All Out for January 27
• All U.S. Troops Home Now!
• Bush’s Iraq War Goes on Trial
• Military Judge Forbids Illegal War Defense
• Army Targets Journalists
• Nuremberg Principles and Article Six of U.S. Constitution
All U.S. Troops Home Now! All Out for January 27!
While President George W. Bush announced plans to carry out more crimes against the Iraqi people in his January 10 speech, and the U.S. already escalated its wars by bombing Somalia, killing many civilians, Americans across the country immediately protested. More than 1000 actions took place either on the day Bush spoke, or the next day, Thursday, January 11, demanding an immediate end to the war against Iraq, no funds for war, and all U.S. troops home now and full funding for their medical needs.
Demonstrators are especially angered at the Bush call to increase troops, an action that is clearly revenge against the growing Iraqi resistance. It is also a slap in the face to the overwhelming vote in November against war. The level of anger was indicated by the fact that the number of actions jumped from a couple of hundred to more than 500, than more than 1000 over the course of a few days. Many actions were successful despite being called with 1 to 2 days notice. Protestors vigorously said No! to the war and everywhere got the warm support of motorists and passersby.
Activists are using the momentum built in these actions to increase and broaden support for the January 27 demonstrations to End the Iraq War Now. Congress is being targeted so as to hold the Democrats responsible for implementing the popular will of the people to end the war now. Instead Democrats, especially the top leadership, are making clear that the Democratic majority is a pro-war majority that is so far refusing to take action to immediately stop funding the war — a responsibility and power that belongs to Congress. While it is likely one of the non-binding resolutions now being proposed in both the House and Senate expressing the need to "change course" in Iraq may pass, it remains unclear if the Democratic leadership will permit any action beyond that. What is clear for the people is that they are relying on their own forces, broadly organizing for the January 27 actions and putting the Democrats on notice: their failure to act to end the war now will eliminate whatever illusions may still remain that the Democrats as a party are accountable to the people, to the majority, that is adamant in saying, End the War Now!
The January 27 actions are emphasizing that the people will not rest until the war is ended. They are also being taken up as an opportunity for representatives from the peoples from all walks of life to stand together and say that the people are prepared to take charge. The Democrats and Republicans had best beware, as the people will also organize to become the government.
We provide below some of the many reports on the 1000 actions January 10-11, which also included demonstrations for impeachment and to close the Guantánamo concentration camp.
Staunton, Virginia
About 25 people turned out for an 11:30am to 1:30pm rally in front of the Augusta County Courthouse in Staunton, Virginia this morning. The media turned out in force and got an earful about opposition to the war in Iraq. The public was extremely supportive.
Boca Raton, Florida
We were 80 strong tonight at the Boca Peace Corner! Fantastic response from 99 percent of motorists passing our large group of mixed ages from 3 years to 90. Many young people who came out for their first protest as well as quite a few veterans of the military. We chanted “No More Troops” and “Bring the Troops Home” on all 4 corners of the intersection.
Louisville, Kentucky
I just got back from our immediate response to Bush’s speech. More than fifty people met at the Federal Building in downtown Louisville with signs and drums to shout a resounding No! to Bush and his escalation of the War. Even more will be out tomorrow.
Phoenix, Arizona
It went great! We had four orange suits, two military interrogators and an attack dog. Banners — Stop Torture in Our Names, End The Occupation Of Iraq Now, Support Our Troops — Bring Them Home. It was really important and went fabulously.
Lincoln, Nebraska
A spirited rally of 90 people was held at the Federal Building in Lincoln, Nebraska on Wednesday evening to say No! to the President’s planned escalation of U.S. combat troops in Iraq. A second demonstration was organized for.
Lawrence, Kansas
We had 130 people attend! We had a very diverse group. People came from up to 100 miles away to attend. Congresswoman Nancy Boyda better change her mind! We are ready to hold her accountable!
Crested Butte, Colorado
It was cold at 9000 feet in the Rocky Mountains! 12 of us stood at the busiest intersection in Crested Butte, a ski town of 2000 hosting the same number of college students this week. We had signs saying “Bring the Troops Home,” “Imagine all the people living in Peace” “Support the Troops — Bring them Home” and just plain Peace signs. We flashed the peace sign to the steady stream of cars, received many in return, many honks of support.
Beaverton, Oregon
We had 55 people in attendance, many part of our weekly vigil. It was very cold! Lots of creative signs and candles! Many cars and buses honking, giving us the peace sign, thumbs up, etc. in support.
Anaheim, California
There were people on a corner where there has never been any kind of demonstration within many miles. The support from the traffic going by was tremendous. After all, we did win the election. People thanked us for doing their job for them. We were there the moment the speech ended.
