmer ally of Sanders than he is of “the rare and precious leader.” >> >> Who’s got blinders on? >> >> What does it tell us that even the public intellectual closest to the RCP—someone who longs for a revolutionary uprising as much as Avakian—is implicitly denounced by the RCP as “part of the problem” by supporting Sanders? It shows that the party is totally out of touch with reality. All it can do is say “drop your blinders and get into BA!” >> >> And the other radical left sects tend to similarly dismiss or attack the Sanders campaign as being short of really revolutionary, really socialist. As though there’s any party out there really rooted in the masses, able to develop what Mao called the “mass line”—any party whose burning potential is being stymied by Bernie’s sudden popularity! >> >> West’s endorsement of “Brother Bernie” is in his words “not an affirmation of the neo-liberal Democratic Party or a downplaying of the ugly Israeli occupation of the Palestinians” (which Sanders has not significantly opposed). Of course not. It’s a gamble that Sanders’ ongoing attack on Wall Street and open acknowledgement of a “democratic socialist” identity will lead to an electoral victory that will curb the power of the top stratum of capitalist parasites and diminish the prospects for more imperialist war. >> >> Such a result would not (of course) constitute socialism. It would not mean a real “revolution” in the Leninist sense. It might be a replay of Roosevelt and the New Deal (a series of measures largely designed to prevent a revolution in this country in the 1930s). But should we prefer to that outcome a victory of a Clinton or Cruz—-on the premise that such a presidency would exacerbate social contradictions to the point where the people (under the leadership of rare and precious leaders leading tiny sects whose rank-and-file members spout rhetoric they themselves hardly understand) will rise up in a repeat of the Bolshevik Revolution? >> >> In 1980 at age 24, already filled with contempt at the whole U.S. electoral process and viscerally opposed to any participation in it, I compared Carter and Reagan and hoped Reagan would win. Because I thought Reagan would so provoke the masses by his vicious cuts in social spending and his crazed Cold War mentality that his election would hasten the day of the needed revolution. I was overly optimistic and badly mistaken. >> >> These days I think that the election of a Cruz or Rubio—idiots who could easily trigger more war in the Middle East, North Africa or Ukraine, while abetting the further concentration of wealth in the hands of a few, immiserating more millions—could possibly produce a revolutionary situation, where (to paraphrase Lenin) the old system can’t continue in the old way, the masses can’t live in the old way, and there is revolutionary leadership. But I don’t hope for the election of either; the prospect indeed fills me with dread. >> >> Because I see no genuinely revolutionary party on the horizon remotely capable of effectively communicating with, much less leading the masses. I only see left sects trailing after each new mass movement, like Occupy or Black Lives Matter, striving to lead, recruiting a few new followers here and there, but more often than not alienating those they seek to influence by their wooden dogmatism, antiquated rhetoric, personality cults, lack of strategy and (often) the haggard zombie-like affect of their members trying to recruit. >> >> On the other hand there is Sanders, a European-style social democrat calling for a “political revolution” and energizing the young generation to support him. In U.S. political history, this is not insignificant. Nor is it principally a bad thing. The Sanders campaign, whatever else it is, is a sign that young people are becoming okay with (some concept of) socialism. That can only be good for those seeing themselves as advocates of “real” socialism. >> >> >> Gary Leupp is Professor of History at Tufts University, and holds a secondary appointment in the Department of Religion. He is the author of Servants, Shophands and Laborers in in the Cities of Tokugawa Japan; Male Colors: The Construction of Homosexuality in Tokugawa Japan; and Interracial Intimacy in Japan: Western Men and Japanese Women, 1543-1900. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion, (AK Press). He can be reached at: gleupp at tufts.edu >> >> ### >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Peace-discuss mailing list >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Mon Nov 13 21:01:05 2017 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2017 15:01:05 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Cornel West--The Real Deal! In-Reply-To: References: <18583CB8-36BA-4067-8230-E99BE7CDBFB8@gmail.com> Message-ID: There seems to be a serious conflict between the president and the War Party about US war provocations in Eurasia (which continue from the last administration) - against the DPRK, the PRC, and Russia. The interests of the War Party ("the spooks [including the Pentagon], Wall Street Democrats and institutional servants of capital that gathered in Hillary Clinton’s overstuffed campaign tent, last year, to plot the next moves of a beleaguered U.S. empire") are served by those who pretend that Trump is the problem and his replacement the solution - such as the international criminals Brennan and Clapper: >. On the contrary, Trump is speaking eminent sense when he writes as follows: Donald J. Trump‏Verified account @realDonaldTrump When will all the haters and fools out there realize that having a good relationship with Russia is a good thing, not a bad thing. There always playing politics - bad for our country. I want to solve North Korea, Syria, Ukraine, terrorism, and Russia can greatly help! 6:18 PM - 11 Nov 2017 from Vietnam —CGE "The CIA has demanded Trump is not elected. Pentagon generals have demanded he is not elected. The pro-war New York Times - taking a breather from its relentless low-rent Putin smears - demands that he is not elected. Something is up. These tribunes of 'perpetual war' are terrified that the multi-billion-dollar business of war by which the United States maintains its dominance will be undermined if Trump does a deal with Putin, then with China’s Xi Jinping. Their panic at the possibility of the world’s great power talking peace – however unlikely – would be the blackest farce were the issues not so dire.” —John Pilger, 2016 > On Nov 13, 2017, at 2:30 PM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: > > On Friday I gave them permission to use my Statement against USA waging war against DPRK in their Nationwide Protests on Saturday, Nov. 11. Did anyone watch on the Tube over the weekend the massive Armada that Trump has assembled off Korea that is now on war maneuvers starting on Saturday, Nov. 11: "... Anything can go wrong. Thank you so much for being here today to prevent World War III." Fab. > > Subject: [SECTNS.aals] - Statement for Chicago Peace Rally Today against threatened USA War Against North Korea. > > Ok. Here is a Statement below dealing with the legal aspects of the situation. Thanks for doing this protest. Fab. > > 1. The US government threats of “preventive warfare” against DPRK are illegal and criminal. The Nuremberg Tribunal in their Judgment of 1946, which the US helped organize, condemned “preventive war” when the Lawyers for the Nazis made the argument on their behalf. This is an illegal and criminal threat in violation of international law. According to the World Court in its Advisory Opinion (1996) on the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, the legality vel non of a threat stands or falls on the same legal grounds as if the threat were carried out. > 2. The repeated US government threats to “destroy” or “annihilate” DPRK are an international crime under the 1948 Genocide Convention to which the United States is a party. These genocidal threats are also illegal and criminal under the rationale of the 1996 World Court Advisory Opinion mentioned above. > 3. The United States has an absolute obligation under UN Charter article 2(3) and article 33 to open “negotiation” with DPRK in good faith in order to produce a peace resolution of this dispute. Instead, the US government has repeatedly rejected these obligations under the UN Charter. > 4. The proposal by Russia and China for a “dual-freeze” is an excellent basis to produce good faith and direct negotiations between USA and DPRK as required by the UN Charter. > 5. The United States is deliberately provoking DPRK, ratcheting up these provocations in the hope that they will provoke the DPRK to commit an act of aggression against the United States that the USA can then use as a pretext for war. Pursuant to the terms of their mutual self-defense treaty, China has stated that if the US attacks first it will defend DPRK, but that if DPRK strikes first, China will remain out of any war. So the United States is trying to provoke DPRK into striking first. > 6. It is an extremely dangerous situation. It is really up to the United States to take the first step down the Ladder of Escalation that it has constructed here. Instead it appears that the Trump administration is going to escalate up the Ladder of Escalation in the hope and expectation that DPRK will capitulate. This is what International Political Scientists call a Game of Chicken-- with cosmic consequences. Who will blink first? Anything can go wrong. Thank you so much for being here today to prevent World War III. > > Francis A. Boyle > Professor of Law > University of Illinois College of Law > Native Chicagoan > > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign, IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) > > > -----Original Message----- > From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] > Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 2:17 PM > To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: Karen Aram ; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; Jay ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; Szoke, Ron ; Joe Lauria ; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; abass10 at gmail.com; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; Arlene Hickory ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Cornel West--The Real Deal! > > Francis-- > > West - once a fervent supporter of Obama - has spoken up on important matters, as you say. > > But the RCP group assert “Trump is the problem," like the War Party. And their ‘communism’ seems a matter of fashionable identity (not class) politics. > > The task remains to build opposition to neoconservatism (more war) and neoliberalism (more inequality). I don’t think RCP/Refuse Fascism does that. > > Regards, Carl > > >> On Nov 13, 2017, at 1:53 PM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: >> >> Excuse me! I don’t know Avakian personally. But I do know Cornel. HE IS THE REAL DEAL! Back in the early 1980s Cornel and I were on a Panel together on behalf of the Palestinians when he was a mere assistant professor without tenure at Princeton. I was amazed at what Cornel was saying for the Palestinians and against Israel. I thought it was suicidal for someone who did not yet have tenure in the Zionized world of American Academia. Cornel did not care one whit and forthrightly Spoke Truth To Power like I did, but by then I had tenure here on a negotiated 3 year deal because I knew what I was going to do. As I said before, the Acid Test of your Courage, your Integrity and your Principles has always been where you stood on the Palestinians. Cornel passed that test with flying colors from the very get-go of his academic career even at grave risk to getting tenure. Fab. >> >> Francis A. Boyle >> Law Building >> 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. >> Champaign, IL 61820 USA >> 217-333-7954 (phone) >> 217-244-1478 (fax) >> (personal comments only) >> >> From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] >> Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 1:37 PM >> To: Boyle, Francis A >> Cc: David Green ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay ; David Johnson ; Mildred O'brien >> Subject: 'Refuse Fascism' & Bob Avakian's RCP >> >> [1] 'Refuse Fascism’: >> >> [2] Gary Leupp discussed Avakian’s ‘Revolutionary Communist Party’ two years ago, in the context of a consideration of Sanders’ campaign: >> ======================== >> Counterpunch | February 5, 2016 >> >> "Is a ‘Socialist' Really Unelectable? The Potential Significance of the Sanders Campaign” >> >> ...The Revolutionary Communist Party contends: “The Bernie Sanders campaign—like those of every candidate who the ruling class allows to be taken seriously—essentially takes as its starting point stabilizing, strengthening, and ultimately enforcing the whole structure of a world dominated, exploited, and oppressed by the U.S. empire. And telling people that those interests are their interests.” >> >> And: “Throw off your blinders and get into BA [RCP chair Bob Avakian]! A whole better world really is possible and you need to be part of the solution and not—like Bernie Sanders—part of the problem.” >> >> What is more important now: sectarian sniping or popularizing an ideal? >> >> Reading these ringing declarations by left sects, I think to myself: What is more important? To broadcast to people what they already know—that Sanders’ conception of “socialism” is really Scandinavian-style capitalism (capitalism with a “human face”) and not socialism in the Marxian sense, which results from the overthrow of the capitalist class? >> >> Or: to note and appreciate the historical significance of Sanders’ campaign in returning the very term “socialism” to public discourse and emboldening people to openly identify with a concept anathema to Wall Street, the 1%, and the entire (widely hated) political establishment? >> >> Cornel West appears to choose the latter option. This is all the more interesting in that he has been friendly for years with the RCP that’s trashing Bernie while West stumps for him. The irony is that the above-mentioned Avakian owes West big time. >> >> Chairman Bob left the U.S. in 1980 for Paris and was not seen again in public until, with great fanfare, his party announced in 2003 that he had given talks on the East and West Coast and that these were available for purchase on DVD. It was not clear then or now that Avakian had permanently returned to the U.S. from Paris; the RCP refuses to comment on his whereabouts. But since few had seen him for twenty-three years, his sudden reappearance if only on video was a cause of jubilation among his followers. >> >> Cornel West wrote words of praise for Avakian (as a “long-distance runner in the freedom struggle against imperialism, racism and capitalism”) that appeared as a blurb on the cover of his autobiography published in 2005. (Notice the similarity to his recent description of Sanders.) >> >> He signed a statement in 2007 that appeared in the New York Review of Books—“Dangerous times demand courageous voices. Bob Avakian is such a voice.” The expensive ad was essentially designed to show anyone interested that Avakian had lots of well-known friends and that if the state went after him, they would have his back. Many intellectuals asked to sign, including Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky (not to mention myself), politely declined, noting that Avakian was under no specific legal threat and that the ad seemed designed to imply that he was in order to get signers to publicly aver that they “have come away from encounters with Avakian provoked and enriched in our own thinking,” declare that his “ability…to freely function” was “a concern,” urged that people “engage with the thoughts of Bob Avakian and bring them into what needs to be a rich and diverse dialogue,” and “[serve] notice to this government that we intend to defend” Avakian’s rights “to freely advocate and organize for his views.” >> >> West was one of the signatories. West also urged support for RCP bus tour in 2012 designed to promote Avakian and interviewed him for a PRI radio program in 2013. >> >> But the slowly resurfacing Avakian hadn’t given a public talk since 1980. As I understand it, the plan was for a dramatic Second Coming at a prestigious venue in the company of well-known public intellectual. Thus in November 2014 West joined Avakian for a “dialogue on revolution and religion” at the historic Riverside Church in Harlem. An overflow crowd heard the long-winded Avakian preach for two hours, interrupted increasingly by calls from the crowd for him to wrap up and let West take the podium. West spoke about half an hour, and then there were questions from the audience. >> >> It wasn’t really a dialogue, and had little analytical content, but that was probably not the point. “BA”—as he’s affectionately called by adherents of his cult (officially, the “culture of appreciation, promotion and popularization” of a man the RCP officially describes as “a rare and precious leader” who as “as simple fact” is the only person who could have developed Marxism such that “today being a communist means following Bob Avakian and the new path that he has forged”) had shown that he was real and ready for prime time. >> >> In sum: West has helped midwife the public rebirth of BA, who thinks Sanders is in the enemy camp. But West is a far firmer ally of Sanders than he is of “the rare and precious leader.” >> >> Who’s got blinders on? >> >> What does it tell us that even the public intellectual closest to the RCP—someone who longs for a revolutionary uprising as much as Avakian—is implicitly denounced by the RCP as “part of the problem” by supporting Sanders? It shows that the party is totally out of touch with reality. All it can do is say “drop your blinders and get into BA!” >> >> And the other radical left sects tend to similarly dismiss or attack the Sanders campaign as being short of really revolutionary, really socialist. As though there’s any party out there really rooted in the masses, able to develop what Mao called the “mass line”—any party whose burning potential is being stymied by Bernie’s sudden popularity! >> >> West’s endorsement of “Brother Bernie” is in his words “not an affirmation of the neo-liberal Democratic Party or a downplaying of the ugly Israeli occupation of the Palestinians” (which Sanders has not significantly opposed). Of course not. It’s a gamble that Sanders’ ongoing attack on Wall Street and open acknowledgement of a “democratic socialist” identity will lead to an electoral victory that will curb the power of the top stratum of capitalist parasites and diminish the prospects for more imperialist war. >> >> Such a result would not (of course) constitute socialism. It would not mean a real “revolution” in the Leninist sense. It might be a replay of Roosevelt and the New Deal (a series of measures largely designed to prevent a revolution in this country in the 1930s). But should we prefer to that outcome a victory of a Clinton or Cruz—-on the premise that such a presidency would exacerbate social contradictions to the point where the people (under the leadership of rare and precious leaders leading tiny sects whose rank-and-file members spout rhetoric they themselves hardly understand) will rise up in a repeat of the Bolshevik Revolution? >> >> In 1980 at age 24, already filled with contempt at the whole U.S. electoral process and viscerally opposed to any participation in it, I compared Carter and Reagan and hoped Reagan would win. Because I thought Reagan would so provoke the masses by his vicious cuts in social spending and his crazed Cold War mentality that his election would hasten the day of the needed revolution. I was overly optimistic and badly mistaken. >> >> These days I think that the election of a Cruz or Rubio—idiots who could easily trigger more war in the Middle East, North Africa or Ukraine, while abetting the further concentration of wealth in the hands of a few, immiserating more millions—could possibly produce a revolutionary situation, where (to paraphrase Lenin) the old system can’t continue in the old way, the masses can’t live in the old way, and there is revolutionary leadership. But I don’t hope for the election of either; the prospect indeed fills me with dread. >> >> Because I see no genuinely revolutionary party on the horizon remotely capable of effectively communicating with, much less leading the masses. I only see left sects trailing after each new mass movement, like Occupy or Black Lives Matter, striving to lead, recruiting a few new followers here and there, but more often than not alienating those they seek to influence by their wooden dogmatism, antiquated rhetoric, personality cults, lack of strategy and (often) the haggard zombie-like affect of their members trying to recruit. >> >> On the other hand there is Sanders, a European-style social democrat calling for a “political revolution” and energizing the young generation to support him. In U.S. political history, this is not insignificant. Nor is it principally a bad thing. The Sanders campaign, whatever else it is, is a sign that young people are becoming okay with (some concept of) socialism. That can only be good for those seeing themselves as advocates of “real” socialism. >> >> >> Gary Leupp is Professor of History at Tufts University, and holds a secondary appointment in the Department of Religion. He is the author of Servants, Shophands and Laborers in in the Cities of Tokugawa Japan; Male Colors: The Construction of Homosexuality in Tokugawa Japan; and Interracial Intimacy in Japan: Western Men and Japanese Women, 1543-1900. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion, (AK Press). He can be reached at: gleupp at tufts.edu >> >> ### >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Peace-discuss mailing list >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Mon Nov 13 21:01:05 2017 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2017 15:01:05 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Cornel West--The Real Deal! In-Reply-To: References: <18583CB8-36BA-4067-8230-E99BE7CDBFB8@gmail.com> Message-ID: There seems to be a serious conflict between the president and the War Party about US war provocations in Eurasia (which continue from the last administration) - against the DPRK, the PRC, and Russia. The interests of the War Party ("the spooks [including the Pentagon], Wall Street Democrats and institutional servants of capital that gathered in Hillary Clinton’s overstuffed campaign tent, last year, to plot the next moves of a beleaguered U.S. empire") are served by those who pretend that Trump is the problem and his replacement the solution - such as the international criminals Brennan and Clapper: >. On the contrary, Trump is speaking eminent sense when he writes as follows: Donald J. Trump‏Verified account @realDonaldTrump When will all the haters and fools out there realize that having a good relationship with Russia is a good thing, not a bad thing. There always playing politics - bad for our country. I want to solve North Korea, Syria, Ukraine, terrorism, and Russia can greatly help! 6:18 PM - 11 Nov 2017 from Vietnam —CGE "The CIA has demanded Trump is not elected. Pentagon generals have demanded he is not elected. The pro-war New York Times - taking a breather from its relentless low-rent Putin smears - demands that he is not elected. Something is up. These tribunes of 'perpetual war' are terrified that the multi-billion-dollar business of war by which the United States maintains its dominance will be undermined if Trump does a deal with Putin, then with China’s Xi Jinping. Their panic at the possibility of the world’s great power talking peace – however unlikely – would be the blackest farce were the issues not so dire.” —John Pilger, 2016 > On Nov 13, 2017, at 2:30 PM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: > > On Friday I gave them permission to use my Statement against USA waging war against DPRK in their Nationwide Protests on Saturday, Nov. 11. Did anyone watch on the Tube over the weekend the massive Armada that Trump has assembled off Korea that is now on war maneuvers starting on Saturday, Nov. 11: "... Anything can go wrong. Thank you so much for being here today to prevent World War III." Fab. > > Subject: [SECTNS.aals] - Statement for Chicago Peace Rally Today against threatened USA War Against North Korea. > > Ok. Here is a Statement below dealing with the legal aspects of the situation. Thanks for doing this protest. Fab. > > 1. The US government threats of “preventive warfare” against DPRK are illegal and criminal. The Nuremberg Tribunal in their Judgment of 1946, which the US helped organize, condemned “preventive war” when the Lawyers for the Nazis made the argument on their behalf. This is an illegal and criminal threat in violation of international law. According to the World Court in its Advisory Opinion (1996) on the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, the legality vel non of a threat stands or falls on the same legal grounds as if the threat were carried out. > 2. The repeated US government threats to “destroy” or “annihilate” DPRK are an international crime under the 1948 Genocide Convention to which the United States is a party. These genocidal threats are also illegal and criminal under the rationale of the 1996 World Court Advisory Opinion mentioned above. > 3. The United States has an absolute obligation under UN Charter article 2(3) and article 33 to open “negotiation” with DPRK in good faith in order to produce a peace resolution of this dispute. Instead, the US government has repeatedly rejected these obligations under the UN Charter. > 4. The proposal by Russia and China for a “dual-freeze” is an excellent basis to produce good faith and direct negotiations between USA and DPRK as required by the UN Charter. > 5. The United States is deliberately provoking DPRK, ratcheting up these provocations in the hope that they will provoke the DPRK to commit an act of aggression against the United States that the USA can then use as a pretext for war. Pursuant to the terms of their mutual self-defense treaty, China has stated that if the US attacks first it will defend DPRK, but that if DPRK strikes first, China will remain out of any war. So the United States is trying to provoke DPRK into striking first. > 6. It is an extremely dangerous situation. It is really up to the United States to take the first step down the Ladder of Escalation that it has constructed here. Instead it appears that the Trump administration is going to escalate up the Ladder of Escalation in the hope and expectation that DPRK will capitulate. This is what International Political Scientists call a Game of Chicken-- with cosmic consequences. Who will blink first? Anything can go wrong. Thank you so much for being here today to prevent World War III. > > Francis A. Boyle > Professor of Law > University of Illinois College of Law > Native Chicagoan > > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign, IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) > > > -----Original Message----- > From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] > Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 2:17 PM > To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: Karen Aram ; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; Jay ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; Szoke, Ron ; Joe Lauria ; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; abass10 at gmail.com; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; Arlene Hickory ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Cornel West--The Real Deal! > > Francis-- > > West - once a fervent supporter of Obama - has spoken up on important matters, as you say. > > But the RCP group assert “Trump is the problem," like the War Party. And their ‘communism’ seems a matter of fashionable identity (not class) politics. > > The task remains to build opposition to neoconservatism (more war) and neoliberalism (more inequality). I don’t think RCP/Refuse Fascism does that. > > Regards, Carl > > >> On Nov 13, 2017, at 1:53 PM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: >> >> Excuse me! I don’t know Avakian personally. But I do know Cornel. HE IS THE REAL DEAL! Back in the early 1980s Cornel and I were on a Panel together on behalf of the Palestinians when he was a mere assistant professor without tenure at Princeton. I was amazed at what Cornel was saying for the Palestinians and against Israel. I thought it was suicidal for someone who did not yet have tenure in the Zionized world of American Academia. Cornel did not care one whit and forthrightly Spoke Truth To Power like I did, but by then I had tenure here on a negotiated 3 year deal because I knew what I was going to do. As I said before, the Acid Test of your Courage, your Integrity and your Principles has always been where you stood on the Palestinians. Cornel passed that test with flying colors from the very get-go of his academic career even at grave risk to getting tenure. Fab. >> >> Francis A. Boyle >> Law Building >> 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. >> Champaign, IL 61820 USA >> 217-333-7954 (phone) >> 217-244-1478 (fax) >> (personal comments only) >> >> From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] >> Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 1:37 PM >> To: Boyle, Francis A >> Cc: David Green ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay ; David Johnson ; Mildred O'brien >> Subject: 'Refuse Fascism' & Bob Avakian's RCP >> >> [1] 'Refuse Fascism’: >> >> [2] Gary Leupp discussed Avakian’s ‘Revolutionary Communist Party’ two years ago, in the context of a consideration of Sanders’ campaign: >> ======================== >> Counterpunch | February 5, 2016 >> >> "Is a ‘Socialist' Really Unelectable? The Potential Significance of the Sanders Campaign” >> >> ...The Revolutionary Communist Party contends: “The Bernie Sanders campaign—like those of every candidate who the ruling class allows to be taken seriously—essentially takes as its starting point stabilizing, strengthening, and ultimately enforcing the whole structure of a world dominated, exploited, and oppressed by the U.S. empire. And telling people that those interests are their interests.” >> >> And: “Throw off your blinders and get into BA [RCP chair Bob Avakian]! A whole better world really is possible and you need to be part of the solution and not—like Bernie Sanders—part of the problem.” >> >> What is more important now: sectarian sniping or popularizing an ideal? >> >> Reading these ringing declarations by left sects, I think to myself: What is more important? To broadcast to people what they already know—that Sanders’ conception of “socialism” is really Scandinavian-style capitalism (capitalism with a “human face”) and not socialism in the Marxian sense, which results from the overthrow of the capitalist class? >> >> Or: to note and appreciate the historical significance of Sanders’ campaign in returning the very term “socialism” to public discourse and emboldening people to openly identify with a concept anathema to Wall Street, the 1%, and the entire (widely hated) political establishment? >> >> Cornel West appears to choose the latter option. This is all the more interesting in that he has been friendly for years with the RCP that’s trashing Bernie while West stumps for him. The irony is that the above-mentioned Avakian owes West big time. >> >> Chairman Bob left the U.S. in 1980 for Paris and was not seen again in public until, with great fanfare, his party announced in 2003 that he had given talks on the East and West Coast and that these were available for purchase on DVD. It was not clear then or now that Avakian had permanently returned to the U.S. from Paris; the RCP refuses to comment on his whereabouts. But since few had seen him for twenty-three years, his sudden reappearance if only on video was a cause of jubilation among his followers. >> >> Cornel West wrote words of praise for Avakian (as a “long-distance runner in the freedom struggle against imperialism, racism and capitalism”) that appeared as a blurb on the cover of his autobiography published in 2005. (Notice the similarity to his recent description of Sanders.) >> >> He signed a statement in 2007 that appeared in the New York Review of Books—“Dangerous times demand courageous voices. Bob Avakian is such a voice.” The expensive ad was essentially designed to show anyone interested that Avakian had lots of well-known friends and that if the state went after him, they would have his back. Many intellectuals asked to sign, including Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky (not to mention myself), politely declined, noting that Avakian was under no specific legal threat and that the ad seemed designed to imply that he was in order to get signers to publicly aver that they “have come away from encounters with Avakian provoked and enriched in our own thinking,” declare that his “ability…to freely function” was “a concern,” urged that people “engage with the thoughts of Bob Avakian and bring them into what needs to be a rich and diverse dialogue,” and “[serve] notice to this government that we intend to defend” Avakian’s rights “to freely advocate and organize for his views.” >> >> West was one of the signatories. West also urged support for RCP bus tour in 2012 designed to promote Avakian and interviewed him for a PRI radio program in 2013. >> >> But the slowly resurfacing Avakian hadn’t given a public talk since 1980. As I understand it, the plan was for a dramatic Second Coming at a prestigious venue in the company of well-known public intellectual. Thus in November 2014 West joined Avakian for a “dialogue on revolution and religion” at the historic Riverside Church in Harlem. An overflow crowd heard the long-winded Avakian preach for two hours, interrupted increasingly by calls from the crowd for him to wrap up and let West take the podium. West spoke about half an hour, and then there were questions from the audience. >> >> It wasn’t really a dialogue, and had little analytical content, but that was probably not the point. “BA”—as he’s affectionately called by adherents of his cult (officially, the “culture of appreciation, promotion and popularization” of a man the RCP officially describes as “a rare and precious leader” who as “as simple fact” is the only person who could have developed Marxism such that “today being a communist means following Bob Avakian and the new path that he has forged”) had shown that he was real and ready for prime time. >> >> In sum: West has helped midwife the public rebirth of BA, who thinks Sanders is in the enemy camp. But West is a far firmer ally of Sanders than he is of “the rare and precious leader.” >> >> Who’s got blinders on? >> >> What does it tell us that even the public intellectual closest to the RCP—someone who longs for a revolutionary uprising as much as Avakian—is implicitly denounced by the RCP as “part of the problem” by supporting Sanders? It shows that the party is totally out of touch with reality. All it can do is say “drop your blinders and get into BA!” >> >> And the other radical left sects tend to similarly dismiss or attack the Sanders campaign as being short of really revolutionary, really socialist. As though there’s any party out there really rooted in the masses, able to develop what Mao called the “mass line”—any party whose burning potential is being stymied by Bernie’s sudden popularity! >> >> West’s endorsement of “Brother Bernie” is in his words “not an affirmation of the neo-liberal Democratic Party or a downplaying of the ugly Israeli occupation of the Palestinians” (which Sanders has not significantly opposed). Of course not. It’s a gamble that Sanders’ ongoing attack on Wall Street and open acknowledgement of a “democratic socialist” identity will lead to an electoral victory that will curb the power of the top stratum of capitalist parasites and diminish the prospects for more imperialist war. >> >> Such a result would not (of course) constitute socialism. It would not mean a real “revolution” in the Leninist sense. It might be a replay of Roosevelt and the New Deal (a series of measures largely designed to prevent a revolution in this country in the 1930s). But should we prefer to that outcome a victory of a Clinton or Cruz—-on the premise that such a presidency would exacerbate social contradictions to the point where the people (under the leadership of rare and precious leaders leading tiny sects whose rank-and-file members spout rhetoric they themselves hardly understand) will rise up in a repeat of the Bolshevik Revolution? >> >> In 1980 at age 24, already filled with contempt at the whole U.S. electoral process and viscerally opposed to any participation in it, I compared Carter and Reagan and hoped Reagan would win. Because I thought Reagan would so provoke the masses by his vicious cuts in social spending and his crazed Cold War mentality that his election would hasten the day of the needed revolution. I was overly optimistic and badly mistaken. >> >> These days I think that the election of a Cruz or Rubio—idiots who could easily trigger more war in the Middle East, North Africa or Ukraine, while abetting the further concentration of wealth in the hands of a few, immiserating more millions—could possibly produce a revolutionary situation, where (to paraphrase Lenin) the old system can’t continue in the old way, the masses can’t live in the old way, and there is revolutionary leadership. But I don’t hope for the election of either; the prospect indeed fills me with dread. >> >> Because I see no genuinely revolutionary party on the horizon remotely capable of effectively communicating with, much less leading the masses. I only see left sects trailing after each new mass movement, like Occupy or Black Lives Matter, striving to lead, recruiting a few new followers here and there, but more often than not alienating those they seek to influence by their wooden dogmatism, antiquated rhetoric, personality cults, lack of strategy and (often) the haggard zombie-like affect of their members trying to recruit. >> >> On the other hand there is Sanders, a European-style social democrat calling for a “political revolution” and energizing the young generation to support him. In U.S. political history, this is not insignificant. Nor is it principally a bad thing. The Sanders campaign, whatever else it is, is a sign that young people are becoming okay with (some concept of) socialism. That can only be good for those seeing themselves as advocates of “real” socialism. >> >> >> Gary Leupp is Professor of History at Tufts University, and holds a secondary appointment in the Department of Religion. He is the author of Servants, Shophands and Laborers in in the Cities of Tokugawa Japan; Male Colors: The Construction of Homosexuality in Tokugawa Japan; and Interracial Intimacy in Japan: Western Men and Japanese Women, 1543-1900. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion, (AK Press). He can be reached at: gleupp at tufts.edu >> >> ### >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Peace-discuss mailing list >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From futureup2us at gmail.com Mon Nov 13 21:22:33 2017 From: futureup2us at gmail.com (Jay Becker) Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2017 15:22:33 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Cornel West--The Real Deal! In-Reply-To: References: <18583CB8-36BA-4067-8230-E99BE7CDBFB8@gmail.com> Message-ID: <25629D5D-2152-4742-AD0F-4C12B3CB8CF0@gmail.com> I don’t know how anyone can listen to Trump’s speech at the UN and think he is seeking peace when he threatens to destroy another country. There’s obviously big conflicts within the ruling class. They are all “war parties,” they are all servants of capital, two wings of the vulture of US imperialism. They disagree with how best to advance the interests of the empire in crisis. To oppose the force in power now is no more to side with the “other side” than it was to side with the Republicans when we opposed Obama’s war crimes, or the Democrats when we opposed Bush’s invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, etc., etc. Jay > On Nov 13, 2017, at 15:01, C G Estabrook wrote: > > There seems to be a serious conflict between the president and the War Party about US war provocations in Eurasia (which continue from the last administration) - against the DPRK, the PRC, and Russia. > > The interests of the War Party ("the spooks [including the Pentagon], Wall Street Democrats and institutional servants of capital that gathered in Hillary Clinton’s overstuffed campaign tent, last year, to plot the next moves of a beleaguered U.S. empire") are served by those who pretend that Trump is the problem and his replacement the solution - such as the international criminals Brennan and Clapper: >. > > On the contrary, Trump is speaking eminent sense when he writes as follows: > > Donald J. Trump‏Verified account @realDonaldTrump > When will all the haters and fools out there realize that having a good relationship with Russia is a good thing, not a bad thing. There always playing politics - bad for our country. I want to solve North Korea, Syria, Ukraine, terrorism, and Russia can greatly help! > 6:18 PM - 11 Nov 2017 from Vietnam > > —CGE > > > "The CIA has demanded Trump is not elected. Pentagon generals have demanded he is not elected. The pro-war New York Times - taking a breather from its relentless low-rent Putin smears - demands that he is not elected. Something is up. These tribunes of 'perpetual war' are terrified that the multi-billion-dollar business of war by which the United States maintains its dominance will be undermined if Trump does a deal with Putin, then with China’s Xi Jinping. Their panic at the possibility of the world’s great power talking peace – however unlikely – would be the blackest farce were the issues not so dire.” —John Pilger, 2016 > > >> On Nov 13, 2017, at 2:30 PM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss > wrote: >> >> On Friday I gave them permission to use my Statement against USA waging war against DPRK in their Nationwide Protests on Saturday, Nov. 11. Did anyone watch on the Tube over the weekend the massive Armada that Trump has assembled off Korea that is now on war maneuvers starting on Saturday, Nov. 11: "... Anything can go wrong. Thank you so much for being here today to prevent World War III." Fab. >> >> Subject: [SECTNS.aals] - Statement for Chicago Peace Rally Today against threatened USA War Against North Korea. >> >> Ok. Here is a Statement below dealing with the legal aspects of the situation. Thanks for doing this protest. Fab. >> >> 1. The US government threats of “preventive warfare” against DPRK are illegal and criminal. The Nuremberg Tribunal in their Judgment of 1946, which the US helped organize, condemned “preventive war” when the Lawyers for the Nazis made the argument on their behalf. This is an illegal and criminal threat in violation of international law. According to the World Court in its Advisory Opinion (1996) on the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, the legality vel non of a threat stands or falls on the same legal grounds as if the threat were carried out. >> 2. The repeated US government threats to “destroy” or “annihilate” DPRK are an international crime under the 1948 Genocide Convention to which the United States is a party. These genocidal threats are also illegal and criminal under the rationale of the 1996 World Court Advisory Opinion mentioned above. >> 3. The United States has an absolute obligation under UN Charter article 2(3) and article 33 to open “negotiation” with DPRK in good faith in order to produce a peace resolution of this dispute. Instead, the US government has repeatedly rejected these obligations under the UN Charter. >> 4. The proposal by Russia and China for a “dual-freeze” is an excellent basis to produce good faith and direct negotiations between USA and DPRK as required by the UN Charter. >> 5. The United States is deliberately provoking DPRK, ratcheting up these provocations in the hope that they will provoke the DPRK to commit an act of aggression against the United States that the USA can then use as a pretext for war. Pursuant to the terms of their mutual self-defense treaty, China has stated that if the US attacks first it will defend DPRK, but that if DPRK strikes first, China will remain out of any war. So the United States is trying to provoke DPRK into striking first. >> 6. It is an extremely dangerous situation. It is really up to the United States to take the first step down the Ladder of Escalation that it has constructed here. Instead it appears that the Trump administration is going to escalate up the Ladder of Escalation in the hope and expectation that DPRK will capitulate. This is what International Political Scientists call a Game of Chicken-- with cosmic consequences. Who will blink first? Anything can go wrong. Thank you so much for being here today to prevent World War III. >> >> Francis A. Boyle >> Professor of Law >> University of Illinois College of Law >> Native Chicagoan >> >> >> Francis A. Boyle >> Law Building >> 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. >> Champaign, IL 61820 USA >> 217-333-7954 (phone) >> 217-244-1478 (fax) >> (personal comments only) >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com ] >> Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 2:17 PM >> To: Boyle, Francis A > >> Cc: Karen Aram >; peace-discuss at anti-war.net ; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Jay >; a-fields at uiuc.edu ; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; Szoke, Ron >; Joe Lauria >; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net ; abass10 at gmail.com ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com ; Arlene Hickory >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net ; mickalideh at gmail.com ; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net >> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Cornel West--The Real Deal! >> >> Francis-- >> >> West - once a fervent supporter of Obama - has spoken up on important matters, as you say. >> >> But the RCP group assert “Trump is the problem," like the War Party. And their ‘communism’ seems a matter of fashionable identity (not class) politics. >> >> The task remains to build opposition to neoconservatism (more war) and neoliberalism (more inequality). I don’t think RCP/Refuse Fascism does that. >> >> Regards, Carl >> >> >>> On Nov 13, 2017, at 1:53 PM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss > wrote: >>> >>> Excuse me! I don’t know Avakian personally. But I do know Cornel. HE IS THE REAL DEAL! Back in the early 1980s Cornel and I were on a Panel together on behalf of the Palestinians when he was a mere assistant professor without tenure at Princeton. I was amazed at what Cornel was saying for the Palestinians and against Israel. I thought it was suicidal for someone who did not yet have tenure in the Zionized world of American Academia. Cornel did not care one whit and forthrightly Spoke Truth To Power like I did, but by then I had tenure here on a negotiated 3 year deal because I knew what I was going to do. As I said before, the Acid Test of your Courage, your Integrity and your Principles has always been where you stood on the Palestinians. Cornel passed that test with flying colors from the very get-go of his academic career even at grave risk to getting tenure. Fab. >>> >>> Francis A. Boyle >>> Law Building >>> 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. >>> Champaign, IL 61820 USA >>> 217-333-7954 (phone) >>> 217-244-1478 (fax) >>> (personal comments only) >>> >>> From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com ] >>> Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 1:37 PM >>> To: Boyle, Francis A > >>> Cc: David Green >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com ; peace-discuss at anti-war.net ; C. G. ESTABROOK >; a-fields at uiuc.edu ; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net ; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net ; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com ; mickalideh at gmail.com ; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net ; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien > >>> Subject: 'Refuse Fascism' & Bob Avakian's RCP >>> >>> [1] 'Refuse Fascism’: > >>> >>> [2] Gary Leupp discussed Avakian’s ‘Revolutionary Communist Party’ two years ago, in the context of a consideration of Sanders’ campaign: >>> ======================== >>> Counterpunch | February 5, 2016 >>> >>> "Is a ‘Socialist' Really Unelectable? The Potential Significance of the Sanders Campaign” >>> >>> ...The Revolutionary Communist Party contends: “The Bernie Sanders campaign—like those of every candidate who the ruling class allows to be taken seriously—essentially takes as its starting point stabilizing, strengthening, and ultimately enforcing the whole structure of a world dominated, exploited, and oppressed by the U.S. empire. And telling people that those interests are their interests.” >>> >>> And: “Throw off your blinders and get into BA [RCP chair Bob Avakian]! A whole better world really is possible and you need to be part of the solution and not—like Bernie Sanders—part of the problem.” >>> >>> What is more important now: sectarian sniping or popularizing an ideal? >>> >>> Reading these ringing declarations by left sects, I think to myself: What is more important? To broadcast to people what they already know—that Sanders’ conception of “socialism” is really Scandinavian-style capitalism (capitalism with a “human face”) and not socialism in the Marxian sense, which results from the overthrow of the capitalist class? >>> >>> Or: to note and appreciate the historical significance of Sanders’ campaign in returning the very term “socialism” to public discourse and emboldening people to openly identify with a concept anathema to Wall Street, the 1%, and the entire (widely hated) political establishment? >>> >>> Cornel West appears to choose the latter option. This is all the more interesting in that he has been friendly for years with the RCP that’s trashing Bernie while West stumps for him. The irony is that the above-mentioned Avakian owes West big time. >>> >>> Chairman Bob left the U.S. in 1980 for Paris and was not seen again in public until, with great fanfare, his party announced in 2003 that he had given talks on the East and West Coast and that these were available for purchase on DVD. It was not clear then or now that Avakian had permanently returned to the U.S. from Paris; the RCP refuses to comment on his whereabouts. But since few had seen him for twenty-three years, his sudden reappearance if only on video was a cause of jubilation among his followers. >>> >>> Cornel West wrote words of praise for Avakian (as a “long-distance runner in the freedom struggle against imperialism, racism and capitalism”) that appeared as a blurb on the cover of his autobiography published in 2005. (Notice the similarity to his recent description of Sanders.) >>> >>> He signed a statement in 2007 that appeared in the New York Review of Books—“Dangerous times demand courageous voices. Bob Avakian is such a voice.” The expensive ad was essentially designed to show anyone interested that Avakian had lots of well-known friends and that if the state went after him, they would have his back. Many intellectuals asked to sign, including Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky (not to mention myself), politely declined, noting that Avakian was under no specific legal threat and that the ad seemed designed to imply that he was in order to get signers to publicly aver that they “have come away from encounters with Avakian provoked and enriched in our own thinking,” declare that his “ability…to freely function” was “a concern,” urged that people “engage with the thoughts of Bob Avakian and bring them into what needs to be a rich and diverse dialogue,” and “[serve] notice to this government that we intend to defend” Avakian’s rights “to freely advocate and organize for his views.” >>> >>> West was one of the signatories. West also urged support for RCP bus tour in 2012 designed to promote Avakian and interviewed him for a PRI radio program in 2013. >>> >>> But the slowly resurfacing Avakian hadn’t given a public talk since 1980. As I understand it, the plan was for a dramatic Second Coming at a prestigious venue in the company of well-known public intellectual. Thus in November 2014 West joined Avakian for a “dialogue on revolution and religion” at the historic Riverside Church in Harlem. An overflow crowd heard the long-winded Avakian preach for two hours, interrupted increasingly by calls from the crowd for him to wrap up and let West take the podium. West spoke about half an hour, and then there were questions from the audience. >>> >>> It wasn’t really a dialogue, and had little analytical content, but that was probably not the point. “BA”—as he’s affectionately called by adherents of his cult (officially, the “culture of appreciation, promotion and popularization” of a man the RCP officially describes as “a rare and precious leader” who as “as simple fact” is the only person who could have developed Marxism such that “today being a communist means following Bob Avakian and the new path that he has forged”) had shown that he was real and ready for prime time. >>> >>> In sum: West has helped midwife the public rebirth of BA, who thinks Sanders is in the enemy camp. But West is a far firmer ally of Sanders than he is of “the rare and precious leader.” >>> >>> Who’s got blinders on? >>> >>> What does it tell us that even the public intellectual closest to the RCP—someone who longs for a revolutionary uprising as much as Avakian—is implicitly denounced by the RCP as “part of the problem” by supporting Sanders? It shows that the party is totally out of touch with reality. All it can do is say “drop your blinders and get into BA!” >>> >>> And the other radical left sects tend to similarly dismiss or attack the Sanders campaign as being short of really revolutionary, really socialist. As though there’s any party out there really rooted in the masses, able to develop what Mao called the “mass line”—any party whose burning potential is being stymied by Bernie’s sudden popularity! >>> >>> West’s endorsement of “Brother Bernie” is in his words “not an affirmation of the neo-liberal Democratic Party or a downplaying of the ugly Israeli occupation of the Palestinians” (which Sanders has not significantly opposed). Of course not. It’s a gamble that Sanders’ ongoing attack on Wall Street and open acknowledgement of a “democratic socialist” identity will lead to an electoral victory that will curb the power of the top stratum of capitalist parasites and diminish the prospects for more imperialist war. >>> >>> Such a result would not (of course) constitute socialism. It would not mean a real “revolution” in the Leninist sense. It might be a replay of Roosevelt and the New Deal (a series of measures largely designed to prevent a revolution in this country in the 1930s). But should we prefer to that outcome a victory of a Clinton or Cruz—-on the premise that such a presidency would exacerbate social contradictions to the point where the people (under the leadership of rare and precious leaders leading tiny sects whose rank-and-file members spout rhetoric they themselves hardly understand) will rise up in a repeat of the Bolshevik Revolution? >>> >>> In 1980 at age 24, already filled with contempt at the whole U.S. electoral process and viscerally opposed to any participation in it, I compared Carter and Reagan and hoped Reagan would win. Because I thought Reagan would so provoke the masses by his vicious cuts in social spending and his crazed Cold War mentality that his election would hasten the day of the needed revolution. I was overly optimistic and badly mistaken. >>> >>> These days I think that the election of a Cruz or Rubio—idiots who could easily trigger more war in the Middle East, North Africa or Ukraine, while abetting the further concentration of wealth in the hands of a few, immiserating more millions—could possibly produce a revolutionary situation, where (to paraphrase Lenin) the old system can’t continue in the old way, the masses can’t live in the old way, and there is revolutionary leadership. But I don’t hope for the election of either; the prospect indeed fills me with dread. >>> >>> Because I see no genuinely revolutionary party on the horizon remotely capable of effectively communicating with, much less leading the masses. I only see left sects trailing after each new mass movement, like Occupy or Black Lives Matter, striving to lead, recruiting a few new followers here and there, but more often than not alienating those they seek to influence by their wooden dogmatism, antiquated rhetoric, personality cults, lack of strategy and (often) the haggard zombie-like affect of their members trying to recruit. >>> >>> On the other hand there is Sanders, a European-style social democrat calling for a “political revolution” and energizing the young generation to support him. In U.S. political history, this is not insignificant. Nor is it principally a bad thing. The Sanders campaign, whatever else it is, is a sign that young people are becoming okay with (some concept of) socialism. That can only be good for those seeing themselves as advocates of “real” socialism. >>> >>> > >>> Gary Leupp is Professor of History at Tufts University, and holds a secondary appointment in the Department of Religion. He is the author of Servants, Shophands and Laborers in in the Cities of Tokugawa Japan; Male Colors: The Construction of Homosexuality in Tokugawa Japan; and Interracial Intimacy in Japan: Western Men and Japanese Women, 1543-1900. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion, (AK Press). He can be reached at: gleupp at tufts.edu >>> >>> ### >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Peace-discuss mailing list >>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Peace-discuss mailing list >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From futureup2us at gmail.com Mon Nov 13 21:22:33 2017 From: futureup2us at gmail.com (Jay Becker) Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2017 15:22:33 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Cornel West--The Real Deal! In-Reply-To: References: <18583CB8-36BA-4067-8230-E99BE7CDBFB8@gmail.com> Message-ID: <25629D5D-2152-4742-AD0F-4C12B3CB8CF0@gmail.com> I don’t know how anyone can listen to Trump’s speech at the UN and think he is seeking peace when he threatens to destroy another country. There’s obviously big conflicts within the ruling class. They are all “war parties,” they are all servants of capital, two wings of the vulture of US imperialism. They disagree with how best to advance the interests of the empire in crisis. To oppose the force in power now is no more to side with the “other side” than it was to side with the Republicans when we opposed Obama’s war crimes, or the Democrats when we opposed Bush’s invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, etc., etc. Jay > On Nov 13, 2017, at 15:01, C G Estabrook wrote: > > There seems to be a serious conflict between the president and the War Party about US war provocations in Eurasia (which continue from the last administration) - against the DPRK, the PRC, and Russia. > > The interests of the War Party ("the spooks [including the Pentagon], Wall Street Democrats and institutional servants of capital that gathered in Hillary Clinton’s overstuffed campaign tent, last year, to plot the next moves of a beleaguered U.S. empire") are served by those who pretend that Trump is the problem and his replacement the solution - such as the international criminals Brennan and Clapper: >. > > On the contrary, Trump is speaking eminent sense when he writes as follows: > > Donald J. Trump‏Verified account @realDonaldTrump > When will all the haters and fools out there realize that having a good relationship with Russia is a good thing, not a bad thing. There always playing politics - bad for our country. I want to solve North Korea, Syria, Ukraine, terrorism, and Russia can greatly help! > 6:18 PM - 11 Nov 2017 from Vietnam > > —CGE > > > "The CIA has demanded Trump is not elected. Pentagon generals have demanded he is not elected. The pro-war New York Times - taking a breather from its relentless low-rent Putin smears - demands that he is not elected. Something is up. These tribunes of 'perpetual war' are terrified that the multi-billion-dollar business of war by which the United States maintains its dominance will be undermined if Trump does a deal with Putin, then with China’s Xi Jinping. Their panic at the possibility of the world’s great power talking peace – however unlikely – would be the blackest farce were the issues not so dire.” —John Pilger, 2016 > > >> On Nov 13, 2017, at 2:30 PM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss > wrote: >> >> On Friday I gave them permission to use my Statement against USA waging war against DPRK in their Nationwide Protests on Saturday, Nov. 11. Did anyone watch on the Tube over the weekend the massive Armada that Trump has assembled off Korea that is now on war maneuvers starting on Saturday, Nov. 11: "... Anything can go wrong. Thank you so much for being here today to prevent World War III." Fab. >> >> Subject: [SECTNS.aals] - Statement for Chicago Peace Rally Today against threatened USA War Against North Korea. >> >> Ok. Here is a Statement below dealing with the legal aspects of the situation. Thanks for doing this protest. Fab. >> >> 1. The US government threats of “preventive warfare” against DPRK are illegal and criminal. The Nuremberg Tribunal in their Judgment of 1946, which the US helped organize, condemned “preventive war” when the Lawyers for the Nazis made the argument on their behalf. This is an illegal and criminal threat in violation of international law. According to the World Court in its Advisory Opinion (1996) on the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, the legality vel non of a threat stands or falls on the same legal grounds as if the threat were carried out. >> 2. The repeated US government threats to “destroy” or “annihilate” DPRK are an international crime under the 1948 Genocide Convention to which the United States is a party. These genocidal threats are also illegal and criminal under the rationale of the 1996 World Court Advisory Opinion mentioned above. >> 3. The United States has an absolute obligation under UN Charter article 2(3) and article 33 to open “negotiation” with DPRK in good faith in order to produce a peace resolution of this dispute. Instead, the US government has repeatedly rejected these obligations under the UN Charter. >> 4. The proposal by Russia and China for a “dual-freeze” is an excellent basis to produce good faith and direct negotiations between USA and DPRK as required by the UN Charter. >> 5. The United States is deliberately provoking DPRK, ratcheting up these provocations in the hope that they will provoke the DPRK to commit an act of aggression against the United States that the USA can then use as a pretext for war. Pursuant to the terms of their mutual self-defense treaty, China has stated that if the US attacks first it will defend DPRK, but that if DPRK strikes first, China will remain out of any war. So the United States is trying to provoke DPRK into striking first. >> 6. It is an extremely dangerous situation. It is really up to the United States to take the first step down the Ladder of Escalation that it has constructed here. Instead it appears that the Trump administration is going to escalate up the Ladder of Escalation in the hope and expectation that DPRK will capitulate. This is what International Political Scientists call a Game of Chicken-- with cosmic consequences. Who will blink first? Anything can go wrong. Thank you so much for being here today to prevent World War III. >> >> Francis A. Boyle >> Professor of Law >> University of Illinois College of Law >> Native Chicagoan >> >> >> Francis A. Boyle >> Law Building >> 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. >> Champaign, IL 61820 USA >> 217-333-7954 (phone) >> 217-244-1478 (fax) >> (personal comments only) >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com ] >> Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 2:17 PM >> To: Boyle, Francis A > >> Cc: Karen Aram >; peace-discuss at anti-war.net ; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Jay >; a-fields at uiuc.edu ; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; Szoke, Ron >; Joe Lauria >; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net ; abass10 at gmail.com ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com ; Arlene Hickory >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net ; mickalideh at gmail.com ; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net >> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Cornel West--The Real Deal! >> >> Francis-- >> >> West - once a fervent supporter of Obama - has spoken up on important matters, as you say. >> >> But the RCP group assert “Trump is the problem," like the War Party. And their ‘communism’ seems a matter of fashionable identity (not class) politics. >> >> The task remains to build opposition to neoconservatism (more war) and neoliberalism (more inequality). I don’t think RCP/Refuse Fascism does that. >> >> Regards, Carl >> >> >>> On Nov 13, 2017, at 1:53 PM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss > wrote: >>> >>> Excuse me! I don’t know Avakian personally. But I do know Cornel. HE IS THE REAL DEAL! Back in the early 1980s Cornel and I were on a Panel together on behalf of the Palestinians when he was a mere assistant professor without tenure at Princeton. I was amazed at what Cornel was saying for the Palestinians and against Israel. I thought it was suicidal for someone who did not yet have tenure in the Zionized world of American Academia. Cornel did not care one whit and forthrightly Spoke Truth To Power like I did, but by then I had tenure here on a negotiated 3 year deal because I knew what I was going to do. As I said before, the Acid Test of your Courage, your Integrity and your Principles has always been where you stood on the Palestinians. Cornel passed that test with flying colors from the very get-go of his academic career even at grave risk to getting tenure. Fab. >>> >>> Francis A. Boyle >>> Law Building >>> 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. >>> Champaign, IL 61820 USA >>> 217-333-7954 (phone) >>> 217-244-1478 (fax) >>> (personal comments only) >>> >>> From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com ] >>> Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 1:37 PM >>> To: Boyle, Francis A > >>> Cc: David Green >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com ; peace-discuss at anti-war.net ; C. G. ESTABROOK >; a-fields at uiuc.edu ; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net ; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net ; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com ; mickalideh at gmail.com ; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net ; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien > >>> Subject: 'Refuse Fascism' & Bob Avakian's RCP >>> >>> [1] 'Refuse Fascism’: > >>> >>> [2] Gary Leupp discussed Avakian’s ‘Revolutionary Communist Party’ two years ago, in the context of a consideration of Sanders’ campaign: >>> ======================== >>> Counterpunch | February 5, 2016 >>> >>> "Is a ‘Socialist' Really Unelectable? The Potential Significance of the Sanders Campaign” >>> >>> ...The Revolutionary Communist Party contends: “The Bernie Sanders campaign—like those of every candidate who the ruling class allows to be taken seriously—essentially takes as its starting point stabilizing, strengthening, and ultimately enforcing the whole structure of a world dominated, exploited, and oppressed by the U.S. empire. And telling people that those interests are their interests.” >>> >>> And: “Throw off your blinders and get into BA [RCP chair Bob Avakian]! A whole better world really is possible and you need to be part of the solution and not—like Bernie Sanders—part of the problem.” >>> >>> What is more important now: sectarian sniping or popularizing an ideal? >>> >>> Reading these ringing declarations by left sects, I think to myself: What is more important? To broadcast to people what they already know—that Sanders’ conception of “socialism” is really Scandinavian-style capitalism (capitalism with a “human face”) and not socialism in the Marxian sense, which results from the overthrow of the capitalist class? >>> >>> Or: to note and appreciate the historical significance of Sanders’ campaign in returning the very term “socialism” to public discourse and emboldening people to openly identify with a concept anathema to Wall Street, the 1%, and the entire (widely hated) political establishment? >>> >>> Cornel West appears to choose the latter option. This is all the more interesting in that he has been friendly for years with the RCP that’s trashing Bernie while West stumps for him. The irony is that the above-mentioned Avakian owes West big time. >>> >>> Chairman Bob left the U.S. in 1980 for Paris and was not seen again in public until, with great fanfare, his party announced in 2003 that he had given talks on the East and West Coast and that these were available for purchase on DVD. It was not clear then or now that Avakian had permanently returned to the U.S. from Paris; the RCP refuses to comment on his whereabouts. But since few had seen him for twenty-three years, his sudden reappearance if only on video was a cause of jubilation among his followers. >>> >>> Cornel West wrote words of praise for Avakian (as a “long-distance runner in the freedom struggle against imperialism, racism and capitalism”) that appeared as a blurb on the cover of his autobiography published in 2005. (Notice the similarity to his recent description of Sanders.) >>> >>> He signed a statement in 2007 that appeared in the New York Review of Books—“Dangerous times demand courageous voices. Bob Avakian is such a voice.” The expensive ad was essentially designed to show anyone interested that Avakian had lots of well-known friends and that if the state went after him, they would have his back. Many intellectuals asked to sign, including Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky (not to mention myself), politely declined, noting that Avakian was under no specific legal threat and that the ad seemed designed to imply that he was in order to get signers to publicly aver that they “have come away from encounters with Avakian provoked and enriched in our own thinking,” declare that his “ability…to freely function” was “a concern,” urged that people “engage with the thoughts of Bob Avakian and bring them into what needs to be a rich and diverse dialogue,” and “[serve] notice to this government that we intend to defend” Avakian’s rights “to freely advocate and organize for his views.” >>> >>> West was one of the signatories. West also urged support for RCP bus tour in 2012 designed to promote Avakian and interviewed him for a PRI radio program in 2013. >>> >>> But the slowly resurfacing Avakian hadn’t given a public talk since 1980. As I understand it, the plan was for a dramatic Second Coming at a prestigious venue in the company of well-known public intellectual. Thus in November 2014 West joined Avakian for a “dialogue on revolution and religion” at the historic Riverside Church in Harlem. An overflow crowd heard the long-winded Avakian preach for two hours, interrupted increasingly by calls from the crowd for him to wrap up and let West take the podium. West spoke about half an hour, and then there were questions from the audience. >>> >>> It wasn’t really a dialogue, and had little analytical content, but that was probably not the point. “BA”—as he’s affectionately called by adherents of his cult (officially, the “culture of appreciation, promotion and popularization” of a man the RCP officially describes as “a rare and precious leader” who as “as simple fact” is the only person who could have developed Marxism such that “today being a communist means following Bob Avakian and the new path that he has forged”) had shown that he was real and ready for prime time. >>> >>> In sum: West has helped midwife the public rebirth of BA, who thinks Sanders is in the enemy camp. But West is a far firmer ally of Sanders than he is of “the rare and precious leader.” >>> >>> Who’s got blinders on? >>> >>> What does it tell us that even the public intellectual closest to the RCP—someone who longs for a revolutionary uprising as much as Avakian—is implicitly denounced by the RCP as “part of the problem” by supporting Sanders? It shows that the party is totally out of touch with reality. All it can do is say “drop your blinders and get into BA!” >>> >>> And the other radical left sects tend to similarly dismiss or attack the Sanders campaign as being short of really revolutionary, really socialist. As though there’s any party out there really rooted in the masses, able to develop what Mao called the “mass line”—any party whose burning potential is being stymied by Bernie’s sudden popularity! >>> >>> West’s endorsement of “Brother Bernie” is in his words “not an affirmation of the neo-liberal Democratic Party or a downplaying of the ugly Israeli occupation of the Palestinians” (which Sanders has not significantly opposed). Of course not. It’s a gamble that Sanders’ ongoing attack on Wall Street and open acknowledgement of a “democratic socialist” identity will lead to an electoral victory that will curb the power of the top stratum of capitalist parasites and diminish the prospects for more imperialist war. >>> >>> Such a result would not (of course) constitute socialism. It would not mean a real “revolution” in the Leninist sense. It might be a replay of Roosevelt and the New Deal (a series of measures largely designed to prevent a revolution in this country in the 1930s). But should we prefer to that outcome a victory of a Clinton or Cruz—-on the premise that such a presidency would exacerbate social contradictions to the point where the people (under the leadership of rare and precious leaders leading tiny sects whose rank-and-file members spout rhetoric they themselves hardly understand) will rise up in a repeat of the Bolshevik Revolution? >>> >>> In 1980 at age 24, already filled with contempt at the whole U.S. electoral process and viscerally opposed to any participation in it, I compared Carter and Reagan and hoped Reagan would win. Because I thought Reagan would so provoke the masses by his vicious cuts in social spending and his crazed Cold War mentality that his election would hasten the day of the needed revolution. I was overly optimistic and badly mistaken. >>> >>> These days I think that the election of a Cruz or Rubio—idiots who could easily trigger more war in the Middle East, North Africa or Ukraine, while abetting the further concentration of wealth in the hands of a few, immiserating more millions—could possibly produce a revolutionary situation, where (to paraphrase Lenin) the old system can’t continue in the old way, the masses can’t live in the old way, and there is revolutionary leadership. But I don’t hope for the election of either; the prospect indeed fills me with dread. >>> >>> Because I see no genuinely revolutionary party on the horizon remotely capable of effectively communicating with, much less leading the masses. I only see left sects trailing after each new mass movement, like Occupy or Black Lives Matter, striving to lead, recruiting a few new followers here and there, but more often than not alienating those they seek to influence by their wooden dogmatism, antiquated rhetoric, personality cults, lack of strategy and (often) the haggard zombie-like affect of their members trying to recruit. >>> >>> On the other hand there is Sanders, a European-style social democrat calling for a “political revolution” and energizing the young generation to support him. In U.S. political history, this is not insignificant. Nor is it principally a bad thing. The Sanders campaign, whatever else it is, is a sign that young people are becoming okay with (some concept of) socialism. That can only be good for those seeing themselves as advocates of “real” socialism. >>> >>> > >>> Gary Leupp is Professor of History at Tufts University, and holds a secondary appointment in the Department of Religion. He is the author of Servants, Shophands and Laborers in in the Cities of Tokugawa Japan; Male Colors: The Construction of Homosexuality in Tokugawa Japan; and Interracial Intimacy in Japan: Western Men and Japanese Women, 1543-1900. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion, (AK Press). He can be reached at: gleupp at tufts.edu >>> >>> ### >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Peace-discuss mailing list >>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Peace-discuss mailing list >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From futureup2us at gmail.com Mon Nov 13 21:29:49 2017 From: futureup2us at gmail.com (Jay Becker) Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2017 15:29:49 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Trump Begging for Nuclear War on North Korea? - Stephen Lendman In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks, Francis, Lendman adds some more perspective from the DPRK itself. Jay > On Nov 13, 2017, at 06:55, Boyle, Francis A wrote: > > http://stephenlendman.org/2017/11/trump-begging-nuclear-war-north-korea/ > > I want to thank Jay for getting my Statement into circulation at all these Refuse Fascism in America Rallies on Saturday--my Sentiments Exactly! Fab. From futureup2us at gmail.com Mon Nov 13 21:29:49 2017 From: futureup2us at gmail.com (Jay Becker) Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2017 15:29:49 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Trump Begging for Nuclear War on North Korea? - Stephen Lendman In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks, Francis, Lendman adds some more perspective from the DPRK itself. Jay > On Nov 13, 2017, at 06:55, Boyle, Francis A wrote: > > http://stephenlendman.org/2017/11/trump-begging-nuclear-war-north-korea/ > > I want to thank Jay for getting my Statement into circulation at all these Refuse Fascism in America Rallies on Saturday--my Sentiments Exactly! Fab. From cgestabrook at gmail.com Mon Nov 13 22:07:51 2017 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2017 16:07:51 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Cornel West--The Real Deal! In-Reply-To: References: <18583CB8-36BA-4067-8230-E99BE7CDBFB8@gmail.com> Message-ID: West, like most of us, has occasionally changed his mind about politics: e.g., “...West suggests that the president [Obama] discarded him without provocation after he offered the Obama for America campaign his loyal service and prayers…” >. I think he should do so in regard to the RCP group, because their emphases (e.g., ~ Initial Call to Drive out Trump & Pence ~ A new film by Bob Avakian on the Trump/Pence Regime including Q&A ~ Why We Have Taken Up the Fight to Build Refuse Fascism and to Drive Out the Trump/Pence Fascist Regime etc.) support - by distraction - US war-making perhaps as much as support for Obama did, because the erratic Trump is not the problem - US war-making is. Indeed, in his better moments, Trump indicates a solution (and who the source of the problem are): Donald J. Trump‏Verified account @realDonaldTrump When will all the haters and fools out there realize that having a good relationship with Russia is a good thing, not a bad thing. There always playing politics - bad for our country. I want to solve North Korea, Syria, Ukraine, terrorism, and Russia can greatly help! 6:18 PM - 11 Nov 2017 from Vietnam It is significant that the pro-war party in the US are Trump’s inveterate enemies, as John Pilger noted before the election: "The CIA has demanded Trump is not elected. Pentagon generals have demanded he is not elected. The pro-war New York Times - taking a breather from its relentless low-rent Putin smears - demands that he is not elected. Something is up. These tribunes of 'perpetual war' are terrified that the multi-billion-dollar business of war by which the United States maintains its dominance will be undermined if Trump does a deal with Putin, then with China’s Xi Jinping. Their panic at the possibility of the world’s great power talking peace – however unlikely – would be the blackest farce were the issues not so dire.” [Pilger, 2016] —CGE > On Nov 13, 2017, at 2:25 PM, Karen Medina via Peace-discuss wrote: > > Carl, Every time I heard Cornel West, he was not supporting Obama. And > that included during the first Obama campaign for president. He was a > consistent critic of Obama from the beginning. > > I agree with FAB. > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From galliher at illinois.edu Mon Nov 13 21:30:14 2017 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2017 15:30:14 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Cornel West--The Real Deal! In-Reply-To: References: <18583CB8-36BA-4067-8230-E99BE7CDBFB8@gmail.com> Message-ID: <8D2A8530-574C-4255-BE70-CB164227C6FB@illinois.edu> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Mon Nov 13 22:58:36 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2017 22:58:36 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific References: <17467243.13521@subscriptions.dod.mil> Message-ID: This massive concentration of US naval forces had to have been planned and war-gamed far in advance of Trump by the Pentagon, probably going back to Obama launching his Pivot to Asia, which is really a Pivot against China, under the influence of his Guru Brzezinski as explained in his Grand Chessboard. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: U.S. Department of Defense [mailto:govdelivery at subscriptions.dod.mil] Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 3:45 PM To: Boyle, Francis A > Subject: Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific You are subscribed to News Articles for U.S. Department of Defense. This information has recently been updated, and is now available. Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific 11/13/2017 03:04 PM CST [Click photo for screen-resolution image] The USS Ronald Reagan, USS Theodore Roosevelt and USS Nimitz Strike Groups transit the Western Pacific with ships from the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force in the Western Pacific, Nov. 12, 2017. The three aircraft carriers and their strike groups are conducting operations in international waters as part of a strike force exercise. The Navy has patrolled the Indo-Asia-Pacific region routinely for more than 70 years promoting regional security, stability and prosperity. Navy photo by Petty Officer 3rd Class Anthony J. Rivera (Click photo for screen-resolution image);high-resolution image available. Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific By Lisa Ferdinando DoD News, Defense Media Activity WASHINGTON, Nov. 13, 2017 - A three-carrier naval force is finishing a multi-day exercise in the Western Pacific, demonstrating the Navy's unique capability to operate multiple carrier strike groups as a coordinated effort, according to Navy officials. "The United States Navy is the only force in the world able to carry out such an exercise," a Navy official told DoD News. The exercise features the aircraft carriers USS Ronald Reagan, USS Nimitz, and USS Theodore Roosevelt and includes air defense drills, sea surveillance, replenishments at sea, defensive air combat training, close-in coordinated maneuvers and other training, Navy officials said. Ships from Japan and South Korea joined the exercise, officials said. Triple Aircraft Carrier Training "It is a rare opportunity to train with two aircraft carriers together, and even rarer to be able to train with three," the U.S. Pacific Fleet commander, Navy Adm. Scott Swift, said in a U.S. 7th Fleet release. "Multiple carrier strike force operations are very complex," Swift said. He added, "This exercise in the Western Pacific is a strong testament to the U.S. Pacific Fleet's unique ability and ironclad commitment to the continued security and stability of the region." The exercise is the first time three carrier strike groups have operated together in the Western Pacific since exercises Valiant Shield 2006 and 2007 off the coast of Guam, according to Navy officials. Officials point out Navy aircraft carriers more recently have conducted dual-carrier strike group operations in the Western Pacific including in the South China Sea, East China Sea and Philippine Sea. These exercises typically happen when an aircraft carrier deployed to the 7th Fleet area of operations joins with the carrier based in Japan. In this instance, the Nimitz was finishing a deployment in the 5th Fleet area -- the Persian Gulf -- and the Roosevelt was relieving it. The Reagan -- homeported in Japan -- joined the other two carriers, which are based in the Western United States. (Follow Lisa Ferdinando on Twitter: @FerdinandoDoD) Related Links U.S. Pacific Command Special Report: DoD Focus on the Asia-Pacific [Bookmark and Share] ________________________________ Update your subscriptions, modify your password or email address, or stop subscriptions at any time on your our email address to log in. If you have questions or problems with the subscription service, please email s. Have another inquiry? Contact the U.S. Department of Defense. This service is provided to you at no charge by U.S. Department of Defense. Visit us on the web at http://www.defense.gov/. Updates from the U.S. Department of Defense -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Mon Nov 13 22:58:36 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2017 22:58:36 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific References: <17467243.13521@subscriptions.dod.mil> Message-ID: This massive concentration of US naval forces had to have been planned and war-gamed far in advance of Trump by the Pentagon, probably going back to Obama launching his Pivot to Asia, which is really a Pivot against China, under the influence of his Guru Brzezinski as explained in his Grand Chessboard. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: U.S. Department of Defense [mailto:govdelivery at subscriptions.dod.mil] Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 3:45 PM To: Boyle, Francis A > Subject: Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific You are subscribed to News Articles for U.S. Department of Defense. This information has recently been updated, and is now available. Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific 11/13/2017 03:04 PM CST [Click photo for screen-resolution image] The USS Ronald Reagan, USS Theodore Roosevelt and USS Nimitz Strike Groups transit the Western Pacific with ships from the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force in the Western Pacific, Nov. 12, 2017. The three aircraft carriers and their strike groups are conducting operations in international waters as part of a strike force exercise. The Navy has patrolled the Indo-Asia-Pacific region routinely for more than 70 years promoting regional security, stability and prosperity. Navy photo by Petty Officer 3rd Class Anthony J. Rivera (Click photo for screen-resolution image);high-resolution image available. Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific By Lisa Ferdinando DoD News, Defense Media Activity WASHINGTON, Nov. 13, 2017 - A three-carrier naval force is finishing a multi-day exercise in the Western Pacific, demonstrating the Navy's unique capability to operate multiple carrier strike groups as a coordinated effort, according to Navy officials. "The United States Navy is the only force in the world able to carry out such an exercise," a Navy official told DoD News. The exercise features the aircraft carriers USS Ronald Reagan, USS Nimitz, and USS Theodore Roosevelt and includes air defense drills, sea surveillance, replenishments at sea, defensive air combat training, close-in coordinated maneuvers and other training, Navy officials said. Ships from Japan and South Korea joined the exercise, officials said. Triple Aircraft Carrier Training "It is a rare opportunity to train with two aircraft carriers together, and even rarer to be able to train with three," the U.S. Pacific Fleet commander, Navy Adm. Scott Swift, said in a U.S. 7th Fleet release. "Multiple carrier strike force operations are very complex," Swift said. He added, "This exercise in the Western Pacific is a strong testament to the U.S. Pacific Fleet's unique ability and ironclad commitment to the continued security and stability of the region." The exercise is the first time three carrier strike groups have operated together in the Western Pacific since exercises Valiant Shield 2006 and 2007 off the coast of Guam, according to Navy officials. Officials point out Navy aircraft carriers more recently have conducted dual-carrier strike group operations in the Western Pacific including in the South China Sea, East China Sea and Philippine Sea. These exercises typically happen when an aircraft carrier deployed to the 7th Fleet area of operations joins with the carrier based in Japan. In this instance, the Nimitz was finishing a deployment in the 5th Fleet area -- the Persian Gulf -- and the Roosevelt was relieving it. The Reagan -- homeported in Japan -- joined the other two carriers, which are based in the Western United States. (Follow Lisa Ferdinando on Twitter: @FerdinandoDoD) Related Links U.S. Pacific Command Special Report: DoD Focus on the Asia-Pacific [Bookmark and Share] ________________________________ Update your subscriptions, modify your password or email address, or stop subscriptions at any time on your our email address to log in. If you have questions or problems with the subscription service, please email s. Have another inquiry? Contact the U.S. Department of Defense. This service is provided to you at no charge by U.S. Department of Defense. Visit us on the web at http://www.defense.gov/. Updates from the U.S. Department of Defense -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Mon Nov 13 23:10:09 2017 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2017 17:10:09 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific In-Reply-To: References: <17467243.13521@subscriptions.dod.mil> Message-ID: I think this is quite right. Obama’s ‘pivot’ - war provocations vs. China - remains the War Party’s policy. They’re terribly afraid Trump will abandon it (and other pro-war policies) & so want to drive him from office. Brzezinski explicitly references Mackinder. US foreign policy makers learn nothing & forget nothing. —CGE > On Nov 13, 2017, at 4:58 PM, Boyle, Francis A wrote: > > This massive concentration of US naval forces had to have been planned and war-gamed far in advance of Trump by the Pentagon, probably going back to Obama launching his Pivot to Asia, which is really a Pivot against China, under the influence of his Guru Brzezinski as explained in his Grand Chessboard. Fab. > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign, IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) > > From: U.S. Department of Defense [mailto:govdelivery at subscriptions.dod.mil] > Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 3:45 PM > To: Boyle, Francis A > Subject: Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific > > You are subscribed to News Articles for U.S. Department of Defense. This information has recently been updated, and is now available. > > > > Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific > 11/13/2017 03:04 PM CST > > > The USS Ronald Reagan, USS Theodore Roosevelt and USS Nimitz Strike Groups transit the Western Pacific with ships from the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force in the Western Pacific, Nov. 12, 2017. The three aircraft carriers and their strike groups are conducting operations in international waters as part of a strike force exercise. The Navy has patrolled the Indo-Asia-Pacific region routinely for more than 70 years promoting regional security, stability and prosperity. Navy photo by Petty Officer 3rd Class Anthony J. Rivera > (Click photo for screen-resolution image);high-resolution imageavailable. > Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific > > By Lisa Ferdinando > > DoD News, Defense Media Activity > > WASHINGTON, Nov. 13, 2017 — A three-carrier naval force is finishing a multi-day exercise in the Western Pacific, demonstrating the Navy's unique capability to operate multiple carrier strike groups as a coordinated effort, according to Navy officials. > > “The United States Navy is the only force in the world able to carry out such an exercise,” a Navy official told DoD News. > > The exercise features the aircraft carriers USS Ronald Reagan, USS Nimitz, and USS Theodore Roosevelt and includes air defense drills, sea surveillance, replenishments at sea, defensive air combat training, close-in coordinated maneuvers and other training, Navy officials said. > > Ships from Japan and South Korea joined the exercise, officials said. > > Triple Aircraft Carrier Training > > "It is a rare opportunity to train with two aircraft carriers together, and even rarer to be able to train with three," the U.S. Pacific Fleet commander, Navy Adm. Scott Swift, said in a U.S. 7th Fleet release. > > "Multiple carrier strike force operations are very complex,” Swift said. > > He added, “This exercise in the Western Pacific is a strong testament to the U.S. Pacific Fleet's unique ability and ironclad commitment to the continued security and stability of the region." > > The exercise is the first time three carrier strike groups have operated together in the Western Pacific since exercises Valiant Shield 2006 and 2007 off the coast of Guam, according to Navy officials. > > Officials point out Navy aircraft carriers more recently have conducted dual-carrier strike group operations in the Western Pacific including in the South China Sea, East China Sea and Philippine Sea. > > These exercises typically happen when an aircraft carrier deployed to the 7th Fleet area of operations joins with the carrier based in Japan. In this instance, the Nimitz was finishing a deployment in the 5th Fleet area -- the Persian Gulf -- and the Roosevelt was relieving it. The Reagan -- homeported in Japan -- joined the other two carriers, which are based in the Western United States. > > (Follow Lisa Ferdinando on Twitter: @FerdinandoDoD) > > Related Links > > U.S. Pacific Command > Special Report: DoD Focus on the Asia-Pacific > > > Update your subscriptions, modify your password or email address, or stop subscriptions at any time on your our email address to log in. If you have questions or problems with the subscription service, please email s. Have another inquiry? Contact the U.S. Department of Defense. > > This service is provided to you at no charge by U.S. Department of Defense. Visit us on the web athttp://www.defense.gov/. > > Updates from the U.S. Department of Defense > From cgestabrook at gmail.com Mon Nov 13 23:10:09 2017 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2017 17:10:09 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific In-Reply-To: References: <17467243.13521@subscriptions.dod.mil> Message-ID: I think this is quite right. Obama’s ‘pivot’ - war provocations vs. China - remains the War Party’s policy. They’re terribly afraid Trump will abandon it (and other pro-war policies) & so want to drive him from office. Brzezinski explicitly references Mackinder. US foreign policy makers learn nothing & forget nothing. —CGE > On Nov 13, 2017, at 4:58 PM, Boyle, Francis A wrote: > > This massive concentration of US naval forces had to have been planned and war-gamed far in advance of Trump by the Pentagon, probably going back to Obama launching his Pivot to Asia, which is really a Pivot against China, under the influence of his Guru Brzezinski as explained in his Grand Chessboard. Fab. > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign, IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) > > From: U.S. Department of Defense [mailto:govdelivery at subscriptions.dod.mil] > Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 3:45 PM > To: Boyle, Francis A > Subject: Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific > > You are subscribed to News Articles for U.S. Department of Defense. This information has recently been updated, and is now available. > > > > Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific > 11/13/2017 03:04 PM CST > > > The USS Ronald Reagan, USS Theodore Roosevelt and USS Nimitz Strike Groups transit the Western Pacific with ships from the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force in the Western Pacific, Nov. 12, 2017. The three aircraft carriers and their strike groups are conducting operations in international waters as part of a strike force exercise. The Navy has patrolled the Indo-Asia-Pacific region routinely for more than 70 years promoting regional security, stability and prosperity. Navy photo by Petty Officer 3rd Class Anthony J. Rivera > (Click photo for screen-resolution image);high-resolution imageavailable. > Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific > > By Lisa Ferdinando > > DoD News, Defense Media Activity > > WASHINGTON, Nov. 13, 2017 — A three-carrier naval force is finishing a multi-day exercise in the Western Pacific, demonstrating the Navy's unique capability to operate multiple carrier strike groups as a coordinated effort, according to Navy officials. > > “The United States Navy is the only force in the world able to carry out such an exercise,” a Navy official told DoD News. > > The exercise features the aircraft carriers USS Ronald Reagan, USS Nimitz, and USS Theodore Roosevelt and includes air defense drills, sea surveillance, replenishments at sea, defensive air combat training, close-in coordinated maneuvers and other training, Navy officials said. > > Ships from Japan and South Korea joined the exercise, officials said. > > Triple Aircraft Carrier Training > > "It is a rare opportunity to train with two aircraft carriers together, and even rarer to be able to train with three," the U.S. Pacific Fleet commander, Navy Adm. Scott Swift, said in a U.S. 7th Fleet release. > > "Multiple carrier strike force operations are very complex,” Swift said. > > He added, “This exercise in the Western Pacific is a strong testament to the U.S. Pacific Fleet's unique ability and ironclad commitment to the continued security and stability of the region." > > The exercise is the first time three carrier strike groups have operated together in the Western Pacific since exercises Valiant Shield 2006 and 2007 off the coast of Guam, according to Navy officials. > > Officials point out Navy aircraft carriers more recently have conducted dual-carrier strike group operations in the Western Pacific including in the South China Sea, East China Sea and Philippine Sea. > > These exercises typically happen when an aircraft carrier deployed to the 7th Fleet area of operations joins with the carrier based in Japan. In this instance, the Nimitz was finishing a deployment in the 5th Fleet area -- the Persian Gulf -- and the Roosevelt was relieving it. The Reagan -- homeported in Japan -- joined the other two carriers, which are based in the Western United States. > > (Follow Lisa Ferdinando on Twitter: @FerdinandoDoD) > > Related Links > > U.S. Pacific Command > Special Report: DoD Focus on the Asia-Pacific > > > Update your subscriptions, modify your password or email address, or stop subscriptions at any time on your our email address to log in. If you have questions or problems with the subscription service, please email s. Have another inquiry? Contact the U.S. Department of Defense. > > This service is provided to you at no charge by U.S. Department of Defense. Visit us on the web athttp://www.defense.gov/. > > Updates from the U.S. Department of Defense > From fboyle at illinois.edu Mon Nov 13 23:14:13 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2017 23:14:13 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific In-Reply-To: References: <17467243.13521@subscriptions.dod.mil> Message-ID: Yeah, thanks Carl. That's the way I see it too. I guess we shall see what happens. There was some Air Force General on the Tube a while ago saying we could take out DPRK in 4 hours. But the only way they could do that would be with nukes. Would not put it past them. Trump's speech about "fire and fury" clearly implied using nukes. So it is on their Radar Screen. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -----Original Message----- From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 5:10 PM To: Boyle, Francis A Cc: David Green ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay ; David Johnson ; Mildred O'brien Subject: Re: Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific I think this is quite right. Obama’s ‘pivot’ - war provocations vs. China - remains the War Party’s policy. They’re terribly afraid Trump will abandon it (and other pro-war policies) & so want to drive him from office. Brzezinski explicitly references Mackinder. US foreign policy makers learn nothing & forget nothing. —CGE > On Nov 13, 2017, at 4:58 PM, Boyle, Francis A wrote: > > This massive concentration of US naval forces had to have been planned and war-gamed far in advance of Trump by the Pentagon, probably going back to Obama launching his Pivot to Asia, which is really a Pivot against China, under the influence of his Guru Brzezinski as explained in his Grand Chessboard. Fab. > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign, IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) > > From: U.S. Department of Defense > [mailto:govdelivery at subscriptions.dod.mil] > Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 3:45 PM > To: Boyle, Francis A > Subject: Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western > Pacific > > You are subscribed to News Articles for U.S. Department of Defense. This information has recently been updated, and is now available. > > > > Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific > 11/13/2017 03:04 PM CST > > > The USS Ronald Reagan, USS Theodore Roosevelt and USS Nimitz Strike > Groups transit the Western Pacific with ships from the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force in the Western Pacific, Nov. 12, 2017. The three aircraft carriers and their strike groups are conducting operations in international waters as part of a strike force exercise. The Navy has patrolled the Indo-Asia-Pacific region routinely for more than 70 years promoting regional security, stability and prosperity. Navy photo by Petty Officer 3rd Class Anthony J. Rivera (Click photo for screen-resolution image);high-resolution imageavailable. > Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific > > By Lisa Ferdinando > > DoD News, Defense Media Activity > > WASHINGTON, Nov. 13, 2017 — A three-carrier naval force is finishing a multi-day exercise in the Western Pacific, demonstrating the Navy's unique capability to operate multiple carrier strike groups as a coordinated effort, according to Navy officials. > > “The United States Navy is the only force in the world able to carry out such an exercise,” a Navy official told DoD News. > > The exercise features the aircraft carriers USS Ronald Reagan, USS Nimitz, and USS Theodore Roosevelt and includes air defense drills, sea surveillance, replenishments at sea, defensive air combat training, close-in coordinated maneuvers and other training, Navy officials said. > > Ships from Japan and South Korea joined the exercise, officials said. > > Triple Aircraft Carrier Training > > "It is a rare opportunity to train with two aircraft carriers together, and even rarer to be able to train with three," the U.S. Pacific Fleet commander, Navy Adm. Scott Swift, said in a U.S. 7th Fleet release. > > "Multiple carrier strike force operations are very complex,” Swift said. > > He added, “This exercise in the Western Pacific is a strong testament to the U.S. Pacific Fleet's unique ability and ironclad commitment to the continued security and stability of the region." > > The exercise is the first time three carrier strike groups have operated together in the Western Pacific since exercises Valiant Shield 2006 and 2007 off the coast of Guam, according to Navy officials. > > Officials point out Navy aircraft carriers more recently have conducted dual-carrier strike group operations in the Western Pacific including in the South China Sea, East China Sea and Philippine Sea. > > These exercises typically happen when an aircraft carrier deployed to the 7th Fleet area of operations joins with the carrier based in Japan. In this instance, the Nimitz was finishing a deployment in the 5th Fleet area -- the Persian Gulf -- and the Roosevelt was relieving it. The Reagan -- homeported in Japan -- joined the other two carriers, which are based in the Western United States. > > (Follow Lisa Ferdinando on Twitter: @FerdinandoDoD) > > Related Links > > U.S. Pacific Command > Special Report: DoD Focus on the Asia-Pacific > > > Update your subscriptions, modify your password or email address, or stop subscriptions at any time on your our email address to log in. If you have questions or problems with the subscription service, please email s. Have another inquiry? Contact the U.S. Department of Defense. > > This service is provided to you at no charge by U.S. Department of Defense. Visit us on the web athttp://www.defense.gov/. > > Updates from the U.S. Department of Defense > From fboyle at illinois.edu Mon Nov 13 23:14:13 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2017 23:14:13 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific In-Reply-To: References: <17467243.13521@subscriptions.dod.mil> Message-ID: Yeah, thanks Carl. That's the way I see it too. I guess we shall see what happens. There was some Air Force General on the Tube a while ago saying we could take out DPRK in 4 hours. But the only way they could do that would be with nukes. Would not put it past them. Trump's speech about "fire and fury" clearly implied using nukes. So it is on their Radar Screen. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -----Original Message----- From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 5:10 PM To: Boyle, Francis A Cc: David Green ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay ; David Johnson ; Mildred O'brien Subject: Re: Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific I think this is quite right. Obama’s ‘pivot’ - war provocations vs. China - remains the War Party’s policy. They’re terribly afraid Trump will abandon it (and other pro-war policies) & so want to drive him from office. Brzezinski explicitly references Mackinder. US foreign policy makers learn nothing & forget nothing. —CGE > On Nov 13, 2017, at 4:58 PM, Boyle, Francis A wrote: > > This massive concentration of US naval forces had to have been planned and war-gamed far in advance of Trump by the Pentagon, probably going back to Obama launching his Pivot to Asia, which is really a Pivot against China, under the influence of his Guru Brzezinski as explained in his Grand Chessboard. Fab. > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign, IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) > > From: U.S. Department of Defense > [mailto:govdelivery at subscriptions.dod.mil] > Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 3:45 PM > To: Boyle, Francis A > Subject: Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western > Pacific > > You are subscribed to News Articles for U.S. Department of Defense. This information has recently been updated, and is now available. > > > > Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific > 11/13/2017 03:04 PM CST > > > The USS Ronald Reagan, USS Theodore Roosevelt and USS Nimitz Strike > Groups transit the Western Pacific with ships from the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force in the Western Pacific, Nov. 12, 2017. The three aircraft carriers and their strike groups are conducting operations in international waters as part of a strike force exercise. The Navy has patrolled the Indo-Asia-Pacific region routinely for more than 70 years promoting regional security, stability and prosperity. Navy photo by Petty Officer 3rd Class Anthony J. Rivera (Click photo for screen-resolution image);high-resolution imageavailable. > Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific > > By Lisa Ferdinando > > DoD News, Defense Media Activity > > WASHINGTON, Nov. 13, 2017 — A three-carrier naval force is finishing a multi-day exercise in the Western Pacific, demonstrating the Navy's unique capability to operate multiple carrier strike groups as a coordinated effort, according to Navy officials. > > “The United States Navy is the only force in the world able to carry out such an exercise,” a Navy official told DoD News. > > The exercise features the aircraft carriers USS Ronald Reagan, USS Nimitz, and USS Theodore Roosevelt and includes air defense drills, sea surveillance, replenishments at sea, defensive air combat training, close-in coordinated maneuvers and other training, Navy officials said. > > Ships from Japan and South Korea joined the exercise, officials said. > > Triple Aircraft Carrier Training > > "It is a rare opportunity to train with two aircraft carriers together, and even rarer to be able to train with three," the U.S. Pacific Fleet commander, Navy Adm. Scott Swift, said in a U.S. 7th Fleet release. > > "Multiple carrier strike force operations are very complex,” Swift said. > > He added, “This exercise in the Western Pacific is a strong testament to the U.S. Pacific Fleet's unique ability and ironclad commitment to the continued security and stability of the region." > > The exercise is the first time three carrier strike groups have operated together in the Western Pacific since exercises Valiant Shield 2006 and 2007 off the coast of Guam, according to Navy officials. > > Officials point out Navy aircraft carriers more recently have conducted dual-carrier strike group operations in the Western Pacific including in the South China Sea, East China Sea and Philippine Sea. > > These exercises typically happen when an aircraft carrier deployed to the 7th Fleet area of operations joins with the carrier based in Japan. In this instance, the Nimitz was finishing a deployment in the 5th Fleet area -- the Persian Gulf -- and the Roosevelt was relieving it. The Reagan -- homeported in Japan -- joined the other two carriers, which are based in the Western United States. > > (Follow Lisa Ferdinando on Twitter: @FerdinandoDoD) > > Related Links > > U.S. Pacific Command > Special Report: DoD Focus on the Asia-Pacific > > > Update your subscriptions, modify your password or email address, or stop subscriptions at any time on your our email address to log in. If you have questions or problems with the subscription service, please email s. Have another inquiry? Contact the U.S. Department of Defense. > > This service is provided to you at no charge by U.S. Department of Defense. Visit us on the web athttp://www.defense.gov/. > > Updates from the U.S. Department of Defense > From cgestabrook at gmail.com Mon Nov 13 23:14:33 2017 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2017 17:14:33 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Cornel West--The Real Deal! In-Reply-To: <8D2A8530-574C-4255-BE70-CB164227C6FB@illinois.edu> References: <18583CB8-36BA-4067-8230-E99BE7CDBFB8@gmail.com> <8D2A8530-574C-4255-BE70-CB164227C6FB@illinois.edu> Message-ID: [Wikipedia] Cornel West publicly supported 2008 Democratic presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama. He spoke to over 1,000 of his supporters at the Apollo Theater in Harlem, on November 29, 2007.[80] West, however, criticized President Obama when Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009, saying that it would be difficult for Obama to be "a war president with a peace prize". West further retracted his support for Obama in an April 2011 interview, stating that Obama is "a black mascot of Wall Street oligarchs and a black muppet of corporate plutocrats. And now he has become head of the American killing machine and is proud of it."[81][82][83] In November 2012, West said in an interview that he considered Obama a "Rockefeller Republican in blackface."[84][85] >> On Nov 13, 2017, at 2:25 PM, Karen Medina via Peace-discuss wrote: >> >> Carl, Every time I heard Cornel West, he was not supporting Obama. And >> that included during the first Obama campaign for president. He was a >> consistent critic of Obama from the beginning. >> >> I agree with FAB. >> _______________________________________________ >> Peace-discuss mailing list >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss From cgestabrook at gmail.com Mon Nov 13 23:18:53 2017 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2017 17:18:53 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific In-Reply-To: References: <17467243.13521@subscriptions.dod.mil> Message-ID: And Steve Bannon pointed out the impossibility of military action against N. Korea: > > On Nov 13, 2017, at 5:14 PM, Boyle, Francis A wrote: > > Yeah, thanks Carl. That's the way I see it too. I guess we shall see what happens. There was some Air Force General on the Tube a while ago saying we could take out DPRK in 4 hours. But the only way they could do that would be with nukes. Would not put it past them. Trump's speech about "fire and fury" clearly implied using nukes. So it is on their Radar Screen. Fab. > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign, IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) > > > -----Original Message----- > From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] > Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 5:10 PM > To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: David Green ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay ; David Johnson ; Mildred O'brien > Subject: Re: Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific > > I think this is quite right. Obama’s ‘pivot’ - war provocations vs. China - remains the War Party’s policy. > > They’re terribly afraid Trump will abandon it (and other pro-war policies) & so want to drive him from office. > > Brzezinski explicitly references Mackinder. US foreign policy makers learn nothing & forget nothing. > > —CGE > > >> On Nov 13, 2017, at 4:58 PM, Boyle, Francis A wrote: >> >> This massive concentration of US naval forces had to have been planned and war-gamed far in advance of Trump by the Pentagon, probably going back to Obama launching his Pivot to Asia, which is really a Pivot against China, under the influence of his Guru Brzezinski as explained in his Grand Chessboard. Fab. >> >> Francis A. Boyle >> Law Building >> 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. >> Champaign, IL 61820 USA >> 217-333-7954 (phone) >> 217-244-1478 (fax) >> (personal comments only) >> >> From: U.S. Department of Defense >> [mailto:govdelivery at subscriptions.dod.mil] >> Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 3:45 PM >> To: Boyle, Francis A >> Subject: Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western >> Pacific >> >> You are subscribed to News Articles for U.S. Department of Defense. This information has recently been updated, and is now available. >> >> >> >> Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific >> 11/13/2017 03:04 PM CST >> >> >> The USS Ronald Reagan, USS Theodore Roosevelt and USS Nimitz Strike >> Groups transit the Western Pacific with ships from the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force in the Western Pacific, Nov. 12, 2017. The three aircraft carriers and their strike groups are conducting operations in international waters as part of a strike force exercise. The Navy has patrolled the Indo-Asia-Pacific region routinely for more than 70 years promoting regional security, stability and prosperity. Navy photo by Petty Officer 3rd Class Anthony J. Rivera (Click photo for screen-resolution image);high-resolution imageavailable. >> Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific >> >> By Lisa Ferdinando >> >> DoD News, Defense Media Activity >> >> WASHINGTON, Nov. 13, 2017 — A three-carrier naval force is finishing a multi-day exercise in the Western Pacific, demonstrating the Navy's unique capability to operate multiple carrier strike groups as a coordinated effort, according to Navy officials. >> >> “The United States Navy is the only force in the world able to carry out such an exercise,” a Navy official told DoD News. >> >> The exercise features the aircraft carriers USS Ronald Reagan, USS Nimitz, and USS Theodore Roosevelt and includes air defense drills, sea surveillance, replenishments at sea, defensive air combat training, close-in coordinated maneuvers and other training, Navy officials said. >> >> Ships from Japan and South Korea joined the exercise, officials said. >> >> Triple Aircraft Carrier Training >> >> "It is a rare opportunity to train with two aircraft carriers together, and even rarer to be able to train with three," the U.S. Pacific Fleet commander, Navy Adm. Scott Swift, said in a U.S. 7th Fleet release. >> >> "Multiple carrier strike force operations are very complex,” Swift said. >> >> He added, “This exercise in the Western Pacific is a strong testament to the U.S. Pacific Fleet's unique ability and ironclad commitment to the continued security and stability of the region." >> >> The exercise is the first time three carrier strike groups have operated together in the Western Pacific since exercises Valiant Shield 2006 and 2007 off the coast of Guam, according to Navy officials. >> >> Officials point out Navy aircraft carriers more recently have conducted dual-carrier strike group operations in the Western Pacific including in the South China Sea, East China Sea and Philippine Sea. >> >> These exercises typically happen when an aircraft carrier deployed to the 7th Fleet area of operations joins with the carrier based in Japan. In this instance, the Nimitz was finishing a deployment in the 5th Fleet area -- the Persian Gulf -- and the Roosevelt was relieving it. The Reagan -- homeported in Japan -- joined the other two carriers, which are based in the Western United States. >> >> (Follow Lisa Ferdinando on Twitter: @FerdinandoDoD) >> >> Related Links >> >> U.S. Pacific Command >> Special Report: DoD Focus on the Asia-Pacific >> >> >> Update your subscriptions, modify your password or email address, or stop subscriptions at any time on your our email address to log in. If you have questions or problems with the subscription service, please email s. Have another inquiry? Contact the U.S. Department of Defense. >> >> This service is provided to you at no charge by U.S. Department of Defense. Visit us on the web athttp://www.defense.gov/. >> >> Updates from the U.S. Department of Defense >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Mon Nov 13 23:18:53 2017 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2017 17:18:53 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific In-Reply-To: References: <17467243.13521@subscriptions.dod.mil> Message-ID: And Steve Bannon pointed out the impossibility of military action against N. Korea: > > On Nov 13, 2017, at 5:14 PM, Boyle, Francis A wrote: > > Yeah, thanks Carl. That's the way I see it too. I guess we shall see what happens. There was some Air Force General on the Tube a while ago saying we could take out DPRK in 4 hours. But the only way they could do that would be with nukes. Would not put it past them. Trump's speech about "fire and fury" clearly implied using nukes. So it is on their Radar Screen. Fab. > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign, IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) > > > -----Original Message----- > From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] > Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 5:10 PM > To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: David Green ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay ; David Johnson ; Mildred O'brien > Subject: Re: Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific > > I think this is quite right. Obama’s ‘pivot’ - war provocations vs. China - remains the War Party’s policy. > > They’re terribly afraid Trump will abandon it (and other pro-war policies) & so want to drive him from office. > > Brzezinski explicitly references Mackinder. US foreign policy makers learn nothing & forget nothing. > > —CGE > > >> On Nov 13, 2017, at 4:58 PM, Boyle, Francis A wrote: >> >> This massive concentration of US naval forces had to have been planned and war-gamed far in advance of Trump by the Pentagon, probably going back to Obama launching his Pivot to Asia, which is really a Pivot against China, under the influence of his Guru Brzezinski as explained in his Grand Chessboard. Fab. >> >> Francis A. Boyle >> Law Building >> 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. >> Champaign, IL 61820 USA >> 217-333-7954 (phone) >> 217-244-1478 (fax) >> (personal comments only) >> >> From: U.S. Department of Defense >> [mailto:govdelivery at subscriptions.dod.mil] >> Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 3:45 PM >> To: Boyle, Francis A >> Subject: Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western >> Pacific >> >> You are subscribed to News Articles for U.S. Department of Defense. This information has recently been updated, and is now available. >> >> >> >> Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific >> 11/13/2017 03:04 PM CST >> >> >> The USS Ronald Reagan, USS Theodore Roosevelt and USS Nimitz Strike >> Groups transit the Western Pacific with ships from the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force in the Western Pacific, Nov. 12, 2017. The three aircraft carriers and their strike groups are conducting operations in international waters as part of a strike force exercise. The Navy has patrolled the Indo-Asia-Pacific region routinely for more than 70 years promoting regional security, stability and prosperity. Navy photo by Petty Officer 3rd Class Anthony J. Rivera (Click photo for screen-resolution image);high-resolution imageavailable. >> Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific >> >> By Lisa Ferdinando >> >> DoD News, Defense Media Activity >> >> WASHINGTON, Nov. 13, 2017 — A three-carrier naval force is finishing a multi-day exercise in the Western Pacific, demonstrating the Navy's unique capability to operate multiple carrier strike groups as a coordinated effort, according to Navy officials. >> >> “The United States Navy is the only force in the world able to carry out such an exercise,” a Navy official told DoD News. >> >> The exercise features the aircraft carriers USS Ronald Reagan, USS Nimitz, and USS Theodore Roosevelt and includes air defense drills, sea surveillance, replenishments at sea, defensive air combat training, close-in coordinated maneuvers and other training, Navy officials said. >> >> Ships from Japan and South Korea joined the exercise, officials said. >> >> Triple Aircraft Carrier Training >> >> "It is a rare opportunity to train with two aircraft carriers together, and even rarer to be able to train with three," the U.S. Pacific Fleet commander, Navy Adm. Scott Swift, said in a U.S. 7th Fleet release. >> >> "Multiple carrier strike force operations are very complex,” Swift said. >> >> He added, “This exercise in the Western Pacific is a strong testament to the U.S. Pacific Fleet's unique ability and ironclad commitment to the continued security and stability of the region." >> >> The exercise is the first time three carrier strike groups have operated together in the Western Pacific since exercises Valiant Shield 2006 and 2007 off the coast of Guam, according to Navy officials. >> >> Officials point out Navy aircraft carriers more recently have conducted dual-carrier strike group operations in the Western Pacific including in the South China Sea, East China Sea and Philippine Sea. >> >> These exercises typically happen when an aircraft carrier deployed to the 7th Fleet area of operations joins with the carrier based in Japan. In this instance, the Nimitz was finishing a deployment in the 5th Fleet area -- the Persian Gulf -- and the Roosevelt was relieving it. The Reagan -- homeported in Japan -- joined the other two carriers, which are based in the Western United States. >> >> (Follow Lisa Ferdinando on Twitter: @FerdinandoDoD) >> >> Related Links >> >> U.S. Pacific Command >> Special Report: DoD Focus on the Asia-Pacific >> >> >> Update your subscriptions, modify your password or email address, or stop subscriptions at any time on your our email address to log in. If you have questions or problems with the subscription service, please email s. Have another inquiry? Contact the U.S. Department of Defense. >> >> This service is provided to you at no charge by U.S. Department of Defense. Visit us on the web athttp://www.defense.gov/. >> >> Updates from the U.S. Department of Defense >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Mon Nov 13 23:28:54 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2017 23:28:54 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific In-Reply-To: References: <17467243.13521@subscriptions.dod.mil> Message-ID: It is possible if the Pentagon nukes them. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 5:19 PM To: Boyle, Francis A Cc: David Green ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay ; David Johnson ; Mildred O'brien Subject: Re: Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific And Steve Bannon pointed out the impossibility of military action against N. Korea: On Nov 13, 2017, at 5:14 PM, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: Yeah, thanks Carl. That's the way I see it too. I guess we shall see what happens. There was some Air Force General on the Tube a while ago saying we could take out DPRK in 4 hours. But the only way they could do that would be with nukes. Would not put it past them. Trump's speech about "fire and fury" clearly implied using nukes. So it is on their Radar Screen. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -----Original Message----- From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 5:10 PM To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: David Green >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien > Subject: Re: Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific I think this is quite right. Obama’s ‘pivot’ - war provocations vs. China - remains the War Party’s policy. They’re terribly afraid Trump will abandon it (and other pro-war policies) & so want to drive him from office. Brzezinski explicitly references Mackinder. US foreign policy makers learn nothing & forget nothing. —CGE On Nov 13, 2017, at 4:58 PM, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: This massive concentration of US naval forces had to have been planned and war-gamed far in advance of Trump by the Pentagon, probably going back to Obama launching his Pivot to Asia, which is really a Pivot against China, under the influence of his Guru Brzezinski as explained in his Grand Chessboard. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: U.S. Department of Defense [mailto:govdelivery at subscriptions.dod.mil] Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 3:45 PM To: Boyle, Francis A > Subject: Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific You are subscribed to News Articles for U.S. Department of Defense. This information has recently been updated, and is now available. Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific 11/13/2017 03:04 PM CST The USS Ronald Reagan, USS Theodore Roosevelt and USS Nimitz Strike Groups transit the Western Pacific with ships from the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force in the Western Pacific, Nov. 12, 2017. The three aircraft carriers and their strike groups are conducting operations in international waters as part of a strike force exercise. The Navy has patrolled the Indo-Asia-Pacific region routinely for more than 70 years promoting regional security, stability and prosperity. Navy photo by Petty Officer 3rd Class Anthony J. Rivera (Click photo for screen-resolution image);high-resolution imageavailable. Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific By Lisa Ferdinando DoD News, Defense Media Activity WASHINGTON, Nov. 13, 2017 — A three-carrier naval force is finishing a multi-day exercise in the Western Pacific, demonstrating the Navy's unique capability to operate multiple carrier strike groups as a coordinated effort, according to Navy officials. “The United States Navy is the only force in the world able to carry out such an exercise,” a Navy official told DoD News. The exercise features the aircraft carriers USS Ronald Reagan, USS Nimitz, and USS Theodore Roosevelt and includes air defense drills, sea surveillance, replenishments at sea, defensive air combat training, close-in coordinated maneuvers and other training, Navy officials said. Ships from Japan and South Korea joined the exercise, officials said. Triple Aircraft Carrier Training "It is a rare opportunity to train with two aircraft carriers together, and even rarer to be able to train with three," the U.S. Pacific Fleet commander, Navy Adm. Scott Swift, said in a U.S. 7th Fleet release. "Multiple carrier strike force operations are very complex,” Swift said. He added, “This exercise in the Western Pacific is a strong testament to the U.S. Pacific Fleet's unique ability and ironclad commitment to the continued security and stability of the region." The exercise is the first time three carrier strike groups have operated together in the Western Pacific since exercises Valiant Shield 2006 and 2007 off the coast of Guam, according to Navy officials. Officials point out Navy aircraft carriers more recently have conducted dual-carrier strike group operations in the Western Pacific including in the South China Sea, East China Sea and Philippine Sea. These exercises typically happen when an aircraft carrier deployed to the 7th Fleet area of operations joins with the carrier based in Japan. In this instance, the Nimitz was finishing a deployment in the 5th Fleet area -- the Persian Gulf -- and the Roosevelt was relieving it. The Reagan -- homeported in Japan -- joined the other two carriers, which are based in the Western United States. (Follow Lisa Ferdinando on Twitter: @FerdinandoDoD) Related Links U.S. Pacific Command Special Report: DoD Focus on the Asia-Pacific Update your subscriptions, modify your password or email address, or stop subscriptions at any time on your our email address to log in. If you have questions or problems with the subscription service, please email s. Have another inquiry? Contact the U.S. Department of Defense. This service is provided to you at no charge by U.S. Department of Defense. Visit us on the web athttp://www.defense.gov/. Updates from the U.S. Department of Defense -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Mon Nov 13 23:28:54 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2017 23:28:54 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific In-Reply-To: References: <17467243.13521@subscriptions.dod.mil> Message-ID: It is possible if the Pentagon nukes them. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 5:19 PM To: Boyle, Francis A Cc: David Green ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay ; David Johnson ; Mildred O'brien Subject: Re: Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific And Steve Bannon pointed out the impossibility of military action against N. Korea: On Nov 13, 2017, at 5:14 PM, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: Yeah, thanks Carl. That's the way I see it too. I guess we shall see what happens. There was some Air Force General on the Tube a while ago saying we could take out DPRK in 4 hours. But the only way they could do that would be with nukes. Would not put it past them. Trump's speech about "fire and fury" clearly implied using nukes. So it is on their Radar Screen. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -----Original Message----- From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 5:10 PM To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: David Green >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien > Subject: Re: Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific I think this is quite right. Obama’s ‘pivot’ - war provocations vs. China - remains the War Party’s policy. They’re terribly afraid Trump will abandon it (and other pro-war policies) & so want to drive him from office. Brzezinski explicitly references Mackinder. US foreign policy makers learn nothing & forget nothing. —CGE On Nov 13, 2017, at 4:58 PM, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: This massive concentration of US naval forces had to have been planned and war-gamed far in advance of Trump by the Pentagon, probably going back to Obama launching his Pivot to Asia, which is really a Pivot against China, under the influence of his Guru Brzezinski as explained in his Grand Chessboard. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: U.S. Department of Defense [mailto:govdelivery at subscriptions.dod.mil] Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 3:45 PM To: Boyle, Francis A > Subject: Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific You are subscribed to News Articles for U.S. Department of Defense. This information has recently been updated, and is now available. Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific 11/13/2017 03:04 PM CST The USS Ronald Reagan, USS Theodore Roosevelt and USS Nimitz Strike Groups transit the Western Pacific with ships from the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force in the Western Pacific, Nov. 12, 2017. The three aircraft carriers and their strike groups are conducting operations in international waters as part of a strike force exercise. The Navy has patrolled the Indo-Asia-Pacific region routinely for more than 70 years promoting regional security, stability and prosperity. Navy photo by Petty Officer 3rd Class Anthony J. Rivera (Click photo for screen-resolution image);high-resolution imageavailable. Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific By Lisa Ferdinando DoD News, Defense Media Activity WASHINGTON, Nov. 13, 2017 — A three-carrier naval force is finishing a multi-day exercise in the Western Pacific, demonstrating the Navy's unique capability to operate multiple carrier strike groups as a coordinated effort, according to Navy officials. “The United States Navy is the only force in the world able to carry out such an exercise,” a Navy official told DoD News. The exercise features the aircraft carriers USS Ronald Reagan, USS Nimitz, and USS Theodore Roosevelt and includes air defense drills, sea surveillance, replenishments at sea, defensive air combat training, close-in coordinated maneuvers and other training, Navy officials said. Ships from Japan and South Korea joined the exercise, officials said. Triple Aircraft Carrier Training "It is a rare opportunity to train with two aircraft carriers together, and even rarer to be able to train with three," the U.S. Pacific Fleet commander, Navy Adm. Scott Swift, said in a U.S. 7th Fleet release. "Multiple carrier strike force operations are very complex,” Swift said. He added, “This exercise in the Western Pacific is a strong testament to the U.S. Pacific Fleet's unique ability and ironclad commitment to the continued security and stability of the region." The exercise is the first time three carrier strike groups have operated together in the Western Pacific since exercises Valiant Shield 2006 and 2007 off the coast of Guam, according to Navy officials. Officials point out Navy aircraft carriers more recently have conducted dual-carrier strike group operations in the Western Pacific including in the South China Sea, East China Sea and Philippine Sea. These exercises typically happen when an aircraft carrier deployed to the 7th Fleet area of operations joins with the carrier based in Japan. In this instance, the Nimitz was finishing a deployment in the 5th Fleet area -- the Persian Gulf -- and the Roosevelt was relieving it. The Reagan -- homeported in Japan -- joined the other two carriers, which are based in the Western United States. (Follow Lisa Ferdinando on Twitter: @FerdinandoDoD) Related Links U.S. Pacific Command Special Report: DoD Focus on the Asia-Pacific Update your subscriptions, modify your password or email address, or stop subscriptions at any time on your our email address to log in. If you have questions or problems with the subscription service, please email s. Have another inquiry? Contact the U.S. Department of Defense. This service is provided to you at no charge by U.S. Department of Defense. Visit us on the web athttp://www.defense.gov/. Updates from the U.S. Department of Defense -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Mon Nov 13 23:33:08 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2017 23:33:08 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific References: <17467243.13521@subscriptions.dod.mil> Message-ID: The USG and the US Media have so demonized DPRK and KJU that the Pentagon could probably get away with nuking them and everyone would cheer. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 5:29 PM To: 'C G Estabrook' Cc: David Green ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay ; David Johnson ; Mildred O'brien Subject: RE: Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific It is possible if the Pentagon nukes them. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 5:19 PM To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: David Green >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien > Subject: Re: Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific And Steve Bannon pointed out the impossibility of military action against N. Korea: On Nov 13, 2017, at 5:14 PM, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: Yeah, thanks Carl. That's the way I see it too. I guess we shall see what happens. There was some Air Force General on the Tube a while ago saying we could take out DPRK in 4 hours. But the only way they could do that would be with nukes. Would not put it past them. Trump's speech about "fire and fury" clearly implied using nukes. So it is on their Radar Screen. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -----Original Message----- From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 5:10 PM To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: David Green >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien > Subject: Re: Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific I think this is quite right. Obama’s ‘pivot’ - war provocations vs. China - remains the War Party’s policy. They’re terribly afraid Trump will abandon it (and other pro-war policies) & so want to drive him from office. Brzezinski explicitly references Mackinder. US foreign policy makers learn nothing & forget nothing. —CGE On Nov 13, 2017, at 4:58 PM, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: This massive concentration of US naval forces had to have been planned and war-gamed far in advance of Trump by the Pentagon, probably going back to Obama launching his Pivot to Asia, which is really a Pivot against China, under the influence of his Guru Brzezinski as explained in his Grand Chessboard. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: U.S. Department of Defense [mailto:govdelivery at subscriptions.dod.mil] Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 3:45 PM To: Boyle, Francis A > Subject: Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific You are subscribed to News Articles for U.S. Department of Defense. This information has recently been updated, and is now available. Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific 11/13/2017 03:04 PM CST The USS Ronald Reagan, USS Theodore Roosevelt and USS Nimitz Strike Groups transit the Western Pacific with ships from the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force in the Western Pacific, Nov. 12, 2017. The three aircraft carriers and their strike groups are conducting operations in international waters as part of a strike force exercise. The Navy has patrolled the Indo-Asia-Pacific region routinely for more than 70 years promoting regional security, stability and prosperity. Navy photo by Petty Officer 3rd Class Anthony J. Rivera (Click photo for screen-resolution image);high-resolution imageavailable. Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific By Lisa Ferdinando DoD News, Defense Media Activity WASHINGTON, Nov. 13, 2017 — A three-carrier naval force is finishing a multi-day exercise in the Western Pacific, demonstrating the Navy's unique capability to operate multiple carrier strike groups as a coordinated effort, according to Navy officials. “The United States Navy is the only force in the world able to carry out such an exercise,” a Navy official told DoD News. The exercise features the aircraft carriers USS Ronald Reagan, USS Nimitz, and USS Theodore Roosevelt and includes air defense drills, sea surveillance, replenishments at sea, defensive air combat training, close-in coordinated maneuvers and other training, Navy officials said. Ships from Japan and South Korea joined the exercise, officials said. Triple Aircraft Carrier Training "It is a rare opportunity to train with two aircraft carriers together, and even rarer to be able to train with three," the U.S. Pacific Fleet commander, Navy Adm. Scott Swift, said in a U.S. 7th Fleet release. "Multiple carrier strike force operations are very complex,” Swift said. He added, “This exercise in the Western Pacific is a strong testament to the U.S. Pacific Fleet's unique ability and ironclad commitment to the continued security and stability of the region." The exercise is the first time three carrier strike groups have operated together in the Western Pacific since exercises Valiant Shield 2006 and 2007 off the coast of Guam, according to Navy officials. Officials point out Navy aircraft carriers more recently have conducted dual-carrier strike group operations in the Western Pacific including in the South China Sea, East China Sea and Philippine Sea. These exercises typically happen when an aircraft carrier deployed to the 7th Fleet area of operations joins with the carrier based in Japan. In this instance, the Nimitz was finishing a deployment in the 5th Fleet area -- the Persian Gulf -- and the Roosevelt was relieving it. The Reagan -- homeported in Japan -- joined the other two carriers, which are based in the Western United States. (Follow Lisa Ferdinando on Twitter: @FerdinandoDoD) Related Links U.S. Pacific Command Special Report: DoD Focus on the Asia-Pacific Update your subscriptions, modify your password or email address, or stop subscriptions at any time on your our email address to log in. If you have questions or problems with the subscription service, please email s. Have another inquiry? Contact the U.S. Department of Defense. This service is provided to you at no charge by U.S. Department of Defense. Visit us on the web athttp://www.defense.gov/. Updates from the U.S. Department of Defense -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Mon Nov 13 23:33:08 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2017 23:33:08 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific References: <17467243.13521@subscriptions.dod.mil> Message-ID: The USG and the US Media have so demonized DPRK and KJU that the Pentagon could probably get away with nuking them and everyone would cheer. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 5:29 PM To: 'C G Estabrook' Cc: David Green ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay ; David Johnson ; Mildred O'brien Subject: RE: Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific It is possible if the Pentagon nukes them. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 5:19 PM To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: David Green >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien > Subject: Re: Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific And Steve Bannon pointed out the impossibility of military action against N. Korea: On Nov 13, 2017, at 5:14 PM, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: Yeah, thanks Carl. That's the way I see it too. I guess we shall see what happens. There was some Air Force General on the Tube a while ago saying we could take out DPRK in 4 hours. But the only way they could do that would be with nukes. Would not put it past them. Trump's speech about "fire and fury" clearly implied using nukes. So it is on their Radar Screen. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -----Original Message----- From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 5:10 PM To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: David Green >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien > Subject: Re: Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific I think this is quite right. Obama’s ‘pivot’ - war provocations vs. China - remains the War Party’s policy. They’re terribly afraid Trump will abandon it (and other pro-war policies) & so want to drive him from office. Brzezinski explicitly references Mackinder. US foreign policy makers learn nothing & forget nothing. —CGE On Nov 13, 2017, at 4:58 PM, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: This massive concentration of US naval forces had to have been planned and war-gamed far in advance of Trump by the Pentagon, probably going back to Obama launching his Pivot to Asia, which is really a Pivot against China, under the influence of his Guru Brzezinski as explained in his Grand Chessboard. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: U.S. Department of Defense [mailto:govdelivery at subscriptions.dod.mil] Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 3:45 PM To: Boyle, Francis A > Subject: Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific You are subscribed to News Articles for U.S. Department of Defense. This information has recently been updated, and is now available. Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific 11/13/2017 03:04 PM CST The USS Ronald Reagan, USS Theodore Roosevelt and USS Nimitz Strike Groups transit the Western Pacific with ships from the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force in the Western Pacific, Nov. 12, 2017. The three aircraft carriers and their strike groups are conducting operations in international waters as part of a strike force exercise. The Navy has patrolled the Indo-Asia-Pacific region routinely for more than 70 years promoting regional security, stability and prosperity. Navy photo by Petty Officer 3rd Class Anthony J. Rivera (Click photo for screen-resolution image);high-resolution imageavailable. Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific By Lisa Ferdinando DoD News, Defense Media Activity WASHINGTON, Nov. 13, 2017 — A three-carrier naval force is finishing a multi-day exercise in the Western Pacific, demonstrating the Navy's unique capability to operate multiple carrier strike groups as a coordinated effort, according to Navy officials. “The United States Navy is the only force in the world able to carry out such an exercise,” a Navy official told DoD News. The exercise features the aircraft carriers USS Ronald Reagan, USS Nimitz, and USS Theodore Roosevelt and includes air defense drills, sea surveillance, replenishments at sea, defensive air combat training, close-in coordinated maneuvers and other training, Navy officials said. Ships from Japan and South Korea joined the exercise, officials said. Triple Aircraft Carrier Training "It is a rare opportunity to train with two aircraft carriers together, and even rarer to be able to train with three," the U.S. Pacific Fleet commander, Navy Adm. Scott Swift, said in a U.S. 7th Fleet release. "Multiple carrier strike force operations are very complex,” Swift said. He added, “This exercise in the Western Pacific is a strong testament to the U.S. Pacific Fleet's unique ability and ironclad commitment to the continued security and stability of the region." The exercise is the first time three carrier strike groups have operated together in the Western Pacific since exercises Valiant Shield 2006 and 2007 off the coast of Guam, according to Navy officials. Officials point out Navy aircraft carriers more recently have conducted dual-carrier strike group operations in the Western Pacific including in the South China Sea, East China Sea and Philippine Sea. These exercises typically happen when an aircraft carrier deployed to the 7th Fleet area of operations joins with the carrier based in Japan. In this instance, the Nimitz was finishing a deployment in the 5th Fleet area -- the Persian Gulf -- and the Roosevelt was relieving it. The Reagan -- homeported in Japan -- joined the other two carriers, which are based in the Western United States. (Follow Lisa Ferdinando on Twitter: @FerdinandoDoD) Related Links U.S. Pacific Command Special Report: DoD Focus on the Asia-Pacific Update your subscriptions, modify your password or email address, or stop subscriptions at any time on your our email address to log in. If you have questions or problems with the subscription service, please email s. Have another inquiry? Contact the U.S. Department of Defense. This service is provided to you at no charge by U.S. Department of Defense. Visit us on the web athttp://www.defense.gov/. Updates from the U.S. Department of Defense -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Tue Nov 14 03:26:26 2017 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2017 21:26:26 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific In-Reply-To: References: <17467243.13521@subscriptions.dod.mil> Message-ID: <7DBCEB5B-D9A5-40B4-9B08-D876AF7CAD74@gmail.com> [Josh Rogin WAPO August 17] In Washington, a “Kinsley gaffe” is when someone tells an obvious truth that isn’t supposed to be said. Such was the case when White House chief strategist Stephen K. Bannon told a reporter, in an interview published Wednesday, that there is no viable military option for stopping North Korea’s nuclear and missile programs. Bannon’s view is that any preemptive attack on North Korea would result in horrendous casualties in South Korea and elsewhere and therefore cannot be seriously considered. That view is shared by many officials, former officials and North Korea experts... By publicly declaring that the U.S. threat of military force in North Korea is a bluff, Bannon may have undermined the credibility of that threat. He may also have nudged the United States toward a more diplomacy-focused approach and reduced the risk of war. “There’s no military solution [to North Korea’s nuclear threats], forget it,” Bannon told the American Prospect. “Until somebody solves the part of the equation that shows me that 10 million people in Seoul don’t die in the first 30 minutes from conventional weapons, I don’t know what you’re talking about, there’s no military solution here, they got us.” For many North Korea watchers, Bannon was simply acknowledging a reality that the parties involved already understood; there is no viable scenario in which the United States could initiate a first strike against Pyongyang. “He’s absolutely right,” said former North Korea nuclear negotiator Joel S. Wit. “This is not a credible threat, and it really hasn’t been since the 1990s. We’ve been pretending it’s credible, but it really isn’t.” Such a move would guarantee devastating retaliation by Kim Jong Un against South Korea, Japan and the tens of thousands of U.S. troops there. Moreover, there’s no real way to be confident a U.S.-led military strike could destroy all of the dispersed and hidden components of North Korea’s illicit programs. Throw on top of that the danger that Kim could use a nuclear weapon, and it’s clear the United States can’t strike first. It’s likely a coincidence, but South Korean President Moon Jae-in also publicly declared that the military option is not on the table this week. “I can confidently say there will not be a war again on the Korean Peninsula,” Moon said. “The U.S. and President Trump also said, no matter what option they take about North Korea, all decisions will be made after consulting with and getting agreement with the Republic of Korea,” he added... Wit said that since the North Koreans understand the military dynamics as well as anyone, that threat was never really credible in the first place. “They figured out a long time ago the U.S. isn’t going to do anything,” he said. “Bannon may have undermined our pressure campaign, but the threat of military force has been a diminishing tool all along.” The larger effect could be that the Trump administration could now coalesce around a more diplomacy-focused strategy and move closer to direct negotiations with Pyongyang. Although Bannon didn’t specify his preferred policy, the alternative to attacking is clear: continuing to increase diplomatic and financial pressure on North Korea while exploring the chance for dialogue. The United States and North Korea have maintained a quiet diplomatic channel over the past months that could be used to set up more substantial negotiations. The Trump team has told foreign interlocutors that it remains open to negotiations with Pyongyang under the right conditions. Whether or not Bannon intended his remarks to be public, his warnings about the foolishness of attacking North Korea are correct, and they might even be helpful… Josh Rogin is a columnist for the Global Opinions section of The Washington Post. He writes about foreign policy and national security. Follow @joshrogin > On Nov 13, 2017, at 5:33 PM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: > > The USG and the US Media have so demonized DPRK and KJU that the Pentagon could probably get away with nuking them and everyone would cheer. Fab. > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign, IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) > > From: Boyle, Francis A > Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 5:29 PM > To: 'C G Estabrook' > Cc: David Green ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay ; David Johnson ; Mildred O'brien > Subject: RE: Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific > > It is possible if the Pentagon nukes them. Fab. > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign, IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) > > From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] > Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 5:19 PM > To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: David Green ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay ; David Johnson ; Mildred O'brien > Subject: Re: Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific > > And Steve Bannon pointed out the impossibility of military action against N. Korea: > > > > > On Nov 13, 2017, at 5:14 PM, Boyle, Francis A wrote: > > Yeah, thanks Carl. That's the way I see it too. I guess we shall see what happens. There was some Air Force General on the Tube a while ago saying we could take out DPRK in 4 hours. But the only way they could do that would be with nukes. Would not put it past them. Trump's speech about "fire and fury" clearly implied using nukes. So it is on their Radar Screen. Fab. > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign, IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) > > > -----Original Message----- > From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] > Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 5:10 PM > To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: David Green ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ;chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay ; David Johnson ; Mildred O'brien > Subject: Re: Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific > > I think this is quite right. Obama’s ‘pivot’ - war provocations vs. China - remains the War Party’s policy. > > They’re terribly afraid Trump will abandon it (and other pro-war policies) & so want to drive him from office. > > Brzezinski explicitly references Mackinder. US foreign policy makers learn nothing & forget nothing. > > —CGE > > > > On Nov 13, 2017, at 4:58 PM, Boyle, Francis A wrote: > > This massive concentration of US naval forces had to have been planned and war-gamed far in advance of Trump by the Pentagon, probably going back to Obama launching his Pivot to Asia, which is really a Pivot against China, under the influence of his Guru Brzezinski as explained in his Grand Chessboard. Fab. > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign, IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) > > From: U.S. Department of Defense > [mailto:govdelivery at subscriptions.dod.mil] > Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 3:45 PM > To: Boyle, Francis A > Subject: Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western > Pacific > > You are subscribed to News Articles for U.S. Department of Defense. This information has recently been updated, and is now available. > > > > Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific > 11/13/2017 03:04 PM CST > > > The USS Ronald Reagan, USS Theodore Roosevelt and USS Nimitz Strike > Groups transit the Western Pacific with ships from the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force in the Western Pacific, Nov. 12, 2017. The three aircraft carriers and their strike groups are conducting operations in international waters as part of a strike force exercise. The Navy has patrolled the Indo-Asia-Pacific region routinely for more than 70 years promoting regional security, stability and prosperity. Navy photo by Petty Officer 3rd Class Anthony J. Rivera (Click photo for screen-resolution image);high-resolution imageavailable. > Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific > > By Lisa Ferdinando > > DoD News, Defense Media Activity > > WASHINGTON, Nov. 13, 2017 — A three-carrier naval force is finishing a multi-day exercise in the Western Pacific, demonstrating the Navy's unique capability to operate multiple carrier strike groups as a coordinated effort, according to Navy officials. > > “The United States Navy is the only force in the world able to carry out such an exercise,” a Navy official told DoD News. > > The exercise features the aircraft carriers USS Ronald Reagan, USS Nimitz, and USS Theodore Roosevelt and includes air defense drills, sea surveillance, replenishments at sea, defensive air combat training, close-in coordinated maneuvers and other training, Navy officials said. > > Ships from Japan and South Korea joined the exercise, officials said. > > Triple Aircraft Carrier Training > > "It is a rare opportunity to train with two aircraft carriers together, and even rarer to be able to train with three," the U.S. Pacific Fleet commander, Navy Adm. Scott Swift, said in a U.S. 7th Fleet release. > > "Multiple carrier strike force operations are very complex,” Swift said. > > He added, “This exercise in the Western Pacific is a strong testament to the U.S. Pacific Fleet's unique ability and ironclad commitment to the continued security and stability of the region." > > The exercise is the first time three carrier strike groups have operated together in the Western Pacific since exercises Valiant Shield 2006 and 2007 off the coast of Guam, according to Navy officials. > > Officials point out Navy aircraft carriers more recently have conducted dual-carrier strike group operations in the Western Pacific including in the South China Sea, East China Sea and Philippine Sea. > > These exercises typically happen when an aircraft carrier deployed to the 7th Fleet area of operations joins with the carrier based in Japan. In this instance, the Nimitz was finishing a deployment in the 5th Fleet area -- the Persian Gulf -- and the Roosevelt was relieving it. The Reagan -- homeported in Japan -- joined the other two carriers, which are based in the Western United States. > > (Follow Lisa Ferdinando on Twitter: @FerdinandoDoD) > > Related Links > > U.S. Pacific Command > Special Report: DoD Focus on the Asia-Pacific > > > Update your subscriptions, modify your password or email address, or stop subscriptions at any time on your our email address to log in. If you have questions or problems with the subscription service, please email s. Have another inquiry? Contact the U.S. Department of Defense. > > This service is provided to you at no charge by U.S. Department of Defense. Visit us on the web athttp://www.defense.gov/. > > Updates from the U.S. Department of Defense > > > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Tue Nov 14 03:26:26 2017 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2017 21:26:26 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific In-Reply-To: References: <17467243.13521@subscriptions.dod.mil> Message-ID: <7DBCEB5B-D9A5-40B4-9B08-D876AF7CAD74@gmail.com> [Josh Rogin WAPO August 17] In Washington, a “Kinsley gaffe” is when someone tells an obvious truth that isn’t supposed to be said. Such was the case when White House chief strategist Stephen K. Bannon told a reporter, in an interview published Wednesday, that there is no viable military option for stopping North Korea’s nuclear and missile programs. Bannon’s view is that any preemptive attack on North Korea would result in horrendous casualties in South Korea and elsewhere and therefore cannot be seriously considered. That view is shared by many officials, former officials and North Korea experts... By publicly declaring that the U.S. threat of military force in North Korea is a bluff, Bannon may have undermined the credibility of that threat. He may also have nudged the United States toward a more diplomacy-focused approach and reduced the risk of war. “There’s no military solution [to North Korea’s nuclear threats], forget it,” Bannon told the American Prospect. “Until somebody solves the part of the equation that shows me that 10 million people in Seoul don’t die in the first 30 minutes from conventional weapons, I don’t know what you’re talking about, there’s no military solution here, they got us.” For many North Korea watchers, Bannon was simply acknowledging a reality that the parties involved already understood; there is no viable scenario in which the United States could initiate a first strike against Pyongyang. “He’s absolutely right,” said former North Korea nuclear negotiator Joel S. Wit. “This is not a credible threat, and it really hasn’t been since the 1990s. We’ve been pretending it’s credible, but it really isn’t.” Such a move would guarantee devastating retaliation by Kim Jong Un against South Korea, Japan and the tens of thousands of U.S. troops there. Moreover, there’s no real way to be confident a U.S.-led military strike could destroy all of the dispersed and hidden components of North Korea’s illicit programs. Throw on top of that the danger that Kim could use a nuclear weapon, and it’s clear the United States can’t strike first. It’s likely a coincidence, but South Korean President Moon Jae-in also publicly declared that the military option is not on the table this week. “I can confidently say there will not be a war again on the Korean Peninsula,” Moon said. “The U.S. and President Trump also said, no matter what option they take about North Korea, all decisions will be made after consulting with and getting agreement with the Republic of Korea,” he added... Wit said that since the North Koreans understand the military dynamics as well as anyone, that threat was never really credible in the first place. “They figured out a long time ago the U.S. isn’t going to do anything,” he said. “Bannon may have undermined our pressure campaign, but the threat of military force has been a diminishing tool all along.” The larger effect could be that the Trump administration could now coalesce around a more diplomacy-focused strategy and move closer to direct negotiations with Pyongyang. Although Bannon didn’t specify his preferred policy, the alternative to attacking is clear: continuing to increase diplomatic and financial pressure on North Korea while exploring the chance for dialogue. The United States and North Korea have maintained a quiet diplomatic channel over the past months that could be used to set up more substantial negotiations. The Trump team has told foreign interlocutors that it remains open to negotiations with Pyongyang under the right conditions. Whether or not Bannon intended his remarks to be public, his warnings about the foolishness of attacking North Korea are correct, and they might even be helpful… Josh Rogin is a columnist for the Global Opinions section of The Washington Post. He writes about foreign policy and national security. Follow @joshrogin > On Nov 13, 2017, at 5:33 PM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: > > The USG and the US Media have so demonized DPRK and KJU that the Pentagon could probably get away with nuking them and everyone would cheer. Fab. > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign, IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) > > From: Boyle, Francis A > Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 5:29 PM > To: 'C G Estabrook' > Cc: David Green ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay ; David Johnson ; Mildred O'brien > Subject: RE: Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific > > It is possible if the Pentagon nukes them. Fab. > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign, IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) > > From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] > Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 5:19 PM > To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: David Green ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay ; David Johnson ; Mildred O'brien > Subject: Re: Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific > > And Steve Bannon pointed out the impossibility of military action against N. Korea: > > > > > On Nov 13, 2017, at 5:14 PM, Boyle, Francis A wrote: > > Yeah, thanks Carl. That's the way I see it too. I guess we shall see what happens. There was some Air Force General on the Tube a while ago saying we could take out DPRK in 4 hours. But the only way they could do that would be with nukes. Would not put it past them. Trump's speech about "fire and fury" clearly implied using nukes. So it is on their Radar Screen. Fab. > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign, IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) > > > -----Original Message----- > From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] > Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 5:10 PM > To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: David Green ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ;chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay ; David Johnson ; Mildred O'brien > Subject: Re: Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific > > I think this is quite right. Obama’s ‘pivot’ - war provocations vs. China - remains the War Party’s policy. > > They’re terribly afraid Trump will abandon it (and other pro-war policies) & so want to drive him from office. > > Brzezinski explicitly references Mackinder. US foreign policy makers learn nothing & forget nothing. > > —CGE > > > > On Nov 13, 2017, at 4:58 PM, Boyle, Francis A wrote: > > This massive concentration of US naval forces had to have been planned and war-gamed far in advance of Trump by the Pentagon, probably going back to Obama launching his Pivot to Asia, which is really a Pivot against China, under the influence of his Guru Brzezinski as explained in his Grand Chessboard. Fab. > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign, IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) > > From: U.S. Department of Defense > [mailto:govdelivery at subscriptions.dod.mil] > Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 3:45 PM > To: Boyle, Francis A > Subject: Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western > Pacific > > You are subscribed to News Articles for U.S. Department of Defense. This information has recently been updated, and is now available. > > > > Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific > 11/13/2017 03:04 PM CST > > > The USS Ronald Reagan, USS Theodore Roosevelt and USS Nimitz Strike > Groups transit the Western Pacific with ships from the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force in the Western Pacific, Nov. 12, 2017. The three aircraft carriers and their strike groups are conducting operations in international waters as part of a strike force exercise. The Navy has patrolled the Indo-Asia-Pacific region routinely for more than 70 years promoting regional security, stability and prosperity. Navy photo by Petty Officer 3rd Class Anthony J. Rivera (Click photo for screen-resolution image);high-resolution imageavailable. > Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific > > By Lisa Ferdinando > > DoD News, Defense Media Activity > > WASHINGTON, Nov. 13, 2017 — A three-carrier naval force is finishing a multi-day exercise in the Western Pacific, demonstrating the Navy's unique capability to operate multiple carrier strike groups as a coordinated effort, according to Navy officials. > > “The United States Navy is the only force in the world able to carry out such an exercise,” a Navy official told DoD News. > > The exercise features the aircraft carriers USS Ronald Reagan, USS Nimitz, and USS Theodore Roosevelt and includes air defense drills, sea surveillance, replenishments at sea, defensive air combat training, close-in coordinated maneuvers and other training, Navy officials said. > > Ships from Japan and South Korea joined the exercise, officials said. > > Triple Aircraft Carrier Training > > "It is a rare opportunity to train with two aircraft carriers together, and even rarer to be able to train with three," the U.S. Pacific Fleet commander, Navy Adm. Scott Swift, said in a U.S. 7th Fleet release. > > "Multiple carrier strike force operations are very complex,” Swift said. > > He added, “This exercise in the Western Pacific is a strong testament to the U.S. Pacific Fleet's unique ability and ironclad commitment to the continued security and stability of the region." > > The exercise is the first time three carrier strike groups have operated together in the Western Pacific since exercises Valiant Shield 2006 and 2007 off the coast of Guam, according to Navy officials. > > Officials point out Navy aircraft carriers more recently have conducted dual-carrier strike group operations in the Western Pacific including in the South China Sea, East China Sea and Philippine Sea. > > These exercises typically happen when an aircraft carrier deployed to the 7th Fleet area of operations joins with the carrier based in Japan. In this instance, the Nimitz was finishing a deployment in the 5th Fleet area -- the Persian Gulf -- and the Roosevelt was relieving it. The Reagan -- homeported in Japan -- joined the other two carriers, which are based in the Western United States. > > (Follow Lisa Ferdinando on Twitter: @FerdinandoDoD) > > Related Links > > U.S. Pacific Command > Special Report: DoD Focus on the Asia-Pacific > > > Update your subscriptions, modify your password or email address, or stop subscriptions at any time on your our email address to log in. If you have questions or problems with the subscription service, please email s. Have another inquiry? Contact the U.S. Department of Defense. > > This service is provided to you at no charge by U.S. Department of Defense. Visit us on the web athttp://www.defense.gov/. > > Updates from the U.S. Department of Defense > > > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Tue Nov 14 03:42:16 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2017 03:42:16 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific In-Reply-To: <7DBCEB5B-D9A5-40B4-9B08-D876AF7CAD74@gmail.com> References: <17467243.13521@subscriptions.dod.mil> <7DBCEB5B-D9A5-40B4-9B08-D876AF7CAD74@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hope you are right. But SecWar Mad Dog Mattis disagrees with you. SecWar Mad Dog Mattis was asked this same question in ROK. He said the Pentagon had options to take out DPRK with no retaliation on Seoul. I take it he was indirectly referring to nuking them, which Trump openly threatening them with “fire and fury,” and everyone knew that meant nukes. So the Pentagon does have such an option as confirmed by Mad Dog publicly. As for citing anyone from WAPO, and especially Rogin,Carl you should know better than to rely upon WAPO Fake News. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 9:26 PM To: Boyle, Francis A Cc: Karen Aram ; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; Jay ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; Szoke, Ron ; Joe Lauria ; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; abass10 at gmail.com; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; Arlene Hickory ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific [Josh Rogin WAPO August 17] In Washington, a “Kinsley gaffe” is when someone tells an obvious truth that isn’t supposed to be said. Such was the case when White House chief strategist Stephen K. Bannon told a reporter, in an interview published Wednesday, that there is no viable military option for stopping North Korea’s nuclear and missile programs. Bannon’s view is that any preemptive attack on North Korea would result in horrendous casualties in South Korea and elsewhere and therefore cannot be seriously considered. That view is shared by many officials, former officials and North Korea experts... By publicly declaring that the U.S. threat of military force in North Korea is a bluff, Bannon may have undermined the credibility of that threat. He may also have nudged the United States toward a more diplomacy-focused approach and reduced the risk of war. “There’s no military solution [to North Korea’s nuclear threats], forget it,” Bannon told the American Prospect. “Until somebody solves the part of the equation that shows me that 10 million people in Seoul don’t die in the first 30 minutes from conventional weapons, I don’t know what you’re talking about, there’s no military solution here, they got us.” For many North Korea watchers, Bannon was simply acknowledging a reality that the parties involved already understood; there is no viable scenario in which the United States could initiate a first strike against Pyongyang. “He’s absolutely right,” said former North Korea nuclear negotiator Joel S. Wit. “This is not a credible threat, and it really hasn’t been since the 1990s. We’ve been pretending it’s credible, but it really isn’t.” Such a move would guarantee devastating retaliation by Kim Jong Un against South Korea, Japan and the tens of thousands of U.S. troops there. Moreover, there’s no real way to be confident a U.S.-led military strike could destroy all of the dispersed and hidden components of North Korea’s illicit programs. Throw on top of that the danger that Kim could use a nuclear weapon, and it’s clear the United States can’t strike first. It’s likely a coincidence, but South Korean President Moon Jae-in also publicly declared that the military option is not on the table this week. “I can confidently say there will not be a war again on the Korean Peninsula,” Moon said. “The U.S. and President Trump also said, no matter what option they take about North Korea, all decisions will be made after consulting with and getting agreement with the Republic of Korea,” he added... Wit said that since the North Koreans understand the military dynamics as well as anyone, that threat was never really credible in the first place. “They figured out a long time ago the U.S. isn’t going to do anything,” he said. “Bannon may have undermined our pressure campaign, but the threat of military force has been a diminishing tool all along.” The larger effect could be that the Trump administration could now coalesce around a more diplomacy-focused strategy and move closer to direct negotiations with Pyongyang. Although Bannon didn’t specify his preferred policy, the alternative to attacking is clear: continuing to increase diplomatic and financial pressure on North Korea while exploring the chance for dialogue. The United States and North Korea have maintained a quiet diplomatic channel over the past months that could be used to set up more substantial negotiations. The Trump team has told foreign interlocutors that it remains open to negotiations with Pyongyang under the right conditions. Whether or not Bannon intended his remarks to be public, his warnings about the foolishness of attacking North Korea are correct, and they might even be helpful… Josh Rogin is a columnist for the Global Opinions section of The Washington Post. He writes about foreign policy and national security. Follow @joshrogin On Nov 13, 2017, at 5:33 PM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss > wrote: The USG and the US Media have so demonized DPRK and KJU that the Pentagon could probably get away with nuking them and everyone would cheer. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 5:29 PM To: 'C G Estabrook' > Cc: David Green >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien > Subject: RE: Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific It is possible if the Pentagon nukes them. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 5:19 PM To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: David Green >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien > Subject: Re: Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific And Steve Bannon pointed out the impossibility of military action against N. Korea: On Nov 13, 2017, at 5:14 PM, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: Yeah, thanks Carl. That's the way I see it too. I guess we shall see what happens. There was some Air Force General on the Tube a while ago saying we could take out DPRK in 4 hours. But the only way they could do that would be with nukes. Would not put it past them. Trump's speech about "fire and fury" clearly implied using nukes. So it is on their Radar Screen. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -----Original Message----- From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 5:10 PM To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: David Green >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >;chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien > Subject: Re: Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific I think this is quite right. Obama’s ‘pivot’ - war provocations vs. China - remains the War Party’s policy. They’re terribly afraid Trump will abandon it (and other pro-war policies) & so want to drive him from office. Brzezinski explicitly references Mackinder. US foreign policy makers learn nothing & forget nothing. —CGE On Nov 13, 2017, at 4:58 PM, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: This massive concentration of US naval forces had to have been planned and war-gamed far in advance of Trump by the Pentagon, probably going back to Obama launching his Pivot to Asia, which is really a Pivot against China, under the influence of his Guru Brzezinski as explained in his Grand Chessboard. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: U.S. Department of Defense [mailto:govdelivery at subscriptions.dod.mil] Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 3:45 PM To: Boyle, Francis A > Subject: Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific You are subscribed to News Articles for U.S. Department of Defense. This information has recently been updated, and is now available. Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific 11/13/2017 03:04 PM CST The USS Ronald Reagan, USS Theodore Roosevelt and USS Nimitz Strike Groups transit the Western Pacific with ships from the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force in the Western Pacific, Nov. 12, 2017. The three aircraft carriers and their strike groups are conducting operations in international waters as part of a strike force exercise. The Navy has patrolled the Indo-Asia-Pacific region routinely for more than 70 years promoting regional security, stability and prosperity. Navy photo by Petty Officer 3rd Class Anthony J. Rivera (Click photo for screen-resolution image);high-resolution imageavailable. Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific By Lisa Ferdinando DoD News, Defense Media Activity WASHINGTON, Nov. 13, 2017 — A three-carrier naval force is finishing a multi-day exercise in the Western Pacific, demonstrating the Navy's unique capability to operate multiple carrier strike groups as a coordinated effort, according to Navy officials. “The United States Navy is the only force in the world able to carry out such an exercise,” a Navy official told DoD News. The exercise features the aircraft carriers USS Ronald Reagan, USS Nimitz, and USS Theodore Roosevelt and includes air defense drills, sea surveillance, replenishments at sea, defensive air combat training, close-in coordinated maneuvers and other training, Navy officials said. Ships from Japan and South Korea joined the exercise, officials said. Triple Aircraft Carrier Training "It is a rare opportunity to train with two aircraft carriers together, and even rarer to be able to train with three," the U.S. Pacific Fleet commander, Navy Adm. Scott Swift, said in a U.S. 7th Fleet release. "Multiple carrier strike force operations are very complex,” Swift said. He added, “This exercise in the Western Pacific is a strong testament to the U.S. Pacific Fleet's unique ability and ironclad commitment to the continued security and stability of the region." The exercise is the first time three carrier strike groups have operated together in the Western Pacific since exercises Valiant Shield 2006 and 2007 off the coast of Guam, according to Navy officials. Officials point out Navy aircraft carriers more recently have conducted dual-carrier strike group operations in the Western Pacific including in the South China Sea, East China Sea and Philippine Sea. These exercises typically happen when an aircraft carrier deployed to the 7th Fleet area of operations joins with the carrier based in Japan. In this instance, the Nimitz was finishing a deployment in the 5th Fleet area -- the Persian Gulf -- and the Roosevelt was relieving it. The Reagan -- homeported in Japan -- joined the other two carriers, which are based in the Western United States. (Follow Lisa Ferdinando on Twitter: @FerdinandoDoD) Related Links U.S. Pacific Command Special Report: DoD Focus on the Asia-Pacific Update your subscriptions, modify your password or email address, or stop subscriptions at any time on your our email address to log in. If you have questions or problems with the subscription service, please email s. Have another inquiry? Contact the U.S. Department of Defense. This service is provided to you at no charge by U.S. Department of Defense. Visit us on the web athttp://www.defense.gov/. Updates from the U.S. Department of Defense _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Tue Nov 14 03:42:16 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2017 03:42:16 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific In-Reply-To: <7DBCEB5B-D9A5-40B4-9B08-D876AF7CAD74@gmail.com> References: <17467243.13521@subscriptions.dod.mil> <7DBCEB5B-D9A5-40B4-9B08-D876AF7CAD74@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hope you are right. But SecWar Mad Dog Mattis disagrees with you. SecWar Mad Dog Mattis was asked this same question in ROK. He said the Pentagon had options to take out DPRK with no retaliation on Seoul. I take it he was indirectly referring to nuking them, which Trump openly threatening them with “fire and fury,” and everyone knew that meant nukes. So the Pentagon does have such an option as confirmed by Mad Dog publicly. As for citing anyone from WAPO, and especially Rogin,Carl you should know better than to rely upon WAPO Fake News. