View previous stories
	No Clowning around Weapons of Mass Destruction by Bill Quigley Truthout - Perspective USA   12 September 2006   Priest and two veterans in WMD protest must go to trial.   A federal judge cleared the way for a priest and two veterans to be tried before a federal jury on September 13, 2006, for damaging a Minuteman III intercontinental nuclear missile in North Dakota.   The three, dressed as clowns, hammered and poured their blood on the silo of the 40-ton weapon. The bomb has over 20 times the destructive power of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima. If convicted on the felony charges of criminal damage to property, each protester faces up to 10 years in federal prison and a fine of up to $250,000.   They dressed as clowns "to show that humor and laughter are key elements in the struggle to transform the structures of destruction and death. Clowns as court jesters were sometimes the only ones able to survive after speaking truth to power."   Warheads launched from the Minuteman III missile silo can reach any destination within 6000 miles in 35 minutes. The nuclear bomb launched from a Minuteman silo produces uncontrollable radiation, massive heat and a blast capable of vaporizing and leveling everything within a 50-mile radius. Outside the 50 square miles - extending into hundreds of miles - the blast, wide-spread heat, firestorms and neutron and gamma rays are intended to kill, severely wound, and poison every living thing and cause long-term damage to the environment.   Because the Minuteman III is a weapon of mass destruction, they argued, it is illegal under international law.   In a statement, defendants challenged the hypocrisy of US policy on nuclear weapons. "US leaders speak about the dangers of other nations acquiring nuclear weapons while our nation has thousands of horrific weapons of mass destruction. Our nation fails to act in accordance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which commits the US to take steps to disarm its weapons of mass destruction. We act in order to bring attention to people''s responsibility for disarming weapons of state terrorism."   The judge refused to dismiss the charges, saying: "The laws of the United States do not support the theory that an individual has a right or responsibility to correct a perceived violation of international law or humanitarian law or tribal law or religious law by willfully destroying government property."   Known as the Weapons of Mass Destruction Here Plowshares, the defendants are: Fr. Carl Kabat, 72, a Catholic priest who has spent more than fifteen years in prison for anti-nuclear protests; Greg Boertje-Obed, 51, a husband, father and ex-military officer; and Michael Walli, 57, a Vietnam veteran. Boertje-Obed and Walli are members of the Loaves and Fishes Catholic Worker community in Duluth, Minnesota.   Francis Boyle, a professor of law at the University of Illinois, submitted his legal opinion to the court in support of dismissing the charges: "Where the "property" allegedly damaged is part of an illegal and criminal threat of use of a weapon of mass destruction - these defendants acted lawfully and reasonably to prevent the most egregious and fundamentally prohibited of all crimes, war crimes."   Testimony from the Mayor of Hiroshima about the effects of nuclear weapons and the 1996 advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice outlawing nuclear weapons were submitted to the court.   "We are not criminals," Fr. Kabat told the court. "We are following the laws of morality. These weapons are the crimes against humanity!"   The jury trial will be held in Bismarck, North Dakota. Defendants, who remain in jail awaiting trial, are now dressed in black and white striped jail jumpsuits. No word yet on how they intend to dress for their appearance in court.   (Bill Quigley is a human rights lawyer and teaches at Loyola University New Orleans School of Law. Bill is a legal advisor to the protestors).
	UN Rights Commissioner urges programme of secret detentions be completely abolished by UN News / Le Monde   8 Sept. 2006 (UN News)   José Luis Díaz of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights said he had received questions about the comments by the President of the United States on secret detainees. The High Commissioner considered the announcement that persons held in undisclosed locations had been transferred and would now be accessible to the ICRC, and that their cases would now be subjected to a judicial process, was significant. However she urged that the programme of secret detention be completely abolished. The High Commissioner recalled that secret and incommunicado detention in themselves infringed international law and could create an environment ripe for other abusive conduct. The High Commissioner noted that the announcement coincided with the public unveiling of a new United States Army Field Manual, which contained a more explicit prohibition of torture and ill treatment and represented another important step. However, the “alternative set of procedures” the CIA used in interrogations was still secret, so that one was unable to verify the compliance of those techniques with international standards.   07 September 2006   Bush and the Law. (Le Monde - Editorial)   Defenders of human rights in the United States and elsewhere may rejoice over the speech George Bush pronounced Wednesday, September 6. The American president acknowledged the existence of "secret prisons," in which the CIA (Central Intelligence Agency) locked up proven or presumed terrorists outside the United States, in order to be able to interrogate them as it liked. It is the first time since this "special program" was revealed by the Washington Post in November 2005 that the White House has confessed the truth. The governments suspected of having accepted these prisons - in Eastern Europe, the Near East, and Asia - had multiplied their denials.   Mr. Bush made a second concession - apparently, at least - to a government of law, by announcing that fourteen people detained within the framework of that "special program" had been transferred to the prison at Guantanamo Bay, the naval base on the island of Cuba where, since January 2002, the Pentagon has brought together prisoners captured in the framework of the war against terrorism.   According to the Washington Post, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice had clashed for several months with Vice President Richard Cheney to convince Mr. Bush of the necessity of acknowledging the truth with respect to these secret prisons and of complying with international law by emptying them. John Kerry, Democratic candidate for the 2004 presidential election, was pleased to see his opponent constrained to admit that his government had "violated the Constitution and broken the law for five years."   The new Army manual, which fixes the rules of conduct for all Pentagon personnel, also marks a step backward for the Bush government. It effectively admits that the Geneva Conventions apply to all prisoners, whether or not they belong to a regular army, contrary to the original position adopted by the White House. On top of that, the "interrogation techniques" used notably at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq are explicitly forbidden from now on.   This housecleaning is welcome. But it must not cover up the essential. Mr. Bush defended the CIA"s "special program." Finally, and above all, he only bailed out on the most scandalous of his "war against terror" practices in order to pressure Congress to adopt legislation allowing Guantanamo prisoners to be tried by exceptional tribunals. One battle for the law has been won, but the war is not over.
	View more stories