[TOP]
In Support of Lt. Ehren Watada
Bush’s Iraq War Goes on Trial
While Lieutenant Ehren Watada awaits his fate at a court martial at Ft. Lewis, Washington in February, American citizens, including Iraq War veterans, will come to nearby Tacoma to participate in a “Citizens’ Hearing on the Legality of U.S. Actions in Iraq.” The organizers of the January 20-21 tribunal indicate that it is of particular relevance to military personnel and their families, and welcome their attendance. Lietta Ruger from the Washington chapter of Military Families Speak Out states, “I do hope my brothers and sisters in military families will take an interest in this hearing as relevant to their immediate lives and concerns.”
The Citizens’ Hearing will be an opportunity for internationally-known experts to present their research into the war’s legality, and for those personally affected by the Iraq War to present their experiences. U.S. public opinion against the war is at an all-time high and President Bush’s “surge” strategy is not winning favor with the new Congress or with some soldiers and their families. Dr. Zoltan Grossman of the tribunal organizing committee asserts: “The discussion within the White House and Congress has focused on how to fight the war, not why it is being fought. Under these circumstances, U.S. citizens (including military veterans and families) have the responsibility to start asking tough questions about the underlying premises of the war.”
Lt. Watada maintains that the war on Iraq is illegal under international treaties and under Article Six of the U.S. Constitution. He further argues that the Nuremberg Principles and U.S. military regulations require soldiers to follow only “lawful orders.” Lt. Watada’s defense requested that these issues be admitted into the court martial, as they were in the 2005 Navy trial of Iraq War refuser Pablo Paredes. Citizens’ Hearing Panel Chair David Krieger asserts, “If Lt. Watada cannot get a full hearing about the war’s legality in a military trial, then his case should at least be aired in the court of public opinion.”
Testifiers will include experts in military policy, international law and war crimes, including:
• Denis Halliday, Former UN Assistant Secretary General, coordinated Iraq humanitarian aid;
• Daniel Ellsberg, Military analyst who released the Pentagon Papers in the Vietnam War;
• Richard Falk, Professor Emeritus of International Law at Princeton University;
• Antonia Juhasz, Policy-analyst and author on U.S. economic policies in Iraq;
• John Burroughs, Lawyers’ Committee on Nuclear Policy Executive Director;
• Benjamin G. Davis, Associate Professor of Law, University of Toledo; expert on law of war;
• Francis Boyle, Professor of international law at University of Illinois (via video).
Testifiers will also include military veterans, and others directly affected by the Iraq War, including:
• Ann Wright, Retired Army Colonel and State Department official;
• Darrell Anderson, Army 1st Armored Division in Baghdad & Najaf; awarded Purple Heart;
• Harvey Tharp, Former U.S. Navy Lieutenant and JAG stationed in Iraq;
• Geoffrey Millard, 8 years in Army National Guard; awarded 13 medals;
• Dennis Kyne, 15 years as Army medic & drill sergeant; trained in NBC warfare;
• Chanan Suarez-Diaz Former Navy hospital corpsman; Purple Heart and valor commendation;
• Nadia McCaffrey Gold Star Families Speak Out; Brussels Tribunal advisory board;
• Eman Khammas Iraqi human rights advocate (via video).
The format of the Citizens’ Hearing will resemble that of a congressional hearing. A panel of citizens will hear the testimony, examine witnesses, and issue a fact-finding report. Panelists will focus on the legality of the war, whether the invasion of Iraq constituted a “crime against peace,” whether the military occupation of Iraq constitutes a “crime against humanity,” and whether individual soldiers have an obligation or duty to refuse unlawful orders that may lead to “war crimes.”
The 12-member Citizens’ Hearing Panel will include veterans of World War II, Korea, and Vietnam, as well as more recent veterans. It will include a military family member, Gold Star family member, and high school student (representing youth of military age). The Panel will also include a government leader, religious leader, labor union member, and health care worker. Half of the panel members are military veterans.
The Citizens’ Hearing will be held at the Evergreen State College’s Tacoma Campus (1210 6th Ave.) on January 20-21, 2007 (10 am-4 pm). This event is free and open to the public. The program (including testifiers, panelists and ways to contribute) can be found at http://www.WarTribunal.org. To help with volunteering, contact Brianna Copley.
[TOP]
Military Judge Forbids Illegal War Defense
Nearly two weeks after hearing arguments in the January 4 pre-trial phase of Lieutenant Ehren Watada’s court martial for refusing to deploy to Iraq, and explaining his refusal to the press, military circuit judge Lieutenant Colonel John M. Head issued brief, tersely worded rulings January 16, 2007. In summation, “The defense motion for a hearing on the ‘Nuremberg defense’ is DENIED. The government motion to prevent the defense from presenting evidence on the legality of the war is GRANTED.” The defense motion to dismiss the four political speech charges was also “DENIED.”