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 9:26 PM To: Boyle, Francis A Cc: Karen Aram ; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; Jay ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; Szoke, Ron ; Joe Lauria ; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; abass10 at gmail.com; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; Arlene Hickory ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific [Josh Rogin WAPO August 17] In Washington, a “Kinsley gaffe” is when someone tells an obvious truth that isn’t supposed to be said. Such was the case when White House chief strategist Stephen K. Bannon told a reporter, in an interview published Wednesday, that there is no viable military option for stopping North Korea’s nuclear and missile programs. Bannon’s view is that any preemptive attack on North Korea would result in horrendous casualties in South Korea and elsewhere and therefore cannot be seriously considered. That view is shared by many officials, former officials and North Korea experts... By publicly declaring that the U.S. threat of military force in North Korea is a bluff, Bannon may have undermined the credibility of that threat. He may also have nudged the United States toward a more diplomacy-focused approach and reduced the risk of war. “There’s no military solution [to North Korea’s nuclear threats], forget it,” Bannon told the American Prospect. “Until somebody solves the part of the equation that shows me that 10 million people in Seoul don’t die in the first 30 minutes from conventional weapons, I don’t know what you’re talking about, there’s no military solution here, they got us.” For many North Korea watchers, Bannon was simply acknowledging a reality that the parties involved already understood; there is no viable scenario in which the United States could initiate a first strike against Pyongyang. “He’s absolutely right,” said former North Korea nuclear negotiator Joel S. Wit. “This is not a credible threat, and it really hasn’t been since the 1990s. We’ve been pretending it’s credible, but it really isn’t.” Such a move would guarantee devastating retaliation by Kim Jong Un against South Korea, Japan and the tens of thousands of U.S. troops there. Moreover, there’s no real way to be confident a U.S.-led military strike could destroy all of the dispersed and hidden components of North Korea’s illicit programs. Throw on top of that the danger that Kim could use a nuclear weapon, and it’s clear the United States can’t strike first. It’s likely a coincidence, but South Korean President Moon Jae-in also publicly declared that the military option is not on the table this week. “I can confidently say there will not be a war again on the Korean Peninsula,” Moon said. “The U.S. and President Trump also said, no matter what option they take about North Korea, all decisions will be made after consulting with and getting agreement with the Republic of Korea,” he added... Wit said that since the North Koreans understand the military dynamics as well as anyone, that threat was never really credible in the first place. “They figured out a long time ago the U.S. isn’t going to do anything,” he said. “Bannon may have undermined our pressure campaign, but the threat of military force has been a diminishing tool all along.” The larger effect could be that the Trump administration could now coalesce around a more diplomacy-focused strategy and move closer to direct negotiations with Pyongyang. Although Bannon didn’t specify his preferred policy, the alternative to attacking is clear: continuing to increase diplomatic and financial pressure on North Korea while exploring the chance for dialogue. The United States and North Korea have maintained a quiet diplomatic channel over the past months that could be used to set up more substantial negotiations. The Trump team has told foreign interlocutors that it remains open to negotiations with Pyongyang under the right conditions. Whether or not Bannon intended his remarks to be public, his warnings about the foolishness of attacking North Korea are correct, and they might even be helpful… Josh Rogin is a columnist for the Global Opinions section of The Washington Post. He writes about foreign policy and national security. Follow @joshrogin On Nov 13, 2017, at 5:33 PM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss > wrote: The USG and the US Media have so demonized DPRK and KJU that the Pentagon could probably get away with nuking them and everyone would cheer. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 5:29 PM To: 'C G Estabrook' > Cc: David Green >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien > Subject: RE: Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific It is possible if the Pentagon nukes them. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 5:19 PM To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: David Green >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien > Subject: Re: Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific And Steve Bannon pointed out the impossibility of military action against N. Korea: On Nov 13, 2017, at 5:14 PM, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: Yeah, thanks Carl. That's the way I see it too. I guess we shall see what happens. There was some Air Force General on the Tube a while ago saying we could take out DPRK in 4 hours. But the only way they could do that would be with nukes. Would not put it past them. Trump's speech about "fire and fury" clearly implied using nukes. So it is on their Radar Screen. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -----Original Message----- From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 5:10 PM To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: David Green >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >;chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien > Subject: Re: Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific I think this is quite right. Obama’s ‘pivot’ - war provocations vs. China - remains the War Party’s policy. They’re terribly afraid Trump will abandon it (and other pro-war policies) & so want to drive him from office. Brzezinski explicitly references Mackinder. US foreign policy makers learn nothing & forget nothing. —CGE On Nov 13, 2017, at 4:58 PM, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: This massive concentration of US naval forces had to have been planned and war-gamed far in advance of Trump by the Pentagon, probably going back to Obama launching his Pivot to Asia, which is really a Pivot against China, under the influence of his Guru Brzezinski as explained in his Grand Chessboard. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: U.S. Department of Defense [mailto:govdelivery at subscriptions.dod.mil] Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 3:45 PM To: Boyle, Francis A > Subject: Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific You are subscribed to News Articles for U.S. Department of Defense. This information has recently been updated, and is now available. Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific 11/13/2017 03:04 PM CST The USS Ronald Reagan, USS Theodore Roosevelt and USS Nimitz Strike Groups transit the Western Pacific with ships from the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force in the Western Pacific, Nov. 12, 2017. The three aircraft carriers and their strike groups are conducting operations in international waters as part of a strike force exercise. The Navy has patrolled the Indo-Asia-Pacific region routinely for more than 70 years promoting regional security, stability and prosperity. Navy photo by Petty Officer 3rd Class Anthony J. Rivera (Click photo for screen-resolution image);high-resolution imageavailable. Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific By Lisa Ferdinando DoD News, Defense Media Activity WASHINGTON, Nov. 13, 2017 — A three-carrier naval force is finishing a multi-day exercise in the Western Pacific, demonstrating the Navy's unique capability to operate multiple carrier strike groups as a coordinated effort, according to Navy officials. “The United States Navy is the only force in the world able to carry out such an exercise,” a Navy official told DoD News. The exercise features the aircraft carriers USS Ronald Reagan, USS Nimitz, and USS Theodore Roosevelt and includes air defense drills, sea surveillance, replenishments at sea, defensive air combat training, close-in coordinated maneuvers and other training, Navy officials said. Ships from Japan and South Korea joined the exercise, officials said. Triple Aircraft Carrier Training "It is a rare opportunity to train with two aircraft carriers together, and even rarer to be able to train with three," the U.S. Pacific Fleet commander, Navy Adm. Scott Swift, said in a U.S. 7th Fleet release. "Multiple carrier strike force operations are very complex,” Swift said. He added, “This exercise in the Western Pacific is a strong testament to the U.S. Pacific Fleet's unique ability and ironclad commitment to the continued security and stability of the region." The exercise is the first time three carrier strike groups have operated together in the Western Pacific since exercises Valiant Shield 2006 and 2007 off the coast of Guam, according to Navy officials. Officials point out Navy aircraft carriers more recently have conducted dual-carrier strike group operations in the Western Pacific including in the South China Sea, East China Sea and Philippine Sea. These exercises typically happen when an aircraft carrier deployed to the 7th Fleet area of operations joins with the carrier based in Japan. In this instance, the Nimitz was finishing a deployment in the 5th Fleet area -- the Persian Gulf -- and the Roosevelt was relieving it. The Reagan -- homeported in Japan -- joined the other two carriers, which are based in the Western United States. (Follow Lisa Ferdinando on Twitter: @FerdinandoDoD) Related Links U.S. Pacific Command Special Report: DoD Focus on the Asia-Pacific Update your subscriptions, modify your password or email address, or stop subscriptions at any time on your our email address to log in. If you have questions or problems with the subscription service, please email s. Have another inquiry? Contact the U.S. Department of Defense. This service is provided to you at no charge by U.S. Department of Defense. Visit us on the web athttp://www.defense.gov/. Updates from the U.S. Department of Defense _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Tue Nov 14 04:40:26 2017 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2017 22:40:26 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific In-Reply-To: References: <17467243.13521@subscriptions.dod.mil> <7DBCEB5B-D9A5-40B4-9B08-D876AF7CAD74@gmail.com> Message-ID: No one can be wrong all the time. Rogin (whom I'm told speaks good Japanese…) here is merely reporting on Bannon’s interview with Robert Kuttner. Bannon is clearly correct. I’ve been reading the WaPo since I was young (& knew some of the family). I don’t think I have many illusions about it. But just as one once read Pravda to see what the Party was thinking, so now one reads the WaPo to see what the War Party is thinking. If the US nukes NK, I’ll apologize. A Pentagon brass-hat said the other day that the only way to ‘secure’ NK’s nukes was a ground invasion. That actually seems more likely to me than a US nuclear attack. But China wouldn't like it, and the last time the US tried it, it didn’t work. —CGE > On Nov 13, 2017, at 9:42 PM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: > > Hope you are right. But SecWar Mad Dog Mattis disagrees with you. SecWar Mad Dog Mattis was asked this same question in ROK. He said the Pentagon had options to take out DPRK with no retaliation on Seoul. I take it he was indirectly referring to nuking them, which Trump openly threatening them with “fire and fury,” and everyone knew that meant nukes. So the Pentagon does have such an option as confirmed by Mad Dog publicly. As for citing anyone from WAPO, and especially Rogin,Carl you should know better than to rely upon WAPO Fake News. Fab. > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) > > From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] > Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 9:26 PM > To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: Karen Aram ; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; Jay ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; Szoke, Ron ; Joe Lauria ; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; abass10 at gmail.com; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; Arlene Hickory ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific > > [Josh Rogin WAPO August 17] In Washington, a “Kinsley gaffe” is when someone tells an obvious truth that isn’t supposed to be said. Such was the case when White House chief strategist Stephen K. Bannon told a reporter, in an interview published Wednesday, that there is no viable military option for stopping North Korea’s nuclear and missile programs. > > Bannon’s view is that any preemptive attack on North Korea would result in horrendous casualties in South Korea and elsewhere and therefore cannot be seriously considered. That view is shared by many officials, former officials and North Korea experts... > > By publicly declaring that the U.S. threat of military force in North Korea is a bluff, Bannon may have undermined the credibility of that threat. He may also have nudged the United States toward a more diplomacy-focused approach and reduced the risk of war. > > “There’s no military solution [to North Korea’s nuclear threats], forget it,” Bannon told the American Prospect. “Until somebody solves the part of the equation that shows me that 10 million people in Seoul don’t die in the first 30 minutes from conventional weapons, I don’t know what you’re talking about, there’s no military solution here, they got us.” > > For many North Korea watchers, Bannon was simply acknowledging a reality that the parties involved already understood; there is no viable scenario in which the United States could initiate a first strike against Pyongyang. > > “He’s absolutely right,” said former North Korea nuclear negotiator Joel S. Wit. “This is not a credible threat, and it really hasn’t been since the 1990s. We’ve been pretending it’s credible, but it really isn’t.” > > Such a move would guarantee devastating retaliation by Kim Jong Un against South Korea, Japan and the tens of thousands of U.S. troops there. Moreover, there’s no real way to be confident a U.S.-led military strike could destroy all of the dispersed and hidden components of North Korea’s illicit programs. > > Throw on top of that the danger that Kim could use a nuclear weapon, and it’s clear the United States can’t strike first. It’s likely a coincidence, but South Korean President Moon Jae-in also publicly declared that the military option is not on the table this week. > > “I can confidently say there will not be a war again on the Korean Peninsula,” Moon said. “The U.S. and President Trump also said, no matter what option they take about North Korea, all decisions will be made after consulting with and getting agreement with the Republic of Korea,” he added... > > Wit said that since the North Koreans understand the military dynamics as well as anyone, that threat was never really credible in the first place. > > “They figured out a long time ago the U.S. isn’t going to do anything,” he said. “Bannon may have undermined our pressure campaign, but the threat of military force has been a diminishing tool all along.” > > The larger effect could be that the Trump administration could now coalesce around a more diplomacy-focused strategy and move closer to direct negotiations with Pyongyang. Although Bannon didn’t specify his preferred policy, the alternative to attacking is clear: continuing to increase diplomatic and financial pressure on North Korea while exploring the chance for dialogue. > > The United States and North Korea have maintained a quiet diplomatic channel over the past months that could be used to set up more substantial negotiations. The Trump team has told foreign interlocutors that it remains open to negotiations with Pyongyang under the right conditions. > > Whether or not Bannon intended his remarks to be public, his warnings about the foolishness of attacking North Korea are correct, and they might even be helpful… > > Josh Rogin is a columnist for the Global Opinions section of The Washington Post. He writes about foreign policy and national security. Follow @joshrogin > > > > On Nov 13, 2017, at 5:33 PM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: > > The USG and the US Media have so demonized DPRK and KJU that the Pentagon could probably get away with nuking them and everyone would cheer. Fab. > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign, IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) > > From: Boyle, Francis A > Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 5:29 PM > To: 'C G Estabrook' > Cc: David Green ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay ; David Johnson ; Mildred O'brien > Subject: RE: Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific > > It is possible if the Pentagon nukes them. Fab. > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign, IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) > > From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] > Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 5:19 PM > To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: David Green ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay ; David Johnson ; Mildred O'brien > Subject: Re: Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific > > And Steve Bannon pointed out the impossibility of military action against N. Korea: > > > > > On Nov 13, 2017, at 5:14 PM, Boyle, Francis A wrote: > > Yeah, thanks Carl. That's the way I see it too. I guess we shall see what happens. There was some Air Force General on the Tube a while ago saying we could take out DPRK in 4 hours. But the only way they could do that would be with nukes. Would not put it past them. Trump's speech about "fire and fury" clearly implied using nukes. So it is on their Radar Screen. Fab. > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign, IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) > > > -----Original Message----- > From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] > Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 5:10 PM > To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: David Green ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ;chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay ; David Johnson ; Mildred O'brien > Subject: Re: Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific > > I think this is quite right. Obama’s ‘pivot’ - war provocations vs. China - remains the War Party’s policy. > > They’re terribly afraid Trump will abandon it (and other pro-war policies) & so want to drive him from office. > > Brzezinski explicitly references Mackinder. US foreign policy makers learn nothing & forget nothing. > > —CGE > > > > On Nov 13, 2017, at 4:58 PM, Boyle, Francis A wrote: > > This massive concentration of US naval forces had to have been planned and war-gamed far in advance of Trump by the Pentagon, probably going back to Obama launching his Pivot to Asia, which is really a Pivot against China, under the influence of his Guru Brzezinski as explained in his Grand Chessboard. Fab. > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign, IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) > > From: U.S. Department of Defense > [mailto:govdelivery at subscriptions.dod.mil] > Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 3:45 PM > To: Boyle, Francis A > Subject: Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western > Pacific > > You are subscribed to News Articles for U.S. Department of Defense. This information has recently been updated, and is now available. > > > > Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific > 11/13/2017 03:04 PM CST > > > The USS Ronald Reagan, USS Theodore Roosevelt and USS Nimitz Strike > Groups transit the Western Pacific with ships from the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force in the Western Pacific, Nov. 12, 2017. The three aircraft carriers and their strike groups are conducting operations in international waters as part of a strike force exercise. The Navy has patrolled the Indo-Asia-Pacific region routinely for more than 70 years promoting regional security, stability and prosperity. Navy photo by Petty Officer 3rd Class Anthony J. Rivera (Click photo for screen-resolution image);high-resolution imageavailable. > Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific > > By Lisa Ferdinando > > DoD News, Defense Media Activity > > WASHINGTON, Nov. 13, 2017 — A three-carrier naval force is finishing a multi-day exercise in the Western Pacific, demonstrating the Navy's unique capability to operate multiple carrier strike groups as a coordinated effort, according to Navy officials. > > “The United States Navy is the only force in the world able to carry out such an exercise,” a Navy official told DoD News. > > The exercise features the aircraft carriers USS Ronald Reagan, USS Nimitz, and USS Theodore Roosevelt and includes air defense drills, sea surveillance, replenishments at sea, defensive air combat training, close-in coordinated maneuvers and other training, Navy officials said. > > Ships from Japan and South Korea joined the exercise, officials said. > > Triple Aircraft Carrier Training > > "It is a rare opportunity to train with two aircraft carriers together, and even rarer to be able to train with three," the U.S. Pacific Fleet commander, Navy Adm. Scott Swift, said in a U.S. 7th Fleet release. > > "Multiple carrier strike force operations are very complex,” Swift said. > > He added, “This exercise in the Western Pacific is a strong testament to the U.S. Pacific Fleet's unique ability and ironclad commitment to the continued security and stability of the region." > > The exercise is the first time three carrier strike groups have operated together in the Western Pacific since exercises Valiant Shield 2006 and 2007 off the coast of Guam, according to Navy officials. > > Officials point out Navy aircraft carriers more recently have conducted dual-carrier strike group operations in the Western Pacific including in the South China Sea, East China Sea and Philippine Sea. > > These exercises typically happen when an aircraft carrier deployed to the 7th Fleet area of operations joins with the carrier based in Japan. In this instance, the Nimitz was finishing a deployment in the 5th Fleet area -- the Persian Gulf -- and the Roosevelt was relieving it. The Reagan -- homeported in Japan -- joined the other two carriers, which are based in the Western United States. > > (Follow Lisa Ferdinando on Twitter: @FerdinandoDoD) > > Related Links > > U.S. Pacific Command > Special Report: DoD Focus on the Asia-Pacific > From cgestabrook at gmail.com Tue Nov 14 04:40:26 2017 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2017 22:40:26 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific In-Reply-To: References: <17467243.13521@subscriptions.dod.mil> <7DBCEB5B-D9A5-40B4-9B08-D876AF7CAD74@gmail.com> Message-ID: No one can be wrong all the time. Rogin (whom I'm told speaks good Japanese…) here is merely reporting on Bannon’s interview with Robert Kuttner. Bannon is clearly correct. I’ve been reading the WaPo since I was young (& knew some of the family). I don’t think I have many illusions about it. But just as one once read Pravda to see what the Party was thinking, so now one reads the WaPo to see what the War Party is thinking. If the US nukes NK, I’ll apologize. A Pentagon brass-hat said the other day that the only way to ‘secure’ NK’s nukes was a ground invasion. That actually seems more likely to me than a US nuclear attack. But China wouldn't like it, and the last time the US tried it, it didn’t work. —CGE > On Nov 13, 2017, at 9:42 PM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: > > Hope you are right. But SecWar Mad Dog Mattis disagrees with you. SecWar Mad Dog Mattis was asked this same question in ROK. He said the Pentagon had options to take out DPRK with no retaliation on Seoul. I take it he was indirectly referring to nuking them, which Trump openly threatening them with “fire and fury,” and everyone knew that meant nukes. So the Pentagon does have such an option as confirmed by Mad Dog publicly. As for citing anyone from WAPO, and especially Rogin,Carl you should know better than to rely upon WAPO Fake News. Fab. > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) > > From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] > Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 9:26 PM > To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: Karen Aram ; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; Jay ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; Szoke, Ron ; Joe Lauria ; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; abass10 at gmail.com; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; Arlene Hickory ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific > > [Josh Rogin WAPO August 17] In Washington, a “Kinsley gaffe” is when someone tells an obvious truth that isn’t supposed to be said. Such was the case when White House chief strategist Stephen K. Bannon told a reporter, in an interview published Wednesday, that there is no viable military option for stopping North Korea’s nuclear and missile programs. > > Bannon’s view is that any preemptive attack on North Korea would result in horrendous casualties in South Korea and elsewhere and therefore cannot be seriously considered. That view is shared by many officials, former officials and North Korea experts... > > By publicly declaring that the U.S. threat of military force in North Korea is a bluff, Bannon may have undermined the credibility of that threat. He may also have nudged the United States toward a more diplomacy-focused approach and reduced the risk of war. > > “There’s no military solution [to North Korea’s nuclear threats], forget it,” Bannon told the American Prospect. “Until somebody solves the part of the equation that shows me that 10 million people in Seoul don’t die in the first 30 minutes from conventional weapons, I don’t know what you’re talking about, there’s no military solution here, they got us.” > > For many North Korea watchers, Bannon was simply acknowledging a reality that the parties involved already understood; there is no viable scenario in which the United States could initiate a first strike against Pyongyang. > > “He’s absolutely right,” said former North Korea nuclear negotiator Joel S. Wit. “This is not a credible threat, and it really hasn’t been since the 1990s. We’ve been pretending it’s credible, but it really isn’t.” > > Such a move would guarantee devastating retaliation by Kim Jong Un against South Korea, Japan and the tens of thousands of U.S. troops there. Moreover, there’s no real way to be confident a U.S.-led military strike could destroy all of the dispersed and hidden components of North Korea’s illicit programs. > > Throw on top of that the danger that Kim could use a nuclear weapon, and it’s clear the United States can’t strike first. It’s likely a coincidence, but South Korean President Moon Jae-in also publicly declared that the military option is not on the table this week. > > “I can confidently say there will not be a war again on the Korean Peninsula,” Moon said. “The U.S. and President Trump also said, no matter what option they take about North Korea, all decisions will be made after consulting with and getting agreement with the Republic of Korea,” he added... > > Wit said that since the North Koreans understand the military dynamics as well as anyone, that threat was never really credible in the first place. > > “They figured out a long time ago the U.S. isn’t going to do anything,” he said. “Bannon may have undermined our pressure campaign, but the threat of military force has been a diminishing tool all along.” > > The larger effect could be that the Trump administration could now coalesce around a more diplomacy-focused strategy and move closer to direct negotiations with Pyongyang. Although Bannon didn’t specify his preferred policy, the alternative to attacking is clear: continuing to increase diplomatic and financial pressure on North Korea while exploring the chance for dialogue. > > The United States and North Korea have maintained a quiet diplomatic channel over the past months that could be used to set up more substantial negotiations. The Trump team has told foreign interlocutors that it remains open to negotiations with Pyongyang under the right conditions. > > Whether or not Bannon intended his remarks to be public, his warnings about the foolishness of attacking North Korea are correct, and they might even be helpful… > > Josh Rogin is a columnist for the Global Opinions section of The Washington Post. He writes about foreign policy and national security. Follow @joshrogin > > > > On Nov 13, 2017, at 5:33 PM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: > > The USG and the US Media have so demonized DPRK and KJU that the Pentagon could probably get away with nuking them and everyone would cheer. Fab. > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign, IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) > > From: Boyle, Francis A > Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 5:29 PM > To: 'C G Estabrook' > Cc: David Green ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay ; David Johnson ; Mildred O'brien > Subject: RE: Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific > > It is possible if the Pentagon nukes them. Fab. > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign, IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) > > From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] > Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 5:19 PM > To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: David Green ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay ; David Johnson ; Mildred O'brien > Subject: Re: Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific > > And Steve Bannon pointed out the impossibility of military action against N. Korea: > > > > > On Nov 13, 2017, at 5:14 PM, Boyle, Francis A wrote: > > Yeah, thanks Carl. That's the way I see it too. I guess we shall see what happens. There was some Air Force General on the Tube a while ago saying we could take out DPRK in 4 hours. But the only way they could do that would be with nukes. Would not put it past them. Trump's speech about "fire and fury" clearly implied using nukes. So it is on their Radar Screen. Fab. > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign, IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) > > > -----Original Message----- > From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] > Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 5:10 PM > To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: David Green ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ;chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay ; David Johnson ; Mildred O'brien > Subject: Re: Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific > > I think this is quite right. Obama’s ‘pivot’ - war provocations vs. China - remains the War Party’s policy. > > They’re terribly afraid Trump will abandon it (and other pro-war policies) & so want to drive him from office. > > Brzezinski explicitly references Mackinder. US foreign policy makers learn nothing & forget nothing. > > —CGE > > > > On Nov 13, 2017, at 4:58 PM, Boyle, Francis A wrote: > > This massive concentration of US naval forces had to have been planned and war-gamed far in advance of Trump by the Pentagon, probably going back to Obama launching his Pivot to Asia, which is really a Pivot against China, under the influence of his Guru Brzezinski as explained in his Grand Chessboard. Fab. > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign, IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) > > From: U.S. Department of Defense > [mailto:govdelivery at subscriptions.dod.mil] > Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 3:45 PM > To: Boyle, Francis A > Subject: Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western > Pacific > > You are subscribed to News Articles for U.S. Department of Defense. This information has recently been updated, and is now available. > > > > Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific > 11/13/2017 03:04 PM CST > > > The USS Ronald Reagan, USS Theodore Roosevelt and USS Nimitz Strike > Groups transit the Western Pacific with ships from the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force in the Western Pacific, Nov. 12, 2017. The three aircraft carriers and their strike groups are conducting operations in international waters as part of a strike force exercise. The Navy has patrolled the Indo-Asia-Pacific region routinely for more than 70 years promoting regional security, stability and prosperity. Navy photo by Petty Officer 3rd Class Anthony J. Rivera (Click photo for screen-resolution image);high-resolution imageavailable. > Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific > > By Lisa Ferdinando > > DoD News, Defense Media Activity > > WASHINGTON, Nov. 13, 2017 — A three-carrier naval force is finishing a multi-day exercise in the Western Pacific, demonstrating the Navy's unique capability to operate multiple carrier strike groups as a coordinated effort, according to Navy officials. > > “The United States Navy is the only force in the world able to carry out such an exercise,” a Navy official told DoD News. > > The exercise features the aircraft carriers USS Ronald Reagan, USS Nimitz, and USS Theodore Roosevelt and includes air defense drills, sea surveillance, replenishments at sea, defensive air combat training, close-in coordinated maneuvers and other training, Navy officials said. > > Ships from Japan and South Korea joined the exercise, officials said. > > Triple Aircraft Carrier Training > > "It is a rare opportunity to train with two aircraft carriers together, and even rarer to be able to train with three," the U.S. Pacific Fleet commander, Navy Adm. Scott Swift, said in a U.S. 7th Fleet release. > > "Multiple carrier strike force operations are very complex,” Swift said. > > He added, “This exercise in the Western Pacific is a strong testament to the U.S. Pacific Fleet's unique ability and ironclad commitment to the continued security and stability of the region." > > The exercise is the first time three carrier strike groups have operated together in the Western Pacific since exercises Valiant Shield 2006 and 2007 off the coast of Guam, according to Navy officials. > > Officials point out Navy aircraft carriers more recently have conducted dual-carrier strike group operations in the Western Pacific including in the South China Sea, East China Sea and Philippine Sea. > > These exercises typically happen when an aircraft carrier deployed to the 7th Fleet area of operations joins with the carrier based in Japan. In this instance, the Nimitz was finishing a deployment in the 5th Fleet area -- the Persian Gulf -- and the Roosevelt was relieving it. The Reagan -- homeported in Japan -- joined the other two carriers, which are based in the Western United States. > > (Follow Lisa Ferdinando on Twitter: @FerdinandoDoD) > > Related Links > > U.S. Pacific Command > Special Report: DoD Focus on the Asia-Pacific > From karenaram at hotmail.com Tue Nov 14 04:57:22 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2017 04:57:22 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific In-Reply-To: References: <17467243.13521@subscriptions.dod.mil> <7DBCEB5B-D9A5-40B4-9B08-D876AF7CAD74@gmail.com> Message-ID: A ground force invasion, sure, why not? The US has no problem with that. Losing? When have we actually won? After all, perpetual war, means selling a lot of weapons, killing a lot of people, destroying a lot of infrastructure, land and agriculture, and we keep our opponents on the defensive, distracted, worn down. and broke. Maybe we can actually move that 38th parallel further north? As long as we fight wars on other peoples territories……what have we got to lose but lives…..What will the Chinese do? No, they won’t like it, but they’ll keep on building that “Silk Road” in spite of us. > On Nov 13, 2017, at 20:40, C G Estabrook wrote: > > No one can be wrong all the time. Rogin (whom I'm told speaks good Japanese…) here is merely reporting on Bannon’s interview with Robert Kuttner. > > Bannon is clearly correct. > > I’ve been reading the WaPo since I was young (& knew some of the family). I don’t think I have many illusions about it. > > But just as one once read Pravda to see what the Party was thinking, so now one reads the WaPo to see what the War Party is thinking. > > If the US nukes NK, I’ll apologize. > > A Pentagon brass-hat said the other day that the only way to ‘secure’ NK’s nukes was a ground invasion. That actually seems more likely to me than a US nuclear attack. > > But China wouldn't like it, and the last time the US tried it, it didn’t work. —CGE > > >> On Nov 13, 2017, at 9:42 PM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: >> >> Hope you are right. But SecWar Mad Dog Mattis disagrees with you. SecWar Mad Dog Mattis was asked this same question in ROK. He said the Pentagon had options to take out DPRK with no retaliation on Seoul. I take it he was indirectly referring to nuking them, which Trump openly threatening them with “fire and fury,” and everyone knew that meant nukes. So the Pentagon does have such an option as confirmed by Mad Dog publicly. As for citing anyone from WAPO, and especially Rogin,Carl you should know better than to rely upon WAPO Fake News. Fab. >> >> Francis A. Boyle >> Law Building >> 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. >> Champaign IL 61820 USA >> 217-333-7954 (phone) >> 217-244-1478 (fax) >> (personal comments only) >> >> From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] >> Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 9:26 PM >> To: Boyle, Francis A >> Cc: Karen Aram ; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; Jay ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; Szoke, Ron ; Joe Lauria ; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; abass10 at gmail.com; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; Arlene Hickory ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net >> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific >> >> [Josh Rogin WAPO August 17] In Washington, a “Kinsley gaffe” is when someone tells an obvious truth that isn’t supposed to be said. Such was the case when White House chief strategist Stephen K. Bannon told a reporter, in an interview published Wednesday, that there is no viable military option for stopping North Korea’s nuclear and missile programs. >> >> Bannon’s view is that any preemptive attack on North Korea would result in horrendous casualties in South Korea and elsewhere and therefore cannot be seriously considered. That view is shared by many officials, former officials and North Korea experts... >> >> By publicly declaring that the U.S. threat of military force in North Korea is a bluff, Bannon may have undermined the credibility of that threat. He may also have nudged the United States toward a more diplomacy-focused approach and reduced the risk of war. >> >> “There’s no military solution [to North Korea’s nuclear threats], forget it,” Bannon told the American Prospect. “Until somebody solves the part of the equation that shows me that 10 million people in Seoul don’t die in the first 30 minutes from conventional weapons, I don’t know what you’re talking about, there’s no military solution here, they got us.” >> >> For many North Korea watchers, Bannon was simply acknowledging a reality that the parties involved already understood; there is no viable scenario in which the United States could initiate a first strike against Pyongyang. >> >> “He’s absolutely right,” said former North Korea nuclear negotiator Joel S. Wit. “This is not a credible threat, and it really hasn’t been since the 1990s. We’ve been pretending it’s credible, but it really isn’t.” >> >> Such a move would guarantee devastating retaliation by Kim Jong Un against South Korea, Japan and the tens of thousands of U.S. troops there. Moreover, there’s no real way to be confident a U.S.-led military strike could destroy all of the dispersed and hidden components of North Korea’s illicit programs. >> >> Throw on top of that the danger that Kim could use a nuclear weapon, and it’s clear the United States can’t strike first. It’s likely a coincidence, but South Korean President Moon Jae-in also publicly declared that the military option is not on the table this week. >> >> “I can confidently say there will not be a war again on the Korean Peninsula,” Moon said. “The U.S. and President Trump also said, no matter what option they take about North Korea, all decisions will be made after consulting with and getting agreement with the Republic of Korea,” he added... >> >> Wit said that since the North Koreans understand the military dynamics as well as anyone, that threat was never really credible in the first place. >> >> “They figured out a long time ago the U.S. isn’t going to do anything,” he said. “Bannon may have undermined our pressure campaign, but the threat of military force has been a diminishing tool all along.” >> >> The larger effect could be that the Trump administration could now coalesce around a more diplomacy-focused strategy and move closer to direct negotiations with Pyongyang. Although Bannon didn’t specify his preferred policy, the alternative to attacking is clear: continuing to increase diplomatic and financial pressure on North Korea while exploring the chance for dialogue. >> >> The United States and North Korea have maintained a quiet diplomatic channel over the past months that could be used to set up more substantial negotiations. The Trump team has told foreign interlocutors that it remains open to negotiations with Pyongyang under the right conditions. >> >> Whether or not Bannon intended his remarks to be public, his warnings about the foolishness of attacking North Korea are correct, and they might even be helpful… >> >> Josh Rogin is a columnist for the Global Opinions section of The Washington Post. He writes about foreign policy and national security. Follow @joshrogin >> >> >> >> On Nov 13, 2017, at 5:33 PM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: >> >> The USG and the US Media have so demonized DPRK and KJU that the Pentagon could probably get away with nuking them and everyone would cheer. Fab. >> >> Francis A. Boyle >> Law Building >> 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. >> Champaign, IL 61820 USA >> 217-333-7954 (phone) >> 217-244-1478 (fax) >> (personal comments only) >> >> From: Boyle, Francis A >> Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 5:29 PM >> To: 'C G Estabrook' >> Cc: David Green ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay ; David Johnson ; Mildred O'brien >> Subject: RE: Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific >> >> It is possible if the Pentagon nukes them. Fab. >> >> Francis A. Boyle >> Law Building >> 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. >> Champaign, IL 61820 USA >> 217-333-7954 (phone) >> 217-244-1478 (fax) >> (personal comments only) >> >> From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] >> Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 5:19 PM >> To: Boyle, Francis A >> Cc: David Green ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay ; David Johnson ; Mildred O'brien >> Subject: Re: Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific >> >> And Steve Bannon pointed out the impossibility of military action against N. Korea: >> >> >> >> >> On Nov 13, 2017, at 5:14 PM, Boyle, Francis A wrote: >> >> Yeah, thanks Carl. That's the way I see it too. I guess we shall see what happens. There was some Air Force General on the Tube a while ago saying we could take out DPRK in 4 hours. But the only way they could do that would be with nukes. Would not put it past them. Trump's speech about "fire and fury" clearly implied using nukes. So it is on their Radar Screen. Fab. >> >> Francis A. Boyle >> Law Building >> 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. >> Champaign, IL 61820 USA >> 217-333-7954 (phone) >> 217-244-1478 (fax) >> (personal comments only) >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] >> Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 5:10 PM >> To: Boyle, Francis A >> Cc: David Green ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ;chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay ; David Johnson ; Mildred O'brien >> Subject: Re: Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific >> >> I think this is quite right. Obama’s ‘pivot’ - war provocations vs. China - remains the War Party’s policy. >> >> They’re terribly afraid Trump will abandon it (and other pro-war policies) & so want to drive him from office. >> >> Brzezinski explicitly references Mackinder. US foreign policy makers learn nothing & forget nothing. >> >> —CGE >> >> >> >> On Nov 13, 2017, at 4:58 PM, Boyle, Francis A wrote: >> >> This massive concentration of US naval forces had to have been planned and war-gamed far in advance of Trump by the Pentagon, probably going back to Obama launching his Pivot to Asia, which is really a Pivot against China, under the influence of his Guru Brzezinski as explained in his Grand Chessboard. Fab. >> >> Francis A. Boyle >> Law Building >> 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. >> Champaign, IL 61820 USA >> 217-333-7954 (phone) >> 217-244-1478 (fax) >> (personal comments only) >> >> From: U.S. Department of Defense >> [mailto:govdelivery at subscriptions.dod.mil] >> Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 3:45 PM >> To: Boyle, Francis A >> Subject: Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western >> Pacific >> >> You are subscribed to News Articles for U.S. Department of Defense. This information has recently been updated, and is now available. >> >> >> >> Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific >> 11/13/2017 03:04 PM CST >> >> >> The USS Ronald Reagan, USS Theodore Roosevelt and USS Nimitz Strike >> Groups transit the Western Pacific with ships from the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force in the Western Pacific, Nov. 12, 2017. The three aircraft carriers and their strike groups are conducting operations in international waters as part of a strike force exercise. The Navy has patrolled the Indo-Asia-Pacific region routinely for more than 70 years promoting regional security, stability and prosperity. Navy photo by Petty Officer 3rd Class Anthony J. Rivera (Click photo for screen-resolution image);high-resolution imageavailable. >> Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific >> >> By Lisa Ferdinando >> >> DoD News, Defense Media Activity >> >> WASHINGTON, Nov. 13, 2017 — A three-carrier naval force is finishing a multi-day exercise in the Western Pacific, demonstrating the Navy's unique capability to operate multiple carrier strike groups as a coordinated effort, according to Navy officials. >> >> “The United States Navy is the only force in the world able to carry out such an exercise,” a Navy official told DoD News. >> >> The exercise features the aircraft carriers USS Ronald Reagan, USS Nimitz, and USS Theodore Roosevelt and includes air defense drills, sea surveillance, replenishments at sea, defensive air combat training, close-in coordinated maneuvers and other training, Navy officials said. >> >> Ships from Japan and South Korea joined the exercise, officials said. >> >> Triple Aircraft Carrier Training >> >> "It is a rare opportunity to train with two aircraft carriers together, and even rarer to be able to train with three," the U.S. Pacific Fleet commander, Navy Adm. Scott Swift, said in a U.S. 7th Fleet release. >> >> "Multiple carrier strike force operations are very complex,” Swift said. >> >> He added, “This exercise in the Western Pacific is a strong testament to the U.S. Pacific Fleet's unique ability and ironclad commitment to the continued security and stability of the region." >> >> The exercise is the first time three carrier strike groups have operated together in the Western Pacific since exercises Valiant Shield 2006 and 2007 off the coast of Guam, according to Navy officials. >> >> Officials point out Navy aircraft carriers more recently have conducted dual-carrier strike group operations in the Western Pacific including in the South China Sea, East China Sea and Philippine Sea. >> >> These exercises typically happen when an aircraft carrier deployed to the 7th Fleet area of operations joins with the carrier based in Japan. In this instance, the Nimitz was finishing a deployment in the 5th Fleet area -- the Persian Gulf -- and the Roosevelt was relieving it. The Reagan -- homeported in Japan -- joined the other two carriers, which are based in the Western United States. >> >> (Follow Lisa Ferdinando on Twitter: @FerdinandoDoD) >> >> Related Links >> >> U.S. Pacific Command >> Special Report: DoD Focus on the Asia-Pacific >> > From karenaram at hotmail.com Tue Nov 14 04:57:22 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2017 04:57:22 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific In-Reply-To: References: <17467243.13521@subscriptions.dod.mil> <7DBCEB5B-D9A5-40B4-9B08-D876AF7CAD74@gmail.com> Message-ID: A ground force invasion, sure, why not? The US has no problem with that. Losing? When have we actually won? After all, perpetual war, means selling a lot of weapons, killing a lot of people, destroying a lot of infrastructure, land and agriculture, and we keep our opponents on the defensive, distracted, worn down. and broke. Maybe we can actually move that 38th parallel further north? As long as we fight wars on other peoples territories……what have we got to lose but lives…..What will the Chinese do? No, they won’t like it, but they’ll keep on building that “Silk Road” in spite of us. > On Nov 13, 2017, at 20:40, C G Estabrook wrote: > > No one can be wrong all the time. Rogin (whom I'm told speaks good Japanese…) here is merely reporting on Bannon’s interview with Robert Kuttner. > > Bannon is clearly correct. > > I’ve been reading the WaPo since I was young (& knew some of the family). I don’t think I have many illusions about it. > > But just as one once read Pravda to see what the Party was thinking, so now one reads the WaPo to see what the War Party is thinking. > > If the US nukes NK, I’ll apologize. > > A Pentagon brass-hat said the other day that the only way to ‘secure’ NK’s nukes was a ground invasion. That actually seems more likely to me than a US nuclear attack. > > But China wouldn't like it, and the last time the US tried it, it didn’t work. —CGE > > >> On Nov 13, 2017, at 9:42 PM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: >> >> Hope you are right. But SecWar Mad Dog Mattis disagrees with you. SecWar Mad Dog Mattis was asked this same question in ROK. He said the Pentagon had options to take out DPRK with no retaliation on Seoul. I take it he was indirectly referring to nuking them, which Trump openly threatening them with “fire and fury,” and everyone knew that meant nukes. So the Pentagon does have such an option as confirmed by Mad Dog publicly. As for citing anyone from WAPO, and especially Rogin,Carl you should know better than to rely upon WAPO Fake News. Fab. >> >> Francis A. Boyle >> Law Building >> 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. >> Champaign IL 61820 USA >> 217-333-7954 (phone) >> 217-244-1478 (fax) >> (personal comments only) >> >> From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] >> Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 9:26 PM >> To: Boyle, Francis A >> Cc: Karen Aram ; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; Jay ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; Szoke, Ron ; Joe Lauria ; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; abass10 at gmail.com; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; Arlene Hickory ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net >> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific >> >> [Josh Rogin WAPO August 17] In Washington, a “Kinsley gaffe” is when someone tells an obvious truth that isn’t supposed to be said. Such was the case when White House chief strategist Stephen K. Bannon told a reporter, in an interview published Wednesday, that there is no viable military option for stopping North Korea’s nuclear and missile programs. >> >> Bannon’s view is that any preemptive attack on North Korea would result in horrendous casualties in South Korea and elsewhere and therefore cannot be seriously considered. That view is shared by many officials, former officials and North Korea experts... >> >> By publicly declaring that the U.S. threat of military force in North Korea is a bluff, Bannon may have undermined the credibility of that threat. He may also have nudged the United States toward a more diplomacy-focused approach and reduced the risk of war. >> >> “There’s no military solution [to North Korea’s nuclear threats], forget it,” Bannon told the American Prospect. “Until somebody solves the part of the equation that shows me that 10 million people in Seoul don’t die in the first 30 minutes from conventional weapons, I don’t know what you’re talking about, there’s no military solution here, they got us.” >> >> For many North Korea watchers, Bannon was simply acknowledging a reality that the parties involved already understood; there is no viable scenario in which the United States could initiate a first strike against Pyongyang. >> >> “He’s absolutely right,” said former North Korea nuclear negotiator Joel S. Wit. “This is not a credible threat, and it really hasn’t been since the 1990s. We’ve been pretending it’s credible, but it really isn’t.” >> >> Such a move would guarantee devastating retaliation by Kim Jong Un against South Korea, Japan and the tens of thousands of U.S. troops there. Moreover, there’s no real way to be confident a U.S.-led military strike could destroy all of the dispersed and hidden components of North Korea’s illicit programs. >> >> Throw on top of that the danger that Kim could use a nuclear weapon, and it’s clear the United States can’t strike first. It’s likely a coincidence, but South Korean President Moon Jae-in also publicly declared that the military option is not on the table this week. >> >> “I can confidently say there will not be a war again on the Korean Peninsula,” Moon said. “The U.S. and President Trump also said, no matter what option they take about North Korea, all decisions will be made after consulting with and getting agreement with the Republic of Korea,” he added... >> >> Wit said that since the North Koreans understand the military dynamics as well as anyone, that threat was never really credible in the first place. >> >> “They figured out a long time ago the U.S. isn’t going to do anything,” he said. “Bannon may have undermined our pressure campaign, but the threat of military force has been a diminishing tool all along.” >> >> The larger effect could be that the Trump administration could now coalesce around a more diplomacy-focused strategy and move closer to direct negotiations with Pyongyang. Although Bannon didn’t specify his preferred policy, the alternative to attacking is clear: continuing to increase diplomatic and financial pressure on North Korea while exploring the chance for dialogue. >> >> The United States and North Korea have maintained a quiet diplomatic channel over the past months that could be used to set up more substantial negotiations. The Trump team has told foreign interlocutors that it remains open to negotiations with Pyongyang under the right conditions. >> >> Whether or not Bannon intended his remarks to be public, his warnings about the foolishness of attacking North Korea are correct, and they might even be helpful… >> >> Josh Rogin is a columnist for the Global Opinions section of The Washington Post. He writes about foreign policy and national security. Follow @joshrogin >> >> >> >> On Nov 13, 2017, at 5:33 PM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: >> >> The USG and the US Media have so demonized DPRK and KJU that the Pentagon could probably get away with nuking them and everyone would cheer. Fab. >> >> Francis A. Boyle >> Law Building >> 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. >> Champaign, IL 61820 USA >> 217-333-7954 (phone) >> 217-244-1478 (fax) >> (personal comments only) >> >> From: Boyle, Francis A >> Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 5:29 PM >> To: 'C G Estabrook' >> Cc: David Green ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay ; David Johnson ; Mildred O'brien >> Subject: RE: Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific >> >> It is possible if the Pentagon nukes them. Fab. >> >> Francis A. Boyle >> Law Building >> 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. >> Champaign, IL 61820 USA >> 217-333-7954 (phone) >> 217-244-1478 (fax) >> (personal comments only) >> >> From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] >> Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 5:19 PM >> To: Boyle, Francis A >> Cc: David Green ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay ; David Johnson ; Mildred O'brien >> Subject: Re: Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific >> >> And Steve Bannon pointed out the impossibility of military action against N. Korea: >> >> >> >> >> On Nov 13, 2017, at 5:14 PM, Boyle, Francis A wrote: >> >> Yeah, thanks Carl. That's the way I see it too. I guess we shall see what happens. There was some Air Force General on the Tube a while ago saying we could take out DPRK in 4 hours. But the only way they could do that would be with nukes. Would not put it past them. Trump's speech about "fire and fury" clearly implied using nukes. So it is on their Radar Screen. Fab. >> >> Francis A. Boyle >> Law Building >> 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. >> Champaign, IL 61820 USA >> 217-333-7954 (phone) >> 217-244-1478 (fax) >> (personal comments only) >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] >> Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 5:10 PM >> To: Boyle, Francis A >> Cc: David Green ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ;chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay ; David Johnson ; Mildred O'brien >> Subject: Re: Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific >> >> I think this is quite right. Obama’s ‘pivot’ - war provocations vs. China - remains the War Party’s policy. >> >> They’re terribly afraid Trump will abandon it (and other pro-war policies) & so want to drive him from office. >> >> Brzezinski explicitly references Mackinder. US foreign policy makers learn nothing & forget nothing. >> >> —CGE >> >> >> >> On Nov 13, 2017, at 4:58 PM, Boyle, Francis A wrote: >> >> This massive concentration of US naval forces had to have been planned and war-gamed far in advance of Trump by the Pentagon, probably going back to Obama launching his Pivot to Asia, which is really a Pivot against China, under the influence of his Guru Brzezinski as explained in his Grand Chessboard. Fab. >> >> Francis A. Boyle >> Law Building >> 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. >> Champaign, IL 61820 USA >> 217-333-7954 (phone) >> 217-244-1478 (fax) >> (personal comments only) >> >> From: U.S. Department of Defense >> [mailto:govdelivery at subscriptions.dod.mil] >> Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 3:45 PM >> To: Boyle, Francis A >> Subject: Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western >> Pacific >> >> You are subscribed to News Articles for U.S. Department of Defense. This information has recently been updated, and is now available. >> >> >> >> Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific >> 11/13/2017 03:04 PM CST >> >> >> The USS Ronald Reagan, USS Theodore Roosevelt and USS Nimitz Strike >> Groups transit the Western Pacific with ships from the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force in the Western Pacific, Nov. 12, 2017. The three aircraft carriers and their strike groups are conducting operations in international waters as part of a strike force exercise. The Navy has patrolled the Indo-Asia-Pacific region routinely for more than 70 years promoting regional security, stability and prosperity. Navy photo by Petty Officer 3rd Class Anthony J. Rivera (Click photo for screen-resolution image);high-resolution imageavailable. >> Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific >> >> By Lisa Ferdinando >> >> DoD News, Defense Media Activity >> >> WASHINGTON, Nov. 13, 2017 — A three-carrier naval force is finishing a multi-day exercise in the Western Pacific, demonstrating the Navy's unique capability to operate multiple carrier strike groups as a coordinated effort, according to Navy officials. >> >> “The United States Navy is the only force in the world able to carry out such an exercise,” a Navy official told DoD News. >> >> The exercise features the aircraft carriers USS Ronald Reagan, USS Nimitz, and USS Theodore Roosevelt and includes air defense drills, sea surveillance, replenishments at sea, defensive air combat training, close-in coordinated maneuvers and other training, Navy officials said. >> >> Ships from Japan and South Korea joined the exercise, officials said. >> >> Triple Aircraft Carrier Training >> >> "It is a rare opportunity to train with two aircraft carriers together, and even rarer to be able to train with three," the U.S. Pacific Fleet commander, Navy Adm. Scott Swift, said in a U.S. 7th Fleet release. >> >> "Multiple carrier strike force operations are very complex,” Swift said. >> >> He added, “This exercise in the Western Pacific is a strong testament to the U.S. Pacific Fleet's unique ability and ironclad commitment to the continued security and stability of the region." >> >> The exercise is the first time three carrier strike groups have operated together in the Western Pacific since exercises Valiant Shield 2006 and 2007 off the coast of Guam, according to Navy officials. >> >> Officials point out Navy aircraft carriers more recently have conducted dual-carrier strike group operations in the Western Pacific including in the South China Sea, East China Sea and Philippine Sea. >> >> These exercises typically happen when an aircraft carrier deployed to the 7th Fleet area of operations joins with the carrier based in Japan. In this instance, the Nimitz was finishing a deployment in the 5th Fleet area -- the Persian Gulf -- and the Roosevelt was relieving it. The Reagan -- homeported in Japan -- joined the other two carriers, which are based in the Western United States. >> >> (Follow Lisa Ferdinando on Twitter: @FerdinandoDoD) >> >> Related Links >> >> U.S. Pacific Command >> Special Report: DoD Focus on the Asia-Pacific >> > From fboyle at illinois.edu Tue Nov 14 12:55:28 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2017 12:55:28 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific In-Reply-To: References: <17467243.13521@subscriptions.dod.mil> <7DBCEB5B-D9A5-40B4-9B08-D876AF7CAD74@gmail.com> Message-ID: WAPO is now under new ownership: Bezos/Amazon/CIA. fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -----Original Message----- From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 10:40 PM To: Boyle, Francis A Cc: peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; Jay ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; Szoke, Ron ; Karen Aram ; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; abass10 at gmail.com; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; chicago at worldcantwait.net; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; Arlene Hickory Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific No one can be wrong all the time. Rogin (whom I'm told speaks good Japanese…) here is merely reporting on Bannon’s interview with Robert Kuttner. Bannon is clearly correct. I’ve been reading the WaPo since I was young (& knew some of the family). I don’t think I have many illusions about it. But just as one once read Pravda to see what the Party was thinking, so now one reads the WaPo to see what the War Party is thinking. If the US nukes NK, I’ll apologize. A Pentagon brass-hat said the other day that the only way to ‘secure’ NK’s nukes was a ground invasion. That actually seems more likely to me than a US nuclear attack. But China wouldn't like it, and the last time the US tried it, it didn’t work. —CGE > On Nov 13, 2017, at 9:42 PM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: > > Hope you are right. But SecWar Mad Dog Mattis disagrees with you. SecWar Mad Dog Mattis was asked this same question in ROK. He said the Pentagon had options to take out DPRK with no retaliation on Seoul. I take it he was indirectly referring to nuking them, which Trump openly threatening them with “fire and fury,” and everyone knew that meant nukes. So the Pentagon does have such an option as confirmed by Mad Dog publicly. As for citing anyone from WAPO, and especially Rogin,Carl you should know better than to rely upon WAPO Fake News. Fab. > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) > > From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] > Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 9:26 PM > To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: Karen Aram ; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. > G. ESTABROOK ; Jay ; > a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Miller, > Joseph Thomas ; Szoke, Ron > ; Joe Lauria ; > peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; abass10 at gmail.com; > sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; Arlene Hickory ; > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne > ; chicago at worldcantwait.net > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts > Exercise in Western Pacific > > [Josh Rogin WAPO August 17] In Washington, a “Kinsley gaffe” is when someone tells an obvious truth that isn’t supposed to be said. Such was the case when White House chief strategist Stephen K. Bannon told a reporter, in an interview published Wednesday, that there is no viable military option for stopping North Korea’s nuclear and missile programs. > > Bannon’s view is that any preemptive attack on North Korea would result in horrendous casualties in South Korea and elsewhere and therefore cannot be seriously considered. That view is shared by many officials, former officials and North Korea experts... > > By publicly declaring that the U.S. threat of military force in North Korea is a bluff, Bannon may have undermined the credibility of that threat. He may also have nudged the United States toward a more diplomacy-focused approach and reduced the risk of war. > > “There’s no military solution [to North Korea’s nuclear threats], forget it,” Bannon told the American Prospect. “Until somebody solves the part of the equation that shows me that 10 million people in Seoul don’t die in the first 30 minutes from conventional weapons, I don’t know what you’re talking about, there’s no military solution here, they got us.” > > For many North Korea watchers, Bannon was simply acknowledging a reality that the parties involved already understood; there is no viable scenario in which the United States could initiate a first strike against Pyongyang. > > “He’s absolutely right,” said former North Korea nuclear negotiator Joel S. Wit. “This is not a credible threat, and it really hasn’t been since the 1990s. We’ve been pretending it’s credible, but it really isn’t.” > > Such a move would guarantee devastating retaliation by Kim Jong Un against South Korea, Japan and the tens of thousands of U.S. troops there. Moreover, there’s no real way to be confident a U.S.-led military strike could destroy all of the dispersed and hidden components of North Korea’s illicit programs. > > Throw on top of that the danger that Kim could use a nuclear weapon, and it’s clear the United States can’t strike first. It’s likely a coincidence, but South Korean President Moon Jae-in also publicly declared that the military option is not on the table this week. > > “I can confidently say there will not be a war again on the Korean Peninsula,” Moon said. “The U.S. and President Trump also said, no matter what option they take about North Korea, all decisions will be made after consulting with and getting agreement with the Republic of Korea,” he added... > > Wit said that since the North Koreans understand the military dynamics as well as anyone, that threat was never really credible in the first place. > > “They figured out a long time ago the U.S. isn’t going to do anything,” he said. “Bannon may have undermined our pressure campaign, but the threat of military force has been a diminishing tool all along.” > > The larger effect could be that the Trump administration could now coalesce around a more diplomacy-focused strategy and move closer to direct negotiations with Pyongyang. Although Bannon didn’t specify his preferred policy, the alternative to attacking is clear: continuing to increase diplomatic and financial pressure on North Korea while exploring the chance for dialogue. > > The United States and North Korea have maintained a quiet diplomatic channel over the past months that could be used to set up more substantial negotiations. The Trump team has told foreign interlocutors that it remains open to negotiations with Pyongyang under the right conditions. > > Whether or not Bannon intended his remarks to be public, his warnings > about the foolishness of attacking North Korea are correct, and they > might even be helpful… > > Josh Rogin is a columnist for the Global Opinions section of The > Washington Post. He writes about foreign policy and national security. > Follow @joshrogin > > > > On Nov 13, 2017, at 5:33 PM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: > > The USG and the US Media have so demonized DPRK and KJU that the Pentagon could probably get away with nuking them and everyone would cheer. Fab. > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign, IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) > > From: Boyle, Francis A > Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 5:29 PM > To: 'C G Estabrook' > Cc: David Green ; Miller, Joseph Thomas > ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; > peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK > ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J > ; Joe Lauria ; > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; > peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron > ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram > ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina > Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay > ; David Johnson ; > Mildred O'brien > Subject: RE: Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western > Pacific > > It is possible if the Pentagon nukes them. Fab. > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign, IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) > > From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] > Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 5:19 PM > To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: David Green ; Miller, Joseph Thomas > ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; > peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK > ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J > ; Joe Lauria ; > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; > peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron > ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram > ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina > Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay > ; David Johnson ; > Mildred O'brien > Subject: Re: Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western > Pacific > > And Steve Bannon pointed out the impossibility of military action against N. Korea: > > s-right-about-north-korea/> > > > On Nov 13, 2017, at 5:14 PM, Boyle, Francis A wrote: > > Yeah, thanks Carl. That's the way I see it too. I guess we shall see what happens. There was some Air Force General on the Tube a while ago saying we could take out DPRK in 4 hours. But the only way they could do that would be with nukes. Would not put it past them. Trump's speech about "fire and fury" clearly implied using nukes. So it is on their Radar Screen. Fab. > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign, IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) > > > -----Original Message----- > From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] > Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 5:10 PM > To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: David Green ; Miller, Joseph Thomas > ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; > peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK > ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J > ; Joe Lauria ; > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; > peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron > ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram > ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina > Thorne ;chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay > ; David Johnson ; > Mildred O'brien > Subject: Re: Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western > Pacific > > I think this is quite right. Obama’s ‘pivot’ - war provocations vs. China - remains the War Party’s policy. > > They’re terribly afraid Trump will abandon it (and other pro-war policies) & so want to drive him from office. > > Brzezinski explicitly references Mackinder. US foreign policy makers learn nothing & forget nothing. > > —CGE > > > > On Nov 13, 2017, at 4:58 PM, Boyle, Francis A wrote: > > This massive concentration of US naval forces had to have been planned and war-gamed far in advance of Trump by the Pentagon, probably going back to Obama launching his Pivot to Asia, which is really a Pivot against China, under the influence of his Guru Brzezinski as explained in his Grand Chessboard. Fab. > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign, IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) > > From: U.S. Department of Defense > [mailto:govdelivery at subscriptions.dod.mil] > Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 3:45 PM > To: Boyle, Francis A > Subject: Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western > Pacific > > You are subscribed to News Articles for U.S. Department of Defense. This information has recently been updated, and is now available. > > > > Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific > 11/13/2017 03:04 PM CST > > > The USS Ronald Reagan, USS Theodore Roosevelt and USS Nimitz Strike > Groups transit the Western Pacific with ships from the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force in the Western Pacific, Nov. 12, 2017. The three aircraft carriers and their strike groups are conducting operations in international waters as part of a strike force exercise. The Navy has patrolled the Indo-Asia-Pacific region routinely for more than 70 years promoting regional security, stability and prosperity. Navy photo by Petty Officer 3rd Class Anthony J. Rivera (Click photo for screen-resolution image);high-resolution imageavailable. > Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific > > By Lisa Ferdinando > > DoD News, Defense Media Activity > > WASHINGTON, Nov. 13, 2017 — A three-carrier naval force is finishing a multi-day exercise in the Western Pacific, demonstrating the Navy's unique capability to operate multiple carrier strike groups as a coordinated effort, according to Navy officials. > > “The United States Navy is the only force in the world able to carry out such an exercise,” a Navy official told DoD News. > > The exercise features the aircraft carriers USS Ronald Reagan, USS Nimitz, and USS Theodore Roosevelt and includes air defense drills, sea surveillance, replenishments at sea, defensive air combat training, close-in coordinated maneuvers and other training, Navy officials said. > > Ships from Japan and South Korea joined the exercise, officials said. > > Triple Aircraft Carrier Training > > "It is a rare opportunity to train with two aircraft carriers together, and even rarer to be able to train with three," the U.S. Pacific Fleet commander, Navy Adm. Scott Swift, said in a U.S. 7th Fleet release. > > "Multiple carrier strike force operations are very complex,” Swift said. > > He added, “This exercise in the Western Pacific is a strong testament to the U.S. Pacific Fleet's unique ability and ironclad commitment to the continued security and stability of the region." > > The exercise is the first time three carrier strike groups have operated together in the Western Pacific since exercises Valiant Shield 2006 and 2007 off the coast of Guam, according to Navy officials. > > Officials point out Navy aircraft carriers more recently have conducted dual-carrier strike group operations in the Western Pacific including in the South China Sea, East China Sea and Philippine Sea. > > These exercises typically happen when an aircraft carrier deployed to the 7th Fleet area of operations joins with the carrier based in Japan. In this instance, the Nimitz was finishing a deployment in the 5th Fleet area -- the Persian Gulf -- and the Roosevelt was relieving it. The Reagan -- homeported in Japan -- joined the other two carriers, which are based in the Western United States. > > (Follow Lisa Ferdinando on Twitter: @FerdinandoDoD) > > Related Links > > U.S. Pacific Command > Special Report: DoD Focus on the Asia-Pacific > From fboyle at illinois.edu Tue Nov 14 12:55:28 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2017 12:55:28 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific In-Reply-To: References: <17467243.13521@subscriptions.dod.mil> <7DBCEB5B-D9A5-40B4-9B08-D876AF7CAD74@gmail.com> Message-ID: WAPO is now under new ownership: Bezos/Amazon/CIA. fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -----Original Message----- From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 10:40 PM To: Boyle, Francis A Cc: peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; Jay ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; Szoke, Ron ; Karen Aram ; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; abass10 at gmail.com; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; chicago at worldcantwait.net; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; Arlene Hickory Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific No one can be wrong all the time. Rogin (whom I'm told speaks good Japanese…) here is merely reporting on Bannon’s interview with Robert Kuttner. Bannon is clearly correct. I’ve been reading the WaPo since I was young (& knew some of the family). I don’t think I have many illusions about it. But just as one once read Pravda to see what the Party was thinking, so now one reads the WaPo to see what the War Party is thinking. If the US nukes NK, I’ll apologize. A Pentagon brass-hat said the other day that the only way to ‘secure’ NK’s nukes was a ground invasion. That actually seems more likely to me than a US nuclear attack. But China wouldn't like it, and the last time the US tried it, it didn’t work. —CGE > On Nov 13, 2017, at 9:42 PM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: > > Hope you are right. But SecWar Mad Dog Mattis disagrees with you. SecWar Mad Dog Mattis was asked this same question in ROK. He said the Pentagon had options to take out DPRK with no retaliation on Seoul. I take it he was indirectly referring to nuking them, which Trump openly threatening them with “fire and fury,” and everyone knew that meant nukes. So the Pentagon does have such an option as confirmed by Mad Dog publicly. As for citing anyone from WAPO, and especially Rogin,Carl you should know better than to rely upon WAPO Fake News. Fab. > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) > > From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] > Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 9:26 PM > To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: Karen Aram ; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. > G. ESTABROOK ; Jay ; > a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Miller, > Joseph Thomas ; Szoke, Ron > ; Joe Lauria ; > peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; abass10 at gmail.com; > sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; Arlene Hickory ; > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne > ; chicago at worldcantwait.net > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts > Exercise in Western Pacific > > [Josh Rogin WAPO August 17] In Washington, a “Kinsley gaffe” is when someone tells an obvious truth that isn’t supposed to be said. Such was the case when White House chief strategist Stephen K. Bannon told a reporter, in an interview published Wednesday, that there is no viable military option for stopping North Korea’s nuclear and missile programs. > > Bannon’s view is that any preemptive attack on North Korea would result in horrendous casualties in South Korea and elsewhere and therefore cannot be seriously considered. That view is shared by many officials, former officials and North Korea experts... > > By publicly declaring that the U.S. threat of military force in North Korea is a bluff, Bannon may have undermined the credibility of that threat. He may also have nudged the United States toward a more diplomacy-focused approach and reduced the risk of war. > > “There’s no military solution [to North Korea’s nuclear threats], forget it,” Bannon told the American Prospect. “Until somebody solves the part of the equation that shows me that 10 million people in Seoul don’t die in the first 30 minutes from conventional weapons, I don’t know what you’re talking about, there’s no military solution here, they got us.” > > For many North Korea watchers, Bannon was simply acknowledging a reality that the parties involved already understood; there is no viable scenario in which the United States could initiate a first strike against Pyongyang. > > “He’s absolutely right,” said former North Korea nuclear negotiator Joel S. Wit. “This is not a credible threat, and it really hasn’t been since the 1990s. We’ve been pretending it’s credible, but it really isn’t.” > > Such a move would guarantee devastating retaliation by Kim Jong Un against South Korea, Japan and the tens of thousands of U.S. troops there. Moreover, there’s no real way to be confident a U.S.-led military strike could destroy all of the dispersed and hidden components of North Korea’s illicit programs. > > Throw on top of that the danger that Kim could use a nuclear weapon, and it’s clear the United States can’t strike first. It’s likely a coincidence, but South Korean President Moon Jae-in also publicly declared that the military option is not on the table this week. > > “I can confidently say there will not be a war again on the Korean Peninsula,” Moon said. “The U.S. and President Trump also said, no matter what option they take about North Korea, all decisions will be made after consulting with and getting agreement with the Republic of Korea,” he added... > > Wit said that since the North Koreans understand the military dynamics as well as anyone, that threat was never really credible in the first place. > > “They figured out a long time ago the U.S. isn’t going to do anything,” he said. “Bannon may have undermined our pressure campaign, but the threat of military force has been a diminishing tool all along.” > > The larger effect could be that the Trump administration could now coalesce around a more diplomacy-focused strategy and move closer to direct negotiations with Pyongyang. Although Bannon didn’t specify his preferred policy, the alternative to attacking is clear: continuing to increase diplomatic and financial pressure on North Korea while exploring the chance for dialogue. > > The United States and North Korea have maintained a quiet diplomatic channel over the past months that could be used to set up more substantial negotiations. The Trump team has told foreign interlocutors that it remains open to negotiations with Pyongyang under the right conditions. > > Whether or not Bannon intended his remarks to be public, his warnings > about the foolishness of attacking North Korea are correct, and they > might even be helpful… > > Josh Rogin is a columnist for the Global Opinions section of The > Washington Post. He writes about foreign policy and national security. > Follow @joshrogin > > > > On Nov 13, 2017, at 5:33 PM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: > > The USG and the US Media have so demonized DPRK and KJU that the Pentagon could probably get away with nuking them and everyone would cheer. Fab. > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign, IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) > > From: Boyle, Francis A > Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 5:29 PM > To: 'C G Estabrook' > Cc: David Green ; Miller, Joseph Thomas > ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; > peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK > ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J > ; Joe Lauria ; > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; > peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron > ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram > ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina > Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay > ; David Johnson ; > Mildred O'brien > Subject: RE: Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western > Pacific > > It is possible if the Pentagon nukes them. Fab. > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign, IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) > > From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] > Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 5:19 PM > To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: David Green ; Miller, Joseph Thomas > ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; > peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK > ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J > ; Joe Lauria ; > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; > peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron > ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram > ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina > Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay > ; David Johnson ; > Mildred O'brien > Subject: Re: Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western > Pacific > > And Steve Bannon pointed out the impossibility of military action against N. Korea: > > s-right-about-north-korea/> > > > On Nov 13, 2017, at 5:14 PM, Boyle, Francis A wrote: > > Yeah, thanks Carl. That's the way I see it too. I guess we shall see what happens. There was some Air Force General on the Tube a while ago saying we could take out DPRK in 4 hours. But the only way they could do that would be with nukes. Would not put it past them. Trump's speech about "fire and fury" clearly implied using nukes. So it is on their Radar Screen. Fab. > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign, IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) > > > -----Original Message----- > From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] > Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 5:10 PM > To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: David Green ; Miller, Joseph Thomas > ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; > peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK > ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J > ; Joe Lauria ; > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; > peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron > ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram > ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina > Thorne ;chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay > ; David Johnson ; > Mildred O'brien > Subject: Re: Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western > Pacific > > I think this is quite right. Obama’s ‘pivot’ - war provocations vs. China - remains the War Party’s policy. > > They’re terribly afraid Trump will abandon it (and other pro-war policies) & so want to drive him from office. > > Brzezinski explicitly references Mackinder. US foreign policy makers learn nothing & forget nothing. > > —CGE > > > > On Nov 13, 2017, at 4:58 PM, Boyle, Francis A wrote: > > This massive concentration of US naval forces had to have been planned and war-gamed far in advance of Trump by the Pentagon, probably going back to Obama launching his Pivot to Asia, which is really a Pivot against China, under the influence of his Guru Brzezinski as explained in his Grand Chessboard. Fab. > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign, IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) > > From: U.S. Department of Defense > [mailto:govdelivery at subscriptions.dod.mil] > Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 3:45 PM > To: Boyle, Francis A > Subject: Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western > Pacific > > You are subscribed to News Articles for U.S. Department of Defense. This information has recently been updated, and is now available. > > > > Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific > 11/13/2017 03:04 PM CST > > > The USS Ronald Reagan, USS Theodore Roosevelt and USS Nimitz Strike > Groups transit the Western Pacific with ships from the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force in the Western Pacific, Nov. 12, 2017. The three aircraft carriers and their strike groups are conducting operations in international waters as part of a strike force exercise. The Navy has patrolled the Indo-Asia-Pacific region routinely for more than 70 years promoting regional security, stability and prosperity. Navy photo by Petty Officer 3rd Class Anthony J. Rivera (Click photo for screen-resolution image);high-resolution imageavailable. > Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific > > By Lisa Ferdinando > > DoD News, Defense Media Activity > > WASHINGTON, Nov. 13, 2017 — A three-carrier naval force is finishing a multi-day exercise in the Western Pacific, demonstrating the Navy's unique capability to operate multiple carrier strike groups as a coordinated effort, according to Navy officials. > > “The United States Navy is the only force in the world able to carry out such an exercise,” a Navy official told DoD News. > > The exercise features the aircraft carriers USS Ronald Reagan, USS Nimitz, and USS Theodore Roosevelt and includes air defense drills, sea surveillance, replenishments at sea, defensive air combat training, close-in coordinated maneuvers and other training, Navy officials said. > > Ships from Japan and South Korea joined the exercise, officials said. > > Triple Aircraft Carrier Training > > "It is a rare opportunity to train with two aircraft carriers together, and even rarer to be able to train with three," the U.S. Pacific Fleet commander, Navy Adm. Scott Swift, said in a U.S. 7th Fleet release. > > "Multiple carrier strike force operations are very complex,” Swift said. > > He added, “This exercise in the Western Pacific is a strong testament to the U.S. Pacific Fleet's unique ability and ironclad commitment to the continued security and stability of the region." > > The exercise is the first time three carrier strike groups have operated together in the Western Pacific since exercises Valiant Shield 2006 and 2007 off the coast of Guam, according to Navy officials. > > Officials point out Navy aircraft carriers more recently have conducted dual-carrier strike group operations in the Western Pacific including in the South China Sea, East China Sea and Philippine Sea. > > These exercises typically happen when an aircraft carrier deployed to the 7th Fleet area of operations joins with the carrier based in Japan. In this instance, the Nimitz was finishing a deployment in the 5th Fleet area -- the Persian Gulf -- and the Roosevelt was relieving it. The Reagan -- homeported in Japan -- joined the other two carriers, which are based in the Western United States. > > (Follow Lisa Ferdinando on Twitter: @FerdinandoDoD) > > Related Links > > U.S. Pacific Command > Special Report: DoD Focus on the Asia-Pacific > From karenaram at hotmail.com Tue Nov 14 13:02:38 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2017 13:02:38 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] A major step towards a European army/ be sure to read to the end. Message-ID: * BWSWS * ICFI * Mehring Books * Mobile * RSS Feeds * Podcast * Newsletter * Select a language Afrikaans >العربية Čeština Deutsch Ελληνικά English Español فارسی Français Bahasa Indonesia Italiano Norsk Polski Português Română Русский Srpskohrvatski Sinhalese தமிழ் Türkçe اُردُو‎ 中文 [http://www.wsws.org/img/title.png] [http://www.wsws.org/img/logo.png] Published by the International Committee of the Fourth International (ICFI) Click here for advanced search » * Home * Perspectives * World News * World Economy * Arts Review * History * Science * Philosophy * Workers Struggles * ICFI/Marxist Library * Chronology * Full Archive * Print * Leaflet * Feedback * Share » EU member states take major step toward a European army By Peter Schwarz 14 November 2017 The European Union has taken a major step toward developing the capacity to wage war in the future independently of and, if necessary, against the United States. Foreign and defence ministers from 23 of the 28 EU member states signed a framework document on a common defence policy in Brussels on Monday. Along with Britain, which will leave the EU in 2019, only four smaller countries—Denmark, Ireland, Malta and Portugal—did not sign on to the deal. However, they can do so at any time. With the “agreement on permanent structured cooperation” (PESCO), the EU states committed themselves to close cooperation in the development and purchase of weapons, and in making available troops and equipment for joint military interventions. “PESCO is an ambitious, binding and inclusive European legal framework for investment in the security and defence of the EU’s territory and citizens,” the document states. The key issue is to make Europe more efficient, capable of acting and quicker, said a representative of the German defence ministry. The agreement signifies an escalation of European militarism. The first of 20 conditions to which all parties must commit is a regular increase in military spending. At least 20 percent of this must be directed to the purchase of new weapons. For its part, the EU intends to contribute €500 million annually and €1 billion after 2021 to joint arms projects. Details concerning the form of cooperation will be worked out over the coming weeks. There are currently 47 proposals for joint projects. These include a joint crisis response corps, the establishment of multinational combat units, a joint “centre of excellence” for European training missions, precautionary plans for military interventions in various regions around the world, a “military Schengen” zone, which would allow the swift deployment of troops and heavy weaponry without bureaucratic hurdles, joint satellite reconnaissance, a European medics commando, and joint logistics hubs. Ten of these 47 projects are to be initiated in December. The driving forces behind PESCO are Germany and France. In recent months, Berlin, Paris and Brussels have promoted the project by holding six workshops. French President Emmanuel Macron, in a speech delivered at the Sorbonne University in Paris in September, declared, “By the beginning of the next decade, Europe must have a joint intervention force, a common defence budget and a joint doctrine for action.” German Defence Minister Ursula Von der Leyen said the signing of PESCO was “a great day for Europe.” The parties were taking “a further step towards an army for Europe.” German Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel described the agreement as “historic.” It was a “major step towards independence and the strengthening of the EU’s security and defence policy.” He anticipated that PESCO would result in a major increase in military capabilities. Europe currently spends half of the money the US does on its military, he said, but achieves a capacity of only 15 percent. Closer cooperation could bring about an improvement. Berlin, Paris and Brussels are seeking to portray EU military cooperation as complimentary to, rather than at odds with, NATO. The PESCO agreement itself states: “The strengthened military capacity of EU states will also be of use to NATO. It will strengthen the European pillar and serve to answer repeated demands for stronger transatlantic burden-sharing.” Von der Leyen also sought to deny any opposition to NATO. The transatlantic alliance would always be responsible for national and collective defence, she said, while the EU, with its “networked security,” would carry out tasks that are not part of NATO’s remit, such as “assistance” to African states. This is nonsense. Commentators are generally agreed that two key events have encouraged the implementation of long-discussed but repeatedly frustrated plans for a European army: the election of Donald Trump and Brexit. A first attempt to found a European Defence Community failed in 1954 in the face of French opposition. No further attempt was made for several decades. At the turn of the new century, efforts to establish closer military cooperation failed due to resistance from London, which, as Washington’s closest ally, wanted to prevent the emergence of any alternative to NATO. Trump’s “America First” policy has sharpened the tensions between the United States and Europe. US policy in the Middle East and Southeast Asia is viewed in Berlin and Paris as an attack on their interests, and America, Europe and China are fighting among themselves for influence in Africa. Only in the preparations for war with Russia are the European powers and the US cooperating closely via NATO. But even here, there are tactical differences on how far the conflict should be pushed. At the same time, Brexit has removed the most important opponent of a European army from the EU. The PESCO agreement does not mean that all of the conflicts within Europe have been overcome, and that Germany and France will toe the same line from now on. Even prior to the agreement, sharp differences emerged. While Paris wanted to restrict the agreement to a small, exclusive group of states with large armies that could intervene decisively in a crisis situation, Berlin pressed for the broadest possible range of participants, with a wide spectrum of tasks. Germany prevailed. Since unanimous decisions are required, decision-making will be difficult. But Berlin feared that the Eastern European states, which are increasingly dominated by nationalist and anti-EU sentiment, would align with the US. The huge hike in military spending connected with PESCO will exacerbate class tensions in Europe. The ruling elites are already responding to class tensions in every European country with a major buildup of the apparatus of state repression. This is encouraging right-wing and nationalist forces and tearing the EU apart. In the final analysis, the growing tensions between the US and Europe are “not simply the product of the extreme nationalist policies of the current occupant of the White House,” as the World Socialist Web Sitewrote in its June 2, 2017 Perspective column titled “The Great Unraveling: The crisis of the post-war geopolitical order.” The column continued: “Rather, the tensions are rooted in deep contradictions between the interests of the major imperialist powers, which twice in the last century led to world war… “The events surrounding Trump’s trip to Europe reflect a crisis not only of American imperialism, but of the entire world capitalist system. None of Washington’s rivals—neither the EU, despised at home for its austerity policies, nor the economically moribund, right-wing regime in Japan, nor the post-Maoist capitalist oligarchy in China—offers a progressive alternative. Anyone who asserted that a coalition of these powers will emerge to stabilize world capitalism, and block the emergence of large-scale trade war and military conflict, would be placing heavy bets against history.” The rearming of Europe confirms this. Only the construction of an international antiwar movement based on the working class and fighting for a socialist programme and the overthrow of capitalism can avert the catastrophe of another world war. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Tue Nov 14 13:23:14 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2017 13:23:14 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Election results of the left. Message-ID: * Print * Leaflet * Feedback * Share » The class issues behind the Democratic Socialists of America’s electoral gains By Tom Hall 14 November 2017 Last week’s state and local elections produced a number of noteworthy results for candidates representing the middle-class organizations that operate around the Democratic Party. The most significant electoral victories went to candidates backed by the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), which announced on its website after the elections that 15 of its candidates, running mostly as Democrats, had won their races, bringing to 35 the total number of DSA-backed officeholders. Most of these seats were in local government in relatively small towns. However, a number of DSA members and DSA-endorsed candidates won more high-profile races. DSA member Singh Perez won a seat on the city council of Knoxville, the third-largest city in Tennessee. Larry Krasner, a candidate endorsed by both the DSA and Black Lives Matter, was elected District Attorney for Philadelphia. In one of the biggest upsets, DSA member Lee Carter, running as a Democrat, ousted Jackson Miller, the Republican whip and second-highest ranking Republican in the Virginia House of Delegates. Republicans sought unsuccessfully to red-bait Carter by sending mailouts comparing Carter to Marx, Lenin, Stalin and Mao. In Minneapolis, Socialist Alternative member Ginger Jentzen narrowly lost a City Council race to Democrat Steve Fletcher. Socialist Alternative member Kshama Sawant has sat on the Seattle City Council since 2014. The vote for these candidates reflects a growing interest in socialist politics. However, tendencies such as the Democratic Socialists of America and Socialist Alternative are not genuine socialists but pseudo-left groups based on privileged layers of the upper-middle class. They are not only distant from the concerns and motivations of the working class but organically hostile towards and fearful of the emergence of a genuinely socialist movement of the working class which breaks from the straitjacket of capitalist politics. In the United States, this leads the pseudo-left to function as political satellites of, or factions within, the Democratic Party, and to seek to present this party of Wall Street and the military-intelligence apparatus as a party of reform, or at least one which is amenable to popular pressure. This generally takes the form of making nominal criticisms of the Democratic Party “establishment” while promoting or participating in left-populist “insurgent” campaigns such as last year’s presidential primary campaign of Bernie Sanders. In fact, the right-wing policies of the Democratic “establishment” expresses its social essence as a party of the ruling class. The Democrats, for their part, are highly conscious of the role that the pseudo-left plays. There is a growing realization among sections of the party that their electoral fate, and the stability of the two-party system, may depend on their ability to integrate the pseudo-left even more closely into Democratic Party politics. Last month, a group of Democratic Party operatives aligned with Senator Bernie Sanders released a report on the party’s debacle in the 2016 elections, which arguedthat the party should “build relationships with social movements” and groups that call themselves socialists in order to capture the growth of anti-capitalist sentiment among young people. The election of DSA members, who ran, in keeping with the longstanding policy of the DSA, as Democrats or independents, proceeded along these lines. For example, despite the fact that the Virginia Democratic Party declined to campaign for Carter, an arrangement which allowed him to posture as an “anti-establishment” figure, the three largest donors to Carter’s campaign were the state Democratic Party and two Democratic Party-aligned political action committees (PACs), according to Slate . One of these, a super-PAC called “Forward Majority,” has intimate ties to the former Obama administration and has two sitting Democratic congressmen and the Democratic governor of Colorado as honorary co-chairs. David Cohen, the co-founder and executive director of Foward Majority, was a major figure in Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign. “For more than 15 years, David has led winning political and advocacy campaigns for candidates, progressive organizations and Fortune 25 companies,” the super-PAC states on its website. In an interview with the DSA-aligned Jacobinmagazine, Carter defended his decision to run as a Democrat, declaring that running as an independent would have been “prohibitive,” adding, “it made the most sense to me to build a coalition of groups focused on the things that the Democratic Party’s voter base and the Democratic Socialists of America have in common.” Carter boasted that his campaign relied upon “member-led Democratic organizations as well as labor unions and DSA.” It is also significant that Carter, a former marine, did not raise the question of war, either in the Jacobininterview or in his campaign, in spite of the fact that the election took place amidst the Trump administration’s war drive against North Korea, in a district located in the Washington, DC area only a few short miles from the Pentagon and the CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia. To do so would implicate the Democratic Party, which spent two full terms at war under Obama and has been agitating for a more confrontational approach by Trump against Russia. Other pseudo-left organizations, such as Socialist Alternative, ran campaigns which were nominally independent, or even against Democratic Party nominees. In Columbus, Ohio, a slate of candidates called the Yes We Can Coalition, which was backed by the Working Families Party, ran against Democratic incumbents in the city council and local school board. However, this does not lessen their basic political orientation to the Democratic Party. Socialist Alternative enjoys close ties to the Democratic Party and practically dissolved itself into the Bernie Sanders campaign. Such a regroupment would have no serious political differences with the Democrats and would function as a secondary agency and political satellite of the party. The Working Families Party, for its part, exists mainly as a vehicle for endorsing and promoting various Democratic Party election campaigns. The local chapter of the International Socialist Organization, which generally does not run candidates in elections, declined to endorse the Yes We Can Coalition (named after Obama’s 2008 campaign slogan), citing the latter’s “strategic orientation toward the Democratic Party, rather than clear-cut independence.” At the same time, they effectively endorsed and promoted their politics, making clear that their actual differences are of a tactical character. The diverging electoral tactics between the DSA on the one hand and Socialist Alternative and the ISO on the other are debates within the pseudo left over whether it is more expedient to run openly as a faction of the Democratic Party, or constitute themselves as nominally separate organizations while functioning as de facto tendencies within the Democratic Party. The basic question for socialists has always been to mobilize the working class on the basis of an independent, revolutionary and international program in opposition to all capitalist parties, including its nominally left factions. In the United States, this has entailed a lengthy struggle to break the working class from the Democrats, which in an earlier period were able to gain mass support because of their reputation as a party of social reform. Now, under conditions where the Democrats long ago repudiated that program and are widely hated among American workers and young people, the pseudo-left is stepping in to try and revive these shopworn illusions, in one form or another. This confirms their pro-capitalist, anti-working class and anti-socialist perspective. The author also recommends: Democratic Party faction calls 2016 election “train wreck,” proposes relationship with pseudo-left [8 November 2017] The anti-socialist politics of the Democratic Socialists of America [3 August 2017] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Tue Nov 14 13:54:30 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2017 13:54:30 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] US Drone strikes in Somalia Message-ID: US carries out three drone strikes in Somalia By Eddie Haywood 14 November 2017 US forces carried out three separate drone strikes across Somalia within less than 24 hours last weekend, underscoring the sharp escalation of Washington’s military offensive in the Horn of Africa. Reportedly targeting the Somali Islamist militia Al-Shabaab, the first strike occurred on Saturday in Garuud, some 250 miles southwest from the capital city, Mogadishu. The second drone strike was executed in the early morning hours on Sunday in the Lower Shabelle region around 40 miles west of the capital. The final drone strike came six hours later, hitting the northern Puntland region. Addressing the drone strikes the US Africa Command (AFRICOM) released a statement noting, “U.S. forces will continue to use all authorized and appropriate measures to protect Americans and to disable terrorist threats.” In all, according to AFRICOM, the three strikes killed “several militants.” In its statement to the media, AFRICOM made the questionable claim that the strikes resulted in no civilian deaths. “We assess no civilians were anywhere near the site. We take all measures during the targeting process to painstakingly ensure that civilian casualties and collateral damages are avoided and that we comply with the principles of the Law of Armed Conflict.” Exposing as a lie AFRICOM’s claim that drones strikes avoid civilian casualties is “The Drone Report ” published by the Intercept in 2015, compiled from classified documents leaked to the news agency, which document thousands of civilian deaths from drones strikes in the Middle East and Africa since 2009. The numbers cited in the documents are an estimate, and are likely to be far higher. Underscoring Washington’s callous disregard for civilian casualties, the source which provided the documents told the Intercept that the US considers “anyone caught in the vicinity [of a drone strike] is guilty by association,” and that when “a drone strike kills more than one person, there is no guarantee that those persons deserved their fate… So it’s a phenomenal gamble.” The drone strikes follow last month’s double truck bomb attack in a central district in Mogadishu, which killed more than 350 people and injured 300 more. The Somalia Islamist militia Al-Shabaab has been blamed for the bombing, and Somalia’s US-backed government declared a “state of war” against the militia following the attack. Since the beginning of 2017, the US has carried out 26 drone missile attacks in Somalia. The missile strikes are a component of Washington’s military escalation and expansion in the Horn of Africa, with Trump’s announcement in March of efforts to rout Islamist militants belonging to Al-Shabaab including the deployment of additional US troops to Somalia. Underlining the dimension of the US military offensive and operations in Africa, AFRICOM notes that US forces “advise” Somali soldiers and the 22,000-strong African Union force in “targeting terrorists, their training camps and safe havens throughout Somalia, the region and around the world.” Trump has approved newly rewritten rules of engagement for the US forces in Somalia, which essentially constitute an open-ended authority to conduct war across Somalia. In revising the rules of engagement, Trump is absolving the US of responsibility for future war crimes. Added to the mix of forces warring across the Horn of Africa is ISIS, who were estimated by the UN to number in the “several dozens” in Somalia as recently as 2015. The ISIS forces now are estimated to number in the hundreds, and these foreign militants have spilled into the country from the battlefields of Iraq and Syria, and have garnered new recruits with defectors from Al-Shabaab. In October 2016, ISIS militants captured the city of Qandala in the northern Somali region of Puntland, holding the city and surrounding region for two months, before Puntland forces guided by the US military routed them. The emergence of ISIS in Somalia is a consequence of US-backed wars conducted for regime change in the Middle East and Northern Africa, with Washington enlisting and arming Al-Qaeda-affiliated Islamist militants to do its dirty work. The American military, with the assistance of these Islamist forces, has laid waste to Iraq, Syria, and Libya. Emerging from the fallout of these devastated societies, these fighters have spilled forth to various points across the Middle East and south into Africa. Washington’s expanding military operations in Somalia must be seen within the framework of its imperialist strategy to control the Horn of Africa by force which is being motivated by China’s expanding economic influence in Africa. In neighboring Sudan, Beijing secured several investment deals with the government in Khartoum, including the development of its oil deposits, with state-owned oil company China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC) constructing extraction and refinement facilities. To Somalia’s south in Kenya, Beijing has procured deals with the Kenyatta government for the construction of an East Africa railway. The Standard Gauge Railway, running between the Kenyan cities of Nairobi and Mombasa is currently in operation, as the first part of the railway, which Beijing projects will traverse across the continent. Adding to Washington’s consternation is Beijing’s opening in August of a naval base in Djibouti, only five miles from Camp Lemonnier, the joint US/French military base. Speaking on the inauguration of the nation’s first overseas military base, Beijing characterized the installation as a “logistics facility.” In reporting on the base’s opening China’s state news agency Xinhua, noted: “The base will ensure China's performance of missions, such as escorting, peacekeeping and humanitarian aid in Africa and west Asia.” Elaborating further it explained, “The base will also be conducive to overseas tasks including military cooperation, joint exercises, evacuating and protecting overseas Chinese, and emergency rescue, as well as jointly maintaining security of international strategic seaways.” Desperate to stop China’s advance and influence, Washington seeks to neutralize its Asian rival by expanding its military interventions across the continent from the Lake Chad basin in West Africa to the Great Lakes Region in East Africa. In the Horn of Africa, Washington is striving for total domination of the region fronting the waterway from which much of the world’s oil traffic flows from the Middle East through the Red Sea. The Trump administration’s war in Somalia is the product of an over 20-years long effort by successive Democratic and Republican governments to secure a puppet regime in Mogadishu, a government which has no popular support anywhere in the country. During the brutal course of its imperialist operations, Washington has completely devastated Somali society, leaving the Somali masses utterly impoverished, susceptible to disease, famine, and a lack of vital infrastructure. The author recommends: Trump escalates US drone war in Somalia [08 July 2017] Trump administration announces new military operation in Somalia [18 April 2017] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Tue Nov 14 14:43:14 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2017 14:43:14 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific In-Reply-To: References: <17467243.13521@subscriptions.dod.mil> <7DBCEB5B-D9A5-40B4-9B08-D876AF7CAD74@gmail.com> Message-ID: Today there are Congressional Hearings on legislation to control the president's first use of nuclear weapons. Congressman Markey just said on NPR they are concerned about Trump launching a "pre-emptive" nuclear first strike on DPRK. As for Bannon, he was pushed out of the White House by Trump's "My Generals", including SECWAR MAD DOG MATTIS. If I remember correctly Mad Dog said that whenever he goes into a room he figures out how he can kill everyone there. fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -----Original Message----- From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 6:55 AM To: C G Estabrook Cc: peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; Jay ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; Szoke, Ron ; Karen Aram ; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; abass10 at gmail.com; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; chicago at worldcantwait.net; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; Arlene Hickory Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific WAPO is now under new ownership: Bezos/Amazon/CIA. fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -----Original Message----- From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 10:40 PM To: Boyle, Francis A Cc: peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; Jay ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; Szoke, Ron ; Karen Aram ; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; abass10 at gmail.com; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; chicago at worldcantwait.net; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; Arlene Hickory Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific No one can be wrong all the time. Rogin (whom I'm told speaks good Japanese…) here is merely reporting on Bannon’s interview with Robert Kuttner. Bannon is clearly correct. I’ve been reading the WaPo since I was young (& knew some of the family). I don’t think I have many illusions about it. But just as one once read Pravda to see what the Party was thinking, so now one reads the WaPo to see what the War Party is thinking. If the US nukes NK, I’ll apologize. A Pentagon brass-hat said the other day that the only way to ‘secure’ NK’s nukes was a ground invasion. That actually seems more likely to me than a US nuclear attack. But China wouldn't like it, and the last time the US tried it, it didn’t work. —CGE > On Nov 13, 2017, at 9:42 PM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: > > Hope you are right. But SecWar Mad Dog Mattis disagrees with you. SecWar Mad Dog Mattis was asked this same question in ROK. He said the Pentagon had options to take out DPRK with no retaliation on Seoul. I take it he was indirectly referring to nuking them, which Trump openly threatening them with “fire and fury,” and everyone knew that meant nukes. So the Pentagon does have such an option as confirmed by Mad Dog publicly. As for citing anyone from WAPO, and especially Rogin,Carl you should know better than to rely upon WAPO Fake News. Fab. > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) > > From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] > Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 9:26 PM > To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: Karen Aram ; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. > G. ESTABROOK ; Jay ; > a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Miller, > Joseph Thomas ; Szoke, Ron > ; Joe Lauria ; > peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; abass10 at gmail.com; > sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; Arlene Hickory ; > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne > ; chicago at worldcantwait.net > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts > Exercise in Western Pacific > > [Josh Rogin WAPO August 17] In Washington, a “Kinsley gaffe” is when someone tells an obvious truth that isn’t supposed to be said. Such was the case when White House chief strategist Stephen K. Bannon told a reporter, in an interview published Wednesday, that there is no viable military option for stopping North Korea’s nuclear and missile programs. > > Bannon’s view is that any preemptive attack on North Korea would result in horrendous casualties in South Korea and elsewhere and therefore cannot be seriously considered. That view is shared by many officials, former officials and North Korea experts... > > By publicly declaring that the U.S. threat of military force in North Korea is a bluff, Bannon may have undermined the credibility of that threat. He may also have nudged the United States toward a more diplomacy-focused approach and reduced the risk of war. > > “There’s no military solution [to North Korea’s nuclear threats], forget it,” Bannon told the American Prospect. “Until somebody solves the part of the equation that shows me that 10 million people in Seoul don’t die in the first 30 minutes from conventional weapons, I don’t know what you’re talking about, there’s no military solution here, they got us.” > > For many North Korea watchers, Bannon was simply acknowledging a reality that the parties involved already understood; there is no viable scenario in which the United States could initiate a first strike against Pyongyang. > > “He’s absolutely right,” said former North Korea nuclear negotiator Joel S. Wit. “This is not a credible threat, and it really hasn’t been since the 1990s. We’ve been pretending it’s credible, but it really isn’t.” > > Such a move would guarantee devastating retaliation by Kim Jong Un against South Korea, Japan and the tens of thousands of U.S. troops there. Moreover, there’s no real way to be confident a U.S.-led military strike could destroy all of the dispersed and hidden components of North Korea’s illicit programs. > > Throw on top of that the danger that Kim could use a nuclear weapon, and it’s clear the United States can’t strike first. It’s likely a coincidence, but South Korean President Moon Jae-in also publicly declared that the military option is not on the table this week. > > “I can confidently say there will not be a war again on the Korean Peninsula,” Moon said. “The U.S. and President Trump also said, no matter what option they take about North Korea, all decisions will be made after consulting with and getting agreement with the Republic of Korea,” he added... > > Wit said that since the North Koreans understand the military dynamics as well as anyone, that threat was never really credible in the first place. > > “They figured out a long time ago the U.S. isn’t going to do anything,” he said. “Bannon may have undermined our pressure campaign, but the threat of military force has been a diminishing tool all along.” > > The larger effect could be that the Trump administration could now coalesce around a more diplomacy-focused strategy and move closer to direct negotiations with Pyongyang. Although Bannon didn’t specify his preferred policy, the alternative to attacking is clear: continuing to increase diplomatic and financial pressure on North Korea while exploring the chance for dialogue. > > The United States and North Korea have maintained a quiet diplomatic channel over the past months that could be used to set up more substantial negotiations. The Trump team has told foreign interlocutors that it remains open to negotiations with Pyongyang under the right conditions. > > Whether or not Bannon intended his remarks to be public, his warnings > about the foolishness of attacking North Korea are correct, and they > might even be helpful… > > Josh Rogin is a columnist for the Global Opinions section of The > Washington Post. He writes about foreign policy and national security. > Follow @joshrogin > > > > On Nov 13, 2017, at 5:33 PM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: > > The USG and the US Media have so demonized DPRK and KJU that the Pentagon could probably get away with nuking them and everyone would cheer. Fab. > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign, IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) > > From: Boyle, Francis A > Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 5:29 PM > To: 'C G Estabrook' > Cc: David Green ; Miller, Joseph Thomas > ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; > peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK > ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J > ; Joe Lauria ; > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; > peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron > ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram > ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina > Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay > ; David Johnson ; > Mildred O'brien > Subject: RE: Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western > Pacific > > It is possible if the Pentagon nukes them. Fab. > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign, IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) > > From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] > Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 5:19 PM > To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: David Green ; Miller, Joseph Thomas > ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; > peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK > ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J > ; Joe Lauria ; > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; > peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron > ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram > ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina > Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay > ; David Johnson ; > Mildred O'brien > Subject: Re: Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western > Pacific > > And Steve Bannon pointed out the impossibility of military action against N. Korea: > > s-right-about-north-korea/> > > > On Nov 13, 2017, at 5:14 PM, Boyle, Francis A wrote: > > Yeah, thanks Carl. That's the way I see it too. I guess we shall see what happens. There was some Air Force General on the Tube a while ago saying we could take out DPRK in 4 hours. But the only way they could do that would be with nukes. Would not put it past them. Trump's speech about "fire and fury" clearly implied using nukes. So it is on their Radar Screen. Fab. > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign, IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) > > > -----Original Message----- > From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] > Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 5:10 PM > To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: David Green ; Miller, Joseph Thomas > ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; > peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK > ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J > ; Joe Lauria ; > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; > peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron > ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram > ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina > Thorne ;chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay > ; David Johnson ; > Mildred O'brien > Subject: Re: Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western > Pacific > > I think this is quite right. Obama’s ‘pivot’ - war provocations vs. China - remains the War Party’s policy. > > They’re terribly afraid Trump will abandon it (and other pro-war policies) & so want to drive him from office. > > Brzezinski explicitly references Mackinder. US foreign policy makers learn nothing & forget nothing. > > —CGE > > > > On Nov 13, 2017, at 4:58 PM, Boyle, Francis A wrote: > > This massive concentration of US naval forces had to have been planned and war-gamed far in advance of Trump by the Pentagon, probably going back to Obama launching his Pivot to Asia, which is really a Pivot against China, under the influence of his Guru Brzezinski as explained in his Grand Chessboard. Fab. > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign, IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) > > From: U.S. Department of Defense > [mailto:govdelivery at subscriptions.dod.mil] > Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 3:45 PM > To: Boyle, Francis A > Subject: Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western > Pacific > > You are subscribed to News Articles for U.S. Department of Defense. This information has recently been updated, and is now available. > > > > Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific > 11/13/2017 03:04 PM CST > > > The USS Ronald Reagan, USS Theodore Roosevelt and USS Nimitz Strike > Groups transit the Western Pacific with ships from the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force in the Western Pacific, Nov. 12, 2017. The three aircraft carriers and their strike groups are conducting operations in international waters as part of a strike force exercise. The Navy has patrolled the Indo-Asia-Pacific region routinely for more than 70 years promoting regional security, stability and prosperity. Navy photo by Petty Officer 3rd Class Anthony J. Rivera (Click photo for screen-resolution image);high-resolution imageavailable. > Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific > > By Lisa Ferdinando > > DoD News, Defense Media Activity > > WASHINGTON, Nov. 13, 2017 — A three-carrier naval force is finishing a multi-day exercise in the Western Pacific, demonstrating the Navy's unique capability to operate multiple carrier strike groups as a coordinated effort, according to Navy officials. > > “The United States Navy is the only force in the world able to carry out such an exercise,” a Navy official told DoD News. > > The exercise features the aircraft carriers USS Ronald Reagan, USS Nimitz, and USS Theodore Roosevelt and includes air defense drills, sea surveillance, replenishments at sea, defensive air combat training, close-in coordinated maneuvers and other training, Navy officials said. > > Ships from Japan and South Korea joined the exercise, officials said. > > Triple Aircraft Carrier Training > > "It is a rare opportunity to train with two aircraft carriers together, and even rarer to be able to train with three," the U.S. Pacific Fleet commander, Navy Adm. Scott Swift, said in a U.S. 7th Fleet release. > > "Multiple carrier strike force operations are very complex,” Swift said. > > He added, “This exercise in the Western Pacific is a strong testament to the U.S. Pacific Fleet's unique ability and ironclad commitment to the continued security and stability of the region." > > The exercise is the first time three carrier strike groups have operated together in the Western Pacific since exercises Valiant Shield 2006 and 2007 off the coast of Guam, according to Navy officials. > > Officials point out Navy aircraft carriers more recently have conducted dual-carrier strike group operations in the Western Pacific including in the South China Sea, East China Sea and Philippine Sea. > > These exercises typically happen when an aircraft carrier deployed to the 7th Fleet area of operations joins with the carrier based in Japan. In this instance, the Nimitz was finishing a deployment in the 5th Fleet area -- the Persian Gulf -- and the Roosevelt was relieving it. The Reagan -- homeported in Japan -- joined the other two carriers, which are based in the Western United States. > > (Follow Lisa Ferdinando on Twitter: @FerdinandoDoD) > > Related Links > > U.S. Pacific Command > Special Report: DoD Focus on the Asia-Pacific > From fboyle at illinois.edu Tue Nov 14 14:43:14 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2017 14:43:14 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific In-Reply-To: References: <17467243.13521@subscriptions.dod.mil> <7DBCEB5B-D9A5-40B4-9B08-D876AF7CAD74@gmail.com> Message-ID: Today there are Congressional Hearings on legislation to control the president's first use of nuclear weapons. Congressman Markey just said on NPR they are concerned about Trump launching a "pre-emptive" nuclear first strike on DPRK. As for Bannon, he was pushed out of the White House by Trump's "My Generals", including SECWAR MAD DOG MATTIS. If I remember correctly Mad Dog said that whenever he goes into a room he figures out how he can kill everyone there. fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -----Original Message----- From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 6:55 AM To: C G Estabrook Cc: peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; Jay ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; Szoke, Ron ; Karen Aram ; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; abass10 at gmail.com; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; chicago at worldcantwait.net; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; Arlene Hickory Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific WAPO is now under new ownership: Bezos/Amazon/CIA. fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -----Original Message----- From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 10:40 PM To: Boyle, Francis A Cc: peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; Jay ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; Szoke, Ron ; Karen Aram ; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; abass10 at gmail.com; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; chicago at worldcantwait.net; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; Arlene Hickory Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific No one can be wrong all the time. Rogin (whom I'm told speaks good Japanese…) here is merely reporting on Bannon’s interview with Robert Kuttner. Bannon is clearly correct. I’ve been reading the WaPo since I was young (& knew some of the family). I don’t think I have many illusions about it. But just as one once read Pravda to see what the Party was thinking, so now one reads the WaPo to see what the War Party is thinking. If the US nukes NK, I’ll apologize. A Pentagon brass-hat said the other day that the only way to ‘secure’ NK’s nukes was a ground invasion. That actually seems more likely to me than a US nuclear attack. But China wouldn't like it, and the last time the US tried it, it didn’t work. —CGE > On Nov 13, 2017, at 9:42 PM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: > > Hope you are right. But SecWar Mad Dog Mattis disagrees with you. SecWar Mad Dog Mattis was asked this same question in ROK. He said the Pentagon had options to take out DPRK with no retaliation on Seoul. I take it he was indirectly referring to nuking them, which Trump openly threatening them with “fire and fury,” and everyone knew that meant nukes. So the Pentagon does have such an option as confirmed by Mad Dog publicly. As for citing anyone from WAPO, and especially Rogin,Carl you should know better than to rely upon WAPO Fake News. Fab. > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) > > From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] > Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 9:26 PM > To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: Karen Aram ; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. > G. ESTABROOK ; Jay ; > a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Miller, > Joseph Thomas ; Szoke, Ron > ; Joe Lauria ; > peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; abass10 at gmail.com; > sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; Arlene Hickory ; > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne > ; chicago at worldcantwait.net > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts > Exercise in Western Pacific > > [Josh Rogin WAPO August 17] In Washington, a “Kinsley gaffe” is when someone tells an obvious truth that isn’t supposed to be said. Such was the case when White House chief strategist Stephen K. Bannon told a reporter, in an interview published Wednesday, that there is no viable military option for stopping North Korea’s nuclear and missile programs. > > Bannon’s view is that any preemptive attack on North Korea would result in horrendous casualties in South Korea and elsewhere and therefore cannot be seriously considered. That view is shared by many officials, former officials and North Korea experts... > > By publicly declaring that the U.S. threat of military force in North Korea is a bluff, Bannon may have undermined the credibility of that threat. He may also have nudged the United States toward a more diplomacy-focused approach and reduced the risk of war. > > “There’s no military solution [to North Korea’s nuclear threats], forget it,” Bannon told the American Prospect. “Until somebody solves the part of the equation that shows me that 10 million people in Seoul don’t die in the first 30 minutes from conventional weapons, I don’t know what you’re talking about, there’s no military solution here, they got us.” > > For many North Korea watchers, Bannon was simply acknowledging a reality that the parties involved already understood; there is no viable scenario in which the United States could initiate a first strike against Pyongyang. > > “He’s absolutely right,” said former North Korea nuclear negotiator Joel S. Wit. “This is not a credible threat, and it really hasn’t been since the 1990s. We’ve been pretending it’s credible, but it really isn’t.” > > Such a move would guarantee devastating retaliation by Kim Jong Un against South Korea, Japan and the tens of thousands of U.S. troops there. Moreover, there’s no real way to be confident a U.S.-led military strike could destroy all of the dispersed and hidden components of North Korea’s illicit programs. > > Throw on top of that the danger that Kim could use a nuclear weapon, and it’s clear the United States can’t strike first. It’s likely a coincidence, but South Korean President Moon Jae-in also publicly declared that the military option is not on the table this week. > > “I can confidently say there will not be a war again on the Korean Peninsula,” Moon said. “The U.S. and President Trump also said, no matter what option they take about North Korea, all decisions will be made after consulting with and getting agreement with the Republic of Korea,” he added... > > Wit said that since the North Koreans understand the military dynamics as well as anyone, that threat was never really credible in the first place. > > “They figured out a long time ago the U.S. isn’t going to do anything,” he said. “Bannon may have undermined our pressure campaign, but the threat of military force has been a diminishing tool all along.” > > The larger effect could be that the Trump administration could now coalesce around a more diplomacy-focused strategy and move closer to direct negotiations with Pyongyang. Although Bannon didn’t specify his preferred policy, the alternative to attacking is clear: continuing to increase diplomatic and financial pressure on North Korea while exploring the chance for dialogue. > > The United States and North Korea have maintained a quiet diplomatic channel over the past months that could be used to set up more substantial negotiations. The Trump team has told foreign interlocutors that it remains open to negotiations with Pyongyang under the right conditions. > > Whether or not Bannon intended his remarks to be public, his warnings > about the foolishness of attacking North Korea are correct, and they > might even be helpful… > > Josh Rogin is a columnist for the Global Opinions section of The > Washington Post. He writes about foreign policy and national security. > Follow @joshrogin > > > > On Nov 13, 2017, at 5:33 PM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: > > The USG and the US Media have so demonized DPRK and KJU that the Pentagon could probably get away with nuking them and everyone would cheer. Fab. > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign, IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) > > From: Boyle, Francis A > Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 5:29 PM > To: 'C G Estabrook' > Cc: David Green ; Miller, Joseph Thomas > ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; > peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK > ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J > ; Joe Lauria ; > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; > peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron > ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram > ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina > Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay > ; David Johnson ; > Mildred O'brien > Subject: RE: Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western > Pacific > > It is possible if the Pentagon nukes them. Fab. > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign, IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) > > From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] > Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 5:19 PM > To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: David Green ; Miller, Joseph Thomas > ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; > peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK > ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J > ; Joe Lauria ; > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; > peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron > ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram > ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina > Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay > ; David Johnson ; > Mildred O'brien > Subject: Re: Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western > Pacific > > And Steve Bannon pointed out the impossibility of military action against N. Korea: > > s-right-about-north-korea/> > > > On Nov 13, 2017, at 5:14 PM, Boyle, Francis A wrote: > > Yeah, thanks Carl. That's the way I see it too. I guess we shall see what happens. There was some Air Force General on the Tube a while ago saying we could take out DPRK in 4 hours. But the only way they could do that would be with nukes. Would not put it past them. Trump's speech about "fire and fury" clearly implied using nukes. So it is on their Radar Screen. Fab. > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign, IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) > > > -----Original Message----- > From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] > Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 5:10 PM > To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: David Green ; Miller, Joseph Thomas > ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; > peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK > ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J > ; Joe Lauria ; > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; > peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron > ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram > ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina > Thorne ;chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay > ; David Johnson ; > Mildred O'brien > Subject: Re: Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western > Pacific > > I think this is quite right. Obama’s ‘pivot’ - war provocations vs. China - remains the War Party’s policy. > > They’re terribly afraid Trump will abandon it (and other pro-war policies) & so want to drive him from office. > > Brzezinski explicitly references Mackinder. US foreign policy makers learn nothing & forget nothing. > > —CGE > > > > On Nov 13, 2017, at 4:58 PM, Boyle, Francis A wrote: > > This massive concentration of US naval forces had to have been planned and war-gamed far in advance of Trump by the Pentagon, probably going back to Obama launching his Pivot to Asia, which is really a Pivot against China, under the influence of his Guru Brzezinski as explained in his Grand Chessboard. Fab. > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign, IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) > > From: U.S. Department of Defense > [mailto:govdelivery at subscriptions.dod.mil] > Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 3:45 PM > To: Boyle, Francis A > Subject: Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western > Pacific > > You are subscribed to News Articles for U.S. Department of Defense. This information has recently been updated, and is now available. > > > > Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific > 11/13/2017 03:04 PM CST > > > The USS Ronald Reagan, USS Theodore Roosevelt and USS Nimitz Strike > Groups transit the Western Pacific with ships from the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force in the Western Pacific, Nov. 12, 2017. The three aircraft carriers and their strike groups are conducting operations in international waters as part of a strike force exercise. The Navy has patrolled the Indo-Asia-Pacific region routinely for more than 70 years promoting regional security, stability and prosperity. Navy photo by Petty Officer 3rd Class Anthony J. Rivera (Click photo for screen-resolution image);high-resolution imageavailable. > Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific > > By Lisa Ferdinando > > DoD News, Defense Media Activity > > WASHINGTON, Nov. 13, 2017 — A three-carrier naval force is finishing a multi-day exercise in the Western Pacific, demonstrating the Navy's unique capability to operate multiple carrier strike groups as a coordinated effort, according to Navy officials. > > “The United States Navy is the only force in the world able to carry out such an exercise,” a Navy official told DoD News. > > The exercise features the aircraft carriers USS Ronald Reagan, USS Nimitz, and USS Theodore Roosevelt and includes air defense drills, sea surveillance, replenishments at sea, defensive air combat training, close-in coordinated maneuvers and other training, Navy officials said. > > Ships from Japan and South Korea joined the exercise, officials said. > > Triple Aircraft Carrier Training > > "It is a rare opportunity to train with two aircraft carriers together, and even rarer to be able to train with three," the U.S. Pacific Fleet commander, Navy Adm. Scott Swift, said in a U.S. 7th Fleet release. > > "Multiple carrier strike force operations are very complex,” Swift said. > > He added, “This exercise in the Western Pacific is a strong testament to the U.S. Pacific Fleet's unique ability and ironclad commitment to the continued security and stability of the region." > > The exercise is the first time three carrier strike groups have operated together in the Western Pacific since exercises Valiant Shield 2006 and 2007 off the coast of Guam, according to Navy officials. > > Officials point out Navy aircraft carriers more recently have conducted dual-carrier strike group operations in the Western Pacific including in the South China Sea, East China Sea and Philippine Sea. > > These exercises typically happen when an aircraft carrier deployed to the 7th Fleet area of operations joins with the carrier based in Japan. In this instance, the Nimitz was finishing a deployment in the 5th Fleet area -- the Persian Gulf -- and the Roosevelt was relieving it. The Reagan -- homeported in Japan -- joined the other two carriers, which are based in the Western United States. > > (Follow Lisa Ferdinando on Twitter: @FerdinandoDoD) > > Related Links > > U.S. Pacific Command > Special Report: DoD Focus on the Asia-Pacific > From fboyle at illinois.edu Tue Nov 14 14:49:09 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2017 14:49:09 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific References: <17467243.13521@subscriptions.dod.mil> <7DBCEB5B-D9A5-40B4-9B08-D876AF7CAD74@gmail.com> Message-ID: Under the Atomic Energy Act the President is given control over US nuclear weapons. It was put in there to guarantee civilian, not military, control of US nuclear weapons since the constitution sets up a system of civilian control for the Military. That is why US nuclear weapons are manufactured and controlled by the Department of the Energy and its predecessor instead of the Pentagon. When the nukes are fully assembled they are then turned over to the Pentagon for use where they are by-law under control of the President. Now with Trump Congress is reconsidering the arrangement. And Markey just said they are concerned about Trump launching a "pre-emptive" first nuclear strike on DPRK. Me too. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -----Original Message----- From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 8:43 AM To: 'C G Estabrook' Cc: 'peace-discuss at anti-war.net' ; 'C. G. ESTABROOK' ; 'Jay' ; 'a-fields at uiuc.edu' ; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; Szoke, Ron ; 'Karen Aram' ; 'peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net' ; 'abass10 at gmail.com' ; 'sherwoodross10 at gmail.com' ; 'Joe Lauria' ; 'Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net' ; 'chicago at worldcantwait.net' ; 'mickalideh at gmail.com' ; 'Lina Thorne' ; 'Arlene Hickory' Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific Today there are Congressional Hearings on legislation to control the president's first use of nuclear weapons. Congressman Markey just said on NPR they are concerned about Trump launching a "pre-emptive" nuclear first strike on DPRK. As for Bannon, he was pushed out of the White House by Trump's "My Generals", including SECWAR MAD DOG MATTIS. If I remember correctly Mad Dog said that whenever he goes into a room he figures out how he can kill everyone there. fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -----Original Message----- From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 6:55 AM To: C G Estabrook Cc: peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; Jay ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; Szoke, Ron ; Karen Aram ; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; abass10 at gmail.com; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; chicago at worldcantwait.net; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; Arlene Hickory Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific WAPO is now under new ownership: Bezos/Amazon/CIA. fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -----Original Message----- From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 10:40 PM To: Boyle, Francis A Cc: peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; Jay ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; Szoke, Ron ; Karen Aram ; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; abass10 at gmail.com; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; chicago at worldcantwait.net; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; Arlene Hickory Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific No one can be wrong all the time. Rogin (whom I'm told speaks good Japanese…) here is merely reporting on Bannon’s interview with Robert Kuttner. Bannon is clearly correct. I’ve been reading the WaPo since I was young (& knew some of the family). I don’t think I have many illusions about it. But just as one once read Pravda to see what the Party was thinking, so now one reads the WaPo to see what the War Party is thinking. If the US nukes NK, I’ll apologize. A Pentagon brass-hat said the other day that the only way to ‘secure’ NK’s nukes was a ground invasion. That actually seems more likely to me than a US nuclear attack. But China wouldn't like it, and the last time the US tried it, it didn’t work. —CGE > On Nov 13, 2017, at 9:42 PM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: > > Hope you are right. But SecWar Mad Dog Mattis disagrees with you. SecWar Mad Dog Mattis was asked this same question in ROK. He said the Pentagon had options to take out DPRK with no retaliation on Seoul. I take it he was indirectly referring to nuking them, which Trump openly threatening them with “fire and fury,” and everyone knew that meant nukes. So the Pentagon does have such an option as confirmed by Mad Dog publicly. As for citing anyone from WAPO, and especially Rogin,Carl you should know better than to rely upon WAPO Fake News. Fab. > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) > > From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] > Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 9:26 PM > To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: Karen Aram ; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. > G. ESTABROOK ; Jay ; > a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Miller, > Joseph Thomas ; Szoke, Ron > ; Joe Lauria ; > peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; abass10 at gmail.com; > sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; Arlene Hickory ; > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne > ; chicago at worldcantwait.net > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts > Exercise in Western Pacific > > [Josh Rogin WAPO August 17] In Washington, a “Kinsley gaffe” is when someone tells an obvious truth that isn’t supposed to be said. Such was the case when White House chief strategist Stephen K. Bannon told a reporter, in an interview published Wednesday, that there is no viable military option for stopping North Korea’s nuclear and missile programs. > > Bannon’s view is that any preemptive attack on North Korea would result in horrendous casualties in South Korea and elsewhere and therefore cannot be seriously considered. That view is shared by many officials, former officials and North Korea experts... > > By publicly declaring that the U.S. threat of military force in North Korea is a bluff, Bannon may have undermined the credibility of that threat. He may also have nudged the United States toward a more diplomacy-focused approach and reduced the risk of war. > > “There’s no military solution [to North Korea’s nuclear threats], forget it,” Bannon told the American Prospect. “Until somebody solves the part of the equation that shows me that 10 million people in Seoul don’t die in the first 30 minutes from conventional weapons, I don’t know what you’re talking about, there’s no military solution here, they got us.” > > For many North Korea watchers, Bannon was simply acknowledging a reality that the parties involved already understood; there is no viable scenario in which the United States could initiate a first strike against Pyongyang. > > “He’s absolutely right,” said former North Korea nuclear negotiator Joel S. Wit. “This is not a credible threat, and it really hasn’t been since the 1990s. We’ve been pretending it’s credible, but it really isn’t.” > > Such a move would guarantee devastating retaliation by Kim Jong Un against South Korea, Japan and the tens of thousands of U.S. troops there. Moreover, there’s no real way to be confident a U.S.-led military strike could destroy all of the dispersed and hidden components of North Korea’s illicit programs. > > Throw on top of that the danger that Kim could use a nuclear weapon, and it’s clear the United States can’t strike first. It’s likely a coincidence, but South Korean President Moon Jae-in also publicly declared that the military option is not on the table this week. > > “I can confidently say there will not be a war again on the Korean Peninsula,” Moon said. “The U.S. and President Trump also said, no matter what option they take about North Korea, all decisions will be made after consulting with and getting agreement with the Republic of Korea,” he added... > > Wit said that since the North Koreans understand the military dynamics as well as anyone, that threat was never really credible in the first place. > > “They figured out a long time ago the U.S. isn’t going to do anything,” he said. “Bannon may have undermined our pressure campaign, but the threat of military force has been a diminishing tool all along.” > > The larger effect could be that the Trump administration could now coalesce around a more diplomacy-focused strategy and move closer to direct negotiations with Pyongyang. Although Bannon didn’t specify his preferred policy, the alternative to attacking is clear: continuing to increase diplomatic and financial pressure on North Korea while exploring the chance for dialogue. > > The United States and North Korea have maintained a quiet diplomatic channel over the past months that could be used to set up more substantial negotiations. The Trump team has told foreign interlocutors that it remains open to negotiations with Pyongyang under the right conditions. > > Whether or not Bannon intended his remarks to be public, his warnings > about the foolishness of attacking North Korea are correct, and they > might even be helpful… > > Josh Rogin is a columnist for the Global Opinions section of The > Washington Post. He writes about foreign policy and national security. > Follow @joshrogin > > > > On Nov 13, 2017, at 5:33 PM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: > > The USG and the US Media have so demonized DPRK and KJU that the Pentagon could probably get away with nuking them and everyone would cheer. Fab. > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign, IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) > > From: Boyle, Francis A > Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 5:29 PM > To: 'C G Estabrook' > Cc: David Green ; Miller, Joseph Thomas > ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; > peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK > ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J > ; Joe Lauria ; > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; > peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron > ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram > ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina > Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay > ; David Johnson ; > Mildred O'brien > Subject: RE: Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western > Pacific > > It is possible if the Pentagon nukes them. Fab. > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign, IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) > > From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] > Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 5:19 PM > To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: David Green ; Miller, Joseph Thomas > ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; > peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK > ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J > ; Joe Lauria ; > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; > peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron > ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram > ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina > Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay > ; David Johnson ; > Mildred O'brien > Subject: Re: Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western > Pacific > > And Steve Bannon pointed out the impossibility of military action against N. Korea: > > s-right-about-north-korea/> > > > On Nov 13, 2017, at 5:14 PM, Boyle, Francis A wrote: > > Yeah, thanks Carl. That's the way I see it too. I guess we shall see what happens. There was some Air Force General on the Tube a while ago saying we could take out DPRK in 4 hours. But the only way they could do that would be with nukes. Would not put it past them. Trump's speech about "fire and fury" clearly implied using nukes. So it is on their Radar Screen. Fab. > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign, IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) > > > -----Original Message----- > From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] > Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 5:10 PM > To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: David Green ; Miller, Joseph Thomas > ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; > peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK > ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J > ; Joe Lauria ; > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; > peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron > ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram > ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina > Thorne ;chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay > ; David Johnson ; > Mildred O'brien > Subject: Re: Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western > Pacific > > I think this is quite right. Obama’s ‘pivot’ - war provocations vs. China - remains the War Party’s policy. > > They’re terribly afraid Trump will abandon it (and other pro-war policies) & so want to drive him from office. > > Brzezinski explicitly references Mackinder. US foreign policy makers learn nothing & forget nothing. > > —CGE > > > > On Nov 13, 2017, at 4:58 PM, Boyle, Francis A wrote: > > This massive concentration of US naval forces had to have been planned and war-gamed far in advance of Trump by the Pentagon, probably going back to Obama launching his Pivot to Asia, which is really a Pivot against China, under the influence of his Guru Brzezinski as explained in his Grand Chessboard. Fab. > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign, IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) > > From: U.S. Department of Defense > [mailto:govdelivery at subscriptions.dod.mil] > Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 3:45 PM > To: Boyle, Francis A > Subject: Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western > Pacific > > You are subscribed to News Articles for U.S. Department of Defense. This information has recently been updated, and is now available. > > > > Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific > 11/13/2017 03:04 PM CST > > > The USS Ronald Reagan, USS Theodore Roosevelt and USS Nimitz Strike > Groups transit the Western Pacific with ships from the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force in the Western Pacific, Nov. 12, 2017. The three aircraft carriers and their strike groups are conducting operations in international waters as part of a strike force exercise. The Navy has patrolled the Indo-Asia-Pacific region routinely for more than 70 years promoting regional security, stability and prosperity. Navy photo by Petty Officer 3rd Class Anthony J. Rivera (Click photo for screen-resolution image);high-resolution imageavailable. > Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific > > By Lisa Ferdinando > > DoD News, Defense Media Activity > > WASHINGTON, Nov. 13, 2017 — A three-carrier naval force is finishing a multi-day exercise in the Western Pacific, demonstrating the Navy's unique capability to operate multiple carrier strike groups as a coordinated effort, according to Navy officials. > > “The United States Navy is the only force in the world able to carry out such an exercise,” a Navy official told DoD News. > > The exercise features the aircraft carriers USS Ronald Reagan, USS Nimitz, and USS Theodore Roosevelt and includes air defense drills, sea surveillance, replenishments at sea, defensive air combat training, close-in coordinated maneuvers and other training, Navy officials said. > > Ships from Japan and South Korea joined the exercise, officials said. > > Triple Aircraft Carrier Training > > "It is a rare opportunity to train with two aircraft carriers together, and even rarer to be able to train with three," the U.S. Pacific Fleet commander, Navy Adm. Scott Swift, said in a U.S. 7th Fleet release. > > "Multiple carrier strike force operations are very complex,” Swift said. > > He added, “This exercise in the Western Pacific is a strong testament to the U.S. Pacific Fleet's unique ability and ironclad commitment to the continued security and stability of the region." > > The exercise is the first time three carrier strike groups have operated together in the Western Pacific since exercises Valiant Shield 2006 and 2007 off the coast of Guam, according to Navy officials. > > Officials point out Navy aircraft carriers more recently have conducted dual-carrier strike group operations in the Western Pacific including in the South China Sea, East China Sea and Philippine Sea. > > These exercises typically happen when an aircraft carrier deployed to the 7th Fleet area of operations joins with the carrier based in Japan. In this instance, the Nimitz was finishing a deployment in the 5th Fleet area -- the Persian Gulf -- and the Roosevelt was relieving it. The Reagan -- homeported in Japan -- joined the other two carriers, which are based in the Western United States. > > (Follow Lisa Ferdinando on Twitter: @FerdinandoDoD) > > Related Links > > U.S. Pacific Command > Special Report: DoD Focus on the Asia-Pacific > From fboyle at illinois.edu Tue Nov 14 14:49:09 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2017 14:49:09 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific References: <17467243.13521@subscriptions.dod.mil> <7DBCEB5B-D9A5-40B4-9B08-D876AF7CAD74@gmail.com> Message-ID: Under the Atomic Energy Act the President is given control over US nuclear weapons. It was put in there to guarantee civilian, not military, control of US nuclear weapons since the constitution sets up a system of civilian control for the Military. That is why US nuclear weapons are manufactured and controlled by the Department of the Energy and its predecessor instead of the Pentagon. When the nukes are fully assembled they are then turned over to the Pentagon for use where they are by-law under control of the President. Now with Trump Congress is reconsidering the arrangement. And Markey just said they are concerned about Trump launching a "pre-emptive" first nuclear strike on DPRK. Me too. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -----Original Message----- From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 8:43 AM To: 'C G Estabrook' Cc: 'peace-discuss at anti-war.net' ; 'C. G. ESTABROOK' ; 'Jay' ; 'a-fields at uiuc.edu' ; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; Szoke, Ron ; 'Karen Aram' ; 'peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net' ; 'abass10 at gmail.com' ; 'sherwoodross10 at gmail.com' ; 'Joe Lauria' ; 'Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net' ; 'chicago at worldcantwait.net' ; 'mickalideh at gmail.com' ; 'Lina Thorne' ; 'Arlene Hickory' Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific Today there are Congressional Hearings on legislation to control the president's first use of nuclear weapons. Congressman Markey just said on NPR they are concerned about Trump launching a "pre-emptive" nuclear first strike on DPRK. As for Bannon, he was pushed out of the White House by Trump's "My Generals", including SECWAR MAD DOG MATTIS. If I remember correctly Mad Dog said that whenever he goes into a room he figures out how he can kill everyone there. fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -----Original Message----- From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 6:55 AM To: C G Estabrook Cc: peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; Jay ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; Szoke, Ron ; Karen Aram ; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; abass10 at gmail.com; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; chicago at worldcantwait.net; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; Arlene Hickory Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific WAPO is now under new ownership: Bezos/Amazon/CIA. fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -----Original Message----- From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 10:40 PM To: Boyle, Francis A Cc: peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; Jay ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; Szoke, Ron ; Karen Aram ; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; abass10 at gmail.com; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; chicago at worldcantwait.net; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; Arlene Hickory Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific No one can be wrong all the time. Rogin (whom I'm told speaks good Japanese…) here is merely reporting on Bannon’s interview with Robert Kuttner. Bannon is clearly correct. I’ve been reading the WaPo since I was young (& knew some of the family). I don’t think I have many illusions about it. But just as one once read Pravda to see what the Party was thinking, so now one reads the WaPo to see what the War Party is thinking. If the US nukes NK, I’ll apologize. A Pentagon brass-hat said the other day that the only way to ‘secure’ NK’s nukes was a ground invasion. That actually seems more likely to me than a US nuclear attack. But China wouldn't like it, and the last time the US tried it, it didn’t work. —CGE > On Nov 13, 2017, at 9:42 PM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: > > Hope you are right. But SecWar Mad Dog Mattis disagrees with you. SecWar Mad Dog Mattis was asked this same question in ROK. He said the Pentagon had options to take out DPRK with no retaliation on Seoul. I take it he was indirectly referring to nuking them, which Trump openly threatening them with “fire and fury,” and everyone knew that meant nukes. So the Pentagon does have such an option as confirmed by Mad Dog publicly. As for citing anyone from WAPO, and especially Rogin,Carl you should know better than to rely upon WAPO Fake News. Fab. > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) > > From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] > Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 9:26 PM > To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: Karen Aram ; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. > G. ESTABROOK ; Jay ; > a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Miller, > Joseph Thomas ; Szoke, Ron > ; Joe Lauria ; > peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; abass10 at gmail.com; > sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; Arlene Hickory ; > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne > ; chicago at worldcantwait.net > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts > Exercise in Western Pacific > > [Josh Rogin WAPO August 17] In Washington, a “Kinsley gaffe” is when someone tells an obvious truth that isn’t supposed to be said. Such was the case when White House chief strategist Stephen K. Bannon told a reporter, in an interview published Wednesday, that there is no viable military option for stopping North Korea’s nuclear and missile programs. > > Bannon’s view is that any preemptive attack on North Korea would result in horrendous casualties in South Korea and elsewhere and therefore cannot be seriously considered. That view is shared by many officials, former officials and North Korea experts... > > By publicly declaring that the U.S. threat of military force in North Korea is a bluff, Bannon may have undermined the credibility of that threat. He may also have nudged the United States toward a more diplomacy-focused approach and reduced the risk of war. > > “There’s no military solution [to North Korea’s nuclear threats], forget it,” Bannon told the American Prospect. “Until somebody solves the part of the equation that shows me that 10 million people in Seoul don’t die in the first 30 minutes from conventional weapons, I don’t know what you’re talking about, there’s no military solution here, they got us.” > > For many North Korea watchers, Bannon was simply acknowledging a reality that the parties involved already understood; there is no viable scenario in which the United States could initiate a first strike against Pyongyang. > > “He’s absolutely right,” said former North Korea nuclear negotiator Joel S. Wit. “This is not a credible threat, and it really hasn’t been since the 1990s. We’ve been pretending it’s credible, but it really isn’t.” > > Such a move would guarantee devastating retaliation by Kim Jong Un against South Korea, Japan and the tens of thousands of U.S. troops there. Moreover, there’s no real way to be confident a U.S.-led military strike could destroy all of the dispersed and hidden components of North Korea’s illicit programs. > > Throw on top of that the danger that Kim could use a nuclear weapon, and it’s clear the United States can’t strike first. It’s likely a coincidence, but South Korean President Moon Jae-in also publicly declared that the military option is not on the table this week. > > “I can confidently say there will not be a war again on the Korean Peninsula,” Moon said. “The U.S. and President Trump also said, no matter what option they take about North Korea, all decisions will be made after consulting with and getting agreement with the Republic of Korea,” he added... > > Wit said that since the North Koreans understand the military dynamics as well as anyone, that threat was never really credible in the first place. > > “They figured out a long time ago the U.S. isn’t going to do anything,” he said. “Bannon may have undermined our pressure campaign, but the threat of military force has been a diminishing tool all along.” > > The larger effect could be that the Trump administration could now coalesce around a more diplomacy-focused strategy and move closer to direct negotiations with Pyongyang. Although Bannon didn’t specify his preferred policy, the alternative to attacking is clear: continuing to increase diplomatic and financial pressure on North Korea while exploring the chance for dialogue. > > The United States and North Korea have maintained a quiet diplomatic channel over the past months that could be used to set up more substantial negotiations. The Trump team has told foreign interlocutors that it remains open to negotiations with Pyongyang under the right conditions. > > Whether or not Bannon intended his remarks to be public, his warnings > about the foolishness of attacking North Korea are correct, and they > might even be helpful… > > Josh Rogin is a columnist for the Global Opinions section of The > Washington Post. He writes about foreign policy and national security. > Follow @joshrogin > > > > On Nov 13, 2017, at 5:33 PM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: > > The USG and the US Media have so demonized DPRK and KJU that the Pentagon could probably get away with nuking them and everyone would cheer. Fab. > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign, IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) > > From: Boyle, Francis A > Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 5:29 PM > To: 'C G Estabrook' > Cc: David Green ; Miller, Joseph Thomas > ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; > peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK > ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J > ; Joe Lauria ; > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; > peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron > ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram > ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina > Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay > ; David Johnson ; > Mildred O'brien > Subject: RE: Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western > Pacific > > It is possible if the Pentagon nukes them. Fab. > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign, IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) > > From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] > Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 5:19 PM > To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: David Green ; Miller, Joseph Thomas > ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; > peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK > ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J > ; Joe Lauria ; > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; > peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron > ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram > ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina > Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay > ; David Johnson ; > Mildred O'brien > Subject: Re: Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western > Pacific > > And Steve Bannon pointed out the impossibility of military action against N. Korea: > > s-right-about-north-korea/> > > > On Nov 13, 2017, at 5:14 PM, Boyle, Francis A wrote: > > Yeah, thanks Carl. That's the way I see it too. I guess we shall see what happens. There was some Air Force General on the Tube a while ago saying we could take out DPRK in 4 hours. But the only way they could do that would be with nukes. Would not put it past them. Trump's speech about "fire and fury" clearly implied using nukes. So it is on their Radar Screen. Fab. > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign, IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) > > > -----Original Message----- > From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] > Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 5:10 PM > To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: David Green ; Miller, Joseph Thomas > ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; > peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK > ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J > ; Joe Lauria ; > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; > peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron > ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram > ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina > Thorne ;chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay > ; David Johnson ; > Mildred O'brien > Subject: Re: Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western > Pacific > > I think this is quite right. Obama’s ‘pivot’ - war provocations vs. China - remains the War Party’s policy. > > They’re terribly afraid Trump will abandon it (and other pro-war policies) & so want to drive him from office. > > Brzezinski explicitly references Mackinder. US foreign policy makers learn nothing & forget nothing. > > —CGE > > > > On Nov 13, 2017, at 4:58 PM, Boyle, Francis A wrote: > > This massive concentration of US naval forces had to have been planned and war-gamed far in advance of Trump by the Pentagon, probably going back to Obama launching his Pivot to Asia, which is really a Pivot against China, under the influence of his Guru Brzezinski as explained in his Grand Chessboard. Fab. > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign, IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) > > From: U.S. Department of Defense > [mailto:govdelivery at subscriptions.dod.mil] > Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 3:45 PM > To: Boyle, Francis A > Subject: Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western > Pacific > > You are subscribed to News Articles for U.S. Department of Defense. This information has recently been updated, and is now available. > > > > Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific > 11/13/2017 03:04 PM CST > > > The USS Ronald Reagan, USS Theodore Roosevelt and USS Nimitz Strike > Groups transit the Western Pacific with ships from the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force in the Western Pacific, Nov. 12, 2017. The three aircraft carriers and their strike groups are conducting operations in international waters as part of a strike force exercise. The Navy has patrolled the Indo-Asia-Pacific region routinely for more than 70 years promoting regional security, stability and prosperity. Navy photo by Petty Officer 3rd Class Anthony J. Rivera (Click photo for screen-resolution image);high-resolution imageavailable. > Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific > > By Lisa Ferdinando > > DoD News, Defense Media Activity > > WASHINGTON, Nov. 13, 2017 — A three-carrier naval force is finishing a multi-day exercise in the Western Pacific, demonstrating the Navy's unique capability to operate multiple carrier strike groups as a coordinated effort, according to Navy officials. > > “The United States Navy is the only force in the world able to carry out such an exercise,” a Navy official told DoD News. > > The exercise features the aircraft carriers USS Ronald Reagan, USS Nimitz, and USS Theodore Roosevelt and includes air defense drills, sea surveillance, replenishments at sea, defensive air combat training, close-in coordinated maneuvers and other training, Navy officials said. > > Ships from Japan and South Korea joined the exercise, officials said. > > Triple Aircraft Carrier Training > > "It is a rare opportunity to train with two aircraft carriers together, and even rarer to be able to train with three," the U.S. Pacific Fleet commander, Navy Adm. Scott Swift, said in a U.S. 7th Fleet release. > > "Multiple carrier strike force operations are very complex,” Swift said. > > He added, “This exercise in the Western Pacific is a strong testament to the U.S. Pacific Fleet's unique ability and ironclad commitment to the continued security and stability of the region." > > The exercise is the first time three carrier strike groups have operated together in the Western Pacific since exercises Valiant Shield 2006 and 2007 off the coast of Guam, according to Navy officials. > > Officials point out Navy aircraft carriers more recently have conducted dual-carrier strike group operations in the Western Pacific including in the South China Sea, East China Sea and Philippine Sea. > > These exercises typically happen when an aircraft carrier deployed to the 7th Fleet area of operations joins with the carrier based in Japan. In this instance, the Nimitz was finishing a deployment in the 5th Fleet area -- the Persian Gulf -- and the Roosevelt was relieving it. The Reagan -- homeported in Japan -- joined the other two carriers, which are based in the Western United States. > > (Follow Lisa Ferdinando on Twitter: @FerdinandoDoD) > > Related Links > > U.S. Pacific Command > Special Report: DoD Focus on the Asia-Pacific > From cgestabrook at gmail.com Tue Nov 14 15:03:21 2017 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2017 09:03:21 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific In-Reply-To: References: <17467243.13521@subscriptions.dod.mil> <7DBCEB5B-D9A5-40B4-9B08-D876AF7CAD74@gmail.com> Message-ID: The foreign policy question now is whether Trump and his ‘kitchen cabinet’ (including Bannon) can hold out against the War Party (including the troika - McMaster, Mattis, & Kelly). Another way to put it is as the economic nationalists (who got Trump elected) vs. the corporate globalists (HRC’s campaign, Gary Cohn, & most of the war party). It’s the econ. nationalists who speak for the immiserated majority of the US public - who are residually anti-war, and whomTrump needs to be reelected and to protect him from Congressional (Rep & Dem.) machinations. Here’s an indication of the political establishment’s confusion: . We can hope that for once Mao’s optimism is appropriate: "Everything under heaven is in utter chaos; the situation is excellent.” —CGE > On Nov 14, 2017, at 8:43 AM, Boyle, Francis A wrote: > > Today there are Congressional Hearings on legislation to control the president's first use of nuclear weapons. Congressman Markey just said on NPR they are concerned about Trump launching a "pre-emptive" nuclear first strike on DPRK. As for Bannon, he was pushed out of the White House by Trump's "My Generals", including SECWAR MAD DOG MATTIS. If I remember correctly Mad Dog said that whenever he goes into a room he figures out how he can kill everyone there. fab. > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign, IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Boyle, Francis A > Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 6:55 AM > To: C G Estabrook > Cc: peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; Jay ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; Szoke, Ron ; Karen Aram ; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; abass10 at gmail.com; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; chicago at worldcantwait.net; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; Arlene Hickory > Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific > > WAPO is now under new ownership: Bezos/Amazon/CIA. fab > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) > > > -----Original Message----- > From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] > Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 10:40 PM > To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; Jay ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; Szoke, Ron ; Karen Aram ; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; abass10 at gmail.com; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; chicago at worldcantwait.net; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; Arlene Hickory > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific > > No one can be wrong all the time. Rogin (whom I'm told speaks good Japanese…) here is merely reporting on Bannon’s interview with Robert Kuttner. > > Bannon is clearly correct. > > I’ve been reading the WaPo since I was young (& knew some of the family). I don’t think I have many illusions about it. > > But just as one once read Pravda to see what the Party was thinking, so now one reads the WaPo to see what the War Party is thinking. > > If the US nukes NK, I’ll apologize. > > A Pentagon brass-hat said the other day that the only way to ‘secure’ NK’s nukes was a ground invasion. That actually seems more likely to me than a US nuclear attack. > > But China wouldn't like it, and the last time the US tried it, it didn’t work. —CGE > > >> On Nov 13, 2017, at 9:42 PM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: >> >> Hope you are right. But SecWar Mad Dog Mattis disagrees with you. SecWar Mad Dog Mattis was asked this same question in ROK. He said the Pentagon had options to take out DPRK with no retaliation on Seoul. I take it he was indirectly referring to nuking them, which Trump openly threatening them with “fire and fury,” and everyone knew that meant nukes. So the Pentagon does have such an option as confirmed by Mad Dog publicly. As for citing anyone from WAPO, and especially Rogin,Carl you should know better than to rely upon WAPO Fake News. Fab. >> >> Francis A. Boyle >> Law Building >> 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. >> Champaign IL 61820 USA >> 217-333-7954 (phone) >> 217-244-1478 (fax) >> (personal comments only) >> >> From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] >> Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 9:26 PM >> To: Boyle, Francis A >> Cc: Karen Aram ; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. >> G. ESTABROOK ; Jay ; >> a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Miller, >> Joseph Thomas ; Szoke, Ron >> ; Joe Lauria ; >> peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; abass10 at gmail.com; >> sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; Arlene Hickory ; >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >> ; chicago at worldcantwait.net >> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts >> Exercise in Western Pacific >> >> [Josh Rogin WAPO August 17] In Washington, a “Kinsley gaffe” is when someone tells an obvious truth that isn’t supposed to be said. Such was the case when White House chief strategist Stephen K. Bannon told a reporter, in an interview published Wednesday, that there is no viable military option for stopping North Korea’s nuclear and missile programs. >> >> Bannon’s view is that any preemptive attack on North Korea would result in horrendous casualties in South Korea and elsewhere and therefore cannot be seriously considered. That view is shared by many officials, former officials and North Korea experts... >> >> By publicly declaring that the U.S. threat of military force in North Korea is a bluff, Bannon may have undermined the credibility of that threat. He may also have nudged the United States toward a more diplomacy-focused approach and reduced the risk of war. >> >> “There’s no military solution [to North Korea’s nuclear threats], forget it,” Bannon told the American Prospect. “Until somebody solves the part of the equation that shows me that 10 million people in Seoul don’t die in the first 30 minutes from conventional weapons, I don’t know what you’re talking about, there’s no military solution here, they got us.” >> >> For many North Korea watchers, Bannon was simply acknowledging a reality that the parties involved already understood; there is no viable scenario in which the United States could initiate a first strike against Pyongyang. >> >> “He’s absolutely right,” said former North Korea nuclear negotiator Joel S. Wit. “This is not a credible threat, and it really hasn’t been since the 1990s. We’ve been pretending it’s credible, but it really isn’t.” >> >> Such a move would guarantee devastating retaliation by Kim Jong Un against South Korea, Japan and the tens of thousands of U.S. troops there. Moreover, there’s no real way to be confident a U.S.