To be sure, I personally oppose the imposition of capital punishment upon any person for any reason no matter how monstrous their crimes: Bush Jr., Tony Blair, Saddam Hussein, Slobodan Milosevic, Vladimir Putin, Ariel Sharon, my former client John Wayne Gacy, etc.
Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (voice) 217-244-1478 (fax) fbo...@law.uiuc.edu (personal comments only) -----Original Message----- From: n...@olm.blythe-systems.com [mailto:n...@olm.blythe-systems.com] Sent: Friday, June 10, 2005 9:51 AM To: undisclosed-recipients Subject: [NYTr] National Campaign to Impeach George W Bush Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit The National Campaign to Impeach President George W. Bush by Professor Francis A. Boyle Since the U.S. Supreme Court's installation of George W. Bush as President in January of 2001, the peoples of the world have witnessed a government in the United States of America that demonstrates little if any respect for fundamental considerations of international law, international organizations, and human rights, let alone appreciation of the requirements for maintaining international peace and security. What the world has watched instead is a comprehensive and malicious assault upon the integrity of the international legal order by a group of men and women who are thoroughly Machiavellian in their perception of international relations and in their conduct of both foreign policy and domestic affairs. This is not simply a question of giving or withholding the benefit of the doubt when it comes to complicated matters of foreign affairs and defense policies to a U.S. government charged with the security of both its own citizens and those of its allies in Europe, the Western Hemisphere, and the Pacific. Rather, the Bush Jr. administration's foreign policies represent a gross deviation from those basic rules of international deportment and civilized behavior that the United States government had traditionally played the pioneer role in promoting for the entire world community. Even more seriously, in many instances specific components of the Bush Jr. administration's foreign policies constitute ongoing criminal activity under well-recognized principles of both international law and U.S. domestic law, and in particular the Nuremberg Charter, the Nuremberg Judgment, and the Nuremberg Principles. Depending upon the substantive issues involved, those international crimes typically include but are not limited to the Nuremberg offenses of crimes against peace, crimes against humanity and war crimes, as well as grave breaches of the Four Geneva Conventions of 1949 and the 1907 Hague Regulations on land warfare, torture, disappearances, and assassinations. In addition, various members of the Bush Jr. administration committed numerous inchoate crimes incidental to these substantive offenses that under the Nuremberg Charter, Judgment, and Principles were international crimes in their own right: viz., planning, preparation, solicitation, incitement, conspiracy, complicity, attempt, aiding and abetting, etc. Of course the great irony of today's situation is that six decades ago at Nuremberg, representatives of the U.S. government participated in the prosecution, punishment and execution of Nazi government officials for committing some of the same types of heinous international crimes that members of the Bush Jr. administration currently inflict upon people all around the world. To be sure, I personally oppose the imposition of capital punishment upon any person for any reason no matter how monstrous their crimes: Bush Jr., Tony Blair, Saddam Hussein, Slobodan Milosevic, Vladimir Putin, Ariel Sharon, my former client John Wayne Gacy, etc. Furthermore, according to basic principles of international criminal law, all high-level civilian officials and military officers in the U.S. government who either knew or should have known that soldiers or civilians under their control committed or were about to commit international crimes, and failed to take the measures necessary to stop them, or to punish them, or both, are likewise personally responsible for the commission of international crimes. This category of officialdom who actually knew or at least should have known of the commission of such substantive or inchoate international crimes under their jurisdiction and failed to do anything about it typically includes the Secretary of Defense, Secretary of State, Director of Central Intelligence, the National Security Adviser, the Attorney General, the Pentagon's Joint Chiefs of Staff and regional CINCs, and presumably the President and Vice President. These U.S. government officials and their immediate subordinates, among others, were personally responsible for the commission or at least complicity in the commission of crimes against peace, crimes against humanity, and war crimes as specified by the Nuremberg Charter, Judgment, and Principles - at a minimum. In international legal terms, the Bush Jr. administration itself should be viewed as constituting an ongoing criminal conspiracy under international criminal law. Consequently, on Tuesday 11 March 2003, with the Bush Jr. administration's war of aggression against Iraq staring the American People, Congress and Republic in their face, Congressman John Conyers of Michigan, the Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee (which has jurisdiction over Bills of Impeachment), convened an emergency meeting of forty or more of his top advisors, most of whom were lawyers. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss and debate immediately putting into the U.S. House of Representatives Bills of Impeachment against President Bush Jr., Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and then Attorney General John Ashcroft in order to head off the impending war. Congressman Conyers kindly requested that Ramsey Clark and I come to the meeting in order to argue the case for impeachment. This impeachment debate lasted for two hours. It was presided over by Congressman Conyers, who quite correctly did not tip his hand one way or the other on the merits of impeachment. He simply moderated the debate between Clark and I, on the one side, favoring immediately filing Bills of Impeachment against Bush Jr. et al. to stop the threatened war, and almost everyone else there who were against impeachment for partisan political reasons. Obviously no point would be served here by attempting to digest a two-hour-long vigorous debate among a group of well-trained lawyers on such a controversial matter at this critical moment in American history. But at the time I was struck by the