In response to today’s rulings, Lt. Watada’s civilian attorney Eric Seitz of Honolulu declared, “These rulings exemplify the fact that this is a military disciplinary proceeding, and apparently not an actual trial in which concepts of justice apply. Now let someone ask me if I think Ehren can get a fair trial in a military court.” In summation, “These rulings are about as horrible and inept as I could have imagined,” added Seitz.
Lt. Watada is scheduled to go on trial at Fort Lewis, Washington on February 5. He will face two years imprisonment for “missing movement,” and four additional years imprisonment — one for each count of “conduct unbecoming an officer” — for his public statements critical of the Iraq War.
Legality of War Ruled Irrelevant and Out of Order
In a finding of fact, Judge Head noted: “A hearing on the ‘Nuremberg defense’ would consist of witnesses who would testify that the war in Iraq was a crime against peace, a war of aggression, and a violation of the United Nations Charter, other international law, and U.S. law. The accused would testify that his refusal to go to Iraq was based upon the belief that he would be committing war crimes because the United States was involved in a war of aggression and a crime against peace.”
However, in conclusion: “The accused’s motive not to deploy and his belief about the lawfulness of the Iraq War are not elements of the offense. Motive is, therefore, irrelevant on the merits…. Even had the defense been granted the full hearing they requested, the decision would be no different. The evidence proffered all went to a nonjusticiable political question or to an [irrelevant] motive.”
During the pre-trial hearing, Seitz asserted, “The legality of the Iraq War is not merely a political question. Lt. Watada’s specific intent was to avoid unlawful actions in Iraq. For the sake of due process, we need the opportunity to raise this issue.” Ruling on due process: DENIED.
All Political Speech Charges Advance to Trial
Citing the military court’s 1967 conviction of Lieutenant Henry Howe for attending an anti-war protest with a picket sign that read, “Let’s have more than a choice between petty ignorant fascists in 1969,” Judge Head dismissed out of hand any inherent protections of political speech for members of the military.
In a friend of the court brief filed in Lt. Watada’s Article 32 hearing [to determine if there were grounds for court-martial] the American Civil Liberties Union wrote: “If the [political speech] charges leveled in this case are allowed to proceed, it would mean that service members are completely barred from voicing their honest opinions on political subjects of significant public concern. Silencing speech like Lieutenant Watada’s violates the Constitution while it also harms the military and the public at large.” Ruling on U.S. Constitution: DENIED.
During the pre-trial hearing, Judge Head even had to ask the lead prosecutor Captain Kuecker, “Hasn’t the prosecution made these questions [of war legality] relevant by the way you have charged this case? Aren’t you trying to block these issues for coming in the front door, but opening up the back door?” asked Judge Head. “You have charged motive as an offense.”
Kuecker feebly replied that there are two separate prosecutions going on. The first is for Lt. Watada missing movement to Iraq — a prosecution where his motive is so irrelevant that it needs to be barred from the military jury. The second prosecution will be for Lt. Watada publicly explaining his motive! Apparently this Orwellian formulation passes for military justice.
Citizens’ Hearing Scheduled to Hear All Evidence
Having anticipated the possibility of justice being denied in Lt. Watada’s upcoming court martial, a Citizens’ Hearing has been convened for January 20-21 at Evergreen State College, Tacoma campus. The purpose of this hearing is to fully evaluate Lt. Watada’s claims regarding the legality and morality of the Iraq War. Confirmed witness include: Daniel Ellsberg, military analyst who released the Pentagon Papers in the Vietnam War; Denis Halliday, former United Nation’s Assistant Secretary General; Richard Falk, Professor Emeritus of International Law at Princeton University. (For more information: www.WarTribunal.org)
Supporters of Lt. Watada are still being asked to write Lieutenant General James Dubik, Commanding General Fort Lewis, 1 Corps Building 2025 Stop 1, Fort Lewis Washington, 98433. Please request that General Dubik “Dismiss all charges and honor Lt. Watada’s long-standing resignation from the U.S. Army.”
The regional mobilization at Fort Lewis on February 5, the day Lt. Watada’s court martial is scheduled to begin, is underway. Information about actually attending the proceeding on Fort Lewis, transit, housing, art/work parties, and many other Seattle-Olympia area details of the mobilization are coming soon. Supporters across the country will also be holding local protests and vigils in their communities.