-led military strike could destroy all of the dispersed and hidden components of North Korea’s illicit programs. >> >> Throw on top of that the danger that Kim could use a nuclear weapon, and it’s clear the United States can’t strike first. It’s likely a coincidence, but South Korean President Moon Jae-in also publicly declared that the military option is not on the table this week. >> >> “I can confidently say there will not be a war again on the Korean Peninsula,” Moon said. “The U.S. and President Trump also said, no matter what option they take about North Korea, all decisions will be made after consulting with and getting agreement with the Republic of Korea,” he added... >> >> Wit said that since the North Koreans understand the military dynamics as well as anyone, that threat was never really credible in the first place. >> >> “They figured out a long time ago the U.S. isn’t going to do anything,” he said. “Bannon may have undermined our pressure campaign, but the threat of military force has been a diminishing tool all along.” >> >> The larger effect could be that the Trump administration could now coalesce around a more diplomacy-focused strategy and move closer to direct negotiations with Pyongyang. Although Bannon didn’t specify his preferred policy, the alternative to attacking is clear: continuing to increase diplomatic and financial pressure on North Korea while exploring the chance for dialogue. >> >> The United States and North Korea have maintained a quiet diplomatic channel over the past months that could be used to set up more substantial negotiations. The Trump team has told foreign interlocutors that it remains open to negotiations with Pyongyang under the right conditions. >> >> Whether or not Bannon intended his remarks to be public, his warnings >> about the foolishness of attacking North Korea are correct, and they >> might even be helpful… >> >> Josh Rogin is a columnist for the Global Opinions section of The >> Washington Post. He writes about foreign policy and national security. >> Follow @joshrogin >> >> >> >> On Nov 13, 2017, at 5:33 PM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: >> >> The USG and the US Media have so demonized DPRK and KJU that the Pentagon could probably get away with nuking them and everyone would cheer. Fab. >> >> Francis A. Boyle >> Law Building >> 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. >> Champaign, IL 61820 USA >> 217-333-7954 (phone) >> 217-244-1478 (fax) >> (personal comments only) >> >> From: Boyle, Francis A >> Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 5:29 PM >> To: 'C G Estabrook' >> Cc: David Green ; Miller, Joseph Thomas >> ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; >> peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >> ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >> ; Joe Lauria ; >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; >> peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >> ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram >> ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina >> Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >> ; David Johnson ; >> Mildred O'brien >> Subject: RE: Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western >> Pacific >> >> It is possible if the Pentagon nukes them. Fab. >> >> Francis A. Boyle >> Law Building >> 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. >> Champaign, IL 61820 USA >> 217-333-7954 (phone) >> 217-244-1478 (fax) >> (personal comments only) >> >> From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] >> Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 5:19 PM >> To: Boyle, Francis A >> Cc: David Green ; Miller, Joseph Thomas >> ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; >> peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >> ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >> ; Joe Lauria ; >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; >> peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >> ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram >> ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina >> Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >> ; David Johnson ; >> Mildred O'brien >> Subject: Re: Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western >> Pacific >> >> And Steve Bannon pointed out the impossibility of military action against N. Korea: >> >> > s-right-about-north-korea/> >> >> >> On Nov 13, 2017, at 5:14 PM, Boyle, Francis A wrote: >> >> Yeah, thanks Carl. That's the way I see it too. I guess we shall see what happens. There was some Air Force General on the Tube a while ago saying we could take out DPRK in 4 hours. But the only way they could do that would be with nukes. Would not put it past them. Trump's speech about "fire and fury" clearly implied using nukes. So it is on their Radar Screen. Fab. >> >> Francis A. Boyle >> Law Building >> 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. >> Champaign, IL 61820 USA >> 217-333-7954 (phone) >> 217-244-1478 (fax) >> (personal comments only) >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] >> Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 5:10 PM >> To: Boyle, Francis A >> Cc: David Green ; Miller, Joseph Thomas >> ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; >> peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >> ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >> ; Joe Lauria ; >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; >> peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >> ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram >> ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina >> Thorne ;chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >> ; David Johnson ; >> Mildred O'brien >> Subject: Re: Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western >> Pacific >> >> I think this is quite right. Obama’s ‘pivot’ - war provocations vs. China - remains the War Party’s policy. >> >> They’re terribly afraid Trump will abandon it (and other pro-war policies) & so want to drive him from office. >> >> Brzezinski explicitly references Mackinder. US foreign policy makers learn nothing & forget nothing. >> >> —CGE >> >> >> >> On Nov 13, 2017, at 4:58 PM, Boyle, Francis A wrote: >> >> This massive concentration of US naval forces had to have been planned and war-gamed far in advance of Trump by the Pentagon, probably going back to Obama launching his Pivot to Asia, which is really a Pivot against China, under the influence of his Guru Brzezinski as explained in his Grand Chessboard. Fab. >> >> Francis A. Boyle >> Law Building >> 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. >> Champaign, IL 61820 USA >> 217-333-7954 (phone) >> 217-244-1478 (fax) >> (personal comments only) >> >> From: U.S. Department of Defense >> [mailto:govdelivery at subscriptions.dod.mil] >> Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 3:45 PM >> To: Boyle, Francis A >> Subject: Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western >> Pacific >> >> You are subscribed to News Articles for U.S. Department of Defense. This information has recently been updated, and is now available. >> >> >> >> Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific >> 11/13/2017 03:04 PM CST >> >> >> The USS Ronald Reagan, USS Theodore Roosevelt and USS Nimitz Strike >> Groups transit the Western Pacific with ships from the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force in the Western Pacific, Nov. 12, 2017. The three aircraft carriers and their strike groups are conducting operations in international waters as part of a strike force exercise. The Navy has patrolled the Indo-Asia-Pacific region routinely for more than 70 years promoting regional security, stability and prosperity. Navy photo by Petty Officer 3rd Class Anthony J. Rivera (Click photo for screen-resolution image);high-resolution imageavailable. >> Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific >> >> By Lisa Ferdinando >> >> DoD News, Defense Media Activity >> >> WASHINGTON, Nov. 13, 2017 — A three-carrier naval force is finishing a multi-day exercise in the Western Pacific, demonstrating the Navy's unique capability to operate multiple carrier strike groups as a coordinated effort, according to Navy officials. >> >> “The United States Navy is the only force in the world able to carry out such an exercise,” a Navy official told DoD News. >> >> The exercise features the aircraft carriers USS Ronald Reagan, USS Nimitz, and USS Theodore Roosevelt and includes air defense drills, sea surveillance, replenishments at sea, defensive air combat training, close-in coordinated maneuvers and other training, Navy officials said. >> >> Ships from Japan and South Korea joined the exercise, officials said. >> >> Triple Aircraft Carrier Training >> >> "It is a rare opportunity to train with two aircraft carriers together, and even rarer to be able to train with three," the U.S. Pacific Fleet commander, Navy Adm. Scott Swift, said in a U.S. 7th Fleet release. >> >> "Multiple carrier strike force operations are very complex,” Swift said. >> >> He added, “This exercise in the Western Pacific is a strong testament to the U.S. Pacific Fleet's unique ability and ironclad commitment to the continued security and stability of the region." >> >> The exercise is the first time three carrier strike groups have operated together in the Western Pacific since exercises Valiant Shield 2006 and 2007 off the coast of Guam, according to Navy officials. >> >> Officials point out Navy aircraft carriers more recently have conducted dual-carrier strike group operations in the Western Pacific including in the South China Sea, East China Sea and Philippine Sea. >> >> These exercises typically happen when an aircraft carrier deployed to the 7th Fleet area of operations joins with the carrier based in Japan. In this instance, the Nimitz was finishing a deployment in the 5th Fleet area -- the Persian Gulf -- and the Roosevelt was relieving it. The Reagan -- homeported in Japan -- joined the other two carriers, which are based in the Western United States. >> >> (Follow Lisa Ferdinando on Twitter: @FerdinandoDoD) >> >> Related Links >> >> U.S. Pacific Command >> Special Report: DoD Focus on the Asia-Pacific >> > From cgestabrook at gmail.com Tue Nov 14 15:03:21 2017 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2017 09:03:21 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific In-Reply-To: References: <17467243.13521@subscriptions.dod.mil> <7DBCEB5B-D9A5-40B4-9B08-D876AF7CAD74@gmail.com> Message-ID: The foreign policy question now is whether Trump and his ‘kitchen cabinet’ (including Bannon) can hold out against the War Party (including the troika - McMaster, Mattis, & Kelly). Another way to put it is as the economic nationalists (who got Trump elected) vs. the corporate globalists (HRC’s campaign, Gary Cohn, & most of the war party). It’s the econ. nationalists who speak for the immiserated majority of the US public - who are residually anti-war, and whomTrump needs to be reelected and to protect him from Congressional (Rep & Dem.) machinations. Here’s an indication of the political establishment’s confusion: . We can hope that for once Mao’s optimism is appropriate: "Everything under heaven is in utter chaos; the situation is excellent.” —CGE > On Nov 14, 2017, at 8:43 AM, Boyle, Francis A wrote: > > Today there are Congressional Hearings on legislation to control the president's first use of nuclear weapons. Congressman Markey just said on NPR they are concerned about Trump launching a "pre-emptive" nuclear first strike on DPRK. As for Bannon, he was pushed out of the White House by Trump's "My Generals", including SECWAR MAD DOG MATTIS. If I remember correctly Mad Dog said that whenever he goes into a room he figures out how he can kill everyone there. fab. > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign, IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Boyle, Francis A > Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 6:55 AM > To: C G Estabrook > Cc: peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; Jay ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; Szoke, Ron ; Karen Aram ; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; abass10 at gmail.com; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; chicago at worldcantwait.net; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; Arlene Hickory > Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific > > WAPO is now under new ownership: Bezos/Amazon/CIA. fab > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) > > > -----Original Message----- > From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] > Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 10:40 PM > To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; Jay ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; Szoke, Ron ; Karen Aram ; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; abass10 at gmail.com; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; chicago at worldcantwait.net; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; Arlene Hickory > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific > > No one can be wrong all the time. Rogin (whom I'm told speaks good Japanese…) here is merely reporting on Bannon’s interview with Robert Kuttner. > > Bannon is clearly correct. > > I’ve been reading the WaPo since I was young (& knew some of the family). I don’t think I have many illusions about it. > > But just as one once read Pravda to see what the Party was thinking, so now one reads the WaPo to see what the War Party is thinking. > > If the US nukes NK, I’ll apologize. > > A Pentagon brass-hat said the other day that the only way to ‘secure’ NK’s nukes was a ground invasion. That actually seems more likely to me than a US nuclear attack. > > But China wouldn't like it, and the last time the US tried it, it didn’t work. —CGE > > >> On Nov 13, 2017, at 9:42 PM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: >> >> Hope you are right. But SecWar Mad Dog Mattis disagrees with you. SecWar Mad Dog Mattis was asked this same question in ROK. He said the Pentagon had options to take out DPRK with no retaliation on Seoul. I take it he was indirectly referring to nuking them, which Trump openly threatening them with “fire and fury,” and everyone knew that meant nukes. So the Pentagon does have such an option as confirmed by Mad Dog publicly. As for citing anyone from WAPO, and especially Rogin,Carl you should know better than to rely upon WAPO Fake News. Fab. >> >> Francis A. Boyle >> Law Building >> 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. >> Champaign IL 61820 USA >> 217-333-7954 (phone) >> 217-244-1478 (fax) >> (personal comments only) >> >> From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] >> Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 9:26 PM >> To: Boyle, Francis A >> Cc: Karen Aram ; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. >> G. ESTABROOK ; Jay ; >> a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Miller, >> Joseph Thomas ; Szoke, Ron >> ; Joe Lauria ; >> peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; abass10 at gmail.com; >> sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; Arlene Hickory ; >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >> ; chicago at worldcantwait.net >> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts >> Exercise in Western Pacific >> >> [Josh Rogin WAPO August 17] In Washington, a “Kinsley gaffe” is when someone tells an obvious truth that isn’t supposed to be said. Such was the case when White House chief strategist Stephen K. Bannon told a reporter, in an interview published Wednesday, that there is no viable military option for stopping North Korea’s nuclear and missile programs. >> >> Bannon’s view is that any preemptive attack on North Korea would result in horrendous casualties in South Korea and elsewhere and therefore cannot be seriously considered. That view is shared by many officials, former officials and North Korea experts... >> >> By publicly declaring that the U.S. threat of military force in North Korea is a bluff, Bannon may have undermined the credibility of that threat. He may also have nudged the United States toward a more diplomacy-focused approach and reduced the risk of war. >> >> “There’s no military solution [to North Korea’s nuclear threats], forget it,” Bannon told the American Prospect. “Until somebody solves the part of the equation that shows me that 10 million people in Seoul don’t die in the first 30 minutes from conventional weapons, I don’t know what you’re talking about, there’s no military solution here, they got us.” >> >> For many North Korea watchers, Bannon was simply acknowledging a reality that the parties involved already understood; there is no viable scenario in which the United States could initiate a first strike against Pyongyang. >> >> “He’s absolutely right,” said former North Korea nuclear negotiator Joel S. Wit. “This is not a credible threat, and it really hasn’t been since the 1990s. We’ve been pretending it’s credible, but it really isn’t.” >> >> Such a move would guarantee devastating retaliation by Kim Jong Un against South Korea, Japan and the tens of thousands of U.S. troops there. Moreover, there’s no real way to be confident a U.S.-led military strike could destroy all of the dispersed and hidden components of North Korea’s illicit programs. >> >> Throw on top of that the danger that Kim could use a nuclear weapon, and it’s clear the United States can’t strike first. It’s likely a coincidence, but South Korean President Moon Jae-in also publicly declared that the military option is not on the table this week. >> >> “I can confidently say there will not be a war again on the Korean Peninsula,” Moon said. “The U.S. and President Trump also said, no matter what option they take about North Korea, all decisions will be made after consulting with and getting agreement with the Republic of Korea,” he added... >> >> Wit said that since the North Koreans understand the military dynamics as well as anyone, that threat was never really credible in the first place. >> >> “They figured out a long time ago the U.S. isn’t going to do anything,” he said. “Bannon may have undermined our pressure campaign, but the threat of military force has been a diminishing tool all along.” >> >> The larger effect could be that the Trump administration could now coalesce around a more diplomacy-focused strategy and move closer to direct negotiations with Pyongyang. Although Bannon didn’t specify his preferred policy, the alternative to attacking is clear: continuing to increase diplomatic and financial pressure on North Korea while exploring the chance for dialogue. >> >> The United States and North Korea have maintained a quiet diplomatic channel over the past months that could be used to set up more substantial negotiations. The Trump team has told foreign interlocutors that it remains open to negotiations with Pyongyang under the right conditions. >> >> Whether or not Bannon intended his remarks to be public, his warnings >> about the foolishness of attacking North Korea are correct, and they >> might even be helpful… >> >> Josh Rogin is a columnist for the Global Opinions section of The >> Washington Post. He writes about foreign policy and national security. >> Follow @joshrogin >> >> >> >> On Nov 13, 2017, at 5:33 PM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: >> >> The USG and the US Media have so demonized DPRK and KJU that the Pentagon could probably get away with nuking them and everyone would cheer. Fab. >> >> Francis A. Boyle >> Law Building >> 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. >> Champaign, IL 61820 USA >> 217-333-7954 (phone) >> 217-244-1478 (fax) >> (personal comments only) >> >> From: Boyle, Francis A >> Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 5:29 PM >> To: 'C G Estabrook' >> Cc: David Green ; Miller, Joseph Thomas >> ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; >> peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >> ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >> ; Joe Lauria ; >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; >> peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >> ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram >> ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina >> Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >> ; David Johnson ; >> Mildred O'brien >> Subject: RE: Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western >> Pacific >> >> It is possible if the Pentagon nukes them. Fab. >> >> Francis A. Boyle >> Law Building >> 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. >> Champaign, IL 61820 USA >> 217-333-7954 (phone) >> 217-244-1478 (fax) >> (personal comments only) >> >> From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] >> Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 5:19 PM >> To: Boyle, Francis A >> Cc: David Green ; Miller, Joseph Thomas >> ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; >> peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >> ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >> ; Joe Lauria ; >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; >> peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >> ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram >> ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina >> Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >> ; David Johnson ; >> Mildred O'brien >> Subject: Re: Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western >> Pacific >> >> And Steve Bannon pointed out the impossibility of military action against N. Korea: >> >> > s-right-about-north-korea/> >> >> >> On Nov 13, 2017, at 5:14 PM, Boyle, Francis A wrote: >> >> Yeah, thanks Carl. That's the way I see it too. I guess we shall see what happens. There was some Air Force General on the Tube a while ago saying we could take out DPRK in 4 hours. But the only way they could do that would be with nukes. Would not put it past them. Trump's speech about "fire and fury" clearly implied using nukes. So it is on their Radar Screen. Fab. >> >> Francis A. Boyle >> Law Building >> 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. >> Champaign, IL 61820 USA >> 217-333-7954 (phone) >> 217-244-1478 (fax) >> (personal comments only) >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] >> Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 5:10 PM >> To: Boyle, Francis A >> Cc: David Green ; Miller, Joseph Thomas >> ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; >> peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >> ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >> ; Joe Lauria ; >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; >> peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >> ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram >> ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina >> Thorne ;chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >> ; David Johnson ; >> Mildred O'brien >> Subject: Re: Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western >> Pacific >> >> I think this is quite right. Obama’s ‘pivot’ - war provocations vs. China - remains the War Party’s policy. >> >> They’re terribly afraid Trump will abandon it (and other pro-war policies) & so want to drive him from office. >> >> Brzezinski explicitly references Mackinder. US foreign policy makers learn nothing & forget nothing. >> >> —CGE >> >> >> >> On Nov 13, 2017, at 4:58 PM, Boyle, Francis A wrote: >> >> This massive concentration of US naval forces had to have been planned and war-gamed far in advance of Trump by the Pentagon, probably going back to Obama launching his Pivot to Asia, which is really a Pivot against China, under the influence of his Guru Brzezinski as explained in his Grand Chessboard. Fab. >> >> Francis A. Boyle >> Law Building >> 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. >> Champaign, IL 61820 USA >> 217-333-7954 (phone) >> 217-244-1478 (fax) >> (personal comments only) >> >> From: U.S. Department of Defense >> [mailto:govdelivery at subscriptions.dod.mil] >> Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 3:45 PM >> To: Boyle, Francis A >> Subject: Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western >> Pacific >> >> You are subscribed to News Articles for U.S. Department of Defense. This information has recently been updated, and is now available. >> >> >> >> Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific >> 11/13/2017 03:04 PM CST >> >> >> The USS Ronald Reagan, USS Theodore Roosevelt and USS Nimitz Strike >> Groups transit the Western Pacific with ships from the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force in the Western Pacific, Nov. 12, 2017. The three aircraft carriers and their strike groups are conducting operations in international waters as part of a strike force exercise. The Navy has patrolled the Indo-Asia-Pacific region routinely for more than 70 years promoting regional security, stability and prosperity. Navy photo by Petty Officer 3rd Class Anthony J. Rivera (Click photo for screen-resolution image);high-resolution imageavailable. >> Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific >> >> By Lisa Ferdinando >> >> DoD News, Defense Media Activity >> >> WASHINGTON, Nov. 13, 2017 — A three-carrier naval force is finishing a multi-day exercise in the Western Pacific, demonstrating the Navy's unique capability to operate multiple carrier strike groups as a coordinated effort, according to Navy officials. >> >> “The United States Navy is the only force in the world able to carry out such an exercise,” a Navy official told DoD News. >> >> The exercise features the aircraft carriers USS Ronald Reagan, USS Nimitz, and USS Theodore Roosevelt and includes air defense drills, sea surveillance, replenishments at sea, defensive air combat training, close-in coordinated maneuvers and other training, Navy officials said. >> >> Ships from Japan and South Korea joined the exercise, officials said. >> >> Triple Aircraft Carrier Training >> >> "It is a rare opportunity to train with two aircraft carriers together, and even rarer to be able to train with three," the U.S. Pacific Fleet commander, Navy Adm. Scott Swift, said in a U.S. 7th Fleet release. >> >> "Multiple carrier strike force operations are very complex,” Swift said. >> >> He added, “This exercise in the Western Pacific is a strong testament to the U.S. Pacific Fleet's unique ability and ironclad commitment to the continued security and stability of the region." >> >> The exercise is the first time three carrier strike groups have operated together in the Western Pacific since exercises Valiant Shield 2006 and 2007 off the coast of Guam, according to Navy officials. >> >> Officials point out Navy aircraft carriers more recently have conducted dual-carrier strike group operations in the Western Pacific including in the South China Sea, East China Sea and Philippine Sea. >> >> These exercises typically happen when an aircraft carrier deployed to the 7th Fleet area of operations joins with the carrier based in Japan. In this instance, the Nimitz was finishing a deployment in the 5th Fleet area -- the Persian Gulf -- and the Roosevelt was relieving it. The Reagan -- homeported in Japan -- joined the other two carriers, which are based in the Western United States. >> >> (Follow Lisa Ferdinando on Twitter: @FerdinandoDoD) >> >> Related Links >> >> U.S. Pacific Command >> Special Report: DoD Focus on the Asia-Pacific >> > From fboyle at illinois.edu Tue Nov 14 15:08:46 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2017 15:08:46 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific In-Reply-To: References: <17467243.13521@subscriptions.dod.mil> <7DBCEB5B-D9A5-40B4-9B08-D876AF7CAD74@gmail.com> Message-ID: "Everything under heaven is in utter chaos;..." I agree with that. But we are dealing overtly threatened nuclear war by Trump himself against DPRK surrounded by "My Generals." So I see that as potentially "disastrous" and not "excellent". Fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -----Original Message----- From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 9:03 AM To: Boyle, Francis A Cc: peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; Jay ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; Szoke, Ron ; Karen Aram ; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; abass10 at gmail.com; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; chicago at worldcantwait.net; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; Arlene Hickory Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific The foreign policy question now is whether Trump and his ‘kitchen cabinet’ (including Bannon) can hold out against the War Party (including the troika - McMaster, Mattis, & Kelly). Another way to put it is as the economic nationalists (who got Trump elected) vs. the corporate globalists (HRC’s campaign, Gary Cohn, & most of the war party). It’s the econ. nationalists who speak for the immiserated majority of the US public - who are residually anti-war, and whomTrump needs to be reelected and to protect him from Congressional (Rep & Dem.) machinations. Here’s an indication of the political establishment’s confusion: . We can hope that for once Mao’s optimism is appropriate: "Everything under heaven is in utter chaos; the situation is excellent.” —CGE > On Nov 14, 2017, at 8:43 AM, Boyle, Francis A wrote: > > Today there are Congressional Hearings on legislation to control the president's first use of nuclear weapons. Congressman Markey just said on NPR they are concerned about Trump launching a "pre-emptive" nuclear first strike on DPRK. As for Bannon, he was pushed out of the White House by Trump's "My Generals", including SECWAR MAD DOG MATTIS. If I remember correctly Mad Dog said that whenever he goes into a room he figures out how he can kill everyone there. fab. > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign, IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Boyle, Francis A > Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 6:55 AM > To: C G Estabrook > Cc: peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK > ; Jay ; > a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Miller, > Joseph Thomas ; Szoke, Ron > ; Karen Aram ; > peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; abass10 at gmail.com; > sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; Joe Lauria ; > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; chicago at worldcantwait.net; > mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; Arlene > Hickory > Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts > Exercise in Western Pacific > > WAPO is now under new ownership: Bezos/Amazon/CIA. fab > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) > > > -----Original Message----- > From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] > Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 10:40 PM > To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK > ; Jay ; > a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Miller, > Joseph Thomas ; Szoke, Ron > ; Karen Aram ; > peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; abass10 at gmail.com; > sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; Joe Lauria ; > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; chicago at worldcantwait.net; > mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; Arlene > Hickory > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts > Exercise in Western Pacific > > No one can be wrong all the time. Rogin (whom I'm told speaks good Japanese…) here is merely reporting on Bannon’s interview with Robert Kuttner. > > Bannon is clearly correct. > > I’ve been reading the WaPo since I was young (& knew some of the family). I don’t think I have many illusions about it. > > But just as one once read Pravda to see what the Party was thinking, so now one reads the WaPo to see what the War Party is thinking. > > If the US nukes NK, I’ll apologize. > > A Pentagon brass-hat said the other day that the only way to ‘secure’ NK’s nukes was a ground invasion. That actually seems more likely to me than a US nuclear attack. > > But China wouldn't like it, and the last time the US tried it, it > didn’t work. —CGE > > >> On Nov 13, 2017, at 9:42 PM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: >> >> Hope you are right. But SecWar Mad Dog Mattis disagrees with you. SecWar Mad Dog Mattis was asked this same question in ROK. He said the Pentagon had options to take out DPRK with no retaliation on Seoul. I take it he was indirectly referring to nuking them, which Trump openly threatening them with “fire and fury,” and everyone knew that meant nukes. So the Pentagon does have such an option as confirmed by Mad Dog publicly. As for citing anyone from WAPO, and especially Rogin,Carl you should know better than to rely upon WAPO Fake News. Fab. >> >> Francis A. Boyle >> Law Building >> 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. >> Champaign IL 61820 USA >> 217-333-7954 (phone) >> 217-244-1478 (fax) >> (personal comments only) >> >> From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] >> Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 9:26 PM >> To: Boyle, Francis A >> Cc: Karen Aram ; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. >> G. ESTABROOK ; Jay ; >> a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; >> Miller, Joseph Thomas ; Szoke, Ron >> ; Joe Lauria ; >> peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; abass10 at gmail.com; >> sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; Arlene Hickory ; >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >> ; chicago at worldcantwait.net >> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts >> Exercise in Western Pacific >> >> [Josh Rogin WAPO August 17] In Washington, a “Kinsley gaffe” is when someone tells an obvious truth that isn’t supposed to be said. Such was the case when White House chief strategist Stephen K. Bannon told a reporter, in an interview published Wednesday, that there is no viable military option for stopping North Korea’s nuclear and missile programs. >> >> Bannon’s view is that any preemptive attack on North Korea would result in horrendous casualties in South Korea and elsewhere and therefore cannot be seriously considered. That view is shared by many officials, former officials and North Korea experts... >> >> By publicly declaring that the U.S. threat of military force in North Korea is a bluff, Bannon may have undermined the credibility of that threat. He may also have nudged the United States toward a more diplomacy-focused approach and reduced the risk of war. >> >> “There’s no military solution [to North Korea’s nuclear threats], forget it,” Bannon told the American Prospect. “Until somebody solves the part of the equation that shows me that 10 million people in Seoul don’t die in the first 30 minutes from conventional weapons, I don’t know what you’re talking about, there’s no military solution here, they got us.” >> >> For many North Korea watchers, Bannon was simply acknowledging a reality that the parties involved already understood; there is no viable scenario in which the United States could initiate a first strike against Pyongyang. >> >> “He’s absolutely right,” said former North Korea nuclear negotiator Joel S. Wit. “This is not a credible threat, and it really hasn’t been since the 1990s. We’ve been pretending it’s credible, but it really isn’t.” >> >> Such a move would guarantee devastating retaliation by Kim Jong Un against South Korea, Japan and the tens of thousands of U.S. troops there. Moreover, there’s no real way to be confident a U.S.-led military strike could destroy all of the dispersed and hidden components of North Korea’s illicit programs. >> >> Throw on top of that the danger that Kim could use a nuclear weapon, and it’s clear the United States can’t strike first. It’s likely a coincidence, but South Korean President Moon Jae-in also publicly declared that the military option is not on the table this week. >> >> “I can confidently say there will not be a war again on the Korean Peninsula,” Moon said. “The U.S. and President Trump also said, no matter what option they take about North Korea, all decisions will be made after consulting with and getting agreement with the Republic of Korea,” he added... >> >> Wit said that since the North Koreans understand the military dynamics as well as anyone, that threat was never really credible in the first place. >> >> “They figured out a long time ago the U.S. isn’t going to do anything,” he said. “Bannon may have undermined our pressure campaign, but the threat of military force has been a diminishing tool all along.” >> >> The larger effect could be that the Trump administration could now coalesce around a more diplomacy-focused strategy and move closer to direct negotiations with Pyongyang. Although Bannon didn’t specify his preferred policy, the alternative to attacking is clear: continuing to increase diplomatic and financial pressure on North Korea while exploring the chance for dialogue. >> >> The United States and North Korea have maintained a quiet diplomatic channel over the past months that could be used to set up more substantial negotiations. The Trump team has told foreign interlocutors that it remains open to negotiations with Pyongyang under the right conditions. >> >> Whether or not Bannon intended his remarks to be public, his warnings >> about the foolishness of attacking North Korea are correct, and they >> might even be helpful… >> >> Josh Rogin is a columnist for the Global Opinions section of The >> Washington Post. He writes about foreign policy and national security. >> Follow @joshrogin >> >> >> >> On Nov 13, 2017, at 5:33 PM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: >> >> The USG and the US Media have so demonized DPRK and KJU that the Pentagon could probably get away with nuking them and everyone would cheer. Fab. >> >> Francis A. Boyle >> Law Building >> 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. >> Champaign, IL 61820 USA >> 217-333-7954 (phone) >> 217-244-1478 (fax) >> (personal comments only) >> >> From: Boyle, Francis A >> Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 5:29 PM >> To: 'C G Estabrook' >> Cc: David Green ; Miller, Joseph Thomas >> ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; >> peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >> ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >> ; Joe Lauria ; >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; >> peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >> ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram >> ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; >> Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >> ; David Johnson >> ; Mildred O'brien >> Subject: RE: Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western >> Pacific >> >> It is possible if the Pentagon nukes them. Fab. >> >> Francis A. Boyle >> Law Building >> 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. >> Champaign, IL 61820 USA >> 217-333-7954 (phone) >> 217-244-1478 (fax) >> (personal comments only) >> >> From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] >> Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 5:19 PM >> To: Boyle, Francis A >> Cc: David Green ; Miller, Joseph Thomas >> ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; >> peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >> ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >> ; Joe Lauria ; >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; >> peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >> ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram >> ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; >> Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >> ; David Johnson >> ; Mildred O'brien >> Subject: Re: Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western >> Pacific >> >> And Steve Bannon pointed out the impossibility of military action against N. Korea: >> >> > i >> s-right-about-north-korea/> >> >> >> On Nov 13, 2017, at 5:14 PM, Boyle, Francis A wrote: >> >> Yeah, thanks Carl. That's the way I see it too. I guess we shall see what happens. There was some Air Force General on the Tube a while ago saying we could take out DPRK in 4 hours. But the only way they could do that would be with nukes. Would not put it past them. Trump's speech about "fire and fury" clearly implied using nukes. So it is on their Radar Screen. Fab. >> >> Francis A. Boyle >> Law Building >> 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. >> Champaign, IL 61820 USA >> 217-333-7954 (phone) >> 217-244-1478 (fax) >> (personal comments only) >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] >> Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 5:10 PM >> To: Boyle, Francis A >> Cc: David Green ; Miller, Joseph Thomas >> ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; >> peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >> ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >> ; Joe Lauria ; >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; >> peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >> ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram >> ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; >> Lina Thorne ;chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >> ; David Johnson >> ; Mildred O'brien >> Subject: Re: Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western >> Pacific >> >> I think this is quite right. Obama’s ‘pivot’ - war provocations vs. China - remains the War Party’s policy. >> >> They’re terribly afraid Trump will abandon it (and other pro-war policies) & so want to drive him from office. >> >> Brzezinski explicitly references Mackinder. US foreign policy makers learn nothing & forget nothing. >> >> —CGE >> >> >> >> On Nov 13, 2017, at 4:58 PM, Boyle, Francis A wrote: >> >> This massive concentration of US naval forces had to have been planned and war-gamed far in advance of Trump by the Pentagon, probably going back to Obama launching his Pivot to Asia, which is really a Pivot against China, under the influence of his Guru Brzezinski as explained in his Grand Chessboard. Fab. >> >> Francis A. Boyle >> Law Building >> 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. >> Champaign, IL 61820 USA >> 217-333-7954 (phone) >> 217-244-1478 (fax) >> (personal comments only) >> >> From: U.S. Department of Defense >> [mailto:govdelivery at subscriptions.dod.mil] >> Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 3:45 PM >> To: Boyle, Francis A >> Subject: Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western >> Pacific >> >> You are subscribed to News Articles for U.S. Department of Defense. This information has recently been updated, and is now available. >> >> >> >> Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific >> 11/13/2017 03:04 PM CST >> >> >> The USS Ronald Reagan, USS Theodore Roosevelt and USS Nimitz Strike >> Groups transit the Western Pacific with ships from the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force in the Western Pacific, Nov. 12, 2017. The three aircraft carriers and their strike groups are conducting operations in international waters as part of a strike force exercise. The Navy has patrolled the Indo-Asia-Pacific region routinely for more than 70 years promoting regional security, stability and prosperity. Navy photo by Petty Officer 3rd Class Anthony J. Rivera (Click photo for screen-resolution image);high-resolution imageavailable. >> Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific >> >> By Lisa Ferdinando >> >> DoD News, Defense Media Activity >> >> WASHINGTON, Nov. 13, 2017 — A three-carrier naval force is finishing a multi-day exercise in the Western Pacific, demonstrating the Navy's unique capability to operate multiple carrier strike groups as a coordinated effort, according to Navy officials. >> >> “The United States Navy is the only force in the world able to carry out such an exercise,” a Navy official told DoD News. >> >> The exercise features the aircraft carriers USS Ronald Reagan, USS Nimitz, and USS Theodore Roosevelt and includes air defense drills, sea surveillance, replenishments at sea, defensive air combat training, close-in coordinated maneuvers and other training, Navy officials said. >> >> Ships from Japan and South Korea joined the exercise, officials said. >> >> Triple Aircraft Carrier Training >> >> "It is a rare opportunity to train with two aircraft carriers together, and even rarer to be able to train with three," the U.S. Pacific Fleet commander, Navy Adm. Scott Swift, said in a U.S. 7th Fleet release. >> >> "Multiple carrier strike force operations are very complex,” Swift said. >> >> He added, “This exercise in the Western Pacific is a strong testament to the U.S. Pacific Fleet's unique ability and ironclad commitment to the continued security and stability of the region." >> >> The exercise is the first time three carrier strike groups have operated together in the Western Pacific since exercises Valiant Shield 2006 and 2007 off the coast of Guam, according to Navy officials. >> >> Officials point out Navy aircraft carriers more recently have conducted dual-carrier strike group operations in the Western Pacific including in the South China Sea, East China Sea and Philippine Sea. >> >> These exercises typically happen when an aircraft carrier deployed to the 7th Fleet area of operations joins with the carrier based in Japan. In this instance, the Nimitz was finishing a deployment in the 5th Fleet area -- the Persian Gulf -- and the Roosevelt was relieving it. The Reagan -- homeported in Japan -- joined the other two carriers, which are based in the Western United States. >> >> (Follow Lisa Ferdinando on Twitter: @FerdinandoDoD) >> >> Related Links >> >> U.S. Pacific Command >> Special Report: DoD Focus on the Asia-Pacific >> > From fboyle at illinois.edu Tue Nov 14 15:08:46 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2017 15:08:46 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific In-Reply-To: References: <17467243.13521@subscriptions.dod.mil> <7DBCEB5B-D9A5-40B4-9B08-D876AF7CAD74@gmail.com> Message-ID: "Everything under heaven is in utter chaos;..." I agree with that. But we are dealing overtly threatened nuclear war by Trump himself against DPRK surrounded by "My Generals." So I see that as potentially "disastrous" and not "excellent". Fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -----Original Message----- From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 9:03 AM To: Boyle, Francis A Cc: peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; Jay ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; Szoke, Ron ; Karen Aram ; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; abass10 at gmail.com; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; chicago at worldcantwait.net; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; Arlene Hickory Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific The foreign policy question now is whether Trump and his ‘kitchen cabinet’ (including Bannon) can hold out against the War Party (including the troika - McMaster, Mattis, & Kelly). Another way to put it is as the economic nationalists (who got Trump elected) vs. the corporate globalists (HRC’s campaign, Gary Cohn, & most of the war party). It’s the econ. nationalists who speak for the immiserated majority of the US public - who are residually anti-war, and whomTrump needs to be reelected and to protect him from Congressional (Rep & Dem.) machinations. Here’s an indication of the political establishment’s confusion: . We can hope that for once Mao’s optimism is appropriate: "Everything under heaven is in utter chaos; the situation is excellent.” —CGE > On Nov 14, 2017, at 8:43 AM, Boyle, Francis A wrote: > > Today there are Congressional Hearings on legislation to control the president's first use of nuclear weapons. Congressman Markey just said on NPR they are concerned about Trump launching a "pre-emptive" nuclear first strike on DPRK. As for Bannon, he was pushed out of the White House by Trump's "My Generals", including SECWAR MAD DOG MATTIS. If I remember correctly Mad Dog said that whenever he goes into a room he figures out how he can kill everyone there. fab. > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign, IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Boyle, Francis A > Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 6:55 AM > To: C G Estabrook > Cc: peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK > ; Jay ; > a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Miller, > Joseph Thomas ; Szoke, Ron > ; Karen Aram ; > peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; abass10 at gmail.com; > sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; Joe Lauria ; > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; chicago at worldcantwait.net; > mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; Arlene > Hickory > Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts > Exercise in Western Pacific > > WAPO is now under new ownership: Bezos/Amazon/CIA. fab > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) > > > -----Original Message----- > From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] > Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 10:40 PM > To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK > ; Jay ; > a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Miller, > Joseph Thomas ; Szoke, Ron > ; Karen Aram ; > peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; abass10 at gmail.com; > sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; Joe Lauria ; > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; chicago at worldcantwait.net; > mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; Arlene > Hickory > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts > Exercise in Western Pacific > > No one can be wrong all the time. Rogin (whom I'm told speaks good Japanese…) here is merely reporting on Bannon’s interview with Robert Kuttner. > > Bannon is clearly correct. > > I’ve been reading the WaPo since I was young (& knew some of the family). I don’t think I have many illusions about it. > > But just as one once read Pravda to see what the Party was thinking, so now one reads the WaPo to see what the War Party is thinking. > > If the US nukes NK, I’ll apologize. > > A Pentagon brass-hat said the other day that the only way to ‘secure’ NK’s nukes was a ground invasion. That actually seems more likely to me than a US nuclear attack. > > But China wouldn't like it, and the last time the US tried it, it > didn’t work. —CGE > > >> On Nov 13, 2017, at 9:42 PM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: >> >> Hope you are right. But SecWar Mad Dog Mattis disagrees with you. SecWar Mad Dog Mattis was asked this same question in ROK. He said the Pentagon had options to take out DPRK with no retaliation on Seoul. I take it he was indirectly referring to nuking them, which Trump openly threatening them with “fire and fury,” and everyone knew that meant nukes. So the Pentagon does have such an option as confirmed by Mad Dog publicly. As for citing anyone from WAPO, and especially Rogin,Carl you should know better than to rely upon WAPO Fake News. Fab. >> >> Francis A. Boyle >> Law Building >> 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. >> Champaign IL 61820 USA >> 217-333-7954 (phone) >> 217-244-1478 (fax) >> (personal comments only) >> >> From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] >> Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 9:26 PM >> To: Boyle, Francis A >> Cc: Karen Aram ; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. >> G. ESTABROOK ; Jay ; >> a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; >> Miller, Joseph Thomas ; Szoke, Ron >> ; Joe Lauria ; >> peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; abass10 at gmail.com; >> sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; Arlene Hickory ; >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >> ; chicago at worldcantwait.net >> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts >> Exercise in Western Pacific >> >> [Josh Rogin WAPO August 17] In Washington, a “Kinsley gaffe” is when someone tells an obvious truth that isn’t supposed to be said. Such was the case when White House chief strategist Stephen K. Bannon told a reporter, in an interview published Wednesday, that there is no viable military option for stopping North Korea’s nuclear and missile programs. >> >> Bannon’s view is that any preemptive attack on North Korea would result in horrendous casualties in South Korea and elsewhere and therefore cannot be seriously considered. That view is shared by many officials, former officials and North Korea experts... >> >> By publicly declaring that the U.S. threat of military force in North Korea is a bluff, Bannon may have undermined the credibility of that threat. He may also have nudged the United States toward a more diplomacy-focused approach and reduced the risk of war. >> >> “There’s no military solution [to North Korea’s nuclear threats], forget it,” Bannon told the American Prospect. “Until somebody solves the part of the equation that shows me that 10 million people in Seoul don’t die in the first 30 minutes from conventional weapons, I don’t know what you’re talking about, there’s no military solution here, they got us.” >> >> For many North Korea watchers, Bannon was simply acknowledging a reality that the parties involved already understood; there is no viable scenario in which the United States could initiate a first strike against Pyongyang. >> >> “He’s absolutely right,” said former North Korea nuclear negotiator Joel S. Wit. “This is not a credible threat, and it really hasn’t been since the 1990s. We’ve been pretending it’s credible, but it really isn’t.” >> >> Such a move would guarantee devastating retaliation by Kim Jong Un against South Korea, Japan and the tens of thousands of U.S. troops there. Moreover, there’s no real way to be confident a U.S.-led military strike could destroy all of the dispersed and hidden components of North Korea’s illicit programs. >> >> Throw on top of that the danger that Kim could use a nuclear weapon, and it’s clear the United States can’t strike first. It’s likely a coincidence, but South Korean President Moon Jae-in also publicly declared that the military option is not on the table this week. >> >> “I can confidently say there will not be a war again on the Korean Peninsula,” Moon said. “The U.S. and President Trump also said, no matter what option they take about North Korea, all decisions will be made after consulting with and getting agreement with the Republic of Korea,” he added... >> >> Wit said that since the North Koreans understand the military dynamics as well as anyone, that threat was never really credible in the first place. >> >> “They figured out a long time ago the U.S. isn’t going to do anything,” he said. “Bannon may have undermined our pressure campaign, but the threat of military force has been a diminishing tool all along.” >> >> The larger effect could be that the Trump administration could now coalesce around a more diplomacy-focused strategy and move closer to direct negotiations with Pyongyang. Although Bannon didn’t specify his preferred policy, the alternative to attacking is clear: continuing to increase diplomatic and financial pressure on North Korea while exploring the chance for dialogue. >> >> The United States and North Korea have maintained a quiet diplomatic channel over the past months that could be used to set up more substantial negotiations. The Trump team has told foreign interlocutors that it remains open to negotiations with Pyongyang under the right conditions. >> >> Whether or not Bannon intended his remarks to be public, his warnings >> about the foolishness of attacking North Korea are correct, and they >> might even be helpful… >> >> Josh Rogin is a columnist for the Global Opinions section of The >> Washington Post. He writes about foreign policy and national security. >> Follow @joshrogin >> >> >> >> On Nov 13, 2017, at 5:33 PM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: >> >> The USG and the US Media have so demonized DPRK and KJU that the Pentagon could probably get away with nuking them and everyone would cheer. Fab. >> >> Francis A. Boyle >> Law Building >> 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. >> Champaign, IL 61820 USA >> 217-333-7954 (phone) >> 217-244-1478 (fax) >> (personal comments only) >> >> From: Boyle, Francis A >> Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 5:29 PM >> To: 'C G Estabrook' >> Cc: David Green ; Miller, Joseph Thomas >> ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; >> peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >> ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >> ; Joe Lauria ; >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; >> peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >> ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram >> ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; >> Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >> ; David Johnson >> ; Mildred O'brien >> Subject: RE: Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western >> Pacific >> >> It is possible if the Pentagon nukes them. Fab. >> >> Francis A. Boyle >> Law Building >> 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. >> Champaign, IL 61820 USA >> 217-333-7954 (phone) >> 217-244-1478 (fax) >> (personal comments only) >> >> From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] >> Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 5:19 PM >> To: Boyle, Francis A >> Cc: David Green ; Miller, Joseph Thomas >> ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; >> peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >> ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >> ; Joe Lauria ; >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; >> peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >> ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram >> ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; >> Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >> ; David Johnson >> ; Mildred O'brien >> Subject: Re: Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western >> Pacific >> >> And Steve Bannon pointed out the impossibility of military action against N. Korea: >> >> > i >> s-right-about-north-korea/> >> >> >> On Nov 13, 2017, at 5:14 PM, Boyle, Francis A wrote: >> >> Yeah, thanks Carl. That's the way I see it too. I guess we shall see what happens. There was some Air Force General on the Tube a while ago saying we could take out DPRK in 4 hours. But the only way they could do that would be with nukes. Would not put it past them. Trump's speech about "fire and fury" clearly implied using nukes. So it is on their Radar Screen. Fab. >> >> Francis A. Boyle >> Law Building >> 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. >> Champaign, IL 61820 USA >> 217-333-7954 (phone) >> 217-244-1478 (fax) >> (personal comments only) >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] >> Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 5:10 PM >> To: Boyle, Francis A >> Cc: David Green ; Miller, Joseph Thomas >> ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; >> peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >> ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >> ; Joe Lauria ; >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; >> peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >> ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram >> ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; >> Lina Thorne ;chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >> ; David Johnson >> ; Mildred O'brien >> Subject: Re: Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western >> Pacific >> >> I think this is quite right. Obama’s ‘pivot’ - war provocations vs. China - remains the War Party’s policy. >> >> They’re terribly afraid Trump will abandon it (and other pro-war policies) & so want to drive him from office. >> >> Brzezinski explicitly references Mackinder. US foreign policy makers learn nothing & forget nothing. >> >> —CGE >> >> >> >> On Nov 13, 2017, at 4:58 PM, Boyle, Francis A wrote: >> >> This massive concentration of US naval forces had to have been planned and war-gamed far in advance of Trump by the Pentagon, probably going back to Obama launching his Pivot to Asia, which is really a Pivot against China, under the influence of his Guru Brzezinski as explained in his Grand Chessboard. Fab. >> >> Francis A. Boyle >> Law Building >> 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. >> Champaign, IL 61820 USA >> 217-333-7954 (phone) >> 217-244-1478 (fax) >> (personal comments only) >> >> From: U.S. Department of Defense >> [mailto:govdelivery at subscriptions.dod.mil] >> Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 3:45 PM >> To: Boyle, Francis A >> Subject: Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western >> Pacific >> >> You are subscribed to News Articles for U.S. Department of Defense. This information has recently been updated, and is now available. >> >> >> >> Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific >> 11/13/2017 03:04 PM CST >> >> >> The USS Ronald Reagan, USS Theodore Roosevelt and USS Nimitz Strike >> Groups transit the Western Pacific with ships from the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force in the Western Pacific, Nov. 12, 2017. The three aircraft carriers and their strike groups are conducting operations in international waters as part of a strike force exercise. The Navy has patrolled the Indo-Asia-Pacific region routinely for more than 70 years promoting regional security, stability and prosperity. Navy photo by Petty Officer 3rd Class Anthony J. Rivera (Click photo for screen-resolution image);high-resolution imageavailable. >> Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific >> >> By Lisa Ferdinando >> >> DoD News, Defense Media Activity >> >> WASHINGTON, Nov. 13, 2017 — A three-carrier naval force is finishing a multi-day exercise in the Western Pacific, demonstrating the Navy's unique capability to operate multiple carrier strike groups as a coordinated effort, according to Navy officials. >> >> “The United States Navy is the only force in the world able to carry out such an exercise,” a Navy official told DoD News. >> >> The exercise features the aircraft carriers USS Ronald Reagan, USS Nimitz, and USS Theodore Roosevelt and includes air defense drills, sea surveillance, replenishments at sea, defensive air combat training, close-in coordinated maneuvers and other training, Navy officials said. >> >> Ships from Japan and South Korea joined the exercise, officials said. >> >> Triple Aircraft Carrier Training >> >> "It is a rare opportunity to train with two aircraft carriers together, and even rarer to be able to train with three," the U.S. Pacific Fleet commander, Navy Adm. Scott Swift, said in a U.S. 7th Fleet release. >> >> "Multiple carrier strike force operations are very complex,” Swift said. >> >> He added, “This exercise in the Western Pacific is a strong testament to the U.S. Pacific Fleet's unique ability and ironclad commitment to the continued security and stability of the region." >> >> The exercise is the first time three carrier strike groups have operated together in the Western Pacific since exercises Valiant Shield 2006 and 2007 off the coast of Guam, according to Navy officials. >> >> Officials point out Navy aircraft carriers more recently have conducted dual-carrier strike group operations in the Western Pacific including in the South China Sea, East China Sea and Philippine Sea. >> >> These exercises typically happen when an aircraft carrier deployed to the 7th Fleet area of operations joins with the carrier based in Japan. In this instance, the Nimitz was finishing a deployment in the 5th Fleet area -- the Persian Gulf -- and the Roosevelt was relieving it. The Reagan -- homeported in Japan -- joined the other two carriers, which are based in the Western United States. >> >> (Follow Lisa Ferdinando on Twitter: @FerdinandoDoD) >> >> Related Links >> >> U.S. Pacific Command >> Special Report: DoD Focus on the Asia-Pacific >> > From cgestabrook at gmail.com Tue Nov 14 15:26:25 2017 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2017 09:26:25 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific In-Reply-To: References: <17467243.13521@subscriptions.dod.mil> <7DBCEB5B-D9A5-40B4-9B08-D876AF7CAD74@gmail.com> Message-ID: <05607FB6-C8B2-4632-B448-92236CD13496@gmail.com> Trump, from his recent discussions with Xi, is not pressing for that - but rather for cooperation with the BRI. OTOH the War Party, who want to rattle the nuclear saber, are represented by Kelly, Mattis, and McMaster. Trump is not the problem: traditional US ruling class hostility to Eurasian economic integration is. Corporate (civilian) control over nukes is not a bad idea. But remember the late Vasili Arkhipov, who prevented John Kennedy from destroying the world: . —CGE > On Nov 14, 2017, at 8:49 AM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: > > Under the Atomic Energy Act the President is given control over US nuclear weapons. It was put in there to guarantee civilian, not military, control of US nuclear weapons since the constitution sets up a system of civilian control for the Military. That is why US nuclear weapons are manufactured and controlled by the Department of the Energy and its predecessor instead of the Pentagon. When the nukes are fully assembled they are then turned over to the Pentagon for use where they are by-law under control of the President. Now with Trump Congress is reconsidering the arrangement. And Markey just said they are concerned about Trump launching a "pre-emptive" first nuclear strike on DPRK. Me too. Fab. > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign, IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Boyle, Francis A > Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 8:43 AM > To: 'C G Estabrook' > Cc: 'peace-discuss at anti-war.net' ; 'C. G. ESTABROOK' ; 'Jay' ; 'a-fields at uiuc.edu' ; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; Szoke, Ron ; 'Karen Aram' ; 'peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net' ; 'abass10 at gmail.com' ; 'sherwoodross10 at gmail.com' ; 'Joe Lauria' ; 'Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net' ; 'chicago at worldcantwait.net' ; 'mickalideh at gmail.com' ; 'Lina Thorne' ; 'Arlene Hickory' > Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific > > Today there are Congressional Hearings on legislation to control the president's first use of nuclear weapons. Congressman Markey just said on NPR they are concerned about Trump launching a "pre-emptive" nuclear first strike on DPRK. As for Bannon, he was pushed out of the White House by Trump's "My Generals", including SECWAR MAD DOG MATTIS. If I remember correctly Mad Dog said that whenever he goes into a room he figures out how he can kill everyone there. fab. > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign, IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Boyle, Francis A > Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 6:55 AM > To: C G Estabrook > Cc: peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; Jay ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; Szoke, Ron ; Karen Aram ; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; abass10 at gmail.com; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; chicago at worldcantwait.net; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; Arlene Hickory > Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific > > WAPO is now under new ownership: Bezos/Amazon/CIA. fab > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) > > > -----Original Message----- > From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] > Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 10:40 PM > To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; Jay ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; Szoke, Ron ; Karen Aram ; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; abass10 at gmail.com; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; chicago at worldcantwait.net; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; Arlene Hickory > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific > > No one can be wrong all the time. Rogin (whom I'm told speaks good Japanese…) here is merely reporting on Bannon’s interview with Robert Kuttner. > > Bannon is clearly correct. > > I’ve been reading the WaPo since I was young (& knew some of the family). I don’t think I have many illusions about it. > > But just as one once read Pravda to see what the Party was thinking, so now one reads the WaPo to see what the War Party is thinking. > > If the US nukes NK, I’ll apologize. > > A Pentagon brass-hat said the other day that the only way to ‘secure’ NK’s nukes was a ground invasion. That actually seems more likely to me than a US nuclear attack. > > But China wouldn't like it, and the last time the US tried it, it didn’t work. —CGE > > >> On Nov 13, 2017, at 9:42 PM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: >> >> Hope you are right. But SecWar Mad Dog Mattis disagrees with you. SecWar Mad Dog Mattis was asked this same question in ROK. He said the Pentagon had options to take out DPRK with no retaliation on Seoul. I take it he was indirectly referring to nuking them, which Trump openly threatening them with “fire and fury,” and everyone knew that meant nukes. So the Pentagon does have such an option as confirmed by Mad Dog publicly. As for citing anyone from WAPO, and especially Rogin,Carl you should know better than to rely upon WAPO Fake News. Fab. >> >> Francis A. Boyle >> Law Building >> 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. >> Champaign IL 61820 USA >> 217-333-7954 (phone) >> 217-244-1478 (fax) >> (personal comments only) >> >> From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] >> Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 9:26 PM >> To: Boyle, Francis A >> Cc: Karen Aram ; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. >> G. ESTABROOK ; Jay ; >> a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Miller, >> Joseph Thomas ; Szoke, Ron >> ; Joe Lauria ; >> peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; abass10 at gmail.com; >> sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; Arlene Hickory ; >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >> ; chicago at worldcantwait.net >> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts >> Exercise in Western Pacific >> >> [Josh Rogin WAPO August 17] In Washington, a “Kinsley gaffe” is when someone tells an obvious truth that isn’t supposed to be said. Such was the case when White House chief strategist Stephen K. Bannon told a reporter, in an interview published Wednesday, that there is no viable military option for stopping North Korea’s nuclear and missile programs. >> >> Bannon’s view is that any preemptive attack on North Korea would result in horrendous casualties in South Korea and elsewhere and therefore cannot be seriously considered. That view is shared by many officials, former officials and North Korea experts... >> >> By publicly declaring that the U.S. threat of military force in North Korea is a bluff, Bannon may have undermined the credibility of that threat. He may also have nudged the United States toward a more diplomacy-focused approach and reduced the risk of war. >> >> “There’s no military solution [to North Korea’s nuclear threats], forget it,” Bannon told the American Prospect. “Until somebody solves the part of the equation that shows me that 10 million people in Seoul don’t die in the first 30 minutes from conventional weapons, I don’t know what you’re talking about, there’s no military solution here, they got us.” >> >> For many North Korea watchers, Bannon was simply acknowledging a reality that the parties involved already understood; there is no viable scenario in which the United States could initiate a first strike against Pyongyang. >> >> “He’s absolutely right,” said former North Korea nuclear negotiator Joel S. Wit. “This is not a credible threat, and it really hasn’t been since the 1990s. We’ve been pretending it’s credible, but it really isn’t.” >> >> Such a move would guarantee devastating retaliation by Kim Jong Un against South Korea, Japan and the tens of thousands of U.S. troops there. Moreover, there’s no real way to be confident a U.S.-led military strike could destroy all of the dispersed and hidden components of North Korea’s illicit programs. >> >> Throw on top of that the danger that Kim could use a nuclear weapon, and it’s clear the United States can’t strike first. It’s likely a coincidence, but South Korean President Moon Jae-in also publicly declared that the military option is not on the table this week. >> >> “I can confidently say there will not be a war again on the Korean Peninsula,” Moon said. “The U.S. and President Trump also said, no matter what option they take about North Korea, all decisions will be made after consulting with and getting agreement with the Republic of Korea,” he added... >> >> Wit said that since the North Koreans understand the military dynamics as well as anyone, that threat was never really credible in the first place. >> >> “They figured out a long time ago the U.S. isn’t going to do anything,” he said. “Bannon may have undermined our pressure campaign, but the threat of military force has been a diminishing tool all along.” >> >> The larger effect could be that the Trump administration could now coalesce around a more diplomacy-focused strategy and move closer to direct negotiations with Pyongyang. Although Bannon didn’t specify his preferred policy, the alternative to attacking is clear: continuing to increase diplomatic and financial pressure on North Korea while exploring the chance for dialogue. >> >> The United States and North Korea have maintained a quiet diplomatic channel over the past months that could be used to set up more substantial negotiations. The Trump team has told foreign interlocutors that it remains open to negotiations with Pyongyang under the right conditions. >> >> Whether or not Bannon intended his remarks to be public, his warnings >> about the foolishness of attacking North Korea are correct, and they >> might even be helpful… >> >> Josh Rogin is a columnist for the Global Opinions section of The >> Washington Post. He writes about foreign policy and national security. >> Follow @joshrogin >> >> >> >> On Nov 13, 2017, at 5:33 PM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: >> >> The USG and the US Media have so demonized DPRK and KJU that the Pentagon could probably get away with nuking them and everyone would cheer. Fab. >> >> Francis A. Boyle >> Law Building >> 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. >> Champaign, IL 61820 USA >> 217-333-7954 (phone) >> 217-244-1478 (fax) >> (personal comments only) >> >> From: Boyle, Francis A >> Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 5:29 PM >> To: 'C G Estabrook' >> Cc: David Green ; Miller, Joseph Thomas >> ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; >> peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >> ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >> ; Joe Lauria ; >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; >> peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >> ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram >> ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina >> Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >> ; David Johnson ; >> Mildred O'brien >> Subject: RE: Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western >> Pacific >> >> It is possible if the Pentagon nukes them. Fab. >> >> Francis A. Boyle >> Law Building >> 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. >> Champaign, IL 61820 USA >> 217-333-7954 (phone) >> 217-244-1478 (fax) >> (personal comments only) >> >> From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] >> Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 5:19 PM >> To: Boyle, Francis A >> Cc: David Green ; Miller, Joseph Thomas >> ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; >> peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >> ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >> ; Joe Lauria ; >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; >> peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >> ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram >> ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina >> Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >> ; David Johnson ; >> Mildred O'brien >> Subject: Re: Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western >> Pacific >> >> And Steve Bannon pointed out the impossibility of military action against N. Korea: >> >> > s-right-about-north-korea/> >> >> >> On Nov 13, 2017, at 5:14 PM, Boyle, Francis A wrote: >> >> Yeah, thanks Carl. That's the way I see it too. I guess we shall see what happens. There was some Air Force General on the Tube a while ago saying we could take out DPRK in 4 hours. But the only way they could do that would be with nukes. Would not put it past them. Trump's speech about "fire and fury" clearly implied using nukes. So it is on their Radar Screen. Fab. >> >> Francis A. Boyle >> Law Building >> 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. >> Champaign, IL 61820 USA >> 217-333-7954 (phone) >> 217-244-1478 (fax) >> (personal comments only) >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] >> Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 5:10 PM >> To: Boyle, Francis A >> Cc: David Green ; Miller, Joseph Thomas >> ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; >> peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >> ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >> ; Joe Lauria ; >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; >> peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >> ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram >> ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina >> Thorne ;chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >> ; David Johnson ; >> Mildred O'brien >> Subject: Re: Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western >> Pacific >> >> I think this is quite right. Obama’s ‘pivot’ - war provocations vs. China - remains the War Party’s policy. >> >> They’re terribly afraid Trump will abandon it (and other pro-war policies) & so want to drive him from office. >> >> Brzezinski explicitly references Mackinder. US foreign policy makers learn nothing & forget nothing. >> >> —CGE >> >> >> >> On Nov 13, 2017, at 4:58 PM, Boyle, Francis A wrote: >> >> This massive concentration of US naval forces had to have been planned and war-gamed far in advance of Trump by the Pentagon, probably going back to Obama launching his Pivot to Asia, which is really a Pivot against China, under the influence of his Guru Brzezinski as explained in his Grand Chessboard. Fab. >> >> Francis A. Boyle >> Law Building >> 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. >> Champaign, IL 61820 USA >> 217-333-7954 (phone) >> 217-244-1478 (fax) >> (personal comments only) >> >> From: U.S. Department of Defense >> [mailto:govdelivery at subscriptions.dod.mil] >> Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 3:45 PM >> To: Boyle, Francis A >> Subject: Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western >> Pacific >> >> You are subscribed to News Articles for U.S. Department of Defense. This information has recently been updated, and is now available. >> >> >> >> Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific >> 11/13/2017 03:04 PM CST >> >> >> The USS Ronald Reagan, USS Theodore Roosevelt and USS Nimitz Strike >> Groups transit the Western Pacific with ships from the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force in the Western Pacific, Nov. 12, 2017. The three aircraft carriers and their strike groups are conducting operations in international waters as part of a strike force exercise. The Navy has patrolled the Indo-Asia-Pacific region routinely for more than 70 years promoting regional security, stability and prosperity. Navy photo by Petty Officer 3rd Class Anthony J. Rivera (Click photo for screen-resolution image);high-resolution imageavailable. >> Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific >> >> By Lisa Ferdinando >> >> DoD News, Defense Media Activity >> >> WASHINGTON, Nov. 13, 2017 — A three-carrier naval force is finishing a multi-day exercise in the Western Pacific, demonstrating the Navy's unique capability to operate multiple carrier strike groups as a coordinated effort, according to Navy officials. >> >> “The United States Navy is the only force in the world able to carry out such an exercise,” a Navy official told DoD News. >> >> The exercise features the aircraft carriers USS Ronald Reagan, USS Nimitz, and USS Theodore Roosevelt and includes air defense drills, sea surveillance, replenishments at sea, defensive air combat training, close-in coordinated maneuvers and other training, Navy officials said. >> >> Ships from Japan and South Korea joined the exercise, officials said. >> >> Triple Aircraft Carrier Training >> >> "It is a rare opportunity to train with two aircraft carriers together, and even rarer to be able to train with three," the U.S. Pacific Fleet commander, Navy Adm. Scott Swift, said in a U.S. 7th Fleet release. >> >> "Multiple carrier strike force operations are very complex,” Swift said. >> >> He added, “This exercise in the Western Pacific is a strong testament to the U.S. Pacific Fleet's unique ability and ironclad commitment to the continued security and stability of the region." >> >> The exercise is the first time three carrier strike groups have operated together in the Western Pacific since exercises Valiant Shield 2006 and 2007 off the coast of Guam, according to Navy officials. >> >> Officials point out Navy aircraft carriers more recently have conducted dual-carrier strike group operations in the Western Pacific including in the South China Sea, East China Sea and Philippine Sea. >> >> These exercises typically happen when an aircraft carrier deployed to the 7th Fleet area of operations joins with the carrier based in Japan. In this instance, the Nimitz was finishing a deployment in the 5th Fleet area -- the Persian Gulf -- and the Roosevelt was relieving it. The Reagan -- homeported in Japan -- joined the other two carriers, which are based in the Western United States. >> >> (Follow Lisa Ferdinando on Twitter: @FerdinandoDoD) >> >> Related Links >> >> U.S. Pacific Command >> Special Report: DoD Focus on the Asia-Pacific >> > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss From cgestabrook at gmail.com Tue Nov 14 15:26:25 2017 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2017 09:26:25 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific In-Reply-To: References: <17467243.13521@subscriptions.dod.mil> <7DBCEB5B-D9A5-40B4-9B08-D876AF7CAD74@gmail.com> Message-ID: <05607FB6-C8B2-4632-B448-92236CD13496@gmail.com> Trump, from his recent discussions with Xi, is not pressing for that - but rather for cooperation with the BRI. OTOH the War Party, who want to rattle the nuclear saber, are represented by Kelly, Mattis, and McMaster. Trump is not the problem: traditional US ruling class hostility to Eurasian economic integration is. Corporate (civilian) control over nukes is not a bad idea. But remember the late Vasili Arkhipov, who prevented John Kennedy from destroying the world: . —CGE > On Nov 14, 2017, at 8:49 AM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: > > Under the Atomic Energy Act the President is given control over US nuclear weapons. It was put in there to guarantee civilian, not military, control of US nuclear weapons since the constitution sets up a system of civilian control for the Military. That is why US nuclear weapons are manufactured and controlled by the Department of the Energy and its predecessor instead of the Pentagon. When the nukes are fully assembled they are then turned over to the Pentagon for use where they are by-law under control of the President. Now with Trump Congress is reconsidering the arrangement. And Markey just said they are concerned about Trump launching a "pre-emptive" first nuclear strike on DPRK. Me too. Fab. > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign, IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Boyle, Francis A > Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 8:43 AM > To: 'C G Estabrook' > Cc: 'peace-discuss at anti-war.net' ; 'C. G. ESTABROOK' ; 'Jay' ; 'a-fields at uiuc.edu' ; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; Szoke, Ron ; 'Karen Aram' ; 'peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net' ; 'abass10 at gmail.com' ; 'sherwoodross10 at gmail.com' ; 'Joe Lauria' ; 'Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net' ; 'chicago at worldcantwait.net' ; 'mickalideh at gmail.com' ; 'Lina Thorne' ; 'Arlene Hickory' > Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific > > Today there are Congressional Hearings on legislation to control the president's first use of nuclear weapons. Congressman Markey just said on NPR they are concerned about Trump launching a "pre-emptive" nuclear first strike on DPRK. As for Bannon, he was pushed out of the White House by Trump's "My Generals", including SECWAR MAD DOG MATTIS. If I remember correctly Mad Dog said that whenever he goes into a room he figures out how he can kill everyone there. fab. > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign, IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Boyle, Francis A > Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 6:55 AM > To: C G Estabrook > Cc: peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; Jay ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; Szoke, Ron ; Karen Aram ; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; abass10 at gmail.com; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; chicago at worldcantwait.net; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; Arlene Hickory > Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific > > WAPO is now under new ownership: Bezos/Amazon/CIA. fab > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) > > > -----Original Message----- > From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] > Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 10:40 PM > To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; Jay ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; Szoke, Ron ; Karen Aram ; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; abass10 at gmail.com; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; chicago at worldcantwait.net; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; Arlene Hickory > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific > > No one can be wrong all the time. Rogin (whom I'm told speaks good Japanese…) here is merely reporting on Bannon’s interview with Robert Kuttner. > > Bannon is clearly correct. > > I’ve been reading the WaPo since I was young (& knew some of the family). I don’t think I have many illusions about it. > > But just as one once read Pravda to see what the Party was thinking, so now one reads the WaPo to see what the War Party is thinking. > > If the US nukes NK, I’ll apologize. > > A Pentagon brass-hat said the other day that the only way to ‘secure’ NK’s nukes was a ground invasion. That actually seems more likely to me than a US nuclear attack. > > But China wouldn't like it, and the last time the US tried it, it didn’t work. —CGE > > >> On Nov 13, 2017, at 9:42 PM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: >> >> Hope you are right. But SecWar Mad Dog Mattis disagrees with you. SecWar Mad Dog Mattis was asked this same question in ROK. He said the Pentagon had options to take out DPRK with no retaliation on Seoul. I take it he was indirectly referring to nuking them, which Trump openly threatening them with “fire and fury,” and everyone knew that meant nukes. So the Pentagon does have such an option as confirmed by Mad Dog publicly. As for citing anyone from WAPO, and especially Rogin,Carl you should know better than to rely upon WAPO Fake News. Fab. >> >> Francis A. Boyle >> Law Building >> 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. >> Champaign IL 61820 USA >> 217-333-7954 (phone) >> 217-244-1478 (fax) >> (personal comments only) >> >> From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] >> Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 9:26 PM >> To: Boyle, Francis A >> Cc: Karen Aram ; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. >> G. ESTABROOK ; Jay ; >> a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Miller, >> Joseph Thomas ; Szoke, Ron >> ; Joe Lauria ; >> peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; abass10 at gmail.com; >> sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; Arlene Hickory ; >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >> ; chicago at worldcantwait.net >> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts >> Exercise in Western Pacific >> >> [Josh Rogin WAPO August 17] In Washington, a “Kinsley gaffe” is when someone tells an obvious truth that isn’t supposed to be said. Such was the case when White House chief strategist Stephen K. Bannon told a reporter, in an interview published Wednesday, that there is no viable military option for stopping North Korea’s nuclear and missile programs. >> >> Bannon’s view is that any preemptive attack on North Korea would result in horrendous casualties in South Korea and elsewhere and therefore cannot be seriously considered. That view is shared by many officials, former officials and North Korea experts... >> >> By publicly declaring that the U.S. threat of military force in North Korea is a bluff, Bannon may have undermined the credibility of that threat. He may also have nudged the United States toward a more diplomacy-focused approach and reduced the risk of war. >> >> “There’s no military solution [to North Korea’s nuclear threats], forget it,” Bannon told the American Prospect. “Until somebody solves the part of the equation that shows me that 10 million people in Seoul don’t die in the first 30 minutes from conventional weapons, I don’t know what you’re talking about, there’s no military solution here, they got us.” >> >> For many North Korea watchers, Bannon was simply acknowledging a reality that the parties involved already understood; there is no viable scenario in which the United States could initiate a first strike against Pyongyang. >> >> “He’s absolutely right,” said former North Korea nuclear negotiator Joel S. Wit. “This is not a credible threat, and it really hasn’t been since the 1990s. We’ve been pretending it’s credible, but it really isn’t.” >> >> Such a move would guarantee devastating retaliation by Kim Jong Un against South Korea, Japan and the tens of thousands of U.S. troops there. Moreover, there’s no real way to be confident a U.S.-led military strike could destroy all of the dispersed and hidden components of North Korea’s illicit programs. >> >> Throw on top of that the danger that Kim could use a nuclear weapon, and it’s clear the United States can’t strike first. It’s likely a coincidence, but South Korean President Moon Jae-in also publicly declared that the military option is not on the table this week. >> >> “I can confidently say there will not be a war again on the Korean Peninsula,” Moon said. “The U.S. and President Trump also said, no matter what option they take about North Korea, all decisions will be made after consulting with and getting agreement with the Republic of Korea,” he added... >> >> Wit said that since the North Koreans understand the military dynamics as well as anyone, that threat was never really credible in the first place. >> >> “They figured out a long time ago the U.S. isn’t going to do anything,” he said. “Bannon may have undermined our pressure campaign, but the threat of military force has been a diminishing tool all along.” >> >> The larger effect could be that the Trump administration could now coalesce around a more diplomacy-focused strategy and move closer to direct negotiations with Pyongyang. Although Bannon didn’t specify his preferred policy, the alternative to attacking is clear: continuing to increase diplomatic and financial pressure on North Korea while exploring the chance for dialogue. >> >> The United States and North Korea have maintained a quiet diplomatic channel over the past months that could be used to set up more substantial negotiations. The Trump team has told foreign interlocutors that it remains open to negotiations with Pyongyang under the right conditions. >> >> Whether or not Bannon intended his remarks to be public, his warnings >> about the foolishness of attacking North Korea are correct, and they >> might even be helpful… >> >> Josh Rogin is a columnist for the Global Opinions section of The >> Washington Post. He writes about foreign policy and national security. >> Follow @joshrogin >> >> >> >> On Nov 13, 2017, at 5:33 PM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: >> >> The USG and the US Media have so demonized DPRK and KJU that the Pentagon could probably get away with nuking them and everyone would cheer. Fab. >> >> Francis A. Boyle >> Law Building >> 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. >> Champaign, IL 61820 USA >> 217-333-7954 (phone) >> 217-244-1478 (fax) >> (personal comments only) >> >> From: Boyle, Francis A >> Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 5:29 PM >> To: 'C G Estabrook' >> Cc: David Green ; Miller, Joseph Thomas >> ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; >> peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >> ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >> ; Joe Lauria ; >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; >> peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >> ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram >> ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina >> Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >> ; David Johnson ; >> Mildred O'brien >> Subject: RE: Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western >> Pacific >> >> It is possible if the Pentagon nukes them. Fab. >> >> Francis A. Boyle >> Law Building >> 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. >> Champaign, IL 61820 USA >> 217-333-7954 (phone) >> 217-244-1478 (fax) >> (personal comments only) >> >> From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] >> Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 5:19 PM >> To: Boyle, Francis A >> Cc: David Green ; Miller, Joseph Thomas >> ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; >> peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >> ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >> ; Joe Lauria ; >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; >> peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >> ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram >> ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina >> Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >> ; David Johnson ; >> Mildred O'brien >> Subject: Re: Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western >> Pacific >> >> And Steve Bannon pointed out the impossibility of military action against N. Korea: >> >> > s-right-about-north-korea/> >> >> >> On Nov 13, 2017, at 5:14 PM, Boyle, Francis A wrote: >> >> Yeah, thanks Carl. That's the way I see it too. I guess we shall see what happens. There was some Air Force General on the Tube a while ago saying we could take out DPRK in 4 hours. But the only way they could do that would be with nukes. Would not put it past them. Trump's speech about "fire and fury" clearly implied using nukes. So it is on their Radar Screen. Fab. >> >> Francis A. Boyle >> Law Building >> 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. >> Champaign, IL 61820 USA >> 217-333-7954 (phone) >> 217-244-1478 (fax) >> (personal comments only) >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] >> Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 5:10 PM >> To: Boyle, Francis A >> Cc: David Green ; Miller, Joseph Thomas >> ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; >> peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >> ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >> ; Joe Lauria ; >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; >> peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >> ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram >> ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina >> Thorne ;chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >> ; David Johnson ; >> Mildred O'brien >> Subject: Re: Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western >> Pacific >> >> I think this is quite right. Obama’s ‘pivot’ - war provocations vs. China - remains the War Party’s policy. >> >> They’re terribly afraid Trump will abandon it (and other pro-war policies) & so want to drive him from office. >> >> Brzezinski explicitly references Mackinder. US foreign policy makers learn nothing & forget nothing. >> >> —CGE >> >> >> >> On Nov 13, 2017, at 4:58 PM, Boyle, Francis A wrote: >> >> This massive concentration of US naval forces had to have been planned and war-gamed far in advance of Trump by the Pentagon, probably going back to Obama launching his Pivot to Asia, which is really a Pivot against China, under the influence of his Guru Brzezinski as explained in his Grand Chessboard. Fab. >> >> Francis A. Boyle >> Law Building >> 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. >> Champaign, IL 61820 USA >> 217-333-7954 (phone) >> 217-244-1478 (fax) >> (personal comments only) >> >> From: U.S. Department of Defense >> [mailto:govdelivery at subscriptions.dod.mil] >> Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 3:45 PM >> To: Boyle, Francis A >> Subject: Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western >> Pacific >> >> You are subscribed to News Articles for U.S. Department of Defense. This information has recently been updated, and is now available. >> >> >> >> Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific >> 11/13/2017 03:04 PM CST >> >> >> The USS Ronald Reagan, USS Theodore Roosevelt and USS Nimitz Strike >> Groups transit the Western Pacific with ships from the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force in the Western Pacific, Nov. 12, 2017. The three aircraft carriers and their strike groups are conducting operations in international waters as part of a strike force exercise. The Navy has patrolled the Indo-Asia-Pacific region routinely for more than 70 years promoting regional security, stability and prosperity. Navy photo by Petty Officer 3rd Class Anthony J. Rivera (Click photo for screen-resolution image);high-resolution imageavailable. >> Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific >> >> By Lisa Ferdinando >> >> DoD News, Defense Media Activity >> >> WASHINGTON, Nov. 13, 2017 — A three-carrier naval force is finishing a multi-day exercise in the Western Pacific, demonstrating the Navy's unique capability to operate multiple carrier strike groups as a coordinated effort, according to Navy officials. >> >> “The United States Navy is the only force in the world able to carry out such an exercise,” a Navy official told DoD News. >> >> The exercise features the aircraft carriers USS Ronald Reagan, USS Nimitz, and USS Theodore Roosevelt and includes air defense drills, sea surveillance, replenishments at sea, defensive air combat training, close-in coordinated maneuvers and other training, Navy officials said. >> >> Ships from Japan and South Korea joined the exercise, officials said. >> >> Triple Aircraft Carrier Training >> >> "It is a rare opportunity to train with two aircraft carriers together, and even rarer to be able to train with three," the U.S. Pacific Fleet commander, Navy Adm. Scott Swift, said in a U.S. 7th Fleet release. >> >> "Multiple carrier strike force operations are very complex,” Swift said. >> >> He added, “This exercise in the Western Pacific is a strong testament to the U.S. Pacific Fleet's unique ability and ironclad commitment to the continued security and stability of the region." >> >> The exercise is the first time three carrier strike groups have operated together in the Western Pacific since exercises Valiant Shield 2006 and 2007 off the coast of Guam, according to Navy officials. >> >> Officials point out Navy aircraft carriers more recently have conducted dual-carrier strike group operations in the Western Pacific including in the South China Sea, East China Sea and Philippine Sea. >> >> These exercises typically happen when an aircraft carrier deployed to the 7th Fleet area of operations joins with the carrier based in Japan. In this instance, the Nimitz was finishing a deployment in the 5th Fleet area -- the Persian Gulf -- and the Roosevelt was relieving it. The Reagan -- homeported in Japan -- joined the other two carriers, which are based in the Western United States. >> >> (Follow Lisa Ferdinando on Twitter: @FerdinandoDoD) >> >> Related Links >> >> U.S. Pacific Command >> Special Report: DoD Focus on the Asia-Pacific >> > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss From fboyle at illinois.edu Tue Nov 14 15:32:41 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2017 15:32:41 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific In-Reply-To: <05607FB6-C8B2-4632-B448-92236CD13496@gmail.com> References: <17467243.13521@subscriptions.dod.mil> <7DBCEB5B-D9A5-40B4-9B08-D876AF7CAD74@gmail.com> <05607FB6-C8B2-4632-B448-92236CD13496@gmail.com> Message-ID: ..civilian) control over nukes is not a bad idea ------------------------- That's already in and required by the Constitution. That is why Congress made it clear in the Atomic Energy Act that it would be the President and not the Military who control the use of nuclear weapons: Today that means Trump himself. Terribile dictu! Hence the Congressional Hearings today. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -----Original Message----- From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 9:26 AM To: Boyle, Francis A Cc: peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; Jay ; Arlene Hickory ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; Szoke, Ron ; Karen Aram ; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; abass10 at gmail.com; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific Trump, from his recent discussions with Xi, is not pressing for that - but rather for cooperation with the BRI. OTOH the War Party, who want to rattle the nuclear saber, are represented by Kelly, Mattis, and McMaster. Trump is not the problem: traditional US ruling class hostility to Eurasian economic integration is. Corporate (civilian) control over nukes is not a bad idea. But remember the late Vasili Arkhipov, who prevented John Kennedy from destroying the world: . —CGE > On Nov 14, 2017, at 8:49 AM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: > > Under the Atomic Energy Act the President is given control over US nuclear weapons. It was put in there to guarantee civilian, not military, control of US nuclear weapons since the constitution sets up a system of civilian control for the Military. That is why US nuclear weapons are manufactured and controlled by the Department of the Energy and its predecessor instead of the Pentagon. When the nukes are fully assembled they are then turned over to the Pentagon for use where they are by-law under control of the President. Now with Trump Congress is reconsidering the arrangement. And Markey just said they are concerned about Trump launching a "pre-emptive" first nuclear strike on DPRK. Me too. Fab. > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign, IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Boyle, Francis A > Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 8:43 AM > To: 'C G Estabrook' > Cc: 'peace-discuss at anti-war.net' ; 'C. G. > ESTABROOK' ; 'Jay' ; > 'a-fields at uiuc.edu' ; Hoffman, Valerie J > ; Miller, Joseph Thomas > ; Szoke, Ron ; 'Karen > Aram' ; > 'peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net' > ; 'abass10 at gmail.com' > ; 'sherwoodross10 at gmail.com' > ; 'Joe Lauria' ; > 'Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net' ; > 'chicago at worldcantwait.net' ; > 'mickalideh at gmail.com' ; 'Lina Thorne' > ; 'Arlene Hickory' > Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts > Exercise in Western Pacific > > Today there are Congressional Hearings on legislation to control the president's first use of nuclear weapons. Congressman Markey just said on NPR they are concerned about Trump launching a "pre-emptive" nuclear first strike on DPRK. As for Bannon, he was pushed out of the White House by Trump's "My Generals", including SECWAR MAD DOG MATTIS. If I remember correctly Mad Dog said that whenever he goes into a room he figures out how he can kill everyone there. fab. > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign, IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Boyle, Francis A > Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 6:55 AM > To: C G Estabrook > Cc: peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK > ; Jay ; > a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Miller, > Joseph Thomas ; Szoke, Ron > ; Karen Aram ; > peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; abass10 at gmail.com; > sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; Joe Lauria ; > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; chicago at worldcantwait.net; > mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; Arlene > Hickory > Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts > Exercise in Western Pacific > > WAPO is now under new ownership: Bezos/Amazon/CIA. fab > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) > > > -----Original Message----- > From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] > Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 10:40 PM > To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK > ; Jay ; > a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Miller, > Joseph Thomas ; Szoke, Ron > ; Karen Aram ; > peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; abass10 at gmail.com; > sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; Joe Lauria ; > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; chicago at worldcantwait.net; > mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; Arlene > Hickory > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts > Exercise in Western Pacific > > No one can be wrong all the time. Rogin (whom I'm told speaks good Japanese…) here is merely reporting on Bannon’s interview with Robert Kuttner. > > Bannon is clearly correct. > > I’ve been reading the WaPo since I was young (& knew some of the family). I don’t think I have many illusions about it. > > But just as one once read Pravda to see what the Party was thinking, so now one reads the WaPo to see what the War Party is thinking. > > If the US nukes NK, I’ll apologize. > > A Pentagon brass-hat said the other day that the only way to ‘secure’ NK’s nukes was a ground invasion. That actually seems more likely to me than a US nuclear attack. > > But China wouldn't like it, and the last time the US tried it, it > didn’t work. —CGE > > >> On Nov 13, 2017, at 9:42 PM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: >> >> Hope you are right. But SecWar Mad Dog Mattis disagrees with you. SecWar Mad Dog Mattis was asked this same question in ROK. He said the Pentagon had options to take out DPRK with no retaliation on Seoul. I take it he was indirectly referring to nuking them, which Trump openly threatening them with “fire and fury,” and everyone knew that meant nukes. So the Pentagon does have such an option as confirmed by Mad Dog publicly. As for citing anyone from WAPO, and especially Rogin,Carl you should know better than to rely upon WAPO Fake News. Fab. >> >> Francis A. Boyle >> Law Building >> 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. >> Champaign IL 61820 USA >> 217-333-7954 (phone) >> 217-244-1478 (fax) >> (personal comments only) >> >> From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] >> Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 9:26 PM >> To: Boyle, Francis A >> Cc: Karen Aram ; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. >> G. ESTABROOK ; Jay ; >> a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; >> Miller, Joseph Thomas ; Szoke, Ron >> ; Joe Lauria ; >> peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; abass10 at gmail.com; >> sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; Arlene Hickory ; >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >> ; chicago at worldcantwait.net >> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts >> Exercise in Western Pacific >> >> [Josh Rogin WAPO August 17] In Washington, a “Kinsley gaffe” is when someone tells an obvious truth that isn’t supposed to be said. Such was the case when White House chief strategist Stephen K. Bannon told a reporter, in an interview published Wednesday, that there is no viable military option for stopping North Korea’s nuclear and missile programs. >> >> Bannon’s view is that any preemptive attack on North Korea would result in horrendous casualties in South Korea and elsewhere and therefore cannot be seriously considered. That view is shared by many officials, former officials and North Korea experts... >> >> By publicly declaring that the U.S. threat of military force in North Korea is a bluff, Bannon may have undermined the credibility of that threat. He may also have nudged the United States toward a more diplomacy-focused approach and reduced the risk of war. >> >> “There’s no military solution [to North Korea’s nuclear threats], forget it,” Bannon told the American Prospect. “Until somebody solves the part of the equation that shows me that 10 million people in Seoul don’t die in the first 30 minutes from conventional weapons, I don’t know what you’re talking about, there’s no military solution here, they got us.” >> >> For many North Korea watchers, Bannon was simply acknowledging a reality that the parties involved already understood; there is no viable scenario in which the United States could initiate a first strike against Pyongyang. >> >> “He’s absolutely right,” said former North Korea nuclear negotiator Joel S. Wit. “This is not a credible threat, and it really hasn’t been since the 1990s. We’ve been pretending it’s credible, but it really isn’t.” >> >> Such a move would guarantee devastating retaliation by Kim Jong Un against South Korea, Japan and the tens of thousands of U.S. troops there. Moreover, there’s no real way to be confident a U.S.-led military strike could destroy all of the dispersed and hidden components of North Korea’s illicit programs. >> >> Throw on top of that the danger that Kim could use a nuclear weapon, and it’s clear the United States can’t strike first. It’s likely a coincidence, but South Korean President Moon Jae-in also publicly declared that the military option is not on the table this week. >> >> “I can confidently say there will not be a war again on the Korean Peninsula,” Moon said. “The U.S. and President Trump also said, no matter what option they take about North Korea, all decisions will be made after consulting with and getting agreement with the Republic of Korea,” he added... >> >> Wit said that since the North Koreans understand the military dynamics as well as anyone, that threat was never really credible in the first place. >> >> “They figured out a long time ago the U.S. isn’t going to do anything,” he said. “Bannon may have undermined our pressure campaign, but the threat of military force has been a diminishing tool all along.” >> >> The larger effect could be that the Trump administration could now coalesce around a more diplomacy-focused strategy and move closer to direct negotiations with Pyongyang. Although Bannon didn’t specify his preferred policy, the alternative to attacking is clear: continuing to increase diplomatic and financial pressure on North Korea while exploring the chance for dialogue. >> >> The United States and North Korea have maintained a quiet diplomatic channel over the past months that could be used to set up more substantial negotiations. The Trump team has told foreign interlocutors that it remains open to negotiations with Pyongyang under the right conditions. >> >> Whether or not Bannon intended his remarks to be public, his warnings >> about the foolishness of attacking North Korea are correct, and they >> might even be helpful… >> >> Josh Rogin is a columnist for the Global Opinions section of The >> Washington Post. He writes about foreign policy and national security. >> Follow @joshrogin >> >> >> >> On Nov 13, 2017, at 5:33 PM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: >> >> The USG and the US Media have so demonized DPRK and KJU that the Pentagon could probably get away with nuking them and everyone would cheer. Fab. >> >> Francis A. Boyle >> Law Building >> 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. >> Champaign, IL 61820 USA >> 217-333-7954 (phone) >> 217-244-1478 (fax) >> (personal comments only) >> >> From: Boyle, Francis A >> Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 5:29 PM >> To: 'C G Estabrook' >> Cc: David Green ; Miller, Joseph Thomas >> ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; >> peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >> ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >> ; Joe Lauria ; >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; >> peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >> ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram >> ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; >> Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >> ; David Johnson >> ; Mildred O'brien >> Subject: RE: Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western >> Pacific >> >> It is possible if the Pentagon nukes them. Fab. >> >> Francis A. Boyle >> Law Building >> 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. >> Champaign, IL 61820 USA >> 217-333-7954 (phone) >> 217-244-1478 (fax) >> (personal comments only) >> >> From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] >> Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 5:19 PM >> To: Boyle, Francis A >> Cc: David Green ; Miller, Joseph Thomas >> ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; >> peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >> ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >> ; Joe Lauria ; >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; >> peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >> ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram >> ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; >> Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >> ; David Johnson >> ; Mildred O'brien >> Subject: Re: Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western >> Pacific >> >> And Steve Bannon pointed out the impossibility of military action against N. Korea: >> >> > i >> s-right-about-north-korea/> >> >> >> On Nov 13, 2017, at 5:14 PM, Boyle, Francis A wrote: >> >> Yeah, thanks Carl. That's the way I see it too. I guess we shall see what happens. There was some Air Force General on the Tube a while ago saying we could take out DPRK in 4 hours. But the only way they could do that would be with nukes. Would not put it past them. Trump's speech about "fire and fury" clearly implied using nukes. So it is on their Radar Screen. Fab. >> >> Francis A. Boyle >> Law Building >> 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. >> Champaign, IL 61820 USA >> 217-333-7954 (phone) >> 217-244-1478 (fax) >> (personal comments only) >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] >> Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 5:10 PM >> To: Boyle, Francis A >> Cc: David Green ; Miller, Joseph Thomas >> ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; >> peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >> ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >> ; Joe Lauria ; >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; >> peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >> ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram >> ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; >> Lina Thorne ;chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >> ; David Johnson >> ; Mildred O'brien >> Subject: Re: Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western >> Pacific >> >> I think this is quite right. Obama’s ‘pivot’ - war provocations vs. China - remains the War Party’s policy. >> >> They’re terribly afraid Trump will abandon it (and other pro-war policies) & so want to drive him from office. >> >> Brzezinski explicitly references Mackinder. US foreign policy makers learn nothing & forget nothing. >> >> —CGE >> >> >> >> On Nov 13, 2017, at 4:58 PM, Boyle, Francis A wrote: >> >> This massive concentration of US naval forces had to have been planned and war-gamed far in advance of Trump by the Pentagon, probably going back to Obama launching his Pivot to Asia, which is really a Pivot against China, under the influence of his Guru Brzezinski as explained in his Grand Chessboard. Fab. >> >> Francis A. Boyle >> Law Building >> 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. >> Champaign, IL 61820 USA >> 217-333-7954 (phone) >> 217-244-1478 (fax) >> (personal comments only) >> >> From: U.S. Department of Defense >> [mailto:govdelivery at subscriptions.dod.mil] >> Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 3:45 PM >> To: Boyle, Francis A >> Subject: Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western >> Pacific >> >> You are subscribed to News Articles for U.S. Department of Defense. This information has recently been updated, and is now available. >> >> >> >> Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific >> 11/13/2017 03:04 PM CST >> >> >> The USS Ronald Reagan, USS Theodore Roosevelt and USS Nimitz Strike >> Groups transit the Western Pacific with ships from the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force in the Western Pacific, Nov. 12, 2017. The three aircraft carriers and their strike groups are conducting operations in international waters as part of a strike force exercise. The Navy has patrolled the Indo-Asia-Pacific region routinely for more than 70 years promoting regional security, stability and prosperity. Navy photo by Petty Officer 3rd Class Anthony J. Rivera (Click photo for screen-resolution image);high-resolution imageavailable. >> Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific >> >> By Lisa Ferdinando >> >> DoD News, Defense Media Activity >> >> WASHINGTON, Nov. 13, 2017 — A three-carrier naval force is finishing a multi-day exercise in the Western Pacific, demonstrating the Navy's unique capability to operate multiple carrier strike groups as a coordinated effort, according to Navy officials. >> >> “The United States Navy is the only force in the world able to carry out such an exercise,” a Navy official told DoD News. >> >> The exercise features the aircraft carriers USS Ronald Reagan, USS Nimitz, and USS Theodore Roosevelt and includes air defense drills, sea surveillance, replenishments at sea, defensive air combat training, close-in coordinated maneuvers and other training, Navy officials said. >> >> Ships from Japan and South Korea joined the exercise, officials said. >> >> Triple Aircraft Carrier Training >> >> "It is a rare opportunity to train with two aircraft carriers together, and even rarer to be able to train with three," the U.S. Pacific Fleet commander, Navy Adm. Scott Swift, said in a U.S. 7th Fleet release. >> >> "Multiple carrier strike force operations are very complex,” Swift said. >> >> He added, “This exercise in the Western Pacific is a strong testament to the U.S. Pacific Fleet's unique ability and ironclad commitment to the continued security and stability of the region." >> >> The exercise is the first time three carrier strike groups have operated together in the Western Pacific since exercises Valiant Shield 2006 and 2007 off the coast of Guam, according to Navy officials. >> >> Officials point out Navy aircraft carriers more recently have conducted dual-carrier strike group operations in the Western Pacific including in the South China Sea, East China Sea and Philippine Sea. >> >> These exercises typically happen when an aircraft carrier deployed to the 7th Fleet area of operations joins with the carrier based in Japan. In this instance, the Nimitz was finishing a deployment in the 5th Fleet area -- the Persian Gulf -- and the Roosevelt was relieving it. The Reagan -- homeported in Japan -- joined the other two carriers, which are based in the Western United States. >> >> (Follow Lisa Ferdinando on Twitter: @FerdinandoDoD) >> >> Related Links >> >> U.S. Pacific Command >> Special Report: DoD Focus on the Asia-Pacific >> > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss From fboyle at illinois.edu Tue Nov 14 15:32:41 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2017 15:32:41 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific In-Reply-To: <05607FB6-C8B2-4632-B448-92236CD13496@gmail.com> References: <17467243.13521@subscriptions.dod.mil> <7DBCEB5B-D9A5-40B4-9B08-D876AF7CAD74@gmail.com> <05607FB6-C8B2-4632-B448-92236CD13496@gmail.com> Message-ID: ..civilian) control over nukes is not a bad idea ------------------------- That's already in and required by the Constitution. That is why Congress made it clear in the Atomic Energy Act that it would be the President and not the Military who control the use of nuclear weapons: Today that means Trump himself. Terribile dictu! Hence the Congressional Hearings today. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -----Original Message----- From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 9:26 AM To: Boyle, Francis A Cc: peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; Jay ; Arlene Hickory ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; Szoke, Ron ; Karen Aram ; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; abass10 at gmail.com; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific Trump, from his recent discussions with Xi, is not pressing for that - but rather for cooperation with the BRI. OTOH the War Party, who want to rattle the nuclear saber, are represented by Kelly, Mattis, and McMaster. Trump is not the problem: traditional US ruling class hostility to Eurasian economic integration is. Corporate (civilian) control over nukes is not a bad idea. But remember the late Vasili Arkhipov, who prevented John Kennedy from destroying the world: . —CGE > On Nov 14, 2017, at 8:49 AM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: > > Under the Atomic Energy Act the President is given control over US nuclear weapons. It was put in there to guarantee civilian, not military, control of US nuclear weapons since the constitution sets up a system of civilian control for the Military. That is why US nuclear weapons are manufactured and controlled by the Department of the Energy and its predecessor instead of the Pentagon. When the nukes are fully assembled they are then turned over to the Pentagon for use where they are by-law under control of the President. Now with Trump Congress is reconsidering the arrangement. And Markey just said they are concerned about Trump launching a "pre-emptive" first nuclear strike on DPRK. Me too. Fab. > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign, IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Boyle, Francis A > Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 8:43 AM > To: 'C G Estabrook' > Cc: 'peace-discuss at anti-war.net' ; 'C. G. > ESTABROOK' ; 'Jay' ; > 'a-fields at uiuc.edu' ; Hoffman, Valerie J > ; Miller, Joseph Thomas > ; Szoke, Ron ; 'Karen > Aram' ; > 'peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net' > ; 'abass10 at gmail.com' > ; 'sherwoodross10 at gmail.com' > ; 'Joe Lauria' ; > 'Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net' ; > 'chicago at worldcantwait.net' ; > 'mickalideh at gmail.com' ; 'Lina Thorne' > ; 'Arlene Hickory' > Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts > Exercise in Western Pacific > > Today there are Congressional Hearings on legislation to control the president's first use of nuclear weapons. Congressman Markey just said on NPR they are concerned about Trump launching a "pre-emptive" nuclear first strike on DPRK. As for Bannon, he was pushed out of the White House by Trump's "My Generals", including SECWAR MAD DOG MATTIS. If I remember correctly Mad Dog said that whenever he goes into a room he figures out how he can kill everyone there. fab. > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign, IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Boyle, Francis A > Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 6:55 AM > To: C G Estabrook > Cc: peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK > ; Jay ; > a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Miller, > Joseph Thomas ; Szoke, Ron > ; Karen Aram ; > peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; abass10 at gmail.com; > sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; Joe Lauria ; > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; chicago at worldcantwait.net; > mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; Arlene > Hickory > Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts > Exercise in Western Pacific > > WAPO is now under new ownership: Bezos/Amazon/CIA. fab > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) > > > -----Original Message----- > From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] > Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 10:40 PM > To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK > ; Jay ; > a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Miller, > Joseph Thomas ; Szoke, Ron > ; Karen Aram ; > peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; abass10 at gmail.com; > sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; Joe Lauria ; > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; chicago at worldcantwait.net; > mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; Arlene > Hickory > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts > Exercise in Western Pacific > > No one can be wrong all the time. Rogin (whom I'm told speaks good Japanese…) here is merely reporting on Bannon’s interview with Robert Kuttner. > > Bannon is clearly correct. > > I’ve been reading the WaPo since I was young (& knew some of the family). I don’t think I have many illusions about it. > > But just as one once read Pravda to see what the Party was thinking, so now one reads the WaPo to see what the War Party is thinking. > > If the US nukes NK, I’ll apologize. > > A Pentagon brass-hat said the other day that the only way to ‘secure’ NK’s nukes was a ground invasion. That actually seems more likely to me than a US nuclear attack. > > But China wouldn't like it, and the last time the US tried it, it > didn’t work. —CGE > > >> On Nov 13, 2017, at 9:42 PM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: >> >> Hope you are right. But SecWar Mad Dog Mattis disagrees with you. SecWar Mad Dog Mattis was asked this same question in ROK. He said the Pentagon had options to take out DPRK with no retaliation on Seoul. I take it he was indirectly referring to nuking them, which Trump openly threatening them with “fire and fury,” and everyone knew that meant nukes. So the Pentagon does have such an option as confirmed by Mad Dog publicly. As for citing anyone from WAPO, and especially Rogin,Carl you should know better than to rely upon WAPO Fake News. Fab. >> >> Francis A. Boyle >> Law Building >> 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. >> Champaign IL 61820 USA >> 217-333-7954 (phone) >> 217-244-1478 (fax) >> (personal comments only) >> >> From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] >> Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 9:26 PM >> To: Boyle, Francis A >> Cc: Karen Aram ; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. >> G. ESTABROOK ; Jay ; >> a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; >> Miller, Joseph Thomas ; Szoke, Ron >> ; Joe Lauria ; >> peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; abass10 at gmail.com; >> sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; Arlene Hickory ; >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >> ; chicago at worldcantwait.net >> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts >> Exercise in Western Pacific >> >> [Josh Rogin WAPO August 17] In Washington, a “Kinsley gaffe” is when someone tells an obvious truth that isn’t supposed to be said. Such was the case when White House chief strategist Stephen K. Bannon told a reporter, in an interview published Wednesday, that there is no viable military option for stopping North Korea’s nuclear and missile programs. >> >> Bannon’s view is that any preemptive attack on North Korea would result in horrendous casualties in South Korea and elsewhere and therefore cannot be seriously considered. That view is shared by many officials, former officials and North Korea experts... >> >> By publicly declaring that the U.S. threat of military force in North Korea is a bluff, Bannon may have undermined the credibility of that threat. He may also have nudged the United States toward a more diplomacy-focused approach and reduced the risk of war. >> >> “There’s no military solution [to North Korea’s nuclear threats], forget it,” Bannon told the American Prospect. “Until somebody solves the part of the equation that shows me that 10 million people in Seoul don’t die in the first 30 minutes from conventional weapons, I don’t know what you’re talking about, there’s no military solution here, they got us.” >> >> For many North Korea watchers, Bannon was simply acknowledging a reality that the parties involved already understood; there is no viable scenario in which the United States could initiate a first strike against Pyongyang. >> >> “He’s absolutely right,” said former North Korea nuclear negotiator Joel S. Wit. “This is not a credible threat, and it really hasn’t been since the 1990s. We’ve been pretending it’s credible, but it really isn’t.” >> >> Such a move would guarantee devastating retaliation by Kim Jong Un against South Korea, Japan and the tens of thousands of U.S. troops there. Moreover, there’s no real way to be confident a U.S.-led military strike could destroy all of the dispersed and hidden components of North Korea’s illicit programs. >> >> Throw on top of that the danger that Kim could use a nuclear weapon, and it’s clear the United States can’t strike first. It’s likely a coincidence, but South Korean President Moon Jae-in also publicly declared that the military option is not on the table this week. >> >> “I can confidently say there will not be a war again on the Korean Peninsula,” Moon said. “The U.S. and President Trump also said, no matter what option they take about North Korea, all decisions will be made after consulting with and getting agreement with the Republic of Korea,” he added... >> >> Wit said that since the North Koreans understand the military dynamics as well as anyone, that threat was never really credible in the first place. >> >> “They figured out a long time ago the U.S. isn’t going to do anything,” he said. “Bannon may have undermined our pressure campaign, but the threat of military force has been a diminishing tool all along.” >> >> The larger effect could be that the Trump administration could now coalesce around a more diplomacy-focused strategy and move closer to direct negotiations with Pyongyang. Although Bannon didn’t specify his preferred policy, the alternative to attacking is clear: continuing to increase diplomatic and financial pressure on North Korea while exploring the chance for dialogue. >> >> The United States and North Korea have maintained a quiet diplomatic channel over the past months that could be used to set up more substantial negotiations. The Trump team has told foreign interlocutors that it remains open to negotiations with Pyongyang under the right conditions. >> >> Whether or not Bannon intended his remarks to be public, his warnings >> about the foolishness of attacking North Korea are correct, and they >> might even be helpful… >> >> Josh Rogin is a columnist for the Global Opinions section of The >> Washington Post. He writes about foreign policy and national security. >> Follow @joshrogin >> >> >> >> On Nov 13, 2017, at 5:33 PM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: >> >> The USG and the US Media have so demonized DPRK and KJU that the Pentagon could probably get away with nuking them and everyone would cheer. Fab. >> >> Francis A. Boyle >> Law Building >> 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. >> Champaign, IL 61820 USA >> 217-333-7954 (phone) >> 217-244-1478 (fax) >> (personal comments only) >> >> From: Boyle, Francis A >> Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 5:29 PM >> To: 'C G Estabrook' >> Cc: David Green ; Miller, Joseph Thomas >> ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; >> peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >> ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >> ; Joe Lauria ; >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; >> peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >> ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram >> ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; >> Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >> ; David Johnson >> ; Mildred O'brien >> Subject: RE: Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western >> Pacific >> >> It is possible if the Pentagon nukes them. Fab. >> >> Francis A. Boyle >> Law Building >> 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. >> Champaign, IL 61820 USA >> 217-333-7954 (phone) >> 217-244-1478 (fax) >> (personal comments only) >> >> From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] >> Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 5:19 PM >> To: Boyle, Francis A >> Cc: David Green ; Miller, Joseph Thomas >> ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; >> peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >> ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >> ; Joe Lauria ; >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; >> peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >> ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram >> ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; >> Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >> ; David Johnson >> ; Mildred O'brien >> Subject: Re: Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western >> Pacific >> >> And Steve Bannon pointed out the impossibility of military action against N. Korea: >> >> > i >> s-right-about-north-korea/> >> >> >> On Nov 13, 2017, at 5:14 PM, Boyle, Francis A wrote: >> >> Yeah, thanks Carl. That's the way I see it too. I guess we shall see what happens. There was some Air Force General on the Tube a while ago saying we could take out DPRK in 4 hours. But the only way they could do that would be with nukes. Would not put it past them. Trump's speech about "fire and fury" clearly implied using nukes. So it is on their Radar Screen. Fab. >> >> Francis A. Boyle >> Law Building >> 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. >> Champaign, IL 61820 USA >> 217-333-7954 (phone) >> 217-244-1478 (fax) >> (personal comments only) >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] >> Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 5:10 PM >> To: Boyle, Francis A >> Cc: David Green ; Miller, Joseph Thomas >> ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; >> peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >> ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >> ; Joe Lauria ; >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; >> peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >> ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram >> ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; >> Lina Thorne ;chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >> ; David Johnson >> ; Mildred O'brien >> Subject: Re: Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western >> Pacific >> >> I think this is quite right. Obama’s ‘pivot’ - war provocations vs. China - remains the War Party’s policy. >> >> They’re terribly afraid Trump will abandon it (and other pro-war policies) & so want to drive him from office. >> >> Brzezinski explicitly references Mackinder. US foreign policy makers learn nothing & forget nothing. >> >> —CGE >> >> >> >> On Nov 13, 2017, at 4:58 PM, Boyle, Francis A wrote: >> >> This massive concentration of US naval forces had to have been planned and war-gamed far in advance of Trump by the Pentagon, probably going back to Obama launching his Pivot to Asia, which is really a Pivot against China, under the influence of his Guru Brzezinski as explained in his Grand Chessboard. Fab. >> >> Francis A. Boyle >> Law Building >> 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. >> Champaign, IL 61820 USA >> 217-333-7954 (phone) >> 217-244-1478 (fax) >> (personal comments only) >> >> From: U.S. Department of Defense >> [mailto:govdelivery at subscriptions.dod.mil] >> Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 3:45 PM >> To: Boyle, Francis A >> Subject: Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western >> Pacific >> >> You are subscribed to News Articles for U.S. Department of Defense. This information has recently been updated, and is now available. >> >> >> >> Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific >> 11/13/2017 03:04 PM CST >> >> >> The USS Ronald Reagan, USS Theodore Roosevelt and USS Nimitz Strike >> Groups transit the Western Pacific with ships from the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force in the Western Pacific, Nov. 12, 2017. The three aircraft carriers and their strike groups are conducting operations in international waters as part of a strike force exercise. The Navy has patrolled the Indo-Asia-Pacific region routinely for more than 70 years promoting regional security, stability and prosperity. Navy photo by Petty Officer 3rd Class Anthony J. Rivera (Click photo for screen-resolution image);high-resolution imageavailable. >> Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific >> >> By Lisa Ferdinando >> >> DoD News, Defense Media Activity >> >> WASHINGTON, Nov. 13, 2017 — A three-carrier naval force is finishing a multi-day exercise in the Western Pacific, demonstrating the Navy's unique capability to operate multiple carrier strike groups as a coordinated effort, according to Navy officials. >> >> “The United States Navy is the only force in the world able to carry out such an exercise,” a Navy official told DoD News. >> >> The exercise features the aircraft carriers USS Ronald Reagan, USS Nimitz, and USS Theodore Roosevelt and includes air defense drills, sea surveillance, replenishments at sea, defensive air combat training, close-in coordinated maneuvers and other training, Navy officials said. >> >> Ships from Japan and South Korea joined the exercise, officials said. >> >> Triple Aircraft Carrier Training >> >> "It is a rare opportunity to train with two aircraft carriers together, and even rarer to be able to train with three," the U.S. Pacific Fleet commander, Navy Adm. Scott Swift, said in a U.S. 7th Fleet release. >> >> "Multiple carrier strike force operations are very complex,” Swift said. >> >> He added, “This exercise in the Western Pacific is a strong testament to the U.S. Pacific Fleet's unique ability and ironclad commitment to the continued security and stability of the region." >> >> The exercise is the first time three carrier strike groups have operated together in the Western Pacific since exercises Valiant Shield 2006 and 2007 off the coast of Guam, according to Navy officials. >> >> Officials point out Navy aircraft carriers more recently have conducted dual-carrier strike group operations in the Western Pacific including in the South China Sea, East China Sea and Philippine Sea. >> >> These exercises typically happen when an aircraft carrier deployed to the 7th Fleet area of operations joins with the carrier based in Japan. In this instance, the Nimitz was finishing a deployment in the 5th Fleet area -- the Persian Gulf -- and the Roosevelt was relieving it. The Reagan -- homeported in Japan -- joined the other two carriers, which are based in the Western United States. >> >> (Follow Lisa Ferdinando on Twitter: @FerdinandoDoD) >> >> Related Links >> >> U.S. Pacific Command >> Special Report: DoD Focus on the Asia-Pacific >> > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss From karenaram at hotmail.com Tue Nov 14 15:35:03 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2017 15:35:03 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: References: Message-ID: The below event would be worthwhile, if, it focused on “ending wars, “stop the so called “tax reform bill” which impoverishes all but the wealthy elites,” “support single payer healthcare for all,” “provide jobs, utilizing infrastructure projects to improve public transportation and clean energy,” “end capitalist exploitation.” The current focus is a waste of time and energy and doesn’t unite the American people over the government of oppression, it does nothing more than create chaos and division. [All Events in City] Your account has been inactive for more than a month. To continue receiving event alerts, please Login again. RefuseFascism.org has a new event for you. Trump & Pence Must Go! Break the Silence, Bring the Noise [Trump & Pence Must Go! Break the Silence, Bring the Noise] [Time] Sat Nov 18 2017 at 01:00 pm [Venue] Washington Sq S, New York, NY 10012, United States Join Event Saturday November 18 - Washington Square Park. 1pm. This nightmare must end. The Trump/Pence Regime Must Go. Break the silence and BRING the noise. Pots and Pans. Drums and Marching Bands. On November 18, we wil bring joyful and insistent noise that Trump and Pence Must Go! We will sound the alarm and break through the silence of normalization. We will march to a beat with determination that this regime will NOT destory humanity and the planet. Bring your family & bring your friends. Be creative! Recommend this event to your friends, share on Facebook and Twitter! Social Event Discovery App Stay updated about your favorite events. Know where your friends are going and discover events of your interest. [All Events in City on Google Play] [All Events in City on app store] [https://cdn.allevents.in/new/images/email/mobile-app-trans-270.png] [Publish your Event] About us Blog Terms of Service Careers Contact us Facebook Twitter Google+ This email was sent to you as your are following RefuseFascism.org. If you do not wish to receive emails for event updates, Disable notification for RefuseFascism.org or Turn off email notifications for new events from all the organizers. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From futureup2us at gmail.com Tue Nov 14 15:44:38 2017 From: futureup2us at gmail.com (Jay Becker) Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2017 09:44:38 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific In-Reply-To: References: <17467243.13521@subscriptions.dod.mil> <7DBCEB5B-D9A5-40B4-9B08-D876AF7CAD74@gmail.com> Message-ID: An article by Paul Atwood, originally published by Counterpunch and reposted by Revolution newspaper, Stop the Insanity and Negotiate Peace in Korea before It is Too Late supports your analysis, Francis, positioning the current Trump regime threats against the DPRK squarely in the long, sordid history of US attempts to dominate the Korean peninsula as part of seeking imperial control of Asia and the unspeakable devastation that has meant for the Korean people. They are both/all ‘war parties.' Jay > On Nov 14, 2017, at 09:08, Boyle, Francis A wrote: > > "Everything under heaven is in utter chaos;..." > I agree with that. But we are dealing overtly threatened nuclear war by Trump himself against DPRK surrounded by "My Generals." So I see that as potentially "disastrous" and not "excellent". > > Fab > > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign, IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) > > > -----Original Message----- > From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] > Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 9:03 AM > To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; Jay ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; Szoke, Ron ; Karen Aram ; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; abass10 at gmail.com; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; chicago at worldcantwait.net; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; Arlene Hickory > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific > > The foreign policy question now is whether Trump and his ‘kitchen cabinet’ (including Bannon) can hold out against the War Party (including the troika - McMaster, Mattis, & Kelly). > > Another way to put it is as the economic nationalists (who got Trump elected) vs. the corporate globalists (HRC’s campaign, Gary Cohn, & most of the war party). It’s the econ. nationalists who speak for the immiserated majority of the US public - who are residually anti-war, and whomTrump needs to be reelected and to protect him from Congressional (Rep & Dem.) machinations. > > Here’s an indication of the political establishment’s confusion: . > > We can hope that for once Mao’s optimism is appropriate: "Everything under heaven is in utter chaos; the situation is excellent.” —CGE > > >> On Nov 14, 2017, at 8:43 AM, Boyle, Francis A wrote: >> >> Today there are Congressional Hearings on legislation to control the president's first use of nuclear weapons. Congressman Markey just said on NPR they are concerned about Trump launching a "pre-emptive" nuclear first strike on DPRK. As for Bannon, he was pushed out of the White House by Trump's "My Generals", including SECWAR MAD DOG MATTIS. If I remember correctly Mad Dog said that whenever he goes into a room he figures out how he can kill everyone there. fab. >> >> Francis A. Boyle >> Law Building >> 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. >> Champaign, IL 61820 USA >> 217-333-7954 (phone) >> 217-244-1478 (fax) >> (personal comments only) >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Boyle, Francis A >> Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 6:55 AM >> To: C G Estabrook >> Cc: peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >> ; Jay ; >> a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Miller, >> Joseph Thomas ; Szoke, Ron >> ; Karen Aram ; >> peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; abass10 at gmail.com; >> sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; Joe Lauria ; >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; chicago at worldcantwait.net; >> mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; Arlene >> Hickory >> Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts >> Exercise in Western Pacific >> >> WAPO is now under new ownership: Bezos/Amazon/CIA. fab >> >> Francis A. Boyle >> Law Building >> 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. >> Champaign IL 61820 USA >> 217-333-7954 (phone) >> 217-244-1478 (fax) >> (personal comments only) >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] >> Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 10:40 PM >> To: Boyle, Francis A >> Cc: peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >> ; Jay ; >> a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Miller, >> Joseph Thomas ; Szoke, Ron >> ; Karen Aram ; >> peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; abass10 at gmail.com; >> sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; Joe Lauria ; >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; chicago at worldcantwait.net; >> mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; Arlene >> Hickory >> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts >> Exercise in Western Pacific >> >> No one can be wrong all the time. Rogin (whom I'm told speaks good Japanese…) here is merely reporting on Bannon’s interview with Robert Kuttner. >> >> Bannon is clearly correct. >> >> I’ve been reading the WaPo since I was young (& knew some of the family). I don’t think I have many illusions about it. >> >> But just as one once read Pravda to see what the Party was thinking, so now one reads the WaPo to see what the War Party is thinking. >> >> If the US nukes NK, I’ll apologize. >> >> A Pentagon brass-hat said the other day that the only way to ‘secure’ NK’s nukes was a ground invasion. That actually seems more likely to me than a US nuclear attack. >> >> But China wouldn't like it, and the last time the US tried it, it >> didn’t work. —CGE >> >> >>> On Nov 13, 2017, at 9:42 PM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: >>> >>> Hope you are right. But SecWar Mad Dog Mattis disagrees with you. SecWar Mad Dog Mattis was asked this same question in ROK. He said the Pentagon had options to take out DPRK with no retaliation on Seoul. I take it he was indirectly referring to nuking them, which Trump openly threatening them with “fire and fury,” and everyone knew that meant nukes. So the Pentagon does have such an option as confirmed by Mad Dog publicly. As for citing anyone from WAPO, and especially Rogin,Carl you should know better than to rely upon WAPO Fake News. Fab. >>> >>> Francis A. Boyle >>> Law Building >>> 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. >>> Champaign IL 61820 USA >>> 217-333-7954 (phone) >>> 217-244-1478 (fax) >>> (personal comments only) >>> >>> From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] >>> Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 9:26 PM >>> To: Boyle, Francis A >>> Cc: Karen Aram ; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. >>> G. ESTABROOK ; Jay ; >>> a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; >>> Miller, Joseph Thomas ; Szoke, Ron >>> ; Joe Lauria ; >>> peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; abass10 at gmail.com; >>> sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; Arlene Hickory ; >>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >>> ; chicago at worldcantwait.net >>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts >>> Exercise in Western Pacific >>> >>> [Josh Rogin WAPO August 17] In Washington, a “Kinsley gaffe” is when someone tells an obvious truth that isn’t supposed to be said. Such was the case when White House chief strategist Stephen K. Bannon told a reporter, in an interview published Wednesday, that there is no viable military option for stopping North Korea’s nuclear and missile programs. >>> >>> Bannon’s view is that any preemptive attack on North Korea would result in horrendous casualties in South Korea and elsewhere and therefore cannot be seriously considered. That view is shared by many officials, former officials and North Korea experts... >>> >>> By publicly declaring that the U.S. threat of military force in North Korea is a bluff, Bannon may have undermined the credibility of that threat. He may also have nudged the United States toward a more diplomacy-focused approach and reduced the risk of war. >>> >>> “There’s no military solution [to North Korea’s nuclear threats], forget it,” Bannon told the American Prospect. “Until somebody solves the part of the equation that shows me that 10 million people in Seoul don’t die in the first 30 minutes from conventional weapons, I don’t know what you’re talking about, there’s no military solution here, they got us.” >>> >>> For many North Korea watchers, Bannon was simply acknowledging a reality that the parties involved already understood; there is no viable scenario in which the United States could initiate a first strike against Pyongyang. >>> >>> “He’s absolutely right,” said former North Korea nuclear negotiator Joel S. Wit. “This is not a credible threat, and it really hasn’t been since the 1990s. We’ve been pretending it’s credible, but it really isn’t.” >>> >>> Such a move would guarantee devastating retaliation by Kim Jong Un against South Korea, Japan and the tens of thousands of U.S. troops there. Moreover, there’s no real way to be confident a U.S.-led military strike could destroy all of the dispersed and hidden components of North Korea’s illicit programs. >>> >>> Throw on top of that the danger that Kim could use a nuclear weapon, and it’s clear the United States can’t strike first. It’s likely a coincidence, but South Korean President Moon Jae-in also publicly declared that the military option is not on the table this week. >>> >>> “I can confidently say there will not be a war again on the Korean Peninsula,” Moon said. “The U.S. and President Trump also said, no matter what option they take about North Korea, all decisions will be made after consulting with and getting agreement with the Republic of Korea,” he added... >>> >>> Wit said that since the North Koreans understand the military dynamics as well as anyone, that threat was never really credible in the first place. >>> >>> “They figured out a long time ago the U.S. isn’t going to do anything,” he said. “Bannon may have undermined our pressure campaign, but the threat of military force has been a diminishing tool all along.” >>> >>> The larger effect could be that the Trump administration could now coalesce around a more diplomacy-focused strategy and move closer to direct negotiations with Pyongyang. Although Bannon didn’t specify his preferred policy, the alternative to attacking is clear: continuing to increase diplomatic and financial pressure on North Korea while exploring the chance for dialogue. >>> >>> The United States and North Korea have maintained a quiet diplomatic channel over the past months that could be used to set up more substantial negotiations. The Trump team has told foreign interlocutors that it remains open to negotiations with Pyongyang under the right conditions. >>> >>> Whether or not Bannon intended his remarks to be public, his warnings >>> about the foolishness of attacking North Korea are correct, and they >>> might even be helpful… >>> >>> Josh Rogin is a columnist for the Global Opinions section of The >>> Washington Post. He writes about foreign policy and national security. >>> Follow @joshrogin >>> >>> >>> >>> On Nov 13, 2017, at 5:33 PM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: >>> >>> The USG and the US Media have so demonized DPRK and KJU that the Pentagon could probably get away with nuking them and everyone would cheer. Fab. >>> >>> Francis A. Boyle >>> Law Building >>> 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. >>> Champaign, IL 61820 USA >>> 217-333-7954 (phone) >>> 217-244-1478 (fax) >>> (personal comments only) >>> >>> From: Boyle, Francis A >>> Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 5:29 PM >>> To: 'C G Estabrook' >>> Cc: David Green ; Miller, Joseph Thomas >>> ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; >>> peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >>> ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >>> ; Joe Lauria ; >>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; >>> peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >>> ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram >>> ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; >>> Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >>> ; David Johnson >>> ; Mildred O'brien >>> Subject: RE: Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western >>> Pacific >>> >>> It is possible if the Pentagon nukes them. Fab. >>> >>> Francis A. Boyle >>> Law Building >>> 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. >>> Champaign, IL 61820 USA >>> 217-333-7954 (phone) >>> 217-244-1478 (fax) >>> (personal comments only) >>> >>> From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] >>> Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 5:19 PM >>> To: Boyle, Francis A >>> Cc: David Green ; Miller, Joseph Thomas >>> ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; >>> peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >>> ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >>> ; Joe Lauria ; >>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; >>> peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >>> ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram >>> ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; >>> Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >>> ; David Johnson >>> ; Mildred O'brien >>> Subject: Re: Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western >>> Pacific >>> >>> And Steve Bannon pointed out the impossibility of military action against N. Korea: >>> >>> >> i >>> s-right-about-north-korea/> >>> >>> >>> On Nov 13, 2017, at 5:14 PM, Boyle, Francis A wrote: >>> >>> Yeah, thanks Carl. That's the way I see it too. I guess we shall see what happens. There was some Air Force General on the Tube a while ago saying we could take out DPRK in 4 hours. But the only way they could do that would be with nukes. Would not put it past them. Trump's speech about "fire and fury" clearly implied using nukes. So it is on their Radar Screen. Fab. >>> >>> Francis A. Boyle >>> Law Building >>> 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. >>> Champaign, IL 61820 USA >>> 217-333-7954 (phone) >>> 217-244-1478 (fax) >>> (personal comments only) >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] >>> Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 5:10 PM >>> To: Boyle, Francis A >>> Cc: David Green ; Miller, Joseph Thomas >>> ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; >>> peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >>> ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >>> ; Joe Lauria ; >>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; >>> peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >>> ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram >>> ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; >>> Lina Thorne ;chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >>> ; David Johnson >>> ; Mildred O'brien >>> Subject: Re: Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western >>> Pacific >>> >>> I think this is quite right. Obama’s ‘pivot’ - war provocations vs. China - remains the War Party’s policy. >>> >>> They’re terribly afraid Trump will abandon it (and other pro-war policies) & so want to drive him from office. >>> >>> Brzezinski explicitly references Mackinder. US foreign policy makers learn nothing & forget nothing. >>> >>> —CGE >>> >>> >>> >>> On Nov 13, 2017, at 4:58 PM, Boyle, Francis A wrote: >>> >>> This massive concentration of US naval forces had to have been planned and war-gamed far in advance of Trump by the Pentagon, probably going back to Obama launching his Pivot to Asia, which is really a Pivot against China, under the influence of his Guru Brzezinski as explained in his Grand Chessboard. Fab. >>> >>> Francis A. Boyle >>> Law Building >>> 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. >>> Champaign, IL 61820 USA >>> 217-333-7954 (phone) >>> 217-244-1478 (fax) >>> (personal comments only) >>> >>> From: U.S. Department of Defense >>> [mailto:govdelivery at subscriptions.dod.mil] >>> Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 3:45 PM >>> To: Boyle, Francis A >>> Subject: Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western >>> Pacific >>> >>> You are subscribed to News Articles for U.S. Department of Defense. This information has recently been updated, and is now available. >>> >>> >>> >>> Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific >>> 11/13/2017 03:04 PM CST >>> >>> >>> The USS Ronald Reagan, USS Theodore Roosevelt and USS Nimitz Strike >>> Groups transit the Western Pacific with ships from the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force in the Western Pacific, Nov. 12, 2017. The three aircraft carriers and their strike groups are conducting operations in international waters as part of a strike force exercise. The Navy has patrolled the Indo-Asia-Pacific region routinely for more than 70 years promoting regional security, stability and prosperity. Navy photo by Petty Officer 3rd Class Anthony J. Rivera (Click photo for screen-resolution image);high-resolution imageavailable. >>> Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific >>> >>> By Lisa Ferdinando >>> >>> DoD News, Defense Media Activity >>> >>> WASHINGTON, Nov. 13, 2017 — A three-carrier naval force is finishing a multi-day exercise in the Western Pacific, demonstrating the Navy's unique capability to operate multiple carrier strike groups as a coordinated effort, according to Navy officials. >>> >>> “The United States Navy is the only force in the world able to carry out such an exercise,” a Navy official told DoD News. >>> >>> The exercise features the aircraft carriers USS Ronald Reagan, USS Nimitz, and USS Theodore Roosevelt and includes air defense drills, sea surveillance, replenishments at sea, defensive air combat training, close-in coordinated maneuvers and other training, Navy officials said. >>> >>> Ships from Japan and South Korea joined the exercise, officials said. >>> >>> Triple Aircraft Carrier Training >>> >>> "It is a rare opportunity to train with two aircraft carriers together, and even rarer to be able to train with three," the U.S. Pacific Fleet commander, Navy Adm. Scott Swift, said in a U.S. 7th Fleet release. >>> >>> "Multiple carrier strike force operations are very complex,” Swift said. >>> >>> He added, “This exercise in the Western Pacific is a strong testament to the U.S. Pacific Fleet's unique ability and ironclad commitment to the continued security and stability of the region." >>> >>> The exercise is the first time three carrier strike groups have operated together in the Western Pacific since exercises Valiant Shield 2006 and 2007 off the coast of Guam, according to Navy officials. >>> >>> Officials point out Navy aircraft carriers more recently have conducted dual-carrier strike group operations in the Western Pacific including in the South China Sea, East China Sea and Philippine Sea. >>> >>> These exercises typically happen when an aircraft carrier deployed to the 7th Fleet area of operations joins with the carrier based in Japan. In this instance, the Nimitz was finishing a deployment in the 5th Fleet area -- the Persian Gulf -- and the Roosevelt was relieving it. The Reagan -- homeported in Japan -- joined the other two carriers, which are based in the Western United States. >>> >>> (Follow Lisa Ferdinando on Twitter: @FerdinandoDoD) >>> >>> Related Links >>> >>> U.S. Pacific Command >>> Special Report: DoD Focus on the Asia-Pacific >>> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From futureup2us at gmail.com Tue Nov 14 15:44:38 2017 From: futureup2us at gmail.com (Jay Becker) Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2017 09:44:38 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific In-Reply-To: References: <17467243.13521@subscriptions.dod.mil> <7DBCEB5B-D9A5-40B4-9B08-D876AF7CAD74@gmail.com> Message-ID: An article by Paul Atwood, originally published by Counterpunch and reposted by Revolution newspaper, Stop the Insanity and Negotiate Peace in Korea before It is Too Late supports your analysis, Francis, positioning the current Trump regime threats against the DPRK squarely in the long, sordid history of US attempts to dominate the Korean peninsula as part of seeking imperial control of Asia and the unspeakable devastation that has meant for the Korean people. They are both/all ‘war parties.' Jay > On Nov 14, 2017, at 09:08, Boyle, Francis A wrote: > > "Everything under heaven is in utter chaos;..." > I agree with that. But we are dealing overtly threatened nuclear war by Trump himself against DPRK surrounded by "My Generals." So I see that as potentially "disastrous" and not "excellent". > > Fab > > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign, IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) > > > -----Original Message----- > From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] > Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 9:03 AM > To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; Jay ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; Szoke, Ron ; Karen Aram ; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; abass10 at gmail.com; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; chicago at worldcantwait.net; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; Arlene Hickory > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific > > The foreign policy question now is whether Trump and his ‘kitchen cabinet’ (including Bannon) can hold out against the War Party (including the troika - McMaster, Mattis, & Kelly). > > Another way to put it is as the economic nationalists (who got Trump elected) vs. the corporate globalists (HRC’s campaign, Gary Cohn, & most of the war party). It’s the econ. nationalists who speak for the immiserated majority of the US public - who are residually anti-war, and whomTrump needs to be reelected and to protect him from Congressional (Rep & Dem.) machinations. > > Here’s an indication of the political establishment’s confusion: . > > We can hope that for once Mao’s optimism is appropriate: "Everything under heaven is in utter chaos; the situation is excellent.” —CGE > > >> On Nov 14, 2017, at 8:43 AM, Boyle, Francis A wrote: >> >> Today there are Congressional Hearings on legislation to control the president's first use of nuclear weapons. Congressman Markey just said on NPR they are concerned about Trump launching a "pre-emptive" nuclear first strike on DPRK. As for Bannon, he was pushed out of the White House by Trump's "My Generals", including SECWAR MAD DOG MATTIS. If I remember correctly Mad Dog said that whenever he goes into a room he figures out how he can kill everyone there. fab. >> >> Francis A. Boyle >> Law Building >> 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. >> Champaign, IL 61820 USA >> 217-333-7954 (phone) >> 217-244-1478 (fax) >> (personal comments only) >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Boyle, Francis A >> Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 6:55 AM >> To: C G Estabrook >> Cc: peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >> ; Jay ; >> a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Miller, >> Joseph Thomas ; Szoke, Ron >> ; Karen Aram ; >> peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; abass10 at gmail.com; >> sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; Joe Lauria ; >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; chicago at worldcantwait.net; >> mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; Arlene >> Hickory >> Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts >> Exercise in Western Pacific >> >> WAPO is now under new ownership: Bezos/Amazon/CIA. fab >> >> Francis A. Boyle >> Law Building >> 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. >> Champaign IL 61820 USA >> 217-333-7954 (phone) >> 217-244-1478 (fax) >> (personal comments only) >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] >> Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 10:40 PM >> To: Boyle, Francis A >> Cc: peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >> ; Jay ; >> a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Miller, >> Joseph Thomas ; Szoke, Ron >> ; Karen Aram ; >> peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; abass10 at gmail.com; >> sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; Joe Lauria ; >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; chicago at worldcantwait.net; >> mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; Arlene >> Hickory >> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts >> Exercise in Western Pacific >> >> No one can be wrong all the time. Rogin (whom I'm told speaks good Japanese…) here is merely reporting on Bannon’s interview with Robert Kuttner. >> >> Bannon is clearly correct. >> >> I’ve been reading the WaPo since I was young (& knew some of the family). I don’t think I have many illusions about it. >> >> But just as one once read Pravda to see what the Party was thinking, so now one reads the WaPo to see what the War Party is thinking. >> >> If the US nukes NK, I’ll apologize. >> >> A Pentagon brass-hat said the other day that the only way to ‘secure’ NK’s nukes was a ground invasion. That actually seems more likely to me than a US nuclear attack. >> >> But China wouldn't like it, and the last time the US tried it, it >> didn’t work. —CGE >> >> >>> On Nov 13, 2017, at 9:42 PM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: >>> >>> Hope you are right. But SecWar Mad Dog Mattis disagrees with you. SecWar Mad Dog Mattis was asked this same question in ROK. He said the Pentagon had options to take out DPRK with no retaliation on Seoul. I take it he was indirectly referring to nuking them, which Trump openly threatening them with “fire and fury,” and everyone knew that meant nukes. So the Pentagon does have such an option as confirmed by Mad Dog publicly. As for citing anyone from WAPO, and especially Rogin,Carl you should know better than to rely upon WAPO Fake News. Fab. >>> >>> Francis A. Boyle >>> Law Building >>> 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. >>> Champaign IL 61820 USA >>> 217-333-7954 (phone) >>> 217-244-1478 (fax) >>> (personal comments only) >>> >>> From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] >>> Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 9:26 PM >>> To: Boyle, Francis A >>> Cc: Karen Aram ; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. >>> G. ESTABROOK ; Jay ; >>> a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; >>> Miller, Joseph Thomas ; Szoke, Ron >>> ; Joe Lauria ; >>> peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; abass10 at gmail.com; >>> sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; Arlene Hickory ; >>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >>> ; chicago at worldcantwait.net >>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts >>> Exercise in Western Pacific >>> >>> [Josh Rogin WAPO August 17] In Washington, a “Kinsley gaffe” is when someone tells an obvious truth that isn’t supposed to be said. Such was the case when White House chief strategist Stephen K. Bannon told a reporter, in an interview published Wednesday, that there is no viable military option for stopping North Korea’s nuclear and missile programs. >>> >>> Bannon’s view is that any preemptive attack on North Korea would result in horrendous casualties in South Korea and elsewhere and therefore cannot be seriously considered. That view is shared by many officials, former officials and North Korea experts... >>> >>> By publicly declaring that the U.S. threat of military force in North Korea is a bluff, Bannon may have undermined the credibility of that threat. He may also have nudged the United States toward a more diplomacy-focused approach and reduced the risk of war. >>> >>> “There’s no military solution [to North Korea’s nuclear threats], forget it,” Bannon told the American Prospect. “Until somebody solves the part of the equation that shows me that 10 million people in Seoul don’t die in the first 30 minutes from conventional weapons, I don’t know what you’re talking about, there’s no military solution here, they got us.” >>> >>> For many North Korea watchers, Bannon was simply acknowledging a reality that the parties involved already understood; there is no viable scenario in which the United States could initiate a first strike against Pyongyang. >>> >>> “He’s absolutely right,” said former North Korea nuclear negotiator Joel S. Wit. “This is not a credible threat, and it really hasn’t been since the 1990s. We’ve been pretending it’s credible, but it really isn’t.” >>> >>> Such a move would guarantee devastating retaliation by Kim Jong Un against South Korea, Japan and the tens of thousands of U.S. troops there. Moreover, there’s no real way to be confident a U.S.