fact that this momentous debate was conducted at a private office right down the street from the White House on the eve of war. Suffice it to say that most of the "experts" there opposed impeachment not on the basis of enforcing the Constitution and the Rule of Law, whether international or domestic, but on the political grounds that it might hurt the Democratic Party effort to get their presidential candidate elected in the year 2004. As a political independent, I did not argue that point. Rather, I argued the merits of impeaching Bush Jr., Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Ashcroft under the United States Constitution, U.S. federal laws, U.S. treaties and other international agreements to which the United States is a party, etc. Article VI of the U.S. Constitution provides that treaties "shall be the supreme Law of the Land." This so-called Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution also applies to international executive agreements concluded under the auspices of the U.S. President such as the 1945 Nuremberg Charter. Congressman Conyers was so kind as to allow me the closing argument in the debate. Briefly put, the concluding point I chose to make was historical: The Athenians lost their democracy. The Romans lost their Republic. And if we Americans did not act now we could lose our Republic! The United States of America is not immune to the laws of history! After two hours of most vigorous debate among those in attendance, the meeting adjourned with second revised draft Bills of Impeachment sitting on the table. Certainly, if the U.S. House of Representatives can impeach President Clinton for sex and lying about sex, then a fortiori the House can, should, and must impeach President Bush Jr. for war, lying about war, and threatening more wars. All that is needed is for one Member of Congress with courage, integrity, principles and a safe seat to file these currently amended draft Bills of Impeachment against Bush Jr., Cheney, Rumsfeld, and now Attorney General Albert Gonzales, who bears personal criminal responsibility for the Bush Jr. administration torture scandal. Failing this, the alternative is likely to be an American Empire abroad, a U.S. police state at home, and continuing wars of aggression to sustain both-along the lines of George Orwell's classic novel 1984. Despite all of the serious flaws demonstrated by successive United States governments that this author has amply documented elsewhere during the past quarter century as a Professor of Law, the truth of the matter is that America is still the oldest Republic in the world today. "We the People of the United States" must fight to keep it that way! [Francis A. Boyle is a Professor of Intrnatinal Law and a human rights attorney. He is the author of "Destroying World Order" (2004, Clarity Press).] * ================================================================ .NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems . Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us . .339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012 http://www.blythe.org .List Archives: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/ .Subscribe: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr ================================================================ From rhalp...@mail.smu.edu Sun Jun 12 02:25:50 2005 From: rhalp...@mail.smu.edu (Rick Halperin) Date: Tue Aug 16 12:16:03 2005 Subject: [Deathpenalty]death penalty news----worldwide Message-ID: <pine.wnt.4.44.0506120125410.3152-100...@its08705.smu.edu> June 10 TRINIDAD & TOBAGO: Fears of a prison riot Prison officers fear for their lives since the announcement of the resumption of hanging of death row prisoners. "Once Government is playing politics and talking about hanging people, they are putting my officers lives at risk because the mood at the condemned area has changed," Kenneth Mathison, general secretary of the Prison Officers Association, said yesterday. He was responding to questions at a press conference in San Fernando called by The Federation of Independent Trade Unions and Non Governmental Organisations (FITUN) to announce Labour Day plans for Fyzabad. Mathison said the situation had become volatile and that prison officers at the nation's "heavily understaffed" prisons fear that prisoners could start rioting. As it is now, there is a ratio of about 40 prisoners to an officer "and if a riot breaks out in prison now, a lot of officers could be damaged if not dead," he said. Mathison said the major problem at the prisons was understaffing, resulting in overworked and underpaid prison officers. He said there were about 2,000 officers, but there was need for some 3,500 officers to handle the nation's prison population. "Officers' lives are being intimidated. Just imagine one officer sometimes has to work alone with all the prisoners in condemned cells. We do not have enough staff to man the condemned cells in Port of Spain, "Mathison said. Because of the understaffing, he said, "the prison system does not operate properly, things cannot happen they way it should, programmes of rehabilitation and restoration cannot be implemented. Nothing can work until we are properly manned." Mathison said in some cases there were 300 inmates in a yard with one officer, and government was doing nothing to help. Mathison said Trinidad prisons had not been hit by riots, as had happened in other countries, but that did not mean it could not happen. (source: Trinidad Express) INDIA: Tihar Prisons execution data state secret: rights group Execution records at Delhi's Tihar are a "state secret," a rights group has alleged, citing what it claims is a response it has received from authorities at Asia's largest prison over a request for the data on hangings since 1947. "In its reply dated May 12, 2005, the DIG (Prisons) refused to provide the information on the grounds that 'some of the persons who have been executed were convicted for various offences having prejudicial affect on the sovereignty and integrity of India and security of the NCT of Delhi and international relations and could lead to incitement of an offence...," People's Union for Democratic Rights (PUDR) Secretary Deepika Tandon said in a statement here. The PUDR, which opposes death penalty, said it had requested execution records under the Delhi Right to Information Act-2001. It accused Tihar authorities of placing India beside Vietnam, China and Uzbekistan where executions are state secrets. The PUDR also cited observations of the UN Commission on Human Rights about certain countries cloaking execution information in secrecy. (source: PUDR)