Send info about your event to action@ltwatada.org and courage@riseup.net so we can be sure to post your event to inspire others. Check www.ThankYouLt.org and www.CourageToResist.org for unfolding details.[TOP]
Subpoenas for Watada Court Martial
Army Targets Journalists
In a move that threatens the First Amendment rights of journalists, the U.S. Army has subpoenaed journalist Sarah Olson to testify at the February 5 court-martial of Lieutenant Ehren Watada. The Army placed another journalist, Dahr Jamail, on the prosecution witness list.
With yesterday’s ruling by military judge Lieutenant Colonel John Head that all charges against Lt. Watada will go to trial in February, a showdown between these reporters and the military draws nearer. Both journalists are fighting back, saying the Army’s attempt to compel their participation in the court-martial threatens press freedom and chills free speech.
“My duty,” Olson says, “is to the public and its right to know and not to the government.” In a recent San Francisco Chronicle article, Olson explained, “Journalists should not be asked to participate in the prosecution of political speech.”
The subpoena reads, “The President of the United States, to Ms. Sarah Olson. You are hereby summoned and required to appear on the 5-9 day of February, 2007 at 9:00 o’clock A.M. at Bldg 2027, Fort Lewis [Washington] to testify as a witness in the matter of U.S. v. Watada. Failure to appear and testify is punishable by a fine of not more than $500 or imprisonment for a period not more than six months, or both.”
The Society of Professional Journalists, the PEN American Center, Military Reporters and Editors, Media Alliance, the Los Angeles Times, and many others have published statements in support of Olson.
“Do I want to be sent to prison by the U.S. Army for not cooperating with their prosecution of Lieutenant Watada? My answer: Absolutely not. You may also ask: Would I rather contribute to the prosecution of a news source for sharing newsworthy perspectives on an affair of national concern? That is the question I wholly object to having before me in the first place,” described Olson in an Editor & Publisher Op-Ed entitled “Why I object to testifying against Lt. Watada.”
Colleagues and supporters of Sarah Olson and Dahr Jamail have formed the Free Press Working Group to assist in their defense. As independent journalists, they do not have access to corporate legal teams, so a fund has been established to cover travel, legal, and communications expenses.
Meanwhile, under a new federal law, journalists embedded with U.S. troops could now be directly subjected to a military court martial for the first time. Phillip Carter, a contracting lawyer with McKenna Long & Aldridge, explained in Monday’s Washington Post, “One could imagine a situation in which a commander is unhappy with what a reporter is writing and could use the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) to pressure the reporter.” Crimes covered by UCMJ include disobeying an order, fraternization, contempt of government officials, and conduct unbecoming — among many others.
For additional info: www.FreePressWG.org, couragetoresist.org[TOP]
Laws Concerning Legality of Iraq War
Many of the soldiers refusing to serve in Iraq, like Lieutenant Ehren Watada, are doing so on the basis that the war itself is illegal and thus, all orders to participate in the war are illegal. They site two important laws, the Nuremberg Principles defining crimes against the peace, war crimes and crimes against humanity, and the U.S. Constitution, Article Six, especially paragraphs two and three, as binding and applicable to the Iraq War and all U.S. wars of aggression.
Nuremberg Principles
Following the Second World War and the world experience in the defeat of fascism by the peoples, humanity codified in law principles to block the return of fascism and to outlaw wars of aggression. The Geneva Conventions, the United Nations (UN) Declaration of Human Rights and the Nuremberg Principles are among the laws and norms established and that stand as law of the land in the United States. The Nuremberg Principles, in particular, were adopted in 1950 by the UN International Law Commission. They define war crimes and crimes against the peace. A main premise of the Principles is that no person, no matter what their office, stands above international law. They also made clear that “following orders,” is not a defense and in fact that refusal to follow illegal orders is a right and duty of soldiers.
Principle I
Any person who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is responsible therefore and liable to punishment.
Principle II
The fact that internal law does not impose a penalty for an act which constitutes a crime under international law does not relieve the person who committed the act from responsibility under international law.
Principle III
The fact that a person who committed an act which constitutes a crime under international law acted as Head of State or responsible Government official does not relieve him from responsibility under international law.
Principle IV
The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.
Principle V
Any person charged with a crime under international law has the right to a fair trial on the facts and law.
Principle VI
The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under; international law:
A. Crimes against peace:
1. Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;
2. Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (1).
B. War crimes:
Violations of the laws or customs of war which include, but are not limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave-labor or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war, of persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.
C. Crimes against humanity:
Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhuman acts done against any civilian population, or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds, when such acts are done or such persecutions are carried on in execution of or in connection with any crime against peace or any war crime.
Principle VII
Complicity in the commission of a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity as set forth in Principles VI is a crime under international law.
Article VI of the Constitution
Article VI of the Constitution, specifically paragraphs two and three, makes all treaties signed law of the land and requires government officials to uphold them. It read as follows:
All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
[TOP]