-led military strike could destroy all of the dispersed and hidden components of North Korea’s illicit programs. >>> >>> Throw on top of that the danger that Kim could use a nuclear weapon, and it’s clear the United States can’t strike first. It’s likely a coincidence, but South Korean President Moon Jae-in also publicly declared that the military option is not on the table this week. >>> >>> “I can confidently say there will not be a war again on the Korean Peninsula,” Moon said. “The U.S. and President Trump also said, no matter what option they take about North Korea, all decisions will be made after consulting with and getting agreement with the Republic of Korea,” he added... >>> >>> Wit said that since the North Koreans understand the military dynamics as well as anyone, that threat was never really credible in the first place. >>> >>> “They figured out a long time ago the U.S. isn’t going to do anything,” he said. “Bannon may have undermined our pressure campaign, but the threat of military force has been a diminishing tool all along.” >>> >>> The larger effect could be that the Trump administration could now coalesce around a more diplomacy-focused strategy and move closer to direct negotiations with Pyongyang. Although Bannon didn’t specify his preferred policy, the alternative to attacking is clear: continuing to increase diplomatic and financial pressure on North Korea while exploring the chance for dialogue. >>> >>> The United States and North Korea have maintained a quiet diplomatic channel over the past months that could be used to set up more substantial negotiations. The Trump team has told foreign interlocutors that it remains open to negotiations with Pyongyang under the right conditions. >>> >>> Whether or not Bannon intended his remarks to be public, his warnings >>> about the foolishness of attacking North Korea are correct, and they >>> might even be helpful… >>> >>> Josh Rogin is a columnist for the Global Opinions section of The >>> Washington Post. He writes about foreign policy and national security. >>> Follow @joshrogin >>> >>> >>> >>> On Nov 13, 2017, at 5:33 PM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: >>> >>> The USG and the US Media have so demonized DPRK and KJU that the Pentagon could probably get away with nuking them and everyone would cheer. Fab. >>> >>> Francis A. Boyle >>> Law Building >>> 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. >>> Champaign, IL 61820 USA >>> 217-333-7954 (phone) >>> 217-244-1478 (fax) >>> (personal comments only) >>> >>> From: Boyle, Francis A >>> Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 5:29 PM >>> To: 'C G Estabrook' >>> Cc: David Green ; Miller, Joseph Thomas >>> ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; >>> peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >>> ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >>> ; Joe Lauria ; >>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; >>> peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >>> ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram >>> ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; >>> Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >>> ; David Johnson >>> ; Mildred O'brien >>> Subject: RE: Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western >>> Pacific >>> >>> It is possible if the Pentagon nukes them. Fab. >>> >>> Francis A. Boyle >>> Law Building >>> 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. >>> Champaign, IL 61820 USA >>> 217-333-7954 (phone) >>> 217-244-1478 (fax) >>> (personal comments only) >>> >>> From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] >>> Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 5:19 PM >>> To: Boyle, Francis A >>> Cc: David Green ; Miller, Joseph Thomas >>> ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; >>> peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >>> ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >>> ; Joe Lauria ; >>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; >>> peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >>> ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram >>> ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; >>> Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >>> ; David Johnson >>> ; Mildred O'brien >>> Subject: Re: Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western >>> Pacific >>> >>> And Steve Bannon pointed out the impossibility of military action against N. Korea: >>> >>> >> i >>> s-right-about-north-korea/> >>> >>> >>> On Nov 13, 2017, at 5:14 PM, Boyle, Francis A wrote: >>> >>> Yeah, thanks Carl. That's the way I see it too. I guess we shall see what happens. There was some Air Force General on the Tube a while ago saying we could take out DPRK in 4 hours. But the only way they could do that would be with nukes. Would not put it past them. Trump's speech about "fire and fury" clearly implied using nukes. So it is on their Radar Screen. Fab. >>> >>> Francis A. Boyle >>> Law Building >>> 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. >>> Champaign, IL 61820 USA >>> 217-333-7954 (phone) >>> 217-244-1478 (fax) >>> (personal comments only) >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] >>> Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 5:10 PM >>> To: Boyle, Francis A >>> Cc: David Green ; Miller, Joseph Thomas >>> ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; >>> peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >>> ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >>> ; Joe Lauria ; >>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; >>> peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >>> ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram >>> ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; >>> Lina Thorne ;chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >>> ; David Johnson >>> ; Mildred O'brien >>> Subject: Re: Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western >>> Pacific >>> >>> I think this is quite right. Obama’s ‘pivot’ - war provocations vs. China - remains the War Party’s policy. >>> >>> They’re terribly afraid Trump will abandon it (and other pro-war policies) & so want to drive him from office. >>> >>> Brzezinski explicitly references Mackinder. US foreign policy makers learn nothing & forget nothing. >>> >>> —CGE >>> >>> >>> >>> On Nov 13, 2017, at 4:58 PM, Boyle, Francis A wrote: >>> >>> This massive concentration of US naval forces had to have been planned and war-gamed far in advance of Trump by the Pentagon, probably going back to Obama launching his Pivot to Asia, which is really a Pivot against China, under the influence of his Guru Brzezinski as explained in his Grand Chessboard. Fab. >>> >>> Francis A. Boyle >>> Law Building >>> 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. >>> Champaign, IL 61820 USA >>> 217-333-7954 (phone) >>> 217-244-1478 (fax) >>> (personal comments only) >>> >>> From: U.S. Department of Defense >>> [mailto:govdelivery at subscriptions.dod.mil] >>> Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 3:45 PM >>> To: Boyle, Francis A >>> Subject: Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western >>> Pacific >>> >>> You are subscribed to News Articles for U.S. Department of Defense. This information has recently been updated, and is now available. >>> >>> >>> >>> Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific >>> 11/13/2017 03:04 PM CST >>> >>> >>> The USS Ronald Reagan, USS Theodore Roosevelt and USS Nimitz Strike >>> Groups transit the Western Pacific with ships from the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force in the Western Pacific, Nov. 12, 2017. The three aircraft carriers and their strike groups are conducting operations in international waters as part of a strike force exercise. The Navy has patrolled the Indo-Asia-Pacific region routinely for more than 70 years promoting regional security, stability and prosperity. Navy photo by Petty Officer 3rd Class Anthony J. Rivera (Click photo for screen-resolution image);high-resolution imageavailable. >>> Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific >>> >>> By Lisa Ferdinando >>> >>> DoD News, Defense Media Activity >>> >>> WASHINGTON, Nov. 13, 2017 — A three-carrier naval force is finishing a multi-day exercise in the Western Pacific, demonstrating the Navy's unique capability to operate multiple carrier strike groups as a coordinated effort, according to Navy officials. >>> >>> “The United States Navy is the only force in the world able to carry out such an exercise,” a Navy official told DoD News. >>> >>> The exercise features the aircraft carriers USS Ronald Reagan, USS Nimitz, and USS Theodore Roosevelt and includes air defense drills, sea surveillance, replenishments at sea, defensive air combat training, close-in coordinated maneuvers and other training, Navy officials said. >>> >>> Ships from Japan and South Korea joined the exercise, officials said. >>> >>> Triple Aircraft Carrier Training >>> >>> "It is a rare opportunity to train with two aircraft carriers together, and even rarer to be able to train with three," the U.S. Pacific Fleet commander, Navy Adm. Scott Swift, said in a U.S. 7th Fleet release. >>> >>> "Multiple carrier strike force operations are very complex,” Swift said. >>> >>> He added, “This exercise in the Western Pacific is a strong testament to the U.S. Pacific Fleet's unique ability and ironclad commitment to the continued security and stability of the region." >>> >>> The exercise is the first time three carrier strike groups have operated together in the Western Pacific since exercises Valiant Shield 2006 and 2007 off the coast of Guam, according to Navy officials. >>> >>> Officials point out Navy aircraft carriers more recently have conducted dual-carrier strike group operations in the Western Pacific including in the South China Sea, East China Sea and Philippine Sea. >>> >>> These exercises typically happen when an aircraft carrier deployed to the 7th Fleet area of operations joins with the carrier based in Japan. In this instance, the Nimitz was finishing a deployment in the 5th Fleet area -- the Persian Gulf -- and the Roosevelt was relieving it. The Reagan -- homeported in Japan -- joined the other two carriers, which are based in the Western United States. >>> >>> (Follow Lisa Ferdinando on Twitter: @FerdinandoDoD) >>> >>> Related Links >>> >>> U.S. Pacific Command >>> Special Report: DoD Focus on the Asia-Pacific >>> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Tue Nov 14 15:45:20 2017 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2017 09:45:20 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific In-Reply-To: References: <17467243.13521@subscriptions.dod.mil> <7DBCEB5B-D9A5-40B4-9B08-D876AF7CAD74@gmail.com> <05607FB6-C8B2-4632-B448-92236CD13496@gmail.com> Message-ID: We should of course be demanding the abolition of nuclear weapons (and a nuclear-free zone in the Mideast to start) - not Obama’s trillion-dollar program to update nuclear weapons and make them more usable. It’s Trump’s éminence grise, Bannon, who makes the case for the unusability of nuclear weapons in Korea. The War Party thinks it may be regrettably necessary... > On Nov 14, 2017, at 9:32 AM, Boyle, Francis A wrote: > > ..civilian) control over nukes is not a bad idea > ------------------------- > That's already in and required by the Constitution. That is why Congress made it clear in the Atomic Energy Act that it would be the President and not the Military who control the use of nuclear weapons: Today that means Trump himself. Terribile dictu! Hence the Congressional Hearings today. Fab. > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign, IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) > > > -----Original Message----- > From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] > Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 9:26 AM > To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; Jay ; Arlene Hickory ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; Szoke, Ron ; Karen Aram ; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; abass10 at gmail.com; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific > > Trump, from his recent discussions with Xi, is not pressing for that - but rather for cooperation with the BRI. > > OTOH the War Party, who want to rattle the nuclear saber, are represented by Kelly, Mattis, and McMaster. > > Trump is not the problem: traditional US ruling class hostility to Eurasian economic integration is. > > Corporate (civilian) control over nukes is not a bad idea. > > But remember the late Vasili Arkhipov, who prevented John Kennedy from destroying the world: . > > —CGE > >> On Nov 14, 2017, at 8:49 AM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: >> >> Under the Atomic Energy Act the President is given control over US nuclear weapons. It was put in there to guarantee civilian, not military, control of US nuclear weapons since the constitution sets up a system of civilian control for the Military. That is why US nuclear weapons are manufactured and controlled by the Department of the Energy and its predecessor instead of the Pentagon. When the nukes are fully assembled they are then turned over to the Pentagon for use where they are by-law under control of the President. Now with Trump Congress is reconsidering the arrangement. And Markey just said they are concerned about Trump launching a "pre-emptive" first nuclear strike on DPRK. Me too. Fab. >> >> Francis A. Boyle >> Law Building >> 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. >> Champaign, IL 61820 USA >> 217-333-7954 (phone) >> 217-244-1478 (fax) >> (personal comments only) >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Boyle, Francis A >> Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 8:43 AM >> To: 'C G Estabrook' >> Cc: 'peace-discuss at anti-war.net' ; 'C. G. >> ESTABROOK' ; 'Jay' ; >> 'a-fields at uiuc.edu' ; Hoffman, Valerie J >> ; Miller, Joseph Thomas >> ; Szoke, Ron ; 'Karen >> Aram' ; >> 'peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net' >> ; 'abass10 at gmail.com' >> ; 'sherwoodross10 at gmail.com' >> ; 'Joe Lauria' ; >> 'Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net' ; >> 'chicago at worldcantwait.net' ; >> 'mickalideh at gmail.com' ; 'Lina Thorne' >> ; 'Arlene Hickory' >> Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts >> Exercise in Western Pacific >> >> Today there are Congressional Hearings on legislation to control the president's first use of nuclear weapons. Congressman Markey just said on NPR they are concerned about Trump launching a "pre-emptive" nuclear first strike on DPRK. As for Bannon, he was pushed out of the White House by Trump's "My Generals", including SECWAR MAD DOG MATTIS. If I remember correctly Mad Dog said that whenever he goes into a room he figures out how he can kill everyone there. fab. >> >> Francis A. Boyle >> Law Building >> 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. >> Champaign, IL 61820 USA >> 217-333-7954 (phone) >> 217-244-1478 (fax) >> (personal comments only) >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Boyle, Francis A >> Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 6:55 AM >> To: C G Estabrook >> Cc: peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >> ; Jay ; >> a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Miller, >> Joseph Thomas ; Szoke, Ron >> ; Karen Aram ; >> peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; abass10 at gmail.com; >> sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; Joe Lauria ; >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; chicago at worldcantwait.net; >> mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; Arlene >> Hickory >> Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts >> Exercise in Western Pacific >> >> WAPO is now under new ownership: Bezos/Amazon/CIA. fab >> >> Francis A. Boyle >> Law Building >> 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. >> Champaign IL 61820 USA >> 217-333-7954 (phone) >> 217-244-1478 (fax) >> (personal comments only) >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] >> Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 10:40 PM >> To: Boyle, Francis A >> Cc: peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >> ; Jay ; >> a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Miller, >> Joseph Thomas ; Szoke, Ron >> ; Karen Aram ; >> peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; abass10 at gmail.com; >> sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; Joe Lauria ; >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; chicago at worldcantwait.net; >> mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; Arlene >> Hickory >> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts >> Exercise in Western Pacific >> >> No one can be wrong all the time. Rogin (whom I'm told speaks good Japanese…) here is merely reporting on Bannon’s interview with Robert Kuttner. >> >> Bannon is clearly correct. >> >> I’ve been reading the WaPo since I was young (& knew some of the family). I don’t think I have many illusions about it. >> >> But just as one once read Pravda to see what the Party was thinking, so now one reads the WaPo to see what the War Party is thinking. >> >> If the US nukes NK, I’ll apologize. >> >> A Pentagon brass-hat said the other day that the only way to ‘secure’ NK’s nukes was a ground invasion. That actually seems more likely to me than a US nuclear attack. >> >> But China wouldn't like it, and the last time the US tried it, it >> didn’t work. —CGE >> >> >>> On Nov 13, 2017, at 9:42 PM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: >>> >>> Hope you are right. But SecWar Mad Dog Mattis disagrees with you. SecWar Mad Dog Mattis was asked this same question in ROK. He said the Pentagon had options to take out DPRK with no retaliation on Seoul. I take it he was indirectly referring to nuking them, which Trump openly threatening them with “fire and fury,” and everyone knew that meant nukes. So the Pentagon does have such an option as confirmed by Mad Dog publicly. As for citing anyone from WAPO, and especially Rogin,Carl you should know better than to rely upon WAPO Fake News. Fab. >>> >>> Francis A. Boyle >>> Law Building >>> 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. >>> Champaign IL 61820 USA >>> 217-333-7954 (phone) >>> 217-244-1478 (fax) >>> (personal comments only) >>> >>> From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] >>> Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 9:26 PM >>> To: Boyle, Francis A >>> Cc: Karen Aram ; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. >>> G. ESTABROOK ; Jay ; >>> a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; >>> Miller, Joseph Thomas ; Szoke, Ron >>> ; Joe Lauria ; >>> peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; abass10 at gmail.com; >>> sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; Arlene Hickory ; >>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >>> ; chicago at worldcantwait.net >>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts >>> Exercise in Western Pacific >>> >>> [Josh Rogin WAPO August 17] In Washington, a “Kinsley gaffe” is when someone tells an obvious truth that isn’t supposed to be said. Such was the case when White House chief strategist Stephen K. Bannon told a reporter, in an interview published Wednesday, that there is no viable military option for stopping North Korea’s nuclear and missile programs. >>> >>> Bannon’s view is that any preemptive attack on North Korea would result in horrendous casualties in South Korea and elsewhere and therefore cannot be seriously considered. That view is shared by many officials, former officials and North Korea experts... >>> >>> By publicly declaring that the U.S. threat of military force in North Korea is a bluff, Bannon may have undermined the credibility of that threat. He may also have nudged the United States toward a more diplomacy-focused approach and reduced the risk of war. >>> >>> “There’s no military solution [to North Korea’s nuclear threats], forget it,” Bannon told the American Prospect. “Until somebody solves the part of the equation that shows me that 10 million people in Seoul don’t die in the first 30 minutes from conventional weapons, I don’t know what you’re talking about, there’s no military solution here, they got us.” >>> >>> For many North Korea watchers, Bannon was simply acknowledging a reality that the parties involved already understood; there is no viable scenario in which the United States could initiate a first strike against Pyongyang. >>> >>> “He’s absolutely right,” said former North Korea nuclear negotiator Joel S. Wit. “This is not a credible threat, and it really hasn’t been since the 1990s. We’ve been pretending it’s credible, but it really isn’t.” >>> >>> Such a move would guarantee devastating retaliation by Kim Jong Un against South Korea, Japan and the tens of thousands of U.S. troops there. Moreover, there’s no real way to be confident a U.S.-led military strike could destroy all of the dispersed and hidden components of North Korea’s illicit programs. >>> >>> Throw on top of that the danger that Kim could use a nuclear weapon, and it’s clear the United States can’t strike first. It’s likely a coincidence, but South Korean President Moon Jae-in also publicly declared that the military option is not on the table this week. >>> >>> “I can confidently say there will not be a war again on the Korean Peninsula,” Moon said. “The U.S. and President Trump also said, no matter what option they take about North Korea, all decisions will be made after consulting with and getting agreement with the Republic of Korea,” he added... >>> >>> Wit said that since the North Koreans understand the military dynamics as well as anyone, that threat was never really credible in the first place. >>> >>> “They figured out a long time ago the U.S. isn’t going to do anything,” he said. “Bannon may have undermined our pressure campaign, but the threat of military force has been a diminishing tool all along.” >>> >>> The larger effect could be that the Trump administration could now coalesce around a more diplomacy-focused strategy and move closer to direct negotiations with Pyongyang. Although Bannon didn’t specify his preferred policy, the alternative to attacking is clear: continuing to increase diplomatic and financial pressure on North Korea while exploring the chance for dialogue. >>> >>> The United States and North Korea have maintained a quiet diplomatic channel over the past months that could be used to set up more substantial negotiations. The Trump team has told foreign interlocutors that it remains open to negotiations with Pyongyang under the right conditions. >>> >>> Whether or not Bannon intended his remarks to be public, his warnings >>> about the foolishness of attacking North Korea are correct, and they >>> might even be helpful… >>> >>> Josh Rogin is a columnist for the Global Opinions section of The >>> Washington Post. He writes about foreign policy and national security. >>> Follow @joshrogin >>> >>> >>> >>> On Nov 13, 2017, at 5:33 PM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: >>> >>> The USG and the US Media have so demonized DPRK and KJU that the Pentagon could probably get away with nuking them and everyone would cheer. Fab. >>> >>> Francis A. Boyle >>> Law Building >>> 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. >>> Champaign, IL 61820 USA >>> 217-333-7954 (phone) >>> 217-244-1478 (fax) >>> (personal comments only) >>> >>> From: Boyle, Francis A >>> Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 5:29 PM >>> To: 'C G Estabrook' >>> Cc: David Green ; Miller, Joseph Thomas >>> ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; >>> peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >>> ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >>> ; Joe Lauria ; >>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; >>> peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >>> ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram >>> ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; >>> Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >>> ; David Johnson >>> ; Mildred O'brien >>> Subject: RE: Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western >>> Pacific >>> >>> It is possible if the Pentagon nukes them. Fab. >>> >>> Francis A. Boyle >>> Law Building >>> 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. >>> Champaign, IL 61820 USA >>> 217-333-7954 (phone) >>> 217-244-1478 (fax) >>> (personal comments only) >>> >>> From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] >>> Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 5:19 PM >>> To: Boyle, Francis A >>> Cc: David Green ; Miller, Joseph Thomas >>> ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; >>> peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >>> ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >>> ; Joe Lauria ; >>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; >>> peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >>> ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram >>> ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; >>> Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >>> ; David Johnson >>> ; Mildred O'brien >>> Subject: Re: Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western >>> Pacific >>> >>> And Steve Bannon pointed out the impossibility of military action against N. Korea: >>> >>> >> i >>> s-right-about-north-korea/> >>> >>> >>> On Nov 13, 2017, at 5:14 PM, Boyle, Francis A wrote: >>> >>> Yeah, thanks Carl. That's the way I see it too. I guess we shall see what happens. There was some Air Force General on the Tube a while ago saying we could take out DPRK in 4 hours. But the only way they could do that would be with nukes. Would not put it past them. Trump's speech about "fire and fury" clearly implied using nukes. So it is on their Radar Screen. Fab. >>> >>> Francis A. Boyle >>> Law Building >>> 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. >>> Champaign, IL 61820 USA >>> 217-333-7954 (phone) >>> 217-244-1478 (fax) >>> (personal comments only) >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] >>> Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 5:10 PM >>> To: Boyle, Francis A >>> Cc: David Green ; Miller, Joseph Thomas >>> ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; >>> peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >>> ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >>> ; Joe Lauria ; >>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; >>> peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >>> ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram >>> ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; >>> Lina Thorne ;chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >>> ; David Johnson >>> ; Mildred O'brien >>> Subject: Re: Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western >>> Pacific >>> >>> I think this is quite right. Obama’s ‘pivot’ - war provocations vs. China - remains the War Party’s policy. >>> >>> They’re terribly afraid Trump will abandon it (and other pro-war policies) & so want to drive him from office. >>> >>> Brzezinski explicitly references Mackinder. US foreign policy makers learn nothing & forget nothing. >>> >>> —CGE >>> >>> >>> >>> On Nov 13, 2017, at 4:58 PM, Boyle, Francis A wrote: >>> >>> This massive concentration of US naval forces had to have been planned and war-gamed far in advance of Trump by the Pentagon, probably going back to Obama launching his Pivot to Asia, which is really a Pivot against China, under the influence of his Guru Brzezinski as explained in his Grand Chessboard. Fab. >>> >>> Francis A. Boyle >>> Law Building >>> 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. >>> Champaign, IL 61820 USA >>> 217-333-7954 (phone) >>> 217-244-1478 (fax) >>> (personal comments only) >>> >>> From: U.S. Department of Defense >>> [mailto:govdelivery at subscriptions.dod.mil] >>> Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 3:45 PM >>> To: Boyle, Francis A >>> Subject: Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western >>> Pacific >>> >>> You are subscribed to News Articles for U.S. Department of Defense. This information has recently been updated, and is now available. >>> >>> >>> >>> Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific >>> 11/13/2017 03:04 PM CST >>> >>> >>> The USS Ronald Reagan, USS Theodore Roosevelt and USS Nimitz Strike >>> Groups transit the Western Pacific with ships from the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force in the Western Pacific, Nov. 12, 2017. The three aircraft carriers and their strike groups are conducting operations in international waters as part of a strike force exercise. The Navy has patrolled the Indo-Asia-Pacific region routinely for more than 70 years promoting regional security, stability and prosperity. Navy photo by Petty Officer 3rd Class Anthony J. Rivera (Click photo for screen-resolution image);high-resolution imageavailable. >>> Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific >>> >>> By Lisa Ferdinando >>> >>> DoD News, Defense Media Activity >>> >>> WASHINGTON, Nov. 13, 2017 — A three-carrier naval force is finishing a multi-day exercise in the Western Pacific, demonstrating the Navy's unique capability to operate multiple carrier strike groups as a coordinated effort, according to Navy officials. >>> >>> “The United States Navy is the only force in the world able to carry out such an exercise,” a Navy official told DoD News. >>> >>> The exercise features the aircraft carriers USS Ronald Reagan, USS Nimitz, and USS Theodore Roosevelt and includes air defense drills, sea surveillance, replenishments at sea, defensive air combat training, close-in coordinated maneuvers and other training, Navy officials said. >>> >>> Ships from Japan and South Korea joined the exercise, officials said. >>> >>> Triple Aircraft Carrier Training >>> >>> "It is a rare opportunity to train with two aircraft carriers together, and even rarer to be able to train with three," the U.S. Pacific Fleet commander, Navy Adm. Scott Swift, said in a U.S. 7th Fleet release. >>> >>> "Multiple carrier strike force operations are very complex,” Swift said. >>> >>> He added, “This exercise in the Western Pacific is a strong testament to the U.S. Pacific Fleet's unique ability and ironclad commitment to the continued security and stability of the region." >>> >>> The exercise is the first time three carrier strike groups have operated together in the Western Pacific since exercises Valiant Shield 2006 and 2007 off the coast of Guam, according to Navy officials. >>> >>> Officials point out Navy aircraft carriers more recently have conducted dual-carrier strike group operations in the Western Pacific including in the South China Sea, East China Sea and Philippine Sea. >>> >>> These exercises typically happen when an aircraft carrier deployed to the 7th Fleet area of operations joins with the carrier based in Japan. In this instance, the Nimitz was finishing a deployment in the 5th Fleet area -- the Persian Gulf -- and the Roosevelt was relieving it. The Reagan -- homeported in Japan -- joined the other two carriers, which are based in the Western United States. >>> >>> (Follow Lisa Ferdinando on Twitter: @FerdinandoDoD) >>> >>> Related Links >>> >>> U.S. Pacific Command >>> Special Report: DoD Focus on the Asia-Pacific >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Peace-discuss mailing list >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Tue Nov 14 15:45:20 2017 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2017 09:45:20 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific In-Reply-To: References: <17467243.13521@subscriptions.dod.mil> <7DBCEB5B-D9A5-40B4-9B08-D876AF7CAD74@gmail.com> <05607FB6-C8B2-4632-B448-92236CD13496@gmail.com> Message-ID: We should of course be demanding the abolition of nuclear weapons (and a nuclear-free zone in the Mideast to start) - not Obama’s trillion-dollar program to update nuclear weapons and make them more usable. It’s Trump’s éminence grise, Bannon, who makes the case for the unusability of nuclear weapons in Korea. The War Party thinks it may be regrettably necessary... > On Nov 14, 2017, at 9:32 AM, Boyle, Francis A wrote: > > ..civilian) control over nukes is not a bad idea > ------------------------- > That's already in and required by the Constitution. That is why Congress made it clear in the Atomic Energy Act that it would be the President and not the Military who control the use of nuclear weapons: Today that means Trump himself. Terribile dictu! Hence the Congressional Hearings today. Fab. > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign, IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) > > > -----Original Message----- > From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] > Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 9:26 AM > To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; Jay ; Arlene Hickory ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; Szoke, Ron ; Karen Aram ; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; abass10 at gmail.com; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific > > Trump, from his recent discussions with Xi, is not pressing for that - but rather for cooperation with the BRI. > > OTOH the War Party, who want to rattle the nuclear saber, are represented by Kelly, Mattis, and McMaster. > > Trump is not the problem: traditional US ruling class hostility to Eurasian economic integration is. > > Corporate (civilian) control over nukes is not a bad idea. > > But remember the late Vasili Arkhipov, who prevented John Kennedy from destroying the world: . > > —CGE > >> On Nov 14, 2017, at 8:49 AM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: >> >> Under the Atomic Energy Act the President is given control over US nuclear weapons. It was put in there to guarantee civilian, not military, control of US nuclear weapons since the constitution sets up a system of civilian control for the Military. That is why US nuclear weapons are manufactured and controlled by the Department of the Energy and its predecessor instead of the Pentagon. When the nukes are fully assembled they are then turned over to the Pentagon for use where they are by-law under control of the President. Now with Trump Congress is reconsidering the arrangement. And Markey just said they are concerned about Trump launching a "pre-emptive" first nuclear strike on DPRK. Me too. Fab. >> >> Francis A. Boyle >> Law Building >> 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. >> Champaign, IL 61820 USA >> 217-333-7954 (phone) >> 217-244-1478 (fax) >> (personal comments only) >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Boyle, Francis A >> Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 8:43 AM >> To: 'C G Estabrook' >> Cc: 'peace-discuss at anti-war.net' ; 'C. G. >> ESTABROOK' ; 'Jay' ; >> 'a-fields at uiuc.edu' ; Hoffman, Valerie J >> ; Miller, Joseph Thomas >> ; Szoke, Ron ; 'Karen >> Aram' ; >> 'peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net' >> ; 'abass10 at gmail.com' >> ; 'sherwoodross10 at gmail.com' >> ; 'Joe Lauria' ; >> 'Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net' ; >> 'chicago at worldcantwait.net' ; >> 'mickalideh at gmail.com' ; 'Lina Thorne' >> ; 'Arlene Hickory' >> Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts >> Exercise in Western Pacific >> >> Today there are Congressional Hearings on legislation to control the president's first use of nuclear weapons. Congressman Markey just said on NPR they are concerned about Trump launching a "pre-emptive" nuclear first strike on DPRK. As for Bannon, he was pushed out of the White House by Trump's "My Generals", including SECWAR MAD DOG MATTIS. If I remember correctly Mad Dog said that whenever he goes into a room he figures out how he can kill everyone there. fab. >> >> Francis A. Boyle >> Law Building >> 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. >> Champaign, IL 61820 USA >> 217-333-7954 (phone) >> 217-244-1478 (fax) >> (personal comments only) >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Boyle, Francis A >> Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 6:55 AM >> To: C G Estabrook >> Cc: peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >> ; Jay ; >> a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Miller, >> Joseph Thomas ; Szoke, Ron >> ; Karen Aram ; >> peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; abass10 at gmail.com; >> sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; Joe Lauria ; >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; chicago at worldcantwait.net; >> mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; Arlene >> Hickory >> Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts >> Exercise in Western Pacific >> >> WAPO is now under new ownership: Bezos/Amazon/CIA. fab >> >> Francis A. Boyle >> Law Building >> 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. >> Champaign IL 61820 USA >> 217-333-7954 (phone) >> 217-244-1478 (fax) >> (personal comments only) >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] >> Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 10:40 PM >> To: Boyle, Francis A >> Cc: peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >> ; Jay ; >> a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Miller, >> Joseph Thomas ; Szoke, Ron >> ; Karen Aram ; >> peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; abass10 at gmail.com; >> sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; Joe Lauria ; >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; chicago at worldcantwait.net; >> mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; Arlene >> Hickory >> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts >> Exercise in Western Pacific >> >> No one can be wrong all the time. Rogin (whom I'm told speaks good Japanese…) here is merely reporting on Bannon’s interview with Robert Kuttner. >> >> Bannon is clearly correct. >> >> I’ve been reading the WaPo since I was young (& knew some of the family). I don’t think I have many illusions about it. >> >> But just as one once read Pravda to see what the Party was thinking, so now one reads the WaPo to see what the War Party is thinking. >> >> If the US nukes NK, I’ll apologize. >> >> A Pentagon brass-hat said the other day that the only way to ‘secure’ NK’s nukes was a ground invasion. That actually seems more likely to me than a US nuclear attack. >> >> But China wouldn't like it, and the last time the US tried it, it >> didn’t work. —CGE >> >> >>> On Nov 13, 2017, at 9:42 PM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: >>> >>> Hope you are right. But SecWar Mad Dog Mattis disagrees with you. SecWar Mad Dog Mattis was asked this same question in ROK. He said the Pentagon had options to take out DPRK with no retaliation on Seoul. I take it he was indirectly referring to nuking them, which Trump openly threatening them with “fire and fury,” and everyone knew that meant nukes. So the Pentagon does have such an option as confirmed by Mad Dog publicly. As for citing anyone from WAPO, and especially Rogin,Carl you should know better than to rely upon WAPO Fake News. Fab. >>> >>> Francis A. Boyle >>> Law Building >>> 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. >>> Champaign IL 61820 USA >>> 217-333-7954 (phone) >>> 217-244-1478 (fax) >>> (personal comments only) >>> >>> From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] >>> Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 9:26 PM >>> To: Boyle, Francis A >>> Cc: Karen Aram ; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. >>> G. ESTABROOK ; Jay ; >>> a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; >>> Miller, Joseph Thomas ; Szoke, Ron >>> ; Joe Lauria ; >>> peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; abass10 at gmail.com; >>> sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; Arlene Hickory ; >>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >>> ; chicago at worldcantwait.net >>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts >>> Exercise in Western Pacific >>> >>> [Josh Rogin WAPO August 17] In Washington, a “Kinsley gaffe” is when someone tells an obvious truth that isn’t supposed to be said. Such was the case when White House chief strategist Stephen K. Bannon told a reporter, in an interview published Wednesday, that there is no viable military option for stopping North Korea’s nuclear and missile programs. >>> >>> Bannon’s view is that any preemptive attack on North Korea would result in horrendous casualties in South Korea and elsewhere and therefore cannot be seriously considered. That view is shared by many officials, former officials and North Korea experts... >>> >>> By publicly declaring that the U.S. threat of military force in North Korea is a bluff, Bannon may have undermined the credibility of that threat. He may also have nudged the United States toward a more diplomacy-focused approach and reduced the risk of war. >>> >>> “There’s no military solution [to North Korea’s nuclear threats], forget it,” Bannon told the American Prospect. “Until somebody solves the part of the equation that shows me that 10 million people in Seoul don’t die in the first 30 minutes from conventional weapons, I don’t know what you’re talking about, there’s no military solution here, they got us.” >>> >>> For many North Korea watchers, Bannon was simply acknowledging a reality that the parties involved already understood; there is no viable scenario in which the United States could initiate a first strike against Pyongyang. >>> >>> “He’s absolutely right,” said former North Korea nuclear negotiator Joel S. Wit. “This is not a credible threat, and it really hasn’t been since the 1990s. We’ve been pretending it’s credible, but it really isn’t.” >>> >>> Such a move would guarantee devastating retaliation by Kim Jong Un against South Korea, Japan and the tens of thousands of U.S. troops there. Moreover, there’s no real way to be confident a U.S.-led military strike could destroy all of the dispersed and hidden components of North Korea’s illicit programs. >>> >>> Throw on top of that the danger that Kim could use a nuclear weapon, and it’s clear the United States can’t strike first. It’s likely a coincidence, but South Korean President Moon Jae-in also publicly declared that the military option is not on the table this week. >>> >>> “I can confidently say there will not be a war again on the Korean Peninsula,” Moon said. “The U.S. and President Trump also said, no matter what option they take about North Korea, all decisions will be made after consulting with and getting agreement with the Republic of Korea,” he added... >>> >>> Wit said that since the North Koreans understand the military dynamics as well as anyone, that threat was never really credible in the first place. >>> >>> “They figured out a long time ago the U.S. isn’t going to do anything,” he said. “Bannon may have undermined our pressure campaign, but the threat of military force has been a diminishing tool all along.” >>> >>> The larger effect could be that the Trump administration could now coalesce around a more diplomacy-focused strategy and move closer to direct negotiations with Pyongyang. Although Bannon didn’t specify his preferred policy, the alternative to attacking is clear: continuing to increase diplomatic and financial pressure on North Korea while exploring the chance for dialogue. >>> >>> The United States and North Korea have maintained a quiet diplomatic channel over the past months that could be used to set up more substantial negotiations. The Trump team has told foreign interlocutors that it remains open to negotiations with Pyongyang under the right conditions. >>> >>> Whether or not Bannon intended his remarks to be public, his warnings >>> about the foolishness of attacking North Korea are correct, and they >>> might even be helpful… >>> >>> Josh Rogin is a columnist for the Global Opinions section of The >>> Washington Post. He writes about foreign policy and national security. >>> Follow @joshrogin >>> >>> >>> >>> On Nov 13, 2017, at 5:33 PM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: >>> >>> The USG and the US Media have so demonized DPRK and KJU that the Pentagon could probably get away with nuking them and everyone would cheer. Fab. >>> >>> Francis A. Boyle >>> Law Building >>> 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. >>> Champaign, IL 61820 USA >>> 217-333-7954 (phone) >>> 217-244-1478 (fax) >>> (personal comments only) >>> >>> From: Boyle, Francis A >>> Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 5:29 PM >>> To: 'C G Estabrook' >>> Cc: David Green ; Miller, Joseph Thomas >>> ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; >>> peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >>> ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >>> ; Joe Lauria ; >>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; >>> peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >>> ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram >>> ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; >>> Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >>> ; David Johnson >>> ; Mildred O'brien >>> Subject: RE: Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western >>> Pacific >>> >>> It is possible if the Pentagon nukes them. Fab. >>> >>> Francis A. Boyle >>> Law Building >>> 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. >>> Champaign, IL 61820 USA >>> 217-333-7954 (phone) >>> 217-244-1478 (fax) >>> (personal comments only) >>> >>> From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] >>> Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 5:19 PM >>> To: Boyle, Francis A >>> Cc: David Green ; Miller, Joseph Thomas >>> ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; >>> peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >>> ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >>> ; Joe Lauria ; >>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; >>> peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >>> ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram >>> ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; >>> Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >>> ; David Johnson >>> ; Mildred O'brien >>> Subject: Re: Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western >>> Pacific >>> >>> And Steve Bannon pointed out the impossibility of military action against N. Korea: >>> >>> >> i >>> s-right-about-north-korea/> >>> >>> >>> On Nov 13, 2017, at 5:14 PM, Boyle, Francis A wrote: >>> >>> Yeah, thanks Carl. That's the way I see it too. I guess we shall see what happens. There was some Air Force General on the Tube a while ago saying we could take out DPRK in 4 hours. But the only way they could do that would be with nukes. Would not put it past them. Trump's speech about "fire and fury" clearly implied using nukes. So it is on their Radar Screen. Fab. >>> >>> Francis A. Boyle >>> Law Building >>> 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. >>> Champaign, IL 61820 USA >>> 217-333-7954 (phone) >>> 217-244-1478 (fax) >>> (personal comments only) >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] >>> Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 5:10 PM >>> To: Boyle, Francis A >>> Cc: David Green ; Miller, Joseph Thomas >>> ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; >>> peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >>> ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >>> ; Joe Lauria ; >>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; >>> peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >>> ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram >>> ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; >>> Lina Thorne ;chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >>> ; David Johnson >>> ; Mildred O'brien >>> Subject: Re: Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western >>> Pacific >>> >>> I think this is quite right. Obama’s ‘pivot’ - war provocations vs. China - remains the War Party’s policy. >>> >>> They’re terribly afraid Trump will abandon it (and other pro-war policies) & so want to drive him from office. >>> >>> Brzezinski explicitly references Mackinder. US foreign policy makers learn nothing & forget nothing. >>> >>> —CGE >>> >>> >>> >>> On Nov 13, 2017, at 4:58 PM, Boyle, Francis A wrote: >>> >>> This massive concentration of US naval forces had to have been planned and war-gamed far in advance of Trump by the Pentagon, probably going back to Obama launching his Pivot to Asia, which is really a Pivot against China, under the influence of his Guru Brzezinski as explained in his Grand Chessboard. Fab. >>> >>> Francis A. Boyle >>> Law Building >>> 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. >>> Champaign, IL 61820 USA >>> 217-333-7954 (phone) >>> 217-244-1478 (fax) >>> (personal comments only) >>> >>> From: U.S. Department of Defense >>> [mailto:govdelivery at subscriptions.dod.mil] >>> Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 3:45 PM >>> To: Boyle, Francis A >>> Subject: Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western >>> Pacific >>> >>> You are subscribed to News Articles for U.S. Department of Defense. This information has recently been updated, and is now available. >>> >>> >>> >>> Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific >>> 11/13/2017 03:04 PM CST >>> >>> >>> The USS Ronald Reagan, USS Theodore Roosevelt and USS Nimitz Strike >>> Groups transit the Western Pacific with ships from the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force in the Western Pacific, Nov. 12, 2017. The three aircraft carriers and their strike groups are conducting operations in international waters as part of a strike force exercise. The Navy has patrolled the Indo-Asia-Pacific region routinely for more than 70 years promoting regional security, stability and prosperity. Navy photo by Petty Officer 3rd Class Anthony J. Rivera (Click photo for screen-resolution image);high-resolution imageavailable. >>> Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific >>> >>> By Lisa Ferdinando >>> >>> DoD News, Defense Media Activity >>> >>> WASHINGTON, Nov. 13, 2017 — A three-carrier naval force is finishing a multi-day exercise in the Western Pacific, demonstrating the Navy's unique capability to operate multiple carrier strike groups as a coordinated effort, according to Navy officials. >>> >>> “The United States Navy is the only force in the world able to carry out such an exercise,” a Navy official told DoD News. >>> >>> The exercise features the aircraft carriers USS Ronald Reagan, USS Nimitz, and USS Theodore Roosevelt and includes air defense drills, sea surveillance, replenishments at sea, defensive air combat training, close-in coordinated maneuvers and other training, Navy officials said. >>> >>> Ships from Japan and South Korea joined the exercise, officials said. >>> >>> Triple Aircraft Carrier Training >>> >>> "It is a rare opportunity to train with two aircraft carriers together, and even rarer to be able to train with three," the U.S. Pacific Fleet commander, Navy Adm. Scott Swift, said in a U.S. 7th Fleet release. >>> >>> "Multiple carrier strike force operations are very complex,” Swift said. >>> >>> He added, “This exercise in the Western Pacific is a strong testament to the U.S. Pacific Fleet's unique ability and ironclad commitment to the continued security and stability of the region." >>> >>> The exercise is the first time three carrier strike groups have operated together in the Western Pacific since exercises Valiant Shield 2006 and 2007 off the coast of Guam, according to Navy officials. >>> >>> Officials point out Navy aircraft carriers more recently have conducted dual-carrier strike group operations in the Western Pacific including in the South China Sea, East China Sea and Philippine Sea. >>> >>> These exercises typically happen when an aircraft carrier deployed to the 7th Fleet area of operations joins with the carrier based in Japan. In this instance, the Nimitz was finishing a deployment in the 5th Fleet area -- the Persian Gulf -- and the Roosevelt was relieving it. The Reagan -- homeported in Japan -- joined the other two carriers, which are based in the Western United States. >>> >>> (Follow Lisa Ferdinando on Twitter: @FerdinandoDoD) >>> >>> Related Links >>> >>> U.S. Pacific Command >>> Special Report: DoD Focus on the Asia-Pacific >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Peace-discuss mailing list >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Tue Nov 14 15:50:13 2017 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2017 09:50:13 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7098B91D-C3E4-4DB4-A610-DDDC975E6F8B@gmail.com> Quite right. It also supports the neoconservative and neoliberal policies of the Obama-Clinton administration. Trump was elected because he criticized those pro-war/pro-Wall Street policies. —CGE > On Nov 14, 2017, at 9:35 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: > > > The below event would be worthwhile, if, it focused on “ending wars, “stop the so called “tax reform bill” which impoverishes all but the wealthy elites,” “support single payer healthcare for all,” “provide jobs, utilizing infrastructure projects to improve public transportation and clean energy,” “end capitalist exploitation.” > The current focus is a waste of time and energy and doesn’t unite the American people over the government of oppression, it does nothing more than create chaos and division. >> >> >> Your account has been inactive for more than a month. To continue receiving event alerts, please Login again . >> >> RefuseFascism.org has a new event for you. >> >> Trump & Pence Must Go! Break the Silence, Bring the Noise >> >> >> Sat Nov 18 2017 at 01:00 pmWashington Sq S, New York, NY 10012, United StatesJoin Event >> Saturday November 18 - Washington Square Park. 1pm. >> This nightmare must end. The Trump/Pence Regime Must Go. >> Break the silence and BRING the noise. Pots and Pans. Drums and Marching Bands. >> >> >> On November 18, we wil bring joyful and insistent noise that Trump and Pence Must Go! We will sound the alarm and break through the silence of normalization. We will march to a beat with determination that this regime will NOT destory humanity and the planet. Bring your family & bring your friends. Be creative! >> >> Recommend this event to your friends, share on Facebook and Twitter ! >> >> >> Social Event Discovery App >> >> Stay updated about your favorite events. Know where your friends are going and discover events of your interest. >> >> >> >> >> >> About us Blog Terms of Service Careers Contact us >> Facebook Twitter Google+ >> This email was sent to you as your are following  RefuseFascism.org . >> If you do not wish to receive emails for event updates, Disable notification for RefuseFascism.org or Turn off email notifications for new events from all the organizers. >> > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Tue Nov 14 15:52:49 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2017 15:52:49 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: In-Reply-To: <7098B91D-C3E4-4DB4-A610-DDDC975E6F8B@gmail.com> References: <7098B91D-C3E4-4DB4-A610-DDDC975E6F8B@gmail.com> Message-ID: But, like every other “peace” candidate, Trump is now provoking war, which is why it’s so important to focus on the USG, the corporates controlling it, and our capitalist system that requires it. On Nov 14, 2017, at 07:50, C G Estabrook > wrote: Quite right. It also supports the neoconservative and neoliberal policies of the Obama-Clinton administration. Trump was elected because he criticized those pro-war/pro-Wall Street policies. —CGE On Nov 14, 2017, at 9:35 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > wrote: The below event would be worthwhile, if, it focused on “ending wars, “stop the so called “tax reform bill” which impoverishes all but the wealthy elites,” “support single payer healthcare for all,” “provide jobs, utilizing infrastructure projects to improve public transportation and clean energy,” “end capitalist exploitation.” The current focus is a waste of time and energy and doesn’t unite the American people over the government of oppression, it does nothing more than create chaos and division. [All Events in City] Your account has been inactive for more than a month. To continue receiving event alerts, please Login again. RefuseFascism.org has a new event for you. Trump & Pence Must Go! Break the Silence, Bring the Noise [Trump & Pence Must Go! Break the Silence, Bring the Noise] [Time] Sat Nov 18 2017 at 01:00 pm [Venue] Washington Sq S, New York, NY 10012, United States Join Event Saturday November 18 - Washington Square Park. 1pm. This nightmare must end. The Trump/Pence Regime Must Go. Break the silence and BRING the noise. Pots and Pans. Drums and Marching Bands. On November 18, we wil bring joyful and insistent noise that Trump and Pence Must Go! We will sound the alarm and break through the silence of normalization. We will march to a beat with determination that this regime will NOT destory humanity and the planet. Bring your family & bring your friends. Be creative! Recommend this event to your friends, share on Facebook and Twitter! Social Event Discovery App Stay updated about your favorite events. Know where your friends are going and discover events of your interest. [All Events in City on Google Play] [All Events in City on app store] [https://cdn.allevents.in/new/images/email/mobile-app-trans-270.png] [Publish your Event] About us Blog Terms of Service Careers Contact us Facebook Twitter Google+ This email was sent to you as your are following RefuseFascism.org. If you do not wish to receive emails for event updates, Disable notification for RefuseFascism.org or Turn off email notifications for new events from all the organizers. _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Tue Nov 14 15:56:34 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2017 15:56:34 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: Susie Riced in Newspeak Times: - That Smell of Death Surrounds You!" Message-ID: Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 9:54 AM To: sectns.aals at lists.aals.org Subject: Susie Riced in Newspeak Times: - That Smell of Death Surrounds You!" Hey! Hey! Susie Say! How many Kids! Did you kill today! In Libya! Hey! Hey! Susie Say! How many Kids! Did you kill today! In Syria! ETC! ETC! ETC! AD NAUSEAM! Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Francis Boyle via YouTube [mailto:noreply at youtube.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 9:43 AM To: Boyle, Francis A > Subject: Francis Boyle sent you a video: "Lynyrd Skynyrd - That Smell" [http://s.ytimg.com/yt/img/email/digest/email_header.png] [https://yt3.ggpht.com/-w4phvYGWivc/AAAAAAAAAAI/AAAAAAAAAAA/_Vq2X19VNEk/s50-c-k-no-mo-rj-c0xffffff/photo.jpg] Francis Boyle has shared a video with you on YouTube [https://i.ytimg.com/vi/J4j7ggZqbiU/mqdefault.jpg] Lynyrd Skynyrd - That Smell by XMetallicaAXxx Whiskey bottles and brand new cars Oak tree, you're in my way There's too much coke and too much smoke Look what's going on inside you Ooh, that smell Can't you smell that smell? Ooh, that smell The smell of death surrounds you, yeah Angel of darkness is upon you Stuck a needle in your arm (You, fool, you) So take another toke, have a blow for your nose One more drink, fool, would drown you (Hell, yeah) Ooh, that smell Can't you smell that smell? Ooh, that smell The smell of death surrounds you Now, they call you prince charming Can't speak a word when you're full of 'ludes Say you'll be alright come tomorrow But tomorrow might not be here for you (Yeah, you) Ooh, that smell Can't you smell that smell? Ooh, that smell The smell of death surrounds you Aw, you, fool, you You stick them needles In your arm I know, I've been there before One little problem that confronts you Got a monkey on your back Just one more fix, Lord, might do the tr... Help center • Report spam ©2017 YouTube, LLC 901 Cherry Ave, San Bruno, CA 94066, USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Tue Nov 14 15:56:34 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2017 15:56:34 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: Susie Riced in Newspeak Times: - That Smell of Death Surrounds You!" Message-ID: Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 9:54 AM To: sectns.aals at lists.aals.org Subject: Susie Riced in Newspeak Times: - That Smell of Death Surrounds You!" Hey! Hey! Susie Say! How many Kids! Did you kill today! In Libya! Hey! Hey! Susie Say! How many Kids! Did you kill today! In Syria! ETC! ETC! ETC! AD NAUSEAM! Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Francis Boyle via YouTube [mailto:noreply at youtube.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 9:43 AM To: Boyle, Francis A > Subject: Francis Boyle sent you a video: "Lynyrd Skynyrd - That Smell" [http://s.ytimg.com/yt/img/email/digest/email_header.png] [https://yt3.ggpht.com/-w4phvYGWivc/AAAAAAAAAAI/AAAAAAAAAAA/_Vq2X19VNEk/s50-c-k-no-mo-rj-c0xffffff/photo.jpg] Francis Boyle has shared a video with you on YouTube [https://i.ytimg.com/vi/J4j7ggZqbiU/mqdefault.jpg] Lynyrd Skynyrd - That Smell by XMetallicaAXxx Whiskey bottles and brand new cars Oak tree, you're in my way There's too much coke and too much smoke Look what's going on inside you Ooh, that smell Can't you smell that smell? Ooh, that smell The smell of death surrounds you, yeah Angel of darkness is upon you Stuck a needle in your arm (You, fool, you) So take another toke, have a blow for your nose One more drink, fool, would drown you (Hell, yeah) Ooh, that smell Can't you smell that smell? Ooh, that smell The smell of death surrounds you Now, they call you prince charming Can't speak a word when you're full of 'ludes Say you'll be alright come tomorrow But tomorrow might not be here for you (Yeah, you) Ooh, that smell Can't you smell that smell? Ooh, that smell The smell of death surrounds you Aw, you, fool, you You stick them needles In your arm I know, I've been there before One little problem that confronts you Got a monkey on your back Just one more fix, Lord, might do the tr... Help center • Report spam ©2017 YouTube, LLC 901 Cherry Ave, San Bruno, CA 94066, USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Tue Nov 14 16:00:30 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2017 16:00:30 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific In-Reply-To: References: <17467243.13521@subscriptions.dod.mil> <7DBCEB5B-D9A5-40B4-9B08-D876AF7CAD74@gmail.com> <05607FB6-C8B2-4632-B448-92236CD13496@gmail.com> Message-ID: [Boylebookemail.JPG] Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 9:45 AM To: Boyle, Francis A Cc: peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; Jay ; Arlene Hickory ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; Szoke, Ron ; Karen Aram ; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; abass10 at gmail.com; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific We should of course be demanding the abolition of nuclear weapons (and a nuclear-free zone in the Mideast to start) - not Obama’s trillion-dollar program to update nuclear weapons and make them more usable. It’s Trump’s éminence grise, Bannon, who makes the case for the unusability of nuclear weapons in Korea. The War Party thinks it may be regrettably necessary... On Nov 14, 2017, at 9:32 AM, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: ..civilian) control over nukes is not a bad idea ------------------------- That's already in and required by the Constitution. That is why Congress made it clear in the Atomic Energy Act that it would be the President and not the Military who control the use of nuclear weapons: Today that means Trump himself. Terribile dictu! Hence the Congressional Hearings today. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -----Original Message----- From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 9:26 AM To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Jay >; Arlene Hickory >; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; Szoke, Ron >; Karen Aram >; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; abass10 at gmail.com; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific Trump, from his recent discussions with Xi, is not pressing for that - but rather for cooperation with the BRI. OTOH the War Party, who want to rattle the nuclear saber, are represented by Kelly, Mattis, and McMaster. Trump is not the problem: traditional US ruling class hostility to Eurasian economic integration is. Corporate (civilian) control over nukes is not a bad idea. But remember the late Vasili Arkhipov, who prevented John Kennedy from destroying the world: . —CGE On Nov 14, 2017, at 8:49 AM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss > wrote: Under the Atomic Energy Act the President is given control over US nuclear weapons. It was put in there to guarantee civilian, not military, control of US nuclear weapons since the constitution sets up a system of civilian control for the Military. That is why US nuclear weapons are manufactured and controlled by the Department of the Energy and its predecessor instead of the Pentagon. When the nukes are fully assembled they are then turned over to the Pentagon for use where they are by-law under control of the President. Now with Trump Congress is reconsidering the arrangement. And Markey just said they are concerned about Trump launching a "pre-emptive" first nuclear strike on DPRK. Me too. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -----Original Message----- From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 8:43 AM To: 'C G Estabrook' > Cc: 'peace-discuss at anti-war.net' >; 'C. G. ESTABROOK' >; 'Jay' >; 'a-fields at uiuc.edu' >; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; Szoke, Ron >; 'Karen Aram' >; 'peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net' >; 'abass10 at gmail.com' >; 'sherwoodross10 at gmail.com' >; 'Joe Lauria' >; 'Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net' >; 'chicago at worldcantwait.net' >; 'mickalideh at gmail.com' >; 'Lina Thorne' >; 'Arlene Hickory' > Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific Today there are Congressional Hearings on legislation to control the president's first use of nuclear weapons. Congressman Markey just said on NPR they are concerned about Trump launching a "pre-emptive" nuclear first strike on DPRK. As for Bannon, he was pushed out of the White House by Trump's "My Generals", including SECWAR MAD DOG MATTIS. If I remember correctly Mad Dog said that whenever he goes into a room he figures out how he can kill everyone there. fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -----Original Message----- From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 6:55 AM To: C G Estabrook > Cc: peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Jay >; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; Szoke, Ron >; Karen Aram >; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; abass10 at gmail.com; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; chicago at worldcantwait.net; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; Arlene Hickory > Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific WAPO is now under new ownership: Bezos/Amazon/CIA. fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -----Original Message----- From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 10:40 PM To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Jay >; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; Szoke, Ron >; Karen Aram >; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; abass10 at gmail.com; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; chicago at worldcantwait.net; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; Arlene Hickory > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific No one can be wrong all the time. Rogin (whom I'm told speaks good Japanese…) here is merely reporting on Bannon’s interview with Robert Kuttner. Bannon is clearly correct. I’ve been reading the WaPo since I was young (& knew some of the family). I don’t think I have many illusions about it. But just as one once read Pravda to see what the Party was thinking, so now one reads the WaPo to see what the War Party is thinking. If the US nukes NK, I’ll apologize. A Pentagon brass-hat said the other day that the only way to ‘secure’ NK’s nukes was a ground invasion. That actually seems more likely to me than a US nuclear attack. But China wouldn't like it, and the last time the US tried it, it didn’t work. —CGE On Nov 13, 2017, at 9:42 PM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss > wrote: Hope you are right. But SecWar Mad Dog Mattis disagrees with you. SecWar Mad Dog Mattis was asked this same question in ROK. He said the Pentagon had options to take out DPRK with no retaliation on Seoul. I take it he was indirectly referring to nuking them, which Trump openly threatening them with “fire and fury,” and everyone knew that meant nukes. So the Pentagon does have such an option as confirmed by Mad Dog publicly. As for citing anyone from WAPO, and especially Rogin,Carl you should know better than to rely upon WAPO Fake News. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 9:26 PM To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: Karen Aram >; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Jay >; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; Szoke, Ron >; Joe Lauria >; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; abass10 at gmail.com; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; Arlene Hickory >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific [Josh Rogin WAPO August 17] In Washington, a “Kinsley gaffe” is when someone tells an obvious truth that isn’t supposed to be said. Such was the case when White House chief strategist Stephen K. Bannon told a reporter, in an interview published Wednesday, that there is no viable military option for stopping North Korea’s nuclear and missile programs. Bannon’s view is that any preemptive attack on North Korea would result in horrendous casualties in South Korea and elsewhere and therefore cannot be seriously considered. That view is shared by many officials, former officials and North Korea experts... By publicly declaring that the U.S. threat of military force in North Korea is a bluff, Bannon may have undermined the credibility of that threat. He may also have nudged the United States toward a more diplomacy-focused approach and reduced the risk of war. “There’s no military solution [to North Korea’s nuclear threats], forget it,” Bannon told the American Prospect. “Until somebody solves the part of the equation that shows me that 10 million people in Seoul don’t die in the first 30 minutes from conventional weapons, I don’t know what you’re talking about, there’s no military solution here, they got us.” For many North Korea watchers, Bannon was simply acknowledging a reality that the parties involved already understood; there is no viable scenario in which the United States could initiate a first strike against Pyongyang. “He’s absolutely right,” said former North Korea nuclear negotiator Joel S. Wit. “This is not a credible threat, and it really hasn’t been since the 1990s. We’ve been pretending it’s credible, but it really isn’t.” Such a move would guarantee devastating retaliation by Kim Jong Un against South Korea, Japan and the tens of thousands of U.S. troops there. Moreover, there’s no real way to be confident a U.S.-led military strike could destroy all of the dispersed and hidden components of North Korea’s illicit programs. Throw on top of that the danger that Kim could use a nuclear weapon, and it’s clear the United States can’t strike first. It’s likely a coincidence, but South Korean President Moon Jae-in also publicly declared that the military option is not on the table this week. “I can confidently say there will not be a war again on the Korean Peninsula,” Moon said. “The U.S. and President Trump also said, no matter what option they take about North Korea, all decisions will be made after consulting with and getting agreement with the Republic of Korea,” he added... Wit said that since the North Koreans understand the military dynamics as well as anyone, that threat was never really credible in the first place. “They figured out a long time ago the U.S. isn’t going to do anything,” he said. “Bannon may have undermined our pressure campaign, but the threat of military force has been a diminishing tool all along.” The larger effect could be that the Trump administration could now coalesce around a more diplomacy-focused strategy and move closer to direct negotiations with Pyongyang. Although Bannon didn’t specify his preferred policy, the alternative to attacking is clear: continuing to increase diplomatic and financial pressure on North Korea while exploring the chance for dialogue. The United States and North Korea have maintained a quiet diplomatic channel over the past months that could be used to set up more substantial negotiations. The Trump team has told foreign interlocutors that it remains open to negotiations with Pyongyang under the right conditions. Whether or not Bannon intended his remarks to be public, his warnings about the foolishness of attacking North Korea are correct, and they might even be helpful… Josh Rogin is a columnist for the Global Opinions section of The Washington Post. He writes about foreign policy and national security. Follow @joshrogin On Nov 13, 2017, at 5:33 PM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss > wrote: The USG and the US Media have so demonized DPRK and KJU that the Pentagon could probably get away with nuking them and everyone would cheer. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 5:29 PM To: 'C G Estabrook' > Cc: David Green >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien > Subject: RE: Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific It is possible if the Pentagon nukes them. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 5:19 PM To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: David Green >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien > Subject: Re: Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific And Steve Bannon pointed out the impossibility of military action against N. Korea: On Nov 13, 2017, at 5:14 PM, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: Yeah, thanks Carl. That's the way I see it too. I guess we shall see what happens. There was some Air Force General on the Tube a while ago saying we could take out DPRK in 4 hours. But the only way they could do that would be with nukes. Would not put it past them. Trump's speech about "fire and fury" clearly implied using nukes. So it is on their Radar Screen. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -----Original Message----- From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 5:10 PM To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: David Green >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >;chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien > Subject: Re: Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific I think this is quite right. Obama’s ‘pivot’ - war provocations vs. China - remains the War Party’s policy. They’re terribly afraid Trump will abandon it (and other pro-war policies) & so want to drive him from office. Brzezinski explicitly references Mackinder. US foreign policy makers learn nothing & forget nothing. —CGE On Nov 13, 2017, at 4:58 PM, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: This massive concentration of US naval forces had to have been planned and war-gamed far in advance of Trump by the Pentagon, probably going back to Obama launching his Pivot to Asia, which is really a Pivot against China, under the influence of his Guru Brzezinski as explained in his Grand Chessboard. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: U.S. Department of Defense [mailto:govdelivery at subscriptions.dod.mil] Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 3:45 PM To: Boyle, Francis A > Subject: Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific You are subscribed to News Articles for U.S. Department of Defense. This information has recently been updated, and is now available. Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific 11/13/2017 03:04 PM CST The USS Ronald Reagan, USS Theodore Roosevelt and USS Nimitz Strike Groups transit the Western Pacific with ships from the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force in the Western Pacific, Nov. 12, 2017. The three aircraft carriers and their strike groups are conducting operations in international waters as part of a strike force exercise. The Navy has patrolled the Indo-Asia-Pacific region routinely for more than 70 years promoting regional security, stability and prosperity. Navy photo by Petty Officer 3rd Class Anthony J. Rivera (Click photo for screen-resolution image);high-resolution imageavailable. Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific By Lisa Ferdinando DoD News, Defense Media Activity WASHINGTON, Nov. 13, 2017 — A three-carrier naval force is finishing a multi-day exercise in the Western Pacific, demonstrating the Navy's unique capability to operate multiple carrier strike groups as a coordinated effort, according to Navy officials. “The United States Navy is the only force in the world able to carry out such an exercise,” a Navy official told DoD News. The exercise features the aircraft carriers USS Ronald Reagan, USS Nimitz, and USS Theodore Roosevelt and includes air defense drills, sea surveillance, replenishments at sea, defensive air combat training, close-in coordinated maneuvers and other training, Navy officials said. Ships from Japan and South Korea joined the exercise, officials said. Triple Aircraft Carrier Training "It is a rare opportunity to train with two aircraft carriers together, and even rarer to be able to train with three," the U.S. Pacific Fleet commander, Navy Adm. Scott Swift, said in a U.S. 7th Fleet release. "Multiple carrier strike force operations are very complex,” Swift said. He added, “This exercise in the Western Pacific is a strong testament to the U.S. Pacific Fleet's unique ability and ironclad commitment to the continued security and stability of the region." The exercise is the first time three carrier strike groups have operated together in the Western Pacific since exercises Valiant Shield 2006 and 2007 off the coast of Guam, according to Navy officials. Officials point out Navy aircraft carriers more recently have conducted dual-carrier strike group operations in the Western Pacific including in the South China Sea, East China Sea and Philippine Sea. These exercises typically happen when an aircraft carrier deployed to the 7th Fleet area of operations joins with the carrier based in Japan. In this instance, the Nimitz was finishing a deployment in the 5th Fleet area -- the Persian Gulf -- and the Roosevelt was relieving it. The Reagan -- homeported in Japan -- joined the other two carriers, which are based in the Western United States. (Follow Lisa Ferdinando on Twitter: @FerdinandoDoD) Related Links U.S. Pacific Command Special Report: DoD Focus on the Asia-Pacific _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 20855 bytes Desc: image001.jpg URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Tue Nov 14 16:00:30 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2017 16:00:30 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific In-Reply-To: References: <17467243.13521@subscriptions.dod.mil> <7DBCEB5B-D9A5-40B4-9B08-D876AF7CAD74@gmail.com> <05607FB6-C8B2-4632-B448-92236CD13496@gmail.com> Message-ID: [Boylebookemail.JPG] Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 9:45 AM To: Boyle, Francis A Cc: peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; Jay ; Arlene Hickory ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; Szoke, Ron ; Karen Aram ; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; abass10 at gmail.com; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific We should of course be demanding the abolition of nuclear weapons (and a nuclear-free zone in the Mideast to start) - not Obama’s trillion-dollar program to update nuclear weapons and make them more usable. It’s Trump’s éminence grise, Bannon, who makes the case for the unusability of nuclear weapons in Korea. The War Party thinks it may be regrettably necessary... On Nov 14, 2017, at 9:32 AM, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: ..civilian) control over nukes is not a bad idea ------------------------- That's already in and required by the Constitution. That is why Congress made it clear in the Atomic Energy Act that it would be the President and not the Military who control the use of nuclear weapons: Today that means Trump himself. Terribile dictu! Hence the Congressional Hearings today. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -----Original Message----- From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 9:26 AM To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Jay >; Arlene Hickory >; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; Szoke, Ron >; Karen Aram >; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; abass10 at gmail.com; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific Trump, from his recent discussions with Xi, is not pressing for that - but rather for cooperation with the BRI. OTOH the War Party, who want to rattle the nuclear saber, are represented by Kelly, Mattis, and McMaster. Trump is not the problem: traditional US ruling class hostility to Eurasian economic integration is. Corporate (civilian) control over nukes is not a bad idea. But remember the late Vasili Arkhipov, who prevented John Kennedy from destroying the world: . —CGE On Nov 14, 2017, at 8:49 AM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss > wrote: Under the Atomic Energy Act the President is given control over US nuclear weapons. It was put in there to guarantee civilian, not military, control of US nuclear weapons since the constitution sets up a system of civilian control for the Military. That is why US nuclear weapons are manufactured and controlled by the Department of the Energy and its predecessor instead of the Pentagon. When the nukes are fully assembled they are then turned over to the Pentagon for use where they are by-law under control of the President. Now with Trump Congress is reconsidering the arrangement. And Markey just said they are concerned about Trump launching a "pre-emptive" first nuclear strike on DPRK. Me too. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -----Original Message----- From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 8:43 AM To: 'C G Estabrook' > Cc: 'peace-discuss at anti-war.net' >; 'C. G. ESTABROOK' >; 'Jay' >; 'a-fields at uiuc.edu' >; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; Szoke, Ron >; 'Karen Aram' >; 'peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net' >; 'abass10 at gmail.com' >; 'sherwoodross10 at gmail.com' >; 'Joe Lauria' >; 'Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net' >; 'chicago at worldcantwait.net' >; 'mickalideh at gmail.com' >; 'Lina Thorne' >; 'Arlene Hickory' > Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific Today there are Congressional Hearings on legislation to control the president's first use of nuclear weapons. Congressman Markey just said on NPR they are concerned about Trump launching a "pre-emptive" nuclear first strike on DPRK. As for Bannon, he was pushed out of the White House by Trump's "My Generals", including SECWAR MAD DOG MATTIS. If I remember correctly Mad Dog said that whenever he goes into a room he figures out how he can kill everyone there. fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -----Original Message----- From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 6:55 AM To: C G Estabrook > Cc: peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Jay >; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; Szoke, Ron >; Karen Aram >; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; abass10 at gmail.com; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; chicago at worldcantwait.net; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; Arlene Hickory > Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific WAPO is now under new ownership: Bezos/Amazon/CIA. fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -----Original Message----- From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 10:40 PM To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Jay >; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; Szoke, Ron >; Karen Aram >; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; abass10 at gmail.com; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; chicago at worldcantwait.net; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; Arlene Hickory > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific No one can be wrong all the time. Rogin (whom I'm told speaks good Japanese…) here is merely reporting on Bannon’s interview with Robert Kuttner. Bannon is clearly correct. I’ve been reading the WaPo since I was young (& knew some of the family). I don’t think I have many illusions about it. But just as one once read Pravda to see what the Party was thinking, so now one reads the WaPo to see what the War Party is thinking. If the US nukes NK, I’ll apologize. A Pentagon brass-hat said the other day that the only way to ‘secure’ NK’s nukes was a ground invasion. That actually seems more likely to me than a US nuclear attack. But China wouldn't like it, and the last time the US tried it, it didn’t work. —CGE On Nov 13, 2017, at 9:42 PM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss > wrote: Hope you are right. But SecWar Mad Dog Mattis disagrees with you. SecWar Mad Dog Mattis was asked this same question in ROK. He said the Pentagon had options to take out DPRK with no retaliation on Seoul. I take it he was indirectly referring to nuking them, which Trump openly threatening them with “fire and fury,” and everyone knew that meant nukes. So the Pentagon does have such an option as confirmed by Mad Dog publicly. As for citing anyone from WAPO, and especially Rogin,Carl you should know better than to rely upon WAPO Fake News. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 9:26 PM To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: Karen Aram >; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Jay >; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; Szoke, Ron >; Joe Lauria >; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; abass10 at gmail.com; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; Arlene Hickory >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific [Josh Rogin WAPO August 17] In Washington, a “Kinsley gaffe” is when someone tells an obvious truth that isn’t supposed to be said. Such was the case when White House chief strategist Stephen K. Bannon told a reporter, in an interview published Wednesday, that there is no viable military option for stopping North Korea’s nuclear and missile programs. Bannon’s view is that any preemptive attack on North Korea would result in horrendous casualties in South Korea and elsewhere and therefore cannot be seriously considered. That view is shared by many officials, former officials and North Korea experts... By publicly declaring that the U.S. threat of military force in North Korea is a bluff, Bannon may have undermined the credibility of that threat. He may also have nudged the United States toward a more diplomacy-focused approach and reduced the risk of war. “There’s no military solution [to North Korea’s nuclear threats], forget it,” Bannon told the American Prospect. “Until somebody solves the part of the equation that shows me that 10 million people in Seoul don’t die in the first 30 minutes from conventional weapons, I don’t know what you’re talking about, there’s no military solution here, they got us.” For many North Korea watchers, Bannon was simply acknowledging a reality that the parties involved already understood; there is no viable scenario in which the United States could initiate a first strike against Pyongyang. “He’s absolutely right,” said former North Korea nuclear negotiator Joel S. Wit. “This is not a credible threat, and it really hasn’t been since the 1990s. We’ve been pretending it’s credible, but it really isn’t.” Such a move would guarantee devastating retaliation by Kim Jong Un against South Korea, Japan and the tens of thousands of U.S. troops there. Moreover, there’s no real way to be confident a U.S.-led military strike could destroy all of the dispersed and hidden components of North Korea’s illicit programs. Throw on top of that the danger that Kim could use a nuclear weapon, and it’s clear the United States can’t strike first. It’s likely a coincidence, but South Korean President Moon Jae-in also publicly declared that the military option is not on the table this week. “I can confidently say there will not be a war again on the Korean Peninsula,” Moon said. “The U.S. and President Trump also said, no matter what option they take about North Korea, all decisions will be made after consulting with and getting agreement with the Republic of Korea,” he added... Wit said that since the North Koreans understand the military dynamics as well as anyone, that threat was never really credible in the first place. “They figured out a long time ago the U.S. isn’t going to do anything,” he said. “Bannon may have undermined our pressure campaign, but the threat of military force has been a diminishing tool all along.” The larger effect could be that the Trump administration could now coalesce around a more diplomacy-focused strategy and move closer to direct negotiations with Pyongyang. Although Bannon didn’t specify his preferred policy, the alternative to attacking is clear: continuing to increase diplomatic and financial pressure on North Korea while exploring the chance for dialogue. The United States and North Korea have maintained a quiet diplomatic channel over the past months that could be used to set up more substantial negotiations. The Trump team has told foreign interlocutors that it remains open to negotiations with Pyongyang under the right conditions. Whether or not Bannon intended his remarks to be public, his warnings about the foolishness of attacking North Korea are correct, and they might even be helpful… Josh Rogin is a columnist for the Global Opinions section of The Washington Post. He writes about foreign policy and national security. Follow @joshrogin On Nov 13, 2017, at 5:33 PM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss > wrote: The USG and the US Media have so demonized DPRK and KJU that the Pentagon could probably get away with nuking them and everyone would cheer. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 5:29 PM To: 'C G Estabrook' > Cc: David Green >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien > Subject: RE: Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific It is possible if the Pentagon nukes them. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 5:19 PM To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: David Green >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien > Subject: Re: Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific And Steve Bannon pointed out the impossibility of military action against N. Korea: On Nov 13, 2017, at 5:14 PM, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: Yeah, thanks Carl. That's the way I see it too. I guess we shall see what happens. There was some Air Force General on the Tube a while ago saying we could take out DPRK in 4 hours. But the only way they could do that would be with nukes. Would not put it past them. Trump's speech about "fire and fury" clearly implied using nukes. So it is on their Radar Screen. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -----Original Message----- From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 5:10 PM To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: David Green >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >;chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien > Subject: Re: Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific I think this is quite right. Obama’s ‘pivot’ - war provocations vs. China - remains the War Party’s policy. They’re terribly afraid Trump will abandon it (and other pro-war policies) & so want to drive him from office. Brzezinski explicitly references Mackinder. US foreign policy makers learn nothing & forget nothing. —CGE On Nov 13, 2017, at 4:58 PM, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: This massive concentration of US naval forces had to have been planned and war-gamed far in advance of Trump by the Pentagon, probably going back to Obama launching his Pivot to Asia, which is really a Pivot against China, under the influence of his Guru Brzezinski as explained in his Grand Chessboard. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: U.S. Department of Defense [mailto:govdelivery at subscriptions.dod.mil] Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 3:45 PM To: Boyle, Francis A > Subject: Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific You are subscribed to News Articles for U.S. Department of Defense. This information has recently been updated, and is now available. Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific 11/13/2017 03:04 PM CST The USS Ronald Reagan, USS Theodore Roosevelt and USS Nimitz Strike Groups transit the Western Pacific with ships from the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force in the Western Pacific, Nov. 12, 2017. The three aircraft carriers and their strike groups are conducting operations in international waters as part of a strike force exercise. The Navy has patrolled the Indo-Asia-Pacific region routinely for more than 70 years promoting regional security, stability and prosperity. Navy photo by Petty Officer 3rd Class Anthony J. Rivera (Click photo for screen-resolution image);high-resolution imageavailable. Three-Carrier Strike Force Conducts Exercise in Western Pacific By Lisa Ferdinando DoD News, Defense Media Activity WASHINGTON, Nov. 13, 2017 — A three-carrier naval force is finishing a multi-day exercise in the Western Pacific, demonstrating the Navy's unique capability to operate multiple carrier strike groups as a coordinated effort, according to Navy officials. “The United States Navy is the only force in the world able to carry out such an exercise,” a Navy official told DoD News. The exercise features the aircraft carriers USS Ronald Reagan, USS Nimitz, and USS Theodore Roosevelt and includes air defense drills, sea surveillance, replenishments at sea, defensive air combat training, close-in coordinated maneuvers and other training, Navy officials said. Ships from Japan and South Korea joined the exercise, officials said. Triple Aircraft Carrier Training "It is a rare opportunity to train with two aircraft carriers together, and even rarer to be able to train with three," the U.S. Pacific Fleet commander, Navy Adm. Scott Swift, said in a U.S. 7th Fleet release. "Multiple carrier strike force operations are very complex,” Swift said. He added, “This exercise in the Western Pacific is a strong testament to the U.S. Pacific Fleet's unique ability and ironclad commitment to the continued security and stability of the region." The exercise is the first time three carrier strike groups have operated together in the Western Pacific since exercises Valiant Shield 2006 and 2007 off the coast of Guam, according to Navy officials. Officials point out Navy aircraft carriers more recently have conducted dual-carrier strike group operations in the Western Pacific including in the South China Sea, East China Sea and Philippine Sea. These exercises typically happen when an aircraft carrier deployed to the 7th Fleet area of operations joins with the carrier based in Japan. In this instance, the Nimitz was finishing a deployment in the 5th Fleet area -- the Persian Gulf -- and the Roosevelt was relieving it. The Reagan -- homeported in Japan -- joined the other two carriers, which are based in the Western United States. (Follow Lisa Ferdinando on Twitter: @FerdinandoDoD) Related Links U.S. Pacific Command Special Report: DoD Focus on the Asia-Pacific _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 20855 bytes Desc: image001.jpg URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Tue Nov 14 16:10:22 2017 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2017 10:10:22 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: In-Reply-To: References: <7098B91D-C3E4-4DB4-A610-DDDC975E6F8B@gmail.com> Message-ID: <109FC81E-404F-40EC-8989-BF92D55536FD@gmail.com> The erratic Trump is being driven in contradictory directions - as his contradictory advisers, Bannon & Cohn, indicate. The War Party think they can force him to continue the last administration’s neolib and neocon policies. (That’s what ‘Russiagate' inter alia is all about.) We should oppose the War Party ("the spooks [including the Pentagon], Wall Street Democrats and institutional servants of capital that gathered in Hillary Clinton’s overstuffed campaign tent, last year, to plot the next moves of a beleaguered U.S. empire,” as Glen Ford describes them) and their Mad(dow) Lies (“Putin did it!”). The US anti-war movement, co-opted by Obama, is now in danger of being perverted into an anti-Trump movement that will restore the Obama-Clinton pro-war/pro-Wall Street policies. —CGE > On Nov 14, 2017, at 9:52 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: > > But, like every other “peace” candidate, Trump is now provoking war, which is why it’s so important to focus on the USG, the corporates controlling it, and our capitalist system that requires it. > > >> On Nov 14, 2017, at 07:50, C G Estabrook > wrote: >> >> Quite right. It also supports the neoconservative and neoliberal policies of the Obama-Clinton administration. >> >> Trump was elected because he criticized those pro-war/pro-Wall Street policies. —CGE >> >> >>> On Nov 14, 2017, at 9:35 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > wrote: >>> >>> >>> The below event would be worthwhile, if, it focused on “ending wars, “stop the so called “tax reform bill” which impoverishes all but the wealthy elites,” “support single payer healthcare for all,” “provide jobs, utilizing infrastructure projects to improve public transportation and clean energy,” “end capitalist exploitation.” >>> The current focus is a waste of time and energy and doesn’t unite the American people over the government of oppression, it does nothing more than create chaos and division. >>>> >>>> >>>> Your account has been inactive for more than a month. To continue receiving event alerts, please Login again . >>>> >>>> RefuseFascism.org has a new event for you. >>>> >>>> Trump & Pence Must Go! Break the Silence, Bring the Noise >>>> >>>> >>>> Sat Nov 18 2017 at 01:00 pmWashington Sq S, New York, NY 10012, United StatesJoin Event >>>> Saturday November 18 - Washington Square Park. 1pm. >>>> This nightmare must end. The Trump/Pence Regime Must Go. >>>> Break the silence and BRING the noise. Pots and Pans. Drums and Marching Bands. >>>> >>>> >>>> On November 18, we wil bring joyful and insistent noise that Trump and Pence Must Go! We will sound the alarm and break through the silence of normalization. We will march to a beat with determination that this regime will NOT destory humanity and the planet. Bring your family & bring your friends. Be creative! >>>> >>>> Recommend this event to your friends, share on Facebook and Twitter ! >>>> >>>> >>>> Social Event Discovery App >>>> >>>> Stay updated about your favorite events. Know where your friends are going and discover events of your interest. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> About us Blog Terms of Service Careers Contact us >>>> Facebook Twitter Google+ >>>> This email was sent to you as your are following  RefuseFascism.org . >>>> If you do not wish to receive emails for event updates, Disable notification for RefuseFascism.org or Turn off email notifications for new events from all the organizers. >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Peace-discuss mailing list >>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss >> > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Tue Nov 14 16:17:13 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2017 16:17:13 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: In-Reply-To: <109FC81E-404F-40EC-8989-BF92D55536FD@gmail.com> References: <7098B91D-C3E4-4DB4-A610-DDDC975E6F8B@gmail.com> <109FC81E-404F-40EC-8989-BF92D55536FD@gmail.com> Message-ID: Trump may not want war with China, or Russia, because he see’s the business opportunities, not because he is a “peace” candidate. He and his supporters are more than happy to support the Saudi’s and Israel in wars against the more vulnerable nations, or simply carry out a different strategy. Tactics and strategies differ between the State Dept/CIA and the Pentagon, but they all spell perpetual war and eventual oblivion if we stay on this path. On Nov 14, 2017, at 08:10, C G Estabrook > wrote: The erratic Trump is being driven in contradictory directions - as his contradictory advisers, Bannon & Cohn, indicate. The War Party think they can force him to continue the last administration’s neolib and neocon policies. (That’s what ‘Russiagate' inter alia is all about.) We should oppose the War Party ("the spooks [including the Pentagon], Wall Street Democrats and institutional servants of capital that gathered in Hillary Clinton’s overstuffed campaign tent, last year, to plot the next moves of a beleaguered U.S. empire,” as Glen Ford describes them) and their Mad(dow) Lies (“Putin did it!”). The US anti-war movement, co-opted by Obama, is now in danger of being perverted into an anti-Trump movement that will restore the Obama-Clinton pro-war/pro-Wall Street policies. —CGE On Nov 14, 2017, at 9:52 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > wrote: But, like every other “peace” candidate, Trump is now provoking war, which is why it’s so important to focus on the USG, the corporates controlling it, and our capitalist system that requires it. On Nov 14, 2017, at 07:50, C G Estabrook > wrote: Quite right. It also supports the neoconservative and neoliberal policies of the Obama-Clinton administration. Trump was elected because he criticized those pro-war/pro-Wall Street policies. —CGE On Nov 14, 2017, at 9:35 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > wrote: The below event would be worthwhile, if, it focused on “ending wars, “stop the so called “tax reform bill” which impoverishes all but the wealthy elites,” “support single payer healthcare for all,” “provide jobs, utilizing infrastructure projects to improve public transportation and clean energy,” “end capitalist exploitation.” The current focus is a waste of time and energy and doesn’t unite the American people over the government of oppression, it does nothing more than create chaos and division. [All Events in City] Your account has been inactive for more than a month. To continue receiving event alerts, please Login again. RefuseFascism.org has a new event for you. Trump & Pence Must Go! Break the Silence, Bring the Noise [Trump & Pence Must Go! Break the Silence, Bring the Noise] [Time] Sat Nov 18 2017 at 01:00 pm [Venue] Washington Sq S, New York, NY 10012, United States Join Event Saturday November 18 - Washington Square Park. 1pm. This nightmare must end. The Trump/Pence Regime Must Go. Break the silence and BRING the noise. Pots and Pans. Drums and Marching Bands. On November 18, we wil bring joyful and insistent noise that Trump and Pence Must Go! We will sound the alarm and break through the silence of normalization. We will march to a beat with determination that this regime will NOT destory humanity and the planet. Bring your family & bring your friends. Be creative! Recommend this event to your friends, share on Facebook and Twitter! Social Event Discovery App Stay updated about your favorite events. Know where your friends are going and discover events of your interest. [All Events in City on Google Play] [All Events in City on app store] [https://cdn.allevents.in/new/images/email/mobile-app-trans-270.png] [Publish your Event] About us Blog Terms of Service Careers Contact us Facebook Twitter Google+ This email was sent to you as your are following RefuseFascism.org. If you do not wish to receive emails for event updates, Disable notification for RefuseFascism.org or Turn off email notifications for new events from all the organizers. _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Tue Nov 14 16:35:09 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2017 16:35:09 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: Defending Civil Resistance Under International Law In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Defending Civil Resistance Under International Law When you “step across the line” at the Nevada Test Site, at a military base or at your local federal building, you are probably protected by International Law. Our treaties (like the Partial Test Ban Treaty) and the Nuremburg Principles provide you with a legal defense against arrest and imprisonment when you commit acts of “civil resistance” against our government’s illegal warmaking. A number of juries have returned “not guilty” verdicts after hearing this defense. The presentation of this defense allows you to educate the jurors, the judge and the prosecutors–maximizing the impact of your action. Dr. Francis Boyle’s landmark book tells you how to run your own legal defense of civil resistance actions. This book is a must for any person who has taken part in a civil resistance action, or who has contemplated doing so. See how this defense can not only give you your best chance to avoid jail, but can also advance the cause for which you risked arrest. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) Feed: "Francis Boyle" - BingNews Posted on: Saturday, January 21, 2017 6:12 PM Author: "Francis Boyle" - BingNews Subject: Defending Civil Resistance Under International Law Dr. Francis Boyle’s landmark book tells you how to run your own legal defense of civil resistance actions. This book is a must for any person who has taken part in a civil resistance action, or who has contemplated doing so. See how this defense can not ... View article... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Tue Nov 14 16:35:09 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2017 16:35:09 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: Defending Civil Resistance Under International Law In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Defending Civil Resistance Under International Law When you “step across the line” at the Nevada Test Site, at a military base or at your local federal building, you are probably protected by International Law. Our treaties (like the Partial Test Ban Treaty) and the Nuremburg Principles provide you with a legal defense against arrest and imprisonment when you commit acts of “civil resistance” against our government’s illegal warmaking. A number of juries have returned “not guilty” verdicts after hearing this defense. The presentation of this defense allows you to educate the jurors, the judge and the prosecutors–maximizing the impact of your action. Dr. Francis Boyle’s landmark book tells you how to run your own legal defense of civil resistance actions. This book is a must for any person who has taken part in a civil resistance action, or who has contemplated doing so. See how this defense can not only give you your best chance to avoid jail, but can also advance the cause for which you risked arrest. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) Feed: "Francis Boyle" - BingNews Posted on: Saturday, January 21, 2017 6:12 PM Author: "Francis Boyle" - BingNews Subject: Defending Civil Resistance Under International Law Dr. Francis Boyle’s landmark book tells you how to run your own legal defense of civil resistance actions. This book is a must for any person who has taken part in a civil resistance action, or who has contemplated doing so. See how this defense can not ... View article... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Tue Nov 14 17:06:01 2017 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2017 11:06:01 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Cornel West--The Real Deal! In-Reply-To: <7403F67D019E594194679D294619154F5AC6A533@CITESMBX5.ad.uillinois.edu> References: <18583CB8-36BA-4067-8230-E99BE7CDBFB8@gmail.com> <7403F67D019E594194679D294619154F5AC6A533@CITESMBX5.ad.uillinois.edu> Message-ID: <3F85B8E1-B263-405D-9B01-06BFA0719263@gmail.com> Valerie— What has the UI Department of Religion contributed to discussion of US war-making around the world? (Has the department e.g. defended Steven Salaita's academic freedom?) Shouldn’t that be a responsibility of academics in a public university? The world rightly condemns the pre-World War II German academy. Regards, Carl > On Nov 14, 2017, at 10:36 AM, Hoffman, Valerie J wrote: > > Dear friends, > > Please remove me from this list. Your discussions are interesting, but I need to receive fewer emails. > > All the best, > > Valerie > > Valerie J. Hoffman > Professor and Head > Department of Religion > The University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign > 3092B Foreign Languages Building, MC-166 > 707 S. Mathews Avenue > Urbana, IL 61801 > Telephone: 217-333-0953 > http://www.religion.illinois.edu/ > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Tue Nov 14 17:06:01 2017 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2017 11:06:01 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Cornel West--The Real Deal! In-Reply-To: <7403F67D019E594194679D294619154F5AC6A533@CITESMBX5.ad.uillinois.edu> References: <18583CB8-36BA-4067-8230-E99BE7CDBFB8@gmail.com> <7403F67D019E594194679D294619154F5AC6A533@CITESMBX5.ad.uillinois.edu> Message-ID: <3F85B8E1-B263-405D-9B01-06BFA0719263@gmail.com> Valerie— What has the UI Department of Religion contributed to discussion of US war-making around the world? (Has the department e.g. defended Steven Salaita's academic freedom?) Shouldn’t that be a responsibility of academics in a public university? The world rightly condemns the pre-World War II German academy. Regards, Carl > On Nov 14, 2017, at 10:36 AM, Hoffman, Valerie J wrote: > > Dear friends, > > Please remove me from this list. Your discussions are interesting, but I need to receive fewer emails. > > All the best, > > Valerie > > Valerie J. Hoffman > Professor and Head > Department of Religion > The University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign > 3092B Foreign Languages Building, MC-166 > 707 S. Mathews Avenue > Urbana, IL 61801 > Telephone: 217-333-0953 > http://www.religion.illinois.edu/ > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Tue Nov 14 17:21:25 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2017 17:21:25 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] =?windows-1252?q?Don=92t_Count_on_the_Cabinet_to_?= =?windows-1252?q?Stop_a_Trump-Ordered_Nuclear_Strike?= Message-ID: https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/11/14/jim-mattis-rex-tillerson-cabinet-stop-trump-nuclear-weapon-war-215824 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Tue Nov 14 17:21:25 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2017 17:21:25 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] =?windows-1252?q?Don=92t_Count_on_the_Cabinet_to_?= =?windows-1252?q?Stop_a_Trump-Ordered_Nuclear_Strike?= Message-ID: https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/11/14/jim-mattis-rex-tillerson-cabinet-stop-trump-nuclear-weapon-war-215824 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bjornsona at ameritech.net Tue Nov 14 19:34:13 2017 From: bjornsona at ameritech.net (bjornsona at ameritech.net) Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2017 13:34:13 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] =?utf-8?q?Don=E2=80=99t_Count_on_the_Cabinet_to_S?= =?utf-8?q?top_a_Trump-Ordered_Nuclear_Strike?= Message-ID: <7vmfvbkl31kbuf8s466aic81.1510687509255@email.lge.com> House Committee debating HR 2810 Defense Funding Bill for 2018 on C-Span right now. Stressing bi-partisan. Adding more ships than Navy even requested. The BASE cost of defense is 634$Billion according to Rep. Rob. Whittman, Frederickskburg, VA. Discussing $$ for Space warfare, fixing our space GPS, fully finding at least 3 nuclear programs like the B21 raider bomber. Sending $ to the states for veterans pay/retirement raises(?) did not catch all that.Rep. Niki Tsongas (D-Mass.) spoke against overspending. So far only one I have heard.  Sent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone ------ Original message------From: Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discussDate: Tue, Nov 14, 2017 11:22 AMTo: David Green;Miller, Joseph Thomas;sherwoodross10 at gmail.com;peace-discuss at anti-war.net;C. G. ESTABROOK;a-fields at uiuc.edu;Joe Lauria;Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net;peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net;Szoke, Ron;Arlene Hickory;Karen Aram;abass10 at gmail.com;mickalideh at gmail.com;Lina Thorne;chicago at worldcantwait.net;Jay;David Johnson;Mildred O'brien;C G Estabrook;Cc: Subject:[Peace-discuss] Don’t Count on the Cabinet to Stop a Trump-Ordered Nuclear Strike https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/11/14/jim-mattis-rex-tillerson-cabinet-stop-trump-nuclear-weapon-war-215824 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bjornsona at ameritech.net Tue Nov 14 19:34:13 2017 From: bjornsona at ameritech.net (bjornsona at ameritech.net) Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2017 13:34:13 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] =?utf-8?q?Don=E2=80=99t_Count_on_the_Cabinet_to_S?= =?utf-8?q?top_a_Trump-Ordered_Nuclear_Strike?= Message-ID: <7vmfvbkl31kbuf8s466aic81.1510687509255@email.lge.com> House Committee debating HR 2810 Defense Funding Bill for 2018 on C-Span right now. Stressing bi-partisan. Adding more ships than Navy even requested. The BASE cost of defense is 634$Billion according to Rep. Rob. Whittman, Frederickskburg, VA. Discussing $$ for Space warfare, fixing our space GPS, fully finding at least 3 nuclear programs like the B21 raider bomber. Sending $ to the states for veterans pay/retirement raises(?) did not catch all that.Rep. Niki Tsongas (D-Mass.) spoke against overspending. So far only one I have heard.  Sent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone ------ Original message------From: Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discussDate: Tue, Nov 14, 2017 11:22 AMTo: David Green;Miller, Joseph Thomas;sherwoodross10 at gmail.com;peace-discuss at anti-war.net;C. G. ESTABROOK;a-fields at uiuc.edu;Joe Lauria;Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net;peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net;Szoke, Ron;Arlene Hickory;Karen Aram;abass10 at gmail.com;mickalideh at gmail.com;Lina Thorne;chicago at worldcantwait.net;Jay;David Johnson;Mildred O'brien;C G Estabrook;Cc: Subject:[Peace-discuss] Don’t Count on the Cabinet to Stop a Trump-Ordered Nuclear Strike https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/11/14/jim-mattis-rex-tillerson-cabinet-stop-trump-nuclear-weapon-war-215824 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Wed Nov 15 04:33:26 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2017 04:33:26 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: Burundi and the ICC References: Message-ID: Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 10:29 PM To: 'anniegarrison at gmail.com' Subject: RE: Burundi and the ICC Thanks. fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Ann Garrison [mailto:anniegarrison at gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 10:28 PM To: Boyle, Francis A > Subject: Burundi and the ICC https://www.blackagendareport.com/burundi-defies-imperial-criminal-court-interview-john-philpot For real, Ann Garrison Independent Journalist, SKYPE: Ann Garrison, Oakland 415-503-7487 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Wed Nov 15 04:33:26 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2017 04:33:26 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: Burundi and the ICC References: Message-ID: Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 10:29 PM To: 'anniegarrison at gmail.com' Subject: RE: Burundi and the ICC Thanks. fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Ann Garrison [mailto:anniegarrison at gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 10:28 PM To: Boyle, Francis A > Subject: Burundi and the ICC https://www.blackagendareport.com/burundi-defies-imperial-criminal-court-interview-john-philpot For real, Ann Garrison Independent Journalist, SKYPE: Ann Garrison, Oakland 415-503-7487 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Wed Nov 15 04:34:22 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2017 04:34:22 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: Mattis' Claim US Authorized to Operate in Syria Lacks Any Legal Basis Message-ID: Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 10:31 PM To: sectns.aals at lists.aals.org Subject: FW: Mattis' Claim US Authorized to Operate in Syria Lacks Any Legal Basis Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) Feed: "Francis Boyle" - BingNews Posted on: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 12:41 PM Author: "Francis Boyle" - BingNews Subject: Mattis' Claim US Authorized to Operate in Syria Lacks Any Legal Basis University of Illinois Professor of Law Francis Boyle told Sputnik that Mattis’ claim on Monday was just the latest in a long list of spurious justifications for continued defiance of international law that successive US administrations had carried out ... View article... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Wed Nov 15 04:34:22 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2017 04:34:22 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: Mattis' Claim US Authorized to Operate in Syria Lacks Any Legal Basis Message-ID: Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 10:31 PM To: sectns.aals at lists.aals.org Subject: FW: Mattis' Claim US Authorized to Operate in Syria Lacks Any Legal Basis Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) Feed: "Francis Boyle" - BingNews Posted on: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 12:41 PM Author: "Francis Boyle" - BingNews Subject: Mattis' Claim US Authorized to Operate in Syria Lacks Any Legal Basis University of Illinois Professor of Law Francis Boyle told Sputnik that Mattis’ claim on Monday was just the latest in a long list of spurious justifications for continued defiance of international law that successive US administrations had carried out ... View article... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Wed Nov 15 12:29:28 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2017 12:29:28 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Mattis' Claim US Authorized to Operate in Syria Lacks Any Legal Basis Message-ID: International Law Prof. Francis Boyle: Shared from sputniknews.com Mattis' Claim US Authorized to Operate in Syria Lacks Any Legal Basis https://sputniknews.com/analysis/201711151059104906-mattis-us-syria-authorized/ From karenaram at hotmail.com Wed Nov 15 12:48:36 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2017 12:48:36 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Senate hearing on threat of US nuclear war Message-ID: Senate hearing considers threat of an unprovoked US nuclear war By Bill Van Auken WSWS.ORG 15 November 2017 The US Senate Foreign Relations Committee Tuesday held the first Congressional hearing in over four decades on the constitutional issues surrounding the US president’s authority over and the concrete procedures involved in the launching of a nuclear war. The discussion unfolded as three nuclear-powered US aircraft carriers have been deployed off the Korean Peninsula provoking a protest from North Korea that they are engaged in “nuclear war exercises” that threaten “international peace and security.” Clearly prompting the hearing was the increasingly tense situation on the Korean peninsula and the bellicose threat made by President Donald Trump to unleash “fire and fury like the world has never seen” in response to North Korean “threats,” as well as his speech before the United Nations General Assembly in September vowing to “totally destroy North Korea” and its 25 million inhabitants. The chair of the committee, Republican Senator Bob Corker of Tennessee, has been openly critical of Trump’s policy, describing the White House as having been turned into an “adult day care center” and warning that the president’s threats were leading the United States “on the path to World War III.” These warnings were echoed by Democratic members of the Senate committee in Tuesday’s hearing. Massachusetts Senator Ed Markey, for example, warned that there “could be plans in place right now in the White House given to the president to launch a preemptive war against North Korea using American nuclear weapons without consulting with, informing Congress whatsoever by arrogating that power to the executive branch in clear violation of the Constitution.” Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut added, “We are concerned that the president is so unstable, is so volatile, has a decision-making process that is so quixotic, that he might order a nuclear-weapons strike that is wildly out of step with US national-security interests.” In the end, however, the hearing provided a revealing glimpse of congressional impotence and the support of both major parties for the “modernization” of US imperialism’s nuclear arsenal in preparation for a Third World War. Testifying before the panel was the former head of the US Strategic Command, which oversees the US nuclear war machine, retired Air Force Gen. Robert Kehler. He was joined by a former Defense Department official under the Obama administration, Brian McKeon, and a former member of the National Security Council under George W. Bush, Peter Feaver. General Kehler provided the most significant testimony, leading off with a statement on the “paradox” of nuclear weapons that could have been lifted from the script of Dr. Strangelove: “In order to prevent their use we have to be prepared to use them.” He warned Congress against passing legislation changing the current system governing nuclear war or limiting the powers of the US president to launch one. Any attempt to “presuppose all of the scenarios under which we would somehow want to limit the powers of the commander-in-chief” would be to a “detriment to the overall deterrent” and would have detrimental “implications for our own military men and women and the confidence they place in the chain of command.” He said that the regime currently in place within the US nuclear command “accounts for the potential for the kind of scenarios we have been talking about today,” including the launching of a nuclear first strike “before an adversary weapon has been used.” General Kehler told the panel that US military commanders could refuse a presidential order to carry out a nuclear first strike if they considered it against the laws of war in terms of military necessity and proportionality. “If an illegal order is presented to the military,” he said, “the military is obligated to refuse to follow it,” he said, insisting that this was the standard upheld by the Pentagon in relation to every action, not just nuclear war. Of course, the credibility of this assertion is undermined by the American military’s involvement in countless war crimes from torture to massacres of civilians, use of chemical weapons and the wholesale bombing of the populations of Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria and Yemen. In the event of an unjustified order for a first strike, the general continued, the military commanders would advise the president against nuclear aggression “Action can be taken if the president overrules that and says we’re going forward with an attack,” the general continued. Such action by the military brass, he added, would pose a “very interesting constitutional situation,” suggesting the distinct possibility of the military seizing power. The general’s testimony drew a sharp rebuke from two Republican senators. Marco Rubio of Florida warned against “bunker lawyers who decide that they are going to disobey any order they disagree with” leading to a situation that could “spin out of control.” Senator James Risch of Idaho warned the panel that “Pyongyang is listening” and that no one should say anything to undermine Trump’s threats of nuclear annihilation. “Every time the president has used force, he has had the support of the Congress and the American people,” Risch said. He stated that the US Constitution was “written in a different time” and that the speed of developments today precluded observance of its provision giving Congress the sole authorization to declare war. “Decisions have to be made in a matter of minutes, and they won’t be made by lawyers, by courts or by Congress,” he said. “They are going to be made by the commander-in-chief,” adding that Trump “will do what is necessary to defend this country.” McKeon, the former Pentagon official from the Obama administration, allowed that he was “very worried about a miscalculation based on the continuing use of his [Trump’s] Twitter account with regard to North Korea.” He added, however, “Hard cases make bad law. If we were to change the decision-making process in some way because of distrust of this president it would set an unfortunate precedent for future presidents.” Feaver, the Bush-era National Security Council official, suggested that the main aim of Congress should be to “reassure the American public that they have a nuclear arsenal that is well maintained and well guarded against unauthorized use.” He suggested that the Senate’s going ahead with a debate on the issue and then deciding “not to make a legislative fix” would “go some distance toward reassuring the public.” Corker, who has close ties to the military, summed up the hearing by declaring that he didn’t “see any legislative changes as it relates to the power of commander-in-chief” and calling for the modernization of US nuclear weapons to “make sure that if they are called upon to be used they will actually do the things that they’re intended to do.” Senator Markey spoke at the close of the hearing in opposition to “trusting the generals to be a check on the president” and insisting that in the case of a preemptive nuclear war Congress had to provide authorization. He complained, however, “An atmosphere of ambiguity has been created by president after president around whether or not they are going to defer to our authority.” The reality is that Congress long ago surrendered its war powers under the Constitution with war after war being waged with no congressional declaration of war, and ever-spreading and unending military interventions being conducted in open breach of the War Powers Act, passed in 1973, requiring congressional authorization for any military action lasting more than 60 days. While ostensibly inspired by concerns over a politically unstable US president launching an unprovoked nuclear first strike, Tuesday’s hearings only underscored the instability of the entire system which is driving US imperialism toward a third world war abroad and dictatorship at home. [http://www.wsws.org/en/media/photos/legacy/frontpage/201710appeal490.png] Fight Google's censorship! Google is blocking the World Socialist Web Site from search results. To fight this blacklisting: Share this article with friends and coworkers * Facebook * Twitter * E-Mail * Reddit Commenting Discussion Rules » -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Wed Nov 15 13:38:30 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2017 13:38:30 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Zimbabwe military coup Message-ID: Morning News in Africa, this morning: Zimbabwe military seizes power and detains leader. Claims its not a coup. Yeah, right. Now I wonder who is responsible. It's not the Chinese who have a lot of business interests in Zimbabwe. Could it be the US, with our record of behind the scenes interventions as prolific as our "right out in front of everyone" interventions? Zimbabwe, is one of two African nations that doesn't have a US military base within its borders. The other is Eritrea. Pure speculation on my part, but given the past behavior of the USG, its not brain surgery. We'll see what transpires in the upcoming weeks, months. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Wed Nov 15 14:56:28 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2017 14:56:28 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Zizek offers a focus, that I agree is very necessary, especially today. Message-ID: I’ve never been a fan of Slavoj Zizek, but I will be following him now: https://youtu.be/tXdvYgSKDKY From fboyle at illinois.edu Wed Nov 15 16:29:43 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2017 16:29:43 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Dean Iceman Message-ID: Dean Iceman Befriended when came Gave my hand Took it Gave my support Took it Vouched for him Promptly stabbed in backs Longtime Clients and Friends Twice Muslims/Arabs/Africans of Color Latinx of Color Picture Clear Iceman v. Irish American Green Diaper Baby Typical law dean Smiling all the time Glad-handing all the time Jiving all the time Betraying offered Friendship Insulting my intelligence So it goes In ruthless unprincipled world Of "Legal Education" Oxymoron to be sure Only morons could believe U.S. Imperial Legal Education Association of American Imperial Law Schools American Society of Imperial Law American Journal of Imperial Law Harvard Imperial Law School Yale Imperial Law School UChicago Imperial Law School Columbia Imperial Law School Berkeley Imperial Law School NYU Imperial Law School Virginia Imperial Law School Northwestern Imperial Law School Georgetown Imperial Law School Illinois Imperial Law School Etc., Etc., Etc. ad nauseum White/Judeo/Christian Law Profs Against Peoples of Color Home and abroad Especially Muslims Their Untermensch They Ubermensch Like Nazis against Jews 70 years after World War 2 The Nazis have won Against Latinx too -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Wed Nov 15 16:29:43 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2017 16:29:43 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Dean Iceman Message-ID: Dean Iceman Befriended when came Gave my hand Took it Gave my support Took it Vouched for him Promptly stabbed in backs Longtime Clients and Friends Twice Muslims/Arabs/Africans of Color Latinx of Color Picture Clear Iceman v. Irish American Green Diaper Baby Typical law dean Smiling all the time Glad-handing all the time Jiving all the time Betraying offered Friendship Insulting my intelligence So it goes In ruthless unprincipled world Of "Legal Education" Oxymoron to be sure Only morons could believe U.S. Imperial Legal Education Association of American Imperial Law Schools American Society of Imperial Law American Journal of Imperial Law Harvard Imperial Law School Yale Imperial Law School UChicago Imperial Law School Columbia Imperial Law School Berkeley Imperial Law School NYU Imperial Law School Virginia Imperial Law School Northwestern Imperial Law School Georgetown Imperial Law School Illinois Imperial Law School Etc., Etc., Etc. ad nauseum White/Judeo/Christian Law Profs Against Peoples of Color Home and abroad Especially Muslims Their Untermensch They Ubermensch Like Nazis against Jews 70 years after World War 2 The Nazis have won Against Latinx too -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From r-szoke at illinois.edu Wed Nov 15 18:05:43 2017 From: r-szoke at illinois.edu (Szoke, Ron) Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2017 18:05:43 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Hate in America: Where it comes from and why it's back References: <029DF6C3-0EE1-420F-8E53-1169900D6A10@illinois.edu> Message-ID: <5422ECF0-3D11-4EDE-8004-634988534EC6@illinois.edu> From: "Szoke, Ron" > Subject: Hate in America: Where it comes from and why it's back Date: November 15, 2017 Hate in America: Where it comes from and why it's back https://www.yahoo.com/news/hate-america-comes-back-100032161.html?soc_src=hl-viewer&soc_trk=ma -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Wed Nov 15 19:15:09 2017 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2017 13:15:09 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Hate in America: Where it comes from and why it's back In-Reply-To: <5422ECF0-3D11-4EDE-8004-634988534EC6@illinois.edu> References: <029DF6C3-0EE1-420F-8E53-1169900D6A10@illinois.edu> <5422ECF0-3D11-4EDE-8004-634988534EC6@illinois.edu> Message-ID: <22373FC5-DC80-492D-9DD3-824C34B4B015@gmail.com> This article is a remarkably long-winded attempt to obfuscate what happened in the 2016 election: the vast and accelerating rise in inequality in the Obama years led enough of his voters to refuse to vote for another pro-war/pro-Wall St. candidate - and instead vote for the first major party candidate in 40 years who attacked the neoliberal and neoconservative polices of all recent administrations. > From: "Szoke, Ron" > Subject: Hate in America: Where it comes from and why it's back > Date: November 15, 2017 > > Hate in America: Where it comes from and why it's back > https://www.yahoo.com/news/hate-america-comes-back-100032161.html?soc_src=hl-viewer&soc_trk=ma From cgestabrook at gmail.com Wed Nov 15 20:23:43 2017 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2017 14:23:43 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Hate in America: Where it comes from and why it's back In-Reply-To: <22373FC5-DC80-492D-9DD3-824C34B4B015@gmail.com> References: <029DF6C3-0EE1-420F-8E53-1169900D6A10@illinois.edu> <5422ECF0-3D11-4EDE-8004-634988534EC6@illinois.edu> <22373FC5-DC80-492D-9DD3-824C34B4B015@gmail.com> Message-ID: ‘Hate’ has been used recently by the Israel lobby and the Clinton campaign to cover over their indefensible polices (oppression of the Palestinians; war with Putin “the new Hitler”). They pretend that their opponents are only anti-Semites and ‘deplorable' racists. Deo gratias, they have more opponents than that. > On Nov 15, 2017, at 1:15 PM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: > > This article is a remarkably long-winded attempt to obfuscate what happened in the 2016 election: the vast and accelerating rise in inequality in the Obama years led enough of his voters to refuse to vote for another pro-war/pro-Wall St. candidate - and instead elect the first major party candidate in 40 years who attacked the neoliberal and neoconservative polices of all recent administrations. > >> From: "Szoke, Ron" >> Subject: Hate in America: Where it comes from and why it's back >> Date: November 15, 2017 >> >> Hate in America: Where it comes from and why it's back >> https://www.yahoo.com/news/hate-america-comes-back-100032161.html?soc_src=hl-viewer&soc_trk=ma > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss From kmedina67 at gmail.com Thu Nov 16 02:29:28 2017 From: kmedina67 at gmail.com (Karen Medina) Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2017 20:29:28 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Hate in America: Where it comes from and why it's back In-Reply-To: <5422ECF0-3D11-4EDE-8004-634988534EC6@illinois.edu> References: <029DF6C3-0EE1-420F-8E53-1169900D6A10@illinois.edu> <5422ECF0-3D11-4EDE-8004-634988534EC6@illinois.edu> Message-ID: I guess Poland is seeing an upsurge in white "love." POLAND! https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/11/12/pray-for-an-islamic-holocaust-tens-of-thousands-from-europes-far-right-march-in-poland/?utm_term=.37d764b51ca9 Poland defends massive far-right protest that called for a ‘White Europe’ -karen medina On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 12:05 PM, Szoke, Ron via Peace-discuss wrote: > > From: "Szoke, Ron" > Subject: Hate in America: Where it comes from and why it's back > Date: November 15, 2017 > > Hate in America: Where it comes from and why it's back > https://www.yahoo.com/news/hate-america-comes-back-100032161.html?soc_src=hl-viewer&soc_trk=ma > > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > -- -- karen medina "The really great make you feel that you, too, can become great." - Mark Twain From davegreen84 at yahoo.com Thu Nov 16 04:02:33 2017 From: davegreen84 at yahoo.com (David Green) Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2017 04:02:33 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Peace-discuss] Hate in America: Where it comes from and why it's back In-Reply-To: References: <029DF6C3-0EE1-420F-8E53-1169900D6A10@illinois.edu> <5422ECF0-3D11-4EDE-8004-634988534EC6@illinois.edu> <22373FC5-DC80-492D-9DD3-824C34B4B015@gmail.com> Message-ID: <567872835.974300.1510804953624@mail.yahoo.com> Given the number of allegedly anti-semitic hate crimes, I assume that instances such as  the Menorah vandalism at Chabad house  in Champaign would count as such. These data are not believable, except to the ADL and SPLC, who make their living off of them. That of course just scratches the surface of this ridiculous amount of verbiage. On Wednesday, November 15, 2017, 2:24:07 PM CST, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: ‘Hate’ has been used recently by the Israel lobby and the Clinton campaign to cover over their indefensible polices (oppression of the Palestinians; war with Putin “the new Hitler”). They pretend that their opponents are only anti-Semites and ‘deplorable' racists. Deo gratias, they have more opponents than that. > On Nov 15, 2017, at 1:15 PM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: > > This article is a remarkably long-winded attempt to obfuscate what happened in the 2016 election: the vast and accelerating rise in inequality in the Obama years led enough of his voters to refuse to vote for another pro-war/pro-Wall St. candidate - and instead elect the first major party candidate in 40 years who attacked the neoliberal and neoconservative polices of all recent administrations.  > >> From: "Szoke, Ron" >> Subject: Hate in America: Where it comes from and why it's back >> Date: November 15, 2017 >> >> Hate in America: Where it comes from and why it's back >> https://www.yahoo.com/news/hate-america-comes-back-100032161.html?soc_src=hl-viewer&soc_trk=ma > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Thu Nov 16 13:09:59 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2017 13:09:59 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Reuters: Lead content across the nation are at least double that of Flint. Message-ID: * WSWS * ICFI * Mehring Books * Mobile * RSS Feeds * Podcast * Newsletter * Select a language Afrikaans >العربية Čeština Deutsch Ελληνικά English Español فارسی Français Bahasa Indonesia Italiano Norsk Polski Português Română Русский Srpskohrvatski Sinhalese தமிழ் Türkçe اُردُو‎ 中文 [http://www.wsws.org/img/title.png] [http://www.wsws.org/img/logo.png] Published by the International Committee of the Fourth International (ICFI) Click here for advanced search » * Home * Perspectives * World News * World Economy * Arts Review * History * Science * Philosophy * Workers Struggles * ICFI/Marxist Library * Chronology * Full Archive * Print * Leaflet * Feedback * Share » Nearly 4,000 US communities have higher rates of lead poisoning than Flint By Jerry White 16 November 2017 In an updated study, Reuters news agency has identified 3,810 neighborhoods where recently recorded child lead poisoning rates are at least double those found in Flint, Michigan during the height of that city’s water crisis in 2014 and 2015. In some 1,300 of these “hotspot” communities, the percentage of children six and under with elevated lead levels was at least four times the percentage in Flint during the peak of the crisis. In pockets of Baltimore, Cleveland and Philadelphia, where lead poisoning has spanned generations, Reuters reported that the rate of elevated tests over the last decade was 50 percent or higher. An interactive map released with the study shows one census tract in Buffalo, New York—a former steel and auto center that, like Flint, has suffered decades of deindustrialization—where 68 percent of the children had high levels of lead. [http://www.wsws.org/asset/84c54359-cd5d-4721-9406-5861f475870N/image.jpg?rendition=image480]Map of lead concentrations in the United States The ingestion of any amount of the heavy metal, whether through tainted water, lead-based paint, contaminated soil or fumes and dust, can do irreparable harm to children. This includes impeding the development of the brain and nervous system, lowered IQ, memory loss, hearing and speech problems, and behavioral and attention-related problems. The toxin, which remains in the body and can be passed on for generations, is also responsible for a host of adult health problems, including decreased kidney function, high blood pressure, tremors and infertility. In the year following the switchover of Flint to water from the polluted Flint River, which caused leaching from the city’s antiquated lead pipe system, five percent of the children who had their blood tested showed lead levels in excess of five micrograms per deciliter. This is the threshold requiring immediate public health intervention, according to the US government’s Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which acknowledges that there is no safe level of exposure to lead. Reuters used data collected by the CDC based on neighborhood-level blood testing results for 34 states and the District of Columbia. As devastating as the results are, they do not provide a full picture. The CDC funds 35 state and local health departments for lead surveillance. Reporting is voluntary in the remaining states, many of which do not have staff to collect data. Despite the well-known public health hazard, the US government does not require reporting and does not oversee the systematic collection and analysis of data on lead poisoning. [http://www.wsws.org/asset/7cd714d2-f9ab-4dce-aa12-ab5c60dc079B/image.jpg?rendition=image480]Dr. Kim Cecil of the Cincinnati Lead Study shows how the brain isdamaged by lead poisoning Reuters says this is the first look at data broken down by census tracts, which are small county subdivisions averaging 4,000 citizens, or by zip codes, with average populations of 7,500. In December, Reuters noted that far from being the exception, Flint did not even rank among the most toxic cities in America. It pointed to Warren, Pennsylvania, a town on the Allegheny River, where 36 percent of the children tested had high led levels, to a zip code on Goat Island, Texas, where a quarter of tests showed poisoning. The newest map includes additional data collected this year by Reuters from Kansas, Georgia, Tennessee, Vermont, North Carolina, New York City and Washington, D.C. The newly identified areas with high levels of child lead poisoning include a historic district in Savannah, Georgia, areas in Rutland, Vermont near a popular skiing area, and a largely Hasidic Jewish area in Brooklyn, New York. Like Flint, which has acres of land polluted by General Motors and other industrial firms, impoverished homes with peeling paint, and underground lead water mains and service lines, the areas throughout the US with the worst lead poisoning are invariably working class and poor. There has been a sharp decline in poisoning since lead was removed from paint in 1976 and gasoline in 1995, the latter after more than a decade of resistance by the oil industry. The elimination of lead poisoning, however, is not possible due to lead pipes, residual lead paint in poor urban and rural areas, and former or current industrial sites polluted with lead. [http://www.wsws.org/asset/5ef1c8bb-ea22-4925-a9bd-79bc0d22772A/image.jpg?rendition=image480]The Flint River “The dramatic decline in blood lead over the last several decades in the US is a public health triumph, resulting from control of lead in gasoline, paint, food, water, soil, consumer products and other sources,” said Marc Edwards, a professor of environmental and water resources engineering at Virginia Tech University, who was instrumental in exposing the lies of state and local officials who claimed that Flint’s water was safe. He continued: “Before the increased use of lead in paint and gasoline, lead in water was once the dominant source of human lead exposure in the United States, and it was generally acknowledged to cause widespread lead poisoning, fatalities and adverse pregnancy outcomes. Flint is yet another reminder that we must remain vigilant to harm caused by all lead sources, especially lead pipes, which are out of sight and out of mind. It is also the only government-owned source of lead, which directly affects potable water, a product intended for human consumption. Flint is just the most recent example of how this inherent conflict has harmed people.” The poisoning of Flint was brought into the national and international spotlight only due to the courageous efforts of the city’s working class residents and science professionals like Edwards and pediatrician and public health advocate Dr. Mona Hanna-Attisha. She was denounced by Governor Rick Snyder’s office for “slicing and dicing” the results of blood samples. Flint became a symbol of everything that was wrong in America: corporate and political criminality and the indifference of both the Democrats and Republicans to the plight of working people. The media, celebrities and politicians from Barack Obama to Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders poured into the town and legal proceedings were initiated against several lesser figures involved in the crime and cover-up. More than three years since the switch to the Flint River, however, nothing has been done to make the residents whole. The new report from Reuters has been largely ignored by the rest of the corporate-controlled media, which originally presented the Flint crisis as an anomaly, until it was unable to deny the massive and nationwide scale of the problem. Far from committing the necessary resources, including an estimated $500 billion to $1 trillion to replace the nation’s lead pipes, the Obama and Trump administrations have failed to provide any significant funding to address this public health care threat, even as they have squandered trillions on bank bailouts, military spending and tax cuts for the wealthy. Trump’s 2018 budget request includes a $1.2 billion, or 17 percent, cut to the CDC and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Thu Nov 16 16:12:11 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2017 16:12:11 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: Stalingrad 75 Message-ID: Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2017 10:11 AM To: sectns.aals at lists.aals.org Subject: Stalingrad 75 Stanlingrad We got off the boat at the dock Walking into town I was asked Could I lay some flowers At the War Memorial On the Banks of the Volga? Of course I said yes Honored and pleased My Dad had fought the Japanese At Saipan and Tinian and Okinawa Nazis were not his war But we were all Allies together In the Noble Cause to Defeat Fascism As I neared the Statue On the Banks of the Volga Young Komsomol Girl appeared All dressed in white Carrying a wreath of red roses She gave to me A band was playing Joyful, not somber, but subdued Town Elders assembled Sun was shining Most beautiful day On the Banks of the Volga I lay my wreath of roses To the Defenders and Victims of Stalingrad Bowed my head in silent reflection If the Soviets had not held at Stalingrad All Europe today would be speaking German And saluting: Heil Hitler! Deutschland, Deutschland But not Uber Alles My Dad was smiling On the Banks of the Volga [cid:image001.jpg at 01D35EC3.5DEAF7F0] Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 66047 bytes Desc: image001.jpg URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Thu Nov 16 16:12:11 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2017 16:12:11 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: Stalingrad 75 Message-ID: Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2017 10:11 AM To: sectns.aals at lists.aals.org Subject: Stalingrad 75 Stanlingrad We got off the boat at the dock Walking into town I was asked Could I lay some flowers At the War Memorial On the Banks of the Volga? Of course I said yes Honored and pleased My Dad had fought the Japanese At Saipan and Tinian and Okinawa Nazis were not his war But we were all Allies together In the Noble Cause to Defeat Fascism As I neared the Statue On the Banks of the Volga Young Komsomol Girl appeared All dressed in white Carrying a wreath of red roses She gave to me A band was playing Joyful, not somber, but subdued Town Elders assembled Sun was shining Most beautiful day On the Banks of the Volga I lay my wreath of roses To the Defenders and Victims of Stalingrad Bowed my head in silent reflection If the Soviets had not held at Stalingrad All Europe today would be speaking German And saluting: Heil Hitler! Deutschland, Deutschland But not Uber Alles My Dad was smiling On the Banks of the Volga [cid:image001.jpg at 01D35EC3.5DEAF7F0] Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 66047 bytes Desc: image001.jpg URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Thu Nov 16 22:43:16 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2017 22:43:16 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: Keystone pipeline shut down after leak References: <972122207.1142.1510871086521.JavaMail.nobody@prd-10-165-239-123.nodes.56m.dmtio.net> Message-ID: Now isn’t this just dandy, and so damn predictable………. Subject: Keystone pipeline shut down after leak Date: November 16, 2017 at 14:24:48 PST A total of 210,000 gallons of oil leaked Thursday from the Keystone Pipeline in South Dakota, the pipeline's operator, TransCanada, said. Crews shut down the pipeline Thursday morning, and officials are investigating the cause of the leak. This is the largest Keystone oil spill to date in South Dakota, said Brian Walsh, a spokesman for the state's Department of Environment and Natural Resources. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Fri Nov 17 12:35:40 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2017 12:35:40 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Stalingrad 75 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In August of 1989 the Good Citizens of Volgograd/Stalingrad selected me to publicly honor and pay tribute to the Defenders and Victims of the Battle for Stalingrad against the invading and annihilating German Army that included Nazi Waffen SS Stormtroopers. By comparison, in 1985 Reagan paid Tribute to Nazi Waffen SS Stormtroopers at their Bitburg Cemetery against the wishes of every Jewish Organization and Veterans Organization in the country while announcing his so-called Reagan Doctrine whose author was Jeanne Kirkpatrick. Prior thereto I had condemned Reagan's forthcoming Nazi Act in plenary debate with Kirkpatrick's Lawyer and Co-author on the Reagan Doctrine before the Annual Convention of the American Society of International Law at their request. At the time, Killer Koh worked for Reagan. Fab. The Reagan/Bitburg Doctrine ...Here Kirkpatrick and Gerson quite correctly (though perhaps unwittingly) pointed out that on May 5, 1985 Reagan took the opportunity to publicly announce his so-called doctrine at Bitburg, West Germany (p. 22). There Reagan laid a memorial wreath at a cemetery that he knew contained the remains of dead Nazi Waffen SS Stormtroopers despite the vigorous protestations of the justifiably outraged American Jewish community and U.S. veterans organizations, among others. As I argued in a general debate with none other than Gerson himself, inter alia, before the annual convention of the American Society of International Law held shortly beforehand in New York City on April 26: "It is the Reagan administration's Machiavellian approach to foreign affairs that sponsored the Israeli invasion of Lebanon. It is the Reagan administration that brought you the United States invasion of Grenada. It was the Reagan administration that brought you the U.S. invasion of Nicaragua, which still goes on today. It is the Reagan administration's policy of constructive engagement that has encouraged the South African invasion of Angola. It is the Reagan administration which has launched an all-out vicious assault on the integrity of the International Court of Justice. And it is now the Reagan administration that is going to be paying tribute to 39 SS soldiers at a cemetery in West Germany. I think nothing could be a more eloquent and symbolic statement of what motivates the foreign policy of this administration than that act." Stanlingrad We got off the boat at the dock Walking into town I was asked Could I lay some flowers At the War Memorial On the Banks of the Volga? Of course I said yes Honored and pleased My Dad had fought the Japanese At Saipan and Tinian and Okinawa Nazis were not his war But we were all Allies together In the Noble Cause to Defeat Fascism As I neared the Statue On the Banks of the Volga Young Komsomol Girl appeared All dressed in white Carrying a wreath of red roses She gave to me A band was playing Joyful, not somber, but subdued Town Elders assembled Sun was shining Most beautiful day On the Banks of the Volga I lay my wreath of roses To the Defenders and Victims of Stalingrad Bowed my head in silent reflection If the Soviets had not held at Stalingrad All Europe today would be speaking German And saluting: Heil Hitler! Deutschland, Deutschland But not Uber Alles My Dad was smiling On the Banks of the Volga [cid:image002.jpg at 01D35F6E.46CBA9B0] Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 63660 bytes Desc: image002.jpg URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Fri Nov 17 12:35:40 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2017 12:35:40 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Stalingrad 75 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In August of 1989 the Good Citizens of Volgograd/Stalingrad selected me to publicly honor and pay tribute to the Defenders and Victims of the Battle for Stalingrad against the invading and annihilating German Army that included Nazi Waffen SS Stormtroopers. By comparison, in 1985 Reagan paid Tribute to Nazi Waffen SS Stormtroopers at their Bitburg Cemetery against the wishes of every Jewish Organization and Veterans Organization in the country while announcing his so-called Reagan Doctrine whose author was Jeanne Kirkpatrick. Prior thereto I had condemned Reagan's forthcoming Nazi Act in plenary debate with Kirkpatrick's Lawyer and Co-author on the Reagan Doctrine before the Annual Convention of the American Society of International Law at their request. At the time, Killer Koh worked for Reagan. Fab. The Reagan/Bitburg Doctrine ...Here Kirkpatrick and Gerson quite correctly (though perhaps unwittingly) pointed out that on May 5, 1985 Reagan took the opportunity to publicly announce his so-called doctrine at Bitburg, West Germany (p. 22). There Reagan laid a memorial wreath at a cemetery that he knew contained the remains of dead Nazi Waffen SS Stormtroopers despite the vigorous protestations of the justifiably outraged American Jewish community and U.S. veterans organizations, among others. As I argued in a general debate with none other than Gerson himself, inter alia, before the annual convention of the American Society of International Law held shortly beforehand in New York City on April 26: "It is the Reagan administration's Machiavellian approach to foreign affairs that sponsored the Israeli invasion of Lebanon. It is the Reagan administration that brought you the United States invasion of Grenada. It was the Reagan administration that brought you the U.S. invasion of Nicaragua, which still goes on today. It is the Reagan administration's policy of constructive engagement that has encouraged the South African invasion of Angola. It is the Reagan administration which has launched an all-out vicious assault on the integrity of the International Court of Justice. And it is now the Reagan administration that is going to be paying tribute to 39 SS soldiers at a cemetery in West Germany. I think nothing could be a more eloquent and symbolic statement of what motivates the foreign policy of this administration than that act." Stanlingrad We got off the boat at the dock Walking into town I was asked Could I lay some flowers At the War Memorial On the Banks of the Volga? Of course I said yes Honored and pleased My Dad had fought the Japanese At Saipan and Tinian and Okinawa Nazis were not his war But we were all Allies together In the Noble Cause to Defeat Fascism As I neared the Statue On the Banks of the Volga Young Komsomol Girl appeared All dressed in white Carrying a wreath of red roses She gave to me A band was playing Joyful, not somber, but subdued Town Elders assembled Sun was shining Most beautiful day On the Banks of the Volga I lay my wreath of roses To the Defenders and Victims of Stalingrad Bowed my head in silent reflection If the Soviets had not held at Stalingrad All Europe today would be speaking German And saluting: Heil Hitler! Deutschland, Deutschland But not Uber Alles My Dad was smiling On the Banks of the Volga [cid:image002.jpg at 01D35F6E.46CBA9B0] Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 63660 bytes Desc: image002.jpg URL: From davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net Fri Nov 17 14:55:48 2017 From: davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net (David Johnson) Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2017 08:55:48 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Hate in America: Where it comes from and why it's back In-Reply-To: <567872835.974300.1510804953624@mail.yahoo.com> References: <029DF6C3-0EE1-420F-8E53-1169900D6A10@illinois.edu> <5422ECF0-3D11-4EDE-8004-634988534EC6@illinois.edu> <22373FC5-DC80-492D-9DD3-824C34B4B015@gmail.com> <567872835.974300.1510804953624@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <004f01d35fb4$280effe0$782cffa0$@comcast.net> David, According to Steve Wolf who is a “ Silent Host “ / Researcher with us on The World Labor Hour and an active member of the Chabad House, the vandalism of the Menorah was an act of random vandalism by drunken Frat boys who happened to be walking up 4th street toward County Market grocery store. So, I wonder how many other similar incidents are embellished to inflate the number of anti-Semitic hate crimes ? David Johnson From: Peace-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of David Green via Peace-discuss Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2017 10:03 PM To: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; C G Estabrook Cc: Ron Szoke Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Hate in America: Where it comes from and why it's back Given the number of allegedly anti-semitic hate crimes, I assume that instances such as the Menorah vandalism at Chabad house in Champaign would count as such. These data are not believable, except to the ADL and SPLC, who make their living off of them. That of course just scratches the surface of this ridiculous amount of verbiage. On Wednesday, November 15, 2017, 2:24:07 PM CST, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: ‘Hate’ has been used recently by the Israel lobby and the Clinton campaign to cover over their indefensible polices (oppression of the Palestinians; war with Putin “the new Hitler”). They pretend that their opponents are only anti-Semites and ‘deplorable' racists. Deo gratias, they have more opponents than that. > On Nov 15, 2017, at 1:15 PM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: > > This article is a remarkably long-winded attempt to obfuscate what happened in the 2016 election: the vast and accelerating rise in inequality in the Obama years led enough of his voters to refuse to vote for another pro-war/pro-Wall St. candidate - and instead elect the first major party candidate in 40 years who attacked the neoliberal and neoconservative polices of all recent administrations. > >> From: "Szoke, Ron" >> Subject: Hate in America: Where it comes from and why it's back >> Date: November 15, 2017 >> >> Hate in America: Where it comes from and why it's back >> https://www.yahoo.com/news/hate-america-comes-back-100032161.html?soc_src=hl-viewer &soc_trk=ma > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davegreen84 at yahoo.com Fri Nov 17 16:01:31 2017 From: davegreen84 at yahoo.com (David Green) Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2017 16:01:31 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Peace-discuss] Hate in America: Where it comes from and why it's back In-Reply-To: <004f01d35fb4$280effe0$782cffa0$@comcast.net> References: <029DF6C3-0EE1-420F-8E53-1169900D6A10@illinois.edu> <5422ECF0-3D11-4EDE-8004-634988534EC6@illinois.edu> <22373FC5-DC80-492D-9DD3-824C34B4B015@gmail.com> <567872835.974300.1510804953624@mail.yahoo.com> <004f01d35fb4$280effe0$782cffa0$@comcast.net> Message-ID: <1929784729.309280.1510934491399@mail.yahoo.com> Yes, because there is so little anti-Semitism of any consequence in our community, these incidences had to be inflated to serve the agenda of local Zionists, as well as their supporters at the News-Gazette, which provided ample publicity. And for some reason, older people lose their ability to recall when they were young and did stupid (but usually harmless) things that needn't be interpreted as part of a political agenda. On Friday, November 17, 2017, 8:55:43 AM CST, David Johnson wrote: David,   According to Steve Wolf who is a “ Silent Host “ / Researcher with us on The World Labor Hour and an active member of the Chabad House, the vandalism of the Menorah was an act of random vandalism by drunken Frat boys who happened to be walking up 4th street toward County Market  grocery store. So, I wonder how many other similar incidents are embellished to inflate the number of anti-Semitic hate crimes ?   David Johnson   From: Peace-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of David Green via Peace-discuss Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2017 10:03 PM To: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; C G Estabrook Cc: Ron Szoke Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Hate in America: Where it comes from and why it's back   Given the number of allegedly anti-semitic hate crimes, I assume that instances such as  the Menorah vandalism at Chabad house  in Champaign would count as such. These data are not believable, except to the ADL and SPLC, who make their living off of them. That of course just scratches the surface of this ridiculous amount of verbiage.   On Wednesday, November 15, 2017, 2:24:07 PM CST, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote:     ‘Hate’ has been used recently by the Israel lobby and the Clinton campaign to cover over their indefensible polices (oppression of the Palestinians; war with Putin “the new Hitler”). They pretend that their opponents are only anti-Semites and ‘deplorable' racists. Deo gratias, they have more opponents than that. > On Nov 15, 2017, at 1:15 PM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: > > This article is a remarkably long-winded attempt to obfuscate what happened in the 2016 election: the vast and accelerating rise in inequality in the Obama years led enough of his voters to refuse to vote for another pro-war/pro-Wall St. candidate - and instead elect the first major party candidate in 40 years who attacked the neoliberal and neoconservative polices of all recent administrations.  > >> From: "Szoke, Ron" >> Subject: Hate in America: Where it comes from and why it's back >> Date: November 15, 2017 >> >> Hate in America: Where it comes from and why it's back >> https://www.yahoo.com/news/hate-america-comes-back-100032161.html?soc_src=hl-viewer&soc_trk=ma > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kmedina67 at gmail.com Sat Nov 18 00:08:39 2017 From: kmedina67 at gmail.com (Karen Medina) Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2017 18:08:39 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Hate in America: Where it comes from and why it's back In-Reply-To: <1929784729.309280.1510934491399@mail.yahoo.com> References: <029DF6C3-0EE1-420F-8E53-1169900D6A10@illinois.edu> <5422ECF0-3D11-4EDE-8004-634988534EC6@illinois.edu> <22373FC5-DC80-492D-9DD3-824C34B4B015@gmail.com> <567872835.974300.1510804953624@mail.yahoo.com> <004f01d35fb4$280effe0$782cffa0$@comcast.net> <1929784729.309280.1510934491399@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: So, I guess I have two naive questions. 1. Does the motive of hate have to be proven? If so, how can that be proven? 2. Is rape ever treated as a hate crime by the justice system? -karen medina From davegreen84 at yahoo.com Sat Nov 18 04:47:58 2017 From: davegreen84 at yahoo.com (David Green) Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2017 04:47:58 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Peace-discuss] Hate in America: Where it comes from and why it's back In-Reply-To: References: <029DF6C3-0EE1-420F-8E53-1169900D6A10@illinois.edu> <5422ECF0-3D11-4EDE-8004-634988534EC6@illinois.edu> <22373FC5-DC80-492D-9DD3-824C34B4B015@gmail.com> <567872835.974300.1510804953624@mail.yahoo.com> <004f01d35fb4$280effe0$782cffa0$@comcast.net> <1929784729.309280.1510934491399@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1308462617.645904.1510980478800@mail.yahoo.com> IMO the notion of such thing as a hate crime has always been related to the Zionist agenda, although perhaps much else. It gets back to criticisms that have evolved regarding the Anti-Defamation League and the Southern Poverty Law Center. Hating on hate has become a big business, and heavily politicized. Indeed the whole Matthew Shepard case has been strongly critiqued, among others.  On ‎Friday‎, ‎November‎ ‎17‎, ‎2017‎ ‎06‎:‎08‎:‎40‎ ‎PM, Karen Medina wrote: So, I guess I have two naive questions. 1. Does the motive of hate have to be proven? If so, how can that be proven? 2. Is rape ever treated as a hate crime by the justice system? -karen medina -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Sat Nov 18 08:28:19 2017 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2017 02:28:19 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Hate in America: Where it comes from and why it's back In-Reply-To: <1308462617.645904.1510980478800@mail.yahoo.com> References: <029DF6C3-0EE1-420F-8E53-1169900D6A10@illinois.edu> <5422ECF0-3D11-4EDE-8004-634988534EC6@illinois.edu> <22373FC5-DC80-492D-9DD3-824C34B4B015@gmail.com> <567872835.974300.1510804953624@mail.yahoo.com> <004f01d35fb4$280effe0$782cffa0$@comcast.net> <1929784729.309280.1510934491399@mail.yahoo.com> <1308462617.645904.1510980478800@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: The principal use of the category of ‘hate’ is to undermine the canons of free speech. So criticism of Israel can’t be defended as free speech: it is rather ‘hate speech’. The tactic is extended across the range of identity politics. Thus criticism of homosexuality becomes ‘homophobic’ hate speech and can be suppressed as such, etc. > On Nov 17, 2017, at 10:47 PM, David Green via Peace-discuss wrote: > > IMO the notion of such thing as a hate crime has always been related to the Zionist agenda, although perhaps much else. It gets back to criticisms that have evolved regarding the Anti-Defamation League and the Southern Poverty Law Center. Hating on hate has become a big business, and heavily politicized. Indeed the whole Matthew Shepard case has been strongly critiqued, among others. > > On ‎Friday‎, ‎November‎ ‎17‎, ‎2017‎ ‎06‎:‎08‎:‎40‎ ‎PM, Karen Medina wrote: > > > So, I guess I have two naive questions. > > 1. Does the motive of hate have to be proven? If so, how can that be proven? > 2. Is rape ever treated as a hate crime by the justice system? > > -karen medina > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Sat Nov 18 13:28:19 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2017 13:28:19 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Hate in America: Where it comes from and why it's back In-Reply-To: References: <029DF6C3-0EE1-420F-8E53-1169900D6A10@illinois.edu> <5422ECF0-3D11-4EDE-8004-634988534EC6@illinois.edu> <22373FC5-DC80-492D-9DD3-824C34B4B015@gmail.com> <567872835.974300.1510804953624@mail.yahoo.com> <004f01d35fb4$280effe0$782cffa0$@comcast.net> <1929784729.309280.1510934491399@mail.yahoo.com> <1308462617.645904.1510980478800@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: My take on “hate” in relation to “anger.” Was the torture and murder of the young Chinese scholar any less horrific because it was not a “hate” crime? Meaning, he didn’t murder her because she is Chinese, proven by those being caucasian that he attempted to “pick up” before her. Were the slaughters of those in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya due to “hate?” and therefore greater crimes than our killing and destroying to steal their resources? There are those that will criticize my example, because we shouldn’t refer to the accused as a “murderer” before he has been tried, and found guilty, that is true. Just as true is that the federal government shouldn’t have the right to implement the death penalty in a state that did away with capital punishment, because it was a “hate” crime or because it was particularly offensive. Some people, Thai Buddhists, equate “anger” with “hate.” I think this a mistake. Because I hate specific “behaviors” doesn’t mean I hate the individual committing those behaviors. Expressing anger in Thailand, is sinful, one is always expected to be “jai yen,” or cool heart, “mai pen rai,” means “never mind” and while this is truly an attribute when it comes to minor issues, and as a culture much more pleasant than those always angry, arguing etc. However, it becomes problematic when related to major issues. Oppression of anger often erupts in “horrific violence” when given the “go ahead” by the state/government. Thus it becomes evident that suppression of anger is at least in Thai culture, a means of oppressing the people. When anger becomes hatred, towards individuals that is problematic and solves nothing, anger needs to be directed at abusive systems of power, focused on solutions, not hatred. If American and you’re not angry at the injustices being perpetrated against others throughout the world and here, then I must ask, where is your humanity? On Nov 18, 2017, at 00:28, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss > wrote: The principal use of the category of ‘hate’ is to undermine the canons of free speech. So criticism of Israel can’t be defended as free speech: it is rather ‘hate speech’. The tactic is extended across the range of identity politics. Thus criticism of homosexuality becomes ‘homophobic’ hate speech and can be suppressed as such, etc. On Nov 17, 2017, at 10:47 PM, David Green via Peace-discuss > wrote: IMO the notion of such thing as a hate crime has always been related to the Zionist agenda, although perhaps much else. It gets back to criticisms that have evolved regarding the Anti-Defamation League and the Southern Poverty Law Center. Hating on hate has become a big business, and heavily politicized. Indeed the whole Matthew Shepard case has been strongly critiqued, among others. On ‎Friday‎, ‎November‎ ‎17‎, ‎2017‎ ‎06‎:‎08‎:‎40‎ ‎PM, Karen Medina > wrote: So, I guess I have two naive questions. 1. Does the motive of hate have to be proven? If so, how can that be proven? 2. Is rape ever treated as a hate crime by the justice system? -karen medina _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.chambana.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fpeace-discuss&data=02%7C01%7Ckarenaram%40hotmail.com%7C0015038aa66e47e2174d08d52e5e76d9%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636465905616175944&sdata=d%2B1Y8J%2BntSve0imby7mmVsdJfrdn5O5HusLRwKWAH8M%3D&reserved=0 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Sat Nov 18 15:47:28 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2017 15:47:28 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Transcript from interview with Wm. Hurting, a must read by all Message-ID: "William D. Hartung is the director of the Arms and Security Project at the Center for International Policy. He is an internationally recognized expert on the arms trade, nuclear policy, and military spending. He is the author of Prophets of War: Lockheed Martin and the Making of the Military-Industrial Complex (Nation Books: 2011). His previous books include And Weapons for All (HarperCollins, 1995), a critique of U.S. arms sales policies from the Nixon through Clinton administrations; and Lessons from Iraq: Avoiding the Next War, co-edited with Miram Pemberton (Paradigm Press, 2008). Prior to working at the Center for International Policy Mr. Hartung was a project director at the New America Foundation and a Senior Research Fellow at the New York-based World Policy Institute. He also worked as a speechwriter and policy analyst for New York State Attorney General Robert Abrams and a project director at the New York-based Council on Economic Priorities. Divided Congress Unites to Spend $700B on Military and WarAARON MATÉ: It's The Real News, I'm Aaron Maté. The US Congress is as divided as ever, but there is no daylight between Democrats and Republicans when it comes to funding war. The House has just approved a nearly 700 billion dollar Military Spending Bill. That is almost 100 billion dollars more than President Trump had asked for. It will go toward buying even more military war planes, ships and weapons than the Pentagon had requested The House vote was an overwhelming 356 to 70 with 127 Democrats voting in favor. A similar measure is expected to pass the Senate, although lawmakers will have to agree on raising the budget cap first. Joining me is William Hartung, Director of The Arms and Security Project at The Center for International Policy. Welcome, Bill. So, this vote took place on the same day as the Senate test ... Or as the testimony of Jeff Sessions, the Attorney General, which drastically overshadowed this story. But this is a pretty big deal. The House voting for a nearly 700 billion dollars in Military spending. Your thoughts on this measure? WILLIAM HARTUNG: Well, it's an overwhelming amount of money, one of the highest levels since WWII. Trump's announcement, that he was gonna increase it by 54 billion dollars back in the Spring, already raised consternation because he's going to cut, or try to cut domestic programs dollar for dollar for what he's increasing the Pentagon. That 54 billion was as much as the entire military budgets of allies like Japan, the UK, France, Germany. Now this bigger amount that the Congress wants is well in excess of what any of our allies spend and getting close to what Russia spends for its entire military budget. It's a huge amount of money and as you suggested, a lot of it is to buy additional weapons beyond even what the Pentagon asked for. It's things like more F-35s, which is vastly expensive and which my colleagues at The Project and Government oversight have said is never gonna be ready for combat. There's more F18s, not because they're needed but because there's a production line in Missouri that members there want to protect because of the jobs in their districts and states. They want to throw more money, billions more, at missile defense, build 28 new ground based interceptors and all kinds of other related missile defense items. There a little bit of money for a mobile ground based nuclear missile, which would violate the intermediate nuclear forces treaty in Europe, if it were to go forward. They endorse the 1.7 trillion dollar nuclear modernization plan that President Trump inherited from the Obama administration. So, there's a lot of money sloshing around and very little of it has to do with defending the country. In fact, a lot of it went to new weapons systems, even though they claim the troops need training, we're not taking care of them. Basically, this is a budget about corporations, not so much about helping the troops. AARON MATÉ: How does, what is the process there? Where the Pentagon submits a request for a certain amount of F-35 Joint Fighters, then Congress takes that and gives them even more than they asked for? WILLIAM HARTUNG: Well, Congress has the last word. So, between the authorization process, which is dealt with by the Armed Services Committees, then, the final appropriations process, which is done in appropriations and the Defense Appropriation Subcommittees. Congress can pretty much do what it wants. The problem they're facing is there's caps on the budget under the budget control act. They've dealt with prior to that by throwing a bunch of extra money in the War Budget, which is not under the caps. It's a big slush fund that's excluded from the caps. But they want so much money that they may not be able to make it work unless they literally lift those caps. That involves a major budget deal with taxes, and entitlements, and so forth. Given that Trump wants this absurd tax increase that's mostly going to corporations, it's possible that process will get derailed. They won't get quite these huge numbers that they're aiming for. But that's all gonna be played out, probably, in the next month or so. AARON MATÉ: The Military Industrial Complex has always entailed a revolving door between government, military and private military corporations. But I'm wondering if you can comment on its state under President Trump. A number of nominees and appointees come from the military industry. Most recently, Trump nominated John Rood, the Senior Vice President of Lockheed Martin to the third top position at the Pentagon. Can you talk about some of the people who Trump has appointed from the military industry to be now involved in the military and having a huge influence over spending decisions. WILLIAM HARTUNG: Between Generals and people from the weapons industry, and Generals who come from the weapons industry, Eisenhower would be horrified. This is the Military Industrial Complex not only personified, but intensified. So, you've got, for example the top three positions at the Pentagon. General Mattis was at General Dynamics. As you mentioned, the third in charge was at Lockheed Martin. The Secretary of the Army now is from Raytheon, just recently confirmed. The Secretary of the Air Force did questionable lobbying for Lockheed Martin. Basically, no show lobbying that you have to give the money back. The Chief of Staff of The National Security Counsel worked for a Defense Contractor. John Kelley, he's The White House Chief of Staff. So, there's hardly anybody in the top decision making position in the Trump Administration who's not either a General or from a Weapon's Contractor, or both. So, they're not likely to hold the line on Pentagon spending. That's why it's kind of amazing that Congress is actually throwing more money at the Pentagon than even this group requested. AARON MATÉ: There are supposed to be budget caps imposed by Congress to limit military spending. To pass this bill through, they're gonna have to raise the budget cap by, I believe it's something like, 80 billion dollars over what is currently allowed. Do you expect that to happen? WILLIAM HARTUNG: I think they may have a hard time reaching that number. They can throw money in the War Budget and it's not capped. But they've already done that. There's tens of billions of dollars in the war budget that have nothing to do with fighting wars, that are just things they couldn't fit under the caps. So, there's limits to how far they can go with that. They're gonna have to cut a deal on taxes, and entitlements and overall spending. Kind of a deficit reduction plan. My guess is they'll get- AARON MATE: Which means, wait does that mean just cutting money from other areas. Like, I don't know, Medicaid and other vital services to pay for this? WILLIAM HARTUNG: They can do it that way if they hit the number that they're aiming for, which has been, when the bill was passed originally, sort of a trillion dollar reduction over 10 years on both sides of the budget. So, but once they make a deal, sure. They can substitute cuts on the domestic side for increase on the Pentagon side. They've done this before. They've made small deals that haven't completely gotten rid of the caps but have raised them to higher levels. So, my guess is it'll be something like that. The Pentagon will do fine, if they don't get every dollar that's on the table, of course they're gonna cry poverty. But the Pentagon, there's no amount of money that would be enough for them, so that's not really something we should listen to with any seriousness. AARON MATÉ: When we talk about supporting the troops, it's just interesting to compare all this money going to programs that, as you mentioned have nothing to do with the troops themselves. Have to do with Weapons Contractors. I'm wondering your thoughts on that, Bill. WILLIAM HARTUNG: For example, when we had these terrible accidents in the Pacific, where we lost sailors. Some people who have followed this pointed out that there used to be much more rigorous training for the people who ran those ships. They were these months long courses that no longer exist. To do that, cost about 15 million dollars a year, which is a tiny fraction of a percentage of the Pentagon budget. So, on the one hand, they could spend over the next three decades, 1.7 trillion on nuclear weapons we don't need. Yet they're crying that the troops need more training and they're not spending that money. So, it's very hypocritical and it's very much using the troops as a poster child to get more money. As opposed to taking care of the troops, which could be done with a fraction of what the Pentagon wastes on any given day. AARON MATÉ: William Hartung, Director of The Arms and Security Project at The Center for International Policy, thank you. WILLIAM HARTUNG: Yes, thank you. AARON MATÉ: And thank you for joining us on The Real News.” [https://external-ort2-2.xx.fbcdn.net/safe_image.php?d=AQAE0tlVmNKRJVv4&w=476&h=249&url=http%3A%2F%2Ftherealnews.com%2Fmedia%2Ftrn_2017-11-01%2Fwhartung1115budget.jpg&cfs=1&upscale=1&fallback=news_d_placeholder_publisher&sx=0&sy=17&sw=1200&sh=628&_nc_hash=AQDsCBwy7JdEjK83] Divided Congress Unites to Spend $700B on Military and War House Democrats and Republicans have approved a nearly $700 billion military spending bill, almost $100 billion more than President Trump and the war… THEREALNEWS.COM -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Sat Nov 18 19:39:13 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2017 19:39:13 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Sexual Harassment by men in power. Message-ID: * ARTICLES * MAGAZINE * SUBSCRIBE * DONATE * ARCHIVES * ABOUT * BOOKS * PODCASTS * FAQS NOVEMBER 9, 2017 Beyond Harvey Weinstein: What Can Be Done? by BARBARA MACLEAN FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail[https://uziiw38pmyg1ai60732c4011-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/dropzone/2017/09/atoa-print-icon.png] The floodgates have opened. All the disgusting, depraved details are surfacing. Now the “public” is learning what the majority of us already knew – that men of power have been sexually abusing and harassing women for generations. It was simply the norm. Most women have experienced it in one form or another. Every morning we get up to see another report from victims of powerful men in publishing, media, government and finance. Even U.S. presidents, Supreme Court Justices, Amazon executives and celebrity chefs have been outed. A USA Gymnastics doctor has been accused of and is in prison for molesting at least 100 young women gymnasts, some as young as 13 years old. The list seems endless. So no, this is not a secret. It’s simply that now, for yet unexplained reasons about the timing, the volcano has erupted. Hopefully, there’s no going back. Sexual assault and harassment has always been the norm Years ago my boss tried to grab and kiss me in my office and in the elevator, actually lunging at me in the elevator. I was a cute, mini-skirted, single mother finishing up my bachelor’s degree and an area manager for a public relations company. He was a decades-older, overweight, bald, married regional senior manager. How did we women handle this type of harassment back in the 70’s? We laughed it off – if we could. At least that’s what I did. My response was to laugh, slip away (which I could because I was much more nimble and faster than he was) and say, “Now George, you have to behave yourself”! Many women were not as lucky as I was. That was not the first time I had been harassed and it sure wasn’t the last time. When I joined the thousands of women posting #MeToo on Facebook, I was saddened and shocked to see how many of my friends, relatives, co-workers, even my own daughter were in those numbers. In fact, I can’t think of a single woman I know who has not posted #MeToo. There’s a temptation to think that now the stories are coming so fast and furiously, with so many men being implicated, surely, somethingwill be done. The hope is that men who have, and would, treat women this way will now be scared into behaving themselves. However, many men still think this is a tempest in a teapot. George Bush Sr. thought his sexual harassment antics were all pretty much a joke, as did his wife, Barbara. Many people have known about the kinds of perverted sexual abuse men, particularly powerful men, have used against women all along. Other men have either witnessed it or heard rumors of it. Maybe they didn’t like it, but they didn’t take steps to try to stop it. Many women experienced it themselves, heard stories and rumors or even witnessed it. Yet they did nothing. How can we explain this? Are these people all cowards, only concerned with their own lives and job security? The power of group complicity As Wilhelm Reich pointed out many years ago in his book, The Mass Psychology of Fascism, there would be no Hitlers unless there wasn’t a little bit of Hitler in a whole lot of people. This means that nothing happens without the active or passive consent of most people. Typically, in trying to explain group problems at work, people either blame the leaders or they blame individuals with obnoxious personalities. Both explanations are individualist because they ignore the complicity of most people who do nothing. And this “doing nothing” is much more powerful than either leaders or obnoxious personalities are. Doing nothing is not neutral. Doing nothing in groups contributes to whatever happens, pro or con. The reasons men and women are complicit in groups is no different than the reasons people put up with other forms of abuse. They have become habituated because it happens gradually and they become desensitized. They are aware of it but they feel entrapped. This means they’ve invested time, effort and energy into an organization and the risks are too high. They are aware of the harassment but they hope it will go away. They don’t know what the alternatives are. There are other reasons, I’m sure, but you get the picture. Why haven’t women fought back? Women who have tried to fight back have always done it as individuals, making it much easier for them to be dismissed or targeted themselves as money-grubbers or attention-seekers. We have not fought back because many of us have been ashamed, believing that somehow the harassment or assault was our fault. This is frequently supported by attacks against the victims by shaming, name-calling and not being believed. We have also not fought back because, under the capitalist system, women have always been considered second-class citizens. This institutional inequality is organized from above, through traditional family roles, in the legal system as well as in other social structures. The hierarchy that produces positions of power, usually occupied by men, is a set-up for all types of abuse. There are plenty of suggestions in the news now as to what to do if we, as women, are assaulted or harassed. As Breanna Stewart, professional basketball player for the Seattle Storm of the WNBA suggests: “If you are being assaulted, tell somebody. If that person doesn’t believe you, tell somebody else. A parent, a family member, a teacher, a coach, a friend’s parent. Help is there.” I say – that is not enough. It’s not enough to expect women, on their own, to brave the potential of being ignored, placated, accused or have their careers put in jeopardy. Stronger together Sexual harassment and abuse by men in positions of power will not stop until there is an organization formed to fight this, in the courts and in mainstream and socials media. I recently read an article by Jonathan Cook in CounterPunch titled, Harvey Weinstein and the Politics of Hollywood, in which he advocated for forming a women’s union for Hollywood actresses. This union would be open to all actresses, including those who are just getting started. Mr. Cook also suggests that if the famous actresses who are now coming forward with their own stories of harassment and assault would join together to establish, fund and promote such a union, they would be doing a much greater service for women actors than by simply telling about their own assault. He writes about how much safer it would be for women to have this problem addressed within a union. As we’ve seen, it’s been fairly easy for powerful men to dismiss single instances of assault by threatening or bribing the women. If it does become public, they often simply deny it, like Bill Cosby did, everybody’s favorite Dad. Quoting Mr. Cook: They could set up a union, a sort of women’s Equity, that would allow actresses, in private, to register incidents of exploitation and sexual assault with the union, naming those who committed the assault and their modus operandi. By creating such a database, the union and its lawyers would be able to identify serial assaults and discover patterns of behavior. The victims could then be encouraged to come forward in a group action, knowing that they would not be facing the Hollywood elite on their own. The union would redress, at least in part, the power of these male producers and directors. They, in turn, would grow more fearful of exposure. I applaud his concept and propose taking it a step further. Women’s Solidarity Network Consider an organization like Seattle Solidarity Network. This is an all-volunteer, grassroots organization where the members show up in groups at the site to help people fight against landlords, bosses and others who are more powerful than they. Why not establish a women’s network along these lines? Remember Occupy? It only took a short time before there were Occupy movements in cities in the United States, and within weeks, all over the world. There is no reason why sexual harassment networks could not catch fire in U.S. major cities just as Occupy did. The national network – let’s simply call it The Women’s Solidarity Network – would provide legal aid for groups of women who were being sexually harassed or assaulted in the workplace. But they could do much more than that! They could educate women about their rights and offer practical solutions to fight this behavior. All the women who have wealth, actresses and recognized personalities, and are now speaking out about their own experiences with work-place abuse could initially fund this network. Feminist lawyers and groups like the ACLU and Southern Poverty Law Center could work with them. This type of support would be far more valuable than simply publically telling their stories, as powerful as that act is. Chapters of these sexual harassment networks could be formed all over the country using some of the following tactics and support: Face to face settings + Provide legal aid for individuals and groups in their claims against abuse + Educate women about their legal rights and best ways to confront abuse in the workplace + Groups of women could show up to protest at worksites that have been accused of abuse + Form emotional support groups for women who are going through the fall-out from abuse Virtual settings + Bombard social media with complaints about organizations and companies that are harboring abusers + Bombard HR departments with phone calls demanding they take action against claims of harassment or abuse + Share ideas with each other through private online groups for defending and taking action against sexual predators in the workplace What is to be done? Until, and unless, women – and supportive men – join forces to create a formal organization to protect us from these types of assaults, this outrage will soon fade away. Many men who have been accused for years, and protected by large institutions, have faded from public scrutiny and outrage. Since the capitalist system is designed to foster hierarchies, there will always be a need for organizational support for the millions of women who are lower in that hierarchy. The need is greatest for younger women, women of color, working class women and those just starting out in their work-lives. If all these celebrity women who are telling their personal stories of attack and harassment would join together to fund and support this organization, the good they are doing would be multiplied ten-fold. Anyone with ideas or knowledge of organizations that are already doing something like this, inside or outside of the US, please put this information in the comments section on our website. It’s time to take group action – we’re stronger together! Join the debate on Facebook More articles by:BARBARA MACLEAN Barbara MacLean has worked as an academic and career counselor at California State University, East Bay and as a career counselor and manager of the downtown Oakland One Stop Career Center, a public career and jobs center in partnership with EDD. She is a socialist feminist. She is a founder and organizer for Planning Beyond Capitalism. Follow them on Facebook and Twitter Email her at mailto:barbaramaclean8 at gmail.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From r-szoke at illinois.edu Sat Nov 18 21:37:07 2017 From: r-szoke at illinois.edu (Szoke, Ron) Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2017 21:37:07 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FBI count of "hate crimes," 2016 Message-ID: Context: recent wave of fake robocalls in Alabama SundayReview | NEWS ANALYSIS When the Right Pushes Fake Jews By JONATHAN WEISMAN NYT NOV. 18, 2017 . . . The Federal Bureau of Investigation recently released its hate-crime statistics for 2016, and the numbers were plain. Of the 6,121 actions deemed crimes of hate and bigotry last year, 307 were perpetrated against Muslims, a 19 percent increase over 2015. Half the hate crimes, 1,739, were targeted at blacks, showing the potency of the nation’s original sin. Bias crimes against white people rose 17 percent, to 720 incidents, a sign of just how violent the nation’s polarization has become. The 684 anti-Semitic hate crimes were more than the rest of the religiously motivated crimes of bias and bigotry combined. . . . -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davegreen84 at yahoo.com Sat Nov 18 22:19:19 2017 From: davegreen84 at yahoo.com (David Green) Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2017 22:19:19 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Peace-discuss] FBI count of "hate crimes," 2016 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <208783863.894766.1511043559576@mail.yahoo.com> I wonder if each of these "robocalls" counts for one instance of a hate crime. In any event, I place zero statistically credible validity or reliability in these data. You're talking about subjective judgments of non-random samples of states of mind, so you're already two degrees of separation away from anything reflective of social reality, no less the political implications of that reality. Southerners want bread on their tables like everyone else. BTW, southerners have been just as bathed in Zionist hasbara as everyone else, albeit in a Christian context, so I doubt if you can find too many that still think that Jews have tails, since they're obviously portrayed as fighting the good fight against Islamic terrorists. DG On ‎Saturday‎, ‎November‎ ‎18‎, ‎2017‎ ‎03‎:‎37‎:‎30‎ ‎PM, Szoke, Ron via Peace-discuss wrote: Context: recent wave of fake robocalls in Alabama SundayReview| NEWS ANALYSISWhen the Right Pushes Fake Jews By JONATHAN WEISMAN   NYT NOV. 18, 2017 . . . The Federal Bureau of Investigation recently released its hate-crime statistics for 2016, and the numbers were plain. Of the 6,121 actions deemed crimes of hate and bigotry last year, 307 were perpetrated against Muslims, a 19 percent increase over 2015. Half the hate crimes, 1,739, were targeted at blacks, showing the potency of the nation’s original sin. Bias crimes against white people rose 17 percent, to 720 incidents, a sign of just how violent the nation’s polarization has become. The 684 anti-Semitic hate crimes were more than the rest of the religiously motivated crimes of bias and bigotry combined.. . . _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kmedina67 at gmail.com Sun Nov 19 13:40:47 2017 From: kmedina67 at gmail.com (kmedina67) Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2017 07:40:47 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Transcript from interview with Wm. Hurting, a must read by all Message-ID: <5a1189e2.8f096b0a.aeb7b.56c2@mx.google.com>  Why was this sent to peace AND peace-discuss? * Is Hartung coming to speak here? Then it goes to peace, with the when and where clearly identified. * Is it an article for discussion? Then it goes to peace-discuss We have two lists for a reason. If people continue to send the same item to both, then the lists are redundant - Karen medina null -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Sun Nov 19 13:58:06 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2017 13:58:06 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: New event created by Food & Water Watch - Ohio References: Message-ID: In Chicago [All Events in City] Your account has been inactive for more than a month. To continue receiving event alerts, please Login again. Food & Water Watch - Ohio has a new event for you. To the Ends of the Earth Screening [To the Ends of the Earth Screening] [Time] Mon Nov 27 2017 at 06:00 pm [Venue] Uncommon Ground, 1401 W Devon Ave, Chicago, United States Join Event To the Ends of the Earth follows concerned citizens living at the frontiers of extreme oil and gas extraction. They call for human ingenuity to rebuild society at the end of the fossil fuel era. As the fracking industry takes off in Illinois, this documentary is more timely than ever in our state. Instead of investing in clean energy to mitigate climate change disasters, Illinois is going backwards by allowing a dangerous practice to occur within our borders. Join us at this documentary screening to learn about the destructive extractive industries in the U.S. and see how we're fighting back in Illinois. Event Cosponsors: Food and Water Watch Chicago Area Peace Action - Loyola CAPA Climate Group Reba Place Church Recommend this event to your friends, share on Facebook and Twitter! Social Event Discovery App Stay updated about your favorite events. Know where your friends are going and discover events of your interest. [All Events in City on Google Play] [All Events in City on app store] [https://cdn.allevents.in/new/images/email/mobile-app-trans-270.png] [Publish your Event] About us Blog Terms of Service Careers Contact us Facebook Twitter Google+ This email was sent to you as your are following Food & Water Watch - Ohio. If you do not wish to receive emails for event updates, Disable notification for Food & Water Watch - Ohio or Turn off email notifications for new events from all the organizers. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Sun Nov 19 21:28:09 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2017 21:28:09 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: Still Hijacking Justice:Feddies, , White House cooperation on judges paying benefits - The Washington Post Message-ID: Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Sunday, November 19, 2017 3:27 PM To: sectns.aals at lists.aals.org Subject: Still Hijacking Justice:Feddies,, White House cooperation on judges paying benefits - The Washington Post This is so much baloney. Gorsuch was behind me at Harvard Law. Right after graduation he went to get his D.Phil from John Finnes at Oxford. Finnes is considered to be the world’s leading expert on Catholic Natural Law Theory by Thomas Aquinas. Immediately upon ascent to the Supremes, Gorsuch votes to put 3-4 men to death. That’s Catholic Natural Law Hypocrisy for you. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) Federalist Society, White House cooperation on judges paying benefits By Robert Barnes November 18 at 10:07 PM WASHINGTON POST [https://img.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_1484w/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2017/11/19/National-Politics/Images/Justice_Gorsuch_47798-3b82c.jpg?uuid=3PmVfsy-EeeqllRBdZLPcg] Leonard Leo, the executive vice president of the Federalist Society, left, welcomes Supreme Court Associate Justice Neil M. Gorsuch for a speech at the Federalist Society's 2017 National Lawyers Convention in Washington, Thursday, Nov. 16, 2017. (Sait Serkan Gurbuz/AP) - The first time the Trump campaign talked with officials of The Federalist Society about judicial nominations, White House Counsel Donald F. McGahn II told the conservative legal group’s annual conclave Friday night, McGahn said the campaign was going to come up with two lists. The first would be filled with the names of “mainstream” folks who would have no trouble winning confirmation. The second would be those considered “too hot for prime time . . . the kind of people who make some people nervous.” The first list, McGahn joked, would be thrown in the trash. The second “is who we’re going to put before the U.S. Senate because I know Leader McConnell is going to get it done,” McGahn said, referring to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). It was a prank, McGahn said later. But the reality is that the cooperation between President Trump, McConnell and The Federalist Society has paid dividends for the conservative legal movement. McConnell refused to hold a Senate confirmation hearing for Judge Merrick Garland, President Barack Obama’s nominee to fill the seat of the late Justice Antonin Scalia. Ultimately, this kept the spot open for President Trump’s nominee, Neil M. Gorsuch, and fortified the court’s conservative majority. More……. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/federalist-society-white-house-cooperation-on-judges-paying-benefits/2017/11/18/4b69b4da-cb20-11e7-8321-481fd63f174d_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-cards_hp-card-politics%3Ahomepage%2Fcard&utm_term=.964d087b4daf __ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 36621 bytes Desc: image001.jpg URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Sun Nov 19 21:28:09 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2017 21:28:09 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: Still Hijacking Justice:Feddies, , White House cooperation on judges paying benefits - The Washington Post Message-ID: Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Sunday, November 19, 2017 3:27 PM To: sectns.aals at lists.aals.org Subject: Still Hijacking Justice:Feddies,, White House cooperation on judges paying benefits - The Washington Post This is so much baloney. Gorsuch was behind me at Harvard Law. Right after graduation he went to get his D.Phil from John Finnes at Oxford. Finnes is considered to be the world’s leading expert on Catholic Natural Law Theory by Thomas Aquinas. Immediately upon ascent to the Supremes, Gorsuch votes to put 3-4 men to death. That’s Catholic Natural Law Hypocrisy for you. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) Federalist Society, White House cooperation on judges paying benefits By Robert Barnes November 18 at 10:07 PM WASHINGTON POST [https://img.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_1484w/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2017/11/19/National-Politics/Images/Justice_Gorsuch_47798-3b82c.jpg?uuid=3PmVfsy-EeeqllRBdZLPcg] Leonard Leo, the executive vice president of the Federalist Society, left, welcomes Supreme Court Associate Justice Neil M. Gorsuch for a speech at the Federalist Society's 2017 National Lawyers Convention in Washington, Thursday, Nov. 16, 2017. (Sait Serkan Gurbuz/AP) - The first time the Trump campaign talked with officials of The Federalist Society about judicial nominations, White House Counsel Donald F. McGahn II told the conservative legal group’s annual conclave Friday night, McGahn said the campaign was going to come up with two lists. The first would be filled with the names of “mainstream” folks who would have no trouble winning confirmation. The second would be those considered “too hot for prime time . . . the kind of people who make some people nervous.” The first list, McGahn joked, would be thrown in the trash. The second “is who we’re going to put before the U.S. Senate because I know Leader McConnell is going to get it done,” McGahn said, referring to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). It was a prank, McGahn said later. But the reality is that the cooperation between President Trump, McConnell and The Federalist Society has paid dividends for the conservative legal movement. McConnell refused to hold a Senate confirmation hearing for Judge Merrick Garland, President Barack Obama’s nominee to fill the seat of the late Justice Antonin Scalia. Ultimately, this kept the spot open for President Trump’s nominee, Neil M. Gorsuch, and fortified the court’s conservative majority. More……. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/federalist-society-white-house-cooperation-on-judges-paying-benefits/2017/11/18/4b69b4da-cb20-11e7-8321-481fd63f174d_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-cards_hp-card-politics%3Ahomepage%2Fcard&utm_term=.964d087b4daf __ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 36621 bytes Desc: image001.jpg URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Sun Nov 19 22:45:37 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2017 22:45:37 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Still Hijacking Justice:Feddies, , White House cooperation on judges paying benefits - The Washington Post Message-ID: From Iran-contra Independent Counsel Lawrence Walsh, Firewall: According to the conventional wisdom, we were in a double bind: The judges appointed by Democratic presidents were supposedly most concerned with protecting the constitutional rights of persons prosecuted for crimes, while most of the other judges owed their appointments to Ronald Reagan or George Bush, who had stated publicly and emphatically that they hoped that North would not be convicted. Over the years, I had often found such simplistic views to be wrong. Most judges overcome the prejudices and alliances they had when appointed to the federal bench. During my three and one-half years on the federal district court in New York, I had experienced the merging process by which new judges are absorbed into their courts. My hard-line political and professional views had moderated during lunchroom conversations with Learned Hand, Jerome Frank, and Harold Medina and had dissolved after a couple of my decisions had been reversed on appeal. But I was concerned about the continuing political allegiance of Republican judges as manifested in the Federalist Society. Although the organization was not openly partisan, its dogma was political. It reminded me of the communist front groups of the 1940s and l950s, whose members were committed to the communist cause and subject to communist direction but were not card-carrying members of the Communist Party. In calling for the narrow construction of constitutional grants of governmental power, the Federalist Society seemed to speak for right-wing Republicans. I was especially troubled that one of White House Counsel Boyden Gray's assistants had openly declared that no one who was not a member of the Federalist Society had received a judicial appointment from President Bush. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Sunday, November 19, 2017 3:28 PM To: 'David Green' ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; 'sherwoodross10 at gmail.com' ; 'peace-discuss at anti-war.net' ; 'C. G. ESTABROOK' ; 'a-fields at uiuc.edu' ; 'Joe Lauria' ; 'Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net' ; 'peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net' ; Szoke, Ron ; 'Arlene Hickory' ; 'Karen Aram' ; 'abass10 at gmail.com' ; 'mickalideh at gmail.com' ; 'Lina Thorne' ; 'chicago at worldcantwait.net' ; 'Jay' ; 'David Johnson' ; 'Mildred O'brien' ; 'C G Estabrook' Subject: FW: Still Hijacking Justice:Feddies,, White House cooperation on judges paying benefits - The Washington Post Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Sunday, November 19, 2017 3:27 PM To: sectns.aals at lists.aals.org Subject: Still Hijacking Justice:Feddies,, White House cooperation on judges paying benefits - The Washington Post This is so much baloney. Gorsuch was behind me at Harvard Law. Right after graduation he went to get his D.Phil from John Finnes at Oxford. Finnes is considered to be the world’s leading expert on Catholic Natural Law Theory by Thomas Aquinas. Immediately upon ascent to the Supremes, Gorsuch votes to put 3-4 men to death. That’s Catholic Natural Law Hypocrisy for you. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) Federalist Society, White House cooperation on judges paying benefits By Robert Barnes November 18 at 10:07 PM WASHINGTON POST [https://img.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_1484w/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2017/11/19/National-Politics/Images/Justice_Gorsuch_47798-3b82c.jpg?uuid=3PmVfsy-EeeqllRBdZLPcg] Leonard Leo, the executive vice president of the Federalist Society, left, welcomes Supreme Court Associate Justice Neil M. Gorsuch for a speech at the Federalist Society's 2017 National Lawyers Convention in Washington, Thursday, Nov. 16, 2017. (Sait Serkan Gurbuz/AP) - The first time the Trump campaign talked with officials of The Federalist Society about judicial nominations, White House Counsel Donald F. McGahn II told the conservative legal group’s annual conclave Friday night, McGahn said the campaign was going to come up with two lists. The first would be filled with the names of “mainstream” folks who would have no trouble winning confirmation. The second would be those considered “too hot for prime time . . . the kind of people who make some people nervous.” The first list, McGahn joked, would be thrown in the trash. The second “is who we’re going to put before the U.S. Senate because I know Leader McConnell is going to get it done,” McGahn said, referring to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). It was a prank, McGahn said later. But the reality is that the cooperation between President Trump, McConnell and The Federalist Society has paid dividends for the conservative legal movement. McConnell refused to hold a Senate confirmation hearing for Judge Merrick Garland, President Barack Obama’s nominee to fill the seat of the late Justice Antonin Scalia. Ultimately, this kept the spot open for President Trump’s nominee, Neil M. Gorsuch, and fortified the court’s conservative majority. More……. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/federalist-society-white-house-cooperation-on-judges-paying-benefits/2017/11/18/4b69b4da-cb20-11e7-8321-481fd63f174d_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-cards_hp-card-politics%3Ahomepage%2Fcard&utm_term=.964d087b4daf __ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 36621 bytes Desc: image001.jpg URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Sun Nov 19 22:45:37 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2017 22:45:37 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Still Hijacking Justice:Feddies, , White House cooperation on judges paying benefits - The Washington Post Message-ID: From Iran-contra Independent Counsel Lawrence Walsh, Firewall: According to the conventional wisdom, we were in a double bind: The judges appointed by Democratic presidents were supposedly most concerned with protecting the constitutional rights of persons prosecuted for crimes, while most of the other judges owed their appointments to Ronald Reagan or George Bush, who had stated publicly and emphatically that they hoped that North would not be convicted. Over the years, I had often found such simplistic views to be wrong. Most judges overcome the prejudices and alliances they had when appointed to the federal bench. During my three and one-half years on the federal district court in New York, I had experienced the merging process by which new judges are absorbed into their courts. My hard-line political and professional views had moderated during lunchroom conversations with Learned Hand, Jerome Frank, and Harold Medina and had dissolved after a couple of my decisions had been reversed on appeal. But I was concerned about the continuing political allegiance of Republican judges as manifested in the Federalist Society. Although the organization was not openly partisan, its dogma was political. It reminded me of the communist front groups of the 1940s and l950s, whose members were committed to the communist cause and subject to communist direction but were not card-carrying members of the Communist Party. In calling for the narrow construction of constitutional grants of governmental power, the Federalist Society seemed to speak for right-wing Republicans. I was especially troubled that one of White House Counsel Boyden Gray's assistants had openly declared that no one who was not a member of the Federalist Society had received a judicial appointment from President Bush. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Sunday, November 19, 2017 3:28 PM To: 'David Green' ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; 'sherwoodross10 at gmail.com' ; 'peace-discuss at anti-war.net' ; 'C. G. ESTABROOK' ; 'a-fields at uiuc.edu' ; 'Joe Lauria' ; 'Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net' ; 'peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net' ; Szoke, Ron ; 'Arlene Hickory' ; 'Karen Aram' ; 'abass10 at gmail.com' ; 'mickalideh at gmail.com' ; 'Lina Thorne' ; 'chicago at worldcantwait.net' ; 'Jay' ; 'David Johnson' ; 'Mildred O'brien' ; 'C G Estabrook' Subject: FW: Still Hijacking Justice:Feddies,, White House cooperation on judges paying benefits - The Washington Post Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Sunday, November 19, 2017 3:27 PM To: sectns.aals at lists.aals.org Subject: Still Hijacking Justice:Feddies,, White House cooperation on judges paying benefits - The Washington Post This is so much baloney. Gorsuch was behind me at Harvard Law. Right after graduation he went to get his D.Phil from John Finnes at Oxford. Finnes is considered to be the world’s leading expert on Catholic Natural Law Theory by Thomas Aquinas. Immediately upon ascent to the Supremes, Gorsuch votes to put 3-4 men to death. That’s Catholic Natural Law Hypocrisy for you. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) Federalist Society, White House cooperation on judges paying benefits By Robert Barnes November 18 at 10:07 PM WASHINGTON POST [https://img.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_1484w/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2017/11/19/National-Politics/Images/Justice_Gorsuch_47798-3b82c.jpg?uuid=3PmVfsy-EeeqllRBdZLPcg] Leonard Leo, the executive vice president of the Federalist Society, left, welcomes Supreme Court Associate Justice Neil M. Gorsuch for a speech at the Federalist Society's 2017 National Lawyers Convention in Washington, Thursday, Nov. 16, 2017. (Sait Serkan Gurbuz/AP) - The first time the Trump campaign talked with officials of The Federalist Society about judicial nominations, White House Counsel Donald F. McGahn II told the conservative legal group’s annual conclave Friday night, McGahn said the campaign was going to come up with two lists. The first would be filled with the names of “mainstream” folks who would have no trouble winning confirmation. The second would be those considered “too hot for prime time . . . the kind of people who make some people nervous.” The first list, McGahn joked, would be thrown in the trash. The second “is who we’re going to put before the U.S. Senate because I know Leader McConnell is going to get it done,” McGahn said, referring to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). It was a prank, McGahn said later. But the reality is that the cooperation between President Trump, McConnell and The Federalist Society has paid dividends for the conservative legal movement. McConnell refused to hold a Senate confirmation hearing for Judge Merrick Garland, President Barack Obama’s nominee to fill the seat of the late Justice Antonin Scalia. Ultimately, this kept the spot open for President Trump’s nominee, Neil M. Gorsuch, and fortified the court’s conservative majority. More……. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/federalist-society-white-house-cooperation-on-judges-paying-benefits/2017/11/18/4b69b4da-cb20-11e7-8321-481fd63f174d_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-cards_hp-card-politics%3Ahomepage%2Fcard&utm_term=.964d087b4daf __ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 36621 bytes Desc: image001.jpg URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Sun Nov 19 23:09:15 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2017 23:09:15 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Still Hijacking Justice:Feddies, , White House cooperation on judges paying benefits - The Washington Post Message-ID: Former federal Judge Lawrence Walsh puts it more bluntly. "The impression I have is they are trying to return to the 18th century and undo the work of the Supreme Court since the New Deal," Walsh says. "And I think it is wrong to put someone on the court who has a pre-commitment with a political dogma, whether it's the Ku Klux Klan or the Federalist Society." Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Sunday, November 19, 2017 4:46 PM To: 'David Green' ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; 'sherwoodross10 at gmail.com' ; 'peace-discuss at anti-war.net' ; 'C. G. ESTABROOK' ; 'a-fields at uiuc.edu' ; 'Joe Lauria' ; 'Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net' ; 'peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net' ; Szoke, Ron ; 'Arlene Hickory' ; 'Karen Aram' ; 'abass10 at gmail.com' ; 'mickalideh at gmail.com' ; 'Lina Thorne' ; 'chicago at worldcantwait.net' ; 'Jay' ; 'David Johnson' ; 'Mildred O'brien' ; 'C G Estabrook' Subject: RE: Still Hijacking Justice:Feddies,, White House cooperation on judges paying benefits - The Washington Post From Iran-contra Independent Counsel Lawrence Walsh, Firewall: According to the conventional wisdom, we were in a double bind: The judges appointed by Democratic presidents were supposedly most concerned with protecting the constitutional rights of persons prosecuted for crimes, while most of the other judges owed their appointments to Ronald Reagan or George Bush, who had stated publicly and emphatically that they hoped that North would not be convicted. Over the years, I had often found such simplistic views to be wrong. Most judges overcome the prejudices and alliances they had when appointed to the federal bench. During my three and one-half years on the federal district court in New York, I had experienced the merging process by which new judges are absorbed into their courts. My hard-line political and professional views had moderated during lunchroom conversations with Learned Hand, Jerome Frank, and Harold Medina and had dissolved after a couple of my decisions had been reversed on appeal. But I was concerned about the continuing political allegiance of Republican judges as manifested in the Federalist Society. Although the organization was not openly partisan, its dogma was political. It reminded me of the communist front groups of the 1940s and l950s, whose members were committed to the communist cause and subject to communist direction but were not card-carrying members of the Communist Party. In calling for the narrow construction of constitutional grants of governmental power, the Federalist Society seemed to speak for right-wing Republicans. I was especially troubled that one of White House Counsel Boyden Gray's assistants had openly declared that no one who was not a member of the Federalist Society had received a judicial appointment from President Bush. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Sunday, November 19, 2017 3:28 PM To: 'David Green' >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; 'sherwoodross10 at gmail.com' >; 'peace-discuss at anti-war.net' >; 'C. G. ESTABROOK' >; 'a-fields at uiuc.edu' >; 'Joe Lauria' >; 'Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net' >; 'peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net' >; Szoke, Ron >; 'Arlene Hickory' >; 'Karen Aram' >; 'abass10 at gmail.com' >; 'mickalideh at gmail.com' >; 'Lina Thorne' >; 'chicago at worldcantwait.net' >; 'Jay' >; 'David Johnson' >; 'Mildred O'brien' >; 'C G Estabrook' > Subject: FW: Still Hijacking Justice:Feddies,, White House cooperation on judges paying benefits - The Washington Post Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Sunday, November 19, 2017 3:27 PM To: sectns.aals at lists.aals.org Subject: Still Hijacking Justice:Feddies,, White House cooperation on judges paying benefits - The Washington Post This is so much baloney. Gorsuch was behind me at Harvard Law. Right after graduation he went to get his D.Phil from John Finnes at Oxford. Finnes is considered to be the world’s leading expert on Catholic Natural Law Theory by Thomas Aquinas. Immediately upon ascent to the Supremes, Gorsuch votes to put 3-4 men to death. That’s Catholic Natural Law Hypocrisy for you. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) Federalist Society, White House cooperation on judges paying benefits By Robert Barnes November 18 at 10:07 PM WASHINGTON POST [https://img.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_1484w/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2017/11/19/National-Politics/Images/Justice_Gorsuch_47798-3b82c.jpg?uuid=3PmVfsy-EeeqllRBdZLPcg] Leonard Leo, the executive vice president of the Federalist Society, left, welcomes Supreme Court Associate Justice Neil M. Gorsuch for a speech at the Federalist Society's 2017 National Lawyers Convention in Washington, Thursday, Nov. 16, 2017. (Sait Serkan Gurbuz/AP) - The first time the Trump campaign talked with officials of The Federalist Society about judicial nominations, White House Counsel Donald F. McGahn II told the conservative legal group’s annual conclave Friday night, McGahn said the campaign was going to come up with two lists. The first would be filled with the names of “mainstream” folks who would have no trouble winning confirmation. The second would be those considered “too hot for prime time . . . the kind of people who make some people nervous.” The first list, McGahn joked, would be thrown in the trash. The second “is who we’re going to put before the U.S. Senate because I know Leader McConnell is going to get it done,” McGahn said, referring to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). It was a prank, McGahn said later. But the reality is that the cooperation between President Trump, McConnell and The Federalist Society has paid dividends for the conservative legal movement. McConnell refused to hold a Senate confirmation hearing for Judge Merrick Garland, President Barack Obama’s nominee to fill the seat of the late Justice Antonin Scalia. Ultimately, this kept the spot open for President Trump’s nominee, Neil M. Gorsuch, and fortified the court’s conservative majority. More……. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/federalist-society-white-house-cooperation-on-judges-paying-benefits/2017/11/18/4b69b4da-cb20-11e7-8321-481fd63f174d_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-cards_hp-card-politics%3Ahomepage%2Fcard&utm_term=.964d087b4daf __ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 36621 bytes Desc: image001.jpg URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Sun Nov 19 23:09:15 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2017 23:09:15 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Still Hijacking Justice:Feddies, , White House cooperation on judges paying benefits - The Washington Post Message-ID: Former federal Judge Lawrence Walsh puts it more bluntly. "The impression I have is they are trying to return to the 18th century and undo the work of the Supreme Court since the New Deal," Walsh says. "And I think it is wrong to put someone on the court who has a pre-commitment with a political dogma, whether it's the Ku Klux Klan or the Federalist Society." Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Sunday, November 19, 2017 4:46 PM To: 'David Green' ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; 'sherwoodross10 at gmail.com' ; 'peace-discuss at anti-war.net' ; 'C. G. ESTABROOK' ; 'a-fields at uiuc.edu' ; 'Joe Lauria' ; 'Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net' ; 'peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net' ; Szoke, Ron ; 'Arlene Hickory' ; 'Karen Aram' ; 'abass10 at gmail.com' ; 'mickalideh at gmail.com' ; 'Lina Thorne' ; 'chicago at worldcantwait.net' ; 'Jay' ; 'David Johnson' ; 'Mildred O'brien' ; 'C G Estabrook' Subject: RE: Still Hijacking Justice:Feddies,, White House cooperation on judges paying benefits - The Washington Post From Iran-contra Independent Counsel Lawrence Walsh, Firewall: According to the conventional wisdom, we were in a double bind: The judges appointed by Democratic presidents were supposedly most concerned with protecting the constitutional rights of persons prosecuted for crimes, while most of the other judges owed their appointments to Ronald Reagan or George Bush, who had stated publicly and emphatically that they hoped that North would not be convicted. Over the years, I had often found such simplistic views to be wrong. Most judges overcome the prejudices and alliances they had when appointed to the federal bench. During my three and one-half years on the federal district court in New York, I had experienced the merging process by which new judges are absorbed into their courts. My hard-line political and professional views had moderated during lunchroom conversations with Learned Hand, Jerome Frank, and Harold Medina and had dissolved after a couple of my decisions had been reversed on appeal. But I was concerned about the continuing political allegiance of Republican judges as manifested in the Federalist Society. Although the organization was not openly partisan, its dogma was political. It reminded me of the communist front groups of the 1940s and l950s, whose members were committed to the communist cause and subject to communist direction but were not card-carrying members of the Communist Party. In calling for the narrow construction of constitutional grants of governmental power, the Federalist Society seemed to speak for right-wing Republicans. I was especially troubled that one of White House Counsel Boyden Gray's assistants had openly declared that no one who was not a member of the Federalist Society had received a judicial appointment from President Bush. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Sunday, November 19, 2017 3:28 PM To: 'David Green' >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; 'sherwoodross10 at gmail.com' >; 'peace-discuss at anti-war.net' >; 'C. G. ESTABROOK' >; 'a-fields at uiuc.edu' >; 'Joe Lauria' >; 'Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net' >; 'peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net' >; Szoke, Ron >; 'Arlene Hickory' >; 'Karen Aram' >; 'abass10 at gmail.com' >; 'mickalideh at gmail.com' >; 'Lina Thorne' >; 'chicago at worldcantwait.net' >; 'Jay' >; 'David Johnson' >; 'Mildred O'brien' >; 'C G Estabrook' > Subject: FW: Still Hijacking Justice:Feddies,, White House cooperation on judges paying benefits - The Washington Post Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Sunday, November 19, 2017 3:27 PM To: sectns.aals at lists.aals.org Subject: Still Hijacking Justice:Feddies,, White House cooperation on judges paying benefits - The Washington Post This is so much baloney. Gorsuch was behind me at Harvard Law. Right after graduation he went to get his D.Phil from John Finnes at Oxford. Finnes is considered to be the world’s leading expert on Catholic Natural Law Theory by Thomas Aquinas. Immediately upon ascent to the Supremes, Gorsuch votes to put 3-4 men to death. That’s Catholic Natural Law Hypocrisy for you. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) Federalist Society, White House cooperation on judges paying benefits By Robert Barnes November 18 at 10:07 PM WASHINGTON POST [https://img.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_1484w/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2017/11/19/National-Politics/Images/Justice_Gorsuch_47798-3b82c.jpg?uuid=3PmVfsy-EeeqllRBdZLPcg] Leonard Leo, the executive vice president of the Federalist Society, left, welcomes Supreme Court Associate Justice Neil M. Gorsuch for a speech at the Federalist Society's 2017 National Lawyers Convention in Washington, Thursday, Nov. 16, 2017. (Sait Serkan Gurbuz/AP) - The first time the Trump campaign talked with officials of The Federalist Society about judicial nominations, White House Counsel Donald F. McGahn II told the conservative legal group’s annual conclave Friday night, McGahn said the campaign was going to come up with two lists. The first would be filled with the names of “mainstream” folks who would have no trouble winning confirmation. The second would be those considered “too hot for prime time . . . the kind of people who make some people nervous.” The first list, McGahn joked, would be thrown in the trash. The second “is who we’re going to put before the U.S. Senate because I know Leader McConnell is going to get it done,” McGahn said, referring to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). It was a prank, McGahn said later. But the reality is that the cooperation between President Trump, McConnell and The Federalist Society has paid dividends for the conservative legal movement. McConnell refused to hold a Senate confirmation hearing for Judge Merrick Garland, President Barack Obama’s nominee to fill the seat of the late Justice Antonin Scalia. Ultimately, this kept the spot open for President Trump’s nominee, Neil M. Gorsuch, and fortified the court’s conservative majority. More……. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/federalist-society-white-house-cooperation-on-judges-paying-benefits/2017/11/18/4b69b4da-cb20-11e7-8321-481fd63f174d_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-cards_hp-card-politics%3Ahomepage%2Fcard&utm_term=.964d087b4daf __ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 36621 bytes Desc: image001.jpg URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Sun Nov 19 23:24:11 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2017 23:24:11 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Still Hijacking Justice:Feddies, , White House cooperation on judges paying benefits - The Washington Post Message-ID: I really like Walsh’s comparison of the Feddies to the KKK. For that’s what they all are: Klanners in Black Suits and Black Robes instead of White Hoods and White Robes.fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Sunday, November 19, 2017 5:09 PM To: 'David Green' ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; 'sherwoodross10 at gmail.com' ; 'peace-discuss at anti-war.net' ; 'C. G. ESTABROOK' ; 'a-fields at uiuc.edu' ; 'Joe Lauria' ; 'Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net' ; 'peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net' ; Szoke, Ron ; 'Arlene Hickory' ; 'Karen Aram' ; 'abass10 at gmail.com' ; 'mickalideh at gmail.com' ; 'Lina Thorne' ; 'chicago at worldcantwait.net' ; 'Jay' ; 'David Johnson' ; 'Mildred O'brien' ; 'C G Estabrook' Subject: RE: Still Hijacking Justice:Feddies,, White House cooperation on judges paying benefits - The Washington Post Former federal Judge Lawrence Walsh puts it more bluntly. "The impression I have is they are trying to return to the 18th century and undo the work of the Supreme Court since the New Deal," Walsh says. "And I think it is wrong to put someone on the court who has a pre-commitment with a political dogma, whether it's the Ku Klux Klan or the Federalist Society." Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Sunday, November 19, 2017 4:46 PM To: 'David Green' >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; 'sherwoodross10 at gmail.com' >; 'peace-discuss at anti-war.net' >; 'C. G. ESTABROOK' >; 'a-fields at uiuc.edu' >; 'Joe Lauria' >; 'Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net' >; 'peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net' >; Szoke, Ron >; 'Arlene Hickory' >; 'Karen Aram' >; 'abass10 at gmail.com' >; 'mickalideh at gmail.com' >; 'Lina Thorne' >; 'chicago at worldcantwait.net' >; 'Jay' >; 'David Johnson' >; 'Mildred O'brien' >; 'C G Estabrook' > Subject: RE: Still Hijacking Justice:Feddies,, White House cooperation on judges paying benefits - The Washington Post From Iran-contra Independent Counsel Lawrence Walsh, Firewall: According to the conventional wisdom, we were in a double bind: The judges appointed by Democratic presidents were supposedly most concerned with protecting the constitutional rights of persons prosecuted for crimes, while most of the other judges owed their appointments to Ronald Reagan or George Bush, who had stated publicly and emphatically that they hoped that North would not be convicted. Over the years, I had often found such simplistic views to be wrong. Most judges overcome the prejudices and alliances they had when appointed to the federal bench. During my three and one-half years on the federal district court in New York, I had experienced the merging process by which new judges are absorbed into their courts. My hard-line political and professional views had moderated during lunchroom conversations with Learned Hand, Jerome Frank, and Harold Medina and had dissolved after a couple of my decisions had been reversed on appeal. But I was concerned about the continuing political allegiance of Republican judges as manifested in the Federalist Society. Although the organization was not openly partisan, its dogma was political. It reminded me of the communist front groups of the 1940s and l950s, whose members were committed to the communist cause and subject to communist direction but were not card-carrying members of the Communist Party. In calling for the narrow construction of constitutional grants of governmental power, the Federalist Society seemed to speak for right-wing Republicans. I was especially troubled that one of White House Counsel Boyden Gray's assistants had openly declared that no one who was not a member of the Federalist Society had received a judicial appointment from President Bush. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Sunday, November 19, 2017 3:28 PM To: 'David Green' >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; 'sherwoodross10 at gmail.com' >; 'peace-discuss at anti-war.net' >; 'C. G. ESTABROOK' >; 'a-fields at uiuc.edu' >; 'Joe Lauria' >; 'Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net' >; 'peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net' >; Szoke, Ron >; 'Arlene Hickory' >; 'Karen Aram' >; 'abass10 at gmail.com' >; 'mickalideh at gmail.com' >; 'Lina Thorne' >; 'chicago at worldcantwait.net' >; 'Jay' >; 'David Johnson' >; 'Mildred O'brien' >; 'C G Estabrook' > Subject: FW: Still Hijacking Justice:Feddies,, White House cooperation on judges paying benefits - The Washington Post Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Sunday, November 19, 2017 3:27 PM To: sectns.aals at lists.aals.org Subject: Still Hijacking Justice:Feddies,, White House cooperation on judges paying benefits - The Washington Post This is so much baloney. Gorsuch was behind me at Harvard Law. Right after graduation he went to get his D.Phil from John Finnes at Oxford. Finnes is considered to be the world’s leading expert on Catholic Natural Law Theory by Thomas Aquinas. Immediately upon ascent to the Supremes, Gorsuch votes to put 3-4 men to death. That’s Catholic Natural Law Hypocrisy for you. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) Federalist Society, White House cooperation on judges paying benefits By Robert Barnes November 18 at 10:07 PM WASHINGTON POST [https://img.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_1484w/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2017/11/19/National-Politics/Images/Justice_Gorsuch_47798-3b82c.jpg?uuid=3PmVfsy-EeeqllRBdZLPcg] Leonard Leo, the executive vice president of the Federalist Society, left, welcomes Supreme Court Associate Justice Neil M. Gorsuch for a speech at the Federalist Society's 2017 National Lawyers Convention in Washington, Thursday, Nov. 16, 2017. (Sait Serkan Gurbuz/AP) - The first time the Trump campaign talked with officials of The Federalist Society about judicial nominations, White House Counsel Donald F. McGahn II told the conservative legal group’s annual conclave Friday night, McGahn said the campaign was going to come up with two lists. The first would be filled with the names of “mainstream” folks who would have no trouble winning confirmation. The second would be those considered “too hot for prime time . . . the kind of people who make some people nervous.” The first list, McGahn joked, would be thrown in the trash. The second “is who we’re going to put before the U.S. Senate because I know Leader McConnell is going to get it done,” McGahn said, referring to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). It was a prank, McGahn said later. But the reality is that the cooperation between President Trump, McConnell and The Federalist Society has paid dividends for the conservative legal movement. McConnell refused to hold a Senate confirmation hearing for Judge Merrick Garland, President Barack Obama’s nominee to fill the seat of the late Justice Antonin Scalia. Ultimately, this kept the spot open for President Trump’s nominee, Neil M. Gorsuch, and fortified the court’s conservative majority. More……. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/federalist-society-white-house-cooperation-on-judges-paying-benefits/2017/11/18/4b69b4da-cb20-11e7-8321-481fd63f174d_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-cards_hp-card-politics%3Ahomepage%2Fcard&utm_term=.964d087b4daf __ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 36621 bytes Desc: image001.jpg URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Sun Nov 19 23:24:11 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2017 23:24:11 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Still Hijacking Justice:Feddies, , White House cooperation on judges paying benefits - The Washington Post Message-ID: I really like Walsh’s comparison of the Feddies to the KKK. For that’s what they all are: Klanners in Black Suits and Black Robes instead of White Hoods and White Robes.fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Sunday, November 19, 2017 5:09 PM To: 'David Green' ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; 'sherwoodross10 at gmail.com' ; 'peace-discuss at anti-war.net' ; 'C. G. ESTABROOK' ; 'a-fields at uiuc.edu' ; 'Joe Lauria' ; 'Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net' ; 'peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net' ; Szoke, Ron ; 'Arlene Hickory' ; 'Karen Aram' ; 'abass10 at gmail.com' ; 'mickalideh at gmail.com' ; 'Lina Thorne' ; 'chicago at worldcantwait.net' ; 'Jay' ; 'David Johnson' ; 'Mildred O'brien' ; 'C G Estabrook' Subject: RE: Still Hijacking Justice:Feddies,, White House cooperation on judges paying benefits - The Washington Post Former federal Judge Lawrence Walsh puts it more bluntly. "The impression I have is they are trying to return to the 18th century and undo the work of the Supreme Court since the New Deal," Walsh says. "And I think it is wrong to put someone on the court who has a pre-commitment with a political dogma, whether it's the Ku Klux Klan or the Federalist Society." Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Sunday, November 19, 2017 4:46 PM To: 'David Green' >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; 'sherwoodross10 at gmail.com' >; 'peace-discuss at anti-war.net' >; 'C. G. ESTABROOK' >; 'a-fields at uiuc.edu' >; 'Joe Lauria' >; 'Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net' >; 'peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net' >; Szoke, Ron >; 'Arlene Hickory' >; 'Karen Aram' >; 'abass10 at gmail.com' >; 'mickalideh at gmail.com' >; 'Lina Thorne' >; 'chicago at worldcantwait.net' >; 'Jay' >; 'David Johnson' >; 'Mildred O'brien' >; 'C G Estabrook' > Subject: RE: Still Hijacking Justice:Feddies,, White House cooperation on judges paying benefits - The Washington Post From Iran-contra Independent Counsel Lawrence Walsh, Firewall: According to the conventional wisdom, we were in a double bind: The judges appointed by Democratic presidents were supposedly most concerned with protecting the constitutional rights of persons prosecuted for crimes, while most of the other judges owed their appointments to Ronald Reagan or George Bush, who had stated publicly and emphatically that they hoped that North would not be convicted. Over the years, I had often found such simplistic views to be wrong. Most judges overcome the prejudices and alliances they had when appointed to the federal bench. During my three and one-half years on the federal district court in New York, I had experienced the merging process by which new judges are absorbed into their courts. My hard-line political and professional views had moderated during lunchroom conversations with Learned Hand, Jerome Frank, and Harold Medina and had dissolved after a couple of my decisions had been reversed on appeal. But I was concerned about the continuing political allegiance of Republican judges as manifested in the Federalist Society. Although the organization was not openly partisan, its dogma was political. It reminded me of the communist front groups of the 1940s and l950s, whose members were committed to the communist cause and subject to communist direction but were not card-carrying members of the Communist Party. In calling for the narrow construction of constitutional grants of governmental power, the Federalist Society seemed to speak for right-wing Republicans. I was especially troubled that one of White House Counsel Boyden Gray's assistants had openly declared that no one who was not a member of the Federalist Society had received a judicial appointment from President Bush. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Sunday, November 19, 2017 3:28 PM To: 'David Green' >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; 'sherwoodross10 at gmail.com' >; 'peace-discuss at anti-war.net' >; 'C. G. ESTABROOK' >; 'a-fields at uiuc.edu' >; 'Joe Lauria' >; 'Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net' >; 'peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net' >; Szoke, Ron >; 'Arlene Hickory' >; 'Karen Aram' >; 'abass10 at gmail.com' >; 'mickalideh at gmail.com' >; 'Lina Thorne' >; 'chicago at worldcantwait.net' >; 'Jay' >; 'David Johnson' >; 'Mildred O'brien' >; 'C G Estabrook' > Subject: FW: Still Hijacking Justice:Feddies,, White House cooperation on judges paying benefits - The Washington Post Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Sunday, November 19, 2017 3:27 PM To: sectns.aals at lists.aals.org Subject: Still Hijacking Justice:Feddies,, White House cooperation on judges paying benefits - The Washington Post This is so much baloney. Gorsuch was behind me at Harvard Law. Right after graduation he went to get his D.Phil from John Finnes at Oxford. Finnes is considered to be the world’s leading expert on Catholic Natural Law Theory by Thomas Aquinas. Immediately upon ascent to the Supremes, Gorsuch votes to put 3-4 men to death. That’s Catholic Natural Law Hypocrisy for you. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) Federalist Society, White House cooperation on judges paying benefits By Robert Barnes November 18 at 10:07 PM WASHINGTON POST [https://img.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_1484w/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2017/11/19/National-Politics/Images/Justice_Gorsuch_47798-3b82c.jpg?uuid=3PmVfsy-EeeqllRBdZLPcg] Leonard Leo, the executive vice president of the Federalist Society, left, welcomes Supreme Court Associate Justice Neil M. Gorsuch for a speech at the Federalist Society's 2017 National Lawyers Convention in Washington, Thursday, Nov. 16, 2017. (Sait Serkan Gurbuz/AP) - The first time the Trump campaign talked with officials of The Federalist Society about judicial nominations, White House Counsel Donald F. McGahn II told the conservative legal group’s annual conclave Friday night, McGahn said the campaign was going to come up with two lists. The first would be filled with the names of “mainstream” folks who would have no trouble winning confirmation. The second would be those considered “too hot for prime time . . . the kind of people who make some people nervous.” The first list, McGahn joked, would be thrown in the trash. The second “is who we’re going to put before the U.S. Senate because I know Leader McConnell is going to get it done,” McGahn said, referring to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). It was a prank, McGahn said later. But the reality is that the cooperation between President Trump, McConnell and The Federalist Society has paid dividends for the conservative legal movement. McConnell refused to hold a Senate confirmation hearing for Judge Merrick Garland, President Barack Obama’s nominee to fill the seat of the late Justice Antonin Scalia. Ultimately, this kept the spot open for President Trump’s nominee, Neil M. Gorsuch, and fortified the court’s conservative majority. More……. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/federalist-society-white-house-cooperation-on-judges-paying-benefits/2017/11/18/4b69b4da-cb20-11e7-8321-481fd63f174d_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-cards_hp-card-politics%3Ahomepage%2Fcard&utm_term=.964d087b4daf __ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 36621 bytes Desc: image001.jpg URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Mon Nov 20 12:50:51 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2017 12:50:51 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Yemen Message-ID: US steps up aid to Saudi Arabia’s slaughter in Yemen By Bill Van Auken 20 November 2017 Washington is initiating a series of new policies aimed at building up the military power of the monarchical dictatorship in Saudi Arabia as it carries out a siege that could claim millions of lives in neighboring Yemen. The Wall Street Journal, citing senior administration officials, reported Saturday that “The Trump administration is looking at ways to quickly strengthen Saudi Arabia's missile defenses and disrupt the flow of advanced Iranian-made weapons across the Middle East as concerns grow over a destabilizing new crisis in the region.” The so-called “destabilizing new crisis” in the Middle East is one of Washington’s and Riyadh’s own making, flowing from the Trump administration’s attempt to forge an anti-Iranian alliance uniting US imperialism, Saudi Arabia and the other reactionary Sunni oil sheikdoms of the Persian Gulf and Israel in an anti-Iranian military alliance. Emboldened by unconditional US support, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin-Salman has carried out a sweeping purge of potential rivals within the Saudi regime, while escalating the murderous war in Yemen and carrying out the kidnapping and forced resignation of Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri with the aim of destabilizing Lebanon and igniting a sectarian civil war against the Shia-based movement, Hezbollah. According to the Journal article, the Trump administration views the controversy surrounding Hariri as a “frustrating complication” that is diverting Washington’s drive to “galvanize support for new action against Iran.” The most criminal of the US-backed Saudi actions has been the imposition of a blockade of Yemen aimed at starving into submission its population and the Houthi rebels who seized much of the western part of the country, including the capital of Sanaa. Riyadh has justified its blockade by saying it is trying to prevent arms from reaching the Houthis following the firing of a missile from Yemen on November 4 that was shot down near Riyadh’s international airport. In reality, what Saudi Arabia—with the assistance of the US Navy—is turning back are shipments of food, medicine and other vital supplies under conditions of spreading famine and the worst cholera epidemic in modern history. Iran has denied Saudi charges that the missile was of Iranian manufacture, a position that has been supported by a panel of experts appointed by the United Nations Security council, which issued a statement six days after the missile was fired saying that there has been no evidence of Iranian transfer of short-range missiles to Yemen and charging that Riyadh is exploiting the incident “as justification for obstructing the delivery of commodities that are essentially civilian in nature.” Washington, which echoed the Saudi propaganda blaming Iran for the attack, has issued no statement condemning the blockade of Yemen, a war crime in which the US is itself complicit. The major European powers have also remained largely silent as a near-genocidal campaign is being executed against the people of Yemen, the poorest country in the Arab world. The European arms manufacturers, like their American counterparts, have secured lucrative contracts with the Saudi monarchy. According to the Journal article, the foremost response of the Trump administration to the crisis in the Middle East is to push more arms on the Saudi regime. Last month, Trump approved a weapons deal that allows Riyadh to purchase $15 billion worth of missiles, launchers, radar and other military technology. “US officials said that deal could be accelerated as a result of the missile fired at Riyadh.” The newspaper added that, “The US military also could step up its efforts to seize weapons shipments going through the Persian Gulf and across the region,” meaning that the US Navy would escalate operations that are contributing to the blocking of relief supplies and the mass starvation engulfing Yemen. Meanwhile, the Pentagon has acknowledged that the US Air Force has more than doubled its refueling flights that keep Saudi and allied warplanes in the air, continuously bombing Yemeni hospitals, schools, residential blocks and basic infrastructure, accounting for the bulk of the 12,000 deaths in the two-and-a-half-year-old war. Washington also increased its supply of jet fuel to the Saudis by 140 percent over the fiscal year that ended in September, according to a report on the Al-Monitor web site. The bombs and missiles that are killing Yemen are also supplied largely by Washington, with $3 billion worth of bombs provided to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates since 2015 and a $500 million sale of precision-guided munitions approved by the US Senate in June. The latest atrocity made possible by this arms aid took place on Sunday with a Saudi airstrike in the northern province of Jawf demolishing a home leaving eight children and three women, all from the same family, dead under the rubble. The two-week-old Saudi blockade, however, threatens to dwarf the number of deaths caused by the bombing campaign. Even before Saudi Arabia shut down Yemen’s airports, sea ports and borders, turning away container ships full of food and relief supplies and fuel tankers that had already been inspected and searched for weapons, 7 million Yemenis were on the brink of famine, while 17 million others did not know where their next meal would come from. The UN and various relief agencies have warned that, with Yemen dependent upon imports for 90 percent of its food, the blockade could rapidly lead to the deaths of millions. Three Yemeni cities—Hodeida, Saada and Taiz—ran out of clean water on Friday because of the Saudi blockade preventing the delivery of fuel needed to run pumping and sanitation systems, the International Committee of the Red Cross reported. The lack of clean water will place at least a million more people at risk of cholera on top of the 928,000 already believed to have contracted the disease. The capital of Sanaa and other cities will “find themselves in the same situation” within weeks if the blockade is not lifted, the Red Cross said. The lack of fuel will also shut down generators powering hospitals, condemning many patients to death. Doctors without Borders (MSF) reported Sunday that the Saudi regime is preventing it from conducting flights in and out of Yemen, despite claims from Riyadh that it was allowing the movement of humanitarian supplies and personnel. The aid agency also said it had been warned by Saudi authorities against operating in areas under the control of the Houthi rebels. The aid group Oxfam issued a blistering statement warning that “A catastrophe of astonishing proportions is unfolding before our eyes as Yemen’s Houthi-controlled territory is sealed off and suffocated ... Absent a rapid turnaround, we are likely to witness in Yemen an extraordinary level of devastation, the likes of which most of us have never lived through.” The statement continued by noting that “the US government has led its allies in demonstrations of solidarity with Saudi Arabia against Iran, ignoring a ghastly humanitarian crisis. The international community’s unqualified support for Saudi Arabia’s position nearly culminated in the adoption of a UN Security Council Presidential Statement condemning the Houthis and Iran’s malign activity without so much as a mention of Yemen’s dire humanitarian crisis and the steps taken by Saudi Arabia to push it to the brink of catastrophe.” The systematic extermination of Yemeni men, women and children by bombardment, starvation and disease exposes the real face of US imperialism. It demonstrates that behind the empty rhetoric about the “war on terror,” “human rights” and “democracy,” it is prepared to kill millions to offset the decline of American capitalism through a drive to assert US global hegemony by military means. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Mon Nov 20 15:51:52 2017 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2017 09:51:52 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: Conference on U.S. Foreign Military Bases, January 12-14, Baltimore, Maryland References: <090bb12a9ccf856210dc6105b.00dedb9b85.20171004154913.d394a1e291.bb73757a@mail112.atl71.mcdlv.net> Message-ID: > Begin forwarded message: > > From: Coalition Against U.S. Foreign Military Bases > Subject: Conference on U.S. Foreign Military Bases, January 12-14, Baltimore, Maryland > Date: October 4, 2017 at 10:49:35 AM CDT > To: C. G. > Reply-To: Coalition Against U.S. Foreign Military Bases > > Conference on U.S. Foreign Military Bases > January 12-14, 2018 > University of Baltimore > Baltimore, Maryland > > Hosted By: Coalition Against U.S. Foreign Military Bases > > > Thirteen prominent peace and justice organizations in the United States are collectively organizing a 3-day national conference on U.S. Foreign Military Bases on January 12-14, 2018, at the University of Baltimore, Maryland: > > Alliance for Global Justice > Black Alliance for Peace > CODEPINK > Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space > International Action Center > MLK Justice Coalition > Nuclear Age Peace Foundation > Popular Resistance > United National Antiwar Coalition > U.S. Peace Council > Veterans For Peace > Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom > World Beyond War > The conference will feature national and international experts. Several expert panels will discuss the economic, political, environmental and health costs and impact of U.S. foreign military bases in various regions of the world, including South America, Asia-Pacific, Africa, the Middle East, and Europe. The conference will be live streamed for the international audience. > > For more information and to register for the conference: > > Visit the Coalition's Website > > > > > Want to change how you receive these emails? > You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list . > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Wed Nov 22 13:22:10 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2017 13:22:10 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] AFL-CIO opposing war!!!! Message-ID: Rich Whitney 24 mins · Shared via AddThis This received almost no corporate media coverage, but I think it is significant that the AFL-CIO now advocates that "workers and our unions promote a foreign policy independent of the political interests and foreign policy of Wall Street and corporate America . . . . that the AFL-CIO promotes and advocates for a foreign policy based on international solidarity of all workers, mutual respect of all nations and national sovereignty, and calls upon the president and Congress to make war truly the last resort in our country’s foreign relations. https://uslaboragainstwar.org/Article/78279/afl-cio-2017-convention-resolution-50-war-is-not-the-answer#.WhV5BvYQZyF.facebook -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From r-szoke at illinois.edu Thu Nov 23 05:54:38 2017 From: r-szoke at illinois.edu (Szoke, Ron) Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2017 05:54:38 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] War on the poor? Message-ID: World's richest are waging war on the poor, says Columbia University professor https://www.yahoo.com/news/world-apos-richest-waging-war-144900570.html?soc_src=hl-viewer&soc_trk=ma -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Thu Nov 23 15:23:38 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2017 15:23:38 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Happy Thanksgiving/ the FCC plan to repeal "net neutrality" is on its way........ Message-ID: * Print * Leaflet * Feedback * Share » FCC plan to repeal “net neutrality” gives telecom giants control of public access to Internet By Kevin Reed 23 November 2017 Donald Trump’s appointed Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Ajit Pai released a final draft on Wednesday of an order that will enable privately-owned US broadband Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to control public access to online content. The blatantly anti-democratic plan to deregulate the US Internet infrastructure will be voted on at a December 14 open FCC hearing. It is expected to be adopted by a 3-to-2 majority. Following Pai’s appointment in January, the overturning of Obama-era net neutrality rules has been a top priority of the White House and Republican Party in cooperation with the giant telecom monopolies such as AT&T, Verizon, TimeWarner and Comcast. The concept of net neutrality means that all content on the Internet is treated equally, that the ISPs cannot adjust or prioritize the kind of data or the website content that individuals or organizations access online based on business considerations. Net neutrality “Open Internet Rules” that became effective on June 15, 2015 prohibited high-speed ISPs from stopping or slowing down the delivery of websites to customers or charging different rates for the quality of high-volume data content such as streaming video over the Internet to homes and businesses. Although denied by representatives of the broadband companies, the terms of the FCC plan make it possible for access to certain information or data to be blocked entirely or subject to additional fees or service charges depending on what is in the profit interests of the Internet carrier being used. With characteristic hypocrisy, Pai released the final draft of his “Restoring Internet Freedom” plan, which has been in the works since April, declaring, “Under my proposal, the federal government will stop micromanaging the Internet.” As is widely acknowledged by tech industry experts and online access advocates, the FCC proposal has nothing to do with freedom and everything to do with controlling content and throttling broadband data delivery based on service tiers paid for by customers. A primary false premise of the repeal of net neutrality rules is that government regulation of the big ISPs is “burdensome and unnecessary” and stifling investment and innovation in Internet infrastructure. However, the reality is that telephone and cable corporations are leveraging their Washington influence to regenerate Wall Street interest in their “legacy” Internet corporations. In comparison to the investment in content giants like Google, Amazon, Netflix and Facebook, the broadband industry has stagnated and been devalued on Wall Street. One of the objectives of the ISP monopolies is to enter the content business themselves either by developing their own programming or through acquisition of TV networks or other media organizations. By lifting net neutrality regulations, the broadband providers can enhance access to their “own” content and throttle, i.e. restrict, the performance or block the content of their competitors. Under Obama, the net neutrality rules for regulating Internet infrastructure companies as utilities or “common carriers” is based on Title II of the Telecommunications Act signed into law by Franklin D. Roosevelt on June 19, 1934. Since the election of Donald Trump, the Republican-led offensive has been exploiting the limitations of the antiquated “utility” framework of the landline telephone era to abolish entirely any government regulation of the privately-owned aspects of US Internet infrastructure. The timing of the announcement by FCC Chairman Pai that he is moving forward aggressively with the new plan is significant. Despite mass public opposition to the repeal of net neutrality—the overwhelming majority of 22 million responses on the FCC website were opposed to the order—the FCC is moving ahead now for transparently political reasons. Opening up the ability of ISPs to control the flow of Internet content to the public is being implemented as part of the expanding campaign by the state—with the full cooperation of the major telecom, Internet and social media corporations—to censor access to socialist political opposition within the US. Providing the ISPs with carte blanche control over the flow of content takes this censorship to the most fundamental level of Internet technology. These same ISPs—AT&T and Verizon in particular—have a long history of collaboration with the military-intelligence establishment in spying on the public and gathering data on the online activity of the global population. No one should accept the nominal opposition of Google, Amazon and Facebook to the attack on net neutrality by the Trump administration and their competitors in the Internet infrastructure industries. These same corporations have been working hand-in-glove with the state over the past year to block and censor access by the public to socialist and left-wing Internet content under the guise of the fight against “fake news” and unsubstantiated claims of Russian interference in the 2016 US elections. The campaign has been spearheaded by the Democratic Party. Left-wing sites, and the World Socialist Web Site in particular, have been the primary targets of this censorship campaign. The latest changes to the FCC’s regulatory policies are being lined up to intensify this censorship and prepare further attacks on the democratic rights of the entire working class. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Thu Nov 23 15:51:27 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2017 15:51:27 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] COUNTERPUNCH: The Great American Sex Panic of 2017 Message-ID: Fearless Muckraking Since 1993 [https://uziiw38pmyg1ai60732c4011-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/dropzone/2015/05/JoinList-new.png] * HOME * ARTICLES * MAGAZINE * SUBSCRIBE * DONATE * ARCHIVES * ABOUT * BOOKS * PODCASTS * FAQS NOVEMBER 22, 2017 The Great American Sex Panic of 2017 by WILLIAM KAUFMAN FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail[https://uziiw38pmyg1ai60732c4011-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/dropzone/2017/09/atoa-print-icon.png] I confess to being troubled rather than elated by the daily rumble of idols falling to accusations of “sexual misconduct,” the morbid masscult fixation that conceals private titillation, knowing smirks, and sadistic lip-smacking behind a public mask of solemn reproof. Weinstein and Trump and Roy Moore and Bill Clinton are vile pigs and creeps, no doubt; I have always detested the smug neoliberal performance-art strut of Al Franken and the careerist-toady journalism of Glenn Thrush and Charlie Rose, the latest dominoes to tumble amid the barrage of public accusations of “inappropriate” advances or touching. But the boundary between cultural tolerance/intolerance blurs and shifts with each passing revelation, as the litany of sins, ancient or recent, cardinal or venal, snowballs into an avalanche of aggrieved, undifferentiated accusation—a stampeding herd of “Me-Tooists.” Successive waves of long-forgotten gropes and slurps now overwhelm the news channel chyrons, leaving us with the sense that no greater crime against humanity is possible than an unsolicited horndog lunge of the hand or tongue, some of them from twenty or thirty years past but divulged only in the past few weeks. Let’s be honest—these “shocking” revelations about Franken—that he tried to tongue-kiss a woman one time in a rehearsal and mock-grabbed her somnolent breasts in a silly frat-house pose or that maybe his hand strayed too far toward a woman’s derriere as he obliged her with a photo at a state fair five years ago—would have elicited nothing more than a public yawn just a few weeks or months ago in the BW (Before Weinstein) era; in fact, these two women, seemingly unperturbed enough to leave these incidents unreported for five or six years, would likely not have thought to join the solemn procession of the violated on national TV if not for the stampede effect of each successive cri de coeur. But is it an advance in collective ethical consciousness when the public reservoir of shock and indignation is so easily churned up and tapped out over erotic peccadillos? And here I must of course distinguish between outright rape—always a viscerally sickening crime against human dignity— or implied or explicit threats to a woman worker’s livelihood over sexual “favors” on the one hand, and on the other the impetuous volcanic eruptions of erotic passion that inevitably leave one or both partners discomfited or embarrassed or forlorn by unexpected or unwelcome overtures, tactile or verbal. As the left blogger Michael J. Smith points out, “Not all acts are equally grave—an off-color joke is not as bad as a grope, and a grope is not as bad as a rape.” Then what interest of sanity or reason is served by this reckless lumping together of flicks of the tongue and forcible rapes into the single broad-brush term “sexual misconduct,” as though there is no important difference between an oafish pat or crude remark at an office party and a gang rape? This would be like applying the term “communist” alike to advocates of single payer healthcare and campaigners for one-party centralized control of the entire economy—oh wait, we have seen precisely that: during the McCarthy era. Now then . . . is all this beginning to have a familiar ring to it? And not merely deeds but words have fallen under scrutiny: on Sunday Jeffrey Tambor joined the ranks of the accused, walking the plank by quitting his acclaimed Amazon series Transparent in the wake of two allegations of the use of “lewd” language in front of his assistant and a fellow actor. So the stain of ostracism has now spread from conduct to mere speech. Alarmingly, the Pecksniffian word lewd has enjoyed a recent rehabilitation among the corporate-media “news” networks, cogs in giant infotainment conglomerates whose cash flow depends precisely on mass dissemination of HD depictions of explicit sexual “lewdness” and violence that their news departments then deplore when evidenced in real life. “Lewd” enjoyed a boomlet during the presidential campaign when the pro-Clinton newsies and talking-head strategists were professing daily bouts of horror at the revelations of the Donald’s coarse frat-boy talk on Access Hollywood. This seems to have been the first time this word had gained any traction since seventeenth-century Salem and Victorian England. This battalion of elite lewdness police are the same Ivy League graduates who in college probably considered Henry Miller a genius, not in spite of, but because of, his portrayal of raw lust in language that makes Trump’s private palaver or Tambor’s japes seem tepid and repressed by comparison. (It’s not impossible that some of these same people consider Quentin Tarantino, cinematic maestro of the vile obscenities of language and violence, a great auteur as well.) The whole spectacle is at once comical and nauseating. And it indeed looks as though huge swaths of the world’s art and literature, from Pindar to Botticelli to Shakespeare to Joyce to Updike, will soon fall to the axe of the lewdness police. Let’s say that a college English professor, in a unit on American Transcendentalism, assigns the Whitman poem “I Sing the Body Electric,” and reads the poem aloud to his students, including the following passage: This is the female form, A divine nimbus exhales from it from head to foot, It attracts with fierce undeniable attraction, I am drawn by its breath as if I were no more than a helpless vapor, all falls aside but myself and it, Books, art, religion, time, the visible and solid earth, and what was expected of heaven or fear’d of hell, are now consumed, Mad filaments, ungovernable shoots play out of it, the response likewise ungovernable, Hair, bosom, hips, bend of legs, negligent falling hands all diffused, mine too diffused, Ebb stung by the flow and flow stung by the ebb, love-flesh swelling and deliciously aching, Limitless limpid jets of love hot and enormous, quivering jelly of love, white-blow and delirious juice, Bridegroom night of love working surely and softly into the prostrate dawn, Undulating into the willing and yielding day, Lost in the cleave of the clasping and sweet-flesh’d day. What if just one woman student were to wilt in distress at the sound of “quivering jelly of love” and then report the professor for imposing “lewd” and disturbing language on his students? Would he be hauled before the Ethics Committee? Stripped of tenure? Forced to resign? You find this preposterous? Then consider the following report from The Atlantic on the alarming trend of bowdlerizing the great canon of Western literature because of potentially offensive erotic content: Something strange is happening at America’s colleges and universities. A movement is arising, undirected and driven largely by students, to scrub campuses clean of words, ideas, and subjects that might cause discomfort or give offense. Last December, Jeannie Suk wrote in an online article for The New Yorker about law students asking her fellow professors at Harvard not to teach rape law—or, in one case, even use the word violate (as in “that violates the law”) lest it cause students distress. . . . A number of popular comedians, including Chris Rock, have stopped performing on college campuses. . . . Jerry Seinfeld and Bill Maher have publicly condemned the oversensitivity of college students, saying too many of them can’t take a joke. Two terms have risen quickly from obscurity into common campus parlance. Microaggressions are small actions or word choices that seem on their face to have no malicious intent but that are thought of as a kind of violence nonetheless. . . . Trigger warnings are alerts that professors are expected to issue if something in a course might cause a strong emotional response. For example, some students have called for warnings that Chinua Achebe’s Things Fall Apart describes racial violence and that F. Scott Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby portrays misogyny and physical abuse, so that students who have been previously victimized by racism or domestic violence can choose to avoid these works, which they believe might “trigger” a recurrence of past trauma. And this virus of censorious American PC puritanism has leapt across the Atlantic to inhibit even the teaching of Shakespeare—yes, Shakespeare—at British universities, as reported just last month in the The Independent: Academics have criticised “trigger warnings” after Cambridge University students were warned about “potentially distressing topics” in plays by Shakespeare. English literature undergraduates were apparently cautioned that a lecture focusing on Titus Andronicus and The Comedy of Errorswould include “discussions of sexual violence” and “sexual assault.” According to The Telegraph, the trigger warnings were posted in the English Faculty’s “Notes on Lectures” document which is circulated to students at the university. Academics have expressed concern that colleges trying to protect young adults from certain issues may render them incapable of dealing with real life when they graduate. Supporters of trigger warnings say they serve to help students who may be upset if a text reminds them of a personal traumatic experience. However, critics such as Mary Beard, a Professor of Classics at Cambridge, say allowing students to avoid learning about traumatic episodes of history and literature is “fundamentally dishonest.” Beard said previously: “We have to encourage students to be able to face that, even when they find they’re awkward and difficult for all kinds of good reasons.” David Crilly, artistic director at The Cambridge Shakespeare Festival, said: “If a student of English Literature doesn’t know that Titus Andronicus contains scenes of violence they shouldn’t be on the course.” But voices of sanity such as Beard’s and Crilly’s may be fighting a noble but lost cause against the PC cultural vigilantes, clamoring for the blood of the next prominent stumbler into errant sexual expression, in the lecture hall or office or rehearsal hall or bar. But if we may be allowed to descend from the High Courts of Sexual Inquisition to the land of the living—that is, the merely fallible, sex-tormented mortals who actually make up the human race—who hasn’t lived through anguished or comical moments, either as predator or prey or both at once, in the throes of the temporary madness of desire? And did such impulsive leaps of lust or passion strike anyone as a cause for ritual mass tongue-lashing and tongue-clucking and compulsive daily confessionals and public media crucifixions in the BW era, except perhaps among the most severe of anti-sex feminists like Andrea Dworkin, who considered every heterosexual act of intercourse to be a form of rape? Did anyone but reactionary blue-noses think about suppressing or avoiding the works of Henry Miller? Or D. H Lawrence? Or even Al Goldstein? Yet now even Shakespeare finds himself on the PC Index. Among the sexual-politics contingents of early second-wave feminists, there were, to be sure, literary eviscerations and cultural firestorms, but nothing like the current pell-mell instant media arraignment for crimes against humanity warranting public investigations, tribunals, denunciations and career death sentences. It all smacks of the hellfire zeal of a religious persecution, a jarring devolution of establishment liberals into old-fashioned American sexual head hunters and cultural bluenoses in the tradition of their forebears in Salem and the fundamentalist South. Betraying a fundamentally elitist impulse to manage and control, the PC inquisitors instinctively recoil from the unruly tempests of human sexuality—the source of desire, the driving torrent of all passion and pleasure, the wellspring of life itself—that at times deafens and blinds and exalts all of us. With the soul of an accountant and the temperament of the professional manager, the PC inquisitors seeks to confine the Dionysian chaos of Eros within the strictures of a bureaucratic handbook of procedure and etiquette, as though a sexual impulse or encounter were a banking transaction or a court proceeding. Thus do the neoliberal elites conduct this front in their incessant war on nature, including the unruly source of nature itself: behold the dismaying spectacle of these joyless, bloodless mortals doing futile battle with the god Eros. The vigilantes cannot win this battle, of course, but they can inflict needless damage on reputations, careers, on our entire cultural heritage in enforcing their groupthink compendium of trigger warnings, speech codes, and rules of order. Something surpassingly strange is at work here—a wrong-headed authoritarian ire over the spasmodic misfires of the human comedy combined with some primal meltdown of a besieged and increasingly desperate ruling class and its longstanding winking sexual hypocrisies. It is a moral panic that is, ironically, immoral at its core: repressive and diversionary, an identity-politics orgy of misdirected moral energies that breeds a chilling conformity of word and deed and, in so doing, cripples the critical faculties and independence of spirit needed to challenge the status quo the PC monitors profess to abhor. In reality, their speech and conduct codes foster a spirit of regimentation rather than rebellion, thereby shoring up the power of the repressive elites that are leading the human race to social, economic, and ecological disaster. So this is not just a moral panic—but a bizarre inversion of values in which Bill Clinton can murder 500,000 Iraqi children, throw millions of poor women and their children off welfare, and instigate the global rule of transnational corporations with NAFTA, but he is not impeached or stigmatized for any of those atrocities but rather for a workplace blowjob; in which Hillary Clinton can lead the charge for the destruction of Libya, reducing that country to primeval rubble, and is not only not fired or ostracized but is rewarded with the Democrats’ presidential nomination and lauded by corporate feminists as a champion of “inclusiveness”; in which Barack Obama pushed fraudulent health-care reform that leaves a barbaric 27 million people with zero coverage and millions more with crippling premiums and deductibles that render their “coverage” all but unusable, thus sentencing tens of thousands of people to death every year because they cannot afford timely medical care, and dropped 26,171 pounds of bombs in 2016 alone, and yet he is not only not reviled and abominated as a con artist but is worshipped as an icon of enlightened governance; in which the entire ruling elite and its associates in the corporate media are chronically underplaying—indeed, scarcely mentioning—the gravity of the climate change crisis, which would merely spell the end of the human species within a hundred years, yet no copycat 24/7 umbrage or five-alarm indignation on the part of anyone in those elite circles or their acolytes over this unprecedented planetary emergency. Hence the long-buried, freshly unearthed ego bruises of the privileged identity-politics crowd eclipse mass murder and ecocide on the outrage meters of this country’s opinion shapers. The same solemn cohort—mostly white and middle-class, many of them ardent McResistance DNC partisans (or, in the case of Leean Tweeden, Franken’s tongue-kiss accuser, a movement conservative who twice voted for George W. Bush)—is so easily roused to near-apoplexy about a naughty lunge of the hand or tongue yet discreetly ignores or openly cheers on unparalleled crimes against humanity: endless debilitating wars against nameless enemies abroad, the toxic mercenary corruption and annihilation of democracy, staggering political/social inequality (the top one percent of the world’s population now owns half of the world’s wealth), and ecocide everywhere—committed and abetted with impunity by the PC brigades’ culture heroes like the Clintons and Obama and their cohorts in the media and the corporate/political elites. So yes—prosecute the rapists and pedophiles and let them suffer in jail. But you will excuse me if I stand aside from the stampede of outrage about Al Franken’s wayward tongue or even Donald Trump’s juvenile frat-house boasts while the world teeters on the brink. The scale of values of this country’s liberal elites, and the issues that fuel and exhaust their capacity for outrage, border on moral dementia. Their vaunted “values” lead us not to virtue and to spiritual renewal, but to the nauseating sanctimony of the custodians of a charnel house—to the abyss. Join the debate on Facebook More articles by:WILLIAM KAUFMAN William Kaufman is a writer and editor who lives in New York City. He can be reached at kman484 at earthlink.net. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Thu Nov 23 16:01:56 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2017 16:01:56 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] NET NEUTRALITY Message-ID: >From a trusted source: Only five people at the FCC get to vote on Net Neutrality: Their names are Ajit Pai, Mignon Clyburn, Michael O'Rielly, Brendan Carr, and Jessica Rosenworcel. Both Mignon and Jessica plan to vote keep net neutrality, to defeat the net neutrality repeal one of these three men need to change their vote. Any change to be made has to be by directly contacting them. To do so here are the numbers easiest to contact them with: Ajit Pai: 202-518-7399 Michael O'Rielly: 301-657-9092 Brendan Carr: 202-719-7305 Please, please, PLEASE contact these people! Net neutrality is an immensely important part of what all of us here on Facebook and across the entire internet enjoy on a daily basis. MAKE YOUR VOICE HEARD!! Please copy and repost. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From deb.pdamerica at gmail.com Thu Nov 23 17:32:33 2017 From: deb.pdamerica at gmail.com (Debra Schrishuhn) Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2017 11:32:33 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] NET NEUTRALITY In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9A55F09B-11A2-4E6D-86E9-5C3A1477BB3B@gmail.com> Pai And Carr numbers are disconnected. O'Rielly has no voice mail. Deb Sent from my iPhone > On Nov 23, 2017, at 10:01 AM, Karen Aram via Peace wrote: > > From a trusted source: > > Only five people at the FCC get to vote on Net Neutrality: > Their names are Ajit Pai, Mignon Clyburn, Michael O'Rielly, Brendan Carr, and Jessica Rosenworcel. Both Mignon and Jessica plan to vote keep net neutrality, to defeat the net neutrality repeal one of these three men need to change their vote. > Any change to be made has to be by directly contacting them. To do so here are the numbers easiest to contact them with: > Ajit Pai: 202-518-7399 > Michael O'Rielly: 301-657-9092 > Brendan Carr: 202-719-7305 > Please, please, PLEASE contact these people! Net neutrality is an immensely important part of what all of us here on Facebook and across the entire internet enjoy on a daily basis. > MAKE YOUR VOICE HEARD!! Please copy and repost. > _______________________________________________ > Peace mailing list > Peace at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Thu Nov 23 19:19:25 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2017 19:19:25 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] NET NEUTRALITY In-Reply-To: <9A55F09B-11A2-4E6D-86E9-5C3A1477BB3B@gmail.com> References: <9A55F09B-11A2-4E6D-86E9-5C3A1477BB3B@gmail.com> Message-ID: Thanks Deb, will attempt another source. On Nov 23, 2017, at 09:32, Debra Schrishuhn > wrote: Pai And Carr numbers are disconnected. O'Rielly has no voice mail. Deb Sent from my iPhone On Nov 23, 2017, at 10:01 AM, Karen Aram via Peace > wrote: >From a trusted source: Only five people at the FCC get to vote on Net Neutrality: Their names are Ajit Pai, Mignon Clyburn, Michael O'Rielly, Brendan Carr, and Jessica Rosenworcel. Both Mignon and Jessica plan to vote keep net neutrality, to defeat the net neutrality repeal one of these three men need to change their vote. Any change to be made has to be by directly contacting them. To do so here are the numbers easiest to contact them with: Ajit Pai: 202-518-7399 Michael O'Rielly: 301-657-9092 Brendan Carr: 202-719-7305 Please, please, PLEASE contact these people! Net neutrality is an immensely important part of what all of us here on Facebook and across the entire internet enjoy on a daily basis. MAKE YOUR VOICE HEARD!! Please copy and repost. _______________________________________________ Peace mailing list Peace at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Thu Nov 23 19:49:11 2017 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2017 13:49:11 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Black Agenda Report References: Message-ID: > Begin forwarded message: > > From: "Black Agenda Report" > Subject: Trump FCC to End Network Neutrality, Baltimore Cops Toss the Constitution, > Date: November 23, 2017 at 11:33:41 AM CST > To: "Cgestabrook" > Reply-To: publisher at blackagendareport.com > > > You received this email either because you are subscribed to Black Agenda Report's weekly email notification of new content at www.blackagendareport.com or because someone forwarded it to you. > We urge you to forward it to friends and colleagues, and to repost and share these items on Facebook, Twitter and other social media platforms. > Trump FCC Wants To Remove Caps on Calls From Jails and Prisons, and to Kill Network Neutrality  > Bruce A. Dixon, BAR managing editor > The Trump FCC wants to kill subsidies for poor people to pay phone and internet bills, and remove  caps on how much telecoms can charge the families of prisoners to receive phone calls. Its FCC chair used to represent  a prison phone company. And they intend to kill network neutrality. > > > Baltimore Police Throw Constitution Out the Window  Glen Ford, BAR executive editor > The Baltimore police department seems to have learned nothing from the civil disturbances that rocked the city after Freddie Gray died in police custody back in 2015. Six cops got off scot-free for killing Gray -- which seems to have led the police to conclude that they can treat the Black community as a Constitution-Free Zone, where anything the cops do is legal. > > > Freedom Rider: Obama’s Crimes are Revealed Under Trump  Margaret Kimberley, BAR editor and senior columnist > Donald Trump is condemned by Democrats for continuing wars and regime change policies begun by Barack Obama. Both presidents are criminal. > > > The Ongoing Agony of the Obama-Trump War on the People of Yemen  Ajamu Baraka, BAR editor and columnist > The U.S. is complicit in Saudi Arabia’s barbaric war against Yemen, where tens of thousands of children are being systematically starved to death. > > > US War Against Russia Dates Back to the Fear of Soviet Union  Danny Haiphong, BAR contributor > The U.S. ruling class fears and despises Russia as much as they did the > Soviet Union – as an obstacle to imperialist world domination. > > > Neocolonial Kleptocracy and Clinton Connections  Ann Garrison, BAR contributor > On November 18 Rwandan President Paul Kagame inducted eight thieves without borders and one medical doctor into his “National Order of Outstanding Friendship,  ” presenting them with medals for “exemplary service” to the nation, meaning himself and his ruling party, the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF). > > > Following Footsteps of the Founding Fathers…  > by BAR poet in residence Raymond Nat Turner > Alchemy of money > transforming repulsive, > ugly, hideous human forms into > Powerful producers, reality TV stars, > > > “Our Agenda”  Rebecka Rutledge Fisher, Ph.D. > “Black unbelonging — black Americans as historical outsiders — is at the heart of our Constitution.” > > Black Agenda Radio, Week of November 20, 2017 > This week on Black Agenda Radio > Daniel Kovalik on the plot to scapegoat Russia > Netfa Freeman reps Black Alliance for Peace > Feds prosecute hundreds for breaking the same window > Netfa Freeman on how AFRICOM locks down a continent > Mumia Abu Jamal's new book release > Click the first line for the whole show, or any of the five above for individual segments. > > > The Legend of the Black Mecca: Politics and Class in the Making of Modern Atlanta  Dr. Maurice J. Hobson > > The Fight to End Abusive Behavior Towards Black Women  Ken Morgan > > > Lessons on the Anniversary of the Greensboro Massacre  Flint Taylor > > > Trump Doubles Down on Sanctions and Regime Change for Venezuela  Mark Weisbrot > > > Forced Anthem Adherence Antithetical to Justice  Linn Washington Jr > > The Legend of the Black Mecca: Politics and Class in the Making of Modern Atlanta  Dr. Maurice J. Hobson > 190 Pemberton Ave, Plainfield, NJ 07060, United States > You may unsubscribe or change your contact details at any time. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From deb.pdamerica at gmail.com Fri Nov 24 10:16:57 2017 From: deb.pdamerica at gmail.com (Debra Schrishuhn) Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2017 04:16:57 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] NET NEUTRALITY In-Reply-To: References: <9A55F09B-11A2-4E6D-86E9-5C3A1477BB3B@gmail.com> Message-ID: This is a critical issue--thanks for publicizing it. We also all need to be jamming lines at Congressional/Senate offices demanding NO votes on the Republican tax scam and YES votes on a clean DREAM Act. On 11/23/17, Karen Aram wrote: > Thanks Deb, will attempt another source. > > On Nov 23, 2017, at 09:32, Debra Schrishuhn > > wrote: > > Pai And Carr numbers are disconnected. O'Rielly has no voice mail. > Deb > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Nov 23, 2017, at 10:01 AM, Karen Aram via Peace > > wrote: > > From a trusted source: > > Only five people at the FCC get to vote on Net Neutrality: > Their names are Ajit Pai, Mignon Clyburn, Michael O'Rielly, Brendan Carr, > and Jessica Rosenworcel. Both Mignon and Jessica plan to vote keep net > neutrality, to defeat the net neutrality repeal one of these three men need > to change their vote. > Any change to be made has to be by directly contacting them. To do so here > are the numbers easiest to contact them with: > Ajit Pai: 202-518-7399 > Michael O'Rielly: 301-657-9092 > Brendan Carr: 202-719-7305 > Please, please, PLEASE contact these people! Net neutrality is an immensely > important part of what all of us here on Facebook and across the entire > internet enjoy on a daily basis. > MAKE YOUR VOICE HEARD!! Please copy and repost. > _______________________________________________ > Peace mailing list > Peace at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace > > From karenaram at hotmail.com Fri Nov 24 12:45:21 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2017 12:45:21 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] NET NEUTRALITY In-Reply-To: References: <9A55F09B-11A2-4E6D-86E9-5C3A1477BB3B@gmail.com> Message-ID: This is one of the “contacts” being passed around on FB "We have until December to make our voices heard. CONTACT your representatives in Congress and tell them you’re OPPOSED to dismantling Net Neutrality." “Text RESIST to 50409, get signed up, and send a message to your Congress Representatives that you're opposed to dismantling Net Neutrality, and ANYONE who fails to preserve a fair and open internet will see the consequences come re-election time." On Nov 24, 2017, at 02:16, Debra Schrishuhn > wrote: This is a critical issue--thanks for publicizing it. We also all need to be jamming lines at Congressional/Senate offices demanding NO votes on the Republican tax scam and YES votes on a clean DREAM Act. On 11/23/17, Karen Aram > wrote: Thanks Deb, will attempt another source. On Nov 23, 2017, at 09:32, Debra Schrishuhn > wrote: Pai And Carr numbers are disconnected. O'Rielly has no voice mail. Deb Sent from my iPhone On Nov 23, 2017, at 10:01 AM, Karen Aram via Peace > wrote: From a trusted source: Only five people at the FCC get to vote on Net Neutrality: Their names are Ajit Pai, Mignon Clyburn, Michael O'Rielly, Brendan Carr, and Jessica Rosenworcel. Both Mignon and Jessica plan to vote keep net neutrality, to defeat the net neutrality repeal one of these three men need to change their vote. Any change to be made has to be by directly contacting them. To do so here are the numbers easiest to contact them with: Ajit Pai: 202-518-7399 Michael O'Rielly: 301-657-9092 Brendan Carr: 202-719-7305 Please, please, PLEASE contact these people! Net neutrality is an immensely important part of what all of us here on Facebook and across the entire internet enjoy on a daily basis. MAKE YOUR VOICE HEARD!! Please copy and repost. _______________________________________________ Peace mailing list Peace at lists.chambana.net https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.chambana.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fpeace&data=02%7C01%7Ckarenaram%40hotmail.com%7C1e48dfd637664c14e07e08d533247f39%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636471154196291937&sdata=Pk5KDKCFgI7KeGMB8zTlsA6brhzKdhs%2BfrWWdUqOXik%3D&reserved=0 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Fri Nov 24 19:17:29 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2017 19:17:29 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Russia instructs industry to prepare for war mobilization. Message-ID: * WSWS * ICFI * Mehring Books * Mobile * RSS Feeds * Podcast * Newsletter * Select a language Afrikaans >العربية Čeština Deutsch Ελληνικά English Español فارسی Français Bahasa Indonesia Italiano Norsk Polski Português Română Русский Srpskohrvatski Sinhalese தமிழ் Türkçe اُردُو‎ 中文 [http://www.wsws.org/img/title.png] [http://www.wsws.org/img/logo.png] Published by the International Committee of the Fourth International (ICFI) Click here for advanced search » * Home * Perspectives * World News * World Economy * Arts Review * History * Science * Philosophy * Workers Struggles * ICFI/Marxist Library * Chronology * Full Archive * Print * Leaflet * Feedback * Share » Kremlin instructs Russian industry to prepare for war mobilization By Alex Lantier 24 November 2017 Reports emerged yesterday in the British press that Russian President Vladimir Putin has ordered Russian industry to be prepared to divert all its efforts into war production. After Germany’s formal re-militarization of its foreign policy in 2014 and Sweden’s reintroduction of the draft, this makes clear that, just over a century after the outbreak of World War I in 1914, countries across Europe and the world are again preparing for total war. Putin reportedly made this remark at the Sochi summit, where he discussed the Syrian war with Turkish and Iranian officials. As he spoke, he was reviewing the Russian military’s annual Zapad military exercise, which took place in September, with Russian army staff. Putin said, “The ability of our economy to increase military production and services at a given time is one of the most important aspects of military security. To this end, all strategic and simply large-scale enterprise should be ready, regardless of ownership.” His remarks made clear that this year’s Zapad exercise was designed to check whether Russia could sustain the all-out mobilization of its economic resources for large-scale nuclear war. The scenario of the exercise was for strategic nuclear forces to practice firing off their missiles—the country’s largest hydrogen bombs, designed to obliterate a country who attacked Russia—amid mock foreign ground invasions and large-scale missile strikes against Russia. In such a war, the military would take over the economy, slash production for civilian needs, and re-direct whatever industrial capacity survived mass air and missile raids towards the war effort. Putin said, “First, we checked our mobilization readiness and ability to use local resources to meet the troops’ requirements. Reservists were called up for this exercise, and we also tested the ability of civilian companies to transfer their vehicles and equipment to the armed forces and provide technical protection to transport communications. ... We also assessed the provision of transport and logistics services, as well as food and medicines to the army. We need to review once again the defense companies’ ability to quickly increase output.” Putin’s remarks are an urgent warning to the international working class. Global capitalism is undergoing a historic political collapse. The danger of a Third World War, rooted in the conflict between the nation-state system and the global character of economic production, is imminent and growing. What Putin announced openly at the Sochi summit is what NATO governments are doing behind the backs of the people: preparing for all-out global war directly between the major nuclear powers and, if necessary, against their own population. The chorus of attacks on Russia in the US and European media, denouncing its alleged aggression and interference in NATO countries’ politics, are saturated with imperialist hypocrisy. While Russia is carrying out military exercises on its own soil, the NATO powers are encircling Russia and marching their troops up to Russia’s very borders. Two weeks ago, NATO held a summit in Brussels to discuss building naval and logistical bases to transport US and European troops across the Atlantic and the European continent to fight Russia. Reviewing the summit agenda, German news magazine Der Spiegel concluded, “In plain language: NATO is preparing for a possible war with Russia.” As in Russia, NATO officials are readying for such a war with plans to subordinate all social and economic life to the diktat of the banks and the military. At the Brussels summit, NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg made clear that NATO is also closely coordinating its war planning with the intelligence agencies, police and the banks. This planning, he said, “requires a whole-of-government approach. So it’s important that our defense ministers make our interior, finance and transport ministers aware of military requirements.” Viewed from Moscow, US imperialism’s threats of aggressive military action around the planet resemble a noose being drawn around Russia. Nor are the threats concentrated on Russia’s western border with Europe. Since August, US President Donald Trump has repeatedly threatened North Korea, which borders both eastern Russia and China, with nuclear obliteration. After Trump went to Saudi Arabia in May and pressed Riyadh to take a harsh line against Iran and Syria, Russia’s main allies to the south in the Middle East, the region is on the verge of all-out war. At the same time, Pentagon figures publicized earlier this week showed that US military and support personnel deployed to the Middle East suddenly surged 30 percent, to 54,325. Humanity is being brought face to face with the disastrous political consequences of the dissolution of the USSR by the Stalinist bureaucracy over a quarter century ago, in 1991. The imperialist lies of the Cold War era, that the USSR was the source of military aggression in the world, were refuted by the imperialist onslaught that developed after its dissolution. Entire regions were devastated as the NATO powers attacked or occupied formerly Soviet-allied states—Iraq, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Libya, and Syria—or isolated and economically strangled them, as in the case of North Korea. These wars have not only cost millions of lives, but forced over 60 million people to flee their homes, creating the greatest refugee crisis since World War II. The crisis revealed by Putin’s call for Russia to be prepared for total war is the outcome of these decades of brutal wars waged by the NATO powers around the world. Attempts by US imperialism to use its military might to offset its economic decline and channel outward class tensions driven by rising unemployment and social deprivation, in which Washington was abetted by its European allies, have brought the world to the brink of a nuclear holocaust. This is now publicly discussed at the highest levels of the bourgeois state. Last week, in the US Senate, Massachusetts Senator Ed Markey warned that plans could be in place, “right now in the White House, given to the president to launch a preemptive war against North Korea using American nuclear weapons without consulting with, informing Congress.” Another senator said the White House had become an “adult day care center” for an uncontrollable president, who could choose to launch a nuclear war virtually anytime. The Kremlin’s policy, rooted in the bankrupt Russian nationalism of the post-Soviet capitalist oligarchy, is reactionary and incapable of opposing the imperialist war drive. Unwilling and unable to appeal to anti-war sentiment in the international working class, and financially dependent on the imperialist centers, the Kremlin oscillates between trying to cut deals with the NATO powers and risking an all-out military confrontation with them. Strategists clearly expect that such a conflict would likely escalate rapidly to large-scale nuclear war threatening the very survival of humanity. There is no way to stop the drive to war outside a politically-conscious intervention by the working class, on an international scale, in revolutionary opposition to war and to capitalism. The greatest danger in this situation is that masses of workers are not fully aware of the depth of the political crisis and the rapidly rising danger of a catastrophic war. It is under these conditions that, amid a campaign denouncing Russia in US and European media, governments are demanding stepped-up censorship of the Internet and social media, and Google is censoring anti-war and socialist web sites, first and foremost the World Socialist Web Site. This is why the WSWS calls for building an international anti-war movement in the working class and a socialist and anti-imperialist perspective, and asks for its readers’ support in spreading its materials against censorship and war. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Sat Nov 25 09:42:58 2017 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2017 03:42:58 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Trump Regrets U.S. Wars in the Middle East: 'What a Mistake' Message-ID: http://www.newsweek.com/trump-regrets-us-wars-middle-east-what-mistake-721558 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Sat Nov 25 23:49:42 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2017 23:49:42 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Article from Stanford News/Analysis by Ben Norton Message-ID: [https://scontent-ort2-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-1/c1.0.43.43/p43x43/22490007_10155839588765850_500129212396359127_n.jpg?oh=0d8278e384cd41a46b2cc8f3abd33ffe&oe=5A8E1F51] Ben Norton November 23 at 5:32pm · At what point would you call a country fascist? When a clear majority of its population are willing to kill 2 million foreign civilians to save 20,000 of their own compatriots? When they think the life of just one of their nation's soldiers is more important than the lives of 100 foreign civilians? Where is the limit? From this Stanford study: "Contrary to the nuclear taboo thesis, a clear majority of Americans would approve of using nuclear weapons first against the civilian population of a nonnuclear-armed adversary, even killing 2 million Iranian civilians, if they believed that such use would save the lives of 20,000 U.S. soldiers. In addition, contrary to the principle of noncombatant immunity, an even larger percentage of Americans would approve of a conventional bombing attack designed to kill 100,000 Iranian civilians in the effort to intimidate Iran into surrendering, according to Sagan. The research also shows that women support nuclear weapons use and violations of noncombatant immunity no less (and in some cases, more) than male respondents, they wrote." https://news.stanford.edu/…/08/08/americans-weigh-nuclear-…/# I want to share this news story from Stanford University with you: http://stanford.io/2vI1oif -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Sun Nov 26 01:31:25 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2017 01:31:25 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] The Europeans and Finn's get it. Message-ID: “Easy Living,” a Finnish series running on Amazon, is a drama about a family in illegal/criminal businesses which sometimes turn deadly. Season 3 they come up with a brilliant scam to “privatize” care for the elderly. I like that the Fins call it what it is, a “scam.” A Swedish series, from the 90’s dealt with CIA undercover operations to destabilize Libya. I stopped watching most American programs sometime ago, due to their promotion of fantasies that the USG is concerned with “security and human rights." From fboyle at illinois.edu Sun Nov 26 14:23:31 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2017 14:23:31 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: NYTBR: Resist Dan Rather--Slimeball! Message-ID: Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Sunday, November 26, 2017 8:19 AM To: sectns.aals at lists.aals.org Subject: NYTBR: Resist Dan Rather--Slimeball! On his 60 Minutes TV Program for CBS Sunday Evening News, Dan Rather maliciously inflicted outright character assassination on an Amnesty International Prisoner of Conscience in front of millions of people. Let me repeat that: On his 60 Minutes TV Program for CBS Sunday Evening News Dan Rather maliciously inflicted outright character assassination on an Amnesty International Prisoner of Conscience in front of millions of people. I helped defend Staff Sergeant Camilo Mejia, who was the very first GI Resister to Bush Jr's genocidal war of aggression against Iraq. Dan Rather deliberately, gratuitously and viciously trashed S.S. Mejia in a plot and a trap that Rather had set for him on 60 Minutes. Just before his court-martial at Fort Stewart, S.S. Mejia agreed to appear with Rather on 60 Minutes to explain to the American People why as a matter of good faith and conscience he could not return to combat in Iraq and turn captured insurgents over to be tortured. Thanks to S.S. Mejia, we knew all about the massive U.S. torture scandal in Iraq several months before it became front-page news all over the world. Instead of letting S.S. Mejia have his say, Rather launched a mean, nasty, vicious diatribe and tirade against S.S. Mejia, accusing him of being a traitor and abandoning and endangering his colleagues in Iraq. And this by a Chickenhawk Rather who, to the best of my knowledge, had never served in combat unlike S.S. Mejia. Clearly, on 60 Minutes Rather deliberately set out to poison the jury pool against S.S. Mejia at Fort Stewart in violation of Mejia's Constitutional Right to a Fair Trial. To make a long story short, despite Rather's worst efforts, at the end of a Kangaroo Court Proceeding, instead of 2 years, we got S.S. Mejia 8 months and adopted a Prisoner of Conscience by Amnesty International-just like Sakharov et al. May Dan Rather always Live In Infamy for what he did to S.S. Mejia! Rather has nothing worthwhile to say to anyone about anything. Caveat Lector! Francis A. Boyle Professor of Law Board of Directors Amnesty International USA (1988-1992) LeVine: In my own research on war crimes committed by US forces in Iraq. I counted at least two-dozen classes of offenses systematically committed by the Occupation administration and US or US-allied military forces in the invasion and subsequent period of CPA (Coalition Provisional Authority) rule. This includes violations of articles and 17, 18, 33, and 147 of the Geneva Convention covering the killing, hostage-taking and torturing of civilians Boyle: As I just argued at Fort Stewart Georgia in the court martial proceedings for Sgt. Camilo Mejia for desertion, the accountability here goes directly up the chain of command under the terms of the US Army Field Manual 27-10. Specifically, paragraph 501 makes clear that commanders who have ordered or knew or should have known about war crimes and failed to stop it are themselves guilty of war crimes. If you look then at the public record, it is clear that Gens. Sanchez and Miller ordered war crimes and both should be relieved of command immediately: abuse of prisoners in violation of the Geneva Conventions. As for General Abizaid, the overall commander of US forces in Southwest Asia, he admitted in his Senate hearings that he should have known about the war crimes at Abu Ghraib, so basically he's already incriminated himself under the rules of the US Army Field Manual 27-10 In addition, above Abizaid you have Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz. Again my reading of the public record including the Taguba and Red Cross reports is that they either knew or should have known about all these war crimes. Indeed, if you read the ICRC report, - and as I testified under oath and under cross-examination (and was not contradicted) at the Mejia court-martial proceedings, - the widespread and systematic nature of these abuses rise to the level of crimes against humanity, going all the way up through the chain of command. Culpability also extends to Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence General William G. Boykin and Defense Undersecretary Stephen Cambone, who reports directly to Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith. And through this line it appears to me that Rumsfeld is culpable, because he was at Abu Ghraib last fall. Indeed, Sy Hersch's New Yorker article on Abu Ghraib claims with good substantiation that he was totally aware and even signed off on the use of techniques which are clearly torture. Rumsfeld was given a tour by Brig. General Janet Karpinski, who was supposed to be in charge of the prison-although she said nothing when she was prohibited from accessing certain areas of it-and so she's also accountable. It's important to understand that the Geneva Conventions, the Hague Regulations of 1907, the U.S. Army Field Manual, all mandate that a criminal investigation be opened. And how President Bush, as Commander in Chief would be accountable under Field Manual 27-10 precisely because he is Commander in Chief of the US armed forces under the US Constitution. We know the White House knows this because if you read White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales's memo, he specifically tries to exempt the US from the Geneva Conventions for Guantanamo and Afghanistan. You can see that Gonzalez was afraid of Bush and others being held directly accountable. Moreover, because Powell dissented, we know there was a debate about this, so Bush had to have been aware of the implications of what was being done, which is also backed up by the memos from Ashcroft. These memos have been unearthed by Newsweek. So ultimately what we have here are people at the highest levels of the chain of command guilty of ordering or not preventing torture, which is both an international crime against the Geneva Conventions and the Torture Convention and a domestic crime as well. What we have then is a conspiracy among the aforementioned individuals to commit war crimes and crimes against humanity. Let me add one more thing that's very important to remember: The principles set forth in 27-10 of personal criminal accountability for war crimes goes back to the Nuremburg Charter, Judgments and Principles derived from the post-World War II trials of Nazi war criminals. Similar principles of criminal accountability were applied by the United States to the Japanese Imperial War criminals. LeVine: In fact, President Bush has compared the war on terror to the war against the Nazis. Boyle: Then we have even more reason to bring this to people's attention: The Nuremburg Principles were in fact originally the idea of the US Government which then orchestrated the prosecutions in Nuremburg. People need to understand the pedigree and heritage here. These are very grave offenses which the US government a generation ago prosecuted and executed Nazis for committing. And Japanese war criminals too. LeVine: How can any of the people you mentioned be prosecuted? Boyle: The military could do it, or the Dept. of Justice, which would have default power to do so if the military didn't. But for this of course we'd need a special prosecutor and that law has been allowed to lapse. Attorney General Ashcroft, who is clearly part of the criminal conspiracy, would never push a war crimes investigations against his colleagues or President Bush. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Sun Nov 26 14:23:31 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2017 14:23:31 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: NYTBR: Resist Dan Rather--Slimeball! Message-ID: Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Sunday, November 26, 2017 8:19 AM To: sectns.aals at lists.aals.org Subject: NYTBR: Resist Dan Rather--Slimeball! On his 60 Minutes TV Program for CBS Sunday Evening News, Dan Rather maliciously inflicted outright character assassination on an Amnesty International Prisoner of Conscience in front of millions of people. Let me repeat that: On his 60 Minutes TV Program for CBS Sunday Evening News Dan Rather maliciously inflicted outright character assassination on an Amnesty International Prisoner of Conscience in front of millions of people. I helped defend Staff Sergeant Camilo Mejia, who was the very first GI Resister to Bush Jr's genocidal war of aggression against Iraq. Dan Rather deliberately, gratuitously and viciously trashed S.S. Mejia in a plot and a trap that Rather had set for him on 60 Minutes. Just before his court-martial at Fort Stewart, S.S. Mejia agreed to appear with Rather on 60 Minutes to explain to the American People why as a matter of good faith and conscience he could not return to combat in Iraq and turn captured insurgents over to be tortured. Thanks to S.S. Mejia, we knew all about the massive U.S. torture scandal in Iraq several months before it became front-page news all over the world. Instead of letting S.S. Mejia have his say, Rather launched a mean, nasty, vicious diatribe and tirade against S.S. Mejia, accusing him of being a traitor and abandoning and endangering his colleagues in Iraq. And this by a Chickenhawk Rather who, to the best of my knowledge, had never served in combat unlike S.S. Mejia. Clearly, on 60 Minutes Rather deliberately set out to poison the jury pool against S.S. Mejia at Fort Stewart in violation of Mejia's Constitutional Right to a Fair Trial. To make a long story short, despite Rather's worst efforts, at the end of a Kangaroo Court Proceeding, instead of 2 years, we got S.S. Mejia 8 months and adopted a Prisoner of Conscience by Amnesty International-just like Sakharov et al. May Dan Rather always Live In Infamy for what he did to S.S. Mejia! Rather has nothing worthwhile to say to anyone about anything. Caveat Lector! Francis A. Boyle Professor of Law Board of Directors Amnesty International USA (1988-1992) LeVine: In my own research on war crimes committed by US forces in Iraq. I counted at least two-dozen classes of offenses systematically committed by the Occupation administration and US or US-allied military forces in the invasion and subsequent period of CPA (Coalition Provisional Authority) rule. This includes violations of articles and 17, 18, 33, and 147 of the Geneva Convention covering the killing, hostage-taking and torturing of civilians Boyle: As I just argued at Fort Stewart Georgia in the court martial proceedings for Sgt. Camilo Mejia for desertion, the accountability here goes directly up the chain of command under the terms of the US Army Field Manual 27-10. Specifically, paragraph 501 makes clear that commanders who have ordered or knew or should have known about war crimes and failed to stop it are themselves guilty of war crimes. If you look then at the public record, it is clear that Gens. Sanchez and Miller ordered war crimes and both should be relieved of command immediately: abuse of prisoners in violation of the Geneva Conventions. As for General Abizaid, the overall commander of US forces in Southwest Asia, he admitted in his Senate hearings that he should have known about the war crimes at Abu Ghraib, so basically he's already incriminated himself under the rules of the US Army Field Manual 27-10 In addition, above Abizaid you have Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz. Again my reading of the public record including the Taguba and Red Cross reports is that they either knew or should have known about all these war crimes. Indeed, if you read the ICRC report, - and as I testified under oath and under cross-examination (and was not contradicted) at the Mejia court-martial proceedings, - the widespread and systematic nature of these abuses rise to the level of crimes against humanity, going all the way up through the chain of command. Culpability also extends to Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence General William G. Boykin and Defense Undersecretary Stephen Cambone, who reports directly to Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith. And through this line it appears to me that Rumsfeld is culpable, because he was at Abu Ghraib last fall. Indeed, Sy Hersch's New Yorker article on Abu Ghraib claims with good substantiation that he was totally aware and even signed off on the use of techniques which are clearly torture. Rumsfeld was given a tour by Brig. General Janet Karpinski, who was supposed to be in charge of the prison-although she said nothing when she was prohibited from accessing certain areas of it-and so she's also accountable. It's important to understand that the Geneva Conventions, the Hague Regulations of 1907, the U.S. Army Field Manual, all mandate that a criminal investigation be opened. And how President Bush, as Commander in Chief would be accountable under Field Manual 27-10 precisely because he is Commander in Chief of the US armed forces under the US Constitution. We know the White House knows this because if you read White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales's memo, he specifically tries to exempt the US from the Geneva Conventions for Guantanamo and Afghanistan. You can see that Gonzalez was afraid of Bush and others being held directly accountable. Moreover, because Powell dissented, we know there was a debate about this, so Bush had to have been aware of the implications of what was being done, which is also backed up by the memos from Ashcroft. These memos have been unearthed by Newsweek. So ultimately what we have here are people at the highest levels of the chain of command guilty of ordering or not preventing torture, which is both an international crime against the Geneva Conventions and the Torture Convention and a domestic crime as well. What we have then is a conspiracy among the aforementioned individuals to commit war crimes and crimes against humanity. Let me add one more thing that's very important to remember: The principles set forth in 27-10 of personal criminal accountability for war crimes goes back to the Nuremburg Charter, Judgments and Principles derived from the post-World War II trials of Nazi war criminals. Similar principles of criminal accountability were applied by the United States to the Japanese Imperial War criminals. LeVine: In fact, President Bush has compared the war on terror to the war against the Nazis. Boyle: Then we have even more reason to bring this to people's attention: The Nuremburg Principles were in fact originally the idea of the US Government which then orchestrated the prosecutions in Nuremburg. People need to understand the pedigree and heritage here. These are very grave offenses which the US government a generation ago prosecuted and executed Nazis for committing. And Japanese war criminals too. LeVine: How can any of the people you mentioned be prosecuted? Boyle: The military could do it, or the Dept. of Justice, which would have default power to do so if the military didn't. But for this of course we'd need a special prosecutor and that law has been allowed to lapse. Attorney General Ashcroft, who is clearly part of the criminal conspiracy, would never push a war crimes investigations against his colleagues or President Bush. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Sun Nov 26 15:08:06 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2017 15:08:06 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] NYTBR: Resist Dan Rather--Slimeball! Message-ID: In contrast to Slimeball Dan Rather, Barbara Walters in her Sunday TV News Program for ABC News gave a very fair interview to Captain Lawrence Rockwood to explain to the American People why he tried to stop torture in Haiti just before his court-martial for doing so at Fort Drum New York. We got Rockwood off-no time. How we did it is explained in my book Protesting Power: War, Resistance and Law (Rowman & Littlefield Inc. 2008). Fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Sunday, November 26, 2017 8:23 AM To: 'David Green' ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; 'sherwoodross10 at gmail.com' ; 'peace-discuss at anti-war.net' ; 'C. G. ESTABROOK' ; 'a-fields at uiuc.edu' ; 'Joe Lauria' ; 'Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net' ; 'peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net' ; Szoke, Ron ; 'Arlene Hickory' ; 'Karen Aram' ; 'abass10 at gmail.com' ; 'mickalideh at gmail.com' ; 'Lina Thorne' ; 'chicago at worldcantwait.net' ; 'Jay' ; 'David Johnson' ; 'Mildred O'brien' ; 'C G Estabrook' Subject: FW: NYTBR: Resist Dan Rather--Slimeball! Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Sunday, November 26, 2017 8:19 AM To: sectns.aals at lists.aals.org Subject: NYTBR: Resist Dan Rather--Slimeball! On his 60 Minutes TV Program for CBS Sunday Evening News, Dan Rather maliciously inflicted outright character assassination on an Amnesty International Prisoner of Conscience in front of millions of people. Let me repeat that: On his 60 Minutes TV Program for CBS Sunday Evening News Dan Rather maliciously inflicted outright character assassination on an Amnesty International Prisoner of Conscience in front of millions of people. I helped defend Staff Sergeant Camilo Mejia, who was the very first GI Resister to Bush Jr's genocidal war of aggression against Iraq. Dan Rather deliberately, gratuitously and viciously trashed S.S. Mejia in a plot and a trap that Rather had set for him on 60 Minutes. Just before his court-martial at Fort Stewart, S.S. Mejia agreed to appear with Rather on 60 Minutes to explain to the American People why as a matter of good faith and conscience he could not return to combat in Iraq and turn captured insurgents over to be tortured. Thanks to S.S. Mejia, we knew all about the massive U.S. torture scandal in Iraq several months before it became front-page news all over the world. Instead of letting S.S. Mejia have his say, Rather launched a mean, nasty, vicious diatribe and tirade against S.S. Mejia, accusing him of being a traitor and abandoning and endangering his colleagues in Iraq. And this by a Chickenhawk Rather who, to the best of my knowledge, had never served in combat unlike S.S. Mejia. Clearly, on 60 Minutes Rather deliberately set out to poison the jury pool against S.S. Mejia at Fort Stewart in violation of Mejia's Constitutional Right to a Fair Trial. To make a long story short, despite Rather's worst efforts, at the end of a Kangaroo Court Proceeding, instead of 2 years, we got S.S. Mejia 8 months and adopted a Prisoner of Conscience by Amnesty International-just like Sakharov et al. May Dan Rather always Live In Infamy for what he did to S.S. Mejia! Rather has nothing worthwhile to say to anyone about anything. Caveat Lector! Francis A. Boyle Professor of Law Board of Directors Amnesty International USA (1988-1992) LeVine: In my own research on war crimes committed by US forces in Iraq. I counted at least two-dozen classes of offenses systematically committed by the Occupation administration and US or US-allied military forces in the invasion and subsequent period of CPA (Coalition Provisional Authority) rule. This includes violations of articles and 17, 18, 33, and 147 of the Geneva Convention covering the killing, hostage-taking and torturing of civilians Boyle: As I just argued at Fort Stewart Georgia in the court martial proceedings for Sgt. Camilo Mejia for desertion, the accountability here goes directly up the chain of command under the terms of the US Army Field Manual 27-10. Specifically, paragraph 501 makes clear that commanders who have ordered or knew or should have known about war crimes and failed to stop it are themselves guilty of war crimes. If you look then at the public record, it is clear that Gens. Sanchez and Miller ordered war crimes and both should be relieved of command immediately: abuse of prisoners in violation of the Geneva Conventions. As for General Abizaid, the overall commander of US forces in Southwest Asia, he admitted in his Senate hearings that he should have known about the war crimes at Abu Ghraib, so basically he's already incriminated himself under the rules of the US Army Field Manual 27-10 In addition, above Abizaid you have Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz. Again my reading of the public record including the Taguba and Red Cross reports is that they either knew or should have known about all these war crimes. Indeed, if you read the ICRC report, - and as I testified under oath and under cross-examination (and was not contradicted) at the Mejia court-martial proceedings, - the widespread and systematic nature of these abuses rise to the level of crimes against humanity, going all the way up through the chain of command. Culpability also extends to Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence General William G. Boykin and Defense Undersecretary Stephen Cambone, who reports directly to Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith. And through this line it appears to me that Rumsfeld is culpable, because he was at Abu Ghraib last fall. Indeed, Sy Hersch's New Yorker article on Abu Ghraib claims with good substantiation that he was totally aware and even signed off on the use of techniques which are clearly torture. Rumsfeld was given a tour by Brig. General Janet Karpinski, who was supposed to be in charge of the prison-although she said nothing when she was prohibited from accessing certain areas of it-and so she's also accountable. It's important to understand that the Geneva Conventions, the Hague Regulations of 1907, the U.S. Army Field Manual, all mandate that a criminal investigation be opened. And how President Bush, as Commander in Chief would be accountable under Field Manual 27-10 precisely because he is Commander in Chief of the US armed forces under the US Constitution. We know the White House knows this because if you read White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales's memo, he specifically tries to exempt the US from the Geneva Conventions for Guantanamo and Afghanistan. You can see that Gonzalez was afraid of Bush and others being held directly accountable. Moreover, because Powell dissented, we know there was a debate about this, so Bush had to have been aware of the implications of what was being done, which is also backed up by the memos from Ashcroft. These memos have been unearthed by Newsweek. So ultimately what we have here are people at the highest levels of the chain of command guilty of ordering or not preventing torture, which is both an international crime against the Geneva Conventions and the Torture Convention and a domestic crime as well. What we have then is a conspiracy among the aforementioned individuals to commit war crimes and crimes against humanity. Let me add one more thing that's very important to remember: The principles set forth in 27-10 of personal criminal accountability for war crimes goes back to the Nuremburg Charter, Judgments and Principles derived from the post-World War II trials of Nazi war criminals. Similar principles of criminal accountability were applied by the United States to the Japanese Imperial War criminals. LeVine: In fact, President Bush has compared the war on terror to the war against the Nazis. Boyle: Then we have even more reason to bring this to people's attention: The Nuremburg Principles were in fact originally the idea of the US Government which then orchestrated the prosecutions in Nuremburg. People need to understand the pedigree and heritage here. These are very grave offenses which the US government a generation ago prosecuted and executed Nazis for committing. And Japanese war criminals too. LeVine: How can any of the people you mentioned be prosecuted? Boyle: The military could do it, or the Dept. of Justice, which would have default power to do so if the military didn't. But for this of course we'd need a special prosecutor and that law has been allowed to lapse. Attorney General Ashcroft, who is clearly part of the criminal conspiracy, would never push a war crimes investigations against his colleagues or President Bush. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Sun Nov 26 15:08:06 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2017 15:08:06 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] NYTBR: Resist Dan Rather--Slimeball! Message-ID: In contrast to Slimeball Dan Rather, Barbara Walters in her Sunday TV News Program for ABC News gave a very fair interview to Captain Lawrence Rockwood to explain to the American People why he tried to stop torture in Haiti just before his court-martial for doing so at Fort Drum New York. We got Rockwood off-no time. How we did it is explained in my book Protesting Power: War, Resistance and Law (Rowman & Littlefield Inc. 2008). Fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Sunday, November 26, 2017 8:23 AM To: 'David Green' ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; 'sherwoodross10 at gmail.com' ; 'peace-discuss at anti-war.net' ; 'C. G. ESTABROOK' ; 'a-fields at uiuc.edu' ; 'Joe Lauria' ; 'Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net' ; 'peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net' ; Szoke, Ron ; 'Arlene Hickory' ; 'Karen Aram' ; 'abass10 at gmail.com' ; 'mickalideh at gmail.com' ; 'Lina Thorne' ; 'chicago at worldcantwait.net' ; 'Jay' ; 'David Johnson' ; 'Mildred O'brien' ; 'C G Estabrook' Subject: FW: NYTBR: Resist Dan Rather--Slimeball! Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Sunday, November 26, 2017 8:19 AM To: sectns.aals at lists.aals.org Subject: NYTBR: Resist Dan Rather--Slimeball! On his 60 Minutes TV Program for CBS Sunday Evening News, Dan Rather maliciously inflicted outright character assassination on an Amnesty International Prisoner of Conscience in front of millions of people. Let me repeat that: On his 60 Minutes TV Program for CBS Sunday Evening News Dan Rather maliciously inflicted outright character assassination on an Amnesty International Prisoner of Conscience in front of millions of people. I helped defend Staff Sergeant Camilo Mejia, who was the very first GI Resister to Bush Jr's genocidal war of aggression against Iraq. Dan Rather deliberately, gratuitously and viciously trashed S.S. Mejia in a plot and a trap that Rather had set for him on 60 Minutes. Just before his court-martial at Fort Stewart, S.S. Mejia agreed to appear with Rather on 60 Minutes to explain to the American People why as a matter of good faith and conscience he could not return to combat in Iraq and turn captured insurgents over to be tortured. Thanks to S.S. Mejia, we knew all about the massive U.S. torture scandal in Iraq several months before it became front-page news all over the world. Instead of letting S.S. Mejia have his say, Rather launched a mean, nasty, vicious diatribe and tirade against S.S. Mejia, accusing him of being a traitor and abandoning and endangering his colleagues in Iraq. And this by a Chickenhawk Rather who, to the best of my knowledge, had never served in combat unlike S.S. Mejia. Clearly, on 60 Minutes Rather deliberately set out to poison the jury pool against S.S. Mejia at Fort Stewart in violation of Mejia's Constitutional Right to a Fair Trial. To make a long story short, despite Rather's worst efforts, at the end of a Kangaroo Court Proceeding, instead of 2 years, we got S.S. Mejia 8 months and adopted a Prisoner of Conscience by Amnesty International-just like Sakharov et al. May Dan Rather always Live In Infamy for what he did to S.S. Mejia! Rather has nothing worthwhile to say to anyone about anything. Caveat Lector! Francis A. Boyle Professor of Law Board of Directors Amnesty International USA (1988-1992) LeVine: In my own research on war crimes committed by US forces in Iraq. I counted at least two-dozen classes of offenses systematically committed by the Occupation administration and US or US-allied military forces in the invasion and subsequent period of CPA (Coalition Provisional Authority) rule. This includes violations of articles and 17, 18, 33, and 147 of the Geneva Convention covering the killing, hostage-taking and torturing of civilians Boyle: As I just argued at Fort Stewart Georgia in the court martial proceedings for Sgt. Camilo Mejia for desertion, the accountability here goes directly up the chain of command under the terms of the US Army Field Manual 27-10. Specifically, paragraph 501 makes clear that commanders who have ordered or knew or should have known about war crimes and failed to stop it are themselves guilty of war crimes. If you look then at the public record, it is clear that Gens. Sanchez and Miller ordered war crimes and both should be relieved of command immediately: abuse of prisoners in violation of the Geneva Conventions. As for General Abizaid, the overall commander of US forces in Southwest Asia, he admitted in his Senate hearings that he should have known about the war crimes at Abu Ghraib, so basically he's already incriminated himself under the rules of the US Army Field Manual 27-10 In addition, above Abizaid you have Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz. Again my reading of the public record including the Taguba and Red Cross reports is that they either knew or should have known about all these war crimes. Indeed, if you read the ICRC report, - and as I testified under oath and under cross-examination (and was not contradicted) at the Mejia court-martial proceedings, - the widespread and systematic nature of these abuses rise to the level of crimes against humanity, going all the way up through the chain of command. Culpability also extends to Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence General William G. Boykin and Defense Undersecretary Stephen Cambone, who reports directly to Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith. And through this line it appears to me that Rumsfeld is culpable, because he was at Abu Ghraib last fall. Indeed, Sy Hersch's New Yorker article on Abu Ghraib claims with good substantiation that he was totally aware and even signed off on the use of techniques which are clearly torture. Rumsfeld was given a tour by Brig. General Janet Karpinski, who was supposed to be in charge of the prison-although she said nothing when she was prohibited from accessing certain areas of it-and so she's also accountable. It's important to understand that the Geneva Conventions, the Hague Regulations of 1907, the U.S. Army Field Manual, all mandate that a criminal investigation be opened. And how President Bush, as Commander in Chief would be accountable under Field Manual 27-10 precisely because he is Commander in Chief of the US armed forces under the US Constitution. We know the White House knows this because if you read White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales's memo, he specifically tries to exempt the US from the Geneva Conventions for Guantanamo and Afghanistan. You can see that Gonzalez was afraid of Bush and others being held directly accountable. Moreover, because Powell dissented, we know there was a debate about this, so Bush had to have been aware of the implications of what was being done, which is also backed up by the memos from Ashcroft. These memos have been unearthed by Newsweek. So ultimately what we have here are people at the highest levels of the chain of command guilty of ordering or not preventing torture, which is both an international crime against the Geneva Conventions and the Torture Convention and a domestic crime as well. What we have then is a conspiracy among the aforementioned individuals to commit war crimes and crimes against humanity. Let me add one more thing that's very important to remember: The principles set forth in 27-10 of personal criminal accountability for war crimes goes back to the Nuremburg Charter, Judgments and Principles derived from the post-World War II trials of Nazi war criminals. Similar principles of criminal accountability were applied by the United States to the Japanese Imperial War criminals. LeVine: In fact, President Bush has compared the war on terror to the war against the Nazis. Boyle: Then we have even more reason to bring this to people's attention: The Nuremburg Principles were in fact originally the idea of the US Government which then orchestrated the prosecutions in Nuremburg. People need to understand the pedigree and heritage here. These are very grave offenses which the US government a generation ago prosecuted and executed Nazis for committing. And Japanese war criminals too. LeVine: How can any of the people you mentioned be prosecuted? Boyle: The military could do it, or the Dept. of Justice, which would have default power to do so if the military didn't. But for this of course we'd need a special prosecutor and that law has been allowed to lapse. Attorney General Ashcroft, who is clearly part of the criminal conspiracy, would never push a war crimes investigations against his colleagues or President Bush. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Sun Nov 26 16:16:06 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2017 16:16:06 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Chris Hedges interviews Alfred McCoy Message-ID: https://www.rt.com/shows/on-contact/410969-us-china-rise-decline/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Sun Nov 26 16:36:24 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2017 16:36:24 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Always a worthwhile listen NFN Message-ID: https://youtu.be/Bo7aC9Rt9F4 From karenaram at hotmail.com Sun Nov 26 21:15:01 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2017 21:15:01 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: URGENT ACTION REQUEST References: Message-ID: From: Niloofar Shambayati > Subject: Fwd: Fw: URGENT ACTION REQUEST Date: November 25, 2017 at 20:07:12 PST This is an urgent request to prevent the demolition of the village of Susiya in area C, West Bank. The endgame is here. Like the final stage of chess or bridge when few pieces or cards remain, the Palestinian villagers of Susiya now face the last stage in their petition to Israel’s High Court. Three years ago, the villagers petitioned the High Court to overturn the Israeli Army’s denial of their master zoning plan and win their right to plan and live on the land they own in Palestine’s West Bank in so-called Area C. [https://can2-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/data/000/132/725/original/DSC02285_girl_with_pinwheel.JPG] On Tuesday, Nov. 21st, the Government of Israel, as required by its High Court, finally responded: they will demolish 20% of the village of Susiya on or before December 6th — before the High Court even hears Susiya's case, leaving dozens of residents (half of them children) homeless. The Government of Israel is waiting to ‘enforce demolition’ of the remaining homes once new rules are in place supporting expansion of illegal Israeli settlements. An endgame is a power play, but in this case, the outcome isnot inevitable. We stopped this demolition once before and we can do it again. Susiya needs your help now, to win their safety and secure their future. 1. Click HERE to email your members of Congress to tell them that this announcement violates the spirit and intent of law and justice. Urge them to intervene, on your behalf, to stop the bulldozers. Rebuilding Alliance will immediately follow-up to schedule an emergency telecon briefing with their staff this week, and invite you to join the call - and we're pressing for other meetings too. 2. On Monday morning, please Call Representative Rodney Davis at (202) 225-2371, Senator Tammy Duckworth at (202) 224-2854, and Senator Richard J. Durbin at (202) 224-2152. Ask to speak to their senior staff for foreign policy, then urge them to call the State Department and the Israeli Embassy on your behalf, and to schedule an emergency teleconference briefing with Rebuilding Alliance. With your action, Susiya can prevail. Here's why: * On July 12, 2015, when the Israeli Army notified Susiya that the Army would demolish the village in a week's time — even before the Court heard their petition — people and officials throughout the US and the world voiced outrage. Many, including the US State Department, responded visibly and vocally — and as a result, the High Court pressed the Israeli Army to enter into face-to-face discussions with the villagers. * Senator Feinstein began her correspondence with Israel's Prime Minister Netanyahu; * Representative Eshoo, along with 11 other Representatives, authored letters to the Secretary of State to keep Susiya standing: * We built a base. Over the past 2.5 years, Rebuilding Alliance has held some 192 briefings with Congressional staff, in person and over the phone, on this issue. We’ve brought children from Susiya and neighboring Umm al Kheir to speak to Congress three times with their visions of peace, we’ve held meetings with the State Department and the National Security Council, and we've shared what we learned with sister organizations big and small. Now is time for action, for mass participation. Please CLICK HERE to email your members of Congress. Share this message with your list, and send this link to every group you're part of to ask them to email their members of Congress too. Now is the time. Sincerely, [https://can2-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/data/000/132/713/original/Signature.jpg]Founder & Executive Director, Rebuilding Alliance P.S. On GivingTuesday, November 28th, GlobalGiving will be matching all donations to our U.S. Movement to Save Palestinian Villages. Your donation allows Rebuilding Alliance to continue our focused advocacy. Please mark your calendar for Tuesday and give generously that day. MORE INFORMATION:[A child in Susiya making her Pinwheel for Peace, with her vision of what peace means] Press release quoting Susiya's attorney, Adv. Qamar Misriqi Haqel (The Field): Jews and Arabs in Defense of Human Rights November 22, 2017 IDF weighs new tool to legalize setter outposts By Tovah Lazaroff, Jerusalem Post, November 23, 2017 17:54 Senator Feinstein's correspondence with Israel's Prime Minister to keep Susiya standing July 28, 2015 - Aug. 23, 2016 Representative Eshoo + 10 letter to Secretary of State Tillerson, October 12, 2017 Representative Eshoo's +10, letter to Secretary of State Kerry, July 17, 2017 Susiya Legal Status Update Rabbis for Human Rights A Chronicle of Dispossession: Facts about Susiya B'Tselem Demolition orders against Palestinian structures UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UNOCHA) graphic, on ReliefWeb Demolition and seizure of service infrastructure to Palestinian communities in Area C UNOCHA, 11 October 2017 P.P.S. CLICK HERE to email your members of Congress. Thank you again for all that you do. [Action Network] Sent via Action Network, a free online toolset anyone can use to organize. Click here to sign up and get started building an email list and creating online actions today. Action Network is an open platform that empowers individuals and groups to organize for progressive causes. We encourage responsible activism, and do not support using the platform to take unlawful or other improper action. We do not control or endorse the conduct of users and make no representations of any kind about them. You can unsubscribe or update your email address or change your name and address by changing your subscription preferences here. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From galliher at illinois.edu Sun Nov 26 21:53:03 2017 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2017 15:53:03 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: [Marxism] The Contradictions of Joseph Conrad References: <1adf0525-7b7c-c79b-d367-0dabe11e8aac@panix.com> Message-ID: <60E46B2E-F66E-46B4-8AA9-86EF50CBC66B@illinois.edu> Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: > From: Louis Proyect via Marxism > Date: November 26, 2017 at 3:40:00 PM CST > To: "C. G. Estabrook" > Subject: [Marxism] The Contradictions of Joseph Conrad > Reply-To: Louis Proyect , "Activists and scholars in Marxist tradition" > > ******************** POSTING RULES & NOTES ******************** > #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. > #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. > #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. > ***************************************************************** > > NY Times Sunday Book Review, Nov. 26 2017 > The Contradictions of Joseph Conrad > By NGUGI wa THIONG’O > > THE DAWN WATCH > Joseph Conrad in a Global World > By Maya Jasanoff > Illustrated. 375 pp. Penguin Press. $30. > > I turned my back on reading Joseph Conrad in 1967. This was also the year that I published “A Grain of Wheat,” my third novel, which I wrote soon after reading Conrad’s “Under Western Eyes.” I could not put words to what repelled me, because, despite the unease, his influence on my work was unmistakable, and long lasting. “A Grain of Wheat” marked a dramatic shift for me away from the linear plots and single points of view of my first two novels to the multiple narrative voices and diverse temporal and geographic spaces of my later works. The difference in style was a result of my encounter with Conrad. > > The majesty and musicality of his well-structured sentences had so thrilled me as a young writer that I could cure a bout of writer’s block simply by listening to the opening bars of Beethoven’s Fifth Symphony or reading the opening pages of Conrad’s “Nostromo.” It instantly brought my mojo back. > > I am not alone in being so impacted. In Gabriel García Márquez’s “Hundred Years of Solitude,” the sweep of history and dictatorships that litter the social landscape of the novel reminded me strongly of “Nostromo,” Conrad’s complex epic about an imaginary South American republic. García Márquez’s title even seems to nod at the fictional historical tome contained within Conrad’s novel: “Fifty Years of Misrule.” > > In her fascinating book, “The Dawn Watch,” the Harvard professor Maya Jasanoff offers detailed background on the evolution of Conrad’s books, describing how each was a sort of reckoning with Western conquest and advancing globalization. We learn, for example, that “Nostromo” was written as Conrad delved into the oral and written sources about the “liberation” of Latin America that often ended in Western-backed dictatorship. As he was writing, he was taking in news of the crisis over the Panama Canal, an episode of political and military manipulation in which America emerged as a new, wily imperial power. In other words, Conrad and García Márquez were drawing from the same well of post-colonial Latin American history. > > In the same way, Conrad and Chinua Achebe are also connected. And yet, Achebe led the charge against Conrad. In 1975 the Nigerian novelist delivered a lecture, “An Image of Africa: Racism in Joseph Conrad’s Heart of Darkness,” which was then published as an essay. He built on the insights of the groundbreaking literary critic Es’kia Mphahlele, who accused Europeans like Conrad of depicting Africans as acted on by history instead of making it. Achebe went ever further, calling Conrad a “bloody racist.” This critical perspective has become an inevitable companion to any discussion of the writer’s work. Jasanoff herself uses it to frame her quest for a more complex vision of Conrad. > > Achebe’s essay helped explain what I had found repellent in Conrad’s work and why I’d stopped reading him. In the novels set in the outer reaches of European empire the native characters always seemed to merge with their environment, reminiscent of the Hegelian image of Africa as a land of childhood still enveloped in the dark mantle of the night. I accepted everything Achebe said about Conrad’s biases. > > And yet, I could not wholly embrace Achebe’s overwhelmingly negative view of “Heart of Darkness” or Conrad in general. Somehow, the essay failed to explain what had once attracted me: Conrad’s ability to capture the hypocrisy of the “civilizing mission” and the material interests that drove capitalist empires, crushing the human spirit. Jasanoff does not forgive Conrad his blindness, but she does try to present his perspective on the changing, troubled world he traveled, a perspective that still has strong resonance today. > > In “Heart of Darkness,” Conrad’s literary stand-in Charles Marlow talks of imperialism as a form of robbery accompanied by violence and aggravated murder on a grand scale. Colonial ventures are mostly about taking the earth away “from those who have a different complexion or slightly flatter noses than ourselves.” This captures, in one sentence, capitalism’s racist roots in slavery and conquest. Conrad also anticipated a capitalist system’s capacity to dismantle societies, a point he illustrated through his depiction of Mr. Holroyd, the cynical American silver and steel tycoon in “Nostromo.” Jasanoff does an excellent job pulling on all these threads. > > I suspect Achebe missed this side of Conrad because he didn’t stop to consider the diabolical character of Kurtz, the brilliant station agent gone rogue whom it is Marlow’s task to retrieve. In “Heart of Darkness,” the final image of Kurtz, the man of light and reason, is one of him hedged by human heads, capturing the horror of imperialism and the hollowness of the enlightenment philosophy with which colonialism wrapped itself. It is a scene reminiscent of Marx’s comparison of bourgeois progress to the pagan idol who drank nectar but only from the skulls of the slain. Congo was littered with 10 million skulls, the work of civilized hunters for rubber and ivory to meet the greed of King Leopold of Belgium. > > The Conrad who was able to imagine Kurtz in this way is often obscured by Marlow, Conrad’s literary alter ego. In “The Dawn Watch,” Jasanoff goes behind the mask and, like Stanley in search of Livingstone, or Marlow in search of Kurtz, sets out to find the elusive Conrad by tracing the physical, historical, biographical and literary footsteps of the writer. Born Józef Teodor Konrad Korzeniowski in 1857, in a Poland then under the thumb of czarist Russia and to parents engrossed in the struggle for independence, he later becomes a homeless traveler of the oceans, and eventually ended up as Joseph Conrad, an English-speaking citizen of the most global of the European capitalist empires of the time. Jasanoff returns Conrad to all of these contexts, understanding what impact they had on his novels. > > In the process, she becomes a detective piecing together the incidents big and small that formed classics like “Lord Jim,” “Heart of Darkness,” “Under Western Eyes” and “Nostromo.” She helps us make sense of the seeming contradictory decision on Conrad’s part to write about the effect of empire but never set his novels in any of the colonial possessions of his adopted homeland, Britain, letting their actions unfold in mostly Dutch, Belgian and Spanish colonies. > > And yet he remains one of us, a literary brother to Achebe. As Jasanoff reminds us, Conrad and his family were victims of the Russian Empire. Achebe and his people were victims of a Western empire. Both writers embraced English; Achebe talks of it as a gift which he intended to use. Jasanoff describes an incident in which Conrad, after delivering the manuscript of “Under Western Eyes,” broke down, becoming delirious and mumbling to himself in Polish for weeks. It wasn’t the manuscript that triggered this collapse but rather a heated exchange with his agent in which, as Conrad later reminded him, ”You told me that ‘I did not speak English’ to you.” > > This Conrad may have looked at imperialism through the eyes of both a deracinated Polish nationalist and of a grateful member of the British Empire. His art, which he defined as the capacity to make readers hear, feel and see, was able to capture the contradictions within empires and the resistance to them. > > This is the Conrad who comes alive in Jasanoff’s masterful study. “The Dawn Watch” will become a creative companion to all students of his work. It has made me want to re-establish connections with the Conrad whose written sentences once inspired in me the same joy as a musical phrase. > > Ngugi wa Thiong’o is a professor of English and comparative literature at the University of California, Irvine, and the author, most recently, of “Birth of a Dream Weaver.” > > _________________________________________________________ > Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm > Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/galliher%40illinois.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net Mon Nov 27 12:26:04 2017 From: davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net (David Johnson) Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2017 06:26:04 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] The Europeans and Finn's get it. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000001d3677a$e56a8230$b03f8690$@comcast.net> Thanks for sharing this Karen, You don't happen to remember the name of the Swedish series from the 1990's do you ? Sweden use to be a great country, but has been in a right-wing neo-liberal decline for the last 10-15 years. Everything from dismantling of Labor laws, privatization, to re-criminalizing activities that were previously legalized or decriminalized, becoming a kiss ass of the U.S. government in their foreign policy ( Assange, etc. ) and now they will be reintroducing the draft for their military. David J. -----Original Message----- From: Peace-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Karen Aram via Peace-discuss Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2017 7:31 PM To: Peace-discuss Subject: [Peace-discuss] The Europeans and Finn's get it. “Easy Living,” a Finnish series running on Amazon, is a drama about a family in illegal/criminal businesses which sometimes turn deadly. Season 3 they come up with a brilliant scam to “privatize” care for the elderly. I like that the Fins call it what it is, a “scam.” A Swedish series, from the 90’s dealt with CIA undercover operations to destabilize Libya. I stopped watching most American programs sometime ago, due to their promotion of fantasies that the USG is concerned with “security and human rights." _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss From karenaram at hotmail.com Mon Nov 27 12:56:08 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2017 12:56:08 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] The Europeans and Finn's get it. In-Reply-To: <000001d3677a$e56a8230$b03f8690$@comcast.net> References: <000001d3677a$e56a8230$b03f8690$@comcast.net> Message-ID: David On MHZchoice, its “Commander Hamilton” 4 parts. There is more than one series devoted to a Swedish spy by name of Commander Hamilton, but it is the 4 part series in the 90’s that deals with Libya and the CIA. And, along with what you describe comes all the ills of society such as poverty, racism, crime, alcohol and drug abuse, as well as suicide. > On Nov 27, 2017, at 04:26, David Johnson wrote: > > Thanks for sharing this Karen, > > You don't happen to remember the name of the Swedish series from the 1990's do you ? > > Sweden use to be a great country, but has been in a right-wing neo-liberal decline for the last 10-15 years. > Everything from dismantling of Labor laws, privatization, to re-criminalizing activities that were previously legalized or decriminalized, becoming a kiss ass of the U.S. government in their foreign policy ( Assange, etc. ) and now they will be reintroducing the draft for their military. > > David J. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Peace-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2017 7:31 PM > To: Peace-discuss > Subject: [Peace-discuss] The Europeans and Finn's get it. > > “Easy Living,” a Finnish series running on Amazon, is a drama about a family in illegal/criminal businesses which sometimes turn deadly. > > Season 3 they come up with a brilliant scam to “privatize” care for the elderly. I like that the Fins call it what it is, a “scam.” > > A Swedish series, from the 90’s dealt with CIA undercover operations to destabilize Libya. > > I stopped watching most American programs sometime ago, due to their promotion of fantasies that the USG is concerned with “security and human rights." > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.chambana.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fpeace-discuss&data=02%7C01%7Ckarenaram%40hotmail.com%7C17520ebf78cd4661f23808d535920799%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636473823659245029&sdata=kqZuH3jl2uZFkpMGqcKpqjW9fHB29vxvKCUEkEa3WEY%3D&reserved=0 From cgestabrook at gmail.com Mon Nov 27 18:49:56 2017 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C. G. Estabrook ) Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2017 12:49:56 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: Indigenous Resistance talk - Tuesday, December 5th, 6:30pm References: Message-ID: Sent from my iPhone Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: > From: Eric Anglada > Date: November 27, 2017 at 12:37:24 PM CST > To: Catholic Worker School > Subject: Indigenous Resistance talk - Tuesday, December 5th, 6:30pm > > There's Another Standing Rock Brewing… > > St. Isidore Catholic Worker Farm and the Sinsinawa Dominicans are co-sponsoring: > > Defend the Sacred: Indigenous Perspectives on the Enbridge Pipeline > Tuesday, December 5th - 6:30pm > Sinsinawa Mound, WI (585 County Rd. Z, Sinsinawa, WI 53824) > > Come learn about what indigenous communities are doing in the Upper Midwest to nonviolently resist the Enbridge Line 3 pipeline to protect water and the Earth. Emphasizing hope and courage, the presenters will also discuss their Makwa Initiative, which is a community living in sustainable, traditional ways in the shadows of the pipeline. There will also be opportunity to financially support their work. > Presenters: Hennessey Beaulieu (Namadaabii Ikwe) and Stuart Perkins are enrolled members of the Red Lake Band of Ojibwe and are members of the Makwa Initiative, an Anishanaabe-led community of water protectors. > > Members of the Makwa Initiative are available on either Monday, Dec. 4 afternoon/evening or Tuesday, December 5th to speak to any area college groups or private organizations. Tuesday at 6:30pm will be their public presentation at Sinsinawa Mound. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Tue Nov 28 15:06:03 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2017 15:06:03 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] US plans for Afghanistan by Col. Larry Wilkerson Message-ID: Col. Larry Wilkerson makes the point, the US will remain, occupying Afghanistan for at least another half century, "not to counteract any Taliban, Al Qaida, or ISil, but to counter China's BRI," or Silk Road, which is bringing progress to the world, "and to counter Pakistan's nuclear weapons should that nation destabilize." I suggest the former is the more likely reason, especially since Pakistan has been nuclear armed for almost half a century, but now they are moving closer to China with plans for the BRI as well as other business opportunities........... http://therealnews.com/t2/story:20575:No-End-to-US-Involvement-in-Afghanistan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stuartnlevy at gmail.com Tue Nov 28 15:41:31 2017 From: stuartnlevy at gmail.com (stuartnlevy) Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2017 09:41:31 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: WBAI's Randy Credico subpoenaed in Russia Investigation Message-ID: <84cx3dsx0qpf6g0uk1gv2s9n.1511883691926@email.android.com> Article from Max Blumenthal.   An activist and comedian, Randy Credico, is to be subpoenaed by the House Intelligence cmte for the investigation of Russian influence. Credico suspects the purpose is to gain information about Julian Arrange - whom Credico knows - and discredit Arrange and Wikileaks.  -- Stuart -------- Original message --------From: Mitchel Cohen Date: 11/28/17 07:27 (GMT-06:00) To: actiongreens at yahoogroups.com Subject: [ufpj-activist] WBAI's Randy Credico subpoenaed in Russia Investigation Grayzone Project House Intel Committee to Subpoena Leftist Comedian and Civil Rights Activist Randy Credico in Russia Investigation The renowned activist says he is under suspicion for his contacts with Wikileaks founder Julian Assange. By Max Blumenthal / AlterNet November 27, 2017, 7:32 AM GMT 143 COMMENTS The House Intelligence Committee's Russia investigation has taken an unexpected turn, with investigators homing in on a New York City-based comedian, radio host and renowned civil rights activist named Randy Credico. Credico received a letter this month from the Committee ranking Democrat, Rep. Adam Schiff, and Rep. Michael Conaway, the Republican leading the investigation. The lawmakers requested that Credico "participate in a voluntary, transcribed interview at the Committee's offices" during the first half of December. Credico informed the House committee through his legal counsel that he would not submit to the voluntary interview. Soon after, his lawyer told him that the committee planned to issue a subpoena. Credico is among the unlikeliest characters to have surfaced as a player in the ongoing Russiagate drama. For over two decades, he split time as a comedy professional while waging a tireless crusade against the war on drugs. The former host of a radio show on the Pacifica affiliate WBAI, Credico came into the company of high profile dissidents. Today his friends include the transparency activist targeted for arrest and prosecution by the US government: Julian Assange. The Wikileaks founder was recently accused by CIA Director Mike Pompeo of overseeing a "a non-state hostile intelligence service often abetted by state actors like Russia." Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton has suggested without evidence that Wikileaks collaborated with the Russian government to subvert the 2016 presidential election in Donald Trump's favor. This year, the Trump administration expanded the federal grand jury seeking the arrest of Assange to cover the Wikileaks release of thousands of documents on CIA hacking tools. However, there is no claim so far that grand jury covered the release by Wikileaks of the Democratic National Commitee's emails in 2016. A United Nations working group ruled that Assange was being arbitrarily detained. It has been seven years since he lost his freedom, and has been confined to a series of small rooms ever since. According to Credico, he and Assange held "three meetings that were two to three hours each" at the Ecuadoran embassy in London where the online activist has received diplomatic asylum. They took place on September 6, and the 13th and 16th of November of this year. Credico said he traveled to London this November to attend the hearing of Stefania Maurizi, a correspondent from Italy's La Repubblica who had filed a Freedom of Information request demanding the press's right to access documents regarding his case. (He showed me a photograph of himself with Maurizi in London to prove his point). "I was just there to support [Assange] as a wing man," Credico commented to me. "I don't agree with him on everything — it's the fact that he's a journalist and a publisher and has not put anything out that's false. I don't know anything about technology and he didn't give me any secrets." The letter Credico received from the House Intelligence Committee did not specify what it suspected him of doing, stating only that his interview could cover anything within the parameters of "Russian cyber-activities against the 2016 US election, potential links between Russia and individuals associated with political campaigns, the US government's response to these Russian active measures, and related leaks of classified information." However, Credico is convinced that he is being used to undermine Assange. "This is about chilling Wikileaks and that starts with intimidating anyone who has met with Julian [Assange]," he stated. Satirist and civil rights crusader Credico first appeared in the national spotlight in 1984 when he trashed Reagan's Central American proxy wars during a comedy set on the Tonight Show. A look of severe discomfort could be seen on Johnny Carson's face when Credico likened Reagan's neoconservative UN ambassador Jeanne Kirkpatrick to Eva Braun. Though he was never invited back on the show, the comic's uncanny impersonations and incendiary political satire won him the admiration of peers like Larry David, Barry Crimmins and Jack Black. During the 1990s, Credico became outraged about the disproportionate toll the war on drugs was taking on the poor and people of color. He launched a furious crusade against New York State's draconian Rockefeller Laws, howling outside courthouses across the city about the evils of mass incarceration, cops he branded "slave catchers" and proceedings he denounced as "modern-day slave auctions." When he wasn't screaming in the streets, he was behind prison walls, befriending inmates and working the phones to get reporters interested in their cases. The New Yorker's Jennifer Gonnerman estimated that Credico had "generated more than a hundred news stories, largely by inviting reporters to his events and introducing them to the families of inmates." Crediting him for helping force the New York legislature to rewrite the Rockefeller drug laws in 2004, Gonnerman branded Credico, "The Man Who Screamed So Loud the Drug Laws Changed." Credico's efforts to expose the drug war's injustices culminated in Tulia, Texas, where a corrupt undercover narcotics officer had railroaded some 10 percent of the town's African American population into lengthy jail sentences for drug crimes they did not commit. Credico's agitation resulted in a wave of national media attention and in 2003, the full acquittal of the 38 prisoners with sentences up to 90 years. His efforts were honored by the NAACP and became the subject of several documentaries, including "60 Spins Around the Sun," an award winning biographical chronicle financed by Jack Black. In 2009, Credico quit his job as the director of the William Moses Kunstler Fund for Racial Justice and launched a long-shot senate campaign against Chuck Schumer, slamming the omnipotent Democratic senator for his role in mandatory minimum sentencing and pro-death penalty legislation. "You have to take a look at his record," Credico said of Schumer at the time. "And that's a really racist position as far as I am concerned. Yes, it is about race." In the end, Credico won one percent of the vote. But he soldiered on, running for mayor in 2013, then the governor's office a year later. All along, he was dogged by drug and alcohol addiction, which he has been public about. His penchant for drunken late-night tirades began to alienate his allies and even led him to contemplate suicide. An intervention in 2014 by his friend, the comedian Crimmins, pulled Credico back from from the brink and helped him kick his self-destructive habits. Meetings with Assange, conspiratorial rumors Credico's sobriety coincided with intensive advocacy for the community of national security whistleblowers that emerged after 9/11 to expose secret government torture, assassination and mass surveillance programs. In August 2015, he hosted Wikileaks founder Julian Assange for an interview on "Live on the Fly," his former show at the Pacifica radio affiliate, WBAI. Several interviews followed over the coming months, including a series, " Assange: Countdown to Freedom," that featured high-profile whistleblowers like Thomas Drake and Jesslyn Raddack advocating for Assange’s release. "I had to build an audience at a moribund station and I got 65 percent of the traffic," Credico remarked. "I had a popular international show because it was tweeted out by Wikileaks and Anonymous Scandinavia and I got a huge international following." The relationship with Assange eventually developed into a series of meetings at the Ecuadoran embassy in London. These encounters fueled online rumors accusing Credico of serving as a courier between the notoriously Machiavellian former Trump campaign advisor, Roger Stone, and Assange. This September, Stone testified before the House Intelligence Committee, which sought to scrutinize his claim to have communicated with the hacker known as Guccifer 2.0, his contacts with Wikileaks, and a tweet that seemed to suggest he had advance knowledge of the release of the emails of Hillary Clinton's campaign chairman, John Podesta. Before the committee, Stone angrily denied having colluded with the Russian government and claimed that all of his contacts with Assange were conducted through "an intermediary." For his part, Credico freely acknowledged that Stone had been a guest on his WBAI show and the two had cooperated on a few oddball political initiatives over the years. But he contended that "Roger Stone is just a whipping post for the committee but the one they're after is Assange because they want to quiet him." "They're looking for a way to do in Assange," Credico emphasized, "and I'm the only American in the press that has visited him outside of a reporter from the New Yorker, and he's not going to talk to anyone else." Credico also insisted that despite his well-known dislike for Hillary Clinton, he would not have lifted a finger to help the Trump campaign: "I hate Trump. He's got ethnic cleansing going on with the deportation of Haitians and Latin Americans and [Attorney General Jeff] Sessions is the worst nightmare I've ever seen." Asked if he would comply with the House Intelligence Committee, Credico sounded a defiant tone. "I'm a journalist with a radio show and there's nothing [the committee] can elicit out of me because I'm covered by the First Amendment. And everything I've talked to Assange about has been on the show, and everything else is in my fucking notes. Would any journalist give them their notes?" With his "interview" just days away, Credico exuded confidence. "I've worked strip joints in Florida filled with Marines that wanted to kill me for attacking their war in Grenada," the former comedian remarked. "Congress is no problem. I've worked much tougher rooms than that." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Tue Nov 28 16:58:34 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2017 16:58:34 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Col. Wilkerson on the Real News in relation to Saudi/Israel relations and potential war with Iran Message-ID: The NO ADVERTISING, GOVERNMENT OR CORPORATE FUNDING DONATE TODAY $18,811 45 [http://therealnews.com/permalinkedgraphics/header_overlay.png] * Home * Special Programs * Member Benefits * About Us * Contact Us * Jobs * Log In * Subscribe to our Newsletter HOT TOPICS ▶ North Korea Target: Iran The Real Baltimore Reality Asserts Itself United Kingdom biography Distinguished Adjunct Professor of Government and Public Policy Lawrence Wilkerson's last positions in government were as Secretary of State Colin Powell's Chief of Staff (2002-05), Associate Director of the State Department's Policy Planning staff under the directorship of Ambassador Richard N. Haass, and member of that staff responsible for East Asia and the Pacific, political-military and legislative affairs (2001-02). Before serving at the State Department, Wilkerson served 31 years in the U.S. Army. During that time, he was a member of the faculty of the U.S. Naval War College (1987 to 1989), Special Assistant to General Powell when he was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (1989-93), and Director and Deputy Director of the U.S. Marine Corps War College at Quantico, Virginia (1993-97). Wilkerson retired from active service in 1997 as a colonel, and began work as an advisor to General Powell. He has also taught national security affairs in the Honors Program at the George Washington University. He is currently working on a book about the first George W. Bush administration. ________________________________ transcript [http://therealnews.com/media/trn_2017-11-01/lwilkerson1121pt10-240.jpg]PAUL JAY: Welcome to The Real News Network. I'm Paul Jay, now joining us is Larry Wilkerson. Thanks for joining us again, Larry. LARRY WILKERSON: Good to be here, Paul. PAUL JAY: Okay. Here's a question back to Saudi Arabia. This is Loudon 1780 again. Colonel Wilkerson, do you think that Saudi Arabia's alliance with Israel will destabilize their own countries with regard to what the people of the Gulf states are told about Israel and Jews in general? LARRY WILKERSON: This is probably one of the strangest alliances for a person like me, even though I study how alliances change like the winds, in my lifetime, because what I remember was Ronald Reagan trying to sell F-15s and AWACS to the Saudis, for example, and the Israelis just going apoplectic. They were ready to throttle Ronald Reagan because he wanted to do that, or other presidents too who took a more balanced attitude toward Israel and at the same time tried to maintain relations with Saudi Arabia, basically with arms sales, which always irritated Israel. Now to see these two powers in an alliance of convenience is quite interesting, particularly when I remember too that the Israelis were in a sort of tacit alliance with Iran when they were the third party, if you will, during Iran-Contra affair. When we were sealing Hawk missiles and TOW missiles to Iran during the Iran-Iraq War, Israel was playing our middleman. Israel goes wherever it thinks at the moment its interests rest. Israel right now has an extremely right-wing, I would call it alt right-wing government, led by Bibi Netanyahu who's not quite that way, but some of the people in his coalition are, and he is increasingly obeying them. What we have is any enemy of my enemy is temporarily my friend. Right now, Bibi Netanyahu is maintaining political power to a certain extent by keeping people frightened about Iran, particularly about its possibility of getting a nuclear weapon. That's all domestic politics too, if you will. Saudi Arabia and Israel might be getting ready to do a twofer, Mohammad bin Salman and Saudi Arabia doing something with respect to Iran in terms of hard power at the same time that Israel is doing something to Hezbollah, maybe in Lebanon, maybe in Syria, maybe in both. Two of the largest exercises they've ever conducted ... We've just established our first military base in Israel. Since 1948, we have never had a real military base in Israel, for a lot of reasons. One was because it would be, we thought, so destabilizing amongst 400 million Arabs, and it wouldn't be very useful. Now we've built an air defense base inside of an Israeli air force base, but we announced publicly that it was the first U.S. military base in Israel. Things are changing fast, and in my view, not changing why any strategic purpose that I can detect. They're changing with enormous danger for this country. PAUL JAY: The purpose seems to be ... I read Haaretz, and from the sense I get from the Israeli press, Israel's war with Hezbollah is just a question of timing. There seems to be no question that Israel wants Hezbollah to suffer a massive defeat, and what I clean from what I'm reading is that the Americans will support even further anti-missile defense on Israel's part. LARRY WILKERSON: That's what this base is. This base is an air defense base. PAUL JAY: Then Israel can then take on Hezbollah with less concern about Hezbollah rockets, and the Saudis are cheering this on. This seems to be rather imminent. LARRY WILKERSON: I'm going to conduct my simulation on Monday with this very scenario in mind. It's a three-hour simulation, a mock National Security Council meeting for my students. I told my students yesterday in seminar, "I don't even have to prepare the media or the intelligence input for this exercise, which is usually a pretty big task, because it's all there in the New York Times, in Politico, in Salon, in Haaretz. It's all there." You should see my first day early bird for this exercise. It's all real press. PAUL JAY: If you want to see who articulates all of this most openly, and I guess clearly, go back to Steve Bannon, who has called for and with President Trump called for in his inaugural address, and Bannon elaborated it, a bloody affair, a bloody war that would target Iran. You could see this breaking out with Israel attacking Hezbollah, some kind of American incursion into Iraq, the Saudis with Iran. There's such a dangerous situation unfolding, and it boggles the mind that the American media is talking about some Russian supposed interference in the U.S. elections that may have happened, but if it was, didn't matter very much. LARRY WILKERSON: I'm hoping that we're both wrong, Paul. I'm hoping that either the incompetence of this administration keeps us out of it, or the lack of swift movement of this administration keeps us out of it, or that we're just wrong about what's happening with Mohammad bin Salman, the GCC in general, Tehran, Beirut, Tel Aviv, and so forth. I don't think we are, but I'm hoping that one of these things, all of them negatives, but that might turn out to be positives, keep us out of this. I don't count on it. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kmedina67 at gmail.com Tue Nov 28 23:41:16 2017 From: kmedina67 at gmail.com (Karen Medina) Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2017 17:41:16 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: WBAI's Randy Credico subpoenaed in Russia Investigation In-Reply-To: <84cx3dsx0qpf6g0uk1gv2s9n.1511883691926@email.android.com> References: <84cx3dsx0qpf6g0uk1gv2s9n.1511883691926@email.android.com> Message-ID: Wow. Yeah, it sounds like they are trying to get to Assange. -karen medina On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 9:41 AM, stuartnlevy via Peace-discuss < peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > Article from Max Blumenthal. An activist and comedian, Randy Credico, is > to be subpoenaed by the House Intelligence cmte for the investigation of > Russian influence. > > Credico suspects the purpose is to gain information about Julian Arrange - > whom Credico knows - and discredit Arrange and Wikileaks. > > -- Stuart > > -------- Original message -------- > From: Mitchel Cohen > Date: 11/28/17 07:27 (GMT-06:00) > To: actiongreens at yahoogroups.com > Subject: [ufpj-activist] WBAI's Randy Credico subpoenaed in Russia > Investigation > > Grayzone Project > > *House Intel Committee to Subpoena Leftist Comedian and Civil Rights > Activist Randy Credico in Russia Investigation *The renowned activist > says he is under suspicion for his contacts with Wikileaks founder Julian > Assange. > *By* *Max Blumenthal* / > AlterNet > *November 27, 2017, 7:32 AM GMT* > > 143 COMMENTS > > [image: []] > The House Intelligence Committee's Russia investigation has taken an > unexpected turn, with investigators homing in on a New York City-based > comedian, radio host and renowned civil rights activist named Randy Credico. > > Credico received a letter this month from the Committee ranking Democrat, > Rep. Adam Schiff, and Rep. Michael Conaway, the Republican leading the > investigation. The lawmakers requested that Credico "participate in a > voluntary, transcribed interview at the Committee's offices" during the > first half of December. > > Credico informed the House committee through his legal counsel that he > would not submit to the voluntary interview. Soon after, his lawyer told > him that the committee planned to issue a subpoena. > > Credico is among the unlikeliest characters to have surfaced as a player > in the ongoing Russiagate drama. For over two decades, he split time as a > comedy professional while waging a tireless crusade against the war on > drugs. The former host of a radio show on the Pacifica affiliate WBAI, > Credico came into the company of high profile dissidents. Today his friends > include the transparency activist targeted for arrest and prosecution by > the US government: Julian Assange. > > The Wikileaks founder was recently accused > > by CIA Director Mike Pompeo of overseeing a "a non-state hostile > intelligence service often abetted by state actors like Russia." Meanwhile, > Hillary Clinton has suggested without evidence that Wikileaks collaborated > with > the Russian government to subvert the 2016 presidential election in Donald > Trump's favor. > > This year, the Trump administration expanded > the > federal grand jury seeking the arrest of Assange to cover the Wikileaks > release of thousands of documents on CIA hacking tools. However, there is > no claim so far that grand jury covered the release by Wikileaks of the > Democratic National Commitee's emails in 2016. A United Nations working > group ruled > > that Assange was being arbitrarily detained. It has been seven years since > he lost his freedom, and has been confined to a series of small rooms ever > since. > > According to Credico, he and Assange held "three meetings that were two to > three hours each" at the Ecuadoran embassy in London where the online > activist has received diplomatic asylum. They took place on September 6, > and the 13th and 16th of November of this year. Credico said he traveled to > London this November to attend the hearing of Stefania Maurizi, a > correspondent from Italy's La Repubblica who had filed a Freedom of > Information request demanding > > the press's right to access documents regarding his case. (He showed me a > photograph of himself with Maurizi in London to prove his point). > > "I was just there to support [Assange] as a wing man," Credico commented > to me. "I don't agree with him on everything — it's the fact that he's a > journalist and a publisher and has not put anything out that's false. I > don't know anything about technology and he didn't give me any secrets." > > The letter Credico received from the House Intelligence Committee did not > specify what it suspected him of doing, stating only that his interview > could cover anything within the parameters of "Russian cyber-activities > against the 2016 US election, potential links between Russia and > individuals associated with political campaigns, the US government's > response to these Russian active measures, and related leaks of classified > information." > > However, Credico is convinced that he is being used to undermine Assange. > "This is about chilling Wikileaks and that starts with intimidating anyone > who has met with Julian [Assange]," he stated. > > > > *Satirist and civil rights crusader *Credico first appeared in the > national spotlight in 1984 when he trashed Reagan's Central American proxy > wars during a comedy set on the Tonight Show. A look of severe discomfort > could be seen on Johnny Carson's face when Credico likened Reagan's > neoconservative UN ambassador Jeanne Kirkpatrick to Eva Braun. Though he > was never invited back on the show, the comic's uncanny impersonations and > incendiary political satire won him the admiration of peers like Larry > David, Barry Crimmins and Jack Black. > > During the 1990s, Credico became outraged about the disproportionate toll > the war on drugs was taking on the poor and people of color. He launched a > furious crusade against New York State's draconian Rockefeller Laws, > howling outside courthouses across the city about the evils of mass > incarceration, cops he branded "slave catchers" and proceedings he > denounced as "modern-day slave auctions." When he wasn't screaming in the > streets, he was behind prison walls, befriending inmates and working the > phones to get reporters interested in their cases. > > The New Yorker's Jennifer Gonnerman estimated that Credico had "generated > more than a hundred news stories, largely by inviting reporters to his > events and introducing them to the families of inmates." Crediting him > > for helping force the New York legislature to rewrite the Rockefeller drug > laws in 2004, Gonnerman branded Credico, "The Man Who Screamed So Loud the > Drug Laws Changed." > > Credico's efforts to expose the drug war's injustices culminated in Tulia, > Texas, where a corrupt undercover narcotics officer had railroaded > some 10 percent > of the town's African American population into lengthy jail sentences for > drug crimes they did not commit. Credico's agitation resulted in a wave of > national media attention > and in > 2003, the full acquittal of the 38 prisoners with sentences up to 90 years. > His efforts were honored by the NAACP and became the subject of several > documentaries, including "60 Spins Around the Sun > ," an award winning > biographical chronicle financed by Jack Black. > > In 2009, Credico quit his job as the director of the William Moses > Kunstler Fund for Racial Justice and launched a long-shot senate campaign > against Chuck Schumer, slamming the omnipotent Democratic senator for his > role in mandatory minimum sentencing and pro-death penalty legislation. > "You have to take a look at his record," Credico said > > of Schumer at the time. "And that's a really racist position as far as I am > concerned. Yes, it is about race." > > In the end, Credico won one percent of the vote. But he soldiered on, > running for mayor in 2013, then the governor's office a year later. All > along, he was dogged by drug and alcohol addiction, which he has been > public about. His penchant for drunken late-night tirades began to alienate > his allies and even led him to contemplate suicide. An intervention in 2014 > by his friend, the comedian Crimmins, pulled Credico back from from the > brink and helped him kick his self-destructive habits. > > > > *Meetings with Assange, conspiratorial rumors *Credico's sobriety > coincided with intensive advocacy for the community of national security > whistleblowers that emerged after 9/11 to expose secret government torture, > assassination and mass surveillance programs. In August 2015, he hosted > Wikileaks founder Julian Assange for an interview on "Live on the Fly," his > former show at the Pacifica radio affiliate, WBAI. Several interviews > followed over the coming months, including a series, " Assange: Countdown > to Freedom ," that > featured high-profile whistleblowers like Thomas Drake and Jesslyn Raddack > advocating for Assange’s release. > > "I had to build an audience at a moribund station and I got 65 percent of > the traffic," Credico remarked. "I had a popular international show because > it was tweeted out by Wikileaks and Anonymous Scandinavia and I got a huge > international following." > > The relationship with Assange eventually developed into a series of > meetings at the Ecuadoran embassy in London. These encounters fueled online > rumors > > accusing Credico of serving as a courier between the notoriously > Machiavellian former Trump campaign advisor, Roger Stone, and Assange. > > This September, Stone testified before the House Intelligence Committee, > which sought to scrutinize his claim to have communicated with the hacker > known as Guccifer 2.0, his contacts with Wikileaks, and a tweet that seemed > to suggest he had advance knowledge of the release of the emails of Hillary > Clinton's campaign chairman, John Podesta. Before the committee, Stone > angrily denied having colluded with the Russian government and claimed > > that all of his contacts with Assange were conducted through "an > intermediary." > > For his part, Credico freely acknowledged that Stone had been a guest on > his WBAI show and the two had cooperated on a few oddball political > initiatives over the years. But he contended that "Roger Stone is just a > whipping post for the committee but the one they're after is Assange > because they want to quiet him." > > "They're looking for a way to do in Assange," Credico emphasized, "and I'm > the only American in the press that has visited him outside of a reporter > from the New Yorker, and he's not going to talk to anyone else." > > Credico also insisted that despite his well-known dislike for Hillary > Clinton, he would not have lifted a finger to help the Trump campaign: "I > hate Trump. He's got ethnic cleansing going on with the deportation of > Haitians and Latin Americans and [Attorney General Jeff] Sessions is the > worst nightmare I've ever seen." > > Asked if he would comply with the House Intelligence Committee, Credico > sounded a defiant tone. "I'm a journalist with a radio show and there's > nothing [the committee] can elicit out of me because I'm covered by the > First Amendment. And everything I've talked to Assange about has been on > the show, and everything else is in my fucking notes. Would any journalist > give them their notes?" > > With his "interview" just days away, Credico exuded confidence. "I've > worked strip joints in Florida filled with Marines that wanted to kill me > for attacking their war in Grenada," the former comedian remarked. > "Congress is no problem. I've worked much tougher rooms than that." > > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > > -- -- karen medina "The really great make you feel that you, too, can become great." - Mark Twain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Wed Nov 29 14:03:47 2017 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2017 08:03:47 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] WBAI's Randy Credico subpoenaed in Russia Investigation In-Reply-To: <84cx3dsx0qpf6g0uk1gv2s9n.1511883691926@email.android.com> References: <84cx3dsx0qpf6g0uk1gv2s9n.1511883691926@email.android.com> Message-ID: <634A3E05-11CC-4FC6-9717-5EFC30878C0F@gmail.com> You should post this to Facebook & elsewhere. > On Nov 28, 2017, at 9:41 AM, stuartnlevy via Peace-discuss wrote: > > Article from Max Blumenthal. An activist and comedian, Randy Credico, is to be subpoenaed by the House Intelligence cmte for the investigation of Russian influence. > > Credico suspects the purpose is to gain information about Julian Arrange - whom Credico knows - and discredit Arrange and Wikileaks. > > -- Stuart > > -------- Original message -------- > From: Mitchel Cohen > Date: 11/28/17 07:27 (GMT-06:00) > To: actiongreens at yahoogroups.com > Subject: [ufpj-activist] WBAI's Randy Credico subpoenaed in Russia Investigation > > Grayzone Project > > House Intel Committee to Subpoena Leftist Comedian and Civil Rights Activist Randy Credico in Russia Investigation > > The renowned activist says he is under suspicion for his contacts with Wikileaks founder Julian Assange. > By Max Blumenthal / AlterNet > November 27, 2017, 7:32 AM GMT > > 143 COMMENTS > > The House Intelligence Committee's Russia investigation has taken an unexpected turn, with investigators homing in on a New York City-based comedian, radio host and renowned civil rights activist named Randy Credico. > > Credico received a letter this month from the Committee ranking Democrat, Rep. Adam Schiff, and Rep. Michael Conaway, the Republican leading the investigation. The lawmakers requested that Credico "participate in a voluntary, transcribed interview at the Committee's offices" during the first half of December. > > Credico informed the House committee through his legal counsel that he would not submit to the voluntary interview. Soon after, his lawyer told him that the committee planned to issue a subpoena. > > Credico is among the unlikeliest characters to have surfaced as a player in the ongoing Russiagate drama. For over two decades, he split time as a comedy professional while waging a tireless crusade against the war on drugs. The former host of a radio show on the Pacifica affiliate WBAI, Credico came into the company of high profile dissidents. Today his friends include the transparency activist targeted for arrest and prosecution by the US government: Julian Assange. > > The Wikileaks founder was recently accused by CIA Director Mike Pompeo of overseeing a "a non-state hostile intelligence service often abetted by state actors like Russia." Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton has suggested without evidence that Wikileaks collaborated with the Russian government to subvert the 2016 presidential election in Donald Trump's favor. > > This year, the Trump administration expanded the federal grand jury seeking the arrest of Assange to cover the Wikileaks release of thousands of documents on CIA hacking tools. However, there is no claim so far that grand jury covered the release by Wikileaks of the Democratic National Commitee's emails in 2016. A United Nations working group ruled that Assange was being arbitrarily detained. It has been seven years since he lost his freedom, and has been confined to a series of small rooms ever since. > > According to Credico, he and Assange held "three meetings that were two to three hours each" at the Ecuadoran embassy in London where the online activist has received diplomatic asylum. They took place on September 6, and the 13th and 16th of November of this year. Credico said he traveled to London this November to attend the hearing of Stefania Maurizi, a correspondent from Italy's La Repubblica who had filed a Freedom of Information request demanding the press's right to access documents regarding his case. (He showed me a photograph of himself with Maurizi in London to prove his point). > > "I was just there to support [Assange] as a wing man," Credico commented to me. "I don't agree with him on everything — it's the fact that he's a journalist and a publisher and has not put anything out that's false. I don't know anything about technology and he didn't give me any secrets." > > The letter Credico received from the House Intelligence Committee did not specify what it suspected him of doing, stating only that his interview could cover anything within the parameters of "Russian cyber-activities against the 2016 US election, potential links between Russia and individuals associated with political campaigns, the US government's response to these Russian active measures, and related leaks of classified information." > > However, Credico is convinced that he is being used to undermine Assange. "This is about chilling Wikileaks and that starts with intimidating anyone who has met with Julian [Assange]," he stated. > > Satirist and civil rights crusader > > Credico first appeared in the national spotlight in 1984 when he trashed Reagan's Central American proxy wars during a comedy set on the Tonight Show. A look of severe discomfort could be seen on Johnny Carson's face when Credico likened Reagan's neoconservative UN ambassador Jeanne Kirkpatrick to Eva Braun. Though he was never invited back on the show, the comic's uncanny impersonations and incendiary political satire won him the admiration of peers like Larry David, Barry Crimmins and Jack Black. > > During the 1990s, Credico became outraged about the disproportionate toll the war on drugs was taking on the poor and people of color. He launched a furious crusade against New York State's draconian Rockefeller Laws, howling outside courthouses across the city about the evils of mass incarceration, cops he branded "slave catchers" and proceedings he denounced as "modern-day slave auctions." When he wasn't screaming in the streets, he was behind prison walls, befriending inmates and working the phones to get reporters interested in their cases. > > The New Yorker's Jennifer Gonnerman estimated that Credico had "generated more than a hundred news stories, largely by inviting reporters to his events and introducing them to the families of inmates." Crediting him for helping force the New York legislature to rewrite the Rockefeller drug laws in 2004, Gonnerman branded Credico, "The Man Who Screamed So Loud the Drug Laws Changed." > > Credico's efforts to expose the drug war's injustices culminated in Tulia, Texas, where a corrupt undercover narcotics officer had railroaded some 10 percent of the town's African American population into lengthy jail sentences for drug crimes they did not commit. Credico's agitation resulted in a wave of national media attention and in 2003, the full acquittal of the 38 prisoners with sentences up to 90 years. His efforts were honored by the NAACP and became the subject of several documentaries, including "60 Spins Around the Sun ," an award winning biographical chronicle financed by Jack Black. > > In 2009, Credico quit his job as the director of the William Moses Kunstler Fund for Racial Justice and launched a long-shot senate campaign against Chuck Schumer, slamming the omnipotent Democratic senator for his role in mandatory minimum sentencing and pro-death penalty legislation. "You have to take a look at his record," Credico said of Schumer at the time. "And that's a really racist position as far as I am concerned. Yes, it is about race." > > In the end, Credico won one percent of the vote. But he soldiered on, running for mayor in 2013, then the governor's office a year later. All along, he was dogged by drug and alcohol addiction, which he has been public about. His penchant for drunken late-night tirades began to alienate his allies and even led him to contemplate suicide. An intervention in 2014 by his friend, the comedian Crimmins, pulled Credico back from from the brink and helped him kick his self-destructive habits. > > Meetings with Assange, conspiratorial rumors > > Credico's sobriety coincided with intensive advocacy for the community of national security whistleblowers that emerged after 9/11 to expose secret government torture, assassination and mass surveillance programs. In August 2015, he hosted Wikileaks founder Julian Assange for an interview on "Live on the Fly," his former show at the Pacifica radio affiliate, WBAI. Several interviews followed over the coming months, including a series, " Assange: Countdown to Freedom ," that featured high-profile whistleblowers like Thomas Drake and Jesslyn Raddack advocating for Assange’s release. > > "I had to build an audience at a moribund station and I got 65 percent of the traffic," Credico remarked. "I had a popular international show because it was tweeted out by Wikileaks and Anonymous Scandinavia and I got a huge international following." > > The relationship with Assange eventually developed into a series of meetings at the Ecuadoran embassy in London. These encounters fueled online rumors accusing Credico of serving as a courier between the notoriously Machiavellian former Trump campaign advisor, Roger Stone, and Assange. > > This September, Stone testified before the House Intelligence Committee, which sought to scrutinize his claim to have communicated with the hacker known as Guccifer 2.0, his contacts with Wikileaks, and a tweet that seemed to suggest he had advance knowledge of the release of the emails of Hillary Clinton's campaign chairman, John Podesta. Before the committee, Stone angrily denied having colluded with the Russian government and claimed that all of his contacts with Assange were conducted through "an intermediary." > > For his part, Credico freely acknowledged that Stone had been a guest on his WBAI show and the two had cooperated on a few oddball political initiatives over the years. But he contended that "Roger Stone is just a whipping post for the committee but the one they're after is Assange because they want to quiet him." > > "They're looking for a way to do in Assange," Credico emphasized, "and I'm the only American in the press that has visited him outside of a reporter from the New Yorker, and he's not going to talk to anyone else." > > Credico also insisted that despite his well-known dislike for Hillary Clinton, he would not have lifted a finger to help the Trump campaign: "I hate Trump. He's got ethnic cleansing going on with the deportation of Haitians and Latin Americans and [Attorney General Jeff] Sessions is the worst nightmare I've ever seen." > > Asked if he would comply with the House Intelligence Committee, Credico sounded a defiant tone. "I'm a journalist with a radio show and there's nothing [the committee] can elicit out of me because I'm covered by the First Amendment. And everything I've talked to Assange about has been on the show, and everything else is in my fucking notes. Would any journalist give them their notes?" > > With his "interview" just days away, Credico exuded confidence. "I've worked strip joints in Florida filled with Marines that wanted to kill me for attacking their war in Grenada," the former comedian remarked. "Congress is no problem. I've worked much tougher rooms than that." > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Wed Nov 29 14:25:36 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2017 14:25:36 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: Journalists must be protected/Please sign the petition References: <3669370004.-470598865@wfc.wfcDB.reply.salsalabs.com> Message-ID: From: RootsAction Team > Subject: Journalists must be protected Date: November 29, 2017 at 06:14:02 PST Reply-To: > [https://salsa.wiredforchange.com/o/6503/images/RA_Header.jpg] Demand Reasonable Limits on "Russiagate" Investigations. [https://salsa.wiredforchange.com/o/6503/images/credico4EMAIL.jpg] [GRAPHIC: Sign here button] [https://salsa.wiredforchange.com/o/6503/images/btn_facebook_icon_sm.jpg] Share this action on Facebook [https://salsa.wiredforchange.com/o/6503/images/btn_twitter_icon_sm.jpg] Share this action on Twitter [https://salsa.wiredforchange.com/o/6503/images/donate3bucks200b.png] The House Intelligence Committee has invited and, when he declined, sent a subpoena to a progressive journalist who has interviewed WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. The committee wants New York radio host Randy Credico to appear and be questioned on matters related to the committee's investigation into "Russian active measures directed at the 2016 U.S. election." And the committee is telling Credico to produce any records of anything related to the topic. Credico is a journalist who interviewed Assange, a journalist/publisher. With its explicit guarantees of a free press, the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects all journalists, including ones the government doesn’t like. Credico says that the only materials he has are his journalistic notes. At the same time, RootsAction has learned that the Senate Intelligence Committee has asked another witness to appear and to produce, among other things, documentation of any communications with anyone Russian -- not just with the government of Russia. It looks like this has gotten out of hand. Any investigation should have limits. When Congress appears to be targeting people for political purposes, including to needlessly worsen U.S.-Russia hostility, the U.S. public needs to stand up and put a stop to it. Journalism and legal interactions with people who are Russian simply are not crimes. It is up to us to demand that “Russiagate” investigations be conducted within reasonable limits and not become a tool for political theater and harassment of journalists or dissidents. Click here to sign the petition. After signing the petition, please use the tools on the next webpage to share it with your friends. This work is only possible with your financial support. Please chip in $3 now. -- The RootsAction.org Team P.S. RootsAction is an independent online force endorsed by Jim Hightower, Barbara Ehrenreich, Cornel West, Daniel Ellsberg, Glenn Greenwald, Naomi Klein, Bill Fletcher Jr., Laura Flanders, former U.S. Senator James Abourezk, Frances Fox Piven, Lila Garrett, Phil Donahue, Sonali Kolhatkar, and many others. Background: > Congressional Letter to Randy Credico > Flashpoints: Randy Credico Called To Testify > AlterNet: House Intel Committee to Subpoena Leftist Comedian and Civil Rights Activist Randy Credico in Russia Investigation > Dennis J Bernstein, Consortiumnews: Russia-gate Inquisitors Subpoena Journalist www.RootsAction.org [Donate button] [Facebook button] [Twitter button] Unsubscribe [empowered by Salsa] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Wed Nov 29 15:23:33 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2017 15:23:33 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] The inside story, related to slavery in Libya, by Glen Ford of the Black Agenda Report Message-ID: Glen Ford is a distinguished radio-show host and commentator. In 1977, Ford co-launched, produced and hosted America's Black Forum, the first nationally syndicated Black news interview program on commercial television. In 1987, Ford launched Rap It Up, the first nationally syndicated Hip Hop music show, broadcast on 65 radio stations. Ford co-founded the Black Commentator in 2002 and in 2006 he launched the Black Agenda Report. Ford is also the author of The Big Lie: An Analysis of U.S. Media Coverage of the Grenada Invasion. ________________________________ transcript [http://therealnews.com/media/trn_2017-11-01/gford1127kagame-240.jpg]EDDIE CONWAY: Welcome to The Real News. I'm Eddie Conway coming to you from Baltimore. Recently, I have been looking at the conditions of black Africans along the northern African continent. We looked at Mauritania, we looked at the Sudan, we did not look at Libya because we did not have enough expertise on it. Now, joining me today is Glen Ford, the executive editor of the Black Agenda Report who is thoroughly aware of what's going on over there and I'm asking him to share some of that information with us. Glen Ford, thanks for joining me. GLEN FORD: Thanks for having me, Eddie. EDDIE CONWAY: Can you give us a little understanding of what's happening in Libya, in northern Africa, and so on, and who's behind it? GLEN FORD: Well, you know, this story really strains the limits of vocabulary and especially the limits of polite vocabulary if we're going to describe the behavior of the people that the United States has put into power at two ends of the African continent. At the far northern end of the continent in Libya, the Islamist militias that the U.S. acted as an air force for and bombed into power back in 2011 with the attack on the Gaddafi government. The CNN news operation now reports that in Libya, in the areas controlled by these Jihadist factions, which are represented by one of several governments in Libya that the price of an African on the option block is about $400. That's what you can buy an African for. But we should remember that it was CNN that six years ago during the assault on Libya that was embedded with the same militias, especially the militia from Misrata that was openly slaughtering black Libyans and slaughtering sub-Saharan African immigrant workers and they were doing that right under CNN's nose, and CNN said not a mumbling word about it. These militias were engaged in a very open racist campaign. Finally, the Wall Street Journal, of all people, made a report on how the rebels were exterminating and wiping off the face of the map the all black city of Tawergha. That's a city of about 40,000 people. That city was wiped off the face of the Earth. It's inhabitants were either killed or imprisoned and dispersed throughout Libya by these same militias that CNN had been embedded with and after the victory of the Gaddafi governments, these same militias, now organized as one of the two or three governments in Libya, proceeded to enslave those Africans, those black Libyans and sub-Saharan Africans that survived the war. Then to also sell into slavery those Africans who were traveling or trying to travel through Libya to get on boats across the Mediterranean to resettle in Europe that rump government that controls western Libya was very embarrassed at the CNN report. They then put out a call to the African Union and they asked the African Union for money so that they could do something with the many tens of thousands of black Africans that they were holding in detention in Libya. Apparently those are some of the people who were being sold at auction, that is they were put in detention camps and some of them are now being sold. The so-called Libyan government says, well, it doesn't have enough money to do anything with them. It's kind of like an excuse for why they're selling them into slavery. Who then steps forward to say, "Well, we'll provide sanctuary"? None other than the U.S.-backed government of Rwanda. A government which under Paul Kagame, whose made himself virtually president for life, has been implicated by the United States as being largely responsible for the death of six million Congolese, and also there are hundreds and hundreds of thousands of Rwandans who are in exile. They need sanctuary but because Kagame is so tight with the United States government and with the British and the French, it is very difficult for Rwandan exiles to find sanctuary in the West. Here we have Rwanda, who is responsible largely for the biggest genocide since World War II now being ... trying to present itself as a savior. The connecting link between Libya and Rwanda is of course, the United States, which backs both governments and the connecting link of course, is also the U.S. corporate media, which does not report on the slaughter and the persecution of people by these U.S.-backed governments until most of them are dead. EDDIE CONWAY: I was just thinking of another link also between the two. The French government, which played a real serious role in the destruction of Gaddafi's government and the destruction of Libya itself as a country, falling right closely on the heels of Obama's unleashing missiles in the Air Force and so on. That same French government is very close with Rwanda and so it seems like they have a partnership there. The big bully from the U.S. and the little bully from Europe, they seem to be working together. GLEN FORD: There used to be a competition between the United States and the French, but now it is a real collaboration because the French can't even support their soldiers and they've got many tens of thousands of them in Africa without the logistical support of the United States. Only the United States has the airlift capacity to bring in these French soldiers and to resupply them, so yeah, there used to be a competition but now there's a partnership and the junior partner is, of course, the French, and they're the ones out front like the little yapping dog who make the most noise but the U.S. is the big dog. EDDIE CONWAY: Yeah, yeah. We can see them in Mali, we can see them in CAR, the Central African Republic. They have actually recolonized with the help of the United States air power. They've actually recolonized a lot of Africa. So I'm wondering what's ... All this apparently happened under Obama's regime also? GLEN FORD: Well yeah, this 2011 military assault by the Obama regime against the Gaddafi government was the beginning of a U.S. military offensive that then carried itself into Syria and is still going on, and that's the Obama offensive. What Obama succeeded in doing is rescuing the U.S. so-called muscular position in the world that had fallen into ill repute with George Bush's defeats in Iraq, but within a couple of years, Barack Obama had that military machine rolling again, and he began that role in 2011 in Libya and the black folks of Libya were the first to suffer. EDDIE CONWAY: Mm-hmm. There's some hint that Rwanda is actually receiving a payment for each refugee that it takes in the country and then they're staying for a minimum amount of time and then Rwanda is shipping them out. Are you aware of that or have you heard anything about that? GLEN FORD: Well, we've heard lots of rumors about that and they ring true in their essence in that the Kagame regime is in that kind of business. It provides the UN peacekeeping forces and African Union peacekeeping forces on the continent, all of which are paid for the United States and by Europe, with a steady stream of soldiers because they get a per capita for all the soldiers that they contribute. Rwanda deals in a kind of human transaction with its own soldiers as a standard business operation, and it would be just like it of course then to put a per person per diem ... A per person value on every person that they supposedly rescued from other U.S. allies in Libya. EDDIE CONWAY: Mm-hmm. If I could go back for a minute to Libya, it seems like the people that's in charge of Libya now, at least one of the three government operations there, is being headed by people that had been on the U.S. terrorist's list, had been imprisoned for years, and now they are like a close ally of the United States and the CIA. Is that true? GLEN FORD: Oh, the Jihadists that the United States supported with the bombing campaign were from Al Qaida affiliates, and one of them who had been a prisoner of the CIA, which then handed him over to Gaddafi and Gaddafi under an amnesty then allowed him free, he was listed by the United States as an Al Qaida offshoot leader. He became head of the Jihadists, that is the U.S.-backed rebels' military government in Tripoli. This is an Al Qaida guy who is the military governor of Tripoli and CNN and the United States are were celebrating that in 2011. But you know, there is a real political story here about why the Jihadists are also racists and why they were so dead set on getting rid of Gaddafi. Gaddafi came out of the old school of Arab socialists who were inspired by Nasser in Egypt, but later he also became an avowed pan-Africanist and if you went to Libya during his reign, you would see slogans, billboards all over proclaiming not just the Arab nature of Libya, but the African nature of Libya. This was an assault to the Jihadists who opposed Arab socialism as an identity. They have an Islamic identity and they oppose an African identity because they associate that with black folks, so when they were fighting Gaddafi, they singled out black Libyans, as well as people from Chad and elsewhere in Africa for persecution for lynching, for imprisonment, because the whole idea of Libya being an Arab and socialist and African country went against the grain of their Islamist ideology. There's a basis for their hate mongering. EDDIE CONWAY: Mm-hmm (affirmative). It seemed to me that the NATO and the U.S. actually raised a bumming campaign to help wipe out that black city? GLEN FORD: Oh sure, their favorite militia was the Misrata militia. Misrata was the nearest beach city to Tripoli with an active militia and they became the front line, at least on the ground, for the so-called rebellion. Now of course, the rebellion would have gotten nowhere without having an air force. An air force made up of the United States and Britain and France and other NATO members, so the Misrata militia, which is the militia that dismantled Tawergha, which is the militia that put up signs all over the place talking about their intention to get rid of the people with dark skins and an Arab word for slaves. Those were the closest allies on the front lines with the United States and that's why CNN was so deeply embedded in that particular militia. That's also why they didn't report back in 2011 when these slaughters were going on and when the town of Tawergha was being destroyed. CNN didn't say a word because it was in bed with these people. It took the Wall Street Journal that wasn't so close on the ground with them to reveal to Western audiences what was happening on the ground. EDDIE CONWAY: Okay, so thank you for that update and we'll keep watching this. GLEN FORD: Yes, we'll watch this as much as they want us to see. Keep watching what's happening of course, with Rwanda. There we have a dictator who represents a small minority of Rwanda's population, the Tutsi minority, couldn't be more than 10% or 15% of the population that the United States and all of its corporate media are singing the praises of as if he is a Godsend to Africa and a beacon of democracy. How could that possibly be? But that's the impression that folks like CNN want to give to us. EDDIE CONWAY: Okay, so thank you for joining me. GLEN FORD: Thank you. EDDIE CONWAY: And thank you for joining the Real News. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Wed Nov 29 20:46:01 2017 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2017 14:46:01 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Flyer for AWARE demonstration, Saturday 12/2 Message-ID: PRESIDENT TRUMP IS NOT THE PROBLEM: ILLEGAL U.S. WARS AROUND THE WORLD ARE The US government is today making war around the world - and it’s doing so without authorization from the U.S. Constitution or the U.N. Charter. If American leaders were put on trial today as German leaders were, at Nuremberg after World War II, for “launching aggressive war,” they - like the German leaders - would be hanged. The U.S. military is today killing people in seven Mideast and African countries - Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Somalia, and Pakistan (and on the other side of the world, in the Philippines). Thousands of U.S. troops are fighting in these countries, although most Americans don’t know that. In addition, the 70,000-member U.S. ‘Special Operations Command’ is active in three-quarters of the countries of the world. Their activities include kidnapping (‘rendition’), torture, and murder. President Obama was elected as an anti-war candidate, but in office he sent thousands of additional U.S. troops into America’s longest war, in Afghanistan. President Trump, who promised caution and non-interventionism in foreign policy - and described Hillary Clinton as a “trigger happy warmonger” - has now done the same thing himself. What both men knew is that, in spite of intense media propaganda, most Americans don’t want U.S. troops engaged in foreign wars and don’t see the killing as justified; both candidates had to seem to oppose the wars, in order to get elected. But the ‘one percent’ - the U.S. economic elite - do want the wars. When World War II ended in 1945, the U.S. was the least-damaged major country on either side, and controlled the world economy. America’s wars since then - in Korea, Vietnam, Latin America, and the Mideast - have killed between 20 and 30 million people for the purpose of maintaining that control. Ordinary Americans have paid for these vicious wars, but they haven’t profited from them. John Pilger wrote before the election, "The CIA has demanded Trump is not elected. Pentagon generals have demanded he is not elected. The pro-war New York Times - taking a breather from its relentless low-rent Putin smears - demands that he is not elected. Something is up. These tribunes of 'perpetual war' are terrified that the multi-billion-dollar business of war by which the United States maintains its dominance will be undermined if Trump does a deal with Putin, then with China’s Xi Jinping. Their panic at the possibility of the world’s great power talking peace – however unlikely – would be the blackest farce were the issues not so dire." We must demand that foreign military bases be closed, U.S. troops (and weapons) be brought home, and social support - including free medical care, education, and a universal basic income - be provided for Americans immiserated by generations of U.S. government wars. WRITE CONGRESS - DEMAND U.S. TROOPS & WEAPONS BE BROUGHT HOME Our representatives in Congress from this area - and their email addresses - are as follows: Representative Rodney Davis: Senator Tammy Duckworth: Senator Dick Durbin: ~~~ ANTI-WAR ANTI-RACISM EFFORT - on Facebook at ~ U.S. troops & weapons out of the Mideast ~ Medicare for all ~ Universal basic income ~ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Wed Nov 29 23:31:22 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2017 23:31:22 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Flyer for AWARE demonstration, Saturday 12/2 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I’m sorry, Carl I don’t like it, the title alone makes AWARE look like “Trump defenders.” It’s one thing to say this in conversation when explaining our wars, to those who think the problem began with Trump, but as a title, it sucks. Most people in this town are Democrats and won’t bother to read it. I’m not pleased with some of that which is in the article either, because the focus on the election is old news. Its time to move on. Trump is President and he is responsible for that which occurs on his watch. Trump bombed Syria and that is an impeachable offense, granted every other President before him, committed war crimes that were also impeachable offenses, Bush and most especially Obama, but Trump has been in power for almost a year now. His provocations of war with Korea, and Iran are extremely dangerous. On Nov 29, 2017, at 12:46, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss > wrote: PRESIDENT TRUMP IS NOT THE PROBLEM: ILLEGAL U.S. WARS AROUND THE WORLD ARE The US government is today making war around the world - and it’s doing so without authorization from the U.S. Constitution or the U.N. Charter. If American leaders were put on trial today as German leaders were, at Nuremberg after World War II, for “launching aggressive war,” they - like the German leaders - would be hanged. The U.S. military is today killing people in seven Mideast and African countries - Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Somalia, and Pakistan (and on the other side of the world, in the Philippines). Thousands of U.S. troops are fighting in these countries, although most Americans don’t know that. In addition, the 70,000-member U.S. ‘Special Operations Command’ is active in three-quarters of the countries of the world. Their activities include kidnapping (‘rendition’), torture, and murder. President Obama was elected as an anti-war candidate, but in office he sent thousands of additional U.S. troops into America’s longest war, in Afghanistan. President Trump, who promised caution and non-interventionism in foreign policy - and described Hillary Clinton as a “trigger happy warmonger” - has now done the same thing himself. What both men knew is that, in spite of intense media propaganda, most Americans don’t want U.S. troops engaged in foreign wars and don’t see the killing as justified; both candidates had to seem to oppose the wars, in order to get elected. But the ‘one percent’ - the U.S. economic elite - do want the wars. When World War II ended in 1945, the U.S. was the least-damaged major country on either side, and controlled the world economy. America’s wars since then - in Korea, Vietnam, Latin America, and the Mideast - have killed between 20 and 30 million people for the purpose of maintaining that control. Ordinary Americans have paid for these vicious wars, but they haven’t profited from them. John Pilger wrote before the election, "The CIA has demanded Trump is not elected. Pentagon generals have demanded he is not elected. The pro-war New York Times - taking a breather from its relentless low-rent Putin smears - demands that he is not elected. Something is up. These tribunes of 'perpetual war' are terrified that the multi-billion-dollar business of war by which the United States maintains its dominance will be undermined if Trump does a deal with Putin, then with China’s Xi Jinping. Their panic at the possibility of the world’s great power talking peace – however unlikely – would be the blackest farce were the issues not so dire." We must demand that foreign military bases be closed, U.S. troops (and weapons) be brought home, and social support - including free medical care, education, and a universal basic income - be provided for Americans immiserated by generations of U.S. government wars. WRITE CONGRESS - DEMAND U.S. TROOPS & WEAPONS BE BROUGHT HOME Our representatives in Congress from this area - and their email addresses - are as follows: Representative Rodney Davis: > Senator Tammy Duckworth: > Senator Dick Durbin: > ~~~ ANTI-WAR ANTI-RACISM EFFORT - on Facebook at ~ U.S. troops & weapons out of the Mideast ~ Medicare for all ~ Universal basic income ~ _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.chambana.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fpeace-discuss&data=02%7C01%7Ckarenaram%40hotmail.com%7Cfc30480baf2b4882394b08d5376a458e%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636475851934473412&sdata=0JBYxrD5cfjQzfDHk4PpLhvWxWn5Ce3B%2FBGNvILHbQI%3D&reserved=0 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Thu Nov 30 02:29:08 2017 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2017 20:29:08 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Flyer for AWARE demonstration, Saturday 12/2 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <795D395D-B752-41A3-82ED-32B7DC7FEB1A@gmail.com> The concentration on Trump is the strategy of the (pro-)War Party (the Pentagon, the 'intelligence community,' the Clinton campaign, the neocons) to force the government to continue the wars and war provocations of the last administrations. They think either Trump can be forced to fall in line with the war policy (as he shown he’s willing to do) under the threat of ‘Russiagate’ - or be replaced (with Pence, a War Party creature). The anti-war movement has to insist that Trump - the weakest president since Coolidge (“silent Cal,”|who followed the opposite performance strategy to Trump's bluster) - is not the problem, but that the continuing and largely unvaried Clinton-Bush-Obama war-making is. That's the policy that must be resisted. The War Party (who of course support that policy) is using Trump as a distraction from that policy. We should be opposing the Pentagon, the CIA, the Obama-Clintonists, the neocons, et al., who are promoting war provocations vs. Russia and China - not bothering much with the Potemkin president. John Pilger saw it clearly before the election: "The CIA has demanded Trump is not elected. Pentagon generals have demanded he is not elected. The pro-war New York Times - taking a breather from its relentless low-rent Putin smears - demands that he is not elected. Something is up. These tribunes of 'perpetual war' are terrified that the multi-billion-dollar business of war by which the United States maintains its dominance will be undermined if Trump does a deal with Putin, then with China’s Xi Jinping. Their panic at the possibility of the world’s great power talking peace – however unlikely – would be the blackest farce were the issues not so dire.” —CGE > On Nov 29, 2017, at 5:31 PM, Karen Aram via Peace wrote: > > I’m sorry, Carl > > I don’t like it, the title alone makes AWARE look like “Trump defenders.” It’s one thing to say this in conversation when explaining our wars, to those who think the problem began with Trump, but as a title, it sucks. Most people in this town are Democrats and won’t bother to read it. > > I’m not pleased with some of that which is in the article either, because the focus on the election is old news. Its time to move on. Trump is President and he is responsible for that which occurs on his watch. > > Trump bombed Syria and that is an impeachable offense, granted every other President before him, committed war crimes that were also impeachable offenses, Bush and most especially Obama, but Trump has been in power for almost a year now. His provocations of war with Korea, and Iran are extremely dangerous. > > >> On Nov 29, 2017, at 12:46, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss > wrote: >> >> PRESIDENT TRUMP IS NOT THE PROBLEM: >> ILLEGAL U.S. WARS AROUND THE WORLD ARE >> >> The US government is today making war around the world - and it’s doing so without authorization from the U.S. Constitution or the U.N. Charter. >> >> If American leaders were put on trial today as German leaders were, at Nuremberg after World War II, for “launching aggressive war,” they - like the German leaders - would be hanged. >> >> The U.S. military is today killing people in seven Mideast and African countries - Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Somalia, and Pakistan (and on the other side of the world, in the Philippines). Thousands of U.S. troops are fighting in these countries, although most Americans don’t know that. In addition, the 70,000-member U.S. ‘Special Operations Command’ is active in three-quarters of the countries of the world. Their activities include kidnapping (‘rendition’), torture, and murder. >> >> President Obama was elected as an anti-war candidate, but in office he sent thousands of additional U.S. troops into America’s longest war, in Afghanistan. President Trump, who promised caution and non-interventionism in foreign policy - and described Hillary Clinton as a “trigger happy warmonger” - has now done the same thing himself. >> >> What both men knew is that, in spite of intense media propaganda, most Americans don’t want U.S. troops engaged in foreign wars and don’t see the killing as justified; both candidates had to seem to oppose the wars, in order to get elected. >> >> But the ‘one percent’ - the U.S. economic elite - do want the wars. >> >> When World War II ended in 1945, the U.S. was the least-damaged major country on either side, and controlled the world economy. America’s wars since then - in Korea, Vietnam, Latin America, and the Mideast - have killed between 20 and 30 million people for the purpose of maintaining that control. Ordinary Americans have paid for these vicious wars, but they haven’t profited from them. >> >> John Pilger wrote before the election, "The CIA has demanded Trump is not elected. Pentagon generals have demanded he is not elected. The pro-war New York Times - taking a breather from its relentless low-rent Putin smears - demands that he is not elected. Something is up. These tribunes of 'perpetual war' are terrified that the multi-billion-dollar business of war by which the United States maintains its dominance will be undermined if Trump does a deal with Putin, then with China’s Xi Jinping. Their panic at the possibility of the world’s great power talking peace – however unlikely – would be the blackest farce were the issues not so dire." >> >> We must demand that foreign military bases be closed, U.S. troops (and weapons) be brought home, and social support - including free medical care, education, and a universal basic income - be provided for Americans immiserated by generations of U.S. government wars. >> >> WRITE CONGRESS - DEMAND U.S. TROOPS & WEAPONS BE BROUGHT HOME >> Our representatives in Congress from this area - and their email addresses - are as follows: >> >> Representative Rodney Davis: > >> Senator Tammy Duckworth: > >> Senator Dick Durbin: > >> >> ~~~ >> >> ANTI-WAR ANTI-RACISM EFFORT - on Facebook at >> ~ U.S. troops & weapons out of the Mideast ~ Medicare for all ~ Universal basic income ~ >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Peace-discuss mailing list >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >> https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.chambana.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fpeace-discuss&data=02%7C01%7Ckarenaram%40hotmail.com%7Cfc30480baf2b4882394b08d5376a458e%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636475851934473412&sdata=0JBYxrD5cfjQzfDHk4PpLhvWxWn5Ce3B%2FBGNvILHbQI%3D&reserved=0 > > _______________________________________________ > Peace mailing list > Peace at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davegreen84 at yahoo.com Thu Nov 30 04:54:26 2017 From: davegreen84 at yahoo.com (David Green) Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 04:54:26 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Flyer for AWARE demonstration, Saturday 12/2 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <553893688.4455715.1512017666836@mail.yahoo.com> When Obama was President, many liberals wanted to blame others (Bush) for his policies, the hand he was dealt, etc. That was wrong, and needed to be counteracted, including by noting the delight that Obama took in using the military, drone strikes, etc. But Trump is now President, and he delights no less in the use of military force, although "only" Yemen stands as an egregious example. It may be important to counteract prevailing liberal wisdom by noting the institutional forces arrayed to influence Trump; but the alleged contrast between Trump and Obama becomes less convincing as the year moves to a close. It doesn't sound right anymore to see him as somehow opposed to or the victim of institutional forces. And it comes to seem like a double standard to have focused on Obama's personality as opposed to Trump's alleged powerlessness. It does matter that Trump is a genuinely creepy human being, although in his own way no more creepy than Obama. Plus, he's the President right now, and has a lot of power. DG On Wednesday, November 29, 2017, 5:32:10 PM CST, Karen Aram via Peace wrote: I’m sorry, Carl I don’t like it, the title alone makes AWARE look like “Trump defenders.” It’s one thing to say this in conversation when explaining our wars, to those who think the problem began with Trump, but as a title, it sucks. Most people in this town are Democrats and won’t bother to read it. I’m not pleased with some of that which is in the article either, because the focus  on the election is old news. Its time to move on. Trump is President and he is responsible for that which occurs on his watch.   Trump bombed Syria and that is an impeachable offense, granted every other President before him, committed war crimes that were also impeachable offenses, Bush and most especially Obama, but Trump has been in power for almost a year now. His provocations of war with Korea, and Iran are extremely dangerous.  On Nov 29, 2017, at 12:46, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: PRESIDENT TRUMP IS NOT THE PROBLEM:ILLEGAL U.S. WARS AROUND THE WORLD ARE The US government is today making war around the world - and it’s doing so without authorization from the U.S. Constitution or the U.N. Charter.  If American leaders were put on trial today as German leaders were, at Nuremberg after World War II, for “launching aggressive war,” they - like the German leaders - would be hanged.    The U.S. military is today killing people in seven Mideast and African countries - Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Somalia, and Pakistan (and on the other side of the world, in the Philippines). Thousands of U.S. troops are fighting in these countries, although most Americans don’t know that.  In addition, the 70,000-member U.S. ‘Special Operations Command’ is active in three-quarters of the countries of the world. Their activities include kidnapping (‘rendition’), torture, and murder. President Obama was elected as an anti-war candidate, but in office he sent thousands of additional U.S. troops into America’s longest war, in Afghanistan. President Trump, who promised caution and non-interventionism in foreign policy - and described Hillary Clinton as a “trigger happy warmonger” - has now done the same thing himself. What both men knew is that, in spite of intense media propaganda, most Americans don’t want U.S. troops engaged in foreign wars and don’t see the killing as justified; both candidates had to seem to oppose the wars, in order to get elected. But the ‘one percent’ - the U.S. economic elite - do want the wars. When World War II ended in 1945, the U.S. was the least-damaged major country on either side, and controlled the world economy. America’s wars since then - in Korea, Vietnam, Latin America, and the Mideast - have killed between 20 and 30 million people for the purpose of maintaining that control. Ordinary Americans have paid for these vicious wars, but they haven’t profited from them.  John Pilger wrote before the election, "The CIA has demanded Trump is not elected. Pentagon generals have demanded he is not elected. The pro-war New York Times - taking a breather from its relentless low-rent Putin smears - demands that he is not elected. Something is up. These tribunes of 'perpetual war' are terrified that the multi-billion-dollar business of war by which the United States maintains its dominance will be undermined if Trump does a deal with Putin, then with China’s Xi Jinping. Their panic at the possibility of the world’s great power talking peace – however unlikely – would be the blackest farce were the issues not so dire." We must demand that foreign military bases be closed, U.S. troops (and weapons) be brought home, and social support - including free medical care, education, and a universal basic income - be provided for Americans immiserated by generations of U.S. government wars. WRITE CONGRESS - DEMAND U.S. TROOPS & WEAPONS BE BROUGHT HOMEOur representatives in Congress from this area - and their email addresses - are as follows: Representative Rodney Davis: Senator Tammy Duckworth: Senator Dick Durbin: ~~~ ANTI-WAR ANTI-RACISM EFFORT - on Facebook at ~ U.S. troops & weapons out of the Mideast ~ Medicare for all ~ Universal basic income ~ _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.chambana.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fpeace-discuss&data=02%7C01%7Ckarenaram%40hotmail.com%7Cfc30480baf2b4882394b08d5376a458e%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636475851934473412&sdata=0JBYxrD5cfjQzfDHk4PpLhvWxWn5Ce3B%2FBGNvILHbQI%3D&reserved=0 _______________________________________________ Peace mailing list Peace at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kmedina67 at gmail.com Thu Nov 30 05:12:15 2017 From: kmedina67 at gmail.com (kmedina67) Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2017 23:12:15 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Flyer for AWARE demonstration, Saturday 12/2 Message-ID: <5a1f9330.861d6b0a.359de.9cf5@mx.google.com> Hear hear David Green. -Karen Medina -------- Original message --------From: David Green via Peace Date: 11/29/17 22:54  When Obama was President, many liberals wanted to blame others (Bush) for his policies, the hand he was dealt, etc. That was wrong, and needed to be counteracted, including by noting the delight that Obama took in using the military, drone strikes, etc. But Trump is now President, and he delights no less in the use of military force, although "only" Yemen stands as an egregious example. It may be important to counteract prevailing liberal wisdom by noting the institutional forces arrayed to influence Trump; but the alleged contrast between Trump and Obama becomes less convincing as the year moves to a close. It doesn't sound right anymore to see him as somehow opposed to or the victim of institutional forces. And it comes to seem like a double standard to have focused on Obama's personality as opposed to Trump's alleged powerlessness. It does matter that Trump is a genuinely creepy human being, although in his own way no more creepy than Obama. Plus, he's the President right now, and has a lot of power. DG On Wednesday, November 29, 2017, 5:32:10 PM CST, Karen Aram via Peace wrote: I’m sorry, Carl I don’t like it, the title alone makes AWARE look like “Trump defenders.” It’s one thing to say this in conversation when explaining our wars, to those who think the problem began with Trump, but as a title, it sucks. Most people in this town are Democrats and won’t bother to read it. I’m not pleased with some of that which is in the article either, because the focus  on the election is old news. Its time to move on. Trump is President and he is responsible for that which occurs on his watch.   Trump bombed Syria and that is an impeachable offense, granted every other President before him, committed war crimes that were also impeachable offenses, Bush and most especially Obama, but Trump has been in power for almost a year now. His provocations of war with Korea, and Iran are extremely dangerous.  -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Thu Nov 30 06:03:27 2017 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 00:03:27 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Flyer for AWARE demonstration, Saturday 12/2 In-Reply-To: <553893688.4455715.1512017666836@mail.yahoo.com> References: <553893688.4455715.1512017666836@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: David— I think you’re replying more to other discussions we’ve had, on the air and elsewhere, than to this flyer. (1) “...the alleged contrast between Trump and Obama”? The flyer notes similarity, not contrast: “Obama ... sent thousands of additional U.S. troops into America’s longest war, in Afghanistan. President Trump ... has now done the same thing himself.” (2) “It doesn't sound right anymore to see [Trump] as somehow opposed to or the victim of institutional forces”? The flyer notes that both T & O were elected as anti-warriors and became warriors; it doesn’t say how. (3) “...a double standard to have focused on Obama's personality as opposed to Trump's alleged powerlessness”? That’s not in the flyer. The flyer contrasts the political establishment’s demand for war and the populace’s natural opposition to war. It doesn’t speculate on any candidate’s personality (except HRC's, indirectly.) The focus on Trump in the public discussion is the Deep State's hysterical attempt to make sure his threatened departure from traditional war making doesn’t take place (as Pilger notes). Trump is not the problem; US war-making is, and that’s what the public should be informed about, in the face of the war party’s attempt to avoid the subject by talking about Trump’s personality. —CGE > On Nov 29, 2017, at 10:54 PM, David Green via Peace wrote: > > When Obama was President, many liberals wanted to blame others (Bush) for his policies, the hand he was dealt, etc. That was wrong, and needed to be counteracted, including by noting the delight that Obama took in using the military, drone strikes, etc. > > But Trump is now President, and he delights no less in the use of military force, although "only" Yemen stands as an egregious example. It may be important to counteract prevailing liberal wisdom by noting the institutional forces arrayed to influence Trump; but the alleged contrast between Trump and Obama becomes less convincing as the year moves to a close. It doesn't sound right anymore to see him as somehow opposed to or the victim of institutional forces. And it comes to seem like a double standard to have focused on Obama's personality as opposed to Trump's alleged powerlessness. It does matter that Trump is a genuinely creepy human being, although in his own way no more creepy than Obama. > > Plus, he's the President right now, and has a lot of power. > > DG > > >> On Nov 29, 2017, at 12:46, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: >> >> PRESIDENT TRUMP IS NOT THE PROBLEM: >> ILLEGAL U.S. WARS AROUND THE WORLD ARE >> >> The US government is today making war around the world - and it’s doing so without authorization from the U.S. Constitution or the U.N. Charter. >> >> If American leaders were put on trial today as German leaders were, at Nuremberg after World War II, for “launching aggressive war,” they - like the German leaders - would be hanged. >> >> The U.S. military is today killing people in seven Mideast and African countries - Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Somalia, and Pakistan (and on the other side of the world, in the Philippines). Thousands of U.S. troops are fighting in these countries, although most Americans don’t know that. In addition, the 70,000-member U.S. ‘Special Operations Command’ is active in three-quarters of the countries of the world. Their activities include kidnapping (‘rendition’), torture, and murder. >> >> President Obama was elected as an anti-war candidate, but in office he sent thousands of additional U.S. troops into America’s longest war, in Afghanistan. President Trump, who promised caution and non-interventionism in foreign policy - and described Hillary Clinton as a “trigger happy warmonger” - has now done the same thing himself. >> >> What both men knew is that, in spite of intense media propaganda, most Americans don’t want U.S. troops engaged in foreign wars and don’t see the killing as justified; both candidates had to seem to oppose the wars, in order to get elected. >> >> But the ‘one percent’ - the U.S. economic elite - do want the wars. >> >> When World War II ended in 1945, the U.S. was the least-damaged major country on either side, and controlled the world economy. America’s wars since then - in Korea, Vietnam, Latin America, and the Mideast - have killed between 20 and 30 million people for the purpose of maintaining that control. Ordinary Americans have paid for these vicious wars, but they haven’t profited from them. >> >> John Pilger wrote before the election, "The CIA has demanded Trump is not elected. Pentagon generals have demanded he is not elected. The pro-war New York Times - taking a breather from its relentless low-rent Putin smears - demands that he is not elected. Something is up. These tribunes of 'perpetual war' are terrified that the multi-billion-dollar business of war by which the United States maintains its dominance will be undermined if Trump does a deal with Putin, then with China’s Xi Jinping. Their panic at the possibility of the world’s great power talking peace – however unlikely – would be the blackest farce were the issues not so dire." >> >> We must demand that foreign military bases be closed, U.S. troops (and weapons) be brought home, and social support - including free medical care, education, and a universal basic income - be provided for Americans immiserated by generations of U.S. government wars. >> >> WRITE CONGRESS - DEMAND U.S. TROOPS & WEAPONS BE BROUGHT HOME >> Our representatives in Congress from this area - and their email addresses - are as follows: >> >> Representative Rodney Davis: >> Senator Tammy Duckworth: >> Senator Dick Durbin: >> >> ~~~ >> >> ANTI-WAR ANTI-RACISM EFFORT - on Facebook at >> ~ U.S. troops & weapons out of the Mideast ~ Medicare for all ~ Universal basic income ~ From rwhelbig at gmail.com Thu Nov 30 08:23:58 2017 From: rwhelbig at gmail.com (Roger Helbig) Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 00:23:58 -0800 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Flyer for AWARE demonstration, Saturday 12/2 In-Reply-To: <5a1f9330.861d6b0a.359de.9cf5@mx.google.com> References: <5a1f9330.861d6b0a.359de.9cf5@mx.google.com> Message-ID: Hope you all enjoy the future nuclear wasteland - I really liked Jimmy Kimmel - "at least they did not elect their unstable leader" - the North Koreans of course! Imagine you all were anti-Hillary Clinton too - Trump is an unmitigated disaster to the entire world and you support him. Roger On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 9:12 PM, kmedina67 via Peace-discuss wrote: > Hear hear David Green. > > -Karen Medina > > > -------- Original message -------- > From: David Green via Peace > Date: 11/29/17 22:54 > > When Obama was President, many liberals wanted to blame others (Bush) for > his policies, the hand he was dealt, etc. That was wrong, and needed to be > counteracted, including by noting the delight that Obama took in using the > military, drone strikes, etc. > > But Trump is now President, and he delights no less in the use of military > force, although "only" Yemen stands as an egregious example. It may be > important to counteract prevailing liberal wisdom by noting the > institutional forces arrayed to influence Trump; but the alleged contrast > between Trump and Obama becomes less convincing as the year moves to a > close. It doesn't sound right anymore to see him as somehow opposed to or > the victim of institutional forces. And it comes to seem like a double > standard to have focused on Obama's personality as opposed to Trump's > alleged powerlessness. It does matter that Trump is a genuinely creepy human > being, although in his own way no more creepy than Obama. > > Plus, he's the President right now, and has a lot of power. > > DG > On Wednesday, November 29, 2017, 5:32:10 PM CST, Karen Aram via Peace > wrote: > > > I’m sorry, Carl > > I don’t like it, the title alone makes AWARE look like “Trump defenders.” > It’s one thing to say this in conversation when explaining our wars, to > those who think the problem began with Trump, but as a title, it sucks. Most > people in this town are Democrats and won’t bother to read it. > > I’m not pleased with some of that which is in the article either, because > the focus on the election is old news. Its time to move on. Trump is > President and he is responsible for that which occurs on his watch. > > Trump bombed Syria and that is an impeachable offense, granted every other > President before him, committed war crimes that were also impeachable > offenses, Bush and most especially Obama, but Trump has been in power for > almost a year now. His provocations of war with Korea, and Iran are > extremely dangerous. > > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > From rwhelbig at gmail.com Thu Nov 30 08:42:40 2017 From: rwhelbig at gmail.com (Roger Helbig) Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 00:42:40 -0800 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Flyer for AWARE demonstration, Saturday 12/2 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Bovine excrement - no one wants the wars, but no one wants terrorist attacks either - what you folks need is a terrorist incident in your home town -that might wake you up - On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 12:46 PM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: > PRESIDENT TRUMP IS NOT THE PROBLEM: > ILLEGAL U.S. WARS AROUND THE WORLD ARE > > The US government is today making war around the world - and it’s doing so > without authorization from the U.S. Constitution or the U.N. Charter. > > If American leaders were put on trial today as German leaders were, at > Nuremberg after World War II, for “launching aggressive war,” they - like > the German leaders - would be hanged. > > The U.S. military is today killing people in seven Mideast and African > countries - Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Somalia, and Pakistan > (and on the other side of the world, in the Philippines). Thousands of U.S. > troops are fighting in these countries, although most Americans don’t know > that. In addition, the 70,000-member U.S. ‘Special Operations Command’ is > active in three-quarters of the countries of the world. Their activities > include kidnapping (‘rendition’), torture, and murder. > > President Obama was elected as an anti-war candidate, but in office he sent > thousands of additional U.S. troops into America’s longest war, in > Afghanistan. President Trump, who promised caution and non-interventionism > in foreign policy - and described Hillary Clinton as a “trigger happy > warmonger” - has now done the same thing himself. > > What both men knew is that, in spite of intense media propaganda, most > Americans don’t want U.S. troops engaged in foreign wars and don’t see the > killing as justified; both candidates had to seem to oppose the wars, in > order to get elected. > > But the ‘one percent’ - the U.S. economic elite - do want the wars. > > When World War II ended in 1945, the U.S. was the least-damaged major > country on either side, and controlled the world economy. America’s wars > since then - in Korea, Vietnam, Latin America, and the Mideast - have killed > between 20 and 30 million people for the purpose of maintaining that > control. Ordinary Americans have paid for these vicious wars, but they > haven’t profited from them. > > John Pilger wrote before the election, "The CIA has demanded Trump is not > elected. Pentagon generals have demanded he is not elected. The pro-war New > York Times - taking a breather from its relentless low-rent Putin smears - > demands that he is not elected. Something is up. These tribunes of > 'perpetual war' are terrified that the multi-billion-dollar business of war > by which the United States maintains its dominance will be undermined if > Trump does a deal with Putin, then with China’s Xi Jinping. Their panic at > the possibility of the world’s great power talking peace – however unlikely > – would be the blackest farce were the issues not so dire." > > We must demand that foreign military bases be closed, U.S. troops (and > weapons) be brought home, and social support - including free medical care, > education, and a universal basic income - be provided for Americans > immiserated by generations of U.S. government wars. > > WRITE CONGRESS - DEMAND U.S. TROOPS & WEAPONS BE BROUGHT HOME > Our representatives in Congress from this area - and their email addresses - > are as follows: > > Representative Rodney Davis: > Senator Tammy Duckworth: > > Senator Dick Durbin: > > ~~~ > > ANTI-WAR ANTI-RACISM EFFORT - on Facebook at Illinois> > ~ U.S. troops & weapons out of the Mideast ~ Medicare for all ~ Universal > basic income ~ > > > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > From karenaram at hotmail.com Thu Nov 30 13:06:03 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 13:06:03 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Flyer for AWARE demonstration, Saturday 12/2 In-Reply-To: <795D395D-B752-41A3-82ED-32B7DC7FEB1A@gmail.com> References: <795D395D-B752-41A3-82ED-32B7DC7FEB1A@gmail.com> Message-ID: Carl No one knows better than I, no one has spoken more about the powers behind the throne than I. I’m the one, with AWARE, who has been making the argument that any President who comes to power, as either a Republican or Democrat is going to implement the foreign policy plan put into place by the Oligarchs behind the throne. One of which was Brzezinski, just to keep it simple. As a Green socialist, who does not support the one Party system, Democrat/ Republican, once they get to DC. I have been highlighting the very fact, of the Pentagon, CIA, Council on Foreign Relations, Think Tanks, Corporations and Contractors as those pushing the US war agenda. But, to imply that Trump anymore than Obama is an unwitting dope of those who make up the “Deep State” “Military Industrial Complex,” however we wish to refer to them, is a mistake, most especially in the title of a flyer. Whether architects or rubber stamps of our foreign policy, they are all complicit. A FLYER is meant to impart information, but no one is going to read it, when it acts as an apology for Trump. He is as vile a creature as Clinton, in that he supported the rhetoric of lies and propaganda against Libya and Gaddafi. He is guilty of bombing Syria, and now provoking war with N Korea and Iran. Yes, he is attempting peace with Russia and China, he knows where a dollar is to be made. Though it matters not, when the plan is war with China, predicted by the Rand Think Tank and Pentagon in to be 2030. Our continued presence of Nato on the border of Russia is not going away. Roger has just proved my point. He has assessed us as Trump supporters, in spite of my statement, in spite of David Greens statement. What do you think people will think of AWARE, upon receipt of our flyer? And, as I said, focus on the election in order to bash the Clintons is also of no value. On Nov 29, 2017, at 18:29, C G Estabrook > wrote: The concentration on Trump is the strategy of the (pro-)War Party (the Pentagon, the 'intelligence community,' the Clinton campaign, the neocons) to force the government to continue the wars and war provocations of the last administrations. They think either Trump can be forced to fall in line with the war policy (as he shown he’s willing to do) under the threat of ‘Russiagate’ - or be replaced (with Pence, a War Party creature). The anti-war movement has to insist that Trump - the weakest president since Coolidge (“silent Cal,”|who followed the opposite performance strategy to Trump's bluster) - is not the problem, but that the continuing and largely unvaried Clinton-Bush-Obama war-making is. That's the policy that must be resisted. The War Party (who of course support that policy) is using Trump as a distraction from that policy. We should be opposing the Pentagon, the CIA, the Obama-Clintonists, the neocons, et al., who are promoting war provocations vs. Russia and China - not bothering much with the Potemkin president. John Pilger saw it clearly before the election: "The CIA has demanded Trump is not elected. Pentagon generals have demanded he is not elected. The pro-war New York Times - taking a breather from its relentless low-rent Putin smears - demands that he is not elected. Something is up. These tribunes of 'perpetual war' are terrified that the multi-billion-dollar business of war by which the United States maintains its dominance will be undermined if Trump does a deal with Putin, then with China’s Xi Jinping. Their panic at the possibility of the world’s great power talking peace – however unlikely – would be the blackest farce were the issues not so dire.” —CGE On Nov 29, 2017, at 5:31 PM, Karen Aram via Peace > wrote: I’m sorry, Carl I don’t like it, the title alone makes AWARE look like “Trump defenders.” It’s one thing to say this in conversation when explaining our wars, to those who think the problem began with Trump, but as a title, it sucks. Most people in this town are Democrats and won’t bother to read it. I’m not pleased with some of that which is in the article either, because the focus on the election is old news. Its time to move on. Trump is President and he is responsible for that which occurs on his watch. Trump bombed Syria and that is an impeachable offense, granted every other President before him, committed war crimes that were also impeachable offenses, Bush and most especially Obama, but Trump has been in power for almost a year now. His provocations of war with Korea, and Iran are extremely dangerous. On Nov 29, 2017, at 12:46, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss > wrote: PRESIDENT TRUMP IS NOT THE PROBLEM: ILLEGAL U.S. WARS AROUND THE WORLD ARE The US government is today making war around the world - and it’s doing so without authorization from the U.S. Constitution or the U.N. Charter. If American leaders were put on trial today as German leaders were, at Nuremberg after World War II, for “launching aggressive war,” they - like the German leaders - would be hanged. The U.S. military is today killing people in seven Mideast and African countries - Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Somalia, and Pakistan (and on the other side of the world, in the Philippines). Thousands of U.S. troops are fighting in these countries, although most Americans don’t know that. In addition, the 70,000-member U.S. ‘Special Operations Command’ is active in three-quarters of the countries of the world. Their activities include kidnapping (‘rendition’), torture, and murder. President Obama was elected as an anti-war candidate, but in office he sent thousands of additional U.S. troops into America’s longest war, in Afghanistan. President Trump, who promised caution and non-interventionism in foreign policy - and described Hillary Clinton as a “trigger happy warmonger” - has now done the same thing himself. What both men knew is that, in spite of intense media propaganda, most Americans don’t want U.S. troops engaged in foreign wars and don’t see the killing as justified; both candidates had to seem to oppose the wars, in order to get elected. But the ‘one percent’ - the U.S. economic elite - do want the wars. When World War II ended in 1945, the U.S. was the least-damaged major country on either side, and controlled the world economy. America’s wars since then - in Korea, Vietnam, Latin America, and the Mideast - have killed between 20 and 30 million people for the purpose of maintaining that control. Ordinary Americans have paid for these vicious wars, but they haven’t profited from them. John Pilger wrote before the election, "The CIA has demanded Trump is not elected. Pentagon generals have demanded he is not elected. The pro-war New York Times - taking a breather from its relentless low-rent Putin smears - demands that he is not elected. Something is up. These tribunes of 'perpetual war' are terrified that the multi-billion-dollar business of war by which the United States maintains its dominance will be undermined if Trump does a deal with Putin, then with China’s Xi Jinping. Their panic at the possibility of the world’s great power talking peace – however unlikely – would be the blackest farce were the issues not so dire." We must demand that foreign military bases be closed, U.S. troops (and weapons) be brought home, and social support - including free medical care, education, and a universal basic income - be provided for Americans immiserated by generations of U.S. government wars. WRITE CONGRESS - DEMAND U.S. TROOPS & WEAPONS BE BROUGHT HOME Our representatives in Congress from this area - and their email addresses - are as follows: Representative Rodney Davis: > Senator Tammy Duckworth: > Senator Dick Durbin: > ~~~ ANTI-WAR ANTI-RACISM EFFORT - on Facebook at ~ U.S. troops & weapons out of the Mideast ~ Medicare for all ~ Universal basic income ~ _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.chambana.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fpeace-discuss&data=02%7C01%7Ckarenaram%40hotmail.com%7Cfc30480baf2b4882394b08d5376a458e%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636475851934473412&sdata=0JBYxrD5cfjQzfDHk4PpLhvWxWn5Ce3B%2FBGNvILHbQI%3D&reserved=0 _______________________________________________ Peace mailing list Peace at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net Thu Nov 30 13:25:47 2017 From: davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net (David Johnson) Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 07:25:47 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Flyer for AWARE demonstration, Saturday 12/2 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <002101d369de$bc328500$34978f00$@comcast.net> Nonsense Roger, The military industrial complex and the wealthy 1 % make HUGE amounts of money because of wars. They want war ! As far as terrorists, most were created by U.S. government policies and others are directly and indirectly supported by the U.S. government in order to destabilize and be an excuse to expand wars and the profits that result from it. David J. -----Original Message----- From: Peace-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Roger Helbig via Peace-discuss Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2017 2:43 AM To: C G Estabrook; Peace-discuss Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Flyer for AWARE demonstration, Saturday 12/2 Bovine excrement - no one wants the wars, but no one wants terrorist attacks either - what you folks need is a terrorist incident in your home town -that might wake you up - On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 12:46 PM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: > PRESIDENT TRUMP IS NOT THE PROBLEM: > ILLEGAL U.S. WARS AROUND THE WORLD ARE > > The US government is today making war around the world - and it’s > doing so without authorization from the U.S. Constitution or the U.N. Charter. > > If American leaders were put on trial today as German leaders were, at > Nuremberg after World War II, for “launching aggressive war,” they - > like the German leaders - would be hanged. > > The U.S. military is today killing people in seven Mideast and African > countries - Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Somalia, and > Pakistan (and on the other side of the world, in the Philippines). Thousands of U.S. > troops are fighting in these countries, although most Americans don’t > know that. In addition, the 70,000-member U.S. ‘Special Operations > Command’ is active in three-quarters of the countries of the world. > Their activities include kidnapping (‘rendition’), torture, and murder. > > President Obama was elected as an anti-war candidate, but in office he > sent thousands of additional U.S. troops into America’s longest war, > in Afghanistan. President Trump, who promised caution and > non-interventionism in foreign policy - and described Hillary Clinton > as a “trigger happy warmonger” - has now done the same thing himself. > > What both men knew is that, in spite of intense media propaganda, most > Americans don’t want U.S. troops engaged in foreign wars and don’t see > the killing as justified; both candidates had to seem to oppose the > wars, in order to get elected. > > But the ‘one percent’ - the U.S. economic elite - do want the wars. > > When World War II ended in 1945, the U.S. was the least-damaged major > country on either side, and controlled the world economy. America’s > wars since then - in Korea, Vietnam, Latin America, and the Mideast - > have killed between 20 and 30 million people for the purpose of > maintaining that control. Ordinary Americans have paid for these > vicious wars, but they haven’t profited from them. > > John Pilger wrote before the election, "The CIA has demanded Trump is > not elected. Pentagon generals have demanded he is not elected. The > pro-war New York Times - taking a breather from its relentless > low-rent Putin smears - demands that he is not elected. Something is > up. These tribunes of 'perpetual war' are terrified that the > multi-billion-dollar business of war by which the United States > maintains its dominance will be undermined if Trump does a deal with > Putin, then with China’s Xi Jinping. Their panic at the possibility of > the world’s great power talking peace – however unlikely – would be the blackest farce were the issues not so dire." > > We must demand that foreign military bases be closed, U.S. troops (and > weapons) be brought home, and social support - including free medical > care, education, and a universal basic income - be provided for > Americans immiserated by generations of U.S. government wars. > > WRITE CONGRESS - DEMAND U.S. TROOPS & WEAPONS BE BROUGHT HOME Our > representatives in Congress from this area - and their email addresses > - are as follows: > > Representative Rodney Davis: > Senator Tammy Duckworth: > > Senator Dick Durbin: > > ~~~ > > ANTI-WAR ANTI-RACISM EFFORT - on Facebook at Urbana > Illinois> > ~ U.S. troops & weapons out of the Mideast ~ Medicare for all ~ > Universal basic income ~ > > > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss From davegreen84 at yahoo.com Thu Nov 30 14:39:33 2017 From: davegreen84 at yahoo.com (David Green) Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 14:39:33 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Flyer for AWARE demonstration, Saturday 12/2 In-Reply-To: References: <795D395D-B752-41A3-82ED-32B7DC7FEB1A@gmail.com> Message-ID: <979452964.4663360.1512052774015@mail.yahoo.com> In any event, this language contrasts sharply with a flyer from two years ago, which holds Obama responsible: President Obama is makingwar in eight countries; he is sending American‘special forces’ into more than 100 countries around the world; he hasassassinated thousands  by drone - themost extreme terrorist campaign of modern times; and he is provoking war withRussia and China. I'm not sure how we can justify the difference in tone and substance regarding the warmaking "motivations" of Obama and Trump. On Thursday, November 30, 2017, 7:06:53 AM CST, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: Carl No one knows better than I, no one has spoken more about the powers behind the throne than I. I’m the one, with AWARE, who has been making the argument that any President who comes to power, as either a Republican or Democrat is going to implement the foreign policy plan put into place by the Oligarchs behind the throne. One of which was Brzezinski, just to keep it simple.   As a Green socialist, who does not support the one Party system, Democrat/ Republican, once they get to DC. I have been highlighting the very fact, of the Pentagon, CIA, Council on Foreign Relations, Think Tanks, Corporations and Contractors as those pushing the US war agenda.  But, to imply that Trump anymore than Obama is an unwitting dope of those who make up the “Deep State” “Military Industrial Complex,” however we wish to refer to them, is a mistake, most especially in the title of a flyer. Whether architects or rubber stamps of our foreign policy, they are all complicit.  A FLYER is meant to impart information, but no one is going to read it, when it acts as an apology for Trump. He is as vile a creature as Clinton, in that he supported the rhetoric of lies and propaganda against Libya and Gaddafi. He is guilty of bombing Syria, and now provoking war with N Korea and Iran. Yes, he is attempting peace with Russia and China, he knows where a dollar is to be made. Though it matters not, when the plan is war with China, predicted by the Rand Think Tank and Pentagon in to be 2030. Our continued presence of Nato on the border of Russia is not going away. Roger has just proved my point. He has assessed us as Trump supporters, in spite of my statement, in spite of David Greens statement. What do you think people will think of AWARE, upon receipt of our flyer? And, as I said, focus on the election in order to bash the Clintons is also of no value.  On Nov 29, 2017, at 18:29, C G Estabrook wrote: The concentration on Trump is the strategy of the (pro-)War Party (the Pentagon, the 'intelligence community,' the Clinton campaign, the neocons) to force the government to continue the wars and war provocations of the last administrations. They think either Trump can be forced to fall in line with the war policy (as he shown he’s willing to do) under the threat of ‘Russiagate’ - or be replaced (with Pence, a War Party creature).  The anti-war movement has to insist that Trump - the weakest president since Coolidge (“silent Cal,”|who followed the opposite performance strategy to Trump's bluster) - is not the problem, but that the continuing and largely unvaried Clinton-Bush-Obama war-making is. That's the policy that must be resisted.  The War Party (who of course support that policy) is using Trump as a distraction from that policy.  We should be opposing the Pentagon, the CIA, the Obama-Clintonists, the neocons, et al., who are promoting war provocations vs. Russia and China - not bothering much with the Potemkin president.  John Pilger saw it clearly before the election: "The CIA has demanded Trump is not elected. Pentagon generals have demanded he is not elected. The pro-war New York Times - taking a breather from its relentless low-rent Putin smears - demands that he is not elected. Something is up. These tribunes of 'perpetual war' are terrified that the multi-billion-dollar business of war by which the United States maintains its dominance will be undermined if Trump does a deal with Putin, then with China’s Xi Jinping. Their panic at the possibility of the world’s great power talking peace – however unlikely – would be the blackest farce were the issues not so dire.” —CGE   On Nov 29, 2017, at 5:31 PM, Karen Aram via Peace wrote: I’m sorry, Carl I don’t like it, the title alone makes AWARE look like “Trump defenders.” It’s one thing to say this in conversation when explaining our wars, to those who think the problem began with Trump, but as a title, it sucks. Most people in this town are Democrats and won’t bother to read it. I’m not pleased with some of that which is in the article either, because the focus  on the election is old news. Its time to move on. Trump is President and he is responsible for that which occurs on his watch.   Trump bombed Syria and that is an impeachable offense, granted every other President before him, committed war crimes that were also impeachable offenses, Bush and most especially Obama, but Trump has been in power for almost a year now. His provocations of war with Korea, and Iran are extremely dangerous.  On Nov 29, 2017, at 12:46, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: PRESIDENT TRUMP IS NOT THE PROBLEM:ILLEGAL U.S. WARS AROUND THE WORLD ARE The US government is today making war around the world - and it’s doing so without authorization from the U.S. Constitution or the U.N. Charter.  If American leaders were put on trial today as German leaders were, at Nuremberg after World War II, for “launching aggressive war,” they - like the German leaders - would be hanged.    The U.S. military is today killing people in seven Mideast and African countries - Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Somalia, and Pakistan (and on the other side of the world, in the Philippines). Thousands of U.S. troops are fighting in these countries, although most Americans don’t know that.  In addition, the 70,000-member U.S. ‘Special Operations Command’ is active in three-quarters of the countries of the world. Their activities include kidnapping (‘rendition’), torture, and murder. President Obama was elected as an anti-war candidate, but in office he sent thousands of additional U.S. troops into America’s longest war, in Afghanistan. President Trump, who promised caution and non-interventionism in foreign policy - and described Hillary Clinton as a “trigger happy warmonger” - has now done the same thing himself. What both men knew is that, in spite of intense media propaganda, most Americans don’t want U.S. troops engaged in foreign wars and don’t see the killing as justified; both candidates had to seem to oppose the wars, in order to get elected. But the ‘one percent’ - the U.S. economic elite - do want the wars. When World War II ended in 1945, the U.S. was the least-damaged major country on either side, and controlled the world economy. America’s wars since then - in Korea, Vietnam, Latin America, and the Mideast - have killed between 20 and 30 million people for the purpose of maintaining that control. Ordinary Americans have paid for these vicious wars, but they haven’t profited from them.  John Pilger wrote before the election, "The CIA has demanded Trump is not elected. Pentagon generals have demanded he is not elected. The pro-war New York Times - taking a breather from its relentless low-rent Putin smears - demands that he is not elected. Something is up. These tribunes of 'perpetual war' are terrified that the multi-billion-dollar business of war by which the United States maintains its dominance will be undermined if Trump does a deal with Putin, then with China’s Xi Jinping. Their panic at the possibility of the world’s great power talking peace – however unlikely – would be the blackest farce were the issues not so dire." We must demand that foreign military bases be closed, U.S. troops (and weapons) be brought home, and social support - including free medical care, education, and a universal basic income - be provided for Americans immiserated by generations of U.S. government wars. WRITE CONGRESS - DEMAND U.S. TROOPS & WEAPONS BE BROUGHT HOMEOur representatives in Congress from this area - and their email addresses - are as follows: Representative Rodney Davis: Senator Tammy Duckworth: Senator Dick Durbin: ~~~ ANTI-WAR ANTI-RACISM EFFORT - on Facebook at ~ U.S. troops & weapons out of the Mideast ~ Medicare for all ~ Universal basic income ~ _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.chambana.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fpeace-discuss&data=02%7C01%7Ckarenaram%40hotmail.com%7Cfc30480baf2b4882394b08d5376a458e%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636475851934473412&sdata=0JBYxrD5cfjQzfDHk4PpLhvWxWn5Ce3B%2FBGNvILHbQI%3D&reserved=0 _______________________________________________ Peace mailing list Peace at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davegreen84 at yahoo.com Thu Nov 30 14:39:33 2017 From: davegreen84 at yahoo.com (David Green) Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 14:39:33 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Flyer for AWARE demonstration, Saturday 12/2 In-Reply-To: References: <795D395D-B752-41A3-82ED-32B7DC7FEB1A@gmail.com> Message-ID: <979452964.4663360.1512052774015@mail.yahoo.com> In any event, this language contrasts sharply with a flyer from two years ago, which holds Obama responsible: President Obama is makingwar in eight countries; he is sending American‘special forces’ into more than 100 countries around the world; he hasassassinated thousands  by drone - themost extreme terrorist campaign of modern times; and he is provoking war withRussia and China. I'm not sure how we can justify the difference in tone and substance regarding the warmaking "motivations" of Obama and Trump. On Thursday, November 30, 2017, 7:06:53 AM CST, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: Carl No one knows better than I, no one has spoken more about the powers behind the throne than I. I’m the one, with AWARE, who has been making the argument that any President who comes to power, as either a Republican or Democrat is going to implement the foreign policy plan put into place by the Oligarchs behind the throne. One of which was Brzezinski, just to keep it simple.   As a Green socialist, who does not support the one Party system, Democrat/ Republican, once they get to DC. I have been highlighting the very fact, of the Pentagon, CIA, Council on Foreign Relations, Think Tanks, Corporations and Contractors as those pushing the US war agenda.  But, to imply that Trump anymore than Obama is an unwitting dope of those who make up the “Deep State” “Military Industrial Complex,” however we wish to refer to them, is a mistake, most especially in the title of a flyer. Whether architects or rubber stamps of our foreign policy, they are all complicit.  A FLYER is meant to impart information, but no one is going to read it, when it acts as an apology for Trump. He is as vile a creature as Clinton, in that he supported the rhetoric of lies and propaganda against Libya and Gaddafi. He is guilty of bombing Syria, and now provoking war with N Korea and Iran. Yes, he is attempting peace with Russia and China, he knows where a dollar is to be made. Though it matters not, when the plan is war with China, predicted by the Rand Think Tank and Pentagon in to be 2030. Our continued presence of Nato on the border of Russia is not going away. Roger has just proved my point. He has assessed us as Trump supporters, in spite of my statement, in spite of David Greens statement. What do you think people will think of AWARE, upon receipt of our flyer? And, as I said, focus on the election in order to bash the Clintons is also of no value.  On Nov 29, 2017, at 18:29, C G Estabrook wrote: The concentration on Trump is the strategy of the (pro-)War Party (the Pentagon, the 'intelligence community,' the Clinton campaign, the neocons) to force the government to continue the wars and war provocations of the last administrations. They think either Trump can be forced to fall in line with the war policy (as he shown he’s willing to do) under the threat of ‘Russiagate’ - or be replaced (with Pence, a War Party creature).  The anti-war movement has to insist that Trump - the weakest president since Coolidge (“silent Cal,”|who followed the opposite performance strategy to Trump's bluster) - is not the problem, but that the continuing and largely unvaried Clinton-Bush-Obama war-making is. That's the policy that must be resisted.  The War Party (who of course support that policy) is using Trump as a distraction from that policy.  We should be opposing the Pentagon, the CIA, the Obama-Clintonists, the neocons, et al., who are promoting war provocations vs. Russia and China - not bothering much with the Potemkin president.  John Pilger saw it clearly before the election: "The CIA has demanded Trump is not elected. Pentagon generals have demanded he is not elected. The pro-war New York Times - taking a breather from its relentless low-rent Putin smears - demands that he is not elected. Something is up. These tribunes of 'perpetual war' are terrified that the multi-billion-dollar business of war by which the United States maintains its dominance will be undermined if Trump does a deal with Putin, then with China’s Xi Jinping. Their panic at the possibility of the world’s great power talking peace – however unlikely – would be the blackest farce were the issues not so dire.” —CGE   On Nov 29, 2017, at 5:31 PM, Karen Aram via Peace wrote: I’m sorry, Carl I don’t like it, the title alone makes AWARE look like “Trump defenders.” It’s one thing to say this in conversation when explaining our wars, to those who think the problem began with Trump, but as a title, it sucks. Most people in this town are Democrats and won’t bother to read it. I’m not pleased with some of that which is in the article either, because the focus  on the election is old news. Its time to move on. Trump is President and he is responsible for that which occurs on his watch.   Trump bombed Syria and that is an impeachable offense, granted every other President before him, committed war crimes that were also impeachable offenses, Bush and most especially Obama, but Trump has been in power for almost a year now. His provocations of war with Korea, and Iran are extremely dangerous.  On Nov 29, 2017, at 12:46, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: PRESIDENT TRUMP IS NOT THE PROBLEM:ILLEGAL U.S. WARS AROUND THE WORLD ARE The US government is today making war around the world - and it’s doing so without authorization from the U.S. Constitution or the U.N. Charter.  If American leaders were put on trial today as German leaders were, at Nuremberg after World War II, for “launching aggressive war,” they - like the German leaders - would be hanged.    The U.S. military is today killing people in seven Mideast and African countries - Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Somalia, and Pakistan (and on the other side of the world, in the Philippines). Thousands of U.S. troops are fighting in these countries, although most Americans don’t know that.  In addition, the 70,000-member U.S. ‘Special Operations Command’ is active in three-quarters of the countries of the world. Their activities include kidnapping (‘rendition’), torture, and murder. President Obama was elected as an anti-war candidate, but in office he sent thousands of additional U.S. troops into America’s longest war, in Afghanistan. President Trump, who promised caution and non-interventionism in foreign policy - and described Hillary Clinton as a “trigger happy warmonger” - has now done the same thing himself. What both men knew is that, in spite of intense media propaganda, most Americans don’t want U.S. troops engaged in foreign wars and don’t see the killing as justified; both candidates had to seem to oppose the wars, in order to get elected. But the ‘one percent’ - the U.S. economic elite - do want the wars. When World War II ended in 1945, the U.S. was the least-damaged major country on either side, and controlled the world economy. America’s wars since then - in Korea, Vietnam, Latin America, and the Mideast - have killed between 20 and 30 million people for the purpose of maintaining that control. Ordinary Americans have paid for these vicious wars, but they haven’t profited from them.  John Pilger wrote before the election, "The CIA has demanded Trump is not elected. Pentagon generals have demanded he is not elected. The pro-war New York Times - taking a breather from its relentless low-rent Putin smears - demands that he is not elected. Something is up. These tribunes of 'perpetual war' are terrified that the multi-billion-dollar business of war by which the United States maintains its dominance will be undermined if Trump does a deal with Putin, then with China’s Xi Jinping. Their panic at the possibility of the world’s great power talking peace – however unlikely – would be the blackest farce were the issues not so dire." We must demand that foreign military bases be closed, U.S. troops (and weapons) be brought home, and social support - including free medical care, education, and a universal basic income - be provided for Americans immiserated by generations of U.S. government wars. WRITE CONGRESS - DEMAND U.S. TROOPS & WEAPONS BE BROUGHT HOMEOur representatives in Congress from this area - and their email addresses - are as follows: Representative Rodney Davis: Senator Tammy Duckworth: Senator Dick Durbin: ~~~ ANTI-WAR ANTI-RACISM EFFORT - on Facebook at ~ U.S. troops & weapons out of the Mideast ~ Medicare for all ~ Universal basic income ~ _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.chambana.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fpeace-discuss&data=02%7C01%7Ckarenaram%40hotmail.com%7Cfc30480baf2b4882394b08d5376a458e%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636475851934473412&sdata=0JBYxrD5cfjQzfDHk4PpLhvWxWn5Ce3B%2FBGNvILHbQI%3D&reserved=0 _______________________________________________ Peace mailing list Peace at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Thu Nov 30 15:01:16 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 15:01:16 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] French boots on the ground in Libya Message-ID: Now we know, why the “US” and allies in the west are so concerned with "slavery in Libya," something for which we are responsible. It should come as no shock that French President Macron is now calling for “boots on the ground, in Libya" for humanitarian purposes, of course. We always call for humanitarian assistance when invading foreign nations. See: The Real News Also see: the Real News in respect to Glen Ford in relation to Libya and the slave problem, connecting the US to Rwanda. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Thu Nov 30 15:03:20 2017 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 09:03:20 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Flyer for AWARE demonstration, Saturday 12/2 In-Reply-To: <979452964.4663360.1512052774015@mail.yahoo.com> References: <795D395D-B752-41A3-82ED-32B7DC7FEB1A@gmail.com> <979452964.4663360.1512052774015@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: That earlier flyer was meant to combat Obama’s squeaky-clean image, which he was good at fostering while he administered “the most extreme terrorist campaign of modern times." . And see the puff-piece on his 'toughness’: . But I don’t think anyone contends that US world-wide mass murder post-WWII is a matter of presidential caprice, even if they could have acted differently. Neither Obama nor Trump had to send tens of thousands more troops to Afghanistan (as they did) after running as critics of the war (as they did). Condemning and opposing US war-making doesn’t depend on affixing individual responsibility. (Was Truman responsible for Hiroshima? Yes. Alone? No.) —CGE > On Nov 30, 2017, at 8:39 AM, David Green via Peace wrote: > > In any event, this language contrasts sharply with a flyer from two years ago, which holds Obama responsible: > > President Obama is making war in eight countries; he is sending American ‘special forces’ into more than 100 countries around the world; he has assassinated thousands by drone - the most extreme terrorist campaign of modern times; and he is provoking war with Russia and China. > > I'm not sure how we can justify the difference in tone and substance regarding the warmaking "motivations" of Obama and Trump. > > On Thursday, November 30, 2017, 7:06:53 AM CST, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: > > > Carl > > No one knows better than I, no one has spoken more about the powers behind the throne than I. I’m the one, with AWARE, who has been making the argument that any President who comes to power, as either a Republican or Democrat is going to implement the foreign policy plan put into place by the Oligarchs behind the throne. One of which was Brzezinski, just to keep it simple. > > As a Green socialist, who does not support the one Party system, Democrat/ Republican, once they get to DC. I have been highlighting the very fact, of the Pentagon, CIA, Council on Foreign Relations, Think Tanks, Corporations and Contractors as those pushing the US war agenda. > > But, to imply that Trump anymore than Obama is an unwitting dope of those who make up the “Deep State” “Military Industrial Complex,” however we wish to refer to them, is a mistake, most especially in the title of a flyer. Whether architects or rubber stamps of our foreign policy, they are all complicit. > > A FLYER is meant to impart information, but no one is going to read it, when it acts as an apology for Trump. He is as vile a creature as Clinton, in that he supported the rhetoric of lies and propaganda against Libya and Gaddafi. He is guilty of bombing Syria, and now provoking war with N Korea and Iran. Yes, he is attempting peace with Russia and China, he knows where a dollar is to be made. Though it matters not, when the plan is war with China, predicted by the Rand Think Tank and Pentagon in to be 2030. Our continued presence of Nato on the border of Russia is not going away. > > Roger has just proved my point. He has assessed us as Trump supporters, in spite of my statement, in spite of David Greens statement. What do you think people will think of AWARE, upon receipt of our flyer? And, as I said, focus on the election in order to bash the Clintons is also of no value. > > >> On Nov 29, 2017, at 18:29, C G Estabrook wrote: >> >> The concentration on Trump is the strategy of the (pro-)War Party (the Pentagon, the 'intelligence community,' the Clinton campaign, the neocons) to force the government to continue the wars and war provocations of the last administrations. They think either Trump can be forced to fall in line with the war policy (as he shown he’s willing to do) under the threat of ‘Russiagate’ - or be replaced (with Pence, a War Party creature). >> >> The anti-war movement has to insist that Trump - the weakest president since Coolidge (“silent Cal,”|who followed the opposite performance strategy to Trump's bluster) - is not the problem, but that the continuing and largely unvaried Clinton-Bush-Obama war-making is. That's the policy that must be resisted. The War Party (who of course support that policy) is using Trump as a distraction from that policy. >> >> We should be opposing the Pentagon, the CIA, the Obama-Clintonists, the neocons, et al., who are promoting war provocations vs. Russia and China - not bothering much with the Potemkin president. >> >> John Pilger saw it clearly before the election: "The CIA has demanded Trump is not elected. Pentagon generals have demanded he is not elected. The pro-war New York Times - taking a breather from its relentless low-rent Putin smears - demands that he is not elected. Something is up. These tribunes of 'perpetual war' are terrified that the multi-billion-dollar business of war by which the United States maintains its dominance will be undermined if Trump does a deal with Putin, then with China’s Xi Jinping. Their panic at the possibility of the world’s great power talking peace – however unlikely – would be the blackest farce were the issues not so dire.” —CGE >> >> >>> On Nov 29, 2017, at 5:31 PM, Karen Aram via Peace wrote: >>> >>> I’m sorry, Carl >>> >>> I don’t like it, the title alone makes AWARE look like “Trump defenders.” It’s one thing to say this in conversation when explaining our wars, to those who think the problem began with Trump, but as a title, it sucks. Most people in this town are Democrats and won’t bother to read it. >>> >>> I’m not pleased with some of that which is in the article either, because the focus on the election is old news. Its time to move on. Trump is President and he is responsible for that which occurs on his watch. >>> >>> Trump bombed Syria and that is an impeachable offense, granted every other President before him, committed war crimes that were also impeachable offenses, Bush and most especially Obama, but Trump has been in power for almost a year now. His provocations of war with Korea, and Iran are extremely dangerous. >>> >>> >>>> On Nov 29, 2017, at 12:46, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: >>>> >>>> PRESIDENT TRUMP IS NOT THE PROBLEM: >>>> ILLEGAL U.S. WARS AROUND THE WORLD ARE >>>> >>>> The US government is today making war around the world - and it’s doing so without authorization from the U.S. Constitution or the U.N. Charter. >>>> >>>> If American leaders were put on trial today as German leaders were, at Nuremberg after World War II, for “launching aggressive war,” they - like the German leaders - would be hanged. >>>> >>>> The U.S. military is today killing people in seven Mideast and African countries - Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Somalia, and Pakistan (and on the other side of the world, in the Philippines). Thousands of U.S. troops are fighting in these countries, although most Americans don’t know that. In addition, the 70,000-member U.S. ‘Special Operations Command’ is active in three-quarters of the countries of the world. Their activities include kidnapping (‘rendition’), torture, and murder. >>>> >>>> President Obama was elected as an anti-war candidate, but in office he sent thousands of additional U.S. troops into America’s longest war, in Afghanistan. President Trump, who promised caution and non-interventionism in foreign policy - and described Hillary Clinton as a “trigger happy warmonger” - has now done the same thing himself. >>>> >>>> What both men knew is that, in spite of intense media propaganda, most Americans don’t want U.S. troops engaged in foreign wars and don’t see the killing as justified; both candidates had to seem to oppose the wars, in order to get elected. >>>> >>>> But the ‘one percent’ - the U.S. economic elite - do want the wars. >>>> >>>> When World War II ended in 1945, the U.S. was the least-damaged major country on either side, and controlled the world economy. America’s wars since then - in Korea, Vietnam, Latin America, and the Mideast - have killed between 20 and 30 million people for the purpose of maintaining that control. Ordinary Americans have paid for these vicious wars, but they haven’t profited from them. >>>> >>>> John Pilger wrote before the election, "The CIA has demanded Trump is not elected. Pentagon generals have demanded he is not elected. The pro-war New York Times - taking a breather from its relentless low-rent Putin smears - demands that he is not elected. Something is up. These tribunes of 'perpetual war' are terrified that the multi-billion-dollar business of war by which the United States maintains its dominance will be undermined if Trump does a deal with Putin, then with China’s Xi Jinping. Their panic at the possibility of the world’s great power talking peace – however unlikely – would be the blackest farce were the issues not so dire." >>>> >>>> We must demand that foreign military bases be closed, U.S. troops (and weapons) be brought home, and social support - including free medical care, education, and a universal basic income - be provided for Americans immiserated by generations of U.S. government wars. >>>> >>>> WRITE CONGRESS - DEMAND U.S. TROOPS & WEAPONS BE BROUGHT HOME >>>> Our representatives in Congress from this area - and their email addresses - are as follows: >>>> >>>> Representative Rodney Davis: >>>> Senator Tammy Duckworth: >>>> Senator Dick Durbin: >>>> >>>> ~~~ >>>> >>>> ANTI-WAR ANTI-RACISM EFFORT - on Facebook at >>>> ~ U.S. troops & weapons out of the Mideast ~ Medicare for all ~ Universal basic income ~ >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Peace-discuss mailing list >>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >>>> https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.chambana.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fpeace-discuss&data=02%7C01%7Ckarenaram%40hotmail.com%7Cfc30480baf2b4882394b08d5376a458e%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636475851934473412&sdata=0JBYxrD5cfjQzfDHk4PpLhvWxWn5Ce3B%2FBGNvILHbQI%3D&reserved=0 >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Peace mailing list >>> Peace at lists.chambana.net >>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace >> > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > _______________________________________________ > Peace mailing list > Peace at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace From fboyle at illinois.edu Thu Nov 30 15:03:49 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 15:03:49 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] NG: UILAWPROF Wexler Complicit in Israeli War Crimes, Crimes against Humanity & Genocide against Palestinians. Message-ID: "...particularly to the drone assassinations, "the most extreme terrorist campaign of modern times" - which have killed more than 5,000 people, including U.S. citizens and hundreds of children." Chomsky {now 10,000+ people} Today's News Gazette has a front page story where UILawProf Wexler is pontificating about sexual harassment. Really? Notice below. Wexler had the UILawSchool brag about the fact that she is an "Academic Fellow" of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. As most of us know, the so-called Foundation is a Gang of Die-hard NeoCon Zionist Warmongers, Bigots and Racists against Palestinians/Arabs/Persians/Asians/Muslims of Color. Right now the Foundation is warmongering to get us into a war against Iran on behalf of Israel. Notice Wexler brags about the fact that she spent ten days "exploring" how Israel inflicts war crimes, crimes against humanity and outright genocide against the Palestinians, including and especially Palestinian Women and Children. And Wexler calls this to be an "honor". Basically Wexler is complicit in Israel's war crimes, crimes against humanity and outright genocide against the Palestinians. Article III (e) of the 1948 Genocide Convention explicitly criminalizes "Complicity in genocide." And Wexler is typical of the die-hard bigots, racists and warmongers against Muslims/Arabs/Palestinians/Asians of Color on the College of Law Faculty who brought out Killer Koh here to give his specially endowed lecture on being a Role Model in Excellence for Lawyers in Government Service. Not one member of the UI Law Faculty Gang of Die-hard Bigots, Racists and Warmongers against Muslims/Arabs/Palestinians/Asians of Color supported us in our Protest against Killer Koh. Q.E.D. fab Hey! Hey! Wexler Say! How many women! Did you kill today! In Palestine! Hey! Hey! Wexler say! How many kids! Did you kill today! In Palestine! Hey! Hey! Wexler Say! How many Dads! Did you kill today! In Palestine! Professor Wexler Selected as Academic Fellow of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies Friday, March 09, 2012 Lesley Wexler, the Thomas M. Mengler Faculty Scholar, has been selected as an academic fellow of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. As part of the honor, Professor Wexler will be participating in a 10-day program in Israel with other leading U.S. academics exploring how the country combats terrorism. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Thu Nov 30 15:03:49 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 15:03:49 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] NG: UILAWPROF Wexler Complicit in Israeli War Crimes, Crimes against Humanity & Genocide against Palestinians. Message-ID: "...particularly to the drone assassinations, "the most extreme terrorist campaign of modern times" - which have killed more than 5,000 people, including U.S. citizens and hundreds of children." Chomsky {now 10,000+ people} Today's News Gazette has a front page story where UILawProf Wexler is pontificating about sexual harassment. Really? Notice below. Wexler had the UILawSchool brag about the fact that she is an "Academic Fellow" of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. As most of us know, the so-called Foundation is a Gang of Die-hard NeoCon Zionist Warmongers, Bigots and Racists against Palestinians/Arabs/Persians/Asians/Muslims of Color. Right now the Foundation is warmongering to get us into a war against Iran on behalf of Israel. Notice Wexler brags about the fact that she spent ten days "exploring" how Israel inflicts war crimes, crimes against humanity and outright genocide against the Palestinians, including and especially Palestinian Women and Children. And Wexler calls this to be an "honor". Basically Wexler is complicit in Israel's war crimes, crimes against humanity and outright genocide against the Palestinians. Article III (e) of the 1948 Genocide Convention explicitly criminalizes "Complicity in genocide." And Wexler is typical of the die-hard bigots, racists and warmongers against Muslims/Arabs/Palestinians/Asians of Color on the College of Law Faculty who brought out Killer Koh here to give his specially endowed lecture on being a Role Model in Excellence for Lawyers in Government Service. Not one member of the UI Law Faculty Gang of Die-hard Bigots, Racists and Warmongers against Muslims/Arabs/Palestinians/Asians of Color supported us in our Protest against Killer Koh. Q.E.D. fab Hey! Hey! Wexler Say! How many women! Did you kill today! In Palestine! Hey! Hey! Wexler say! How many kids! Did you kill today! In Palestine! Hey! Hey! Wexler Say! How many Dads! Did you kill today! In Palestine! Professor Wexler Selected as Academic Fellow of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies Friday, March 09, 2012 Lesley Wexler, the Thomas M. Mengler Faculty Scholar, has been selected as an academic fellow of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. As part of the honor, Professor Wexler will be participating in a 10-day program in Israel with other leading U.S. academics exploring how the country combats terrorism. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Thu Nov 30 15:09:45 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 15:09:45 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: NG: UILAWPROF Wexler Complicit in Israeli War Crimes, Crimes against Humanity & Genocide against Palestinians. Message-ID: Subject: NG: UILAWPROF Wexler Complicit in Israeli War Crimes, Crimes against Humanity & Genocide against Palestinians. "...particularly to the drone assassinations, "the most extreme terrorist campaign of modern times" - which have killed more than 5,000 people, including U.S. citizens and hundreds of children." Chomsky {now 10,000+ people} Today's News Gazette has a front page story where UILawProf Wexler is pontificating about sexual harassment. Really? Notice below. Wexler had the UILawSchool brag about the fact that she is an "Academic Fellow" of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. As most of us know, the so-called Foundation is a Gang of Die-hard NeoCon Zionist Warmongers, Bigots and Racists against Palestinians/Arabs/Persians/Asians/Muslims of Color. Right now the Foundation is warmongering to get us into a war against Iran on behalf of Israel. Notice Wexler brags about the fact that she spent ten days "exploring" how Israel inflicts war crimes, crimes against humanity and outright genocide against the Palestinians, including and especially Palestinian Women and Children. And Wexler calls this to be an "honor". Basically Wexler is complicit in Israel's war crimes, crimes against humanity and outright genocide against the Palestinians. Article III (e) of the 1948 Genocide Convention explicitly criminalizes "Complicity in genocide." And Wexler is typical of the die-hard bigots, racists and warmongers against Muslims/Arabs/Palestinians/Asians of Color on the College of Law Faculty who brought out Killer Koh here to give his specially endowed lecture on being a Role Model in Excellence for Lawyers in Government Service. Not one member of the UI Law Faculty Gang of Die-hard Bigots, Racists and Warmongers against Muslims/Arabs/Palestinians/Asians of Color supported us in our Protest against Killer Koh. Q.E.D. fab Hey! Hey! Wexler Say! How many women! Did you kill today! In Palestine! Hey! Hey! Wexler say! How many kids! Did you kill today! In Palestine! Hey! Hey! Wexler Say! How many Dads! Did you kill today! In Palestine! Professor Wexler Selected as Academic Fellow of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies Friday, March 09, 2012 Lesley Wexler, the Thomas M. Mengler Faculty Scholar, has been selected as an academic fellow of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. As part of the honor, Professor Wexler will be participating in a 10-day program in Israel with other leading U.S. academics exploring how the country combats terrorism. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Thu Nov 30 15:15:03 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 15:15:03 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Flyer for AWARE demonstration, Saturday 12/2 In-Reply-To: References: <795D395D-B752-41A3-82ED-32B7DC7FEB1A@gmail.com> <979452964.4663360.1512052774015@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: We should be informing people, when it comes to flyers, of what the USG is doing. Most Americans aren’t aware that we are in eight wars, with potential for two more. Oh yes, they all know how awful the N. Korean leader is, they all fear Iran having nuclear weapons, but do they know there is a solution to the N. Korean problem, one for which we the US could implement, but refuses to do so. Do the American people know that we are in the process of savaging Africa, again? Do they know the US is the greatest purveyor of violence in the world? Carl, these are all things you have talked about, and placed in flyers before. Focusing on individuals to blame, is a tactic that alienates and divides a people. If you were writing an article to be published, or on FB thats one thing, but a flyer representing an organization, should merely paraphrase what the USG is doing in respect to war. > On Nov 30, 2017, at 07:03, C G Estabrook wrote: > > That earlier flyer was meant to combat Obama’s squeaky-clean image, which he was good at fostering while he administered “the most extreme terrorist campaign of modern times." > > . > > And see the puff-piece on his 'toughness’: . > > But I don’t think anyone contends that US world-wide mass murder post-WWII is a matter of presidential caprice, even if they could have acted differently. > > Neither Obama nor Trump had to send tens of thousands more troops to Afghanistan (as they did) after running as critics of the war (as they did). > > Condemning and opposing US war-making doesn’t depend on affixing individual responsibility. (Was Truman responsible for Hiroshima? Yes. Alone? No.) > > —CGE > > >> On Nov 30, 2017, at 8:39 AM, David Green via Peace wrote: >> >> In any event, this language contrasts sharply with a flyer from two years ago, which holds Obama responsible: >> >> President Obama is making war in eight countries; he is sending American ‘special forces’ into more than 100 countries around the world; he has assassinated thousands by drone - the most extreme terrorist campaign of modern times; and he is provoking war with Russia and China. >> >> I'm not sure how we can justify the difference in tone and substance regarding the warmaking "motivations" of Obama and Trump. >> >> On Thursday, November 30, 2017, 7:06:53 AM CST, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: >> >> >> Carl >> >> No one knows better than I, no one has spoken more about the powers behind the throne than I. I’m the one, with AWARE, who has been making the argument that any President who comes to power, as either a Republican or Democrat is going to implement the foreign policy plan put into place by the Oligarchs behind the throne. One of which was Brzezinski, just to keep it simple. >> >> As a Green socialist, who does not support the one Party system, Democrat/ Republican, once they get to DC. I have been highlighting the very fact, of the Pentagon, CIA, Council on Foreign Relations, Think Tanks, Corporations and Contractors as those pushing the US war agenda. >> >> But, to imply that Trump anymore than Obama is an unwitting dope of those who make up the “Deep State” “Military Industrial Complex,” however we wish to refer to them, is a mistake, most especially in the title of a flyer. Whether architects or rubber stamps of our foreign policy, they are all complicit. >> >> A FLYER is meant to impart information, but no one is going to read it, when it acts as an apology for Trump. He is as vile a creature as Clinton, in that he supported the rhetoric of lies and propaganda against Libya and Gaddafi. He is guilty of bombing Syria, and now provoking war with N Korea and Iran. Yes, he is attempting peace with Russia and China, he knows where a dollar is to be made. Though it matters not, when the plan is war with China, predicted by the Rand Think Tank and Pentagon in to be 2030. Our continued presence of Nato on the border of Russia is not going away. >> >> Roger has just proved my point. He has assessed us as Trump supporters, in spite of my statement, in spite of David Greens statement. What do you think people will think of AWARE, upon receipt of our flyer? And, as I said, focus on the election in order to bash the Clintons is also of no value. >> >> >>> On Nov 29, 2017, at 18:29, C G Estabrook wrote: >>> >>> The concentration on Trump is the strategy of the (pro-)War Party (the Pentagon, the 'intelligence community,' the Clinton campaign, the neocons) to force the government to continue the wars and war provocations of the last administrations. They think either Trump can be forced to fall in line with the war policy (as he shown he’s willing to do) under the threat of ‘Russiagate’ - or be replaced (with Pence, a War Party creature). >>> >>> The anti-war movement has to insist that Trump - the weakest president since Coolidge (“silent Cal,”|who followed the opposite performance strategy to Trump's bluster) - is not the problem, but that the continuing and largely unvaried Clinton-Bush-Obama war-making is. That's the policy that must be resisted. The War Party (who of course support that policy) is using Trump as a distraction from that policy. >>> >>> We should be opposing the Pentagon, the CIA, the Obama-Clintonists, the neocons, et al., who are promoting war provocations vs. Russia and China - not bothering much with the Potemkin president. >>> >>> John Pilger saw it clearly before the election: "The CIA has demanded Trump is not elected. Pentagon generals have demanded he is not elected. The pro-war New York Times - taking a breather from its relentless low-rent Putin smears - demands that he is not elected. Something is up. These tribunes of 'perpetual war' are terrified that the multi-billion-dollar business of war by which the United States maintains its dominance will be undermined if Trump does a deal with Putin, then with China’s Xi Jinping. Their panic at the possibility of the world’s great power talking peace – however unlikely – would be the blackest farce were the issues not so dire.” —CGE >>> >>> >>>> On Nov 29, 2017, at 5:31 PM, Karen Aram via Peace wrote: >>>> >>>> I’m sorry, Carl >>>> >>>> I don’t like it, the title alone makes AWARE look like “Trump defenders.” It’s one thing to say this in conversation when explaining our wars, to those who think the problem began with Trump, but as a title, it sucks. Most people in this town are Democrats and won’t bother to read it. >>>> >>>> I’m not pleased with some of that which is in the article either, because the focus on the election is old news. Its time to move on. Trump is President and he is responsible for that which occurs on his watch. >>>> >>>> Trump bombed Syria and that is an impeachable offense, granted every other President before him, committed war crimes that were also impeachable offenses, Bush and most especially Obama, but Trump has been in power for almost a year now. His provocations of war with Korea, and Iran are extremely dangerous. >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Nov 29, 2017, at 12:46, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: >>>>> >>>>> PRESIDENT TRUMP IS NOT THE PROBLEM: >>>>> ILLEGAL U.S. WARS AROUND THE WORLD ARE >>>>> >>>>> The US government is today making war around the world - and it’s doing so without authorization from the U.S. Constitution or the U.N. Charter. >>>>> >>>>> If American leaders were put on trial today as German leaders were, at Nuremberg after World War II, for “launching aggressive war,” they - like the German leaders - would be hanged. >>>>> >>>>> The U.S. military is today killing people in seven Mideast and African countries - Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Somalia, and Pakistan (and on the other side of the world, in the Philippines). Thousands of U.S. troops are fighting in these countries, although most Americans don’t know that. In addition, the 70,000-member U.S. ‘Special Operations Command’ is active in three-quarters of the countries of the world. Their activities include kidnapping (‘rendition’), torture, and murder. >>>>> >>>>> President Obama was elected as an anti-war candidate, but in office he sent thousands of additional U.S. troops into America’s longest war, in Afghanistan. President Trump, who promised caution and non-interventionism in foreign policy - and described Hillary Clinton as a “trigger happy warmonger” - has now done the same thing himself. >>>>> >>>>> What both men knew is that, in spite of intense media propaganda, most Americans don’t want U.S. troops engaged in foreign wars and don’t see the killing as justified; both candidates had to seem to oppose the wars, in order to get elected. >>>>> >>>>> But the ‘one percent’ - the U.S. economic elite - do want the wars. >>>>> >>>>> When World War II ended in 1945, the U.S. was the least-damaged major country on either side, and controlled the world economy. America’s wars since then - in Korea, Vietnam, Latin America, and the Mideast - have killed between 20 and 30 million people for the purpose of maintaining that control. Ordinary Americans have paid for these vicious wars, but they haven’t profited from them. >>>>> >>>>> John Pilger wrote before the election, "The CIA has demanded Trump is not elected. Pentagon generals have demanded he is not elected. The pro-war New York Times - taking a breather from its relentless low-rent Putin smears - demands that he is not elected. Something is up. These tribunes of 'perpetual war' are terrified that the multi-billion-dollar business of war by which the United States maintains its dominance will be undermined if Trump does a deal with Putin, then with China’s Xi Jinping. Their panic at the possibility of the world’s great power talking peace – however unlikely – would be the blackest farce were the issues not so dire." >>>>> >>>>> We must demand that foreign military bases be closed, U.S. troops (and weapons) be brought home, and social support - including free medical care, education, and a universal basic income - be provided for Americans immiserated by generations of U.S. government wars. >>>>> >>>>> WRITE CONGRESS - DEMAND U.S. TROOPS & WEAPONS BE BROUGHT HOME >>>>> Our representatives in Congress from this area - and their email addresses - are as follows: >>>>> >>>>> Representative Rodney Davis: >>>>> Senator Tammy Duckworth: >>>>> Senator Dick Durbin: >>>>> >>>>> ~~~ >>>>> >>>>> ANTI-WAR ANTI-RACISM EFFORT - on Facebook at >>>>> ~ U.S. troops & weapons out of the Mideast ~ Medicare for all ~ Universal basic income ~ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Peace-discuss mailing list >>>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >>>>> https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.chambana.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fpeace-discuss&data=02%7C01%7Ckarenaram%40hotmail.com%7Cfc30480baf2b4882394b08d5376a458e%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636475851934473412&sdata=0JBYxrD5cfjQzfDHk4PpLhvWxWn5Ce3B%2FBGNvILHbQI%3D&reserved=0 >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Peace mailing list >>>> Peace at lists.chambana.net >>>> https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.chambana.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fpeace&data=02%7C01%7Ckarenaram%40hotmail.com%7Cf666ae76fb7a4230b3e308d5380383c8%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636476510093637620&sdata=K2skpZ7DB7gaAC0qrBHMVVdN3aiMOsP2EfrwZkHSw3k%3D&reserved=0 >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Peace-discuss mailing list >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >> https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.chambana.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fpeace-discuss&data=02%7C01%7Ckarenaram%40hotmail.com%7Cf666ae76fb7a4230b3e308d5380383c8%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636476510093637620&sdata=xazvoaiiZfeKwnoLWr0%2BQ7zDKzK11UmSbVoB97gFtjE%3D&reserved=0 >> _______________________________________________ >> Peace mailing list >> Peace at lists.chambana.net >> https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.chambana.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fpeace&data=02%7C01%7Ckarenaram%40hotmail.com%7Cf666ae76fb7a4230b3e308d5380383c8%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636476510093637620&sdata=K2skpZ7DB7gaAC0qrBHMVVdN3aiMOsP2EfrwZkHSw3k%3D&reserved=0 > From cgestabrook at gmail.com Thu Nov 30 15:42:50 2017 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 09:42:50 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Flyer for AWARE demonstration, Saturday 12/2 In-Reply-To: References: <795D395D-B752-41A3-82ED-32B7DC7FEB1A@gmail.com> <979452964.4663360.1512052774015@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <7AF7A515-7D8F-4C6E-A8A6-85E851F33882@gmail.com> I agree that we should focus on "what the USG is doing in respect to war.” That’s why ‘Impeach Trump’ is a distraction - a purposeful distraction, by the those calling for continuity in US fp and war-making. > On Nov 30, 2017, at 9:15 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: > > We should be informing people, when it comes to flyers, of what the USG is doing. > Most Americans aren’t aware that we are in eight wars, with potential for two more. > Oh yes, they all know how awful the N. Korean leader is, they all fear Iran having nuclear weapons, but do they know there is a solution to the N. Korean problem, one for which we the US could implement, but refuses to do so. > > Do the American people know that we are in the process of savaging Africa, again? > Do they know the US is the greatest purveyor of violence in the world? > > Carl, these are all things you have talked about, and placed in flyers before. > > Focusing on individuals to blame, is a tactic that alienates and divides a people. If you were writing an article to be published, or on FB thats one thing, but a flyer representing an organization, should merely paraphrase what the USG is doing in respect to war. > >> On Nov 30, 2017, at 07:03, C G Estabrook wrote: >> >> That earlier flyer was meant to combat Obama’s squeaky-clean image, which he was good at fostering while he administered “the most extreme terrorist campaign of modern times." >> >> . >> >> And see the puff-piece on his 'toughness’: . >> >> But I don’t think anyone contends that US world-wide mass murder post-WWII is a matter of presidential caprice, even if they could have acted differently. >> >> Neither Obama nor Trump had to send tens of thousands more troops to Afghanistan (as they did) after running as critics of the war (as they did). >> >> Condemning and opposing US war-making doesn’t depend on affixing individual responsibility. (Was Truman responsible for Hiroshima? Yes. Alone? No.) >> >> —CGE >> >> >>> On Nov 30, 2017, at 8:39 AM, David Green via Peace wrote: >>> >>> In any event, this language contrasts sharply with a flyer from two years ago, which holds Obama responsible: >>> >>> President Obama is making war in eight countries; he is sending American ‘special forces’ into more than 100 countries around the world; he has assassinated thousands by drone - the most extreme terrorist campaign of modern times; and he is provoking war with Russia and China. >>> >>> I'm not sure how we can justify the difference in tone and substance regarding the warmaking "motivations" of Obama and Trump. >>> >>> On Thursday, November 30, 2017, 7:06:53 AM CST, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: >>> >>> >>> Carl >>> >>> No one knows better than I, no one has spoken more about the powers behind the throne than I. I’m the one, with AWARE, who has been making the argument that any President who comes to power, as either a Republican or Democrat is going to implement the foreign policy plan put into place by the Oligarchs behind the throne. One of which was Brzezinski, just to keep it simple. >>> >>> As a Green socialist, who does not support the one Party system, Democrat/ Republican, once they get to DC. I have been highlighting the very fact, of the Pentagon, CIA, Council on Foreign Relations, Think Tanks, Corporations and Contractors as those pushing the US war agenda. >>> >>> But, to imply that Trump anymore than Obama is an unwitting dope of those who make up the “Deep State” “Military Industrial Complex,” however we wish to refer to them, is a mistake, most especially in the title of a flyer. Whether architects or rubber stamps of our foreign policy, they are all complicit. >>> >>> A FLYER is meant to impart information, but no one is going to read it, when it acts as an apology for Trump. He is as vile a creature as Clinton, in that he supported the rhetoric of lies and propaganda against Libya and Gaddafi. He is guilty of bombing Syria, and now provoking war with N Korea and Iran. Yes, he is attempting peace with Russia and China, he knows where a dollar is to be made. Though it matters not, when the plan is war with China, predicted by the Rand Think Tank and Pentagon in to be 2030. Our continued presence of Nato on the border of Russia is not going away. >>> >>> Roger has just proved my point. He has assessed us as Trump supporters, in spite of my statement, in spite of David Greens statement. What do you think people will think of AWARE, upon receipt of our flyer? And, as I said, focus on the election in order to bash the Clintons is also of no value. >>> >>> >>>> On Nov 29, 2017, at 18:29, C G Estabrook wrote: >>>> >>>> The concentration on Trump is the strategy of the (pro-)War Party (the Pentagon, the 'intelligence community,' the Clinton campaign, the neocons) to force the government to continue the wars and war provocations of the last administrations. They think either Trump can be forced to fall in line with the war policy (as he shown he’s willing to do) under the threat of ‘Russiagate’ - or be replaced (with Pence, a War Party creature). >>>> >>>> The anti-war movement has to insist that Trump - the weakest president since Coolidge (“silent Cal,”|who followed the opposite performance strategy to Trump's bluster) - is not the problem, but that the continuing and largely unvaried Clinton-Bush-Obama war-making is. That's the policy that must be resisted. The War Party (who of course support that policy) is using Trump as a distraction from that policy. >>>> >>>> We should be opposing the Pentagon, the CIA, the Obama-Clintonists, the neocons, et al., who are promoting war provocations vs. Russia and China - not bothering much with the Potemkin president. >>>> >>>> John Pilger saw it clearly before the election: "The CIA has demanded Trump is not elected. Pentagon generals have demanded he is not elected. The pro-war New York Times - taking a breather from its relentless low-rent Putin smears - demands that he is not elected. Something is up. These tribunes of 'perpetual war' are terrified that the multi-billion-dollar business of war by which the United States maintains its dominance will be undermined if Trump does a deal with Putin, then with China’s Xi Jinping. Their panic at the possibility of the world’s great power talking peace – however unlikely – would be the blackest farce were the issues not so dire.” —CGE >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Nov 29, 2017, at 5:31 PM, Karen Aram via Peace wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I’m sorry, Carl >>>>> >>>>> I don’t like it, the title alone makes AWARE look like “Trump defenders.” It’s one thing to say this in conversation when explaining our wars, to those who think the problem began with Trump, but as a title, it sucks. Most people in this town are Democrats and won’t bother to read it. >>>>> >>>>> I’m not pleased with some of that which is in the article either, because the focus on the election is old news. Its time to move on. Trump is President and he is responsible for that which occurs on his watch. >>>>> >>>>> Trump bombed Syria and that is an impeachable offense, granted every other President before him, committed war crimes that were also impeachable offenses, Bush and most especially Obama, but Trump has been in power for almost a year now. His provocations of war with Korea, and Iran are extremely dangerous. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On Nov 29, 2017, at 12:46, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> PRESIDENT TRUMP IS NOT THE PROBLEM: >>>>>> ILLEGAL U.S. WARS AROUND THE WORLD ARE >>>>>> >>>>>> The US government is today making war around the world - and it’s doing so without authorization from the U.S. Constitution or the U.N. Charter. >>>>>> >>>>>> If American leaders were put on trial today as German leaders were, at Nuremberg after World War II, for “launching aggressive war,” they - like the German leaders - would be hanged. >>>>>> >>>>>> The U.S. military is today killing people in seven Mideast and African countries - Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Somalia, and Pakistan (and on the other side of the world, in the Philippines). Thousands of U.S. troops are fighting in these countries, although most Americans don’t know that. In addition, the 70,000-member U.S. ‘Special Operations Command’ is active in three-quarters of the countries of the world. Their activities include kidnapping (‘rendition’), torture, and murder. >>>>>> >>>>>> President Obama was elected as an anti-war candidate, but in office he sent thousands of additional U.S. troops into America’s longest war, in Afghanistan. President Trump, who promised caution and non-interventionism in foreign policy - and described Hillary Clinton as a “trigger happy warmonger” - has now done the same thing himself. >>>>>> >>>>>> What both men knew is that, in spite of intense media propaganda, most Americans don’t want U.S. troops engaged in foreign wars and don’t see the killing as justified; both candidates had to seem to oppose the wars, in order to get elected. >>>>>> >>>>>> But the ‘one percent’ - the U.S. economic elite - do want the wars. >>>>>> >>>>>> When World War II ended in 1945, the U.S. was the least-damaged major country on either side, and controlled the world economy. America’s wars since then - in Korea, Vietnam, Latin America, and the Mideast - have killed between 20 and 30 million people for the purpose of maintaining that control. Ordinary Americans have paid for these vicious wars, but they haven’t profited from them. >>>>>> >>>>>> John Pilger wrote before the election, "The CIA has demanded Trump is not elected. Pentagon generals have demanded he is not elected. The pro-war New York Times - taking a breather from its relentless low-rent Putin smears - demands that he is not elected. Something is up. These tribunes of 'perpetual war' are terrified that the multi-billion-dollar business of war by which the United States maintains its dominance will be undermined if Trump does a deal with Putin, then with China’s Xi Jinping. Their panic at the possibility of the world’s great power talking peace – however unlikely – would be the blackest farce were the issues not so dire." >>>>>> >>>>>> We must demand that foreign military bases be closed, U.S. troops (and weapons) be brought home, and social support - including free medical care, education, and a universal basic income - be provided for Americans immiserated by generations of U.S. government wars. >>>>>> >>>>>> WRITE CONGRESS - DEMAND U.S. TROOPS & WEAPONS BE BROUGHT HOME >>>>>> Our representatives in Congress from this area - and their email addresses - are as follows: >>>>>> >>>>>> Representative Rodney Davis: >>>>>> Senator Tammy Duckworth: >>>>>> Senator Dick Durbin: >>>>>> >>>>>> ~~~ >>>>>> >>>>>> ANTI-WAR ANTI-RACISM EFFORT - on Facebook at >>>>>> ~ U.S. troops & weapons out of the Mideast ~ Medicare for all ~ Universal basic income ~ >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Peace-discuss mailing list >>>>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >>>>>> https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.chambana.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fpeace-discuss&data=02%7C01%7Ckarenaram%40hotmail.com%7Cfc30480baf2b4882394b08d5376a458e%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636475851934473412&sdata=0JBYxrD5cfjQzfDHk4PpLhvWxWn5Ce3B%2FBGNvILHbQI%3D&reserved=0 >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Peace mailing list >>>>> Peace at lists.chambana.net >>>>> https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.chambana.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fpeace&data=02%7C01%7Ckarenaram%40hotmail.com%7Cf666ae76fb7a4230b3e308d5380383c8%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636476510093637620&sdata=K2skpZ7DB7gaAC0qrBHMVVdN3aiMOsP2EfrwZkHSw3k%3D&reserved=0 >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Peace-discuss mailing list >>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >>> https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.chambana.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fpeace-discuss&data=02%7C01%7Ckarenaram%40hotmail.com%7Cf666ae76fb7a4230b3e308d5380383c8%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636476510093637620&sdata=xazvoaiiZfeKwnoLWr0%2BQ7zDKzK11UmSbVoB97gFtjE%3D&reserved=0 >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Peace mailing list >>> Peace at lists.chambana.net >>> https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.chambana.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fpeace&data=02%7C01%7Ckarenaram%40hotmail.com%7Cf666ae76fb7a4230b3e308d5380383c8%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636476510093637620&sdata=K2skpZ7DB7gaAC0qrBHMVVdN3aiMOsP2EfrwZkHSw3k%3D&reserved=0 >> > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss From kmedina67 at gmail.com Thu Nov 30 15:48:50 2017 From: kmedina67 at gmail.com (Karen Medina) Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 09:48:50 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Flyer for AWARE demonstration, Saturday 12/2 In-Reply-To: <7AF7A515-7D8F-4C6E-A8A6-85E851F33882@gmail.com> References: <795D395D-B752-41A3-82ED-32B7DC7FEB1A@gmail.com> <979452964.4663360.1512052774015@mail.yahoo.com> <7AF7A515-7D8F-4C6E-A8A6-85E851F33882@gmail.com> Message-ID: I think Karen Aram has just written our flyer: Most Americans aren’t aware that we are in eight wars, with potential for two more. Oh yes, they all know how awful the N. Korean leader is, they all fear Iran having nuclear weapons, but do they know there is a solution to the N. Korean problem, one for which we the US could implement, but refuses to do so. Do the American people know that we are in the process of savaging Africa, again? Do they know the US is the greatest purveyor of violence in the world? Do they know that any President who comes to power, as either a Republican or Democrat, is going to implement the foreign policy plan put into place by the Oligarchs behind the throne. Whether architects or rubber stamps of our foreign policy, each president and Congress is complicit. Our continued presence of NATO on the border of Russia is not going away. From kmedina67 at gmail.com Thu Nov 30 15:55:20 2017 From: kmedina67 at gmail.com (Karen Medina) Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 09:55:20 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Flyer for AWARE demonstration, Saturday 12/2 In-Reply-To: <7AF7A515-7D8F-4C6E-A8A6-85E851F33882@gmail.com> References: <795D395D-B752-41A3-82ED-32B7DC7FEB1A@gmail.com> <979452964.4663360.1512052774015@mail.yahoo.com> <7AF7A515-7D8F-4C6E-A8A6-85E851F33882@gmail.com> Message-ID: Poor Carl, the idea of countering real, fake, or imagined impeachment efforts has driven him to distraction. From kmedina67 at gmail.com Thu Nov 30 15:57:45 2017 From: kmedina67 at gmail.com (Karen Medina) Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 09:57:45 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Flyer for AWARE demonstration, Saturday 12/2 In-Reply-To: References: <795D395D-B752-41A3-82ED-32B7DC7FEB1A@gmail.com> <979452964.4663360.1512052774015@mail.yahoo.com> <7AF7A515-7D8F-4C6E-A8A6-85E851F33882@gmail.com> Message-ID: As you all well know, this discussion is for the peace-discuss list, not the peace list. Enjoy the discuss list to its fullest. From cgestabrook at gmail.com Thu Nov 30 16:07:12 2017 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 10:07:12 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Flyer for AWARE demonstration, Saturday 12/2 In-Reply-To: References: <795D395D-B752-41A3-82ED-32B7DC7FEB1A@gmail.com> <979452964.4663360.1512052774015@mail.yahoo.com> <7AF7A515-7D8F-4C6E-A8A6-85E851F33882@gmail.com> Message-ID: <172CD3A2-705F-48FC-A472-8689D525A13D@gmail.com> Karen, impeachment is being promoted as a distraction by the War Party, who want to turn aside any suggestion of altering the Obama-Clinton war policy. We shouldn’t take the bait. We should promote ending the wars and withdrawing US troops and weapons. > On Nov 30, 2017, at 9:55 AM, Karen Medina via Peace-discuss wrote: > > Poor Carl, the idea of countering real, fake, or imagined impeachment > efforts has driven him to distraction. > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss From kmedina67 at gmail.com Thu Nov 30 16:10:47 2017 From: kmedina67 at gmail.com (Karen Medina) Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 10:10:47 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Flyer for AWARE demonstration, Saturday 12/2 In-Reply-To: <172CD3A2-705F-48FC-A472-8689D525A13D@gmail.com> References: <795D395D-B752-41A3-82ED-32B7DC7FEB1A@gmail.com> <979452964.4663360.1512052774015@mail.yahoo.com> <7AF7A515-7D8F-4C6E-A8A6-85E851F33882@gmail.com> <172CD3A2-705F-48FC-A472-8689D525A13D@gmail.com> Message-ID: We should *focus on* ending the wars and withdrawing US troops and weapons. -karen medina > We should promote ending the wars and withdrawing US troops and weapons. - Carl Estabrook From galliher at illinois.edu Thu Nov 30 16:32:57 2017 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 10:32:57 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Flyer for AWARE demonstration, Saturday 12/2 In-Reply-To: References: <795D395D-B752-41A3-82ED-32B7DC7FEB1A@gmail.com> <979452964.4663360.1512052774015@mail.yahoo.com> <7AF7A515-7D8F-4C6E-A8A6-85E851F33882@gmail.com> <172CD3A2-705F-48FC-A472-8689D525A13D@gmail.com> Message-ID: And I think we agree that the best way to do that is to discuss what the USG is doing, from which that government wants desperately to distract the only enemy it really fears, the US populace. “...here we have the ultimate in the destruction of democracy, the ideal that everybody's been dreaming of. Not only is the rabble [irony alert] excluded, they don't influence policy, but they don't know what’s in policy, and finally they don’t know that they don’t know…” [Chomsky]. Our task is to tell the truth and shame the devil. > On Nov 30, 2017, at 10:10 AM, Karen Medina via Peace-discuss wrote: > > We should *focus on* ending the wars and withdrawing US troops and weapons. > -karen medina > >> We should promote ending the wars and withdrawing US troops and weapons. - Carl Estabrook > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss From fboyle at illinois.edu Thu Nov 30 16:33:57 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 16:33:57 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] NG: UILAWPROF Wexler Complicit in Israeli War Crimes, Crimes against Humanity & Genocide against Palestinians. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: "...particularly to the drone assassinations, "the most extreme terrorist campaign of modern times" - which have killed more than 5,000 people, including U.S. citizens and hundreds of children." Chomsky {now 10,000+ people} And notice of course that the die-hard bigots, racists and warmongers against Muslims/Arabs/Palestinians/Persians/Asians of Color at the College of Law bragged about and touted Wexler's complicity with Israel's war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide against the Palestinians. QED. fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2017 9:04 AM To: 'David Green' ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; 'sherwoodross10 at gmail.com' ; 'peace-discuss at anti-war.net' ; 'C. G. ESTABROOK' ; 'a-fields at uiuc.edu' ; 'Joe Lauria' ; 'Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net' ; 'peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net' ; Szoke, Ron ; 'Arlene Hickory' ; 'Karen Aram' ; 'abass10 at gmail.com' ; 'mickalideh at gmail.com' ; 'Lina Thorne' ; 'chicago at worldcantwait.net' ; 'Jay' ; 'David Johnson' ; 'Mildred O'brien' ; 'C G Estabrook' Subject: NG: UILAWPROF Wexler Complicit in Israeli War Crimes, Crimes against Humanity & Genocide against Palestinians. "...particularly to the drone assassinations, "the most extreme terrorist campaign of modern times" - which have killed more than 5,000 people, including U.S. citizens and hundreds of children." Chomsky {now 10,000+ people} Today's News Gazette has a front page story where UILawProf Wexler is pontificating about sexual harassment. Really? Notice below. Wexler had the UILawSchool brag about the fact that she is an "Academic Fellow" of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. As most of us know, the so-called Foundation is a Gang of Die-hard NeoCon Zionist Warmongers, Bigots and Racists against Palestinians/Arabs/Persians/Asians/Muslims of Color. Right now the Foundation is warmongering to get us into a war against Iran on behalf of Israel. Notice Wexler brags about the fact that she spent ten days "exploring" how Israel inflicts war crimes, crimes against humanity and outright genocide against the Palestinians, including and especially Palestinian Women and Children. And Wexler calls this to be an "honor". Basically Wexler is complicit in Israel's war crimes, crimes against humanity and outright genocide against the Palestinians. Article III (e) of the 1948 Genocide Convention explicitly criminalizes "Complicity in genocide." And Wexler is typical of the die-hard bigots, racists and warmongers against Muslims/Arabs/Palestinians/Asians of Color on the College of Law Faculty who brought out Killer Koh here to give his specially endowed lecture on being a Role Model in Excellence for Lawyers in Government Service. Not one member of the UI Law Faculty Gang of Die-hard Bigots, Racists and Warmongers against Muslims/Arabs/Palestinians/Asians of Color supported us in our Protest against Killer Koh. Q.E.D. fab Hey! Hey! Wexler Say! How many women! Did you kill today! In Palestine! Hey! Hey! Wexler say! How many kids! Did you kill today! In Palestine! Hey! Hey! Wexler Say! How many Dads! Did you kill today! In Palestine! Professor Wexler Selected as Academic Fellow of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies Friday, March 09, 2012 Lesley Wexler, the Thomas M. Mengler Faculty Scholar, has been selected as an academic fellow of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. As part of the honor, Professor Wexler will be participating in a 10-day program in Israel with other leading U.S. academics exploring how the country combats terrorism. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Thu Nov 30 16:33:57 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 16:33:57 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] NG: UILAWPROF Wexler Complicit in Israeli War Crimes, Crimes against Humanity & Genocide against Palestinians. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: "...particularly to the drone assassinations, "the most extreme terrorist campaign of modern times" - which have killed more than 5,000 people, including U.S. citizens and hundreds of children." Chomsky {now 10,000+ people} And notice of course that the die-hard bigots, racists and warmongers against Muslims/Arabs/Palestinians/Persians/Asians of Color at the College of Law bragged about and touted Wexler's complicity with Israel's war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide against the Palestinians. QED. fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2017 9:04 AM To: 'David Green' ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; 'sherwoodross10 at gmail.com' ; 'peace-discuss at anti-war.net' ; 'C. G. ESTABROOK' ; 'a-fields at uiuc.edu' ; 'Joe Lauria' ; 'Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net' ; 'peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net' ; Szoke, Ron ; 'Arlene Hickory' ; 'Karen Aram' ; 'abass10 at gmail.com' ; 'mickalideh at gmail.com' ; 'Lina Thorne' ; 'chicago at worldcantwait.net' ; 'Jay' ; 'David Johnson' ; 'Mildred O'brien' ; 'C G Estabrook' Subject: NG: UILAWPROF Wexler Complicit in Israeli War Crimes, Crimes against Humanity & Genocide against Palestinians. "...particularly to the drone assassinations, "the most extreme terrorist campaign of modern times" - which have killed more than 5,000 people, including U.S. citizens and hundreds of children." Chomsky {now 10,000+ people} Today's News Gazette has a front page story where UILawProf Wexler is pontificating about sexual harassment. Really? Notice below. Wexler had the UILawSchool brag about the fact that she is an "Academic Fellow" of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. As most of us know, the so-called Foundation is a Gang of Die-hard NeoCon Zionist Warmongers, Bigots and Racists against Palestinians/Arabs/Persians/Asians/Muslims of Color. Right now the Foundation is warmongering to get us into a war against Iran on behalf of Israel. Notice Wexler brags about the fact that she spent ten days "exploring" how Israel inflicts war crimes, crimes against humanity and outright genocide against the Palestinians, including and especially Palestinian Women and Children. And Wexler calls this to be an "honor". Basically Wexler is complicit in Israel's war crimes, crimes against humanity and outright genocide against the Palestinians. Article III (e) of the 1948 Genocide Convention explicitly criminalizes "Complicity in genocide." And Wexler is typical of the die-hard bigots, racists and warmongers against Muslims/Arabs/Palestinians/Asians of Color on the College of Law Faculty who brought out Killer Koh here to give his specially endowed lecture on being a Role Model in Excellence for Lawyers in Government Service. Not one member of the UI Law Faculty Gang of Die-hard Bigots, Racists and Warmongers against Muslims/Arabs/Palestinians/Asians of Color supported us in our Protest against Killer Koh. Q.E.D. fab Hey! Hey! Wexler Say! How many women! Did you kill today! In Palestine! Hey! Hey! Wexler say! How many kids! Did you kill today! In Palestine! Hey! Hey! Wexler Say! How many Dads! Did you kill today! In Palestine! Professor Wexler Selected as Academic Fellow of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies Friday, March 09, 2012 Lesley Wexler, the Thomas M. Mengler Faculty Scholar, has been selected as an academic fellow of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. As part of the honor, Professor Wexler will be participating in a 10-day program in Israel with other leading U.S. academics exploring how the country combats terrorism. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Thu Nov 30 17:26:01 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 17:26:01 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Flyer for AWARE demonstration, Saturday 12/2 In-Reply-To: <7AF7A515-7D8F-4C6E-A8A6-85E851F33882@gmail.com> References: <795D395D-B752-41A3-82ED-32B7DC7FEB1A@gmail.com> <979452964.4663360.1512052774015@mail.yahoo.com> <7AF7A515-7D8F-4C6E-A8A6-85E851F33882@gmail.com> Message-ID: Yes, it is a distraction, and I have argued this point with those who suggest it, other than for war, which no one suggests, and actually might be worthwhile. However, I’ll say it again, it’s totally counterproductive to the anti-war movement and our demonstration. I have another appointment on Saturday so don’t plan to attend our demonstration. End of conversation on this topic, on my part. PS Even Peter Lavalle of Crosstalk, who supported Trump vs. Hillary, has now stated emphatically, "he is glad Hillary is not President, but he in no way supports Trump given what he is doing.” > On Nov 30, 2017, at 07:42, C G Estabrook wrote: > > I agree that we should focus on "what the USG is doing in respect to war.” > > That’s why ‘Impeach Trump’ is a distraction - a purposeful distraction, by the those calling for continuity in US fp and war-making. > > >> On Nov 30, 2017, at 9:15 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: >> >> We should be informing people, when it comes to flyers, of what the USG is doing. >> Most Americans aren’t aware that we are in eight wars, with potential for two more. >> Oh yes, they all know how awful the N. Korean leader is, they all fear Iran having nuclear weapons, but do they know there is a solution to the N. Korean problem, one for which we the US could implement, but refuses to do so. >> >> Do the American people know that we are in the process of savaging Africa, again? >> Do they know the US is the greatest purveyor of violence in the world? >> >> Carl, these are all things you have talked about, and placed in flyers before. >> >> Focusing on individuals to blame, is a tactic that alienates and divides a people. If you were writing an article to be published, or on FB thats one thing, but a flyer representing an organization, should merely paraphrase what the USG is doing in respect to war. >> >>> On Nov 30, 2017, at 07:03, C G Estabrook wrote: >>> >>> That earlier flyer was meant to combat Obama’s squeaky-clean image, which he was good at fostering while he administered “the most extreme terrorist campaign of modern times." >>> >>> . >>> >>> And see the puff-piece on his 'toughness’: . >>> >>> But I don’t think anyone contends that US world-wide mass murder post-WWII is a matter of presidential caprice, even if they could have acted differently. >>> >>> Neither Obama nor Trump had to send tens of thousands more troops to Afghanistan (as they did) after running as critics of the war (as they did). >>> >>> Condemning and opposing US war-making doesn’t depend on affixing individual responsibility. (Was Truman responsible for Hiroshima? Yes. Alone? No.) >>> >>> —CGE >>> >>> >>>> On Nov 30, 2017, at 8:39 AM, David Green via Peace wrote: >>>> >>>> In any event, this language contrasts sharply with a flyer from two years ago, which holds Obama responsible: >>>> >>>> President Obama is making war in eight countries; he is sending American ‘special forces’ into more than 100 countries around the world; he has assassinated thousands by drone - the most extreme terrorist campaign of modern times; and he is provoking war with Russia and China. >>>> >>>> I'm not sure how we can justify the difference in tone and substance regarding the warmaking "motivations" of Obama and Trump. >>>> >>>> On Thursday, November 30, 2017, 7:06:53 AM CST, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> Carl >>>> >>>> No one knows better than I, no one has spoken more about the powers behind the throne than I. I’m the one, with AWARE, who has been making the argument that any President who comes to power, as either a Republican or Democrat is going to implement the foreign policy plan put into place by the Oligarchs behind the throne. One of which was Brzezinski, just to keep it simple. >>>> >>>> As a Green socialist, who does not support the one Party system, Democrat/ Republican, once they get to DC. I have been highlighting the very fact, of the Pentagon, CIA, Council on Foreign Relations, Think Tanks, Corporations and Contractors as those pushing the US war agenda. >>>> >>>> But, to imply that Trump anymore than Obama is an unwitting dope of those who make up the “Deep State” “Military Industrial Complex,” however we wish to refer to them, is a mistake, most especially in the title of a flyer. Whether architects or rubber stamps of our foreign policy, they are all complicit. >>>> >>>> A FLYER is meant to impart information, but no one is going to read it, when it acts as an apology for Trump. He is as vile a creature as Clinton, in that he supported the rhetoric of lies and propaganda against Libya and Gaddafi. He is guilty of bombing Syria, and now provoking war with N Korea and Iran. Yes, he is attempting peace with Russia and China, he knows where a dollar is to be made. Though it matters not, when the plan is war with China, predicted by the Rand Think Tank and Pentagon in to be 2030. Our continued presence of Nato on the border of Russia is not going away. >>>> >>>> Roger has just proved my point. He has assessed us as Trump supporters, in spite of my statement, in spite of David Greens statement. What do you think people will think of AWARE, upon receipt of our flyer? And, as I said, focus on the election in order to bash the Clintons is also of no value. >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Nov 29, 2017, at 18:29, C G Estabrook wrote: >>>>> >>>>> The concentration on Trump is the strategy of the (pro-)War Party (the Pentagon, the 'intelligence community,' the Clinton campaign, the neocons) to force the government to continue the wars and war provocations of the last administrations. They think either Trump can be forced to fall in line with the war policy (as he shown he’s willing to do) under the threat of ‘Russiagate’ - or be replaced (with Pence, a War Party creature). >>>>> >>>>> The anti-war movement has to insist that Trump - the weakest president since Coolidge (“silent Cal,”|who followed the opposite performance strategy to Trump's bluster) - is not the problem, but that the continuing and largely unvaried Clinton-Bush-Obama war-making is. That's the policy that must be resisted. The War Party (who of course support that policy) is using Trump as a distraction from that policy. >>>>> >>>>> We should be opposing the Pentagon, the CIA, the Obama-Clintonists, the neocons, et al., who are promoting war provocations vs. Russia and China - not bothering much with the Potemkin president. >>>>> >>>>> John Pilger saw it clearly before the election: "The CIA has demanded Trump is not elected. Pentagon generals have demanded he is not elected. The pro-war New York Times - taking a breather from its relentless low-rent Putin smears - demands that he is not elected. Something is up. These tribunes of 'perpetual war' are terrified that the multi-billion-dollar business of war by which the United States maintains its dominance will be undermined if Trump does a deal with Putin, then with China’s Xi Jinping. Their panic at the possibility of the world’s great power talking peace – however unlikely – would be the blackest farce were the issues not so dire.” —CGE >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On Nov 29, 2017, at 5:31 PM, Karen Aram via Peace wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> I’m sorry, Carl >>>>>> >>>>>> I don’t like it, the title alone makes AWARE look like “Trump defenders.” It’s one thing to say this in conversation when explaining our wars, to those who think the problem began with Trump, but as a title, it sucks. Most people in this town are Democrats and won’t bother to read it. >>>>>> >>>>>> I’m not pleased with some of that which is in the article either, because the focus on the election is old news. Its time to move on. Trump is President and he is responsible for that which occurs on his watch. >>>>>> >>>>>> Trump bombed Syria and that is an impeachable offense, granted every other President before him, committed war crimes that were also impeachable offenses, Bush and most especially Obama, but Trump has been in power for almost a year now. His provocations of war with Korea, and Iran are extremely dangerous. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Nov 29, 2017, at 12:46, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> PRESIDENT TRUMP IS NOT THE PROBLEM: >>>>>>> ILLEGAL U.S. WARS AROUND THE WORLD ARE >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The US government is today making war around the world - and it’s doing so without authorization from the U.S. Constitution or the U.N. Charter. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If American leaders were put on trial today as German leaders were, at Nuremberg after World War II, for “launching aggressive war,” they - like the German leaders - would be hanged. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The U.S. military is today killing people in seven Mideast and African countries - Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Somalia, and Pakistan (and on the other side of the world, in the Philippines). Thousands of U.S. troops are fighting in these countries, although most Americans don’t know that. In addition, the 70,000-member U.S. ‘Special Operations Command’ is active in three-quarters of the countries of the world. Their activities include kidnapping (‘rendition’), torture, and murder. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> President Obama was elected as an anti-war candidate, but in office he sent thousands of additional U.S. troops into America’s longest war, in Afghanistan. President Trump, who promised caution and non-interventionism in foreign policy - and described Hillary Clinton as a “trigger happy warmonger” - has now done the same thing himself. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What both men knew is that, in spite of intense media propaganda, most Americans don’t want U.S. troops engaged in foreign wars and don’t see the killing as justified; both candidates had to seem to oppose the wars, in order to get elected. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But the ‘one percent’ - the U.S. economic elite - do want the wars. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> When World War II ended in 1945, the U.S. was the least-damaged major country on either side, and controlled the world economy. America’s wars since then - in Korea, Vietnam, Latin America, and the Mideast - have killed between 20 and 30 million people for the purpose of maintaining that control. Ordinary Americans have paid for these vicious wars, but they haven’t profited from them. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> John Pilger wrote before the election, "The CIA has demanded Trump is not elected. Pentagon generals have demanded he is not elected. The pro-war New York Times - taking a breather from its relentless low-rent Putin smears - demands that he is not elected. Something is up. These tribunes of 'perpetual war' are terrified that the multi-billion-dollar business of war by which the United States maintains its dominance will be undermined if Trump does a deal with Putin, then with China’s Xi Jinping. Their panic at the possibility of the world’s great power talking peace – however unlikely – would be the blackest farce were the issues not so dire." >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We must demand that foreign military bases be closed, U.S. troops (and weapons) be brought home, and social support - including free medical care, education, and a universal basic income - be provided for Americans immiserated by generations of U.S. government wars. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> WRITE CONGRESS - DEMAND U.S. TROOPS & WEAPONS BE BROUGHT HOME >>>>>>> Our representatives in Congress from this area - and their email addresses - are as follows: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Representative Rodney Davis: >>>>>>> Senator Tammy Duckworth: >>>>>>> Senator Dick Durbin: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ~~~ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ANTI-WAR ANTI-RACISM EFFORT - on Facebook at >>>>>>> ~ U.S. troops & weapons out of the Mideast ~ Medicare for all ~ Universal basic income ~ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> Peace-discuss mailing list >>>>>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >>>>>>> https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.chambana.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fpeace-discuss&data=02%7C01%7Ckarenaram%40hotmail.com%7Cfc30480baf2b4882394b08d5376a458e%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636475851934473412&sdata=0JBYxrD5cfjQzfDHk4PpLhvWxWn5Ce3B%2FBGNvILHbQI%3D&reserved=0 >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Peace mailing list >>>>>> Peace at lists.chambana.net >>>>>> https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.chambana.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fpeace&data=02%7C01%7Ckarenaram%40hotmail.com%7Cf666ae76fb7a4230b3e308d5380383c8%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636476510093637620&sdata=K2skpZ7DB7gaAC0qrBHMVVdN3aiMOsP2EfrwZkHSw3k%3D&reserved=0 >>>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Peace-discuss mailing list >>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >>>> https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.chambana.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fpeace-discuss&data=02%7C01%7Ckarenaram%40hotmail.com%7Cf666ae76fb7a4230b3e308d5380383c8%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636476510093637620&sdata=xazvoaiiZfeKwnoLWr0%2BQ7zDKzK11UmSbVoB97gFtjE%3D&reserved=0 >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Peace mailing list >>>> Peace at lists.chambana.net >>>> https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.chambana.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fpeace&data=02%7C01%7Ckarenaram%40hotmail.com%7Cf666ae76fb7a4230b3e308d5380383c8%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636476510093637620&sdata=K2skpZ7DB7gaAC0qrBHMVVdN3aiMOsP2EfrwZkHSw3k%3D&reserved=0 >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Peace-discuss mailing list >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >> https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.chambana.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fpeace-discuss&data=02%7C01%7Ckarenaram%40hotmail.com%7C1510d4a9e78e4ab02a0f08d538090865%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636476533794287026&sdata=1gLoCzw4EfQ1ZonM6wynHGMKl4R%2FZ9tvCrtiZBxZTpo%3D&reserved=0 From karenaram at hotmail.com Thu Nov 30 17:28:04 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 17:28:04 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Flyer for AWARE demonstration, Saturday 12/2 In-Reply-To: References: <795D395D-B752-41A3-82ED-32B7DC7FEB1A@gmail.com> <979452964.4663360.1512052774015@mail.yahoo.com> <7AF7A515-7D8F-4C6E-A8A6-85E851F33882@gmail.com> <172CD3A2-705F-48FC-A472-8689D525A13D@gmail.com> Message-ID: Agree with the below: > On Nov 30, 2017, at 08:32, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: > > And I think we agree that the best way to do that is to discuss what the USG is doing, from which that government wants desperately to distract the only enemy it really fears, the US populace. > > “...here we have the ultimate in the destruction of democracy, the ideal that everybody's been dreaming of. Not only is the rabble [irony alert] excluded, they don't influence policy, but they don't know what’s in policy, and finally they don’t know that they don’t know…” [Chomsky]. > > Our task is to tell the truth and shame the devil. > > >> On Nov 30, 2017, at 10:10 AM, Karen Medina via Peace-discuss wrote: >> >> We should *focus on* ending the wars and withdrawing US troops and weapons. >> -karen medina >> >>> We should promote ending the wars and withdrawing US troops and weapons. - Carl Estabrook >> _______________________________________________ >> Peace-discuss mailing list >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >> https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.chambana.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fpeace-discuss&data=02%7C01%7Ckarenaram%40hotmail.com%7C19b1741da9284862084408d5381016ab%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636476564096167016&sdata=i2BGd6tyx%2B7yhZRDoGwoYdHifcRsUf8DkP4I95XLMvU%3D&reserved=0 > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.chambana.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fpeace-discuss&data=02%7C01%7Ckarenaram%40hotmail.com%7C19b1741da9284862084408d5381016ab%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636476564096167016&sdata=i2BGd6tyx%2B7yhZRDoGwoYdHifcRsUf8DkP4I95XLMvU%3D&reserved=0 From karenaram at hotmail.com Thu Nov 30 17:30:39 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 17:30:39 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Flyer for AWARE demonstration, Saturday 12/2 In-Reply-To: References: <795D395D-B752-41A3-82ED-32B7DC7FEB1A@gmail.com> <979452964.4663360.1512052774015@mail.yahoo.com> <7AF7A515-7D8F-4C6E-A8A6-85E851F33882@gmail.com> Message-ID: Just make sure you edit anything I write for public consumption. Grammar and punctuation is not my strong point. :) > On Nov 30, 2017, at 07:48, Karen Medina via Peace-discuss wrote: > > I think Karen Aram has just written our flyer: > > Most Americans aren’t aware that we are in eight wars, with potential > for two more. > Oh yes, they all know how awful the N. Korean leader is, they all fear > Iran having nuclear weapons, but do they know there is a solution to > the N. Korean problem, one for which we the US could implement, but > refuses to do so. > > Do the American people know that we are in the process of savaging > Africa, again? > Do they know the US is the greatest purveyor of violence in the world? > > Do they know that any President who comes to power, as either a > Republican or Democrat, is going to implement the foreign policy plan > put into place by the Oligarchs behind the throne. > Whether architects or rubber stamps of our foreign policy, each > president and Congress is complicit. > Our continued presence of NATO on the border of Russia is not going away. > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.chambana.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fpeace-discuss&data=02%7C01%7Ckarenaram%40hotmail.com%7Caabaa62af2ef438d45ba08d53809e60e%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636476537512253883&sdata=MUNdswMOoNmGBnq8hLXSAo6aIYsZJaZ4jxRAJIJLTlk%3D&reserved=0 From kmedina67 at gmail.com Thu Nov 30 17:46:56 2017 From: kmedina67 at gmail.com (Karen Medina) Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 11:46:56 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Flyer for AWARE demonstration, Saturday 12/2 In-Reply-To: References: <795D395D-B752-41A3-82ED-32B7DC7FEB1A@gmail.com> <979452964.4663360.1512052774015@mail.yahoo.com> <7AF7A515-7D8F-4C6E-A8A6-85E851F33882@gmail.com> Message-ID: =) ✌ On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 11:30 AM, Karen Aram wrote: > Just make sure you edit anything I write for public consumption. Grammar and punctuation is not my strong point. :) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Thu Nov 30 17:55:35 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 17:55:35 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Flyer for AWARE demonstration, Saturday 12/2 In-Reply-To: References: <795D395D-B752-41A3-82ED-32B7DC7FEB1A@gmail.com> <979452964.4663360.1512052774015@mail.yahoo.com> <7AF7A515-7D8F-4C6E-A8A6-85E851F33882@gmail.com> Message-ID: Somewhere we have a flyer with bullet points in relation to solutions for the issue with North Korea. I’m unable to locate it, but from memory: 1) The US is responsible for the deaths of millions, We need to require a peace agreement, and end the war of 1953, currently we have only an armistice. 2) The US currently has over 28,000 troops on the border of N.Korea to this day. We need to bring our troops home, and close down our military bases in the South China Sea. The US has more than 800 military bases outside of the US, Russia has 15, China only 1. 3) We need to discontinue the US military exercises with S. Korea, as we have continued our military operations flying our B1 bombers over North Korea. (Not sure I have the planes labeled properly) 4) North Korea agreed to a freeze on freeze of nuclear weapons, the US refuses to comply. 5) In 1993 during frequent meetings and negotiations the US agreed to provide water reactors to North Korea, given we destroyed their dams and infrastructure, they in turn agreed to freeze production of nuclear weapons. In 2002 we reneged on the deal, refusing to provide anything, taking the risk that the North Korean regime would collapse. We need to reimplement “reparations” for the catastrophic damage done to that nation during the 50’s. 6) We have already placed (THAAD) not yet completed within S. Korea, this is a surveillance system, that is aimed at China. China knows the provocations against North Korea are aimed at them, and China is already a nuclear armed nation. > On Nov 30, 2017, at 09:30, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: > > Just make sure you edit anything I write for public consumption. Grammar and punctuation is not my strong point. :) > > >> On Nov 30, 2017, at 07:48, Karen Medina via Peace-discuss wrote: >> >> I think Karen Aram has just written our flyer: >> >> Most Americans aren’t aware that we are in eight wars, with potential >> for two more. >> Oh yes, they all know how awful the N. Korean leader is, they all fear >> Iran having nuclear weapons, but do they know there is a solution to >> the N. Korean problem, one for which we the US could implement, but >> refuses to do so. >> >> Do the American people know that we are in the process of savaging >> Africa, again? >> Do they know the US is the greatest purveyor of violence in the world? >> >> Do they know that any President who comes to power, as either a >> Republican or Democrat, is going to implement the foreign policy plan >> put into place by the Oligarchs behind the throne. >> Whether architects or rubber stamps of our foreign policy, each >> president and Congress is complicit. >> Our continued presence of NATO on the border of Russia is not going away. >> _______________________________________________ >> Peace-discuss mailing list >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >> https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.chambana.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fpeace-discuss&data=02%7C01%7Ckarenaram%40hotmail.com%7Caabaa62af2ef438d45ba08d53809e60e%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636476537512253883&sdata=MUNdswMOoNmGBnq8hLXSAo6aIYsZJaZ4jxRAJIJLTlk%3D&reserved=0 > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.chambana.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fpeace-discuss&data=02%7C01%7Ckarenaram%40hotmail.com%7C6509e9f6869146f73dec08d538182638%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636476598716608912&sdata=%2Bg7Bv7Dd95roLUgtyEiATnzgMlN8pk%2B87VU4V%2Fim3Jk%3D&reserved=0 From karenaram at hotmail.com Thu Nov 30 18:01:14 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 18:01:14 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] True definition of THAAD, its more than just surveillance. Message-ID: The US Army's Terminal High-Altitude Area Defence (THAAD) system that has been deployed in South Korea is the most advanced interceptor in the world and is designed to shoot down ballistic missiles in the terminal phase of their approach to a target. The need for the system was identified as far back ... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Thu Nov 30 18:25:20 2017 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 12:25:20 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Flyer for AWARE demonstration, Saturday 12/2 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56818744-9795-4638-ACCC-E0320E7456FB@gmail.com> A terrorist incident like Operation Northwoods? Or the plan (recently revealed) by the Kennedy administration to purchase or build Soviet aircraft for the purpose of staging false flag attacks on the US or its allies, thus giving Washington the pretext it needed to go to war with Moscow or its allies? Wouldn’t those wars be illegal, too? "If the Nuremberg laws were applied, then every post-war American president would have been hanged.” > > —CGE > On Nov 30, 2017, at 2:42 AM, Roger Helbig wrote: > > Bovine excrement - no one wants the wars, but no one wants terrorist > attacks either - what you folks need is a terrorist incident in your > home town -that might wake you up - > > On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 12:46 PM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss > wrote: >> PRESIDENT TRUMP IS NOT THE PROBLEM: >> ILLEGAL U.S. WARS AROUND THE WORLD ARE >> >> The US government is today making war around the world - and it’s doing so >> without authorization from the U.S. Constitution or the U.N. Charter. >> >> If American leaders were put on trial today as German leaders were, at >> Nuremberg after World War II, for “launching aggressive war,” they - like >> the German leaders - would be hanged. >> >> The U.S. military is today killing people in seven Mideast and African >> countries - Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Somalia, and Pakistan >> (and on the other side of the world, in the Philippines). Thousands of U.S. >> troops are fighting in these countries, although most Americans don’t know >> that. In addition, the 70,000-member U.S. ‘Special Operations Command’ is >> active in three-quarters of the countries of the world. Their activities >> include kidnapping (‘rendition’), torture, and murder. >> >> President Obama was elected as an anti-war candidate, but in office he sent >> thousands of additional U.S. troops into America’s longest war, in >> Afghanistan. President Trump, who promised caution and non-interventionism >> in foreign policy - and described Hillary Clinton as a “trigger happy >> warmonger” - has now done the same thing himself. >> >> What both men knew is that, in spite of intense media propaganda, most >> Americans don’t want U.S. troops engaged in foreign wars and don’t see the >> killing as justified; both candidates had to seem to oppose the wars, in >> order to get elected. >> >> But the ‘one percent’ - the U.S. economic elite - do want the wars. >> >> When World War II ended in 1945, the U.S. was the least-damaged major >> country on either side, and controlled the world economy. America’s wars >> since then - in Korea, Vietnam, Latin America, and the Mideast - have killed >> between 20 and 30 million people for the purpose of maintaining that >> control. Ordinary Americans have paid for these vicious wars, but they >> haven’t profited from them. >> >> John Pilger wrote before the election, "The CIA has demanded Trump is not >> elected. Pentagon generals have demanded he is not elected. The pro-war New >> York Times - taking a breather from its relentless low-rent Putin smears - >> demands that he is not elected. Something is up. These tribunes of >> 'perpetual war' are terrified that the multi-billion-dollar business of war >> by which the United States maintains its dominance will be undermined if >> Trump does a deal with Putin, then with China’s Xi Jinping. Their panic at >> the possibility of the world’s great power talking peace – however unlikely >> – would be the blackest farce were the issues not so dire." >> >> We must demand that foreign military bases be closed, U.S. troops (and >> weapons) be brought home, and social support - including free medical care, >> education, and a universal basic income - be provided for Americans >> immiserated by generations of U.S. government wars. >> >> WRITE CONGRESS - DEMAND U.S. TROOPS & WEAPONS BE BROUGHT HOME >> Our representatives in Congress from this area - and their email addresses - >> are as follows: >> >> Representative Rodney Davis: >> Senator Tammy Duckworth: >> >> Senator Dick Durbin: >> >> ~~~ >> >> ANTI-WAR ANTI-RACISM EFFORT - on Facebook at > Illinois> >> ~ U.S. troops & weapons out of the Mideast ~ Medicare for all ~ Universal >> basic income ~ >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Peace-discuss mailing list >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mickalideh at gmail.com Thu Nov 30 18:31:21 2017 From: mickalideh at gmail.com (Harry Mickalide) Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 12:31:21 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Flyer for AWARE demonstration, Saturday 12/2 In-Reply-To: References: <795D395D-B752-41A3-82ED-32B7DC7FEB1A@gmail.com> <979452964.4663360.1512052774015@mail.yahoo.com> <7AF7A515-7D8F-4C6E-A8A6-85E851F33882@gmail.com> Message-ID: I still think a better simpler flyer would look like this: Projected annual cost for universal healthcare, free college, and universal basic income: $X Annual military budget: $600 billion On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 11:26 AM, Karen Aram via Peace < peace at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > Yes, it is a distraction, and I have argued this point with those who > suggest it, other than for war, which no one suggests, and actually might > be worthwhile. > > However, I’ll say it again, it’s totally counterproductive to the anti-war > movement and our demonstration. > > I have another appointment on Saturday so don’t plan to attend our > demonstration. > > End of conversation on this topic, on my part. > > PS Even Peter Lavalle of Crosstalk, who supported Trump vs. Hillary, has > now stated emphatically, "he is glad Hillary is not President, but he in no > way supports Trump given what he is doing.” > > > On Nov 30, 2017, at 07:42, C G Estabrook wrote: > > > > I agree that we should focus on "what the USG is doing in respect to > war.” > > > > That’s why ‘Impeach Trump’ is a distraction - a purposeful distraction, > by the those calling for continuity in US fp and war-making. > > > > > >> On Nov 30, 2017, at 9:15 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > >> > >> We should be informing people, when it comes to flyers, of what the USG > is doing. > >> Most Americans aren’t aware that we are in eight wars, with potential > for two more. > >> Oh yes, they all know how awful the N. Korean leader is, they all fear > Iran having nuclear weapons, but do they know there is a solution to the N. > Korean problem, one for which we the US could implement, but refuses to do > so. > >> > >> Do the American people know that we are in the process of savaging > Africa, again? > >> Do they know the US is the greatest purveyor of violence in the world? > >> > >> Carl, these are all things you have talked about, and placed in flyers > before. > >> > >> Focusing on individuals to blame, is a tactic that alienates and > divides a people. If you were writing an article to be published, or on FB > thats one thing, but a flyer representing an organization, should merely > paraphrase what the USG is doing in respect to war. > >> > >>> On Nov 30, 2017, at 07:03, C G Estabrook > wrote: > >>> > >>> That earlier flyer was meant to combat Obama’s squeaky-clean image, > which he was good at fostering while he administered “the most extreme > terrorist campaign of modern times." > >>> > >>> https%3A%2F%2Fwww.commondreams.org%2Fnews%2F2015%2F01%2F19%2Fnoam- > chomsky-obamas-drone-program-most-extreme-terrorist- > campaign-modern-times&data=02%7C01%7Ckarenaram%40hotmail.com% > 7Cf666ae76fb7a4230b3e308d5380383c8%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaa > aaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636476510093637620&sdata=hTjN23pUJtWprTOOgI5SDxa8U20Zi1 > AJ9WKIOK8m6zM%3D&reserved=0> . > >>> > >>> And see the puff-piece on his 'toughness’: protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com% > 2F2012%2F05%2F29%2Fworld%2Fobamas-leadership-in-war-on- > al-qaeda.html&data=02%7C01%7Ckarenaram%40hotmail.com% > 7Cf666ae76fb7a4230b3e308d5380383c8%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaa > aaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636476510093637620&sdata=NixKmaCjl2DD%2FULwArRx% > 2FjLU6vWOmH%2BFZ8s%2FLV5hvL4%3D&reserved=0>. > >>> > >>> But I don’t think anyone contends that US world-wide mass murder > post-WWII is a matter of presidential caprice, even if they could have > acted differently. > >>> > >>> Neither Obama nor Trump had to send tens of thousands more troops to > Afghanistan (as they did) after running as critics of the war (as they did). > >>> > >>> Condemning and opposing US war-making doesn’t depend on affixing > individual responsibility. (Was Truman responsible for Hiroshima? Yes. > Alone? No.) > >>> > >>> —CGE > >>> > >>> > >>>> On Nov 30, 2017, at 8:39 AM, David Green via Peace < > peace at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> In any event, this language contrasts sharply with a flyer from two > years ago, which holds Obama responsible: > >>>> > >>>> President Obama is making war in eight countries; he is sending > American ‘special forces’ into more than 100 countries around the world; he > has assassinated thousands by drone - the most extreme terrorist campaign > of modern times; and he is provoking war with Russia and China. > >>>> > >>>> I'm not sure how we can justify the difference in tone and substance > regarding the warmaking "motivations" of Obama and Trump. > >>>> > >>>> On Thursday, November 30, 2017, 7:06:53 AM CST, Karen Aram via > Peace-discuss wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Carl > >>>> > >>>> No one knows better than I, no one has spoken more about the powers > behind the throne than I. I’m the one, with AWARE, who has been making the > argument that any President who comes to power, as either a Republican or > Democrat is going to implement the foreign policy plan put into place by > the Oligarchs behind the throne. One of which was Brzezinski, just to keep > it simple. > >>>> > >>>> As a Green socialist, who does not support the one Party system, > Democrat/ Republican, once they get to DC. I have been highlighting the > very fact, of the Pentagon, CIA, Council on Foreign Relations, Think Tanks, > Corporations and Contractors as those pushing the US war agenda. > >>>> > >>>> But, to imply that Trump anymore than Obama is an unwitting dope of > those who make up the “Deep State” “Military Industrial Complex,” however > we wish to refer to them, is a mistake, most especially in the title of a > flyer. Whether architects or rubber stamps of our foreign policy, they are > all complicit. > >>>> > >>>> A FLYER is meant to impart information, but no one is going to read > it, when it acts as an apology for Trump. He is as vile a creature as > Clinton, in that he supported the rhetoric of lies and propaganda against > Libya and Gaddafi. He is guilty of bombing Syria, and now provoking war > with N Korea and Iran. Yes, he is attempting peace with Russia and China, > he knows where a dollar is to be made. Though it matters not, when the plan > is war with China, predicted by the Rand Think Tank and Pentagon in to be > 2030. Our continued presence of Nato on the border of Russia is not going > away. > >>>> > >>>> Roger has just proved my point. He has assessed us as Trump > supporters, in spite of my statement, in spite of David Greens statement. > What do you think people will think of AWARE, upon receipt of our flyer? > And, as I said, focus on the election in order to bash the Clintons is also > of no value. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> On Nov 29, 2017, at 18:29, C G Estabrook > wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> The concentration on Trump is the strategy of the (pro-)War Party > (the Pentagon, the 'intelligence community,' the Clinton campaign, the > neocons) to force the government to continue the wars and war provocations > of the last administrations. They think either Trump can be forced to fall > in line with the war policy (as he shown he’s willing to do) under the > threat of ‘Russiagate’ - or be replaced (with Pence, a War Party creature). > >>>>> > >>>>> The anti-war movement has to insist that Trump - the weakest > president since Coolidge (“silent Cal,”|who followed the opposite > performance strategy to Trump's bluster) - is not the problem, but that the > continuing and largely unvaried Clinton-Bush-Obama war-making is. That's > the policy that must be resisted. The War Party (who of course support > that policy) is using Trump as a distraction from that policy. > >>>>> > >>>>> We should be opposing the Pentagon, the CIA, the Obama-Clintonists, > the neocons, et al., who are promoting war provocations vs. Russia and > China - not bothering much with the Potemkin president. > >>>>> > >>>>> John Pilger saw it clearly before the election: "The CIA has > demanded Trump is not elected. Pentagon generals have demanded he is not > elected. The pro-war New York Times - taking a breather from its relentless > low-rent Putin smears - demands that he is not elected. Something is up. > These tribunes of 'perpetual war' are terrified that the > multi-billion-dollar business of war by which the United States maintains > its dominance will be undermined if Trump does a deal with Putin, then with > China’s Xi Jinping. Their panic at the possibility of the world’s great > power talking peace – however unlikely – would be the blackest farce were > the issues not so dire.” —CGE > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> On Nov 29, 2017, at 5:31 PM, Karen Aram via Peace < > peace at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I’m sorry, Carl > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I don’t like it, the title alone makes AWARE look like “Trump > defenders.” It’s one thing to say this in conversation when explaining our > wars, to those who think the problem began with Trump, but as a title, it > sucks. Most people in this town are Democrats and won’t bother to read it. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I’m not pleased with some of that which is in the article either, > because the focus on the election is old news. Its time to move on. Trump > is President and he is responsible for that which occurs on his watch. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Trump bombed Syria and that is an impeachable offense, granted > every other President before him, committed war crimes that were also > impeachable offenses, Bush and most especially Obama, but Trump has been in > power for almost a year now. His provocations of war with Korea, and Iran > are extremely dangerous. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Nov 29, 2017, at 12:46, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> PRESIDENT TRUMP IS NOT THE PROBLEM: > >>>>>>> ILLEGAL U.S. WARS AROUND THE WORLD ARE > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> The US government is today making war around the world - and it’s > doing so without authorization from the U.S. Constitution or the U.N. > Charter. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> If American leaders were put on trial today as German leaders > were, at Nuremberg after World War II, for “launching aggressive war,” they > - like the German leaders - would be hanged. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> The U.S. military is today killing people in seven Mideast and > African countries - Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Somalia, and > Pakistan (and on the other side of the world, in the Philippines). > Thousands of U.S. troops are fighting in these countries, although most > Americans don’t know that. In addition, the 70,000-member U.S. ‘Special > Operations Command’ is active in three-quarters of the countries of the > world. Their activities include kidnapping (‘rendition’), torture, and > murder. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> President Obama was elected as an anti-war candidate, but in > office he sent thousands of additional U.S. troops into America’s longest > war, in Afghanistan. President Trump, who promised caution and > non-interventionism in foreign policy - and described Hillary Clinton as a > “trigger happy warmonger” - has now done the same thing himself. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> What both men knew is that, in spite of intense media propaganda, > most Americans don’t want U.S. troops engaged in foreign wars and don’t see > the killing as justified; both candidates had to seem to oppose the wars, > in order to get elected. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> But the ‘one percent’ - the U.S. economic elite - do want the wars. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> When World War II ended in 1945, the U.S. was the least-damaged > major country on either side, and controlled the world economy. America’s > wars since then - in Korea, Vietnam, Latin America, and the Mideast - have > killed between 20 and 30 million people for the purpose of maintaining that > control. Ordinary Americans have paid for these vicious wars, but they > haven’t profited from them. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> John Pilger wrote before the election, "The CIA has demanded Trump > is not elected. Pentagon generals have demanded he is not elected. The > pro-war New York Times - taking a breather from its relentless low-rent > Putin smears - demands that he is not elected. Something is up. These > tribunes of 'perpetual war' are terrified that the multi-billion-dollar > business of war by which the United States maintains its dominance will be > undermined if Trump does a deal with Putin, then with China’s Xi Jinping. > Their panic at the possibility of the world’s great power talking peace – > however unlikely – would be the blackest farce were the issues not so dire." > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> We must demand that foreign military bases be closed, U.S. troops > (and weapons) be brought home, and social support - including free medical > care, education, and a universal basic income - be provided for Americans > immiserated by generations of U.S. government wars. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> WRITE CONGRESS - DEMAND U.S. TROOPS & WEAPONS BE BROUGHT HOME > >>>>>>> Our representatives in Congress from this area - and their email > addresses - are as follows: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Representative Rodney Davis: protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Frodneydavis. > house.gov%2Fcontact%2F&data=02%7C01%7Ckarenaram%40hotmail.com% > 7Cf666ae76fb7a4230b3e308d5380383c8%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaa > aaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636476510093637620&sdata=xcTtdbDasaZ5ilKiNEHR7Eawu6IvnW > L2bnj9ZsA8q2U%3D&reserved=0> > >>>>>>> Senator Tammy Duckworth: protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.duckworth. > senate.gov%2Fcontent%2Fcontact-senator&data=02%7C01%7Ckarenaram%40hotmail. > com%7Cf666ae76fb7a4230b3e308d5380383c8%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaa > aaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636476510093637620&sdata=ugx3F6jNnTw2LpZoBcxfPI9o9834% > 2FbvN0Itn3y%2Fe4dc%3D&reserved=0> > >>>>>>> Senator Dick Durbin: protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.durbin. > senate.gov%2Fcontact%2Femail&data=02%7C01%7Ckarenaram%40hotmail.com% > 7Cf666ae76fb7a4230b3e308d5380383c8%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaa > aaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636476510093637620&sdata=kNZmKv% > 2F0gLlwP8CkdtxIgicnw89CR2e3c%2FllkENOnJg%3D&reserved=0> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> ~~~ > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> ANTI-WAR ANTI-RACISM EFFORT - on Facebook at Urbana Illinois> > >>>>>>> ~ U.S. troops & weapons out of the Mideast ~ Medicare for all ~ > Universal basic income ~ > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>>>> Peace-discuss mailing list > >>>>>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > >>>>>>> https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url= > https%3A%2F%2Flists.chambana.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo% > 2Fpeace-discuss&data=02%7C01%7Ckarenaram%40hotmail.com% > 7Cfc30480baf2b4882394b08d5376a458e%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaa > aaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636475851934473412&sdata=0JBYxrD5cfjQzfDHk4PpLhvWxWn5Ce > 3B%2FBGNvILHbQI%3D&reserved=0 > >>>>>> > >>>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>>> Peace mailing list > >>>>>> Peace at lists.chambana.net > >>>>>> https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url= > https%3A%2F%2Flists.chambana.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo% > 2Fpeace&data=02%7C01%7Ckarenaram%40hotmail.com% > 7Cf666ae76fb7a4230b3e308d5380383c8%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaa > aaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636476510093637620&sdata=K2skpZ7DB7gaAC0qrBHMVVdN3aiMOs > P2EfrwZkHSw3k%3D&reserved=0 > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>> Peace-discuss mailing list > >>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > >>>> https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url= > https%3A%2F%2Flists.chambana.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo% > 2Fpeace-discuss&data=02%7C01%7Ckarenaram%40hotmail.com% > 7Cf666ae76fb7a4230b3e308d5380383c8%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaa > aaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636476510093637620&sdata=xazvoaiiZfeKwnoLWr0% > 2BQ7zDKzK11UmSbVoB97gFtjE%3D&reserved=0 > >>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>> Peace mailing list > >>>> Peace at lists.chambana.net > >>>> https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url= > https%3A%2F%2Flists.chambana.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo% > 2Fpeace&data=02%7C01%7Ckarenaram%40hotmail.com% > 7Cf666ae76fb7a4230b3e308d5380383c8%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaa > aaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636476510093637620&sdata=K2skpZ7DB7gaAC0qrBHMVVdN3aiMOs > P2EfrwZkHSw3k%3D&reserved=0 > >>> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Peace-discuss mailing list > >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > >> https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url= > https%3A%2F%2Flists.chambana.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo% > 2Fpeace-discuss&data=02%7C01%7Ckarenaram%40hotmail.com% > 7C1510d4a9e78e4ab02a0f08d538090865%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaa > aaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636476533794287026&sdata=1gLoCzw4EfQ1ZonM6wynHGMKl4R% > 2FZ9tvCrtiZBxZTpo%3D&reserved=0 > > _______________________________________________ > Peace mailing list > Peace at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mickalideh at gmail.com Thu Nov 30 18:32:41 2017 From: mickalideh at gmail.com (Harry Mickalide) Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 12:32:41 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Flyer for AWARE demonstration, Saturday 12/2 In-Reply-To: References: <795D395D-B752-41A3-82ED-32B7DC7FEB1A@gmail.com> <979452964.4663360.1512052774015@mail.yahoo.com> <7AF7A515-7D8F-4C6E-A8A6-85E851F33882@gmail.com> Message-ID: a simple striking fact that sticks in one's head rather than a wall of information that few will read On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 12:31 PM, Harry Mickalide wrote: > I still think a better simpler flyer would look like this: > > Projected annual cost for universal healthcare, free college, and > universal basic income: $X > > Annual military budget: $600 billion > > On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 11:26 AM, Karen Aram via Peace < > peace at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > >> Yes, it is a distraction, and I have argued this point with those who >> suggest it, other than for war, which no one suggests, and actually might >> be worthwhile. >> >> However, I’ll say it again, it’s totally counterproductive to the >> anti-war movement and our demonstration. >> >> I have another appointment on Saturday so don’t plan to attend our >> demonstration. >> >> End of conversation on this topic, on my part. >> >> PS Even Peter Lavalle of Crosstalk, who supported Trump vs. Hillary, has >> now stated emphatically, "he is glad Hillary is not President, but he in no >> way supports Trump given what he is doing.” >> >> > On Nov 30, 2017, at 07:42, C G Estabrook wrote: >> > >> > I agree that we should focus on "what the USG is doing in respect to >> war.” >> > >> > That’s why ‘Impeach Trump’ is a distraction - a purposeful distraction, >> by the those calling for continuity in US fp and war-making. >> > >> > >> >> On Nov 30, 2017, at 9:15 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss < >> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >> >> >> >> We should be informing people, when it comes to flyers, of what the >> USG is doing. >> >> Most Americans aren’t aware that we are in eight wars, with potential >> for two more. >> >> Oh yes, they all know how awful the N. Korean leader is, they all fear >> Iran having nuclear weapons, but do they know there is a solution to the N. >> Korean problem, one for which we the US could implement, but refuses to do >> so. >> >> >> >> Do the American people know that we are in the process of savaging >> Africa, again? >> >> Do they know the US is the greatest purveyor of violence in the world? >> >> >> >> Carl, these are all things you have talked about, and placed in flyers >> before. >> >> >> >> Focusing on individuals to blame, is a tactic that alienates and >> divides a people. If you were writing an article to be published, or on FB >> thats one thing, but a flyer representing an organization, should merely >> paraphrase what the USG is doing in respect to war. >> >> >> >>> On Nov 30, 2017, at 07:03, C G Estabrook >> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> That earlier flyer was meant to combat Obama’s squeaky-clean image, >> which he was good at fostering while he administered “the most extreme >> terrorist campaign of modern times." >> >>> >> >>> > A%2F%2Fwww.commondreams.org%2Fnews%2F2015%2F01%2F19%2Fnoam- >> chomsky-obamas-drone-program-most-extreme-terrorist- >> campaign-modern-times&data=02%7C01%7Ckarenaram%40hotmail. >> com%7Cf666ae76fb7a4230b3e308d5380383c8%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaa >> aaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636476510093637620&sdata=hTjN23pUJtWprTOOgI5S >> Dxa8U20Zi1AJ9WKIOK8m6zM%3D&reserved=0> . >> >>> >> >>> And see the puff-piece on his 'toughness’: < >> https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A >> %2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2012%2F05%2F29%2Fworld%2Fobamas-lea >> dership-in-war-on-al-qaeda.html&data=02%7C01%7Ckarenaram%40h >> otmail.com%7Cf666ae76fb7a4230b3e308d5380383c8%7C84df9e7fe9f6 >> 40afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636476510093637620&sdata= >> NixKmaCjl2DD%2FULwArRx%2FjLU6vWOmH%2BFZ8s%2FLV5hvL4%3D&reserved=0>. >> >>> >> >>> But I don’t think anyone contends that US world-wide mass murder >> post-WWII is a matter of presidential caprice, even if they could have >> acted differently. >> >>> >> >>> Neither Obama nor Trump had to send tens of thousands more troops to >> Afghanistan (as they did) after running as critics of the war (as they did). >> >>> >> >>> Condemning and opposing US war-making doesn’t depend on affixing >> individual responsibility. (Was Truman responsible for Hiroshima? Yes. >> Alone? No.) >> >>> >> >>> —CGE >> >>> >> >>> >> >>>> On Nov 30, 2017, at 8:39 AM, David Green via Peace < >> peace at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>> In any event, this language contrasts sharply with a flyer from two >> years ago, which holds Obama responsible: >> >>>> >> >>>> President Obama is making war in eight countries; he is sending >> American ‘special forces’ into more than 100 countries around the world; he >> has assassinated thousands by drone - the most extreme terrorist campaign >> of modern times; and he is provoking war with Russia and China. >> >>>> >> >>>> I'm not sure how we can justify the difference in tone and substance >> regarding the warmaking "motivations" of Obama and Trump. >> >>>> >> >>>> On Thursday, November 30, 2017, 7:06:53 AM CST, Karen Aram via >> Peace-discuss wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> Carl >> >>>> >> >>>> No one knows better than I, no one has spoken more about the powers >> behind the throne than I. I’m the one, with AWARE, who has been making the >> argument that any President who comes to power, as either a Republican or >> Democrat is going to implement the foreign policy plan put into place by >> the Oligarchs behind the throne. One of which was Brzezinski, just to keep >> it simple. >> >>>> >> >>>> As a Green socialist, who does not support the one Party system, >> Democrat/ Republican, once they get to DC. I have been highlighting the >> very fact, of the Pentagon, CIA, Council on Foreign Relations, Think Tanks, >> Corporations and Contractors as those pushing the US war agenda. >> >>>> >> >>>> But, to imply that Trump anymore than Obama is an unwitting dope of >> those who make up the “Deep State” “Military Industrial Complex,” however >> we wish to refer to them, is a mistake, most especially in the title of a >> flyer. Whether architects or rubber stamps of our foreign policy, they are >> all complicit. >> >>>> >> >>>> A FLYER is meant to impart information, but no one is going to read >> it, when it acts as an apology for Trump. He is as vile a creature as >> Clinton, in that he supported the rhetoric of lies and propaganda against >> Libya and Gaddafi. He is guilty of bombing Syria, and now provoking war >> with N Korea and Iran. Yes, he is attempting peace with Russia and China, >> he knows where a dollar is to be made. Though it matters not, when the plan >> is war with China, predicted by the Rand Think Tank and Pentagon in to be >> 2030. Our continued presence of Nato on the border of Russia is not going >> away. >> >>>> >> >>>> Roger has just proved my point. He has assessed us as Trump >> supporters, in spite of my statement, in spite of David Greens statement. >> What do you think people will think of AWARE, upon receipt of our flyer? >> And, as I said, focus on the election in order to bash the Clintons is also >> of no value. >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>>> On Nov 29, 2017, at 18:29, C G Estabrook >> wrote: >> >>>>> >> >>>>> The concentration on Trump is the strategy of the (pro-)War Party >> (the Pentagon, the 'intelligence community,' the Clinton campaign, the >> neocons) to force the government to continue the wars and war provocations >> of the last administrations. They think either Trump can be forced to fall >> in line with the war policy (as he shown he’s willing to do) under the >> threat of ‘Russiagate’ - or be replaced (with Pence, a War Party creature). >> >>>>> >> >>>>> The anti-war movement has to insist that Trump - the weakest >> president since Coolidge (“silent Cal,”|who followed the opposite >> performance strategy to Trump's bluster) - is not the problem, but that the >> continuing and largely unvaried Clinton-Bush-Obama war-making is. That's >> the policy that must be resisted. The War Party (who of course support >> that policy) is using Trump as a distraction from that policy. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> We should be opposing the Pentagon, the CIA, the Obama-Clintonists, >> the neocons, et al., who are promoting war provocations vs. Russia and >> China - not bothering much with the Potemkin president. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> John Pilger saw it clearly before the election: "The CIA has >> demanded Trump is not elected. Pentagon generals have demanded he is not >> elected. The pro-war New York Times - taking a breather from its relentless >> low-rent Putin smears - demands that he is not elected. Something is up. >> These tribunes of 'perpetual war' are terrified that the >> multi-billion-dollar business of war by which the United States maintains >> its dominance will be undermined if Trump does a deal with Putin, then with >> China’s Xi Jinping. Their panic at the possibility of the world’s great >> power talking peace – however unlikely – would be the blackest farce were >> the issues not so dire.” —CGE >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>>> On Nov 29, 2017, at 5:31 PM, Karen Aram via Peace < >> peace at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> I’m sorry, Carl >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> I don’t like it, the title alone makes AWARE look like “Trump >> defenders.” It’s one thing to say this in conversation when explaining our >> wars, to those who think the problem began with Trump, but as a title, it >> sucks. Most people in this town are Democrats and won’t bother to read it. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> I’m not pleased with some of that which is in the article either, >> because the focus on the election is old news. Its time to move on. Trump >> is President and he is responsible for that which occurs on his watch. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Trump bombed Syria and that is an impeachable offense, granted >> every other President before him, committed war crimes that were also >> impeachable offenses, Bush and most especially Obama, but Trump has been in >> power for almost a year now. His provocations of war with Korea, and Iran >> are extremely dangerous. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>>> On Nov 29, 2017, at 12:46, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss < >> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> PRESIDENT TRUMP IS NOT THE PROBLEM: >> >>>>>>> ILLEGAL U.S. WARS AROUND THE WORLD ARE >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> The US government is today making war around the world - and it’s >> doing so without authorization from the U.S. Constitution or the U.N. >> Charter. >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> If American leaders were put on trial today as German leaders >> were, at Nuremberg after World War II, for “launching aggressive war,” they >> - like the German leaders - would be hanged. >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> The U.S. military is today killing people in seven Mideast and >> African countries - Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Somalia, and >> Pakistan (and on the other side of the world, in the Philippines). >> Thousands of U.S. troops are fighting in these countries, although most >> Americans don’t know that. In addition, the 70,000-member U.S. ‘Special >> Operations Command’ is active in three-quarters of the countries of the >> world. Their activities include kidnapping (‘rendition’), torture, and >> murder. >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> President Obama was elected as an anti-war candidate, but in >> office he sent thousands of additional U.S. troops into America’s longest >> war, in Afghanistan. President Trump, who promised caution and >> non-interventionism in foreign policy - and described Hillary Clinton as a >> “trigger happy warmonger” - has now done the same thing himself. >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> What both men knew is that, in spite of intense media propaganda, >> most Americans don’t want U.S. troops engaged in foreign wars and don’t see >> the killing as justified; both candidates had to seem to oppose the wars, >> in order to get elected. >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> But the ‘one percent’ - the U.S. economic elite - do want the >> wars. >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> When World War II ended in 1945, the U.S. was the least-damaged >> major country on either side, and controlled the world economy. America’s >> wars since then - in Korea, Vietnam, Latin America, and the Mideast - have >> killed between 20 and 30 million people for the purpose of maintaining that >> control. Ordinary Americans have paid for these vicious wars, but they >> haven’t profited from them. >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> John Pilger wrote before the election, "The CIA has demanded >> Trump is not elected. Pentagon generals have demanded he is not elected. >> The pro-war New York Times - taking a breather from its relentless low-rent >> Putin smears - demands that he is not elected. Something is up. These >> tribunes of 'perpetual war' are terrified that the multi-billion-dollar >> business of war by which the United States maintains its dominance will be >> undermined if Trump does a deal with Putin, then with China’s Xi Jinping. >> Their panic at the possibility of the world’s great power talking peace – >> however unlikely – would be the blackest farce were the issues not so dire." >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> We must demand that foreign military bases be closed, U.S. troops >> (and weapons) be brought home, and social support - including free medical >> care, education, and a universal basic income - be provided for Americans >> immiserated by generations of U.S. government wars. >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> WRITE CONGRESS - DEMAND U.S. TROOPS & WEAPONS BE BROUGHT HOME >> >>>>>>> Our representatives in Congress from this area - and their email >> addresses - are as follows: >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> Representative Rodney Davis: > ction.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Frodneydavis.house.gov%2 >> Fcontact%2F&data=02%7C01%7Ckarenaram%40hotmail.com%7Cf666ae7 >> 6fb7a4230b3e308d5380383c8%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaa >> aaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636476510093637620&sdata=xcTtdbDasaZ5ilKiNEHR >> 7Eawu6IvnWL2bnj9ZsA8q2U%3D&reserved=0> >> >>>>>>> Senator Tammy Duckworth: > ction.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.duckworth.senate.go >> v%2Fcontent%2Fcontact-senator&data=02%7C01%7Ckarenaram% >> 40hotmail.com%7Cf666ae76fb7a4230b3e308d5380383c8% >> 7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636476510093637 >> 620&sdata=ugx3F6jNnTw2LpZoBcxfPI9o9834%2FbvN0Itn3y%2Fe4dc%3D&reserved=0> >> >>>>>>> Senator Dick Durbin: > ction.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.durbin.senate.gov%2 >> Fcontact%2Femail&data=02%7C01%7Ckarenaram%40hotmail.com% >> 7Cf666ae76fb7a4230b3e308d5380383c8%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaa >> aaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636476510093637620&sdata=kNZmKv%2F0gLlwP >> 8CkdtxIgicnw89CR2e3c%2FllkENOnJg%3D&reserved=0> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> ~~~ >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> ANTI-WAR ANTI-RACISM EFFORT - on Facebook at > Urbana Illinois> >> >>>>>>> ~ U.S. troops & weapons out of the Mideast ~ Medicare for all ~ >> Universal basic income ~ >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >> >>>>>>> Peace-discuss mailing list >> >>>>>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >> >>>>>>> https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A >> %2F%2Flists.chambana.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fpeace-discus >> s&data=02%7C01%7Ckarenaram%40hotmail.com%7Cfc30480baf2b48 >> 82394b08d5376a458e%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1% >> 7C0%7C636475851934473412&sdata=0JBYxrD5cfjQzfDHk4PpLhvWxWn5C >> e3B%2FBGNvILHbQI%3D&reserved=0 >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >> >>>>>> Peace mailing list >> >>>>>> Peace at lists.chambana.net >> >>>>>> https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A >> %2F%2Flists.chambana.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fpeace&data= >> 02%7C01%7Ckarenaram%40hotmail.com%7Cf666ae76fb7a4230b3e308d5 >> 380383c8%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0% >> 7C636476510093637620&sdata=K2skpZ7DB7gaAC0qrBHMVVdN3aiMOs >> P2EfrwZkHSw3k%3D&reserved=0 >> >>>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> _______________________________________________ >> >>>> Peace-discuss mailing list >> >>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >> >>>> https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A >> %2F%2Flists.chambana.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fpeace-discus >> s&data=02%7C01%7Ckarenaram%40hotmail.com%7Cf666ae76fb7a42 >> 30b3e308d5380383c8%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1% >> 7C0%7C636476510093637620&sdata=xazvoaiiZfeKwnoLWr0%2BQ7zDKzK >> 11UmSbVoB97gFtjE%3D&reserved=0 >> >>>> _______________________________________________ >> >>>> Peace mailing list >> >>>> Peace at lists.chambana.net >> >>>> https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A >> %2F%2Flists.chambana.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fpeace&data= >> 02%7C01%7Ckarenaram%40hotmail.com%7Cf666ae76fb7a4230b3e308d5 >> 380383c8%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0% >> 7C636476510093637620&sdata=K2skpZ7DB7gaAC0qrBHMVVdN3aiMOs >> P2EfrwZkHSw3k%3D&reserved=0 >> >>> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> Peace-discuss mailing list >> >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >> >> https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A >> %2F%2Flists.chambana.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fpeace-discus >> s&data=02%7C01%7Ckarenaram%40hotmail.com%7C1510d4a9e78e4a >> b02a0f08d538090865%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1% >> 7C0%7C636476533794287026&sdata=1gLoCzw4EfQ1ZonM6wynHGMKl4R% >> 2FZ9tvCrtiZBxZTpo%3D&reserved=0 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Peace mailing list >> Peace at lists.chambana.net >> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace >> > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From galliher at illinois.edu Thu Nov 30 18:40:14 2017 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 12:40:14 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Flyer for AWARE demonstration, Saturday 12/2 In-Reply-To: References: <795D395D-B752-41A3-82ED-32B7DC7FEB1A@gmail.com> <979452964.4663360.1512052774015@mail.yahoo.com> <7AF7A515-7D8F-4C6E-A8A6-85E851F33882@gmail.com> Message-ID: <04FF46D8-9558-49D6-891A-AAC4FFBBC6B0@illinois.edu> The US should in fact be spending much more on war than the current military budget - paying reparations for the damage we've done and the people we’ve killed in the wars of the current generation. But it’s not the case that war spending means we can’t afford universal healthcare, free college, and universal basic income. The USG can’t run out of money. No one refuses a check signed by the US government. —CGE > On Nov 30, 2017, at 12:31 PM, Harry Mickalide via Peace-discuss wrote: > > I still think a better simpler flyer would look like this: > > Projected annual cost for universal healthcare, free college, and universal basic income: $X > > Annual military budget: $600 billion > > On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 11:26 AM, Karen Aram via Peace > wrote: > Yes, it is a distraction, and I have argued this point with those who suggest it, other than for war, which no one suggests, and actually might be worthwhile. > > However, I’ll say it again, it’s totally counterproductive to the anti-war movement and our demonstration. > > I have another appointment on Saturday so don’t plan to attend our demonstration. > > End of conversation on this topic, on my part. > > PS Even Peter Lavalle of Crosstalk, who supported Trump vs. Hillary, has now stated emphatically, "he is glad Hillary is not President, but he in no way supports Trump given what he is doing.” > > > On Nov 30, 2017, at 07:42, C G Estabrook > wrote: > > > > I agree that we should focus on "what the USG is doing in respect to war.” > > > > That’s why ‘Impeach Trump’ is a distraction - a purposeful distraction, by the those calling for continuity in US fp and war-making. > > > > > >> On Nov 30, 2017, at 9:15 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > wrote: > >> > >> We should be informing people, when it comes to flyers, of what the USG is doing. > >> Most Americans aren’t aware that we are in eight wars, with potential for two more. > >> Oh yes, they all know how awful the N. Korean leader is, they all fear Iran having nuclear weapons, but do they know there is a solution to the N. Korean problem, one for which we the US could implement, but refuses to do so. > >> > >> Do the American people know that we are in the process of savaging Africa, again? > >> Do they know the US is the greatest purveyor of violence in the world? > >> > >> Carl, these are all things you have talked about, and placed in flyers before. > >> > >> Focusing on individuals to blame, is a tactic that alienates and divides a people. If you were writing an article to be published, or on FB thats one thing, but a flyer representing an organization, should merely paraphrase what the USG is doing in respect to war. > >> > >>> On Nov 30, 2017, at 07:03, C G Estabrook > wrote: > >>> > >>> That earlier flyer was meant to combat Obama’s squeaky-clean image, which he was good at fostering while he administered “the most extreme terrorist campaign of modern times." > >>> > >>> > . > >>> > >>> And see the puff-piece on his 'toughness’: >. > >>> > >>> But I don’t think anyone contends that US world-wide mass murder post-WWII is a matter of presidential caprice, even if they could have acted differently. > >>> > >>> Neither Obama nor Trump had to send tens of thousands more troops to Afghanistan (as they did) after running as critics of the war (as they did). > >>> > >>> Condemning and opposing US war-making doesn’t depend on affixing individual responsibility. (Was Truman responsible for Hiroshima? Yes. Alone? No.) > >>> > >>> —CGE > >>> > >>> > >>>> On Nov 30, 2017, at 8:39 AM, David Green via Peace > wrote: > >>>> > >>>> In any event, this language contrasts sharply with a flyer from two years ago, which holds Obama responsible: > >>>> > >>>> President Obama is making war in eight countries; he is sending American ‘special forces’ into more than 100 countries around the world; he has assassinated thousands by drone - the most extreme terrorist campaign of modern times; and he is provoking war with Russia and China. > >>>> > >>>> I'm not sure how we can justify the difference in tone and substance regarding the warmaking "motivations" of Obama and Trump. > >>>> > >>>> On Thursday, November 30, 2017, 7:06:53 AM CST, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Carl > >>>> > >>>> No one knows better than I, no one has spoken more about the powers behind the throne than I. I’m the one, with AWARE, who has been making the argument that any President who comes to power, as either a Republican or Democrat is going to implement the foreign policy plan put into place by the Oligarchs behind the throne. One of which was Brzezinski, just to keep it simple. > >>>> > >>>> As a Green socialist, who does not support the one Party system, Democrat/ Republican, once they get to DC. I have been highlighting the very fact, of the Pentagon, CIA, Council on Foreign Relations, Think Tanks, Corporations and Contractors as those pushing the US war agenda. > >>>> > >>>> But, to imply that Trump anymore than Obama is an unwitting dope of those who make up the “Deep State” “Military Industrial Complex,” however we wish to refer to them, is a mistake, most especially in the title of a flyer. Whether architects or rubber stamps of our foreign policy, they are all complicit. > >>>> > >>>> A FLYER is meant to impart information, but no one is going to read it, when it acts as an apology for Trump. He is as vile a creature as Clinton, in that he supported the rhetoric of lies and propaganda against Libya and Gaddafi. He is guilty of bombing Syria, and now provoking war with N Korea and Iran. Yes, he is attempting peace with Russia and China, he knows where a dollar is to be made. Though it matters not, when the plan is war with China, predicted by the Rand Think Tank and Pentagon in to be 2030. Our continued presence of Nato on the border of Russia is not going away. > >>>> > >>>> Roger has just proved my point. He has assessed us as Trump supporters, in spite of my statement, in spite of David Greens statement. What do you think people will think of AWARE, upon receipt of our flyer? And, as I said, focus on the election in order to bash the Clintons is also of no value. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> On Nov 29, 2017, at 18:29, C G Estabrook > wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> The concentration on Trump is the strategy of the (pro-)War Party (the Pentagon, the 'intelligence community,' the Clinton campaign, the neocons) to force the government to continue the wars and war provocations of the last administrations. They think either Trump can be forced to fall in line with the war policy (as he shown he’s willing to do) under the threat of ‘Russiagate’ - or be replaced (with Pence, a War Party creature). > >>>>> > >>>>> The anti-war movement has to insist that Trump - the weakest president since Coolidge (“silent Cal,”|who followed the opposite performance strategy to Trump's bluster) - is not the problem, but that the continuing and largely unvaried Clinton-Bush-Obama war-making is. That's the policy that must be resisted. The War Party (who of course support that policy) is using Trump as a distraction from that policy. > >>>>> > >>>>> We should be opposing the Pentagon, the CIA, the Obama-Clintonists, the neocons, et al., who are promoting war provocations vs. Russia and China - not bothering much with the Potemkin president. > >>>>> > >>>>> John Pilger saw it clearly before the election: "The CIA has demanded Trump is not elected. Pentagon generals have demanded he is not elected. The pro-war New York Times - taking a breather from its relentless low-rent Putin smears - demands that he is not elected. Something is up. These tribunes of 'perpetual war' are terrified that the multi-billion-dollar business of war by which the United States maintains its dominance will be undermined if Trump does a deal with Putin, then with China’s Xi Jinping. Their panic at the possibility of the world’s great power talking peace – however unlikely – would be the blackest farce were the issues not so dire.” —CGE > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> On Nov 29, 2017, at 5:31 PM, Karen Aram via Peace > wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I’m sorry, Carl > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I don’t like it, the title alone makes AWARE look like “Trump defenders.” It’s one thing to say this in conversation when explaining our wars, to those who think the problem began with Trump, but as a title, it sucks. Most people in this town are Democrats and won’t bother to read it. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I’m not pleased with some of that which is in the article either, because the focus on the election is old news. Its time to move on. Trump is President and he is responsible for that which occurs on his watch. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Trump bombed Syria and that is an impeachable offense, granted every other President before him, committed war crimes that were also impeachable offenses, Bush and most especially Obama, but Trump has been in power for almost a year now. His provocations of war with Korea, and Iran are extremely dangerous. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Nov 29, 2017, at 12:46, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss > wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> PRESIDENT TRUMP IS NOT THE PROBLEM: > >>>>>>> ILLEGAL U.S. WARS AROUND THE WORLD ARE > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> The US government is today making war around the world - and it’s doing so without authorization from the U.S. Constitution or the U.N. Charter. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> If American leaders were put on trial today as German leaders were, at Nuremberg after World War II, for “launching aggressive war,” they - like the German leaders - would be hanged. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> The U.S. military is today killing people in seven Mideast and African countries - Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Somalia, and Pakistan (and on the other side of the world, in the Philippines). Thousands of U.S. troops are fighting in these countries, although most Americans don’t know that. In addition, the 70,000-member U.S. ‘Special Operations Command’ is active in three-quarters of the countries of the world. Their activities include kidnapping (‘rendition’), torture, and murder. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> President Obama was elected as an anti-war candidate, but in office he sent thousands of additional U.S. troops into America’s longest war, in Afghanistan. President Trump, who promised caution and non-interventionism in foreign policy - and described Hillary Clinton as a “trigger happy warmonger” - has now done the same thing himself. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> What both men knew is that, in spite of intense media propaganda, most Americans don’t want U.S. troops engaged in foreign wars and don’t see the killing as justified; both candidates had to seem to oppose the wars, in order to get elected. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> But the ‘one percent’ - the U.S. economic elite - do want the wars. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> When World War II ended in 1945, the U.S. was the least-damaged major country on either side, and controlled the world economy. America’s wars since then - in Korea, Vietnam, Latin America, and the Mideast - have killed between 20 and 30 million people for the purpose of maintaining that control. Ordinary Americans have paid for these vicious wars, but they haven’t profited from them. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> John Pilger wrote before the election, "The CIA has demanded Trump is not elected. Pentagon generals have demanded he is not elected. The pro-war New York Times - taking a breather from its relentless low-rent Putin smears - demands that he is not elected. Something is up. These tribunes of 'perpetual war' are terrified that the multi-billion-dollar business of war by which the United States maintains its dominance will be undermined if Trump does a deal with Putin, then with China’s Xi Jinping. Their panic at the possibility of the world’s great power talking peace – however unlikely – would be the blackest farce were the issues not so dire." > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> We must demand that foreign military bases be closed, U.S. troops (and weapons) be brought home, and social support - including free medical care, education, and a universal basic income - be provided for Americans immiserated by generations of U.S. government wars. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> WRITE CONGRESS - DEMAND U.S. TROOPS & WEAPONS BE BROUGHT HOME > >>>>>>> Our representatives in Congress from this area - and their email addresses - are as follows: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Representative Rodney Davis: > > >>>>>>> Senator Tammy Duckworth: > > >>>>>>> Senator Dick Durbin: > > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> ~~~ > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> ANTI-WAR ANTI-RACISM EFFORT - on Facebook at > >>>>>>> ~ U.S. troops & weapons out of the Mideast ~ Medicare for all ~ Universal basic income ~ > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>>>> Peace-discuss mailing list > >>>>>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > >>>>>>> https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.chambana.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fpeace-discuss&data=02%7C01%7Ckarenaram%40hotmail.com%7Cfc30480baf2b4882394b08d5376a458e%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636475851934473412&sdata=0JBYxrD5cfjQzfDHk4PpLhvWxWn5Ce3B%2FBGNvILHbQI%3D&reserved=0 > >>>>>> > >>>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>>> Peace mailing list > >>>>>> Peace at lists.chambana.net > >>>>>> https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.chambana.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fpeace&data=02%7C01%7Ckarenaram%40hotmail.com%7Cf666ae76fb7a4230b3e308d5380383c8%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636476510093637620&sdata=K2skpZ7DB7gaAC0qrBHMVVdN3aiMOsP2EfrwZkHSw3k%3D&reserved=0 > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>> Peace-discuss mailing list > >>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > >>>> https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.chambana.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fpeace-discuss&data=02%7C01%7Ckarenaram%40hotmail.com%7Cf666ae76fb7a4230b3e308d5380383c8%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636476510093637620&sdata=xazvoaiiZfeKwnoLWr0%2BQ7zDKzK11UmSbVoB97gFtjE%3D&reserved=0 > >>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>> Peace mailing list > >>>> Peace at lists.chambana.net > >>>> https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.chambana.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fpeace&data=02%7C01%7Ckarenaram%40hotmail.com%7Cf666ae76fb7a4230b3e308d5380383c8%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636476510093637620&sdata=K2skpZ7DB7gaAC0qrBHMVVdN3aiMOsP2EfrwZkHSw3k%3D&reserved=0 > >>> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Peace-discuss mailing list > >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > >> https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.chambana.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fpeace-discuss&data=02%7C01%7Ckarenaram%40hotmail.com%7C1510d4a9e78e4ab02a0f08d538090865%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636476533794287026&sdata=1gLoCzw4EfQ1ZonM6wynHGMKl4R%2FZ9tvCrtiZBxZTpo%3D&reserved=0 > > _______________________________________________ > Peace mailing list > Peace at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Thu Nov 30 19:15:46 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 19:15:46 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Flyer for AWARE demonstration, Saturday 12/2 In-Reply-To: <04FF46D8-9558-49D6-891A-AAC4FFBBC6B0@illinois.edu> References: <795D395D-B752-41A3-82ED-32B7DC7FEB1A@gmail.com> <979452964.4663360.1512052774015@mail.yahoo.com> <7AF7A515-7D8F-4C6E-A8A6-85E851F33882@gmail.com> <04FF46D8-9558-49D6-891A-AAC4FFBBC6B0@illinois.edu> Message-ID: Harry is correct, keeping it simple is best, not my skill set. He is also correct that focus on the monetary cost of war and intervention to US domestic social services, including healthcare, education, etc. appeals to most people, so should always be mentioned. A total focus on costs of war, isn’t really us, but it does need to be mentioned. How can we overlook the genocide taking place in Yemen, or the slavery in Libya of Black Africans as a result of the US destruction of that nation in 2011. It’s now being used as a cause for military intervention, again, basically bringing more troops in than those we’ve already had there. Trump has announced more troops in Afghanistan, and Col. Larry Wilkerson has predicted we will be there forever, due to China’s economic progress in that region. Bottom line, the USG is planning perpetual war in many nations around the globe, its become the norm for the millennial generation. In relation to Africa (the sahel, in particular) the fourteen nations previously colonized by France, and again being recolonized by way of military occupation, the US is involved in all, because the French military is incapable, just as is the Saudi military, without US military technical, and logistical support. On Nov 30, 2017, at 10:40, Carl G. Estabrook > wrote: The US should in fact be spending much more on war than the current military budget - paying reparations for the damage we've done and the people we’ve killed in the wars of the current generation. But it’s not the case that war spending means we can’t afford universal healthcare, free college, and universal basic income. The USG can’t run out of money. No one refuses a check signed by the US government. —CGE On Nov 30, 2017, at 12:31 PM, Harry Mickalide via Peace-discuss > wrote: I still think a better simpler flyer would look like this: Projected annual cost for universal healthcare, free college, and universal basic income: $X Annual military budget: $600 billion On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 11:26 AM, Karen Aram via Peace > wrote: Yes, it is a distraction, and I have argued this point with those who suggest it, other than for war, which no one suggests, and actually might be worthwhile. However, I’ll say it again, it’s totally counterproductive to the anti-war movement and our demonstration. I have another appointment on Saturday so don’t plan to attend our demonstration. End of conversation on this topic, on my part. PS Even Peter Lavalle of Crosstalk, who supported Trump vs. Hillary, has now stated emphatically, "he is glad Hillary is not President, but he in no way supports Trump given what he is doing.” > On Nov 30, 2017, at 07:42, C G Estabrook > wrote: > > I agree that we should focus on "what the USG is doing in respect to war.” > > That’s why ‘Impeach Trump’ is a distraction - a purposeful distraction, by the those calling for continuity in US fp and war-making. > > >> On Nov 30, 2017, at 9:15 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > wrote: >> >> We should be informing people, when it comes to flyers, of what the USG is doing. >> Most Americans aren’t aware that we are in eight wars, with potential for two more. >> Oh yes, they all know how awful the N. Korean leader is, they all fear Iran having nuclear weapons, but do they know there is a solution to the N. Korean problem, one for which we the US could implement, but refuses to do so. >> >> Do the American people know that we are in the process of savaging Africa, again? >> Do they know the US is the greatest purveyor of violence in the world? >> >> Carl, these are all things you have talked about, and placed in flyers before. >> >> Focusing on individuals to blame, is a tactic that alienates and divides a people. If you were writing an article to be published, or on FB thats one thing, but a flyer representing an organization, should merely paraphrase what the USG is doing in respect to war. >> >>> On Nov 30, 2017, at 07:03, C G Estabrook > wrote: >>> >>> That earlier flyer was meant to combat Obama’s squeaky-clean image, which he was good at fostering while he administered “the most extreme terrorist campaign of modern times." >>> >>> . >>> >>> And see the puff-piece on his 'toughness’: . >>> >>> But I don’t think anyone contends that US world-wide mass murder post-WWII is a matter of presidential caprice, even if they could have acted differently. >>> >>> Neither Obama nor Trump had to send tens of thousands more troops to Afghanistan (as they did) after running as critics of the war (as they did). >>> >>> Condemning and opposing US war-making doesn’t depend on affixing individual responsibility. (Was Truman responsible for Hiroshima? Yes. Alone? No.) >>> >>> —CGE >>> >>> >>>> On Nov 30, 2017, at 8:39 AM, David Green via Peace > wrote: >>>> >>>> In any event, this language contrasts sharply with a flyer from two years ago, which holds Obama responsible: >>>> >>>> President Obama is making war in eight countries; he is sending American ‘special forces’ into more than 100 countries around the world; he has assassinated thousands by drone - the most extreme terrorist campaign of modern times; and he is provoking war with Russia and China. >>>> >>>> I'm not sure how we can justify the difference in tone and substance regarding the warmaking "motivations" of Obama and Trump. >>>> >>>> On Thursday, November 30, 2017, 7:06:53 AM CST, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> Carl >>>> >>>> No one knows better than I, no one has spoken more about the powers behind the throne than I. I’m the one, with AWARE, who has been making the argument that any President who comes to power, as either a Republican or Democrat is going to implement the foreign policy plan put into place by the Oligarchs behind the throne. One of which was Brzezinski, just to keep it simple. >>>> >>>> As a Green socialist, who does not support the one Party system, Democrat/ Republican, once they get to DC. I have been highlighting the very fact, of the Pentagon, CIA, Council on Foreign Relations, Think Tanks, Corporations and Contractors as those pushing the US war agenda. >>>> >>>> But, to imply that Trump anymore than Obama is an unwitting dope of those who make up the “Deep State” “Military Industrial Complex,” however we wish to refer to them, is a mistake, most especially in the title of a flyer. Whether architects or rubber stamps of our foreign policy, they are all complicit. >>>> >>>> A FLYER is meant to impart information, but no one is going to read it, when it acts as an apology for Trump. He is as vile a creature as Clinton, in that he supported the rhetoric of lies and propaganda against Libya and Gaddafi. He is guilty of bombing Syria, and now provoking war with N Korea and Iran. Yes, he is attempting peace with Russia and China, he knows where a dollar is to be made. Though it matters not, when the plan is war with China, predicted by the Rand Think Tank and Pentagon in to be 2030. Our continued presence of Nato on the border of Russia is not going away. >>>> >>>> Roger has just proved my point. He has assessed us as Trump supporters, in spite of my statement, in spite of David Greens statement. What do you think people will think of AWARE, upon receipt of our flyer? And, as I said, focus on the election in order to bash the Clintons is also of no value. >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Nov 29, 2017, at 18:29, C G Estabrook > wrote: >>>>> >>>>> The concentration on Trump is the strategy of the (pro-)War Party (the Pentagon, the 'intelligence community,' the Clinton campaign, the neocons) to force the government to continue the wars and war provocations of the last administrations. They think either Trump can be forced to fall in line with the war policy (as he shown he’s willing to do) under the threat of ‘Russiagate’ - or be replaced (with Pence, a War Party creature). >>>>> >>>>> The anti-war movement has to insist that Trump - the weakest president since Coolidge (“silent Cal,”|who followed the opposite performance strategy to Trump's bluster) - is not the problem, but that the continuing and largely unvaried Clinton-Bush-Obama war-making is. That's the policy that must be resisted. The War Party (who of course support that policy) is using Trump as a distraction from that policy. >>>>> >>>>> We should be opposing the Pentagon, the CIA, the Obama-Clintonists, the neocons, et al., who are promoting war provocations vs. Russia and China - not bothering much with the Potemkin president. >>>>> >>>>> John Pilger saw it clearly before the election: "The CIA has demanded Trump is not elected. Pentagon generals have demanded he is not elected. The pro-war New York Times - taking a breather from its relentless low-rent Putin smears - demands that he is not elected. Something is up. These tribunes of 'perpetual war' are terrified that the multi-billion-dollar business of war by which the United States maintains its dominance will be undermined if Trump does a deal with Putin, then with China’s Xi Jinping. Their panic at the possibility of the world’s great power talking peace – however unlikely – would be the blackest farce were the issues not so dire.” —CGE >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On Nov 29, 2017, at 5:31 PM, Karen Aram via Peace > wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> I’m sorry, Carl >>>>>> >>>>>> I don’t like it, the title alone makes AWARE look like “Trump defenders.” It’s one thing to say this in conversation when explaining our wars, to those who think the problem began with Trump, but as a title, it sucks. Most people in this town are Democrats and won’t bother to read it. >>>>>> >>>>>> I’m not pleased with some of that which is in the article either, because the focus on the election is old news. Its time to move on. Trump is President and he is responsible for that which occurs on his watch. >>>>>> >>>>>> Trump bombed Syria and that is an impeachable offense, granted every other President before him, committed war crimes that were also impeachable offenses, Bush and most especially Obama, but Trump has been in power for almost a year now. His provocations of war with Korea, and Iran are extremely dangerous. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Nov 29, 2017, at 12:46, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss > wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> PRESIDENT TRUMP IS NOT THE PROBLEM: >>>>>>> ILLEGAL U.S. WARS AROUND THE WORLD ARE >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The US government is today making war around the world - and it’s doing so without authorization from the U.S. Constitution or the U.N. Charter. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If American leaders were put on trial today as German leaders were, at Nuremberg after World War II, for “launching aggressive war,” they - like the German leaders - would be hanged. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The U.S. military is today killing people in seven Mideast and African countries - Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Somalia, and Pakistan (and on the other side of the world, in the Philippines). Thousands of U.S. troops are fighting in these countries, although most Americans don’t know that. In addition, the 70,000-member U.S. ‘Special Operations Command’ is active in three-quarters of the countries of the world. Their activities include kidnapping (‘rendition’), torture, and murder. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> President Obama was elected as an anti-war candidate, but in office he sent thousands of additional U.S. troops into America’s longest war, in Afghanistan. President Trump, who promised caution and non-interventionism in foreign policy - and described Hillary Clinton as a “trigger happy warmonger” - has now done the same thing himself. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What both men knew is that, in spite of intense media propaganda, most Americans don’t want U.S. troops engaged in foreign wars and don’t see the killing as justified; both candidates had to seem to oppose the wars, in order to get elected. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But the ‘one percent’ - the U.S. economic elite - do want the wars. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> When World War II ended in 1945, the U.S. was the least-damaged major country on either side, and controlled the world economy. America’s wars since then - in Korea, Vietnam, Latin America, and the Mideast - have killed between 20 and 30 million people for the purpose of maintaining that control. Ordinary Americans have paid for these vicious wars, but they haven’t profited from them. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> John Pilger wrote before the election, "The CIA has demanded Trump is not elected. Pentagon generals have demanded he is not elected. The pro-war New York Times - taking a breather from its relentless low-rent Putin smears - demands that he is not elected. Something is up. These tribunes of 'perpetual war' are terrified that the multi-billion-dollar business of war by which the United States maintains its dominance will be undermined if Trump does a deal with Putin, then with China’s Xi Jinping. Their panic at the possibility of the world’s great power talking peace – however unlikely – would be the blackest farce were the issues not so dire." >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We must demand that foreign military bases be closed, U.S. troops (and weapons) be brought home, and social support - including free medical care, education, and a universal basic income - be provided for Americans immiserated by generations of U.S. government wars. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> WRITE CONGRESS - DEMAND U.S. TROOPS & WEAPONS BE BROUGHT HOME >>>>>>> Our representatives in Congress from this area - and their email addresses - are as follows: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Representative Rodney Davis: >>>>>>> Senator Tammy Duckworth: >>>>>>> Senator Dick Durbin: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ~~~ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ANTI-WAR ANTI-RACISM EFFORT - on Facebook at >>>>>>> ~ U.S. troops & weapons out of the Mideast ~ Medicare for all ~ Universal basic income ~ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> Peace-discuss mailing list >>>>>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >>>>>>> https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.chambana.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fpeace-discuss&data=02%7C01%7Ckarenaram%40hotmail.com%7Cfc30480baf2b4882394b08d5376a458e%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636475851934473412&sdata=0JBYxrD5cfjQzfDHk4PpLhvWxWn5Ce3B%2FBGNvILHbQI%3D&reserved=0 >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Peace mailing list >>>>>> Peace at lists.chambana.net >>>>>> https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.chambana.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fpeace&data=02%7C01%7Ckarenaram%40hotmail.com%7Cf666ae76fb7a4230b3e308d5380383c8%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636476510093637620&sdata=K2skpZ7DB7gaAC0qrBHMVVdN3aiMOsP2EfrwZkHSw3k%3D&reserved=0 >>>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Peace-discuss mailing list >>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >>>> https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.chambana.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fpeace-discuss&data=02%7C01%7Ckarenaram%40hotmail.com%7Cf666ae76fb7a4230b3e308d5380383c8%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636476510093637620&sdata=xazvoaiiZfeKwnoLWr0%2BQ7zDKzK11UmSbVoB97gFtjE%3D&reserved=0 >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Peace mailing list >>>> Peace at lists.chambana.net >>>> https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.chambana.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fpeace&data=02%7C01%7Ckarenaram%40hotmail.com%7Cf666ae76fb7a4230b3e308d5380383c8%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636476510093637620&sdata=K2skpZ7DB7gaAC0qrBHMVVdN3aiMOsP2EfrwZkHSw3k%3D&reserved=0 >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Peace-discuss mailing list >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >> https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.chambana.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fpeace-discuss&data=02%7C01%7Ckarenaram%40hotmail.com%7C1510d4a9e78e4ab02a0f08d538090865%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636476533794287026&sdata=1gLoCzw4EfQ1ZonM6wynHGMKl4R%2FZ9tvCrtiZBxZTpo%3D&reserved=0 _______________________________________________ Peace mailing list Peace at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From galliher at illinois.edu Thu Nov 30 21:56:56 2017 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 15:56:56 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Flyer for AWARE demonstration, Saturday 12/2 In-Reply-To: References: <795D395D-B752-41A3-82ED-32B7DC7FEB1A@gmail.com> <979452964.4663360.1512052774015@mail.yahoo.com> <7AF7A515-7D8F-4C6E-A8A6-85E851F33882@gmail.com> <04FF46D8-9558-49D6-891A-AAC4FFBBC6B0@illinois.edu> Message-ID: <6B2675C7-4801-4079-84A1-43CAD5C20771@illinois.edu> You might keep it simple by observing, "Trump is not the problem, US war-making is." Or, "Bottom line, the USG is planning perpetual war in many nations around the globe, its become the norm for the millennial generation.” > On Nov 30, 2017, at 1:15 PM, Karen Aram wrote: > > Harry is correct, keeping it simple is best, not my skill set. He is also correct that focus on the monetary cost of war and intervention to US domestic social services, including healthcare, education, etc. appeals to most people, so should always be mentioned. A total focus on costs of war, isn’t really us, but it does need to be mentioned. > > How can we overlook the genocide taking place in Yemen, or the slavery in Libya of Black Africans as a result of the US destruction of that nation in 2011. It’s now being used as a cause for military intervention, again, basically bringing more troops in than those we’ve already had there. > > Trump has announced more troops in Afghanistan, and Col. Larry Wilkerson has predicted we will be there forever, due to China’s economic progress in that region. > > Bottom line, the USG is planning perpetual war in many nations around the globe, its become the norm for the millennial generation. > > In relation to Africa (the sahel, in particular) the fourteen nations previously colonized by France, and again being recolonized by way of military occupation, the US is involved in all, because the French military is incapable, just as is the Saudi military, without US military technical, and logistical support. > > > > >> On Nov 30, 2017, at 10:40, Carl G. Estabrook > wrote: >> >> The US should in fact be spending much more on war than the current military budget - paying reparations for the damage we've done and the people we’ve killed in the wars of the current generation. >> >> But it’s not the case that war spending means we can’t afford universal healthcare, free college, and universal basic income. >> >> The USG can’t run out of money. No one refuses a check signed by the US government. —CGE >> >> >>> On Nov 30, 2017, at 12:31 PM, Harry Mickalide via Peace-discuss > wrote: >>> >>> I still think a better simpler flyer would look like this: >>> >>> Projected annual cost for universal healthcare, free college, and universal basic income: $X >>> >>> Annual military budget: $600 billion >>> >>> On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 11:26 AM, Karen Aram via Peace > wrote: >>> Yes, it is a distraction, and I have argued this point with those who suggest it, other than for war, which no one suggests, and actually might be worthwhile. >>> >>> However, I’ll say it again, it’s totally counterproductive to the anti-war movement and our demonstration. >>> >>> I have another appointment on Saturday so don’t plan to attend our demonstration. >>> >>> End of conversation on this topic, on my part. >>> >>> PS Even Peter Lavalle of Crosstalk, who supported Trump vs. Hillary, has now stated emphatically, "he is glad Hillary is not President, but he in no way supports Trump given what he is doing.” >>> >>> > On Nov 30, 2017, at 07:42, C G Estabrook > wrote: >>> > >>> > I agree that we should focus on "what the USG is doing in respect to war.” >>> > >>> > That’s why ‘Impeach Trump’ is a distraction - a purposeful distraction, by the those calling for continuity in US fp and war-making. >>> > >>> > >>> >> On Nov 30, 2017, at 9:15 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > wrote: >>> >> >>> >> We should be informing people, when it comes to flyers, of what the USG is doing. >>> >> Most Americans aren’t aware that we are in eight wars, with potential for two more. >>> >> Oh yes, they all know how awful the N. Korean leader is, they all fear Iran having nuclear weapons, but do they know there is a solution to the N. Korean problem, one for which we the US could implement, but refuses to do so. >>> >> >>> >> Do the American people know that we are in the process of savaging Africa, again? >>> >> Do they know the US is the greatest purveyor of violence in the world? >>> >> >>> >> Carl, these are all things you have talked about, and placed in flyers before. >>> >> >>> >> Focusing on individuals to blame, is a tactic that alienates and divides a people. If you were writing an article to be published, or on FB thats one thing, but a flyer representing an organization, should merely paraphrase what the USG is doing in respect to war. >>> >> >>> >>> On Nov 30, 2017, at 07:03, C G Estabrook > wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> That earlier flyer was meant to combat Obama’s squeaky-clean image, which he was good at fostering while he administered “the most extreme terrorist campaign of modern times." >>> >>> >>> >>> > . >>> >>> >>> >>> And see the puff-piece on his 'toughness’: >. >>> >>> >>> >>> But I don’t think anyone contends that US world-wide mass murder post-WWII is a matter of presidential caprice, even if they could have acted differently. >>> >>> >>> >>> Neither Obama nor Trump had to send tens of thousands more troops to Afghanistan (as they did) after running as critics of the war (as they did). >>> >>> >>> >>> Condemning and opposing US war-making doesn’t depend on affixing individual responsibility. (Was Truman responsible for Hiroshima? Yes. Alone? No.) >>> >>> >>> >>> —CGE >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> On Nov 30, 2017, at 8:39 AM, David Green via Peace > wrote: >>> >>>> >>> >>>> In any event, this language contrasts sharply with a flyer from two years ago, which holds Obama responsible: >>> >>>> >>> >>>> President Obama is making war in eight countries; he is sending American ‘special forces’ into more than 100 countries around the world; he has assassinated thousands by drone - the most extreme terrorist campaign of modern times; and he is provoking war with Russia and China. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> I'm not sure how we can justify the difference in tone and substance regarding the warmaking "motivations" of Obama and Trump. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> On Thursday, November 30, 2017, 7:06:53 AM CST, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > wrote: >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Carl >>> >>>> >>> >>>> No one knows better than I, no one has spoken more about the powers behind the throne than I. I’m the one, with AWARE, who has been making the argument that any President who comes to power, as either a Republican or Democrat is going to implement the foreign policy plan put into place by the Oligarchs behind the throne. One of which was Brzezinski, just to keep it simple. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> As a Green socialist, who does not support the one Party system, Democrat/ Republican, once they get to DC. I have been highlighting the very fact, of the Pentagon, CIA, Council on Foreign Relations, Think Tanks, Corporations and Contractors as those pushing the US war agenda. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> But, to imply that Trump anymore than Obama is an unwitting dope of those who make up the “Deep State” “Military Industrial Complex,” however we wish to refer to them, is a mistake, most especially in the title of a flyer. Whether architects or rubber stamps of our foreign policy, they are all complicit. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> A FLYER is meant to impart information, but no one is going to read it, when it acts as an apology for Trump. He is as vile a creature as Clinton, in that he supported the rhetoric of lies and propaganda against Libya and Gaddafi. He is guilty of bombing Syria, and now provoking war with N Korea and Iran. Yes, he is attempting peace with Russia and China, he knows where a dollar is to be made. Though it matters not, when the plan is war with China, predicted by the Rand Think Tank and Pentagon in to be 2030. Our continued presence of Nato on the border of Russia is not going away. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Roger has just proved my point. He has assessed us as Trump supporters, in spite of my statement, in spite of David Greens statement. What do you think people will think of AWARE, upon receipt of our flyer? And, as I said, focus on the election in order to bash the Clintons is also of no value. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>>> On Nov 29, 2017, at 18:29, C G Estabrook > wrote: >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> The concentration on Trump is the strategy of the (pro-)War Party (the Pentagon, the 'intelligence community,' the Clinton campaign, the neocons) to force the government to continue the wars and war provocations of the last administrations. They think either Trump can be forced to fall in line with the war policy (as he shown he’s willing to do) under the threat of ‘Russiagate’ - or be replaced (with Pence, a War Party creature). >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> The anti-war movement has to insist that Trump - the weakest president since Coolidge (“silent Cal,”|who followed the opposite performance strategy to Trump's bluster) - is not the problem, but that the continuing and largely unvaried Clinton-Bush-Obama war-making is. That's the policy that must be resisted. The War Party (who of course support that policy) is using Trump as a distraction from that policy. >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> We should be opposing the Pentagon, the CIA, the Obama-Clintonists, the neocons, et al., who are promoting war provocations vs. Russia and China - not bothering much with the Potemkin president. >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> John Pilger saw it clearly before the election: "The CIA has demanded Trump is not elected. Pentagon generals have demanded he is not elected. The pro-war New York Times - taking a breather from its relentless low-rent Putin smears - demands that he is not elected. Something is up. These tribunes of 'perpetual war' are terrified that the multi-billion-dollar business of war by which the United States maintains its dominance will be undermined if Trump does a deal with Putin, then with China’s Xi Jinping. Their panic at the possibility of the world’s great power talking peace – however unlikely – would be the blackest farce were the issues not so dire.” —CGE >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>>> On Nov 29, 2017, at 5:31 PM, Karen Aram via Peace > wrote: >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> I’m sorry, Carl >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> I don’t like it, the title alone makes AWARE look like “Trump defenders.” It’s one thing to say this in conversation when explaining our wars, to those who think the problem began with Trump, but as a title, it sucks. Most people in this town are Democrats and won’t bother to read it. >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> I’m not pleased with some of that which is in the article either, because the focus on the election is old news. Its time to move on. Trump is President and he is responsible for that which occurs on his watch. >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> Trump bombed Syria and that is an impeachable offense, granted every other President before him, committed war crimes that were also impeachable offenses, Bush and most especially Obama, but Trump has been in power for almost a year now. His provocations of war with Korea, and Iran are extremely dangerous. >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> On Nov 29, 2017, at 12:46, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss > wrote: >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> PRESIDENT TRUMP IS NOT THE PROBLEM: >>> >>>>>>> ILLEGAL U.S. WARS AROUND THE WORLD ARE >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> The US government is today making war around the world - and it’s doing so without authorization from the U.S. Constitution or the U.N. Charter. >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> If American leaders were put on trial today as German leaders were, at Nuremberg after World War II, for “launching aggressive war,” they - like the German leaders - would be hanged. >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> The U.S. military is today killing people in seven Mideast and African countries - Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Somalia, and Pakistan (and on the other side of the world, in the Philippines). Thousands of U.S. troops are fighting in these countries, although most Americans don’t know that. In addition, the 70,000-member U.S. ‘Special Operations Command’ is active in three-quarters of the countries of the world. Their activities include kidnapping (‘rendition’), torture, and murder. >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> President Obama was elected as an anti-war candidate, but in office he sent thousands of additional U.S. troops into America’s longest war, in Afghanistan. President Trump, who promised caution and non-interventionism in foreign policy - and described Hillary Clinton as a “trigger happy warmonger” - has now done the same thing himself. >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> What both men knew is that, in spite of intense media propaganda, most Americans don’t want U.S. troops engaged in foreign wars and don’t see the killing as justified; both candidates had to seem to oppose the wars, in order to get elected. >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> But the ‘one percent’ - the U.S. economic elite - do want the wars. >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> When World War II ended in 1945, the U.S. was the least-damaged major country on either side, and controlled the world economy. America’s wars since then - in Korea, Vietnam, Latin America, and the Mideast - have killed between 20 and 30 million people for the purpose of maintaining that control. Ordinary Americans have paid for these vicious wars, but they haven’t profited from them. >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> John Pilger wrote before the election, "The CIA has demanded Trump is not elected. Pentagon generals have demanded he is not elected. The pro-war New York Times - taking a breather from its relentless low-rent Putin smears - demands that he is not elected. Something is up. These tribunes of 'perpetual war' are terrified that the multi-billion-dollar business of war by which the United States maintains its dominance will be undermined if Trump does a deal with Putin, then with China’s Xi Jinping. Their panic at the possibility of the world’s great power talking peace – however unlikely – would be the blackest farce were the issues not so dire." >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> We must demand that foreign military bases be closed, U.S. troops (and weapons) be brought home, and social support - including free medical care, education, and a universal basic income - be provided for Americans immiserated by generations of U.S. government wars. >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> WRITE CONGRESS - DEMAND U.S. TROOPS & WEAPONS BE BROUGHT HOME >>> >>>>>>> Our representatives in Congress from this area - and their email addresses - are as follows: >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> Representative Rodney Davis: > >>> >>>>>>> Senator Tammy Duckworth: > >>> >>>>>>> Senator Dick Durbin: > >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> ~~~ >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> ANTI-WAR ANTI-RACISM EFFORT - on Facebook at >>> >>>>>>> ~ U.S. troops & weapons out of the Mideast ~ Medicare for all ~ Universal basic income ~ >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>> >>>>>>> Peace-discuss mailing list >>> >>>>>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >>> >>>>>>> https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.chambana.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fpeace-discuss&data=02%7C01%7Ckarenaram%40hotmail.com%7Cfc30480baf2b4882394b08d5376a458e%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636475851934473412&sdata=0JBYxrD5cfjQzfDHk4PpLhvWxWn5Ce3B%2FBGNvILHbQI%3D&reserved=0 >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>> >>>>>> Peace mailing list >>> >>>>>> Peace at lists.chambana.net >>> >>>>>> https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.chambana.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fpeace&data=02%7C01%7Ckarenaram%40hotmail.com%7Cf666ae76fb7a4230b3e308d5380383c8%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636476510093637620&sdata=K2skpZ7DB7gaAC0qrBHMVVdN3aiMOsP2EfrwZkHSw3k%3D&reserved=0 >>> >>>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>> >>>> Peace-discuss mailing list >>> >>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >>> >>>> https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.chambana.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fpeace-discuss&data=02%7C01%7Ckarenaram%40hotmail.com%7Cf666ae76fb7a4230b3e308d5380383c8%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636476510093637620&sdata=xazvoaiiZfeKwnoLWr0%2BQ7zDKzK11UmSbVoB97gFtjE%3D&reserved=0 >>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>> >>>> Peace mailing list >>> >>>> Peace at lists.chambana.net >>> >>>> https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.chambana.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fpeace&data=02%7C01%7Ckarenaram%40hotmail.com%7Cf666ae76fb7a4230b3e308d5380383c8%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636476510093637620&sdata=K2skpZ7DB7gaAC0qrBHMVVdN3aiMOsP2EfrwZkHSw3k%3D&reserved=0 >>> >>> >>> >> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >>> >> Peace-discuss mailing list >>> >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >>> >> https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.chambana.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fpeace-discuss&data=02%7C01%7Ckarenaram%40hotmail.com%7C1510d4a9e78e4ab02a0f08d538090865%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636476533794287026&sdata=1gLoCzw4EfQ1ZonM6wynHGMKl4R%2FZ9tvCrtiZBxZTpo%3D&reserved=0 >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Peace mailing list >>> Peace at lists.chambana.net >>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Peace-discuss mailing list >>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bjornsona at ameritech.net Thu Nov 30 22:18:59 2017 From: bjornsona at ameritech.net (bjornsona at ameritech.net) Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 16:18:59 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Flyer for AWARE demonstration, Saturday 12/2 Message-ID: Sorry to be late to the party on commenting, here.  Thank you all very much- I am learning so much from you!! I have been catching up on previous "Aware on the Air" episodes from this year.  Because I am new to the formal anti-war movement, I appreciate very much Carl's recitation of basic USG wartime facts at the beginning of each AOTA episode. His delivery helps me memorize them! My comments on any flyers would then be, as a newbie to a demonstration, that I would find many facts like those or others useful and shocking. Many people have absolutely no idea that we have as many bases outside the country as we do, and many people have no idea that Russia only has 15; China 1. (Correct?)  Random thought #1: not related to flyer: Important to address unfounded  fears people will have (I did)  when hearing  "bring back troops" , "cut military in half" . Without knowing/feeling facts of why  U. S. is  major terrorist,  or seeing a plan of bases to close,  or a jobs plan for soldiers, I was fearful of the whole thing. Which brought me to research more, for which I am grateful Aware has links to CounterPunch,  military historians, new events in Asia like Karen brings.  Random #2: As we know to our sorrow,  many people still believe U of C Arthur Laffer -curve trickle-down economics . And in outsourcing all the negative costs of capitalism to the environment and the community instead of making producers be responsible. I prefer to call out continued growth in a corporation as a physical impossibility, just like No Child Left Behind made no sense from the way it was set up, or a cancer is unrestrained growth.  Real life is a cycle. Which would make sense to Millenniels. Where those concepts for into anti-war, Idk. I think they do. Guns & butter from 1st year economics might resonate with those who consider themselves classic GOP conservatives.   Sent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone ------ Original message------From: Karen Aram via Peace-discussDate: Thu, Nov 30, 2017 1:16 PMTo: Carl G. Estabrook;Cc: Karen Aram via Peace-discuss;Harry Mickalide;Peace;Subject:Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Flyer for AWARE demonstration, Saturday 12/2 Harry is correct, keeping it simple is best, not my skill set. He is also correct that focus on the monetary cost of war and intervention to US domestic social services, including healthcare, education, etc. appeals to most people, so should always be mentioned. A total focus on costs of war, isn’t really us, but it does need to be mentioned.  How can we overlook the genocide taking place in Yemen, or the slavery in Libya of Black Africans as a result of the US destruction of that nation in 2011. It’s now being used as a cause for military intervention, again, basically bringing more troops in than those we’ve already had there.  Trump has announced more troops in Afghanistan, and Col. Larry Wilkerson has predicted we will be there forever, due to China’s economic progress in that region.  Bottom line, the USG is planning perpetual war in many nations around the globe, its become the norm for the millennial generation.  In relation to Africa (the sahel, in particular) the fourteen nations previously colonized by France, and again being recolonized by way of military occupation, the US is involved in all, because the French military is incapable, just as is the Saudi military, without US military technical, and logistical support.  On Nov 30, 2017, at 10:40, Carl G. Estabrook wrote: The US should in fact be spending much more on war than the current military budget - paying reparations for the damage we've done and the people we’ve killed in the wars of the current generation.  But it’s not the case that war spending means we can’t afford universal healthcare, free college, and universal basic income.  The USG can’t run out of money. No one refuses a check signed by the US government. —CGE On Nov 30, 2017, at 12:31 PM, Harry Mickalide via Peace-discuss wrote: I still think a better simpler flyer would look like this: Projected annual cost for universal healthcare, free college, and universal basic income: $X Annual military budget: $600 billion On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 11:26 AM, Karen Aram via Peace wrote: Yes, it is a distraction, and I have argued this point with those who suggest it, other than for war, which no one suggests, and actually might be worthwhile. However, I’ll say it again, it’s totally counterproductive to the anti-war movement and our demonstration.  I have another appointment on Saturday so don’t plan to attend our demonstration. End of conversation on this topic, on my part. PS Even Peter Lavalle of Crosstalk, who supported Trump vs. Hillary, has now stated emphatically, "he is glad Hillary is not President, but he in no way supports Trump given what he is doing.” > On Nov 30, 2017, at 07:42, C G Estabrook wrote: > > I agree that we should focus on "what the USG is doing in respect to war.” > > That’s why ‘Impeach Trump’ is a distraction - a purposeful distraction, by the those calling for continuity in US fp and war-making. > > >> On Nov 30, 2017, at 9:15 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: >> >> We should be informing people, when it comes to flyers, of what the USG is doing. >> Most Americans aren’t aware that we are in eight wars, with potential for two more. >> Oh yes, they all know how awful the N. Korean leader is, they all fear Iran having nuclear weapons, but do they know there is a solution to the N. Korean problem, one for which we the US could implement, but refuses to do so. >> >> Do the American people know that we are in the process of savaging Africa, again? >> Do they know the US is the greatest purveyor of violence in the world? >> >> Carl, these are all things you have talked about, and placed in flyers before. >> >> Focusing on individuals to blame, is a tactic that alienates and divides a people. If you were writing an article to be published, or on FB thats one thing, but a flyer representing an organization, should merely paraphrase what the USG is doing in respect to war. >> >>> On Nov 30, 2017, at 07:03, C G Estabrook wrote: >>> >>> That earlier flyer was meant to combat Obama’s squeaky-clean image, which he was good at fostering while he administered “the most extreme terrorist campaign of modern times." >>> >>> . >>> >>> And see the puff-piece on his 'toughness’: . >>> >>> But I don’t think anyone contends that US world-wide mass murder post-WWII is a matter of presidential caprice, even if they could have acted differently. >>> >>> Neither Obama nor Trump had to send tens of thousands more troops to Afghanistan (as they did) after running as critics of the war (as they did). >>> >>> Condemning and opposing US war-making doesn’t depend on affixing individual responsibility. (Was Truman responsible for Hiroshima? Yes. Alone? No.) >>> >>> —CGE >>> >>> >>>> On Nov 30, 2017, at 8:39 AM, David Green via Peace wrote: >>>> >>>> In any event, this language contrasts sharply with a flyer from two years ago, which holds Obama responsible: >>>> >>>> President Obama is making war in eight countries; he is sending American ‘special forces’ into more than 100 countries around the world; he has assassinated thousands  by drone - the most extreme terrorist campaign of modern times; and he is provoking war with Russia and China. >>>> >>>> I'm not sure how we can justify the difference in tone and substance regarding the warmaking "motivations" of Obama and Trump. >>>> >>>> On Thursday, November 30, 2017, 7:06:53 AM CST, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> Carl >>>> >>>> No one knows better than I, no one has spoken more about the powers behind the throne than I. I’m the one, with AWARE, who has been making the argument that any President who comes to power, as either a Republican or Democrat is going to implement the foreign policy plan put into place by the Oligarchs behind the throne. One of which was Brzezinski, just to keep it simple. >>>> >>>> As a Green socialist, who does not support the one Party system, Democrat/ Republican, once they get to DC. I have been highlighting the very fact, of the Pentagon, CIA, Council on Foreign Relations, Think Tanks, Corporations and Contractors as those pushing the US war agenda. >>>> >>>> But, to imply that Trump anymore than Obama is an unwitting dope of those who make up the “Deep State” “Military Industrial Complex,” however we wish to refer to them, is a mistake, most especially in the title of a flyer. Whether architects or rubber stamps of our foreign policy, they are all complicit. >>>> >>>> A FLYER is meant to impart information, but no one is going to read it, when it acts as an apology for Trump. He is as vile a creature as Clinton, in that he supported the rhetoric of lies and propaganda against Libya and Gaddafi. He is guilty of bombing Syria, and now provoking war with N Korea and Iran. Yes, he is attempting peace with Russia and China, he knows where a dollar is to be made. Though it matters not, when the plan is war with China, predicted by the Rand Think Tank and Pentagon in to be 2030. Our continued presence of Nato on the border of Russia is not going away. >>>> >>>> Roger has just proved my point. He has assessed us as Trump supporters, in spite of my statement, in spite of David Greens statement. What do you think people will think of AWARE, upon receipt of our flyer? And, as I said, focus on the election in order to bash the Clintons is also of no value. >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Nov 29, 2017, at 18:29, C G Estabrook wrote: >>>>> >>>>> The concentration on Trump is the strategy of the (pro-)War Party (the Pentagon, the 'intelligence community,' the Clinton campaign, the neocons) to force the government to continue the wars and war provocations of the last administrations. They think either Trump can be forced to fall in line with the war policy (as he shown he’s willing to do) under the threat of ‘Russiagate’ - or be replaced (with Pence, a War Party creature). >>>>> >>>>> The anti-war movement has to insist that Trump - the weakest president since Coolidge (“silent Cal,”|who followed the opposite performance strategy to Trump's bluster) - is not the problem, but that the continuing and largely unvaried Clinton-Bush-Obama war-making is. That's the policy that must be resisted.  The War Party (who of course support that policy) is using Trump as a distraction from that policy. >>>>> >>>>> We should be opposing the Pentagon, the CIA, the Obama-Clintonists, the neocons, et al., who are promoting war provocations vs. Russia and China - not bothering much with the Potemkin president. >>>>> >>>>> John Pilger saw it clearly before the election: "The CIA has demanded Trump is not elected. Pentagon generals have demanded he is not elected. The pro-war New York Times - taking a breather from its relentless low-rent Putin smears - demands that he is not elected. Something is up. These tribunes of 'perpetual war' are terrified that the multi-billion-dollar business of war by which the United States maintains its dominance will be undermined if Trump does a deal with Putin, then with China’s Xi Jinping. Their panic at the possibility of the world’s great power talking peace – however unlikely – would be the blackest farce were the issues not so dire.” —CGE >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On Nov 29, 2017, at 5:31 PM, Karen Aram via Peace wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> I’m sorry, Carl >>>>>> >>>>>> I don’t like it, the title alone makes AWARE look like “Trump defenders.” It’s one thing to say this in conversation when explaining our wars, to those who think the problem began with Trump, but as a title, it sucks. Most people in this town are Democrats and won’t bother to read it. >>>>>> >>>>>> I’m not pleased with some of that which is in the article either, because the focus  on the election is old news. Its time to move on. Trump is President and he is responsible for that which occurs on his watch. >>>>>> >>>>>> Trump bombed Syria and that is an impeachable offense, granted every other President before him, committed war crimes that were also impeachable offenses, Bush and most especially Obama, but Trump has been in power for almost a year now. His provocations of war with Korea, and Iran are extremely dangerous. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Nov 29, 2017, at 12:46, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> PRESIDENT TRUMP IS NOT THE PROBLEM: >>>>>>> ILLEGAL U.S. WARS AROUND THE WORLD ARE >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The US government is today making war around the world - and it’s doing so without authorization from the U.S. Constitution or the U.N. Charter. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If American leaders were put on trial today as German leaders were, at Nuremberg after World War II, for “launching aggressive war,” they - like the German leaders - would be hanged. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The U.S. military is today killing people in seven Mideast and African countries - Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Somalia, and Pakistan (and on the other side of the world, in the Philippines). Thousands of U.S. troops are fighting in these countries, although most Americans don’t know that.  In addition, the 70,000-member U.S. ‘Special Operations Command’ is active in three-quarters of the countries of the world. Their activities include kidnapping (‘rendition’), torture, and murder. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> President Obama was elected as an anti-war candidate, but in office he sent thousands of additional U.S. troops into America’s longest war, in Afghanistan. President Trump, who promised caution and non-interventionism in foreign policy - and described Hillary Clinton as a “trigger happy warmonger” - has now done the same thing himself. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What both men knew is that, in spite of intense media propaganda, most Americans don’t want U.S. troops engaged in foreign wars and don’t see the killing as justified; both candidates had to seem to oppose the wars, in order to get elected. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But the ‘one percent’ - the U.S. economic elite - do want the wars. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> When World War II ended in 1945, the U.S. was the least-damaged major country on either side, and controlled the world economy. America’s wars since then - in Korea, Vietnam, Latin America, and the Mideast - have killed between 20 and 30 million people for the purpose of maintaining that control. Ordinary Americans have paid for these vicious wars, but they haven’t profited from them. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> John Pilger wrote before the election, "The CIA has demanded Trump is not elected. Pentagon generals have demanded he is not elected. The pro-war New York Times - taking a breather from its relentless low-rent Putin smears - demands that he is not elected. Something is up. These tribunes of 'perpetual war' are terrified that the multi-billion-dollar business of war by which the United States maintains its dominance will be undermined if Trump does a deal with Putin, then with China’s Xi Jinping. Their panic at the possibility of the world’s great power talking peace – however unlikely – would be the blackest farce were the issues not so dire." >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We must demand that foreign military bases be closed, U.S. troops (and weapons) be brought home, and social support - including free medical care, education, and a universal basic income - be provided for Americans immiserated by generations of U.S. government wars. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> WRITE CONGRESS - DEMAND U.S. TROOPS & WEAPONS BE BROUGHT HOME >>>>>>> Our representatives in Congress from this area - and their email addresses - are as follows: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Representative Rodney Davis: >>>>>>> Senator Tammy Duckworth: >>>>>>> Senator Dick Durbin: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ~~~ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ANTI-WAR ANTI-RACISM EFFORT - on Facebook at >>>>>>> ~ U.S. troops & weapons out of the Mideast ~ Medicare for all ~ Universal basic income ~ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> Peace-discuss mailing list >>>>>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >>>>>>> https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.chambana.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fpeace-discuss&data=02%7C01%7Ckarenaram%40hotmail.com%7Cfc30480baf2b4882394b08d5376a458e%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636475851934473412&sdata=0JBYxrD5cfjQzfDHk4PpLhvWxWn5Ce3B%2FBGNvILHbQI%3D&reserved=0 >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Peace mailing list >>>>>> Peace at lists.chambana.net >>>>>> https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.chambana.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fpeace&data=02%7C01%7Ckarenaram%40hotmail.com%7Cf666ae76fb7a4230b3e308d5380383c8%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636476510093637620&sdata=K2skpZ7DB7gaAC0qrBHMVVdN3aiMOsP2EfrwZkHSw3k%3D&reserved=0 >>>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Peace-discuss mailing list >>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >>>> https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.chambana.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fpeace-discuss&data=02%7C01%7Ckarenaram%40hotmail.com%7Cf666ae76fb7a4230b3e308d5380383c8%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636476510093637620&sdata=xazvoaiiZfeKwnoLWr0%2BQ7zDKzK11UmSbVoB97gFtjE%3D&reserved=0 >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Peace mailing list >>>> Peace at lists.chambana.net >>>> https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.chambana.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fpeace&data=02%7C01%7Ckarenaram%40hotmail.com%7Cf666ae76fb7a4230b3e308d5380383c8%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636476510093637620&sdata=K2skpZ7DB7gaAC0qrBHMVVdN3aiMOsP2EfrwZkHSw3k%3D&reserved=0 >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Peace-discuss mailing list >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >> https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.chambana.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fpeace-discuss&data=02%7C01%7Ckarenaram%40hotmail.com%7C1510d4a9e78e4ab02a0f08d538090865%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636476533794287026&sdata=1gLoCzw4EfQ1ZonM6wynHGMKl4R%2FZ9tvCrtiZBxZTpo%3D&reserved=0 _______________________________________________ Peace mailing list Peace at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bjornsona at ameritech.net Thu Nov 30 22:32:22 2017 From: bjornsona at ameritech.net (bjornsona at ameritech.net) Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 16:32:22 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Flyer for AWARE demonstration, Saturday 12/2 Message-ID: <3nc9i30mspnbkep8g6mo9tum.1512080710489@email.lge.com> Forgive me for my learning curve. You all are teaching me to do better research. Are there other military costs put  outside of $600B budget? I found Cabinet costs: Department of Energy, some of which are Nukes. At https://energy.gov , in millions: Nuclear Security 13, 931; Other Defense 816; Dept Admin 178; ( Not all Admin. for defense of course).  The other two Cabinet posts, I think, that might be considered war $$ are NSA and DHS. Thinking there are slush funds other places- not sure where to look Sent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone ------ Original message------From: Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discussDate: Thu, Nov 30, 2017 3:57 PMTo: Karen Aram;Cc: Karen Aram via Peace-discuss;Harry Mickalide;Peace;Subject:Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Flyer for AWARE demonstration, Saturday 12/2 You might keep it simple by observing, "Trump is not the problem, US war-making is." Or, "Bottom line, the USG is planning perpetual war in many nations around the globe, its become the norm for the millennial generation.”  On Nov 30, 2017, at 1:15 PM, Karen Aram wrote: Harry is correct, keeping it simple is best, not my skill set. He is also correct that focus on the monetary cost of war and intervention to US domestic social services, including healthcare, education, etc. appeals to most people, so should always be mentioned. A total focus on costs of war, isn’t really us, but it does need to be mentioned.  How can we overlook the genocide taking place in Yemen, or the slavery in Libya of Black Africans as a result of the US destruction of that nation in 2011. It’s now being used as a cause for military intervention, again, basically bringing more troops in than those we’ve already had there.  Trump has announced more troops in Afghanistan, and Col. Larry Wilkerson has predicted we will be there forever, due to China’s economic progress in that region.  Bottom line, the USG is planning perpetual war in many nations around the globe, its become the norm for the millennial generation.  In relation to Africa (the sahel, in particular) the fourteen nations previously colonized by France, and again being recolonized by way of military occupation, the US is involved in all, because the French military is incapable, just as is the Saudi military, without US military technical, and logistical support.  On Nov 30, 2017, at 10:40, Carl G. Estabrook wrote: The US should in fact be spending much more on war than the current military budget - paying reparations for the damage we've done and the people we’ve killed in the wars of the current generation.  But it’s not the case that war spending means we can’t afford universal healthcare, free college, and universal basic income.  The USG can’t run out of money. No one refuses a check signed by the US government. —CGE On Nov 30, 2017, at 12:31 PM, Harry Mickalide via Peace-discuss wrote: I still think a better simpler flyer would look like this: Projected annual cost for universal healthcare, free college, and universal basic income: $X Annual military budget: $600 billion On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 11:26 AM, Karen Aram via Peace wrote: Yes, it is a distraction, and I have argued this point with those who suggest it, other than for war, which no one suggests, and actually might be worthwhile. However, I’ll say it again, it’s totally counterproductive to the anti-war movement and our demonstration.  I have another appointment on Saturday so don’t plan to attend our demonstration. End of conversation on this topic, on my part. PS Even Peter Lavalle of Crosstalk, who supported Trump vs. Hillary, has now stated emphatically, "he is glad Hillary is not President, but he in no way supports Trump given what he is doing.” > On Nov 30, 2017, at 07:42, C G Estabrook wrote: > > I agree that we should focus on "what the USG is doing in respect to war.” > > That’s why ‘Impeach Trump’ is a distraction - a purposeful distraction, by the those calling for continuity in US fp and war-making. > > >> On Nov 30, 2017, at 9:15 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: >> >> We should be informing people, when it comes to flyers, of what the USG is doing. >> Most Americans aren’t aware that we are in eight wars, with potential for two more. >> Oh yes, they all know how awful the N. Korean leader is, they all fear Iran having nuclear weapons, but do they know there is a solution to the N. Korean problem, one for which we the US could implement, but refuses to do so. >> >> Do the American people know that we are in the process of savaging Africa, again? >> Do they know the US is the greatest purveyor of violence in the world? >> >> Carl, these are all things you have talked about, and placed in flyers before. >> >> Focusing on individuals to blame, is a tactic that alienates and divides a people. If you were writing an article to be published, or on FB thats one thing, but a flyer representing an organization, should merely paraphrase what the USG is doing in respect to war. >> >>> On Nov 30, 2017, at 07:03, C G Estabrook wrote: >>> >>> That earlier flyer was meant to combat Obama’s squeaky-clean image, which he was good at fostering while he administered “the most extreme terrorist campaign of modern times." >>> >>> . >>> >>> And see the puff-piece on his 'toughness’: . >>> >>> But I don’t think anyone contends that US world-wide mass murder post-WWII is a matter of presidential caprice, even if they could have acted differently. >>> >>> Neither Obama nor Trump had to send tens of thousands more troops to Afghanistan (as they did) after running as critics of the war (as they did). >>> >>> Condemning and opposing US war-making doesn’t depend on affixing individual responsibility. (Was Truman responsible for Hiroshima? Yes. Alone? No.) >>> >>> —CGE >>> >>> >>>> On Nov 30, 2017, at 8:39 AM, David Green via Peace wrote: >>>> >>>> In any event, this language contrasts sharply with a flyer from two years ago, which holds Obama responsible: >>>> >>>> President Obama is making war in eight countries; he is sending American ‘special forces’ into more than 100 countries around the world; he has assassinated thousands  by drone - the most extreme terrorist campaign of modern times; and he is provoking war with Russia and China. >>>> >>>> I'm not sure how we can justify the difference in tone and substance regarding the warmaking "motivations" of Obama and Trump. >>>> >>>> On Thursday, November 30, 2017, 7:06:53 AM CST, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> Carl >>>> >>>> No one knows better than I, no one has spoken more about the powers behind the throne than I. I’m the one, with AWARE, who has been making the argument that any President who comes to power, as either a Republican or Democrat is going to implement the foreign policy plan put into place by the Oligarchs behind the throne. One of which was Brzezinski, just to keep it simple. >>>> >>>> As a Green socialist, who does not support the one Party system, Democrat/ Republican, once they get to DC. I have been highlighting the very fact, of the Pentagon, CIA, Council on Foreign Relations, Think Tanks, Corporations and Contractors as those pushing the US war agenda. >>>> >>>> But, to imply that Trump anymore than Obama is an unwitting dope of those who make up the “Deep State” “Military Industrial Complex,” however we wish to refer to them, is a mistake, most especially in the title of a flyer. Whether architects or rubber stamps of our foreign policy, they are all complicit. >>>> >>>> A FLYER is meant to impart information, but no one is going to read it, when it acts as an apology for Trump. He is as vile a creature as Clinton, in that he supported the rhetoric of lies and propaganda against Libya and Gaddafi. He is guilty of bombing Syria, and now provoking war with N Korea and Iran. Yes, he is attempting peace with Russia and China, he knows where a dollar is to be made. Though it matters not, when the plan is war with China, predicted by the Rand Think Tank and Pentagon in to be 2030. Our continued presence of Nato on the border of Russia is not going away. >>>> >>>> Roger has just proved my point. He has assessed us as Trump supporters, in spite of my statement, in spite of David Greens statement. What do you think people will think of AWARE, upon receipt of our flyer? And, as I said, focus on the election in order to bash the Clintons is also of no value. >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Nov 29, 2017, at 18:29, C G Estabrook wrote: >>>>> >>>>> The concentration on Trump is the strategy of the (pro-)War Party (the Pentagon, the 'intelligence community,' the Clinton campaign, the neocons) to force the government to continue the wars and war provocations of the last administrations. They think either Trump can be forced to fall in line with the war policy (as he shown he’s willing to do) under the threat of ‘Russiagate’ - or be replaced (with Pence, a War Party creature). >>>>> >>>>> The anti-war movement has to insist that Trump - the weakest president since Coolidge (“silent Cal,”|who followed the opposite performance strategy to Trump's bluster) - is not the problem, but that the continuing and largely unvaried Clinton-Bush-Obama war-making is. That's the policy that must be resisted.  The War Party (who of course support that policy) is using Trump as a distraction from that policy. >>>>> >>>>> We should be opposing the Pentagon, the CIA, the Obama-Clintonists, the neocons, et al., who are promoting war provocations vs. Russia and China - not bothering much with the Potemkin president. >>>>> >>>>> John Pilger saw it clearly before the election: "The CIA has demanded Trump is not elected. Pentagon generals have demanded he is not elected. The pro-war New York Times - taking a breather from its relentless low-rent Putin smears - demands that he is not elected. Something is up. These tribunes of 'perpetual war' are terrified that the multi-billion-dollar business of war by which the United States maintains its dominance will be undermined if Trump does a deal with Putin, then with China’s Xi Jinping. Their panic at the possibility of the world’s great power talking peace – however unlikely – would be the blackest farce were the issues not so dire.” —CGE >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On Nov 29, 2017, at 5:31 PM, Karen Aram via Peace wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> I’m sorry, Carl >>>>>> >>>>>> I don’t like it, the title alone makes AWARE look like “Trump defenders.” It’s one thing to say this in conversation when explaining our wars, to those who think the problem began with Trump, but as a title, it sucks. Most people in this town are Democrats and won’t bother to read it. >>>>>> >>>>>> I’m not pleased with some of that which is in the article either, because the focus  on the election is old news. Its time to move on. Trump is President and he is responsible for that which occurs on his watch. >>>>>> >>>>>> Trump bombed Syria and that is an impeachable offense, granted every other President before him, committed war crimes that were also impeachable offenses, Bush and most especially Obama, but Trump has been in power for almost a year now. His provocations of war with Korea, and Iran are extremely dangerous. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Nov 29, 2017, at 12:46, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> PRESIDENT TRUMP IS NOT THE PROBLEM: >>>>>>> ILLEGAL U.S. WARS AROUND THE WORLD ARE >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The US government is today making war around the world - and it’s doing so without authorization from the U.S. Constitution or the U.N. Charter. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If American leaders were put on trial today as German leaders were, at Nuremberg after World War II, for “launching aggressive war,” they - like the German leaders - would be hanged. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The U.S. military is today killing people in seven Mideast and African countries - Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Somalia, and Pakistan (and on the other side of the world, in the Philippines). Thousands of U.S. troops are fighting in these countries, although most Americans don’t know that.  In addition, the 70,000-member U.S. ‘Special Operations Command’ is active in three-quarters of the countries of the world. Their activities include kidnapping (‘rendition’), torture, and murder. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> President Obama was elected as an anti-war candidate, but in office he sent thousands of additional U.S. troops into America’s longest war, in Afghanistan. President Trump, who promised caution and non-interventionism in foreign policy - and described Hillary Clinton as a “trigger happy warmonger” - has now done the same thing himself. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What both men knew is that, in spite of intense media propaganda, most Americans don’t want U.S. troops engaged in foreign wars and don’t see the killing as justified; both candidates had to seem to oppose the wars, in order to get elected. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But the ‘one percent’ - the U.S. economic elite - do want the wars. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> When World War II ended in 1945, the U.S. was the least-damaged major country on either side, and controlled the world economy. America’s wars since then - in Korea, Vietnam, Latin America, and the Mideast - have killed between 20 and 30 million people for the purpose of maintaining that control. Ordinary Americans have paid for these vicious wars, but they haven’t profited from them. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> John Pilger wrote before the election, "The CIA has demanded Trump is not elected. Pentagon generals have demanded he is not elected. The pro-war New York Times - taking a breather from its relentless low-rent Putin smears - demands that he is not elected. Something is up. These tribunes of 'perpetual war' are terrified that the multi-billion-dollar business of war by which the United States maintains its dominance will be undermined if Trump does a deal with Putin, then with China’s Xi Jinping. Their panic at the possibility of the world’s great power talking peace – however unlikely – would be the blackest farce were the issues not so dire." >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We must demand that foreign military bases be closed, U.S. troops (and weapons) be brought home, and social support - including free medical care, education, and a universal basic income - be provided for Americans immiserated by generations of U.S. government wars. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> WRITE CONGRESS - DEMAND U.S. TROOPS & WEAPONS BE BROUGHT HOME >>>>>>> Our representatives in Congress from this area - and their email addresses - are as follows: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Representative Rodney Davis: >>>>>>> Senator Tammy Duckworth: >>>>>>> Senator Dick Durbin: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ~~~ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ANTI-WAR ANTI-RACISM EFFORT - on Facebook at >>>>>>> ~ U.S. troops & weapons out of the Mideast ~ Medicare for all ~ Universal basic income ~ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> Peace-discuss mailing list >>>>>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >>>>>>> https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.chambana.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fpeace-discuss&data=02%7C01%7Ckarenaram%40hotmail.com%7Cfc30480baf2b4882394b08d5376a458e%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636475851934473412&sdata=0JBYxrD5cfjQzfDHk4PpLhvWxWn5Ce3B%2FBGNvILHbQI%3D&reserved=0 >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Peace mailing list >>>>>> Peace at lists.chambana.net >>>>>> https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.chambana.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fpeace&data=02%7C01%7Ckarenaram%40hotmail.com%7Cf666ae76fb7a4230b3e308d5380383c8%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636476510093637620&sdata=K2skpZ7DB7gaAC0qrBHMVVdN3aiMOsP2EfrwZkHSw3k%3D&reserved=0 >>>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Peace-discuss mailing list >>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >>>> https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.chambana.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fpeace-discuss&data=02%7C01%7Ckarenaram%40hotmail.com%7Cf666ae76fb7a4230b3e308d5380383c8%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636476510093637620&sdata=xazvoaiiZfeKwnoLWr0%2BQ7zDKzK11UmSbVoB97gFtjE%3D&reserved=0 >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Peace mailing list >>>> Peace at lists.chambana.net >>>> https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.chambana.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fpeace&data=02%7C01%7Ckarenaram%40hotmail.com%7Cf666ae76fb7a4230b3e308d5380383c8%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636476510093637620&sdata=K2skpZ7DB7gaAC0qrBHMVVdN3aiMOsP2EfrwZkHSw3k%3D&reserved=0 >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Peace-discuss mailing list >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >> https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.chambana.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fpeace-discuss&data=02%7C01%7Ckarenaram%40hotmail.com%7C1510d4a9e78e4ab02a0f08d538090865%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636476533794287026&sdata=1gLoCzw4EfQ1ZonM6wynHGMKl4R%2FZ9tvCrtiZBxZTpo%3D&reserved=0 _______________________________________________ Peace mailing list Peace at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bjornsona at ameritech.net Thu Nov 30 22:33:55 2017 From: bjornsona at ameritech.net (bjornsona at ameritech.net) Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 16:33:55 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Flyer for AWARE demonstration, Saturday 12/2 Message-ID: <43mdh89ujps6va4v9ls6r2iu.1512081161628@email.lge.com> Re flyer. I like term "war On many nations " vs. war in many nations" ?  Sent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone ------ Original message------From: Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discussDate: Thu, Nov 30, 2017 3:57 PMTo: Karen Aram;Cc: Karen Aram via Peace-discuss;Harry Mickalide;Peace;Subject:Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Flyer for AWARE demonstration, Saturday 12/2 You might keep it simple by observing, "Trump is not the problem, US war-making is." Or, "Bottom line, the USG is planning perpetual war in many nations around the globe, its become the norm for the millennial generation.”  On Nov 30, 2017, at 1:15 PM, Karen Aram wrote: Harry is correct, keeping it simple is best, not my skill set. He is also correct that focus on the monetary cost of war and intervention to US domestic social services, including healthcare, education, etc. appeals to most people, so should always be mentioned. A total focus on costs of war, isn’t really us, but it does need to be mentioned.  How can we overlook the genocide taking place in Yemen, or the slavery in Libya of Black Africans as a result of the US destruction of that nation in 2011. It’s now being used as a cause for military intervention, again, basically bringing more troops in than those we’ve already had there.  Trump has announced more troops in Afghanistan, and Col. Larry Wilkerson has predicted we will be there forever, due to China’s economic progress in that region.  Bottom line, the USG is planning perpetual war in many nations around the globe, its become the norm for the millennial generation.  In relation to Africa (the sahel, in particular) the fourteen nations previously colonized by France, and again being recolonized by way of military occupation, the US is involved in all, because the French military is incapable, just as is the Saudi military, without US military technical, and logistical support.  On Nov 30, 2017, at 10:40, Carl G. Estabrook wrote: The US should in fact be spending much more on war than the current military budget - paying reparations for the damage we've done and the people we’ve killed in the wars of the current generation.  But it’s not the case that war spending means we can’t afford universal healthcare, free college, and universal basic income.  The USG can’t run out of money. No one refuses a check signed by the US government. —CGE On Nov 30, 2017, at 12:31 PM, Harry Mickalide via Peace-discuss wrote: I still think a better simpler flyer would look like this: Projected annual cost for universal healthcare, free college, and universal basic income: $X Annual military budget: $600 billion On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 11:26 AM, Karen Aram via Peace wrote: Yes, it is a distraction, and I have argued this point with those who suggest it, other than for war, which no one suggests, and actually might be worthwhile. However, I’ll say it again, it’s totally counterproductive to the anti-war movement and our demonstration.  I have another appointment on Saturday so don’t plan to attend our demonstration. End of conversation on this topic, on my part. PS Even Peter Lavalle of Crosstalk, who supported Trump vs. Hillary, has now stated emphatically, "he is glad Hillary is not President, but he in no way supports Trump given what he is doing.” > On Nov 30, 2017, at 07:42, C G Estabrook wrote: > > I agree that we should focus on "what the USG is doing in respect to war.” > > That’s why ‘Impeach Trump’ is a distraction - a purposeful distraction, by the those calling for continuity in US fp and war-making. > > >> On Nov 30, 2017, at 9:15 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: >> >> We should be informing people, when it comes to flyers, of what the USG is doing. >> Most Americans aren’t aware that we are in eight wars, with potential for two more. >> Oh yes, they all know how awful the N. Korean leader is, they all fear Iran having nuclear weapons, but do they know there is a solution to the N. Korean problem, one for which we the US could implement, but refuses to do so. >> >> Do the American people know that we are in the process of savaging Africa, again? >> Do they know the US is the greatest purveyor of violence in the world? >> >> Carl, these are all things you have talked about, and placed in flyers before. >> >> Focusing on individuals to blame, is a tactic that alienates and divides a people. If you were writing an article to be published, or on FB thats one thing, but a flyer representing an organization, should merely paraphrase what the USG is doing in respect to war. >> >>> On Nov 30, 2017, at 07:03, C G Estabrook wrote: >>> >>> That earlier flyer was meant to combat Obama’s squeaky-clean image, which he was good at fostering while he administered “the most extreme terrorist campaign of modern times." >>> >>> . >>> >>> And see the puff-piece on his 'toughness’: . >>> >>> But I don’t think anyone contends that US world-wide mass murder post-WWII is a matter of presidential caprice, even if they could have acted differently. >>> >>> Neither Obama nor Trump had to send tens of thousands more troops to Afghanistan (as they did) after running as critics of the war (as they did). >>> >>> Condemning and opposing US war-making doesn’t depend on affixing individual responsibility. (Was Truman responsible for Hiroshima? Yes. Alone? No.) >>> >>> —CGE >>> >>> >>>> On Nov 30, 2017, at 8:39 AM, David Green via Peace wrote: >>>> >>>> In any event, this language contrasts sharply with a flyer from two years ago, which holds Obama responsible: >>>> >>>> President Obama is making war in eight countries; he is sending American ‘special forces’ into more than 100 countries around the world; he has assassinated thousands  by drone - the most extreme terrorist campaign of modern times; and he is provoking war with Russia and China. >>>> >>>> I'm not sure how we can justify the difference in tone and substance regarding the warmaking "motivations" of Obama and Trump. >>>> >>>> On Thursday, November 30, 2017, 7:06:53 AM CST, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> Carl >>>> >>>> No one knows better than I, no one has spoken more about the powers behind the throne than I. I’m the one, with AWARE, who has been making the argument that any President who comes to power, as either a Republican or Democrat is going to implement the foreign policy plan put into place by the Oligarchs behind the throne. One of which was Brzezinski, just to keep it simple. >>>> >>>> As a Green socialist, who does not support the one Party system, Democrat/ Republican, once they get to DC. I have been highlighting the very fact, of the Pentagon, CIA, Council on Foreign Relations, Think Tanks, Corporations and Contractors as those pushing the US war agenda. >>>> >>>> But, to imply that Trump anymore than Obama is an unwitting dope of those who make up the “Deep State” “Military Industrial Complex,” however we wish to refer to them, is a mistake, most especially in the title of a flyer. Whether architects or rubber stamps of our foreign policy, they are all complicit. >>>> >>>> A FLYER is meant to impart information, but no one is going to read it, when it acts as an apology for Trump. He is as vile a creature as Clinton, in that he supported the rhetoric of lies and propaganda against Libya and Gaddafi. He is guilty of bombing Syria, and now provoking war with N Korea and Iran. Yes, he is attempting peace with Russia and China, he knows where a dollar is to be made. Though it matters not, when the plan is war with China, predicted by the Rand Think Tank and Pentagon in to be 2030. Our continued presence of Nato on the border of Russia is not going away. >>>> >>>> Roger has just proved my point. He has assessed us as Trump supporters, in spite of my statement, in spite of David Greens statement. What do you think people will think of AWARE, upon receipt of our flyer? And, as I said, focus on the election in order to bash the Clintons is also of no value. >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Nov 29, 2017, at 18:29, C G Estabrook wrote: >>>>> >>>>> The concentration on Trump is the strategy of the (pro-)War Party (the Pentagon, the 'intelligence community,' the Clinton campaign, the neocons) to force the government to continue the wars and war provocations of the last administrations. They think either Trump can be forced to fall in line with the war policy (as he shown he’s willing to do) under the threat of ‘Russiagate’ - or be replaced (with Pence, a War Party creature). >>>>> >>>>> The anti-war movement has to insist that Trump - the weakest president since Coolidge (“silent Cal,”|who followed the opposite performance strategy to Trump's bluster) - is not the problem, but that the continuing and largely unvaried Clinton-Bush-Obama war-making is. That's the policy that must be resisted.  The War Party (who of course support that policy) is using Trump as a distraction from that policy. >>>>> >>>>> We should be opposing the Pentagon, the CIA, the Obama-Clintonists, the neocons, et al., who are promoting war provocations vs. Russia and China - not bothering much with the Potemkin president. >>>>> >>>>> John Pilger saw it clearly before the election: "The CIA has demanded Trump is not elected. Pentagon generals have demanded he is not elected. The pro-war New York Times - taking a breather from its relentless low-rent Putin smears - demands that he is not elected. Something is up. These tribunes of 'perpetual war' are terrified that the multi-billion-dollar business of war by which the United States maintains its dominance will be undermined if Trump does a deal with Putin, then with China’s Xi Jinping. Their panic at the possibility of the world’s great power talking peace – however unlikely – would be the blackest farce were the issues not so dire.” —CGE >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On Nov 29, 2017, at 5:31 PM, Karen Aram via Peace wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> I’m sorry, Carl >>>>>> >>>>>> I don’t like it, the title alone makes AWARE look like “Trump defenders.” It’s one thing to say this in conversation when explaining our wars, to those who think the problem began with Trump, but as a title, it sucks. Most people in this town are Democrats and won’t bother to read it. >>>>>> >>>>>> I’m not pleased with some of that which is in the article either, because the focus  on the election is old news. Its time to move on. Trump is President and he is responsible for that which occurs on his watch. >>>>>> >>>>>> Trump bombed Syria and that is an impeachable offense, granted every other President before him, committed war crimes that were also impeachable offenses, Bush and most especially Obama, but Trump has been in power for almost a year now. His provocations of war with Korea, and Iran are extremely dangerous. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Nov 29, 2017, at 12:46, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> PRESIDENT TRUMP IS NOT THE PROBLEM: >>>>>>> ILLEGAL U.S. WARS AROUND THE WORLD ARE >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The US government is today making war around the world - and it’s doing so without authorization from the U.S. Constitution or the U.N. Charter. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If American leaders were put on trial today as German leaders were, at Nuremberg after World War II, for “launching aggressive war,” they - like the German leaders - would be hanged. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The U.S. military is today killing people in seven Mideast and African countries - Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Somalia, and Pakistan (and on the other side of the world, in the Philippines). Thousands of U.S. troops are fighting in these countries, although most Americans don’t know that.  In addition, the 70,000-member U.S. ‘Special Operations Command’ is active in three-quarters of the countries of the world. Their activities include kidnapping (‘rendition’), torture, and murder. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> President Obama was elected as an anti-war candidate, but in office he sent thousands of additional U.S. troops into America’s longest war, in Afghanistan. President Trump, who promised caution and non-interventionism in foreign policy - and described Hillary Clinton as a “trigger happy warmonger” - has now done the same thing himself. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What both men knew is that, in spite of intense media propaganda, most Americans don’t want U.S. troops engaged in foreign wars and don’t see the killing as justified; both candidates had to seem to oppose the wars, in order to get elected. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But the ‘one percent’ - the U.S. economic elite - do want the wars. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> When World War II ended in 1945, the U.S. was the least-damaged major country on either side, and controlled the world economy. America’s wars since then - in Korea, Vietnam, Latin America, and the Mideast - have killed between 20 and 30 million people for the purpose of maintaining that control. Ordinary Americans have paid for these vicious wars, but they haven’t profited from them. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> John Pilger wrote before the election, "The CIA has demanded Trump is not elected. Pentagon generals have demanded he is not elected. The pro-war New York Times - taking a breather from its relentless low-rent Putin smears - demands that he is not elected. Something is up. These tribunes of 'perpetual war' are terrified that the multi-billion-dollar business of war by which the United States maintains its dominance will be undermined if Trump does a deal with Putin, then with China’s Xi Jinping. Their panic at the possibility of the world’s great power talking peace – however unlikely – would be the blackest farce were the issues not so dire." >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We must demand that foreign military bases be closed, U.S. troops (and weapons) be brought home, and social support - including free medical care, education, and a universal basic income - be provided for Americans immiserated by generations of U.S. government wars. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> WRITE CONGRESS - DEMAND U.S. TROOPS & WEAPONS BE BROUGHT HOME >>>>>>> Our representatives in Congress from this area - and their email addresses - are as follows: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Representative Rodney Davis: >>>>>>> Senator Tammy Duckworth: >>>>>>> Senator Dick Durbin: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ~~~ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ANTI-WAR ANTI-RACISM EFFORT - on Facebook at >>>>>>> ~ U.S. troops & weapons out of the Mideast ~ Medicare for all ~ Universal basic income ~ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> Peace-discuss mailing list >>>>>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >>>>>>> https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.chambana.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fpeace-discuss&data=02%7C01%7Ckarenaram%40hotmail.com%7Cfc30480baf2b4882394b08d5376a458e%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636475851934473412&sdata=0JBYxrD5cfjQzfDHk4PpLhvWxWn5Ce3B%2FBGNvILHbQI%3D&reserved=0 >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Peace mailing list >>>>>> Peace at lists.chambana.net >>>>>> https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.chambana.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fpeace&data=02%7C01%7Ckarenaram%40hotmail.com%7Cf666ae76fb7a4230b3e308d5380383c8%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636476510093637620&sdata=K2skpZ7DB7gaAC0qrBHMVVdN3aiMOsP2EfrwZkHSw3k%3D&reserved=0 >>>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Peace-discuss mailing list >>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >>>> https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.chambana.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fpeace-discuss&data=02%7C01%7Ckarenaram%40hotmail.com%7Cf666ae76fb7a4230b3e308d5380383c8%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636476510093637620&sdata=xazvoaiiZfeKwnoLWr0%2BQ7zDKzK11UmSbVoB97gFtjE%3D&reserved=0 >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Peace mailing list >>>> Peace at lists.chambana.net >>>> https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.chambana.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fpeace&data=02%7C01%7Ckarenaram%40hotmail.com%7Cf666ae76fb7a4230b3e308d5380383c8%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636476510093637620&sdata=K2skpZ7DB7gaAC0qrBHMVVdN3aiMOsP2EfrwZkHSw3k%3D&reserved=0 >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Peace-discuss mailing list >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >> https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.chambana.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fpeace-discuss&data=02%7C01%7Ckarenaram%40hotmail.com%7C1510d4a9e78e4ab02a0f08d538090865%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636476533794287026&sdata=1gLoCzw4EfQ1ZonM6wynHGMKl4R%2FZ9tvCrtiZBxZTpo%3D&reserved=0 _______________________________________________ Peace mailing list Peace at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mickalideh at gmail.com Thu Nov 30 22:37:08 2017 From: mickalideh at gmail.com (Harry Mickalide) Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 16:37:08 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Flyer for AWARE demonstration, Saturday 12/2 In-Reply-To: <43mdh89ujps6va4v9ls6r2iu.1512081161628@email.lge.com> References: <43mdh89ujps6va4v9ls6r2iu.1512081161628@email.lge.com> Message-ID: Also, I'll echo Karen, saying "Trump is not the problem" will pretty much turn off everyone who correctly sees that Trump is terrible and is a big problem. On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 4:33 PM, bjornsona at ameritech.net < bjornsona at ameritech.net> wrote: > Re flyer. I like term "war On many nations " vs. war in many nations" ? > > *Sent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone* > > ------ Original message------ > *From: *Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss > *Date: *Thu, Nov 30, 2017 3:57 PM > *To: *Karen Aram; > *Cc: *Karen Aram via Peace-discuss;Harry Mickalide;Peace; > *Subject:*Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Flyer for AWARE demonstration, > Saturday 12/2 > > You might keep it simple by observing, "Trump is not the problem, US > war-making is." > > Or, "Bottom line, the USG is planning perpetual war in many nations around > the globe, its become the norm for the millennial generation.” > > > On Nov 30, 2017, at 1:15 PM, Karen Aram wrote: > > Harry is correct, keeping it simple is best, not my skill set. He is also > correct that focus on the monetary cost of war and intervention to US > domestic social services, including healthcare, education, etc. appeals to > most people, so should always be mentioned. A total focus on costs of war, > isn’t really us, but it does need to be mentioned. > > How can we overlook the genocide taking place in Yemen, or the slavery in > Libya of Black Africans as a result of the US destruction of that nation in > 2011. It’s now being used as a cause for military intervention, again, > basically bringing more troops in than those we’ve already had there. > > Trump has announced more troops in Afghanistan, and Col. Larry Wilkerson > has predicted we will be there forever, due to China’s economic progress in > that region. > > Bottom line, the USG is planning perpetual war in many nations around the > globe, its become the norm for the millennial generation. > > In relation to Africa (the sahel, in particular) the fourteen nations > previously colonized by France, and again being recolonized by way of > military occupation, the US is involved in all, because the French military > is incapable, just as is the Saudi military, without US military technical, > and logistical support. > > > > > On Nov 30, 2017, at 10:40, Carl G. Estabrook > wrote: > > The US should in fact be spending much more on war than the current > military budget - paying reparations for the damage we've done and the > people we’ve killed in the wars of the current generation. > > But it’s not the case that war spending means we can’t afford universal > healthcare, free college, and universal basic income. > > The USG can’t run out of money. No one refuses a check signed by the US > government. —CGE > > > On Nov 30, 2017, at 12:31 PM, Harry Mickalide via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > > I still think a better simpler flyer would look like this: > > Projected annual cost for universal healthcare, free college, and > universal basic income: $X > > Annual military budget: $600 billion > > On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 11:26 AM, Karen Aram via Peace < > peace at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > >> Yes, it is a distraction, and I have argued this point with those who >> suggest it, other than for war, which no one suggests, and actually might >> be worthwhile. >> >> However, I’ll say it again, it’s totally counterproductive to the >> anti-war movement and our demonstration. >> >> I have another appointment on Saturday so don’t plan to attend our >> demonstration. >> >> End of conversation on this topic, on my part. >> >> PS Even Peter Lavalle of Crosstalk, who supported Trump vs. Hillary, has >> now stated emphatically, "he is glad Hillary is not President, but he in no >> way supports Trump given what he is doing.” >> >> > On Nov 30, 2017, at 07:42, C G Estabrook wrote: >> > >> > I agree that we should focus on "what the USG is doing in respect to >> war.” >> > >> > That’s why ‘Impeach Trump’ is a distraction - a purposeful distraction, >> by the those calling for continuity in US fp and war-making. >> > >> > >> >> On Nov 30, 2017, at 9:15 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss < >> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >> >> >> >> We should be informing people, when it comes to flyers, of what the >> USG is doing. >> >> Most Americans aren’t aware that we are in eight wars, with potential >> for two more. >> >> Oh yes, they all know how awful the N. Korean leader is, they all fear >> Iran having nuclear weapons, but do they know there is a solution to the N. >> Korean problem, one for which we the US could implement, but refuses to do >> so. >> >> >> >> Do the American people know that we are in the process of savaging >> Africa, again? >> >> Do they know the US is the greatest purveyor of violence in the world? >> >> >> >> Carl, these are all things you have talked about, and placed in flyers >> before. >> >> >> >> Focusing on individuals to blame, is a tactic that alienates and >> divides a people. If you were writing an article to be published, or on FB >> thats one thing, but a flyer representing an organization, should merely >> paraphrase what the USG is doing in respect to war. >> >> >> >>> On Nov 30, 2017, at 07:03, C G Estabrook >> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> That earlier flyer was meant to combat Obama’s squeaky-clean image, >> which he was good at fostering while he administered “the most extreme >> terrorist campaign of modern times." >> >>> >> >>> > 3A%2F%2Fwww.commondreams.org%2Fnews%2F2015%2F01%2F19% >> 2Fnoam-chomsky-obamas-drone-program-most-extreme- >> terrorist-campaign-modern-times&data=02%7C01% >> 7Ckarenaram%40hotmail.com%7Cf666ae76fb7a4230b3e308d5380383c8 >> %7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C63647651009363 >> 7620&sdata=hTjN23pUJtWprTOOgI5SDxa8U20Zi1AJ9WKIOK8m6zM%3D&reserved=0> . >> >>> >> >>> And see the puff-piece on his 'toughness’: < >> https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http% >> 3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2012%2F05%2F29%2Fworld%2Fobamas- >> leadership-in-war-on-al-qaeda.html&data=02%7C01%7Ckarenaram% >> 40hotmail.com%7Cf666ae76fb7a4230b3e308d5380383c8%7C84df9e7fe >> 9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636476510093637620& >> sdata=NixKmaCjl2DD%2FULwArRx%2FjLU6vWOmH%2BFZ8s%2FLV5hvL4%3D&reserved=0>. >> >>> >> >>> But I don’t think anyone contends that US world-wide mass murder >> post-WWII is a matter of presidential caprice, even if they could have >> acted differently. >> >>> >> >>> Neither Obama nor Trump had to send tens of thousands more troops to >> Afghanistan (as they did) after running as critics of the war (as they did). >> >>> >> >>> Condemning and opposing US war-making doesn’t depend on affixing >> individual responsibility. (Was Truman responsible for Hiroshima? Yes. >> Alone? No.) >> >>> >> >>> —CGE >> >>> >> >>> >> >>>> On Nov 30, 2017, at 8:39 AM, David Green via Peace < >> peace at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>> In any event, this language contrasts sharply with a flyer from two >> years ago, which holds Obama responsible: >> >>>> >> >>>> President Obama is making war in eight countries; he is sending >> American ‘special forces’ into more than 100 countries around the world; he >> has assassinated thousands by drone - the most extreme terrorist campaign >> of modern times; and he is provoking war with Russia and China. >> >>>> >> >>>> I'm not sure how we can justify the difference in tone and substance >> regarding the warmaking "motivations" of Obama and Trump. >> >>>> >> >>>> On Thursday, November 30, 2017, 7:06:53 AM CST, Karen Aram via >> Peace-discuss wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> Carl >> >>>> >> >>>> No one knows better than I, no one has spoken more about the powers >> behind the throne than I. I’m the one, with AWARE, who has been making the >> argument that any President who comes to power, as either a Republican or >> Democrat is going to implement the foreign policy plan put into place by >> the Oligarchs behind the throne. One of which was Brzezinski, just to keep >> it simple. >> >>>> >> >>>> As a Green socialist, who does not support the one Party system, >> Democrat/ Republican, once they get to DC. I have been highlighting the >> very fact, of the Pentagon, CIA, Council on Foreign Relations, Think Tanks, >> Corporations and Contractors as those pushing the US war agenda. >> >>>> >> >>>> But, to imply that Trump anymore than Obama is an unwitting dope of >> those who make up the “Deep State” “Military Industrial Complex,” however >> we wish to refer to them, is a mistake, most especially in the title of a >> flyer. Whether architects or rubber stamps of our foreign policy, they are >> all complicit. >> >>>> >> >>>> A FLYER is meant to impart information, but no one is going to read >> it, when it acts as an apology for Trump. He is as vile a creature as >> Clinton, in that he supported the rhetoric of lies and propaganda against >> Libya and Gaddafi. He is guilty of bombing Syria, and now provoking war >> with N Korea and Iran. Yes, he is attempting peace with Russia and China, >> he knows where a dollar is to be made. Though it matters not, when the plan >> is war with China, predicted by the Rand Think Tank and Pentagon in to be >> 2030. Our continued presence of Nato on the border of Russia is not going >> away. >> >>>> >> >>>> Roger has just proved my point. He has assessed us as Trump >> supporters, in spite of my statement, in spite of David Greens statement. >> What do you think people will think of AWARE, upon receipt of our flyer? >> And, as I said, focus on the election in order to bash the Clintons is also >> of no value. >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>>> On Nov 29, 2017, at 18:29, C G Estabrook >> wrote: >> >>>>> >> >>>>> The concentration on Trump is the strategy of the (pro-)War Party >> (the Pentagon, the 'intelligence community,' the Clinton campaign, the >> neocons) to force the government to continue the wars and war provocations >> of the last administrations. They think either Trump can be forced to fall >> in line with the war policy (as he shown he’s willing to do) under the >> threat of ‘Russiagate’ - or be replaced (with Pence, a War Party creature). >> >>>>> >> >>>>> The anti-war movement has to insist that Trump - the weakest >> president since Coolidge (“silent Cal,”|who followed the opposite >> performance strategy to Trump's bluster) - is not the problem, but that the >> continuing and largely unvaried Clinton-Bush-Obama war-making is. That's >> the policy that must be resisted. The War Party (who of course support >> that policy) is using Trump as a distraction from that policy. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> We should be opposing the Pentagon, the CIA, the Obama-Clintonists, >> the neocons, et al., who are promoting war provocations vs. Russia and >> China - not bothering much with the Potemkin president. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> John Pilger saw it clearly before the election: "The CIA has >> demanded Trump is not elected. Pentagon generals have demanded he is not >> elected. The pro-war New York Times - taking a breather from its relentless >> low-rent Putin smears - demands that he is not elected. Something is up. >> These tribunes of 'perpetual war' are terrified that the >> multi-billion-dollar business of war by which the United States maintains >> its dominance will be undermined if Trump does a deal with Putin, then with >> China’s Xi Jinping. Their panic at the possibility of the world’s great >> power talking peace – however unlikely – would be the blackest farce were >> the issues not so dire.” —CGE >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>>> On Nov 29, 2017, at 5:31 PM, Karen Aram via Peace < >> peace at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> I’m sorry, Carl >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> I don’t like it, the title alone makes AWARE look like “Trump >> defenders.” It’s one thing to say this in conversation when explaining our >> wars, to those who think the problem began with Trump, but as a title, it >> sucks. Most people in this town are Democrats and won’t bother to read it. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> I’m not pleased with some of that which is in the article either, >> because the focus on the election is old news. Its time to move on. Trump >> is President and he is responsible for that which occurs on his watch. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Trump bombed Syria and that is an impeachable offense, granted >> every other President before him, committed war crimes that were also >> impeachable offenses, Bush and most especially Obama, but Trump has been in >> power for almost a year now. His provocations of war with Korea, and Iran >> are extremely dangerous. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>>> On Nov 29, 2017, at 12:46, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss < >> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> PRESIDENT TRUMP IS NOT THE PROBLEM: >> >>>>>>> ILLEGAL U.S. WARS AROUND THE WORLD ARE >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> The US government is today making war around the world - and it’s >> doing so without authorization from the U.S. Constitution or the U.N. >> Charter. >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> If American leaders were put on trial today as German leaders >> were, at Nuremberg after World War II, for “launching aggressive war,” they >> - like the German leaders - would be hanged. >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> The U.S. military is today killing people in seven Mideast and >> African countries - Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Somalia, and >> Pakistan (and on the other side of the world, in the Philippines). >> Thousands of U.S. troops are fighting in these countries, although most >> Americans don’t know that. In addition, the 70,000-member U.S. ‘Special >> Operations Command’ is active in three-quarters of the countries of the >> world. Their activities include kidnapping (‘rendition’), torture, and >> murder. >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> President Obama was elected as an anti-war candidate, but in >> office he sent thousands of additional U.S. troops into America’s longest >> war, in Afghanistan. President Trump, who promised caution and >> non-interventionism in foreign policy - and described Hillary Clinton as a >> “trigger happy warmonger” - has now done the same thing himself. >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> What both men knew is that, in spite of intense media propaganda, >> most Americans don’t want U.S. troops engaged in foreign wars and don’t see >> the killing as justified; both candidates had to seem to oppose the wars, >> in order to get elected. >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> But the ‘one percent’ - the U.S. economic elite - do want the >> wars. >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> When World War II ended in 1945, the U.S. was the least-damaged >> major country on either side, and controlled the world economy. America’s >> wars since then - in Korea, Vietnam, Latin America, and the Mideast - have >> killed between 20 and 30 million people for the purpose of maintaining that >> control. Ordinary Americans have paid for these vicious wars, but they >> haven’t profited from them. >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> John Pilger wrote before the election, "The CIA has demanded >> Trump is not elected. Pentagon generals have demanded he is not elected. >> The pro-war New York Times - taking a breather from its relentless low-rent >> Putin smears - demands that he is not elected. Something is up. These >> tribunes of 'perpetual war' are terrified that the multi-billion-dollar >> business of war by which the United States maintains its dominance will be >> undermined if Trump does a deal with Putin, then with China’s Xi Jinping. >> Their panic at the possibility of the world’s great power talking peace – >> however unlikely – would be the blackest farce were the issues not so dire." >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> We must demand that foreign military bases be closed, U.S. troops >> (and weapons) be brought home, and social support - including free medical >> care, education, and a universal basic income - be provided for Americans >> immiserated by generations of U.S. government wars. >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> WRITE CONGRESS - DEMAND U.S. TROOPS & WEAPONS BE BROUGHT HOME >> >>>>>>> Our representatives in Congress from this area - and their email >> addresses - are as follows: >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> Representative Rodney Davis: > ction.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Frodneydavis.house.gov% >> 2Fcontact%2F&data=02%7C01%7Ckarenaram%40hotmail.com%7Cf6 >> 66ae76fb7a4230b3e308d5380383c8%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaa >> aaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636476510093637620&sdata=xcTtdbDasaZ5ilKiNEH >> R7Eawu6IvnWL2bnj9ZsA8q2U%3D&reserved=0> >> >>>>>>> Senator Tammy Duckworth: > ction.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.duckworth.senate. >> gov%2Fcontent%2Fcontact-senator&data=02%7C01% >> 7Ckarenaram%40hotmail.com%7Cf666ae76fb7a4230b3e308d5380383c8 >> %7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C63647651009363 >> 7620&sdata=ugx3F6jNnTw2LpZoBcxfPI9o9834%2FbvN0Itn3y%2Fe4dc%3D&reserved=0> >> >>>>>>> Senator Dick Durbin: > ction.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.durbin.senate.gov% >> 2Fcontact%2Femail&data=02%7C01%7Ckarenaram%40hotmail. >> com%7Cf666ae76fb7a4230b3e308d5380383c8%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb43 >> 5aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636476510093637620&sdata=kNZmKv%2F0g >> LlwP8CkdtxIgicnw89CR2e3c%2FllkENOnJg%3D&reserved=0> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> ~~~ >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> ANTI-WAR ANTI-RACISM EFFORT - on Facebook at > Urbana Illinois> >> >>>>>>> ~ U.S. troops & weapons out of the Mideast ~ Medicare for all ~ >> Universal basic income ~ >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >> >>>>>>> Peace-discuss mailing list >> >>>>>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >> >>>>>>> https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https% >> 3A%2F%2Flists.chambana.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fpeace- >> discuss&data=02%7C01%7Ckarenaram%40hotmail.com%7Cfc30480baf2 >> b4882394b08d5376a458e%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa% >> 7C1%7C0%7C636475851934473412&sdata=0JBYxrD5cfjQzfDHk4PpLhvW >> xWn5Ce3B%2FBGNvILHbQI%3D&reserved=0 >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >> >>>>>> Peace mailing list >> >>>>>> Peace at lists.chambana.net >> >>>>>> https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https% >> 3A%2F%2Flists.chambana.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fpeace& >> data=02%7C01%7Ckarenaram%40hotmail.com%7Cf666ae76fb7a42 >> 30b3e308d5380383c8%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1% >> 7C0%7C636476510093637620&sdata=K2skpZ7DB7gaAC0qrBHMVVdN >> 3aiMOsP2EfrwZkHSw3k%3D&reserved=0 >> >>>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> _______________________________________________ >> >>>> Peace-discuss mailing list >> >>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >> >>>> https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https% >> 3A%2F%2Flists.chambana.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fpeace- >> discuss&data=02%7C01%7Ckarenaram%40hotmail.com%7Cf666ae76fb7 >> a4230b3e308d5380383c8%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa% >> 7C1%7C0%7C636476510093637620&sdata=xazvoaiiZfeKwnoLWr0%2BQ7 >> zDKzK11UmSbVoB97gFtjE%3D&reserved=0 >> >>>> _______________________________________________ >> >>>> Peace mailing list >> >>>> Peace at lists.chambana.net >> >>>> https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https% >> 3A%2F%2Flists.chambana.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fpeace& >> data=02%7C01%7Ckarenaram%40hotmail.com%7Cf666ae76fb7a42 >> 30b3e308d5380383c8%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1% >> 7C0%7C636476510093637620&sdata=K2skpZ7DB7gaAC0qrBHMVVdN >> 3aiMOsP2EfrwZkHSw3k%3D&reserved=0 >> >>> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> Peace-discuss mailing list >> >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >> >> https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https% >> 3A%2F%2Flists.chambana.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fpeace- >> discuss&data=02%7C01%7Ckarenaram%40hotmail.com%7C1510d4a9e78 >> e4ab02a0f08d538090865%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa% >> 7C1%7C0%7C636476533794287026&sdata=1gLoCzw4EfQ1ZonM6wynHGMK >> l4R%2FZ9tvCrtiZBxZTpo%3D&reserved=0 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Peace mailing list >> Peace at lists.chambana.net >> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Thu Nov 30 22:39:04 2017 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 16:39:04 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Flyer for AWARE demonstration, Saturday 12/2 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thank you for the kind word. On the political-economic questions you raise, let me recommend our Urbana Public Television program ‘News from Neptune,’ a weekly hour of discussion, recorded on Friday and archived on YouTube. My colleague David Green is particularly concerned with the political-economic questions you raise. Here’s the latest program: . Regards, CGE > On Nov 30, 2017, at 4:18 PM, bjornsona--- via Peace wrote: > > Sorry to be late to the party on commenting, here. Thank you all very much- I am learning so much from you!! I have been catching up on previous "Aware on the Air" episodes from this year. > > Because I am new to the formal anti-war movement, I appreciate very much Carl's recitation of basic USG wartime facts at the beginning of each AOTA episode. His delivery helps me memorize them! My comments on any flyers would then be, as a newbie to a demonstration, that I would find many facts like those or others useful and shocking. Many people have absolutely no idea that we have as many bases outside the country as we do, and many people have no idea that Russia only has 15; China 1. (Correct?) > > Random thought #1: not related to flyer: Important to address unfounded&n bsp; fears people will have (I did) when hearing "bring back troops" , "cut military in half" . Without knowing/feeling facts of why U. S. is major terrorist, or seeing a plan of bases to close, or a jobs plan for soldiers, I was fearful of the whole thing. Which brought me to research more, for which I am grateful Aware has links to CounterPunch, military historians, new events in Asia like Karen brings. > > Random #2: As we know to our sorrow, many people still believe U of C Arthur Laffer -curve trickle-down economics . And in outsourcing all the negative costs of capitalism to the environment and the community instead of making producers be responsible. I prefer to call out continued growth in a corporation as a physical impossibility , just like No Child Left Behind made no sense from the way it was set up, or a cancer is unrestrained growth. > > Real life is a cycle. Which would make sense to Millenniels. Where those concepts for into anti-war, Idk. I think they do. Guns & butter from 1st year economics might resonate with those who consider themselves classic GOP conservatives. > > Sent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone > > ------ Original message------ > From: Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > < div dir="auto">Date: Thu, Nov 30, 2017 1:16 PM > To: Carl G. Estabrook; > Cc: Karen Aram via Peace-discuss;Harry Mickalide;Peace; > Subject:Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Flyer for AWARE demonstration, Saturday 12/2 > > Harry is correct, keeping it simple is best, not my skill set. He is also correct that focus on the monetary cost of war and intervention to US domestic social services, including healthcare, education, etc. appeals to most people, so should always be mentioned. A total focus on costs of war, isn’t really us, but it does need to be mentioned. > > How can we overlook the genocide taking place in Yemen, or the slavery in Libya of Black Africans as a result of the US destruction of that nation in 2011. It’s now being used as a cause for military intervention, again, basically bringing more troops in than those we’ve already had there. > > Trump has announced more troops in Afghanistan, and Col. Larry Wilkerson has predicted we will be there forever, due to China’s economic progress in that region. > > Bottom line, the USG is planning perpetual war in many nations around the globe, its become the norm for the millennial generation. > > In relation to Africa (the sahel, in particular) the fourteen nations previously colonized by France, and again being recolonized by way of military occupation, the US is involved in all, because the French military is incapable, just as is the Saudi military, without US military technical, and logistical support. > > > > >> On Nov 30, 2017, at 10:40, Carl G. Estabrook wrote: >> >> The US should in fact be spending much more on war than the current military budget - paying reparations for the damage we've done and the people we’ve killed in the wars of the current generation. >> >> But it’s not the case that war spending means we can’t afford universal healthcare, free college, and universal basic income. >> >> The USG can’t run out of money. No one refuses a check signed by the US government. —CGE >> >> >>> On Nov 30, 2017, at 12:31 PM, Harry Mickalide via Peace-discuss wrote: >>> >>> I still think a better simpler flyer would look like this: >>> >>> Projected annual cost for universal healthcare, free college, and universal basic income: $X >>> >>> Annual military budget: $600 billion >>> >>> On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 11:26 AM, Karen Aram via Peace wrote: >>> Yes, it is a distraction, and I have argued this point with those who suggest it, other than for war, which no one suggests, and actually might be worthwhile. >>> >>> However, I’ll say it again, it’s totally counterproductive to the anti-war movement and our demonstration. >>> >>> I have another appointment on Saturday so don’t plan to attend our demonstration. >>> >>> End of conversation on this topic, on my part. >>> >>> PS Even Peter Lavalle of Crosstalk, who supported Trump vs. Hillary, has now stated emphatically, "he is glad Hillary is not President, but he in no way supports Trump given what he is doing.” >>> >>> > On Nov 30, 2017, at 07:42, C G Estabrook wrote: >>> > >>> > I agree that we should focus on "what the USG is doing in respect to war.” >>> > >>> > That’s why ‘Impeach Trump’ is a distraction - a purposeful distraction, by the those calling for continuity in US fp and war-making. >>> > >>> > >>> >> On Nov 30, 2017, at 9:15 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: >>> >> >>> >> We should be informing people, when it comes to flyers, of what the USG is doing. >>> >> Most Americans aren’t aware that we are in eight wars, with potential for two more. >>> >> Oh yes, they all know how awful the N. Korean leader is, they all fear Iran having nuclear weapons, but do they know there is a solution to the N. Korean problem, one for which we the US could implement, but refuses to do so. >>> >> >>> >> Do the American people know that we are in the process of savaging Africa, again? >>> >> Do they know the US is the greatest purveyor of violence in the world? >>> >> >>> >> Carl, these are all things you have talked about, and placed in flyers before. >>> >> >>> >> Focusing on individuals to blame, is a tactic that alienates and divides a people. If you were writing an article to be published, or on FB thats one thing, but a flyer representing an organization, should merely paraphrase what the USG is doing in respect to war. >>> >> >>> >>> On Nov 30, 2017, at 07:03, C G Estabrook wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> That earlier flyer was meant to combat Obama’s squeaky-clean image, which he was good at fostering while he administered “the most extreme terrorist campaign of modern times." >>> >>> >>> >>> . >>> >>> >>> >>> And see the puff-piece on his 'toughness’: . >>> >>> >>> >>> But I don’t think anyone contends that US world-wide mass murder post-WWII is a matter of presidential caprice, even if they could have acted differently. >>> >>> >>> >>> Neither Obama nor Trump had to send tens of thousands more troops to Afghanistan (as they did) after running as critics of the war (as they did). >>> >>> >>> >>> Condemning and opposing US war-making doesn’t depend on affixing individual responsibility. (Was Truman responsible for Hiroshima? Yes. Alone? No.) >>> >>> >>> >>> —CGE >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> On Nov 30, 2017, at 8:39 AM, David Green via Peace wrote: >>> >>>> >>> >>>> In any event, this language contrasts sharply with a flyer from two years ago, which holds Obama responsible: >>> >>>> >>> >>>> President Obama is making war in eight countries; he is sending American ‘special forces’ into more than 100 countries around the world; he has assassinated thousands by drone - the most extreme terrorist campaign of modern times; and he is provoking war with Russia and China. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> I'm not sure how we can justify the difference in tone and substance regarding the warmaking "motivations" of Obama and Trump. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> On Thursday, November 30, 2017, 7:06:53 AM CST, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Carl >>> >>>> >>> >>>> No one knows better than I, no one has spoken more about the powers behind the throne than I. I’m the one, with AWARE, who has been making the argument that any President who comes to power, as either a Republican or Democrat is going to implement the foreign policy plan put into place by the Oligarchs behind the throne. One of which was Brzezinski, just to keep it simple. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> As a Green socialist, who does not support the one Party system, Democrat/ Republican, once they get to DC. I have been highlighting the very fact, of the Pentagon, CIA, Council on Foreign Relations, Think Tanks, Corporations and Contractors as those pushing the US war agenda. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> But, to imply that Trump anymore than Obama is an unwitting dope of those who make up the “Deep State” “Military Industrial Complex,” however we wish to refer to them, is a mistake, most especially in the title of a flyer. Whether architects or rubber stamps of our foreign policy, they are all complicit. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> A FLYER is meant to impart information, but no one is going to read it, when it acts as an apology for Trump. He is as vile a creature as Clinton, in that he supported the rhetoric of lies and propaganda against Libya and Gaddafi. He is guilty of bombing Syria, and now provoking war with N Korea and Iran. Yes, he is attempting peace with Russia and China, he knows where a dollar is to be made. Though it matters not, when the plan is war with China, predicted by the Rand Think Tank and Pentagon in to be 2030. Our continued presence of Nato on the border of Russia is not going away. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Roger has just proved my point. He has assessed us as Trump supporters, in spite of my statement, in spite of David Greens statement. What do you think people will think of AWARE, upon receipt of our flyer? And, as I said, focus on the election in order to bash the Clintons is also of no value. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>>> On Nov 29, 2017, at 18:29, C G Estabrook wrote: >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> The concentration on Trump is the strategy of the (pro-)War Party (the Pentagon, the 'intelligence community,' the Clinton campaign, the neocons) to force the government to continue the wars and war provocations of the last administrations. They think either Trump can be forced to fall in line with the war policy (as he shown he’s willing to do) under the threat of ‘Russiagate’ - or be replaced (with Pence, a War Party creature). >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> The anti-war movement has to insist that Trump - the weakest president since Coolidge (“silent Cal,”|who followed the opposite performance strategy to Trump's bluster) - is not the problem, but that the continuing and largely unvaried Clinton-Bush-Obama war-making is. That's the policy that must be resisted. The War Party (who of course support that policy) is using Trump as a distraction from that policy. >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> We should be opposing the Pentagon, the CIA, the Obama-Clintonists, the neocons, et al., who are promoting war provocations vs. Russia and China - not bothering much with the Potemkin president. >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> John Pilger saw it clearly before the election: "The CIA has demanded Trump is not elected. Pentagon generals have demanded he is not elected. The pro-war New York Times - taking a breather from its relentless low-rent Putin smears - demands that he is not elected. Something is up. These tribunes of 'perpetual war' are terrified that the multi-billion-dollar business of war by which the United States maintains its dominance will be undermined if Trump does a deal with Putin, then with China’s Xi Jinping. Their panic at the possibility of the world’s great power talking peace – however unlikely – would be the blackest farce were the issues not so dire.” —CGE >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>>> On Nov 29, 2017, at 5:31 PM, Karen Aram via Peace wrote: >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> I’m sorry, Carl >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> I don’t like it, the title alone makes AWARE look like “Trump defenders.” It’s one thing to say this in conversation when explaining our wars, to those who think the problem began with Trump, but as a title, it sucks. Most people in this town are Democrats and won’t bother to read it. >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> I’m not pleased with some of that which is in the article either, because the focus on the election is old news. Its time to move on. Trump is President and he is responsible for that which occurs on his watch. >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> Trump bombed Syria and that is an impeachable offense, granted every other President before him, committed war crimes that were also impeachable offenses, Bush and most especially Obama, but Trump has been in power for almost a year now. His provocations of war with Korea, and Iran are extremely dangerous. >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> On Nov 29, 2017, at 12:46, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> PRESIDENT TRUMP IS NOT THE PROBLEM: >>> >>>>>>> ILLEGAL U.S. WARS AROUND THE WORLD ARE >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> The US government is today making war around the world - and it’s doing so without authorization from the U.S. Constitution or the U.N. Charter. >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> If American leaders were put on trial today as German leaders were, at Nuremberg after World War II, for “launching aggressive war,” they - like the German leaders - would be hanged. >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> The U.S. military is today killing people in seven Mideast and African countries - Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Somalia, and Pakistan (and on the other side of the world, in the Philippines). Thousands of U.S. troops are fighting in these countries, although most Americans don’t know that. In addition, the 70,000-member U.S. ‘Special Operations Command’ is active in three-quarters of the countries of the world. Their activities include kidnapping (‘rendition’), torture, and murder. >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> President Obama was elected as an anti-war candidate, but in office he sent thousands of additional U.S. troops into America’s longest war, in Afghanistan. President Trump, who promised caution and non-interventionism in foreign policy - and described Hillary Clinton as a “trigger happy warmonger” - has now done the same thing himself. >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> What both men knew is that, in spite of intense media propaganda, most Americans don’t want U.S. troops engaged in foreign wars and don’t see the killing as justified; both candidates had to seem to oppose the wars, in order to get elected. >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> But the ‘one percent’ - the U.S. economic elite - do want the wars. >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> When World War II ended in 1945, the U.S. was the least-damaged major country on either side, and controlled the world economy. America’s wars since then - in Korea, Vietnam, Latin America, and the Mideast - have killed between 20 and 30 million people for the purpose of maintaining that control. Ordinary Americans have paid for these vicious wars, but they haven’t profited from them. >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> John Pilger wrote before the election, "The CIA has demanded Trump is not elected. Pentagon generals have demanded he is not elected. The pro-war New York Times - taking a breather from its relentless low-rent Putin smears - demands that he is not elected. Something is up. These tribunes of 'perpetual war' are terrified that the multi-billion-dollar business of war by which the United States maintains its dominance will be undermined if Trump does a deal with Putin, then with China’s Xi Jinping. Their panic at the possibility of the world’s great power talking peace – however unlikely – would be the blackest farce were the issues not so dire." >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> We must demand that foreign military bases be closed, U.S. troops (and weapons) be brought home, and social support - including free medical care, education, and a universal basic income - be provided for Americans immiserated by generations of U.S. government wars. >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> WRITE CONGRESS - DEMAND U.S. TROOPS & WEAPONS BE BROUGHT HOME >>> >>>>>>> Our representatives in Congress from this area - and their email addresses - are as follows: >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> Representative Rodney Davis: >>> >>>>>>> Senator Tammy Duckworth: >>> >>>>>>> Senator Dick Durbin: >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> ~~~ >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> ANTI-WAR ANTI-RACISM EFFORT - on Facebook at >>> >>>>>>> ~ U.S. troops & weapons out of the Mideast ~ Medicare for all ~ Universal basic income ~ From stephenf1113 at yahoo.com Thu Nov 30 22:47:14 2017 From: stephenf1113 at yahoo.com (Stephen Francis) Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 22:47:14 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Peace-discuss] Peace-discuss Digest, Vol 166, Issue 326 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1275289966.5523896.1512082034732@mail.yahoo.com> Professor Boyle,Your post on Wexler that included the following sentence must have crossed the 'anti-Semitic' line and consequently got no response.... predictably."As most of us know, the so-called Foundation is a Gang of Die-hard NeoCon Zionist Warmongers, Bigots and Racists against Palestinians/Arabs/Persians/Asians/Muslims of Color. Right now the Foundation is warmongering to get us into a war against Iran on behalf of Israel."AWARE is a basically a pro-Israel fake antiwar organization that fails (by design) to get to the real issues... that you so eloquently pointed out above. It is utterly taboo to give any serious thought or worlds to the real crimes of the Israeli government and its Jewish supremacists.A story like the one below would also receive no traction:ANALYSIS: Will Netanyahu risk exposing one of Israel’s secrets?  | | | | | | | | | | | ANALYSIS: Will Netanyahu risk exposing one of Israel’s secrets? New law would tell Palestinian citizens in Israel that they are not equal, say experts | | | | On Thursday, November 30, 2017 10:36 AM, "peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net" wrote: Send Peace-discuss mailing list submissions to     peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit     https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to     peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net You can reach the person managing the list at     peace-discuss-owner at lists.chambana.net When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Peace-discuss digest..." Today's Topics:   1. Re: NG: UILAWPROF Wexler Complicit in Israeli War Crimes,       Crimes against Humanity & Genocide against Palestinians.       (Boyle, Francis A)   2. Re: NG: UILAWPROF Wexler Complicit in Israeli War Crimes,       Crimes against Humanity & Genocide against Palestinians.       (Boyle, Francis A) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 16:33:57 +0000 From: "Boyle, Francis A" To: 'David Green' , "Miller, Joseph Thomas"     , "'sherwoodross10 at gmail.com'"     , "'peace-discuss at anti-war.net'"     , "'C. G. ESTABROOK'"     , "'a-fields at uiuc.edu'" ,     'Joe Lauria' ,     "'Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net'"     ,     "'peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net'"     , "Szoke, Ron"     , 'Arlene Hickory' , 'Karen     Aram' , "'abass10 at gmail.com'"     , "'mickalideh at gmail.com'" ,     'Lina Thorne' , "'chicago at worldcantwait.net'"     , 'Jay' , 'David     Johnson' , 'Mildred O'brien'     , "'C G Estabrook'" Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] NG: UILAWPROF Wexler Complicit in Israeli     War Crimes, Crimes against Humanity & Genocide against Palestinians. Message-ID:     Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" "...particularly to the drone assassinations, "the most extreme terrorist campaign of modern times" - which have killed more than 5,000 people, including U.S. citizens and hundreds of children." Chomsky {now 10,000+ people} And notice of course that the die-hard bigots, racists and warmongers against Muslims/Arabs/Palestinians/Persians/Asians of Color  at the College of Law bragged about and touted Wexler's complicity with Israel's war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide against the Palestinians. QED. fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2017 9:04 AM To: 'David Green' ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; 'sherwoodross10 at gmail.com' ; 'peace-discuss at anti-war.net' ; 'C. G. ESTABROOK' ; 'a-fields at uiuc.edu' ; 'Joe Lauria' ; 'Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net' ; 'peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net' ; Szoke, Ron ; 'Arlene Hickory' ; 'Karen Aram' ; 'abass10 at gmail.com' ; 'mickalideh at gmail.com' ; 'Lina Thorne' ; 'chicago at worldcantwait.net' ; 'Jay' ; 'David Johnson' ; 'Mildred O'brien' ; 'C G Estabrook' Subject: NG: UILAWPROF Wexler Complicit in Israeli War Crimes, Crimes against Humanity & Genocide against Palestinians. "...particularly to the drone assassinations, "the most extreme terrorist campaign of modern times" - which have killed more than 5,000 people, including U.S. citizens and hundreds of children." Chomsky {now 10,000+ people} Today's News Gazette has a front page story where UILawProf Wexler is pontificating about sexual harassment. Really? Notice below. Wexler had  the UILawSchool brag about the fact that she is an "Academic Fellow" of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. As most of us know, the so-called Foundation is a Gang of Die-hard NeoCon Zionist Warmongers, Bigots and Racists against Palestinians/Arabs/Persians/Asians/Muslims of Color. Right now the Foundation is warmongering to get us into a war against Iran on behalf of Israel. Notice Wexler brags about the fact that she spent ten days "exploring" how Israel inflicts war crimes, crimes against humanity and outright genocide against the Palestinians, including and especially Palestinian Women and Children. And Wexler calls this to be an "honor". Basically Wexler is complicit in Israel's war crimes, crimes against humanity and outright genocide against the Palestinians. Article III (e) of the 1948 Genocide Convention explicitly criminalizes "Complicity in genocide." And Wexler is typical of the die-hard bigots, racists and warmongers against Muslims/Arabs/Palestinians/Asians of Color on the College of Law Faculty who brought out Killer Koh here to give his specially endowed lecture on being a Role Model in Excellence for Lawyers in Government Service. Not one member of the UI Law Faculty  Gang of Die-hard Bigots, Racists and Warmongers against  Muslims/Arabs/Palestinians/Asians of Color supported us in our Protest against Killer Koh. Q.E.D. fab Hey! Hey! Wexler Say! How many women! Did you kill today! In Palestine! Hey! Hey! Wexler say! How many kids! Did you kill today! In Palestine! Hey! Hey! Wexler Say! How many Dads! Did you kill today! In Palestine! Professor Wexler Selected as Academic Fellow of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies Friday, March 09, 2012 Lesley Wexler, the Thomas M. Mengler Faculty Scholar, has been selected as an academic fellow of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. As part of the honor, Professor Wexler will be participating in a 10-day program in Israel with other leading U.S. academics exploring how the country combats terrorism. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 16:33:57 +0000 From: "Boyle, Francis A" To: 'David Green' , "Miller, Joseph Thomas"     , "'sherwoodross10 at gmail.com'"     , "'peace-discuss at anti-war.net'"     , "'C. G. ESTABROOK'"     , "'a-fields at uiuc.edu'" ,     'Joe Lauria' ,     "'Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net'"     ,     "'peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net'"     , "Szoke, Ron"     , 'Arlene Hickory' , 'Karen     Aram' , "'abass10 at gmail.com'"     , "'mickalideh at gmail.com'" ,     'Lina Thorne' , "'chicago at worldcantwait.net'"     , 'Jay' , 'David     Johnson' , 'Mildred O'brien'     , "'C G Estabrook'" Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] NG: UILAWPROF Wexler Complicit in Israeli     War Crimes, Crimes against Humanity & Genocide against Palestinians. Message-ID:     Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" "...particularly to the drone assassinations, "the most extreme terrorist campaign of modern times" - which have killed more than 5,000 people, including U.S. citizens and hundreds of children." Chomsky {now 10,000+ people} And notice of course that the die-hard bigots, racists and warmongers against Muslims/Arabs/Palestinians/Persians/Asians of Color  at the College of Law bragged about and touted Wexler's complicity with Israel's war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide against the Palestinians. QED. fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2017 9:04 AM To: 'David Green' ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; 'sherwoodross10 at gmail.com' ; 'peace-discuss at anti-war.net' ; 'C. G. ESTABROOK' ; 'a-fields at uiuc.edu' ; 'Joe Lauria' ; 'Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net' ; 'peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net' ; Szoke, Ron ; 'Arlene Hickory' ; 'Karen Aram' ; 'abass10 at gmail.com' ; 'mickalideh at gmail.com' ; 'Lina Thorne' ; 'chicago at worldcantwait.net' ; 'Jay' ; 'David Johnson' ; 'Mildred O'brien' ; 'C G Estabrook' Subject: NG: UILAWPROF Wexler Complicit in Israeli War Crimes, Crimes against Humanity & Genocide against Palestinians. "...particularly to the drone assassinations, "the most extreme terrorist campaign of modern times" - which have killed more than 5,000 people, including U.S. citizens and hundreds of children." Chomsky {now 10,000+ people} Today's News Gazette has a front page story where UILawProf Wexler is pontificating about sexual harassment. Really? Notice below. Wexler had  the UILawSchool brag about the fact that she is an "Academic Fellow" of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. As most of us know, the so-called Foundation is a Gang of Die-hard NeoCon Zionist Warmongers, Bigots and Racists against Palestinians/Arabs/Persians/Asians/Muslims of Color. Right now the Foundation is warmongering to get us into a war against Iran on behalf of Israel. Notice Wexler brags about the fact that she spent ten days "exploring" how Israel inflicts war crimes, crimes against humanity and outright genocide against the Palestinians, including and especially Palestinian Women and Children. And Wexler calls this to be an "honor". Basically Wexler is complicit in Israel's war crimes, crimes against humanity and outright genocide against the Palestinians. Article III (e) of the 1948 Genocide Convention explicitly criminalizes "Complicity in genocide." And Wexler is typical of the die-hard bigots, racists and warmongers against Muslims/Arabs/Palestinians/Asians of Color on the College of Law Faculty who brought out Killer Koh here to give his specially endowed lecture on being a Role Model in Excellence for Lawyers in Government Service. Not one member of the UI Law Faculty  Gang of Die-hard Bigots, Racists and Warmongers against  Muslims/Arabs/Palestinians/Asians of Color supported us in our Protest against Killer Koh. Q.E.D. fab Hey! Hey! Wexler Say! How many women! Did you kill today! In Palestine! Hey! Hey! Wexler say! How many kids! Did you kill today! In Palestine! Hey! Hey! Wexler Say! How many Dads! Did you kill today! In Palestine! Professor Wexler Selected as Academic Fellow of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies Friday, March 09, 2012 Lesley Wexler, the Thomas M. Mengler Faculty Scholar, has been selected as an academic fellow of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. As part of the honor, Professor Wexler will be participating in a 10-day program in Israel with other leading U.S. academics exploring how the country combats terrorism. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: ------------------------------ Subject: Digest Footer _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss ------------------------------ End of Peace-discuss Digest, Vol 166, Issue 326 *********************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bjornsona at ameritech.net Thu Nov 30 22:58:03 2017 From: bjornsona at ameritech.net (bjornsona at ameritech.net) Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 16:58:03 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Flyer for AWARE demonstration, Saturday 12/2 Message-ID: <48p8m9fm3ukeft64ekl1ncm3.1512081571711@email.lge.com> >From Business Insider.com, Feb.  2015. I could not find anything newer.  Oversea Contingency Operations  Fund - war slush fund.  Nuclear Modernization $1Trillion over next 3 decades. From another source- outside funds to pay for wars usually asked for and appropriated midyear, after budget is passed. Pentagon budget is only for hardware, software, usually. Am I on the correct track? I remember Bush' s wars all paid for outside regular budget process ( probably still being paid for) and millions billions? skimmed in corruption  Nuclear Modernization was topic last week at Foreign Affairs Committee meeting Senator who is resigning held (Jeff Flake? ) and Jeff Merkely,  where they had a former general, a lawyer and a nukes expert discuss whether or not to pass a law that the Pres. needed the Vice Pres. to sign off before he could make a preemptive strike. They ended the hearing with the decision that the U. S. really really needed to modernize its nukes at $1 trillion, , esp. in space. They left grinning like Chesire cats, Dems and GOP alike. Sent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone ------ Original message------From: bjornsona--- via Peace-discussDate: Thu, Nov 30, 2017 4:32 PMTo: Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss;Karen Aram;Cc: Harry Mickalide;Peace;Subject:Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Flyer for AWARE demonstration, Saturday 12/2 Forgive me for my learning curve. You all are teaching me to do better research. Are there other military costs put  outside of $600B budget? I found Cabinet costs: Department of Energy, some of which are Nukes. At https://energy.gov , in millions: Nuclear Security 13, 931; Other Defense 816; Dept Admin 178; ( Not all Admin. for defense of course).  The other two Cabinet posts, I think, that might be considered war $$ are NSA and DHS. Thinking there are slush funds other places- not sure where to look Sent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone ------ Original message------From: Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discussDate: Thu, Nov 30, 2017 3:57 PMTo: Karen Aram;Cc: Karen Aram via Peace-discuss;Harry Mickalide;Peace;Subject:Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Flyer for AWARE demonstration, Saturday 12/2 You might keep it simple by observing, "Trump is not the problem, US war-making is." Or, "Bottom line, the USG is planning perpetual war in many nations around the globe, its become the norm for the millennial generation.”  On Nov 30, 2017, at 1:15 PM, Karen Aram wrote: Harry is correct, keeping it simple is best, not my skill set. He is also correct that focus on the monetary cost of war and intervention to US domestic social services, including healthcare, education, etc. appeals to most people, so should always be mentioned. A total focus on costs of war, isn’t really us, but it does need to be mentioned.  How can we overlook the genocide taking place in Yemen, or the slavery in Libya of Black Africans as a result of the US destruction of that nation in 2011. It’s now being used as a cause for military intervention, again, basically bringing more troops in than those we’ve already had there.  Trump has announced more troops in Afghanistan, and Col. Larry Wilkerson has predicted we will be there forever, due to China’s economic progress in that region.  Bottom line, the USG is planning perpetual war in many nations around the globe, its become the norm for the millennial generation.  In relation to Africa (the sahel, in particular) the fourteen nations previously colonized by France, and again being recolonized by way of military occupation, the US is involved in all, because the French military is incapable, just as is the Saudi military, without US military technical, and logistical support.  On Nov 30, 2017, at 10:40, Carl G. Estabrook wrote: The US should in fact be spending much more on war than the current military budget - paying reparations for the damage we've done and the people we’ve killed in the wars of the current generation.  But it’s not the case that war spending means we can’t afford universal healthcare, free college, and universal basic income.  The USG can’t run out of money. No one refuses a check signed by the US government. —CGE On Nov 30, 2017, at 12:31 PM, Harry Mickalide via Peace-discuss wrote: I still think a better simpler flyer would look like this: Projected annual cost for universal healthcare, free college, and universal basic income: $X Annual military budget: $600 billion On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 11:26 AM, Karen Aram via Peace wrote: Yes, it is a distraction, and I have argued this point with those who suggest it, other than for war, which no one suggests, and actually might be worthwhile. However, I’ll say it again, it’s totally counterproductive to the anti-war movement and our demonstration.  I have another appointment on Saturday so don’t plan to attend our demonstration. End of conversation on this topic, on my part. PS Even Peter Lavalle of Crosstalk, who supported Trump vs. Hillary, has now stated emphatically, "he is glad Hillary is not President, but he in no way supports Trump given what he is doing.” > On Nov 30, 2017, at 07:42, C G Estabrook wrote: > > I agree that we should focus on "what the USG is doing in respect to war.” > > That’s why ‘Impeach Trump’ is a distraction - a purposeful distraction, by the those calling for continuity in US fp and war-making. > > >> On Nov 30, 2017, at 9:15 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: >> >> We should be informing people, when it comes to flyers, of what the USG is doing. >> Most Americans aren’t aware that we are in eight wars, with potential for two more. >> Oh yes, they all know how awful the N. Korean leader is, they all fear Iran having nuclear weapons, but do they know there is a solution to the N. Korean problem, one for which we the US could implement, but refuses to do so. >> >> Do the American people know that we are in the process of savaging Africa, again? >> Do they know the US is the greatest purveyor of violence in the world? >> >> Carl, these are all things you have talked about, and placed in flyers before. >> >> Focusing on individuals to blame, is a tactic that alienates and divides a people. If you were writing an article to be published, or on FB thats one thing, but a flyer representing an organization, should merely paraphrase what the USG is doing in respect to war. >> >>> On Nov 30, 2017, at 07:03, C G Estabrook wrote: >>> >>> That earlier flyer was meant to combat Obama’s squeaky-clean image, which he was good at fostering while he administered “the most extreme terrorist campaign of modern times." >>> >>> . >>> >>> And see the puff-piece on his 'toughness’: . >>> >>> But I don’t think anyone contends that US world-wide mass murder post-WWII is a matter of presidential caprice, even if they could have acted differently. >>> >>> Neither Obama nor Trump had to send tens of thousands more troops to Afghanistan (as they did) after running as critics of the war (as they did). >>> >>> Condemning and opposing US war-making doesn’t depend on affixing individual responsibility. (Was Truman responsible for Hiroshima? Yes. Alone? No.) >>> >>> —CGE >>> >>> >>>> On Nov 30, 2017, at 8:39 AM, David Green via Peace wrote: >>>> >>>> In any event, this language contrasts sharply with a flyer from two years ago, which holds Obama responsible: >>>> >>>> President Obama is making war in eight countries; he is sending American ‘special forces’ into more than 100 countries around the world; he has assassinated thousands  by drone - the most extreme terrorist campaign of modern times; and he is provoking war with Russia and China. >>>> >>>> I'm not sure how we can justify the difference in tone and substance regarding the warmaking "motivations" of Obama and Trump. >>>> >>>> On Thursday, November 30, 2017, 7:06:53 AM CST, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> Carl >>>> >>>> No one knows better than I, no one has spoken more about the powers behind the throne than I. I’m the one, with AWARE, who has been making the argument that any President who comes to power, as either a Republican or Democrat is going to implement the foreign policy plan put into place by the Oligarchs behind the throne. One of which was Brzezinski, just to keep it simple. >>>> >>>> As a Green socialist, who does not support the one Party system, Democrat/ Republican, once they get to DC. I have been highlighting the very fact, of the Pentagon, CIA, Council on Foreign Relations, Think Tanks, Corporations and Contractors as those pushing the US war agenda. >>>> >>>> But, to imply that Trump anymore than Obama is an unwitting dope of those who make up the “Deep State” “Military Industrial Complex,” however we wish to refer to them, is a mistake, most especially in the title of a flyer. Whether architects or rubber stamps of our foreign policy, they are all complicit. >>>> >>>> A FLYER is meant to impart information, but no one is going to read it, when it acts as an apology for Trump. He is as vile a creature as Clinton, in that he supported the rhetoric of lies and propaganda against Libya and Gaddafi. He is guilty of bombing Syria, and now provoking war with N Korea and Iran. Yes, he is attempting peace with Russia and China, he knows where a dollar is to be made. Though it matters not, when the plan is war with China, predicted by the Rand Think Tank and Pentagon in to be 2030. Our continued presence of Nato on the border of Russia is not going away. >>>> >>>> Roger has just proved my point. He has assessed us as Trump supporters, in spite of my statement, in spite of David Greens statement. What do you think people will think of AWARE, upon receipt of our flyer? And, as I said, focus on the election in order to bash the Clintons is also of no value. >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Nov 29, 2017, at 18:29, C G Estabrook wrote: >>>>> >>>>> The concentration on Trump is the strategy of the (pro-)War Party (the Pentagon, the 'intelligence community,' the Clinton campaign, the neocons) to force the government to continue the wars and war provocations of the last administrations. They think either Trump can be forced to fall in line with the war policy (as he shown he’s willing to do) under the threat of ‘Russiagate’ - or be replaced (with Pence, a War Party creature). >>>>> >>>>> The anti-war movement has to insist that Trump - the weakest president since Coolidge (“silent Cal,”|who followed the opposite performance strategy to Trump's bluster) - is not the problem, but that the continuing and largely unvaried Clinton-Bush-Obama war-making is. That's the policy that must be resisted.  The War Party (who of course support that policy) is using Trump as a distraction from that policy. >>>>> >>>>> We should be opposing the Pentagon, the CIA, the Obama-Clintonists, the neocons, et al., who are promoting war provocations vs. Russia and China - not bothering much with the Potemkin president. >>>>> >>>>> John Pilger saw it clearly before the election: "The CIA has demanded Trump is not elected. Pentagon generals have demanded he is not elected. The pro-war New York Times - taking a breather from its relentless low-rent Putin smears - demands that he is not elected. Something is up. These tribunes of 'perpetual war' are terrified that the multi-billion-dollar business of war by which the United States maintains its dominance will be undermined if Trump does a deal with Putin, then with China’s Xi Jinping. Their panic at the possibility of the world’s great power talking peace – however unlikely – would be the blackest farce were the issues not so dire.” —CGE >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On Nov 29, 2017, at 5:31 PM, Karen Aram via Peace wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> I’m sorry, Carl >>>>>> >>>>>> I don’t like it, the title alone makes AWARE look like “Trump defenders.” It’s one thing to say this in conversation when explaining our wars, to those who think the problem began with Trump, but as a title, it sucks. Most people in this town are Democrats and won’t bother to read it. >>>>>> >>>>>> I’m not pleased with some of that which is in the article either, because the focus  on the election is old news. Its time to move on. Trump is President and he is responsible for that which occurs on his watch. >>>>>> >>>>>> Trump bombed Syria and that is an impeachable offense, granted every other President before him, committed war crimes that were also impeachable offenses, Bush and most especially Obama, but Trump has been in power for almost a year now. His provocations of war with Korea, and Iran are extremely dangerous. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Nov 29, 2017, at 12:46, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> PRESIDENT TRUMP IS NOT THE PROBLEM: >>>>>>> ILLEGAL U.S. WARS AROUND THE WORLD ARE >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The US government is today making war around the world - and it’s doing so without authorization from the U.S. Constitution or the U.N. Charter. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If American leaders were put on trial today as German leaders were, at Nuremberg after World War II, for “launching aggressive war,” they - like the German leaders - would be hanged. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The U.S. military is today killing people in seven Mideast and African countries - Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Somalia, and Pakistan (and on the other side of the world, in the Philippines). Thousands of U.S. troops are fighting in these countries, although most Americans don’t know that.  In addition, the 70,000-member U.S. ‘Special Operations Command’ is active in three-quarters of the countries of the world. Their activities include kidnapping (‘rendition’), torture, and murder. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> President Obama was elected as an anti-war candidate, but in office he sent thousands of additional U.S. troops into America’s longest war, in Afghanistan. President Trump, who promised caution and non-interventionism in foreign policy - and described Hillary Clinton as a “trigger happy warmonger” - has now done the same thing himself. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What both men knew is that, in spite of intense media propaganda, most Americans don’t want U.S. troops engaged in foreign wars and don’t see the killing as justified; both candidates had to seem to oppose the wars, in order to get elected. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But the ‘one percent’ - the U.S. economic elite - do want the wars. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> When World War II ended in 1945, the U.S. was the least-damaged major country on either side, and controlled the world economy. America’s wars since then - in Korea, Vietnam, Latin America, and the Mideast - have killed between 20 and 30 million people for the purpose of maintaining that control. Ordinary Americans have paid for these vicious wars, but they haven’t profited from them. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> John Pilger wrote before the election, "The CIA has demanded Trump is not elected. Pentagon generals have demanded he is not elected. The pro-war New York Times - taking a breather from its relentless low-rent Putin smears - demands that he is not elected. Something is up. These tribunes of 'perpetual war' are terrified that the multi-billion-dollar business of war by which the United States maintains its dominance will be undermined if Trump does a deal with Putin, then with China’s Xi Jinping. Their panic at the possibility of the world’s great power talking peace – however unlikely – would be the blackest farce were the issues not so dire." >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We must demand that foreign military bases be closed, U.S. troops (and weapons) be brought home, and social support - including free medical care, education, and a universal basic income - be provided for Americans immiserated by generations of U.S. government wars. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> WRITE CONGRESS - DEMAND U.S. TROOPS & WEAPONS BE BROUGHT HOME >>>>>>> Our representatives in Congress from this area - and their email addresses - are as follows: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Representative Rodney Davis: >>>>>>> Senator Tammy Duckworth: >>>>>>> Senator Dick Durbin: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ~~~ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ANTI-WAR ANTI-RACISM EFFORT - on Facebook at >>>>>>> ~ U.S. troops & weapons out of the Mideast ~ Medicare for all ~ Universal basic income ~ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> Peace-discuss mailing list >>>>>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >>>>>>> https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.chambana.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fpeace-discuss&data=02%7C01%7Ckarenaram%40hotmail.com%7Cfc30480baf2b4882394b08d5376a458e%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636475851934473412&sdata=0JBYxrD5cfjQzfDHk4PpLhvWxWn5Ce3B%2FBGNvILHbQI%3D&reserved=0 >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Peace mailing list >>>>>> Peace at lists.chambana.net >>>>>> https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.chambana.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fpeace&data=02%7C01%7Ckarenaram%40hotmail.com%7Cf666ae76fb7a4230b3e308d5380383c8%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636476510093637620&sdata=K2skpZ7DB7gaAC0qrBHMVVdN3aiMOsP2EfrwZkHSw3k%3D&reserved=0 >>>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Peace-discuss mailing list >>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >>>> https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.chambana.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fpeace-discuss&data=02%7C01%7Ckarenaram%40hotmail.com%7Cf666ae76fb7a4230b3e308d5380383c8%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636476510093637620&sdata=xazvoaiiZfeKwnoLWr0%2BQ7zDKzK11UmSbVoB97gFtjE%3D&reserved=0 >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Peace mailing list >>>> Peace at lists.chambana.net >>>> https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.chambana.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fpeace&data=02%7C01%7Ckarenaram%40hotmail.com%7Cf666ae76fb7a4230b3e308d5380383c8%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636476510093637620&sdata=K2skpZ7DB7gaAC0qrBHMVVdN3aiMOsP2EfrwZkHSw3k%3D&reserved=0 >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Peace-discuss mailing list >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >> https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.chambana.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fpeace-discuss&data=02%7C01%7Ckarenaram%40hotmail.com%7C1510d4a9e78e4ab02a0f08d538090865%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636476533794287026&sdata=1gLoCzw4EfQ1ZonM6wynHGMKl4R%2FZ9tvCrtiZBxZTpo%3D&reserved=0 _______________________________________________ Peace mailing list Peace at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Thu Nov 30 23:03:25 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 23:03:25 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Flyer for AWARE demonstration, Saturday 12/2 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: According to Kath Kelly in her November issue of “Voices for Creative Non Violence” “Direct US spending on the war in Afghanistan will rise to approximately $840.7 billion if the presidents fiscal year 2018 budget is approved. “ She is quoting the Washington Post. She is referring to Afghanistan alone, with the Trump Administration’s call for more war, more troops in that already devastated nation. > On Nov 30, 2017, at 14:39, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: > > Thank you for the kind word. On the political-economic questions you raise, let me recommend our Urbana Public Television program ‘News from Neptune,’ a weekly hour of discussion, recorded on Friday and archived on YouTube. > > My colleague David Green is particularly concerned with the political-economic questions you raise. Here’s the latest program: . > > Regards, CGE > > >> On Nov 30, 2017, at 4:18 PM, bjornsona--- via Peace wrote: >> >> Sorry to be late to the party on commenting, here. Thank you all very much- I am learning so much from you!! I have been catching up on previous "Aware on the Air" episodes from this year. >> >> Because I am new to the formal anti-war movement, I appreciate very much Carl's recitation of basic USG wartime facts at the beginning of each AOTA episode. His delivery helps me memorize them! My comments on any flyers would then be, as a newbie to a demonstration, that I would find many facts like those or others useful and shocking. Many people have absolutely no idea that we have as many bases outside the country as we do, and many people have no idea that Russia only has 15; China 1. (Correct?) >> >> Random thought #1: not related to flyer: Important to address unfounded&n bsp; fears people will have (I did) when hearing "bring back troops" , "cut military in half" . Without knowing/feeling facts of why U. S. is major terrorist, or seeing a plan of bases to close, or a jobs plan for soldiers, I was fearful of the whole thing. Which brought me to research more, for which I am grateful Aware has links to CounterPunch, military historians, new events in Asia like Karen brings. >> >> Random #2: As we know to our sorrow, many people still believe U of C Arthur Laffer -curve trickle-down economics . And in outsourcing all the negative costs of capitalism to the environment and the community instead of making producers be responsible. I prefer to call out continued growth in a corporation as a physical impossibility , just like No Child Left Behind made no sense from the way it was set up, or a cancer is unrestrained growth. >> >> Real life is a cycle. Which would make sense to Millenniels. Where those concepts for into anti-war, Idk. I think they do. Guns & butter from 1st year economics might resonate with those who consider themselves classic GOP conservatives. >> >> Sent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone >> >> ------ Original message------ >> From: Karen Aram via Peace-discuss >> < div dir="auto">Date: Thu, Nov 30, 2017 1:16 PM >> To: Carl G. Estabrook; >> Cc: Karen Aram via Peace-discuss;Harry Mickalide;Peace; >> Subject:Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Flyer for AWARE demonstration, Saturday 12/2 >> >> Harry is correct, keeping it simple is best, not my skill set. He is also correct that focus on the monetary cost of war and intervention to US domestic social services, including healthcare, education, etc. appeals to most people, so should always be mentioned. A total focus on costs of war, isn’t really us, but it does need to be mentioned. >> >> How can we overlook the genocide taking place in Yemen, or the slavery in Libya of Black Africans as a result of the US destruction of that nation in 2011. It’s now being used as a cause for military intervention, again, basically bringing more troops in than those we’ve already had there. >> >> Trump has announced more troops in Afghanistan, and Col. Larry Wilkerson has predicted we will be there forever, due to China’s economic progress in that region. >> >> Bottom line, the USG is planning perpetual war in many nations around the globe, its become the norm for the millennial generation. >> >> In relation to Africa (the sahel, in particular) the fourteen nations previously colonized by France, and again being recolonized by way of military occupation, the US is involved in all, because the French military is incapable, just as is the Saudi military, without US military technical, and logistical support. >> >> >> >> >>> On Nov 30, 2017, at 10:40, Carl G. Estabrook wrote: >>> >>> The US should in fact be spending much more on war than the current military budget - paying reparations for the damage we've done and the people we’ve killed in the wars of the current generation. >>> >>> But it’s not the case that war spending means we can’t afford universal healthcare, free college, and universal basic income. >>> >>> The USG can’t run out of money. No one refuses a check signed by the US government. —CGE >>> >>> >>>> On Nov 30, 2017, at 12:31 PM, Harry Mickalide via Peace-discuss wrote: >>>> >>>> I still think a better simpler flyer would look like this: >>>> >>>> Projected annual cost for universal healthcare, free college, and universal basic income: $X >>>> >>>> Annual military budget: $600 billion >>>> >>>> On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 11:26 AM, Karen Aram via Peace wrote: >>>> Yes, it is a distraction, and I have argued this point with those who suggest it, other than for war, which no one suggests, and actually might be worthwhile. >>>> >>>> However, I’ll say it again, it’s totally counterproductive to the anti-war movement and our demonstration. >>>> >>>> I have another appointment on Saturday so don’t plan to attend our demonstration. >>>> >>>> End of conversation on this topic, on my part. >>>> >>>> PS Even Peter Lavalle of Crosstalk, who supported Trump vs. Hillary, has now stated emphatically, "he is glad Hillary is not President, but he in no way supports Trump given what he is doing.” >>>> >>>>> On Nov 30, 2017, at 07:42, C G Estabrook wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I agree that we should focus on "what the USG is doing in respect to war.” >>>>> >>>>> That’s why ‘Impeach Trump’ is a distraction - a purposeful distraction, by the those calling for continuity in US fp and war-making. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On Nov 30, 2017, at 9:15 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> We should be informing people, when it comes to flyers, of what the USG is doing. >>>>>> Most Americans aren’t aware that we are in eight wars, with potential for two more. >>>>>> Oh yes, they all know how awful the N. Korean leader is, they all fear Iran having nuclear weapons, but do they know there is a solution to the N. Korean problem, one for which we the US could implement, but refuses to do so. >>>>>> >>>>>> Do the American people know that we are in the process of savaging Africa, again? >>>>>> Do they know the US is the greatest purveyor of violence in the world? >>>>>> >>>>>> Carl, these are all things you have talked about, and placed in flyers before. >>>>>> >>>>>> Focusing on individuals to blame, is a tactic that alienates and divides a people. If you were writing an article to be published, or on FB thats one thing, but a flyer representing an organization, should merely paraphrase what the USG is doing in respect to war. >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Nov 30, 2017, at 07:03, C G Estabrook wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That earlier flyer was meant to combat Obama’s squeaky-clean image, which he was good at fostering while he administered “the most extreme terrorist campaign of modern times." >>>>>>> >>>>>>> . >>>>>>> >>>>>>> And see the puff-piece on his 'toughness’: . >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But I don’t think anyone contends that US world-wide mass murder post-WWII is a matter of presidential caprice, even if they could have acted differently. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Neither Obama nor Trump had to send tens of thousands more troops to Afghanistan (as they did) after running as critics of the war (as they did). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Condemning and opposing US war-making doesn’t depend on affixing individual responsibility. (Was Truman responsible for Hiroshima? Yes. Alone? No.) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> —CGE >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Nov 30, 2017, at 8:39 AM, David Green via Peace wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In any event, this language contrasts sharply with a flyer from two years ago, which holds Obama responsible: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> President Obama is making war in eight countries; he is sending American ‘special forces’ into more than 100 countries around the world; he has assassinated thousands by drone - the most extreme terrorist campaign of modern times; and he is provoking war with Russia and China. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I'm not sure how we can justify the difference in tone and substance regarding the warmaking "motivations" of Obama and Trump. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Thursday, November 30, 2017, 7:06:53 AM CST, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Carl >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> No one knows better than I, no one has spoken more about the powers behind the throne than I. I’m the one, with AWARE, who has been making the argument that any President who comes to power, as either a Republican or Democrat is going to implement the foreign policy plan put into place by the Oligarchs behind the throne. One of which was Brzezinski, just to keep it simple. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> As a Green socialist, who does not support the one Party system, Democrat/ Republican, once they get to DC. I have been highlighting the very fact, of the Pentagon, CIA, Council on Foreign Relations, Think Tanks, Corporations and Contractors as those pushing the US war agenda. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> But, to imply that Trump anymore than Obama is an unwitting dope of those who make up the “Deep State” “Military Industrial Complex,” however we wish to refer to them, is a mistake, most especially in the title of a flyer. Whether architects or rubber stamps of our foreign policy, they are all complicit. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> A FLYER is meant to impart information, but no one is going to read it, when it acts as an apology for Trump. He is as vile a creature as Clinton, in that he supported the rhetoric of lies and propaganda against Libya and Gaddafi. He is guilty of bombing Syria, and now provoking war with N Korea and Iran. Yes, he is attempting peace with Russia and China, he knows where a dollar is to be made. Though it matters not, when the plan is war with China, predicted by the Rand Think Tank and Pentagon in to be 2030. Our continued presence of Nato on the border of Russia is not going away. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Roger has just proved my point. He has assessed us as Trump supporters, in spite of my statement, in spite of David Greens statement. What do you think people will think of AWARE, upon receipt of our flyer? And, as I said, focus on the election in order to bash the Clintons is also of no value. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Nov 29, 2017, at 18:29, C G Estabrook wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The concentration on Trump is the strategy of the (pro-)War Party (the Pentagon, the 'intelligence community,' the Clinton campaign, the neocons) to force the government to continue the wars and war provocations of the last administrations. They think either Trump can be forced to fall in line with the war policy (as he shown he’s willing to do) under the threat of ‘Russiagate’ - or be replaced (with Pence, a War Party creature). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The anti-war movement has to insist that Trump - the weakest president since Coolidge (“silent Cal,”|who followed the opposite performance strategy to Trump's bluster) - is not the problem, but that the continuing and largely unvaried Clinton-Bush-Obama war-making is. That's the policy that must be resisted. The War Party (who of course support that policy) is using Trump as a distraction from that policy. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> We should be opposing the Pentagon, the CIA, the Obama-Clintonists, the neocons, et al., who are promoting war provocations vs. Russia and China - not bothering much with the Potemkin president. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> John Pilger saw it clearly before the election: "The CIA has demanded Trump is not elected. Pentagon generals have demanded he is not elected. The pro-war New York Times - taking a breather from its relentless low-rent Putin smears - demands that he is not elected. Something is up. These tribunes of 'perpetual war' are terrified that the multi-billion-dollar business of war by which the United States maintains its dominance will be undermined if Trump does a deal with Putin, then with China’s Xi Jinping. Their panic at the possibility of the world’s great power talking peace – however unlikely – would be the blackest farce were the issues not so dire.” —CGE >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Nov 29, 2017, at 5:31 PM, Karen Aram via Peace wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I’m sorry, Carl >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I don’t like it, the title alone makes AWARE look like “Trump defenders.” It’s one thing to say this in conversation when explaining our wars, to those who think the problem began with Trump, but as a title, it sucks. Most people in this town are Democrats and won’t bother to read it. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I’m not pleased with some of that which is in the article either, because the focus on the election is old news. Its time to move on. Trump is President and he is responsible for that which occurs on his watch. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Trump bombed Syria and that is an impeachable offense, granted every other President before him, committed war crimes that were also impeachable offenses, Bush and most especially Obama, but Trump has been in power for almost a year now. His provocations of war with Korea, and Iran are extremely dangerous. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 29, 2017, at 12:46, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> PRESIDENT TRUMP IS NOT THE PROBLEM: >>>>>>>>>>> ILLEGAL U.S. WARS AROUND THE WORLD ARE >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The US government is today making war around the world - and it’s doing so without authorization from the U.S. Constitution or the U.N. Charter. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> If American leaders were put on trial today as German leaders were, at Nuremberg after World War II, for “launching aggressive war,” they - like the German leaders - would be hanged. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The U.S. military is today killing people in seven Mideast and African countries - Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Somalia, and Pakistan (and on the other side of the world, in the Philippines). Thousands of U.S. troops are fighting in these countries, although most Americans don’t know that. In addition, the 70,000-member U.S. ‘Special Operations Command’ is active in three-quarters of the countries of the world. Their activities include kidnapping (‘rendition’), torture, and murder. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> President Obama was elected as an anti-war candidate, but in office he sent thousands of additional U.S. troops into America’s longest war, in Afghanistan. President Trump, who promised caution and non-interventionism in foreign policy - and described Hillary Clinton as a “trigger happy warmonger” - has now done the same thing himself. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> What both men knew is that, in spite of intense media propaganda, most Americans don’t want U.S. troops engaged in foreign wars and don’t see the killing as justified; both candidates had to seem to oppose the wars, in order to get elected. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> But the ‘one percent’ - the U.S. economic elite - do want the wars. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> When World War II ended in 1945, the U.S. was the least-damaged major country on either side, and controlled the world economy. America’s wars since then - in Korea, Vietnam, Latin America, and the Mideast - have killed between 20 and 30 million people for the purpose of maintaining that control. Ordinary Americans have paid for these vicious wars, but they haven’t profited from them. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> John Pilger wrote before the election, "The CIA has demanded Trump is not elected. Pentagon generals have demanded he is not elected. The pro-war New York Times - taking a breather from its relentless low-rent Putin smears - demands that he is not elected. Something is up. These tribunes of 'perpetual war' are terrified that the multi-billion-dollar business of war by which the United States maintains its dominance will be undermined if Trump does a deal with Putin, then with China’s Xi Jinping. Their panic at the possibility of the world’s great power talking peace – however unlikely – would be the blackest farce were the issues not so dire." >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> We must demand that foreign military bases be closed, U.S. troops (and weapons) be brought home, and social support - including free medical care, education, and a universal basic income - be provided for Americans immiserated by generations of U.S. government wars. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> WRITE CONGRESS - DEMAND U.S. TROOPS & WEAPONS BE BROUGHT HOME >>>>>>>>>>> Our representatives in Congress from this area - and their email addresses - are as follows: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Representative Rodney Davis: >>>>>>>>>>> Senator Tammy Duckworth: >>>>>>>>>>> Senator Dick Durbin: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> ~~~ >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> ANTI-WAR ANTI-RACISM EFFORT - on Facebook at >>>>>>>>>>> ~ U.S. troops & weapons out of the Mideast ~ Medicare for all ~ Universal basic income ~ > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.chambana.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fpeace-discuss&data=02%7C01%7Ckarenaram%40hotmail.com%7Cfc4ae7b3663941d9698608d5384339bf%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636476783737523426&sdata=AvBi8ttKQBodyQFqPpFhB5E49cgGhp%2BarJ8AJJ00DVo%3D&reserved=0 From karenaram at hotmail.com Thu Nov 30 23:12:33 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 23:12:33 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Peace-discuss Digest, Vol 166, Issue 326 In-Reply-To: <1275289966.5523896.1512082034732@mail.yahoo.com> References: <1275289966.5523896.1512082034732@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Our “favorite” anti-semite is back folks. Good grief, Stephen, AWARE is not a pro Israeli fake antiwar organization, we take a lot of grief for criticizing Israel, what drugs are you on? Usually its just your rant blaming Jews for 9/11 or denying the Holocaust ever happened. I don’t know whether to laugh or cry. On Nov 30, 2017, at 14:47, Stephen Francis via Peace-discuss > wrote: Professor Boyle, Your post on Wexler that included the following sentence must have crossed the 'anti-Semitic' line and consequently got no response.... predictably. "As most of us know, the so-called Foundation is a Gang of Die-hard NeoCon Zionist Warmongers, Bigots and Racists against Palestinians/Arabs/Persians/Asians/Muslims of Color. Right now the Foundation is warmongering to get us into a war against Iran on behalf of Israel." AWARE is a basically a pro-Israel fake antiwar organization that fails (by design) to get to the real issues... that you so eloquently pointed out above. It is utterly taboo to give any serious thought or worlds to the real crimes of the Israeli government and its Jewish supremacists. A story like the one below would also receive no traction: ANALYSIS: Will Netanyahu risk exposing one of Israel’s secrets? ANALYSIS: Will Netanyahu risk exposing one of Israel’s secrets? New law would tell Palestinian citizens in Israel that they are not equal, say experts On Thursday, November 30, 2017 10:36 AM, "peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net" > wrote: Send Peace-discuss mailing list submissions to peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net You can reach the person managing the list at peace-discuss-owner at lists.chambana.net When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Peace-discuss digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re: NG: UILAWPROF Wexler Complicit in Israeli War Crimes, Crimes against Humanity & Genocide against Palestinians. (Boyle, Francis A) 2. Re: NG: UILAWPROF Wexler Complicit in Israeli War Crimes, Crimes against Humanity & Genocide against Palestinians. (Boyle, Francis A) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 16:33:57 +0000 From: "Boyle, Francis A" > To: 'David Green' >, "Miller, Joseph Thomas" >, "'sherwoodross10 at gmail.com'" >, "'peace-discuss at anti-war.net'" >, "'C. G. ESTABROOK'" >, "'a-fields at uiuc.edu'" >, 'Joe Lauria' >, "'Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net'" >, "'peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net'" >, "Szoke, Ron" >, 'Arlene Hickory' >, 'Karen Aram' >, "'abass10 at gmail.com'" >, "'mickalideh at gmail.com'" >, 'Lina Thorne' >, "'chicago at worldcantwait.net'" >, 'Jay' >, 'David Johnson' >, 'Mildred O'brien' >, "'C G Estabrook'" > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] NG: UILAWPROF Wexler Complicit in Israeli War Crimes, Crimes against Humanity & Genocide against Palestinians. Message-ID: > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" "...particularly to the drone assassinations, "the most extreme terrorist campaign of modern times" - which have killed more than 5,000 people, including U.S. citizens and hundreds of children." Chomsky {now 10,000+ people} And notice of course that the die-hard bigots, racists and warmongers against Muslims/Arabs/Palestinians/Persians/Asians of Color at the College of Law bragged about and touted Wexler's complicity with Israel's war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide against the Palestinians. QED. fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2017 9:04 AM To: 'David Green' >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; 'sherwoodross10 at gmail.com' >; 'peace-discuss at anti-war.net' >; 'C. G. ESTABROOK' >; 'a-fields at uiuc.edu' >; 'Joe Lauria' >; 'Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net' >; 'peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net' >; Szoke, Ron >; 'Arlene Hickory' >; 'Karen Aram' >; 'abass10 at gmail.com' >; 'mickalideh at gmail.com' >; 'Lina Thorne' >; 'chicago at worldcantwait.net' >; 'Jay' >; 'David Johnson' >; 'Mildred O'brien' >; 'C G Estabrook' > Subject: NG: UILAWPROF Wexler Complicit in Israeli War Crimes, Crimes against Humanity & Genocide against Palestinians. "...particularly to the drone assassinations, "the most extreme terrorist campaign of modern times" - which have killed more than 5,000 people, including U.S. citizens and hundreds of children." Chomsky {now 10,000+ people} Today's News Gazette has a front page story where UILawProf Wexler is pontificating about sexual harassment. Really? Notice below. Wexler had the UILawSchool brag about the fact that she is an "Academic Fellow" of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. As most of us know, the so-called Foundation is a Gang of Die-hard NeoCon Zionist Warmongers, Bigots and Racists against Palestinians/Arabs/Persians/Asians/Muslims of Color. Right now the Foundation is warmongering to get us into a war against Iran on behalf of Israel. Notice Wexler brags about the fact that she spent ten days "exploring" how Israel inflicts war crimes, crimes against humanity and outright genocide against the Palestinians, including and especially Palestinian Women and Children. And Wexler calls this to be an "honor". Basically Wexler is complicit in Israel's war crimes, crimes against humanity and outright genocide against the Palestinians. Article III (e) of the 1948 Genocide Convention explicitly criminalizes "Complicity in genocide." And Wexler is typical of the die-hard bigots, racists and warmongers against Muslims/Arabs/Palestinians/Asians of Color on the College of Law Faculty who brought out Killer Koh here to give his specially endowed lecture on being a Role Model in Excellence for Lawyers in Government Service. Not one member of the UI Law Faculty Gang of Die-hard Bigots, Racists and Warmongers against Muslims/Arabs/Palestinians/Asians of Color supported us in our Protest against Killer Koh. Q.E.D. fab Hey! Hey! Wexler Say! How many women! Did you kill today! In Palestine! Hey! Hey! Wexler say! How many kids! Did you kill today! In Palestine! Hey! Hey! Wexler Say! How many Dads! Did you kill today! In Palestine! Professor Wexler Selected as Academic Fellow of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies Friday, March 09, 2012 Lesley Wexler, the Thomas M. Mengler Faculty Scholar, has been selected as an academic fellow of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. As part of the honor, Professor Wexler will be participating in a 10-day program in Israel with other leading U.S. academics exploring how the country combats terrorism. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: > ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 16:33:57 +0000 From: "Boyle, Francis A" > To: 'David Green' >, "Miller, Joseph Thomas" >, "'sherwoodross10 at gmail.com'" >, "'peace-discuss at anti-war.net'" >, "'C. G. ESTABROOK'" >, "'a-fields at uiuc.edu'" >, 'Joe Lauria' >, "'Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net'" >, "'peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net'" >, "Szoke, Ron" >, 'Arlene Hickory' >, 'Karen Aram' >, "'abass10 at gmail.com'" >, "'mickalideh at gmail.com'" >, 'Lina Thorne' >, "'chicago at worldcantwait.net'" >, 'Jay' >, 'David Johnson' >, 'Mildred O'brien' >, "'C G Estabrook'" > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] NG: UILAWPROF Wexler Complicit in Israeli War Crimes, Crimes against Humanity & Genocide against Palestinians. Message-ID: > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" "...particularly to the drone assassinations, "the most extreme terrorist campaign of modern times" - which have killed more than 5,000 people, including U.S. citizens and hundreds of children." Chomsky {now 10,000+ people} And notice of course that the die-hard bigots, racists and warmongers against Muslims/Arabs/Palestinians/Persians/Asians of Color at the College of Law bragged about and touted Wexler's complicity with Israel's war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide against the Palestinians. QED. fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2017 9:04 AM To: 'David Green' >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; 'sherwoodross10 at gmail.com' >; 'peace-discuss at anti-war.net' >; 'C. G. ESTABROOK' >; 'a-fields at uiuc.edu' >; 'Joe Lauria' >; 'Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net' >; 'peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net' >; Szoke, Ron >; 'Arlene Hickory' >; 'Karen Aram' >; 'abass10 at gmail.com' >; 'mickalideh at gmail.com' >; 'Lina Thorne' >; 'chicago at worldcantwait.net' >; 'Jay' >; 'David Johnson' >; 'Mildred O'brien' >; 'C G Estabrook' > Subject: NG: UILAWPROF Wexler Complicit in Israeli War Crimes, Crimes against Humanity & Genocide against Palestinians. "...particularly to the drone assassinations, "the most extreme terrorist campaign of modern times" - which have killed more than 5,000 people, including U.S. citizens and hundreds of children." Chomsky {now 10,000+ people} Today's News Gazette has a front page story where UILawProf Wexler is pontificating about sexual harassment. Really? Notice below. Wexler had the UILawSchool brag about the fact that she is an "Academic Fellow" of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. As most of us know, the so-called Foundation is a Gang of Die-hard NeoCon Zionist Warmongers, Bigots and Racists against Palestinians/Arabs/Persians/Asians/Muslims of Color. Right now the Foundation is warmongering to get us into a war against Iran on behalf of Israel. Notice Wexler brags about the fact that she spent ten days "exploring" how Israel inflicts war crimes, crimes against humanity and outright genocide against the Palestinians, including and especially Palestinian Women and Children. And Wexler calls this to be an "honor". Basically Wexler is complicit in Israel's war crimes, crimes against humanity and outright genocide against the Palestinians. Article III (e) of the 1948 Genocide Convention explicitly criminalizes "Complicity in genocide." And Wexler is typical of the die-hard bigots, racists and warmongers against Muslims/Arabs/Palestinians/Asians of Color on the College of Law Faculty who brought out Killer Koh here to give his specially endowed lecture on being a Role Model in Excellence for Lawyers in Government Service. Not one member of the UI Law Faculty Gang of Die-hard Bigots, Racists and Warmongers against Muslims/Arabs/Palestinians/Asians of Color supported us in our Protest against Killer Koh. Q.E.D. fab Hey! Hey! Wexler Say! How many women! Did you kill today! In Palestine! Hey! Hey! Wexler say! How many kids! Did you kill today! In Palestine! Hey! Hey! Wexler Say! How many Dads! Did you kill today! In Palestine! Professor Wexler Selected as Academic Fellow of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies Friday, March 09, 2012 Lesley Wexler, the Thomas M. Mengler Faculty Scholar, has been selected as an academic fellow of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. As part of the honor, Professor Wexler will be participating in a 10-day program in Israel with other leading U.S. academics exploring how the country combats terrorism. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: > ------------------------------ Subject: Digest Footer _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss ------------------------------ End of Peace-discuss Digest, Vol 166, Issue 326 *********************************************** _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.chambana.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fpeace-discuss&data=02%7C01%7Ckarenaram%40hotmail.com%7C85857c977a0c40ede92108d538450c0a%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636476791556968242&sdata=DGk2cH1Ym9DBL3DnifJWCkC5QkCmeM4ItBL4SDiQg3k%3D&reserved=0 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From galliher at illinois.edu Thu Nov 30 23:13:19 2017 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 17:13:19 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Flyer for AWARE demonstration, Saturday 12/2 In-Reply-To: References: <43mdh89ujps6va4v9ls6r2iu.1512081161628@email.lge.com> Message-ID: <79E98898-2334-4AC8-A46A-5DF443B185C1@illinois.edu> Trump was the first major-party presidential candidate in 40 years to criticize the neoconservative (more war) and neoliberal (more inequality) policies followed by all recent administrations. That got him elected: >. But comments like that in the campaign so affrighted the major prowar neocons like Robert Kagan that they fled the Republicans to back Clinton, a reliable warmonger: >. The US political establishment, which since WWII has used war-making to maintain the profits of the US economic elite, was hysterical to bring Trump back to neocon (pro-war) and neolib (pro-Wall St.) orthodoxy, and they seem to have succeeded. But it’s the vicious war policy that has led the US to kill between 20 and 30 million people around the world since WWII - in Korea, Latin America, Southeast Asia (Vietnam), and now Southwest Asia and Africa. That’s why I say “Trump is not the problem (US war-making is)" - as if Trump's replacement by Vice-President Pence (or even by Clinton) would alter the killing that’s been the policy of all recent administrations. It’s the on-going policy - US war-making - that has to be opposed. The establishment opposition to Trump is disingenuous - it simply seeks a less potentially erratic war-monger. Regards, CGE > On Nov 30, 2017, at 4:37 PM, Harry Mickalide via Peace wrote: > > Also, I'll echo Karen, saying "Trump is not the problem" will pretty much turn off everyone who correctly sees that Trump is terrible and is a big problem. > > On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 4:33 PM, bjornsona at ameritech.net > wrote: > Re flyer. I like term "war On many nations " vs. war in many nations" ? > > Sent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone > > ------ Original message------ > From: Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss > Date: Thu, Nov 30, 2017 3:57 PM > To: Karen Aram; > Cc: Karen Aram via Peace-discuss;Harry Mickalide;Peace; > Subject:Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Flyer for AWARE demonstration, Saturday 12/2 > > You might keep it simple by observing, "Trump is not the problem, US war-making is." > > Or, "Bottom line, the USG is planning perpetual war in many nations around the globe, its become the norm for the millennial generation.” > > >> On Nov 30, 2017, at 1:15 PM, Karen Aram > wrote: >> >> Harry is correct, keeping it simple is best, not my skill set. He is also correct that focus on the monetary cost of war and intervention to US domestic social services, including healthcare, education, etc. appeals to most people, so should always be mentioned. A total focus on costs of war, isn’t really us, but it does need to be mentioned. >> >> How can we overlook the genocide taking place in Yemen, or the slavery in Libya of Black Africans as a result of the US destruction of that nation in 2011. It’s now being used as a cause for military intervention, again, basically bringing more troops in than those we’ve already had there. >> >> Trump has announced more troops in Afghanistan, and Col. Larry Wilkerson has predicted we will be there forever, due to China’s economic progress in that region. >> >> Bottom line, the USG is planning perpetual war in many nations around the globe, its become the norm for the millennial generation. >> >> In relation to Africa (the sahel, in particular) the fourteen nations previously colonized by France, and again being recolonized by way of military occupation, the US is involved in all, because the French military is incapable, just as is the Saudi military, without US military technical, and logistical support. >> >> >> >> >>> On Nov 30, 2017, at 10:40, Carl G. Estabrook > wrote: >>> >>> The US should in fact be spending much more on war than the current military budget - paying reparations for the damage we've done and the people we’ve killed in the wars of the current generation. >>> >>> But it’s not the case that war spending means we can’t afford universal healthcare, free college, and universal basic income. >>> >>> The USG can’t run out of money. No one refuses a check signed by the US government. —CGE >>> >>> >>>> On Nov 30, 2017, at 12:31 PM, Harry Mickalide via Peace-discuss > wrote: >>>> >>>> I still think a better simpler flyer would look like this: >>>> >>>> Projected annual cost for universal healthcare, free college, and universal basic income: $X >>>> >>>> Annual military budget: $600 billion >>>> >>>> On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 11:26 AM, Karen Aram via Peace > wrote: >>>> Yes, it is a distraction, and I have argued this point with those who suggest it, other than for war, which no one suggests, and actually might be worthwhile. >>>> >>>> However, I’ll say it again, it’s totally counterproductive to the anti-war movement and our demonstration. >>>> >>>> I have another appointment on Saturday so don’t plan to attend our demonstration. >>>> >>>> End of conversation on this topic, on my part. >>>> >>>> PS Even Peter Lavalle of Crosstalk, who supported Trump vs. Hillary, has now stated emphatically, "he is glad Hillary is not President, but he in no way supports Trump given what he is doing.” >>>> >>>> > On Nov 30, 2017, at 07:42, C G Estabrook > wrote: >>>> > >>>> > I agree that we should focus on "what the USG is doing in respect to war.” >>>> > >>>> > That’s why ‘Impeach Trump’ is a distraction - a purposeful distraction, by the those calling for continuity in US fp and war-making. >>>> > >>>> > >>>> >> On Nov 30, 2017, at 9:15 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > wrote: >>>> >> >>>> >> We should be informing people, when it comes to flyers, of what the USG is doing. >>>> >> Most Americans aren’t aware that we are in eight wars, with potential for two more. >>>> >> Oh yes, they all know how awful the N. Korean leader is, they all fear Iran having nuclear weapons, but do they know there is a solution to the N. Korean problem, one for which we the US could implement, but refuses to do so. >>>> >> >>>> >> Do the American people know that we are in the process of savaging Africa, again? >>>> >> Do they know the US is the greatest purveyor of violence in the world? >>>> >> >>>> >> Carl, these are all things you have talked about, and placed in flyers before. >>>> >> >>>> >> Focusing on individuals to blame, is a tactic that alienates and divides a people. If you were writing an article to be published, or on FB thats one thing, but a flyer representing an organization, should merely paraphrase what the USG is doing in respect to war. >>>> >> >>>> >>> On Nov 30, 2017, at 07:03, C G Estabrook > wrote: >>>> >>> >>>> >>> That earlier flyer was meant to combat Obama’s squeaky-clean image, which he was good at fostering while he administered “the most extreme terrorist campaign of modern times." >>>> >>> >>>> >>> > . >>>> >>> >>>> >>> And see the puff-piece on his 'toughness’: >. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> But I don’t think anyone contends that US world-wide mass murder post-WWII is a matter of presidential caprice, even if they could have acted differently. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Neither Obama nor Trump had to send tens of thousands more troops to Afghanistan (as they did) after running as critics of the war (as they did). >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Condemning and opposing US war-making doesn’t depend on affixing individual responsibility. (Was Truman responsible for Hiroshima? Yes. Alone? No.) >>>> >>> >>>> >>> —CGE >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>>> On Nov 30, 2017, at 8:39 AM, David Green via Peace > wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> In any event, this language contrasts sharply with a flyer from two years ago, which holds Obama responsible: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> President Obama is making war in eight countries; he is sending American ‘special forces’ into more than 100 countries around the world; he has assassinated thousands by drone - the most extreme terrorist campaign of modern times; and he is provoking war with Russia and China. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I'm not sure how we can justify the difference in tone and substance regarding the warmaking "motivations" of Obama and Trump. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thursday, November 30, 2017, 7:06:53 AM CST, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Carl >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> No one knows better than I, no one has spoken more about the powers behind the throne than I. I’m the one, with AWARE, who has been making the argument that any President who comes to power, as either a Republican or Democrat is going to implement the foreign policy plan put into place by the Oligarchs behind the throne. One of which was Brzezinski, just to keep it simple. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> As a Green socialist, who does not support the one Party system, Democrat/ Republican, once they get to DC. I have been highlighting the very fact, of the Pentagon, CIA, Council on Foreign Relations, Think Tanks, Corporations and Contractors as those pushing the US war agenda. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> But, to imply that Trump anymore than Obama is an unwitting dope of those who make up the “Deep State” “Military Industrial Complex,” however we wish to refer to them, is a mistake, most especially in the title of a flyer. Whether architects or rubber stamps of our foreign policy, they are all complicit. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> A FLYER is meant to impart information, but no one is going to read it, when it acts as an apology for Trump. He is as vile a creature as Clinton, in that he supported the rhetoric of lies and propaganda against Libya and Gaddafi. He is guilty of bombing Syria, and now provoking war with N Korea and Iran. Yes, he is attempting peace with Russia and China, he knows where a dollar is to be made. Though it matters not, when the plan is war with China, predicted by the Rand Think Tank and Pentagon in to be 2030. Our continued presence of Nato on the border of Russia is not going away. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Roger has just proved my point. He has assessed us as Trump supporters, in spite of my statement, in spite of David Greens statement. What do you think people will think of AWARE, upon receipt of our flyer? And, as I said, focus on the election in order to bash the Clintons is also of no value. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Nov 29, 2017, at 18:29, C G Estabrook > wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> The concentration on Trump is the strategy of the (pro-)War Party (the Pentagon, the 'intelligence community,' the Clinton campaign, the neocons) to force the government to continue the wars and war provocations of the last administrations. They think either Trump can be forced to fall in line with the war policy (as he shown he’s willing to do) under the threat of ‘Russiagate’ - or be replaced (with Pence, a War Party creature). >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> The anti-war movement has to insist that Trump - the weakest president since Coolidge (“silent Cal,”|who followed the opposite performance strategy to Trump's bluster) - is not the problem, but that the continuing and largely unvaried Clinton-Bush-Obama war-making is. That's the policy that must be resisted. The War Party (who of course support that policy) is using Trump as a distraction from that policy. >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> We should be opposing the Pentagon, the CIA, the Obama-Clintonists, the neocons, et al., who are promoting war provocations vs. Russia and China - not bothering much with the Potemkin president. >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> John Pilger saw it clearly before the election: "The CIA has demanded Trump is not elected. Pentagon generals have demanded he is not elected. The pro-war New York Times - taking a breather from its relentless low-rent Putin smears - demands that he is not elected. Something is up. These tribunes of 'perpetual war' are terrified that the multi-billion-dollar business of war by which the United States maintains its dominance will be undermined if Trump does a deal with Putin, then with China’s Xi Jinping. Their panic at the possibility of the world’s great power talking peace – however unlikely – would be the blackest farce were the issues not so dire.” —CGE >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>>> On Nov 29, 2017, at 5:31 PM, Karen Aram via Peace > wrote: >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> I’m sorry, Carl >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> I don’t like it, the title alone makes AWARE look like “Trump defenders.” It’s one thing to say this in conversation when explaining our wars, to those who think the problem began with Trump, but as a title, it sucks. Most people in this town are Democrats and won’t bother to read it. >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> I’m not pleased with some of that which is in the article either, because the focus on the election is old news. Its time to move on. Trump is President and he is responsible for that which occurs on his watch. >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> Trump bombed Syria and that is an impeachable offense, granted every other President before him, committed war crimes that were also impeachable offenses, Bush and most especially Obama, but Trump has been in power for almost a year now. His provocations of war with Korea, and Iran are extremely dangerous. >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> On Nov 29, 2017, at 12:46, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss > wrote: >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> PRESIDENT TRUMP IS NOT THE PROBLEM: >>>> >>>>>>> ILLEGAL U.S. WARS AROUND THE WORLD ARE >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> The US government is today making war around the world - and it’s doing so without authorization from the U.S. Constitution or the U.N. Charter. >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> If American leaders were put on trial today as German leaders were, at Nuremberg after World War II, for “launching aggressive war,” they - like the German leaders - would be hanged. >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> The U.S. military is today killing people in seven Mideast and African countries - Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Somalia, and Pakistan (and on the other side of the world, in the Philippines). Thousands of U.S. troops are fighting in these countries, although most Americans don’t know that. In addition, the 70,000-member U.S. ‘Special Operations Command’ is active in three-quarters of the countries of the world. Their activities include kidnapping (‘rendition’), torture, and murder. >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> President Obama was elected as an anti-war candidate, but in office he sent thousands of additional U.S. troops into America’s longest war, in Afghanistan. President Trump, who promised caution and non-interventionism in foreign policy - and described Hillary Clinton as a “trigger happy warmonger” - has now done the same thing himself. >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> What both men knew is that, in spite of intense media propaganda, most Americans don’t want U.S. troops engaged in foreign wars and don’t see the killing as justified; both candidates had to seem to oppose the wars, in order to get elected. >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> But the ‘one percent’ - the U.S. economic elite - do want the wars. >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> When World War II ended in 1945, the U.S. was the least-damaged major country on either side, and controlled the world economy. America’s wars since then - in Korea, Vietnam, Latin America, and the Mideast - have killed between 20 and 30 million people for the purpose of maintaining that control. Ordinary Americans have paid for these vicious wars, but they haven’t profited from them. >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> John Pilger wrote before the election, "The CIA has demanded Trump is not elected. Pentagon generals have demanded he is not elected. The pro-war New York Times - taking a breather from its relentless low-rent Putin smears - demands that he is not elected. Something is up. These tribunes of 'perpetual war' are terrified that the multi-billion-dollar business of war by which the United States maintains its dominance will be undermined if Trump does a deal with Putin, then with China’s Xi Jinping. Their panic at the possibility of the world’s great power talking peace – however unlikely – would be the blackest farce were the issues not so dire." >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> We must demand that foreign military bases be closed, U.S. troops (and weapons) be brought home, and social support - including free medical care, education, and a universal basic income - be provided for Americans immiserated by generations of U.S. government wars. >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> WRITE CONGRESS - DEMAND U.S. TROOPS & WEAPONS BE BROUGHT HOME >>>> >>>>>>> Our representatives in Congress from this area - and their email addresses - are as follows: >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> Representative Rodney Davis: > >>>> >>>>>>> Senator Tammy Duckworth: > >>>> >>>>>>> Senator Dick Durbin: > >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> ~~~ >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> ANTI-WAR ANTI-RACISM EFFORT - on Facebook at >>>> >>>>>>> ~ U.S. troops & weapons out of the Mideast ~ Medicare for all ~ Universal basic income ~ >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> >>>>>>> Peace-discuss mailing list >>>> >>>>>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >>>> >>>>>>> https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.chambana.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fpeace-discuss&data=02%7C01%7Ckarenaram%40hotmail.com%7Cfc30480baf2b4882394b08d5376a458e%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636475851934473412&sdata=0JBYxrD5cfjQzfDHk4PpLhvWxWn5Ce3B%2FBGNvILHbQI%3D&reserved=0 >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> >>>>>> Peace mailing list >>>> >>>>>> Peace at lists.chambana.net >>>> >>>>>> https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.chambana.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fpeace&data=02%7C01%7Ckarenaram%40hotmail.com%7Cf666ae76fb7a4230b3e308d5380383c8%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636476510093637620&sdata=K2skpZ7DB7gaAC0qrBHMVVdN3aiMOsP2EfrwZkHSw3k%3D&reserved=0 >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> >>>> Peace-discuss mailing list >>>> >>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >>>> >>>> https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.chambana.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fpeace-discuss&data=02%7C01%7Ckarenaram%40hotmail.com%7Cf666ae76fb7a4230b3e308d5380383c8%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636476510093637620&sdata=xazvoaiiZfeKwnoLWr0%2BQ7zDKzK11UmSbVoB97gFtjE%3D&reserved=0 >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> >>>> Peace mailing list >>>> >>>> Peace at lists.chambana.net >>>> >>>> https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.chambana.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fpeace&data=02%7C01%7Ckarenaram%40hotmail.com%7Cf666ae76fb7a4230b3e308d5380383c8%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636476510093637620&sdata=K2skpZ7DB7gaAC0qrBHMVVdN3aiMOsP2EfrwZkHSw3k%3D&reserved=0 >>>> >>> >>>> >> >>>> >> _______________________________________________ >>>> >> Peace-discuss mailing list >>>> >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >>>> >> https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.chambana.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fpeace-discuss&data=02%7C01%7Ckarenaram%40hotmail.com%7C1510d4a9e78e4ab02a0f08d538090865%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636476533794287026&sdata=1gLoCzw4EfQ1ZonM6wynHGMKl4R%2FZ9tvCrtiZBxZTpo%3D&reserved=0 >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Peace mailing list >>>> Peace at lists.chambana.net >>>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Peace-discuss mailing list >>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >>>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss >>> >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Peace mailing list > Peace at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bjornsona at ameritech.net Thu Nov 30 23:17:47 2017 From: bjornsona at ameritech.net (bjornsona at ameritech.net) Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 17:17:47 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Flyer for AWARE demonstration, Saturday 12/2 Message-ID:  Off to pick husband Tom up from Enterprise Works at the Research park so I won't be bothering you all anymore. Hope to see you Saturday. 10:00 at the Park at Church st, correct?  Sent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone ------ Original message------From: bjornsona--- via Peace-discussDate: Thu, Nov 30, 2017 4:58 PMTo: bjornsona--- via Peace-discuss;Karen Aram;Cc: Harry Mickalide;Peace;Subject:Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Flyer for AWARE demonstration, Saturday 12/2 >From Business Insider.com, Feb.  2015. I could not find anything newer.  Oversea Contingency Operations  Fund - war slush fund.  Nuclear Modernization $1Trillion over next 3 decades. From another source- outside funds to pay for wars usually asked for and appropriated midyear, after budget is passed. Pentagon budget is only for hardware, software, usually. Am I on the correct track? I remember Bush' s wars all paid for outside regular budget process ( probably still being paid for) and millions billions? skimmed in corruption  Nuclear Modernization was topic last week at Foreign Affairs Committee meeting Senator who is resigning held (Jeff Flake? ) and Jeff Merkely,  where they had a former general, a lawyer and a nukes expert discuss whether or not to pass a law that the Pres. needed the Vice Pres. to sign off before he could make a preemptive strike. They ended the hearing with the decision that the U. S. really really needed to modernize its nukes at $1 trillion, , esp. in space. They left grinning like Chesire cats, Dems and GOP alike. Sent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone ------ Original message------From: bjornsona--- via Peace-discussDate: Thu, Nov 30, 2017 4:32 PMTo: Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss;Karen Aram;Cc: Harry Mickalide;Peace;Subje ct:Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Flyer for AWARE demonstration, Saturday 12/2 Forgive me for my learning curve. You all are teaching me to do better research. Are there other military costs put  outside of $600B budget? I found Cabinet costs: Department of Energy, some of which are Nukes. At https://energy.gov , in millions: Nuclear Security 13, 931; Other Defense 816; Dept Admin 178; ( Not all Admin. for defense of course).  The other two Cabinet posts, I think, that might be considered war $$ are NSA and DHS. Thinking there are slush funds other places- not sure where to look Sent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone ------ Original message------From: Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discussDate: Thu, Nov 30, 2017 3:57 PMTo: Karen Aram;Cc: Karen Aram via Peace-discuss;Harry Mickalide;Peace;Subject:Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Flyer for AWARE demonstration, Saturday 12/2 You might keep it simple by observing, "Trump is not the problem, US war-making is." Or, "Bottom line, the USG is planning perpetual war in many nations around the globe, its become the norm for the millennial generation.”  On Nov 30, 2017, at 1:15 PM, Karen Aram wrote: Harry is correct, keeping it simple is best, not my skill set. He is also correct that focus on the monetary cost of war and intervention to US domestic social services, including healthcare, education, etc. appeals to most people, so should always be mentioned. A total focus on costs of war, isn’t really us, but it does need to be mentioned.  How can we overlook the genocide taking place in Yemen, or the slavery in Libya of Black Africans as a result of the US destruction of that nation in 2011. It’s now being used as a cause for military intervention, again, basically bringing more troops in than those we’ve already had there.  Trump has announced more troops in Afghanistan, and Col. Larry Wilkerson has predicted we will be there forever, due to China’s economic progress in that region.  Bottom line, the USG is planning perpetual war in many nations around the globe, its become the norm for the millennial generation.  In relation to Africa (the sahel, in particular) the fourteen nations previously colonized by France, and again being recolonized by way of military occupation, the US is involved in all, because the French military is incapable, just as is the Saudi military, without US military technical, and logistical support.  On Nov 30, 2017, at 10:40, Carl G. Estabrook wrote: The US should in fact be spending much more on war than the current military budget - paying reparations for the damage we've done and the people we’ve killed in the wars of the current generation.  But it’s not the case that war spending means we can’t afford universal healthcare, free college, and universal basic income.  The USG can’t run out of money. No one refuses a check signed by the US government. —CGE On Nov 30, 2017, at 12:31 PM, Harry Mickalide via Peace-discuss wrote: I still think a better simpler flyer would look like this: Projected annual cost for universal healthcare, free college, and universal basic income: $X Annual military budget: $600 billion On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 11:26 AM, Karen Aram via Peace wrote: Yes, it is a distraction, and I have argued this point with those who suggest it, other than for war, which no one suggests, and actually might be worthwhile. However, I’ll say it again, it’s totally counterproductive to the anti-war movement and our demonstration.  I have another appointment on Saturday so don’t plan to attend our demonstration. End of conversation on this topic, on my part. PS Even Peter Lavalle of Crosstalk, who supported Trump vs. Hillary, has now stated emphatically, "he is glad Hillary is not President, but he in no way supports Trump given what he is doing.” > On Nov 30, 2017, at 07:42, C G Estabrook wrote: > > I agree that we should focus on "what the USG is doing in respect to war.” > > That’s why ‘Impeach Trump’ is a distraction - a purposeful distraction, by the those calling for continuity in US fp and war-making. > > >> On Nov 30, 2017, at 9:15 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: >> >> We should be informing people, when it comes to flyers, of what the USG is doing. >> Most Americans aren’t aware that we are in eight wars, with potential for two more. >> Oh yes, they all know how awful the N. Korean leader is, they all fear Iran having nuclear weapons, but do they know there is a solution to the N. Korean problem, one for which we the US could implement, but refuses to do so. >> >> Do the American people know that we are in the process of savaging Africa, again? >> Do they know the US is the greatest purveyor of violence in the world? >> >> Carl, these are all things you have talked about, and placed in flyers before. >> >> Focusing on individuals to blame, is a tactic that alienates and divides a people. If you were writing an article to be published, or on FB thats one thing, but a flyer representing an organization, should merely paraphrase what the USG is doing in respect to war. >> >>> On Nov 30, 2017, at 07:03, C G Estabrook wrote: >>> >>> That earlier flyer was meant to combat Obama’s squeaky-clean image, which he was good at fostering while he administered “the most extreme terrorist campaign of modern times." >>> >>> . >>> >>> And see the puff-piece on his 'toughness’: . >>> >>> But I don’t think anyone contends that US world-wide mass murder post-WWII is a matter of presidential caprice, even if they could have acted differently. >>> >>> Neither Obama nor Trump had to send tens of thousands more troops to Afghanistan (as they did) after running as critics of the war (as they did). >>> >>> Condemning and opposing US war-making doesn’t depend on affixing individual responsibility. (Was Truman responsible for Hiroshima? Yes. Alone? No.) >>> >>> —CGE >>> >>> >>>> On Nov 30, 2017, at 8:39 AM, David Green via Peace wrote: >>>> >>>> In any event, this language contrasts sharply with a flyer from two years ago, which holds Obama responsible: >>>> >>>> President Obama is making war in eight countries; he is sending American ‘special forces’ into more than 100 countries around the world; he has assassinated thousands  by drone - the most extreme terrorist campaign of modern times; and he is provoking war with Russia and China. >>>> >>>> I'm not sure how we can justify the difference in tone and substance regarding the warmaking "motivations" of Obama and Trump. >>>> >>>> On Thursday, November 30, 2017, 7:06:53 AM CST, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> Carl >>>> >>>> No one knows better than I, no one has spoken more about the powers behind the throne than I. I’m the one, with AWARE, who has been making the argument that any President who comes to power, as either a Republican or Democrat is going to implement the foreign policy plan put into place by the Oligarchs behind the throne. One of which was Brzezinski, just to keep it simple. >>>> >>>> As a Green socialist, who does not support the one Party system, Democrat/ Republican, once they get to DC. I have been highlighting the very fact, of the Pentagon, CIA, Council on Foreign Relations, Think Tanks, Corporations and Contractors as those pushing the US war agenda. >>>> >>>> But, to imply that Trump anymore than Obama is an unwitting dope of those who make up the “Deep State” “Military Industrial Complex,” however we wish to refer to them, is a mistake, most especially in the title of a flyer. Whether architects or rubber stamps of our foreign policy, they are all complicit. >>>> >>>> A FLYER is meant to impart information, but no one is going to read it, when it acts as an apology for Trump. He is as vile a creature as Clinton, in that he supported the rhetoric of lies and propaganda against Libya and Gaddafi. He is guilty of bombing Syria, and now provoking war with N Korea and Iran. Yes, he is attempting peace with Russia and China, he knows where a dollar is to be made. Though it matters not, when the plan is war with China, predicted by the Rand Think Tank and Pentagon in to be 2030. Our continued presence of Nato on the border of Russia is not going away. >>>> >>>> Roger has just proved my point. He has assessed us as Trump supporters, in spite of my statement, in spite of David Greens statement. What do you think people will think of AWARE, upon receipt of our flyer? And, as I said, focus on the election in order to bash the Clintons is also of no value. >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Nov 29, 2017, at 18:29, C G Estabrook wrote: >>>>> >>>>> The concentration on Trump is the strategy of the (pro-)War Party (the Pentagon, the 'intelligence community,' the Clinton campaign, the neocons) to force the government to continue the wars and war provocations of the last administrations. They think either Trump can be forced to fall in line with the war policy (as he shown he’s willing to do) under the threat of ‘Russiagate’ - or be replaced (with Pence, a War Party creature). >>>>> >>>>> The anti-war movement has to insist that Trump - the weakest president since Coolidge (“silent Cal,”|who followed the opposite performance strategy to Trump's bluster) - is not the problem, but that the continuing and largely unvaried Clinton-Bush-Obama war-making is. That's the policy that must be resisted.  The War Party (who of course support that policy) is using Trump as a distraction from that policy. >>>>> >>>>> We should be opposing the Pentagon, the CIA, the Obama-Clintonists, the neocons, et al., who are promoting war provocations vs. Russia and China - not bothering much with the Potemkin president. >>>>> >>>>> John Pilger saw it clearly before the election: "The CIA has demanded Trump is not elected. Pentagon generals have demanded he is not elected. The pro-war New York Times - taking a breather from its relentless low-rent Putin smears - demands that he is not elected. Something is up. These tribunes of 'perpetual war' are terrified that the multi-billion-dollar business of war by which the United States maintains its dominance will be undermined if Trump does a deal with Putin, then with China’s Xi Jinping. Their panic at the possibility of the world’s great power talking peace – however unlikely – would be the blackest farce were the issues not so dire.” —CGE >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On Nov 29, 2017, at 5:31 PM, Karen Aram via Peace wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> I’m sorry, Carl >>>>>> >>>>>> I don’t like it, the title alone makes AWARE look like “Trump defenders.” It’s one thing to say this in conversation when explaining our wars, to those who think the problem began with Trump, but as a title, it sucks. Most people in this town are Democrats and won’t bother to read it. >>>>>> >>>>>> I’m not pleased with some of that which is in the article either, because the focus  on the election is old news. Its time to move on. Trump is President and he is responsible for that which occurs on his watch. >>>>>> >>>>>> Trump bombed Syria and that is an impeachable offense, granted every other President before him, committed war crimes that were also impeachable offenses, Bush and most especially Obama, but Trump has been in power for almost a year now. His provocations of war with Korea, and Iran are extremely dangerous. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Nov 29, 2017, at 12:46, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> PRESIDENT TRUMP IS NOT THE PROBLEM: >>>>>>> ILLEGAL U.S. WARS AROUND THE WORLD ARE >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The US government is today making war around the world - and it’s doing so without authorization from the U.S. Constitution or the U.N. Charter. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If American leaders were put on trial today as German leaders were, at Nuremberg after World War II, for “launching aggressive war,” they - like the German leaders - would be hanged. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The U.S. military is today killing people in seven Mideast and African countries - Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Somalia, and Pakistan (and on the other side of the world, in the Philippines). Thousands of U.S. troops are fighting in these countries, although most Americans don’t know that.  In addition, the 70,000-member U.S. ‘Special Operations Command’ is active in three-quarters of the countries of the world. Their activities include kidnapping (‘rendition’), torture, and murder. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> President Obama was elected as an anti-war candidate, but in office he sent thousands of additional U.S. troops into America’s longest war, in Afghanistan. President Trump, who promised caution and non-interventionism in foreign policy - and described Hillary Clinton as a “trigger happy warmonger” - has now done the same thing himself. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What both men knew is that, in spite of intense media propaganda, most Americans don’t want U.S. troops engaged in foreign wars and don’t see the killing as justified; both candidates had to seem to oppose the wars, in order to get elected. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But the ‘one percent’ - the U.S. economic elite - do want the wars. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> When World War II ended in 1945, the U.S. was the least-damaged major country on either side, and controlled the world economy. America’s wars since then - in Korea, Vietnam, Latin America, and the Mideast - have killed between 20 and 30 million people for the purpose of maintaining that control. Ordinary Americans have paid for these vicious wars, but they haven’t profited from them. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> John Pilger wrote before the election, "The CIA has demanded Trump is not elected. Pentagon generals have demanded he is not elected. The pro-war New York Times - taking a breather from its relentless low-rent Putin smears - demands that he is not elected. Something is up. These tribunes of 'perpetual war' are terrified that the multi-billion-dollar business of war by which the United States maintains its dominance will be undermined if Trump does a deal with Putin, then with China’s Xi Jinping. Their panic at the possibility of the world’s great power talking peace – however unlikely – would be the blackest farce were the issues not so dire." >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We must demand that foreign military bases be closed, U.S. troops (and weapons) be brought home, and social support - including free medical care, education, and a universal basic income - be provided for Americans immiserated by generations of U.S. government wars. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> WRITE CONGRESS - DEMAND U.S. TROOPS & WEAPONS BE BROUGHT HOME >>>>>>> Our representatives in Congress from this area - and their email addresses - are as follows: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Representative Rodney Davis: >>>>>>> Senator Tammy Duckworth: >>>>>>> Senator Dick Durbin: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ~~~ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ANTI-WAR ANTI-RACISM EFFORT - on Facebook at >>>>>>> ~ U.S. troops & weapons out of the Mideast ~ Medicare for all ~ Universal basic income ~ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> Peace-discuss mailing list >>>>>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >>>>>>> https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.chambana.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fpeace-discuss&data=02%7C01%7Ckarenaram%40hotmail.com%7Cfc30480baf2b4882394b08d5376a458e%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636475851934473412&sdata=0JBYxrD5cfjQzfDHk4PpLhvWxWn5Ce3B%2FBGNvILHbQI%3D&reserved=0 >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Peace mailing list >>>>>> Peace at lists.chambana.net >>>>>> https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.chambana.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fpeace&data=02%7C01%7Ckarenaram%40hotmail.com%7Cf666ae76fb7a4230b3e308d5380383c8%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636476510093637620&sdata=K2skpZ7DB7gaAC0qrBHMVVdN3aiMOsP2EfrwZkHSw3k%3D&reserved=0 >>>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Peace-discuss mailing list >>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >>>> https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.chambana.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fpeace-discuss&data=02%7C01%7Ckarenaram%40hotmail.com%7Cf666ae76fb7a4230b3e308d5380383c8%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636476510093637620&sdata=xazvoaiiZfeKwnoLWr0%2BQ7zDKzK11UmSbVoB97gFtjE%3D&reserved=0 >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Peace mailing list >>>> Peace at lists.chambana.net >>>> https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.chambana.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fpeace&data=02%7C01%7Ckarenaram%40hotmail.com%7Cf666ae76fb7a4230b3e308d5380383c8%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636476510093637620&sdata=K2skpZ7DB7gaAC0qrBHMVVdN3aiMOsP2EfrwZkHSw3k%3D&reserved=0 >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Peace-discuss mailing list >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >> https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.chambana.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fpeace-discuss&data=02%7C01%7Ckarenaram%40hotmail.com%7C1510d4a9e78e4ab02a0f08d538090865%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636476533794287026&sdata=1gLoCzw4EfQ1ZonM6wynHGMKl4R%2FZ9tvCrtiZBxZTpo%3D&reserved=0 _______________________________________________ Peace mailing list Peace at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Thu Nov 30 23:20:14 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 23:20:14 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Flyer for AWARE demonstration, Saturday 12/2 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: 2:00pm, Church St. and Neil St. downtown Champaign. Big clock on the intersection corner. I won’t be there, sorry to miss you. On Nov 30, 2017, at 15:17, bjornsona at ameritech.net wrote: Off to pick husband Tom up from Enterprise Works at the Research park so I won't be bothering you all anymore. Hope to see you Saturday. 10:00 at the Park at Church st, correct? Sent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone ------ Original message------ From: bjornsona--- via Peace-discuss Date: Thu, Nov 30, 2017 4:58 PM To: bjornsona--- via Peace-discuss;Karen Aram; Cc: Harry Mickalide;Peace; Subject:Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Flyer for AWARE demonstration, Saturday 12/2 From Business Insider.com, Feb. 2015. I could not find anything newer. Oversea Contingency Operations Fund - war slush fund. Nuclear Modernization $1Trillion over next 3 decades. From another source- outside funds to pay for wars usually asked for and appropriated midyear, after budget is passed. Pentagon budget is only for hardware, software, usually. Am I on the correct track? I remember Bush' s wars all paid for outside regular budget process ( probably still being paid for) and millions billions? skimmed in corruption Nuclear Modernization was topic last week at Foreign Affairs Committee meeting Senator who is resigning held (Jeff Flake? ) and Jeff Merkely, where they had a former general, a lawyer and a nukes expert discuss whether or not to pass a law that the Pres. needed the Vice Pres. to sign off before he could make a preemptive strike. They ended the hearing with the decision that the U. S. really really needed to modernize its nukes at $1 trillion, , esp. in space. They left grinning like Chesire cats, Dems and GOP alike. Sent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone ------ Original message------ From: bjornsona--- via Peace-discuss Date: Thu, Nov 30, 2017 4:32 PM To: Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss;Karen Aram; Cc: Harry Mickalide;Peace; Subje ct:Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Flyer for AWARE demonstration, Saturday 12/2 Forgive me for my learning curve. You all are teaching me to do better research. Are there other military costs put outside of $600B budget? I found Cabinet costs: Department of Energy, some of which are Nukes. At https://energy.gov , in millions: Nuclear Security 13, 931; Other Defense 816; Dept Admin 178; ( Not all Admin. for defense of course). The other two Cabinet posts, I think, that might be considered war $$ are NSA and DHS. Thinking there are slush funds other places- not sure where to look Sent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone ------ Original message------ From: Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss Date: Thu, Nov 30, 2017 3:57 PM To: Karen Aram; Cc: Karen Aram via Peace-discuss;Harry Mickalide;Peace; Subject:Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Flyer for AWARE demonstration, Saturday 12/2 You might keep it simple by observing, "Trump is not the problem, US war-making is." Or, "Bottom line, the USG is planning perpetual war in many nations around the globe, its become the norm for the millennial generation.” On Nov 30, 2017, at 1:15 PM, Karen Aram > wrote: Harry is correct, keeping it simple is best, not my skill set. He is also correct that focus on the monetary cost of war and intervention to US domestic social services, including healthcare, education, etc. appeals to most people, so should always be mentioned. A total focus on costs of war, isn’t really us, but it does need to be mentioned. How can we overlook the genocide taking place in Yemen, or the slavery in Libya of Black Africans as a result of the US destruction of that nation in 2011. It’s now being used as a cause for military intervention, again, basically bringing more troops in than those we’ve already had there. Trump has announced more troops in Afghanistan, and Col. Larry Wilkerson has predicted we will be there forever, due to China’s economic progress in that region. Bottom line, the USG is planning perpetual war in many nations around the globe, its become the norm for the millennial generation. In relation to Africa (the sahel, in particular) the fourteen nations previously colonized by France, and again being recolonized by way of military occupation, the US is involved in all, because the French military is incapable, just as is the Saudi military, without US military technical, and logistical support. On Nov 30, 2017, at 10:40, Carl G. Estabrook > wrote: The US should in fact be spending much more on war than the current military budget - paying reparations for the damage we've done and the people we’ve killed in the wars of the current generation. But it’s not the case that war spending means we can’t afford universal healthcare, free college, and universal basic income. The USG can’t run out of money. No one refuses a check signed by the US government. —CGE On Nov 30, 2017, at 12:31 PM, Harry Mickalide via Peace-discuss > wrote: I still think a better simpler flyer would look like this: Projected annual cost for universal healthcare, free college, and universal basic income: $X Annual military budget: $600 billion On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 11:26 AM, Karen Aram via Peace > wrote: Yes, it is a distraction, and I have argued this point with those who suggest it, other than for war, which no one suggests, and actually might be worthwhile. However, I’ll say it again, it’s totally counterproductive to the anti-war movement and our demonstration. I have another appointment on Saturday so don’t plan to attend our demonstration. End of conversation on this topic, on my part. PS Even Peter Lavalle of Crosstalk, who supported Trump vs. Hillary, has now stated emphatically, "he is glad Hillary is not President, but he in no way supports Trump given what he is doing.” > On Nov 30, 2017, at 07:42, C G Estabrook > wrote: > > I agree that we should focus on "what the USG is doing in respect to war.” > > That’s why ‘Impeach Trump’ is a distraction - a purposeful distraction, by the those calling for continuity in US fp and war-making. > > >> On Nov 30, 2017, at 9:15 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > wrote: >> >> We should be informing people, when it comes to flyers, of what the USG is doing. >> Most Americans aren’t aware that we are in eight wars, with potential for two more. >> Oh yes, they all know how awful the N. Korean leader is, they all fear Iran having nuclear weapons, but do they know there is a solution to the N. Korean problem, one for which we the US could implement, but refuses to do so. >> >> Do the American people know that we are in the process of savaging Africa, again? >> Do they know the US is the greatest purveyor of violence in the world? >> >> Carl, these are all things you have talked about, and placed in flyers before. >> >> Focusing on individuals to blame, is a tactic that alienates and divides a people. If you were writing an article to be published, or on FB thats one thing, but a flyer representing an organization, should merely paraphrase what the USG is doing in respect to war. >> >>> On Nov 30, 2017, at 07:03, C G Estabrook > wrote: >>> >>> That earlier flyer was meant to combat Obama’s squeaky-clean image, which he was good at fostering while he administered “the most extreme terrorist campaign of modern times." >>> >>> > . >>> >>> And see the puff-piece on his 'toughness’: >. >>> >>> But I don’t think anyone contends that US world-wide mass murder post-WWII is a matter of presidential caprice, even if they could have acted differently. >>> >>> Neither Obama nor Trump had to send tens of thousands more troops to Afghanistan (as they did) after running as critics of the war (as they did). >>> >>> Condemning and opposing US war-making doesn’t depend on affixing individual responsibility. (Was Truman responsible for Hiroshima? Yes. Alone? No.) >>> >>> —CGE >>> >>> >>>> On Nov 30, 2017, at 8:39 AM, David Green via Peace > wrote: >>>> >>>> In any event, this language contrasts sharply with a flyer from two years ago, which holds Obama responsible: >>>> >>>> President Obama is making war in eight countries; he is sending American ‘special forces’ into more than 100 countries around the world; he has assassinated thousands by drone - the most extreme terrorist campaign of modern times; and he is provoking war with Russia and China. >>>> >>>> I'm not sure how we can justify the difference in tone and substance regarding the warmaking "motivations" of Obama and Trump. >>>> >>>> On Thursday, November 30, 2017, 7:06:53 AM CST, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> Carl >>>> >>>> No one knows better than I, no one has spoken more about the powers behind the throne than I. I’m the one, with AWARE, who has been making the argument that any President who comes to power, as either a Republican or Democrat is going to implement the foreign policy plan put into place by the Oligarchs behind the throne. One of which was Brzezinski, just to keep it simple. >>>> >>>> As a Green socialist, who does not support the one Party system, Democrat/ Republican, once they get to DC. I have been highlighting the very fact, of the Pentagon, CIA, Council on Foreign Relations, Think Tanks, Corporations and Contractors as those pushing the US war agenda. >>>> >>>> But, to imply that Trump anymore than Obama is an unwitting dope of those who make up the “Deep State” “Military Industrial Complex,” however we wish to refer to them, is a mistake, most especially in the title of a flyer. Whether architects or rubber stamps of our foreign policy, they are all complicit. >>>> >>>> A FLYER is meant to impart information, but no one is going to read it, when it acts as an apology for Trump. He is as vile a creature as Clinton, in that he supported the rhetoric of lies and propaganda against Libya and Gaddafi. He is guilty of bombing Syria, and now provoking war with N Korea and Iran. Yes, he is attempting peace with Russia and China, he knows where a dollar is to be made. Though it matters not, when the plan is war with China, predicted by the Rand Think Tank and Pentagon in to be 2030. Our continued presence of Nato on the border of Russia is not going away. >>>> >>>> Roger has just proved my point. He has assessed us as Trump supporters, in spite of my statement, in spite of David Greens statement. What do you think people will think of AWARE, upon receipt of our flyer? And, as I said, focus on the election in order to bash the Clintons is also of no value. >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Nov 29, 2017, at 18:29, C G Estabrook > wrote: >>>>> >>>>> The concentration on Trump is the strategy of the (pro-)War Party (the Pentagon, the 'intelligence community,' the Clinton campaign, the neocons) to force the government to continue the wars and war provocations of the last administrations. They think either Trump can be forced to fall in line with the war policy (as he shown he’s willing to do) under the threat of ‘Russiagate’ - or be replaced (with Pence, a War Party creature). >>>>> >>>>> The anti-war movement has to insist that Trump - the weakest president since Coolidge (“silent Cal,”|who followed the opposite performance strategy to Trump's bluster) - is not the problem, but that the continuing and largely unvaried Clinton-Bush-Obama war-making is. That's the policy that must be resisted. The War Party (who of course support that policy) is using Trump as a distraction from that policy. >>>>> >>>>> We should be opposing the Pentagon, the CIA, the Obama-Clintonists, the neocons, et al., who are promoting war provocations vs. Russia and China - not bothering much with the Potemkin president. >>>>> >>>>> John Pilger saw it clearly before the election: "The CIA has demanded Trump is not elected. Pentagon generals have demanded he is not elected. The pro-war New York Times - taking a breather from its relentless low-rent Putin smears - demands that he is not elected. Something is up. These tribunes of 'perpetual war' are terrified that the multi-billion-dollar business of war by which the United States maintains its dominance will be undermined if Trump does a deal with Putin, then with China’s Xi Jinping. Their panic at the possibility of the world’s great power talking peace – however unlikely – would be the blackest farce were the issues not so dire.” —CGE >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On Nov 29, 2017, at 5:31 PM, Karen Aram via Peace > wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> I’m sorry, Carl >>>>>> >>>>>> I don’t like it, the title alone makes AWARE look like “Trump defenders.” It’s one thing to say this in conversation when explaining our wars, to those who think the problem began with Trump, but as a title, it sucks. Most people in this town are Democrats and won’t bother to read it. >>>>>> >>>>>> I’m not pleased with some of that which is in the article either, because the focus on the election is old news. Its time to move on. Trump is President and he is responsible for that which occurs on his watch. >>>>>> >>>>>> Trump bombed Syria and that is an impeachable offense, granted every other President before him, committed war crimes that were also impeachable offenses, Bush and most especially Obama, but Trump has been in power for almost a year now. His provocations of war with Korea, and Iran are extremely dangerous. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Nov 29, 2017, at 12:46, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss > wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> PRESIDENT TRUMP IS NOT THE PROBLEM: >>>>>>> ILLEGAL U.S. WARS AROUND THE WORLD ARE >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The US government is today making war around the world - and it’s doing so without authorization from the U.S. Constitution or the U.N. Charter. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If American leaders were put on trial today as German leaders were, at Nuremberg after World War II, for “launching aggressive war,” they - like the German leaders - would be hanged. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The U.S. military is today killing people in seven Mideast and African countries - Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Somalia, and Pakistan (and on the other side of the world, in the Philippines). Thousands of U.S. troops are fighting in these countries, although most Americans don’t know that. In addition, the 70,000-member U.S. ‘Special Operations Command’ is active in three-quarters of the countries of the world. Their activities include kidnapping (‘rendition’), torture, and murder. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> President Obama was elected as an anti-war candidate, but in office he sent thousands of additional U.S. troops into America’s longest war, in Afghanistan. President Trump, who promised caution and non-interventionism in foreign policy - and described Hillary Clinton as a “trigger happy warmonger” - has now done the same thing himself. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What both men knew is that, in spite of intense media propaganda, most Americans don’t want U.S. troops engaged in foreign wars and don’t see the killing as justified; both candidates had to seem to oppose the wars, in order to get elected. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But the ‘one percent’ - the U.S. economic elite - do want the wars. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> When World War II ended in 1945, the U.S. was the least-damaged major country on either side, and controlled the world economy. America’s wars since then - in Korea, Vietnam, Latin America, and the Mideast - have killed between 20 and 30 million people for the purpose of maintaining that control. Ordinary Americans have paid for these vicious wars, but they haven’t profited from them. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> John Pilger wrote before the election, "The CIA has demanded Trump is not elected. Pentagon generals have demanded he is not elected. The pro-war New York Times - taking a breather from its relentless low-rent Putin smears - demands that he is not elected. Something is up. These tribunes of 'perpetual war' are terrified that the multi-billion-dollar business of war by which the United States maintains its dominance will be undermined if Trump does a deal with Putin, then with China’s Xi Jinping. Their panic at the possibility of the world’s great power talking peace – however unlikely – would be the blackest farce were the issues not so dire." >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We must demand that foreign military bases be closed, U.S. troops (and weapons) be brought home, and social support - including free medical care, education, and a universal basic income - be provided for Americans immiserated by generations of U.S. government wars. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> WRITE CONGRESS - DEMAND U.S. TROOPS & WEAPONS BE BROUGHT HOME >>>>>>> Our representatives in Congress from this area - and their email addresses - are as follows: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Representative Rodney Davis: >>>>>>> Senator Tammy Duckworth: >>>>>>> Senator Dick Durbin: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ~~~ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ANTI-WAR ANTI-RACISM EFFORT - on Facebook at >>>>>>> ~ U.S. troops & weapons out of the Mideast ~ Medicare for all ~ Universal basic income ~ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> Peace-discuss mailing list >>>>>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >>>>>>> https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.chambana.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fpeace-discuss&data=02%7C01%7Ckarenaram%40hotmail.com%7Cfc30480baf2b4882394b08d5376a458e%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636475851934473412&sdata=0JBYxrD5cfjQzfDHk4PpLhvWxWn5Ce3B%2FBGNvILHbQI%3D&reserved=0 >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Peace mailing list >>>>>> Peace at lists.chambana.net >>>>>> https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.chambana.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fpeace&data=02%7C01%7Ckarenaram%40hotmail.com%7Cf666ae76fb7a4230b3e308d5380383c8%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636476510093637620&sdata=K2skpZ7DB7gaAC0qrBHMVVdN3aiMOsP2EfrwZkHSw3k%3D&reserved=0 >>>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Peace-discuss mailing list >>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >>>> https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.chambana.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fpeace-discuss&data=02%7C01%7Ckarenaram%40hotmail.com%7Cf666ae76fb7a4230b3e308d5380383c8%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636476510093637620&sdata=xazvoaiiZfeKwnoLWr0%2BQ7zDKzK11UmSbVoB97gFtjE%3D&reserved=0 >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Peace mailing list >>>> Peace at lists.chambana.net >>>> https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.chambana.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fpeace&data=02%7C01%7Ckarenaram%40hotmail.com%7Cf666ae76fb7a4230b3e308d5380383c8%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636476510093637620&sdata=K2skpZ7DB7gaAC0qrBHMVVdN3aiMOsP2EfrwZkHSw3k%3D&reserved=0 >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Peace-discuss mailing list >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >> https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.chambana.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fpeace-discuss&data=02%7C01%7Ckarenaram%40hotmail.com%7C1510d4a9e78e4ab02a0f08d538090865%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636476533794287026&sdata=1gLoCzw4EfQ1ZonM6wynHGMKl4R%2FZ9tvCrtiZBxZTpo%3D&reserved=0 _______________________________________________ Peace mailing list Peace at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephenf1113 at yahoo.com Thu Nov 30 23:20:11 2017 From: stephenf1113 at yahoo.com (Stephen Francis) Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 23:20:11 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Peace-discuss] Peace-discuss Digest, Vol 166, Issue 326 In-Reply-To: References: <1275289966.5523896.1512082034732@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1715360317.5525883.1512084011899@mail.yahoo.com> Would AWARE support this UofMichigan effort: .... NO! no way.... you'd find some way to dodge it. University of Michigan Students Pass Israel Divestment Resolution, Signaling Momentum Among Larger Schools http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/42739-university-michigan-students-pass-israel-divestment-resolution-signaling-momentum-among-larger-schools On Thursday, November 30, 2017 5:12 PM, Karen Aram wrote: Our “favorite” anti-semite is back folks.  Good grief, Stephen, AWARE is not a pro Israeli fake antiwar organization, we take a lot of grief for criticizing Israel, what drugs are you on? Usually its just your rant blaming Jews for 9/11 or denying the Holocaust ever happened. I don’t know whether to laugh or cry. On Nov 30, 2017, at 14:47, Stephen Francis via Peace-discuss wrote: Professor Boyle,Your post on Wexler that included the following sentence must have crossed the 'anti-Semitic' line and consequently got no response.... predictably."As most of us know, the so-called Foundation is a Gang of Die-hard NeoCon Zionist Warmongers, Bigots and Racists against Palestinians/Arabs/Persians/Asians/Muslims of Color. Right now the Foundation is warmongering to get us into a war against Iran on behalf of Israel."AWARE is a basically a pro-Israel fake antiwar organization that fails (by design) to get to the real issues... that you so eloquently pointed out above. It is utterly taboo to give any serious thought or worlds to the real crimes of the Israeli government and its Jewish supremacists.A story like the one below would also receive no traction:ANALYSIS: Will Netanyahu risk exposing one of Israel’s secrets?  | | | | | | | | | | | ANALYSIS: Will Netanyahu risk exposing one of Israel’s secrets? New law would tell Palestinian citizens in Israel that they are not equal, say experts | | | | On Thursday, November 30, 2017 10:36 AM, "peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net" wrote: Send Peace-discuss mailing list submissions to     peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit     https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to     peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net You can reach the person managing the list at     peace-discuss-owner at lists.chambana.net When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Peace-discuss digest..." Today's Topics:   1. Re: NG: UILAWPROF Wexler Complicit in Israeli War Crimes,       Crimes against Humanity & Genocide against Palestinians.       (Boyle, Francis A)   2. Re: NG: UILAWPROF Wexler Complicit in Israeli War Crimes,       Crimes against Humanity & Genocide against Palestinians.       (Boyle, Francis A) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 16:33:57 +0000 From: "Boyle, Francis A" To: 'David Green' , "Miller, Joseph Thomas"     , "'sherwoodross10 at gmail.com'"     , "'peace-discuss at anti-war.net'"     , "'C. G. ESTABROOK'"     , "'a-fields at uiuc.edu'" ,     'Joe Lauria' ,     "'Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net'"     ,     "'peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net'"     , "Szoke, Ron"     , 'Arlene Hickory' , 'Karen     Aram' , "'abass10 at gmail.com'"     , "'mickalideh at gmail.com'" ,     'Lina Thorne' , "'chicago at worldcantwait.net'"     , 'Jay' , 'David     Johnson' , 'Mildred O'brien'     , "'C G Estabrook'" Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] NG: UILAWPROF Wexler Complicit in Israeli     War Crimes, Crimes against Humanity & Genocide against Palestinians. Message-ID:     Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" "...particularly to the drone assassinations, "the most extreme terrorist campaign of modern times" - which have killed more than 5,000 people, including U.S. citizens and hundreds of children." Chomsky {now 10,000+ people} And notice of course that the die-hard bigots, racists and warmongers against Muslims/Arabs/Palestinians/Persians/Asians of Color  at the College of Law bragged about and touted Wexler's complicity with Israel's war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide against the Palestinians. QED. fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2017 9:04 AM To: 'David Green' ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; 'sherwoodross10 at gmail.com' ; 'peace-discuss at anti-war.net' ; 'C. G. ESTABROOK' ; 'a-fields at uiuc.edu' ; 'Joe Lauria' ; 'Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net' ; 'peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net' ; Szoke, Ron ; 'Arlene Hickory' ; 'Karen Aram' ; 'abass10 at gmail.com' ; 'mickalideh at gmail.com' ; 'Lina Thorne' ; 'chicago at worldcantwait.net' ; 'Jay' ; 'David Johnson' ; 'Mildred O'brien' ; 'C G Estabrook' Subject: NG: UILAWPROF Wexler Complicit in Israeli War Crimes, Crimes against Humanity & Genocide against Palestinians. "...particularly to the drone assassinations, "the most extreme terrorist campaign of modern times" - which have killed more than 5,000 people, including U.S. citizens and hundreds of children." Chomsky {now 10,000+ people} Today's News Gazette has a front page story where UILawProf Wexler is pontificating about sexual harassment. Really? Notice below. Wexler had  the UILawSchool brag about the fact that she is an "Academic Fellow" of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. As most of us know, the so-called Foundation is a Gang of Die-hard NeoCon Zionist Warmongers, Bigots and Racists against Palestinians/Arabs/Persians/Asians/Muslims of Color. Right now the Foundation is warmongering to get us into a war against Iran on behalf of Israel. Notice Wexler brags about the fact that she spent ten days "exploring" how Israel inflicts war crimes, crimes against humanity and outright genocide against the Palestinians, including and especially Palestinian Women and Children. And Wexler calls this to be an "honor". Basically Wexler is complicit in Israel's war crimes, crimes against humanity and outright genocide against the Palestinians. Article III (e) of the 1948 Genocide Convention explicitly criminalizes "Complicity in genocide." And Wexler is typical of the die-hard bigots, racists and warmongers against Muslims/Arabs/Palestinians/Asians of Color on the College of Law Faculty who brought out Killer Koh here to give his specially endowed lecture on being a Role Model in Excellence for Lawyers in Government Service. Not one member of the UI Law Faculty  Gang of Die-hard Bigots, Racists and Warmongers against  Muslims/Arabs/Palestinians/Asians of Color supported us in our Protest against Killer Koh. Q.E.D. fab Hey! Hey! Wexler Say! How many women! Did you kill today! In Palestine! Hey! Hey! Wexler say! How many kids! Did you kill today! In Palestine! Hey! Hey! Wexler Say! How many Dads! Did you kill today! In Palestine! Professor Wexler Selected as Academic Fellow of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies Friday, March 09, 2012 Lesley Wexler, the Thomas M. Mengler Faculty Scholar, has been selected as an academic fellow of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. As part of the honor, Professor Wexler will be participating in a 10-day program in Israel with other leading U.S. academics exploring how the country combats terrorism. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 16:33:57 +0000 From: "Boyle, Francis A" To: 'David Green' , "Miller, Joseph Thomas"     , "'sherwoodross10 at gmail.com'"     , "'peace-discuss at anti-war.net'"     , "'C. G. ESTABROOK'"     , "'a-fields at uiuc.edu'" ,     'Joe Lauria' ,     "'Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net'"     ,     "'peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net'"     , "Szoke, Ron"     , 'Arlene Hickory' , 'Karen     Aram' , "'abass10 at gmail.com'"     , "'mickalideh at gmail.com'" ,     'Lina Thorne' , "'chicago at worldcantwait.net'"     , 'Jay' , 'David     Johnson' , 'Mildred O'brien'     , "'C G Estabrook'" Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] NG: UILAWPROF Wexler Complicit in Israeli     War Crimes, Crimes against Humanity & Genocide against Palestinians. Message-ID:     Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" "...particularly to the drone assassinations, "the most extreme terrorist campaign of modern times" - which have killed more than 5,000 people, including U.S. citizens and hundreds of children." Chomsky {now 10,000+ people} And notice of course that the die-hard bigots, racists and warmongers against Muslims/Arabs/Palestinians/Persians/Asians of Color  at the College of Law bragged about and touted Wexler's complicity with Israel's war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide against the Palestinians. QED. fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2017 9:04 AM To: 'David Green' ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; 'sherwoodross10 at gmail.com' ; 'peace-discuss at anti-war.net' ; 'C. G. ESTABROOK' ; 'a-fields at uiuc.edu' ; 'Joe Lauria' ; 'Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net' ; 'peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net' ; Szoke, Ron ; 'Arlene Hickory' ; 'Karen Aram' ; 'abass10 at gmail.com' ; 'mickalideh at gmail.com' ; 'Lina Thorne' ; 'chicago at worldcantwait.net' ; 'Jay' ; 'David Johnson' ; 'Mildred O'brien' ; 'C G Estabrook' Subject: NG: UILAWPROF Wexler Complicit in Israeli War Crimes, Crimes against Humanity & Genocide against Palestinians. "...particularly to the drone assassinations, "the most extreme terrorist campaign of modern times" - which have killed more than 5,000 people, including U.S. citizens and hundreds of children." Chomsky {now 10,000+ people} Today's News Gazette has a front page story where UILawProf Wexler is pontificating about sexual harassment. Really? Notice below. Wexler had  the UILawSchool brag about the fact that she is an "Academic Fellow" of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. As most of us know, the so-called Foundation is a Gang of Die-hard NeoCon Zionist Warmongers, Bigots and Racists against Palestinians/Arabs/Persians/Asians/Muslims of Color. Right now the Foundation is warmongering to get us into a war against Iran on behalf of Israel. Notice Wexler brags about the fact that she spent ten days "exploring" how Israel inflicts war crimes, crimes against humanity and outright genocide against the Palestinians, including and especially Palestinian Women and Children. And Wexler calls this to be an "honor". Basically Wexler is complicit in Israel's war crimes, crimes against humanity and outright genocide against the Palestinians. Article III (e) of the 1948 Genocide Convention explicitly criminalizes "Complicity in genocide." And Wexler is typical of the die-hard bigots, racists and warmongers against Muslims/Arabs/Palestinians/Asians of Color on the College of Law Faculty who brought out Killer Koh here to give his specially endowed lecture on being a Role Model in Excellence for Lawyers in Government Service. Not one member of the UI Law Faculty  Gang of Die-hard Bigots, Racists and Warmongers against  Muslims/Arabs/Palestinians/Asians of Color supported us in our Protest against Killer Koh. Q.E.D. fab Hey! Hey! Wexler Say! How many women! Did you kill today! In Palestine! Hey! Hey! Wexler say! How many kids! Did you kill today! In Palestine! Hey! Hey! Wexler Say! How many Dads! Did you kill today! In Palestine! Professor Wexler Selected as Academic Fellow of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies Friday, March 09, 2012 Lesley Wexler, the Thomas M. Mengler Faculty Scholar, has been selected as an academic fellow of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. As part of the honor, Professor Wexler will be participating in a 10-day program in Israel with other leading U.S. academics exploring how the country combats terrorism. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: ------------------------------ Subject: Digest Footer _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss ------------------------------ End of Peace-discuss Digest, Vol 166, Issue 326 *********************************************** _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.chambana.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fpeace-discuss&data=02%7C01%7Ckarenaram%40hotmail.com%7C85857c977a0c40ede92108d538450c0a%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636476791556968242&sdata=DGk2cH1Ym9DBL3DnifJWCkC5QkCmeM4ItBL4SDiQg3k%3D&reserved=0 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From galliher at illinois.edu Thu Nov 30 23:27:12 2017 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 17:27:12 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Flyer for AWARE demonstration, Saturday 12/2 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5DC85A0F-DD2A-46D5-9642-47F926915886@illinois.edu> The regular monthly AWARE anti-war demonstration is 2-4pm this Saturday in downtown Champaign - at the intersection of E. Main, W. Church, & N. Neil streets. > On Nov 30, 2017, at 5:17 PM, bjornsona--- via Peace-discuss wrote: > > Off to pick husband Tom up from Enterprise Works at the Research park so I won't be bothering you all anymore. Hope to see you Saturday. 10:00 at the Park at Church st, correct? > > Sent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone > > ------ Original message------ > From: bjornsona--- via Peace-discuss > Date: Thu, Nov 30, 2017 4:58 PM > To: bjornsona--- via Peace-discuss;Karen Aram; > Cc: Harry Mickalide;Peace; > Subject:Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Flyer for AWARE demonstration, Saturday 12/2 > > > From Business Insider.com, Feb. 2015. I could not find anything newer... > From karenaram at hotmail.com Thu Nov 30 23:27:15 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 23:27:15 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Peace-discuss Digest, Vol 166, Issue 326 In-Reply-To: <1715360317.5525883.1512084011899@mail.yahoo.com> References: <1275289966.5523896.1512082034732@mail.yahoo.com> <1715360317.5525883.1512084011899@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Of course we support BDS, we’ve spoken on this many times. Do you know the difference between opposing Israeli foreign policy and anti-semitism? So there we have it, Carl, the American people have been drinking the kool aide so long, we have to be very clear and precise, and even then they won’t comprehend what we’re saying if we muddle our messages with “its not Trumps fault, blame the other guys, but blame Obama for everything. I refuse to look like a Republican. On Nov 30, 2017, at 15:20, Stephen Francis > wrote: Would AWARE support this UofMichigan effort: .... NO! no way.... you'd find some way to dodge it. University of Michigan Students Pass Israel Divestment Resolution, Signaling Momentum Among Larger Schools http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/42739-university-michigan-students-pass-israel-divestment-resolution-signaling-momentum-among-larger-schools On Thursday, November 30, 2017 5:12 PM, Karen Aram > wrote: Our “favorite” anti-semite is back folks. Good grief, Stephen, AWARE is not a pro Israeli fake antiwar organization, we take a lot of grief for criticizing Israel, what drugs are you on? Usually its just your rant blaming Jews for 9/11 or denying the Holocaust ever happened. I don’t know whether to laugh or cry. On Nov 30, 2017, at 14:47, Stephen Francis via Peace-discuss > wrote: Professor Boyle, Your post on Wexler that included the following sentence must have crossed the 'anti-Semitic' line and consequently got no response.... predictably. "As most of us know, the so-called Foundation is a Gang of Die-hard NeoCon Zionist Warmongers, Bigots and Racists against Palestinians/Arabs/Persians/Asians/Muslims of Color. Right now the Foundation is warmongering to get us into a war against Iran on behalf of Israel." AWARE is a basically a pro-Israel fake antiwar organization that fails (by design) to get to the real issues... that you so eloquently pointed out above. It is utterly taboo to give any serious thought or worlds to the real crimes of the Israeli government and its Jewish supremacists. A story like the one below would also receive no traction: ANALYSIS: Will Netanyahu risk exposing one of Israel’s secrets? ANALYSIS: Will Netanyahu risk exposing one of Israel’s secrets? New law would tell Palestinian citizens in Israel that they are not equal, say experts On Thursday, November 30, 2017 10:36 AM, "peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net" > wrote: Send Peace-discuss mailing list submissions to peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net You can reach the person managing the list at peace-discuss-owner at lists.chambana.net When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Peace-discuss digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re: NG: UILAWPROF Wexler Complicit in Israeli War Crimes, Crimes against Humanity & Genocide against Palestinians. (Boyle, Francis A) 2. Re: NG: UILAWPROF Wexler Complicit in Israeli War Crimes, Crimes against Humanity & Genocide against Palestinians. (Boyle, Francis A) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 16:33:57 +0000 From: "Boyle, Francis A" > To: 'David Green' >, "Miller, Joseph Thomas" >, "'sherwoodross10 at gmail.com'" >, "'peace-discuss at anti-war.net'" >, "'C. G. ESTABROOK'" >, "'a-fields at uiuc.edu'" >, 'Joe Lauria' >, "'Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net'" >, "'peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net'" >, "Szoke, Ron" >, 'Arlene Hickory' >, 'Karen Aram' >, "'abass10 at gmail.com'" >, "'mickalideh at gmail.com'" >, 'Lina Thorne' >, "'chicago at worldcantwait.net'" >, 'Jay' >, 'David Johnson' >, 'Mildred O'brien' >, "'C G Estabrook'" > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] NG: UILAWPROF Wexler Complicit in Israeli War Crimes, Crimes against Humanity & Genocide against Palestinians. Message-ID: > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" "...particularly to the drone assassinations, "the most extreme terrorist campaign of modern times" - which have killed more than 5,000 people, including U.S. citizens and hundreds of children." Chomsky {now 10,000+ people} And notice of course that the die-hard bigots, racists and warmongers against Muslims/Arabs/Palestinians/Persians/Asians of Color at the College of Law bragged about and touted Wexler's complicity with Israel's war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide against the Palestinians. QED. fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2017 9:04 AM To: 'David Green' >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; 'sherwoodross10 at gmail.com' >; 'peace-discuss at anti-war.net' >; 'C. G. ESTABROOK' >; 'a-fields at uiuc.edu' >; 'Joe Lauria' >; 'Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net' >; 'peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net' >; Szoke, Ron >; 'Arlene Hickory' >; 'Karen Aram' >; 'abass10 at gmail.com' >; 'mickalideh at gmail.com' >; 'Lina Thorne' >; 'chicago at worldcantwait.net' >; 'Jay' >; 'David Johnson' >; 'Mildred O'brien' >; 'C G Estabrook' > Subject: NG: UILAWPROF Wexler Complicit in Israeli War Crimes, Crimes against Humanity & Genocide against Palestinians. "...particularly to the drone assassinations, "the most extreme terrorist campaign of modern times" - which have killed more than 5,000 people, including U.S. citizens and hundreds of children." Chomsky {now 10,000+ people} Today's News Gazette has a front page story where UILawProf Wexler is pontificating about sexual harassment. Really? Notice below. Wexler had the UILawSchool brag about the fact that she is an "Academic Fellow" of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. As most of us know, the so-called Foundation is a Gang of Die-hard NeoCon Zionist Warmongers, Bigots and Racists against Palestinians/Arabs/Persians/Asians/Muslims of Color. Right now the Foundation is warmongering to get us into a war against Iran on behalf of Israel. Notice Wexler brags about the fact that she spent ten days "exploring" how Israel inflicts war crimes, crimes against humanity and outright genocide against the Palestinians, including and especially Palestinian Women and Children. And Wexler calls this to be an "honor". Basically Wexler is complicit in Israel's war crimes, crimes against humanity and outright genocide against the Palestinians. Article III (e) of the 1948 Genocide Convention explicitly criminalizes "Complicity in genocide." And Wexler is typical of the die-hard bigots, racists and warmongers against Muslims/Arabs/Palestinians/Asians of Color on the College of Law Faculty who brought out Killer Koh here to give his specially endowed lecture on being a Role Model in Excellence for Lawyers in Government Service. Not one member of the UI Law Faculty Gang of Die-hard Bigots, Racists and Warmongers against Muslims/Arabs/Palestinians/Asians of Color supported us in our Protest against Killer Koh. Q.E.D. fab Hey! Hey! Wexler Say! How many women! Did you kill today! In Palestine! Hey! Hey! Wexler say! How many kids! Did you kill today! In Palestine! Hey! Hey! Wexler Say! How many Dads! Did you kill today! In Palestine! Professor Wexler Selected as Academic Fellow of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies Friday, March 09, 2012 Lesley Wexler, the Thomas M. Mengler Faculty Scholar, has been selected as an academic fellow of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. As part of the honor, Professor Wexler will be participating in a 10-day program in Israel with other leading U.S. academics exploring how the country combats terrorism. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: > ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 16:33:57 +0000 From: "Boyle, Francis A" > To: 'David Green' >, "Miller, Joseph Thomas" >, "'sherwoodross10 at gmail.com'" >, "'peace-discuss at anti-war.net'" >, "'C. G. ESTABROOK'" >, "'a-fields at uiuc.edu'" >, 'Joe Lauria' >, "'Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net'" >, "'peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net'" >, "Szoke, Ron" >, 'Arlene Hickory' >, 'Karen Aram' >, "'abass10 at gmail.com'" >, "'mickalideh at gmail.com'" >, 'Lina Thorne' >, "'chicago at worldcantwait.net'" >, 'Jay' >, 'David Johnson' >, 'Mildred O'brien' >, "'C G Estabrook'" > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] NG: UILAWPROF Wexler Complicit in Israeli War Crimes, Crimes against Humanity & Genocide against Palestinians. Message-ID: > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" "...particularly to the drone assassinations, "the most extreme terrorist campaign of modern times" - which have killed more than 5,000 people, including U.S. citizens and hundreds of children." Chomsky {now 10,000+ people} And notice of course that the die-hard bigots, racists and warmongers against Muslims/Arabs/Palestinians/Persians/Asians of Color at the College of Law bragged about and touted Wexler's complicity with Israel's war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide against the Palestinians. QED. fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2017 9:04 AM To: 'David Green' >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; 'sherwoodross10 at gmail.com' >; 'peace-discuss at anti-war.net' >; 'C. G. ESTABROOK' >; 'a-fields at uiuc.edu' >; 'Joe Lauria' >; 'Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net' >; 'peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net' >; Szoke, Ron >; 'Arlene Hickory' >; 'Karen Aram' >; 'abass10 at gmail.com' >; 'mickalideh at gmail.com' >; 'Lina Thorne' >; 'chicago at worldcantwait.net' >; 'Jay' >; 'David Johnson' >; 'Mildred O'brien' >; 'C G Estabrook' > Subject: NG: UILAWPROF Wexler Complicit in Israeli War Crimes, Crimes against Humanity & Genocide against Palestinians. "...particularly to the drone assassinations, "the most extreme terrorist campaign of modern times" - which have killed more than 5,000 people, including U.S. citizens and hundreds of children." Chomsky {now 10,000+ people} Today's News Gazette has a front page story where UILawProf Wexler is pontificating about sexual harassment. Really? Notice below. Wexler had the UILawSchool brag about the fact that she is an "Academic Fellow" of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. As most of us know, the so-called Foundation is a Gang of Die-hard NeoCon Zionist Warmongers, Bigots and Racists against Palestinians/Arabs/Persians/Asians/Muslims of Color. Right now the Foundation is warmongering to get us into a war against Iran on behalf of Israel. Notice Wexler brags about the fact that she spent ten days "exploring" how Israel inflicts war crimes, crimes against humanity and outright genocide against the Palestinians, including and especially Palestinian Women and Children. And Wexler calls this to be an "honor". Basically Wexler is complicit in Israel's war crimes, crimes against humanity and outright genocide against the Palestinians. Article III (e) of the 1948 Genocide Convention explicitly criminalizes "Complicity in genocide." And Wexler is typical of the die-hard bigots, racists and warmongers against Muslims/Arabs/Palestinians/Asians of Color on the College of Law Faculty who brought out Killer Koh here to give his specially endowed lecture on being a Role Model in Excellence for Lawyers in Government Service. Not one member of the UI Law Faculty Gang of Die-hard Bigots, Racists and Warmongers against Muslims/Arabs/Palestinians/Asians of Color supported us in our Protest against Killer Koh. Q.E.D. fab Hey! Hey! Wexler Say! How many women! Did you kill today! In Palestine! Hey! Hey! Wexler say! How many kids! Did you kill today! In Palestine! Hey! Hey! Wexler Say! How many Dads! Did you kill today! In Palestine! Professor Wexler Selected as Academic Fellow of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies Friday, March 09, 2012 Lesley Wexler, the Thomas M. Mengler Faculty Scholar, has been selected as an academic fellow of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. As part of the honor, Professor Wexler will be participating in a 10-day program in Israel with other leading U.S. academics exploring how the country combats terrorism. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: > ------------------------------ Subject: Digest Footer _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss ------------------------------ End of Peace-discuss Digest, Vol 166, Issue 326 *********************************************** _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.chambana.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fpeace-discuss&data=02%7C01%7Ckarenaram%40hotmail.com%7C85857c977a0c40ede92108d538450c0a%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636476791556968242&sdata=DGk2cH1Ym9DBL3DnifJWCkC5QkCmeM4ItBL4SDiQg3k%3D&reserved=0 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Thu Nov 30 23:36:03 2017 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 17:36:03 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Peace-discuss Digest, Vol 166, Issue 326 In-Reply-To: <1715360317.5525883.1512084011899@mail.yahoo.com> References: <1275289966.5523896.1512082034732@mail.yahoo.com> <1715360317.5525883.1512084011899@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Members of AWARE and the Prairiegreens met with state representative Carol Ammons two years ago to condemn her caving in to lobbying from the Israeli consulate and not voting against direction from the government of Israel on how UI monies should be used. . —CGE > On Nov 30, 2017, at 5:20 PM, Stephen Francis via Peace-discuss wrote: > > Would AWARE support this UofMichigan effort: .... NO! no way.... you'd find some way to dodge it. > University of Michigan Students Pass Israel Divestment Resolution, Signaling Momentum Among Larger Schools > http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/42739-university-michigan-students-pass-israel-divestment-resolution-signaling-momentum-among-larger-schools > > > On Thursday, November 30, 2017 5:12 PM, Karen Aram wrote: > > > Our “favorite” anti-semite is back folks. > > Good grief, Stephen, AWARE is not a pro Israeli fake antiwar organization, we take a lot of grief for criticizing Israel, what drugs are you on? Usually its just your rant blaming Jews for 9/11 or denying the Holocaust ever happened. I don’t know whether to laugh or cry. > > >> On Nov 30, 2017, at 14:47, Stephen Francis via Peace-discuss wrote: >> >> Professor Boyle, >> Your post on Wexler that included the following sentence must have crossed the 'anti-Semitic' line and consequently got no response.... predictably. >> "As most of us know, the so-called Foundation is a Gang of Die-hard NeoCon Zionist Warmongers, Bigots and Racists against Palestinians/Arabs/Persians/Asians/Muslims of Color. Right now the Foundation is warmongering to get us into a war against Iran on behalf of Israel." >> AWARE is a basically a pro-Israel fake antiwar organization that fails (by design) to get to the real issues... that you so eloquently pointed out above. It is utterly taboo to give any serious thought or worlds to the real crimes of the Israeli government and its Jewish supremacists. >> A story like the one below would also receive no traction: >> ANALYSIS: Will Netanyahu risk exposing one of Israel’s secrets? >> >> ANALYSIS: Will Netanyahu risk exposing one of Israel’s secrets? >> New law would tell Palestinian citizens in Israel that they are not equal, say experts >> >> >> >> On Thursday, November 30, 2017 10:36 AM, "peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net" wrote: >> >> >> Send Peace-discuss mailing list submissions to >> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >> >> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit >> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss >> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to >> peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net >> >> You can reach the person managing the list at >> peace-discuss-owner at lists.chambana.net >> >> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific >> than "Re: Contents of Peace-discuss digest..." >> >> >> Today's Topics: >> >> 1. Re: NG: UILAWPROF Wexler Complicit in Israeli War Crimes, >> Crimes against Humanity & Genocide against Palestinians. >> (Boyle, Francis A) >> 2. Re: NG: UILAWPROF Wexler Complicit in Israeli War Crimes, >> Crimes against Humanity & Genocide against Palestinians. >> (Boyle, Francis A) >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Message: 1 >> Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 16:33:57 +0000 >> From: "Boyle, Francis A" >> To: 'David Green' , "Miller, Joseph Thomas" >> , "'sherwoodross10 at gmail.com'" >> , "'peace-discuss at anti-war.net'" >> , "'C. G. ESTABROOK'" >> , "'a-fields at uiuc.edu'" , >> 'Joe Lauria' , >> "'Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net'" >> , >> "'peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net'" >> , "Szoke, Ron" >> , 'Arlene Hickory' , 'Karen >> Aram' , "'abass10 at gmail.com'" >> , "'mickalideh at gmail.com'" , >> 'Lina Thorne' , "'chicago at worldcantwait.net'" >> , 'Jay' , 'David >> Johnson' , 'Mildred O'brien' >> , "'C G Estabrook'" >> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] NG: UILAWPROF Wexler Complicit in Israeli >> War Crimes, Crimes against Humanity & Genocide against Palestinians. >> Message-ID: >> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" >> >> "...particularly to the drone assassinations, "the most extreme >> terrorist campaign of modern times" - which have killed more than 5,000 people, >> including U.S. citizens and hundreds of children." Chomsky {now 10,000+ people} >> >> And notice of course that the die-hard bigots, racists and warmongers against Muslims/Arabs/Palestinians/Persians/Asians of Color at the College of Law bragged about and touted Wexler's complicity with Israel's war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide against the Palestinians. QED. fab >> >> Francis A. Boyle >> Law Building >> 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. >> Champaign, IL 61820 USA >> 217-333-7954 (phone) >> 217-244-1478 (fax) >> (personal comments only) >> >> From: Boyle, Francis A >> Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2017 9:04 AM >> To: 'David Green' ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; 'sherwoodross10 at gmail.com' ; 'peace-discuss at anti-war.net' ; 'C. G. ESTABROOK' ; 'a-fields at uiuc.edu' ; 'Joe Lauria' ; 'Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net' ; 'peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net' ; Szoke, Ron ; 'Arlene Hickory' ; 'Karen Aram' ; 'abass10 at gmail.com' ; 'mickalideh at gmail.com' ; 'Lina Thorne' ; 'chicago at worldcantwait.net' ; 'Jay' ; 'David Johnson' ; 'Mildred O'brien' ; 'C G Estabrook' >> Subject: NG: UILAWPROF Wexler Complicit in Israeli War Crimes, Crimes against Humanity & Genocide against Palestinians. >> >> "...particularly to the drone assassinations, "the most extreme >> terrorist campaign of modern times" - which have killed more than 5,000 people, >> including U.S. citizens and hundreds of children." Chomsky {now 10,000+ people} >> >> Today's News Gazette has a front page story where UILawProf Wexler is pontificating about sexual harassment. Really? Notice below. Wexler had the UILawSchool brag about the fact that she is an "Academic Fellow" of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. As most of us know, the so-called Foundation is a Gang of Die-hard NeoCon Zionist Warmongers, Bigots and Racists against Palestinians/Arabs/Persians/Asians/Muslims of Color. Right now the Foundation is warmongering to get us into a war against Iran on behalf of Israel. Notice Wexler brags about the fact that she spent ten days "exploring" how Israel inflicts war crimes, crimes against humanity and outright genocide against the Palestinians, including and especially Palestinian Women and Children. And Wexler calls this to be an "honor". Basically Wexler is complicit in Israel's war crimes, crimes against humanity and outright genocide against the Palestinians. Article III (e) of the 1948 Genocide Convention explicitly criminalizes "Complicity in genocide." And Wexler is typical of the die-hard bigots, racists and warmongers against Muslims/Arabs/Palestinians/Asians of Color on the College of Law Faculty who brought out Killer Koh here to give his specially endowed lecture on being a Role Model in Excellence for Lawyers in Government Service. Not one member of the UI Law Faculty Gang of Die-hard Bigots, Racists and Warmongers against Muslims/Arabs/Palestinians/Asians of Color supported us in our Protest against Killer Koh. Q.E.D. >> fab >> >> Hey! Hey! >> Wexler Say! >> How many women! >> Did you kill today! >> In Palestine! >> >> Hey! Hey! >> Wexler say! >> How many kids! >> Did you kill today! >> In Palestine! >> >> Hey! Hey! >> Wexler Say! >> How many Dads! >> Did you kill today! >> In Palestine! >> Professor Wexler Selected as Academic Fellow of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies >> Friday, March 09, 2012 >> Lesley Wexler, the Thomas M. Mengler Faculty Scholar, has been selected as an academic fellow of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. As part of the honor, Professor Wexler will be participating in a 10-day program in Israel with other leading U.S. academics exploring how the country combats terrorism. >> >> >> Francis A. Boyle >> Law Building >> 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. >> Champaign, IL 61820 USA >> 217-333-7954 (phone) >> 217-244-1478 (fax) >> (personal comments only) >> >> -------------- next part -------------- >> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... >> URL: >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 2 >> Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 16:33:57 +0000 >> From: "Boyle, Francis A" >> To: 'David Green' , "Miller, Joseph Thomas" >> , "'sherwoodross10 at gmail.com'" >> , "'peace-discuss at anti-war.net'" >> , "'C. G. ESTABROOK'" >> , "'a-fields at uiuc.edu'" , >> 'Joe Lauria' , >> "'Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net'" >> , >> "'peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net'" >> , "Szoke, Ron" >> , 'Arlene Hickory' , 'Karen >> Aram' , "'abass10 at gmail.com'" >> , "'mickalideh at gmail.com'" , >> 'Lina Thorne' , "'chicago at worldcantwait.net'" >> , 'Jay' , 'David >> Johnson' , 'Mildred O'brien' >> , "'C G Estabrook'" >> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] NG: UILAWPROF Wexler Complicit in Israeli >> War Crimes, Crimes against Humanity & Genocide against Palestinians. >> Message-ID: >> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" >> >> "...particularly to the drone assassinations, "the most extreme >> terrorist campaign of modern times" - which have killed more than 5,000 people, >> including U.S. citizens and hundreds of children." Chomsky {now 10,000+ people} >> >> And notice of course that the die-hard bigots, racists and warmongers against Muslims/Arabs/Palestinians/Persians/Asians of Color at the College of Law bragged about and touted Wexler's complicity with Israel's war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide against the Palestinians. QED. fab >> >> Francis A. Boyle >> Law Building >> 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. >> Champaign, IL 61820 USA >> 217-333-7954 (phone) >> 217-244-1478 (fax) >> (personal comments only) >> >> From: Boyle, Francis A >> Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2017 9:04 AM >> To: 'David Green' ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; 'sherwoodross10 at gmail.com' ; 'peace-discuss at anti-war.net' ; 'C. G. ESTABROOK' ; 'a-fields at uiuc.edu' ; 'Joe Lauria' ; 'Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net' ; 'peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net' ; Szoke, Ron ; 'Arlene Hickory' ; 'Karen Aram' ; 'abass10 at gmail.com' ; 'mickalideh at gmail.com' ; 'Lina Thorne' ; 'chicago at worldcantwait.net' ; 'Jay' ; 'David Johnson' ; 'Mildred O'brien' ; 'C G Estabrook' >> Subject: NG: UILAWPROF Wexler Complicit in Israeli War Crimes, Crimes against Humanity & Genocide against Palestinians. >> >> "...particularly to the drone assassinations, "the most extreme >> terrorist campaign of modern times" - which have killed more than 5,000 people, >> including U.S. citizens and hundreds of children." Chomsky {now 10,000+ people} >> >> Today's News Gazette has a front page story where UILawProf Wexler is pontificating about sexual harassment. Really? Notice below. Wexler had the UILawSchool brag about the fact that she is an "Academic Fellow" of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. As most of us know, the so-called Foundation is a Gang of Die-hard NeoCon Zionist Warmongers, Bigots and Racists against Palestinians/Arabs/Persians/Asians/Muslims of Color. Right now the Foundation is warmongering to get us into a war against Iran on behalf of Israel. Notice Wexler brags about the fact that she spent ten days "exploring" how Israel inflicts war crimes, crimes against humanity and outright genocide against the Palestinians, including and especially Palestinian Women and Children. And Wexler calls this to be an "honor". Basically Wexler is complicit in Israel's war crimes, crimes against humanity and outright genocide against the Palestinians. Article III (e) of the 1948 Genocide Convention explicitly criminalizes "Complicity in genocide." And Wexler is typical of the die-hard bigots, racists and warmongers against Muslims/Arabs/Palestinians/Asians of Color on the College of Law Faculty who brought out Killer Koh here to give his specially endowed lecture on being a Role Model in Excellence for Lawyers in Government Service. Not one member of the UI Law Faculty Gang of Die-hard Bigots, Racists and Warmongers against Muslims/Arabs/Palestinians/Asians of Color supported us in our Protest against Killer Koh. Q.E.D. >> fab >> >> Hey! Hey! >> Wexler Say! >> How many women! >> Did you kill today! >> In Palestine! >> >> Hey! Hey! >> Wexler say! >> How many kids! >> Did you kill today! >> In Palestine! >> >> Hey! Hey! >> Wexler Say! >> How many Dads! >> Did you kill today! >> In Palestine! >> Professor Wexler Selected as Academic Fellow of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies >> Friday, March 09, 2012 >> Lesley Wexler, the Thomas M. Mengler Faculty Scholar, has been selected as an academic fellow of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. As part of the honor, Professor Wexler will be participating in a 10-day program in Israel with other leading U.S. academics exploring how the country combats terrorism. >> >> >> Francis A. Boyle >> Law Building >> 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. >> Champaign, IL 61820 USA >> 217-333-7954 (phone) >> 217-244-1478 (fax) >> (personal comments only) >> >> -------------- next part -------------- >> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... >> URL: >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Subject: Digest Footer >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Peace-discuss mailing list >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> End of Peace-discuss Digest, Vol 166, Issue 326 >> *********************************************** >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Peace-discuss mailing list >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.chambana.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fpeace-discuss&data=02%7C01%7Ckarenaram%40hotmail.com%7C85857c977a0c40ede92108d538450c0a%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636476791556968242&sdata=DGk2cH1Ym9DBL3DnifJWCkC5QkCmeM4ItBL4SDiQg3k%3D&reserved=0 > > > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss