"News Fit to Transmit in the Post Cassini Flyby Era"
BushWar * Zinn * Constitution * Peace * Rachel * bloodbath?
18 March 2003"Of all the enemies to public liberty, war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes. And armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. "In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended. Its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force of the people. "The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war… and in the degeneracy of manners and morals, engendered by both. No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare."
- James Madison, April 20, 1795 1) BUSH STAGES `SHOOTOUT' AT IRAQ CORRAL
Court Challenge Still Alive Challenging Bush War Declaration
Marbury v. Madison Celebrates 200 Years as the Law of the Land2) Howard Zinn: War is terrorism
3) Greenpeace Uniting for Peace Link
4) Rachel Corrie - Peace Activist Killed by Israeli Bulldozer
5) Felicity Arbuthnot: "There is going to be a bloodbath"
George W. has chosen the 200th anniversary-year of the Marbury v. Madison case to declare unilateral war against the principles of the US Constitution.
Item 1 begins with Congressman Jesse Jackson Jr.'s press release on the misleading Bush Speech. Perhaps the following description by Goodsister is even more revealing:"Bu$h's handlers must've told him to cool the Valium and the everpresent smirk this time, because he looked a little less glassy-eyed, and kept those thin lips from sneering most of the time. But hearing him drone on in lying cliches I'm sick of hearing, I felt the horror of the moment like an electric charge up my spine.
This is the way the world ends, I thought. Not with a bang but a droning, boring whine from a spoiled, aging frat boy who thinks he talks directly to God. It's ironic that the end of the world should be signaled not by a shout, or an eloquent and fiery speech by a demagogue, but instead by this weak, spotty assortment of cliches, embarrassing in their simplemindedness."
Still, in item 1, is information on the pending court challenge on the Bush unilateral declaration for war. Also, is some information from another Goodsister's moderated list serve - United-Stands-America@yahoogroups.com - from Scott Thurston, worth repeating, here:
** Article I, Section 8(11) states that only congress can declare war and Article III, Section 2.1 states that "The President shall be commander-in-chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several States, WHEN CALLED INTO THE ACTUAL SERVICE OF THE UNITED STATES";...(emphasis added)
Item 2 is from a PBS News Hour with Jim Lehrer Transcript from a program called: "Historical Perspectives", which aired on March 17, 2003 - immediately following President Bush's war speech. This item has excerpts mainly from the historical and real perspective from Howard Zinn.
Item 3 is on a critical action you can take with Greenpeace: "If ever there was a need for the United Nations to rise to the challenge it was conceived to meet, now is that time. . . Through a little-used mechanism known as Resolution 377A, the "Uniting for Peace" resolution, the General Assembly may be the last hope for disarming Iraq peaceably and stopping the US war machine." Please visit their link and contact UN ambassadors to support this resolution! ASAP!
Item 4 is about the tragic story of Rachel Corrie, a peace activist killed by an Israeli bulldozer. You can read from Rachel's own words, and her mom's. It is not too late to stop this war, and stop policies that Rachel gave her life to prevent. As Howard Zinn stated: "War is terrorism!" Item 5 is from an interview with Felicity Arbuthnot: "There is going to be a bloodbath," and she expects the use of nuclear weapons, but not if the world wakes up in time! Please help stop an illegal and unjust war.
This Thursday and next Tuesday, Flyby News will be showing the film, "What I've Learned About US Foreign Policy: The War Against the Third World." This video compilation is an excellent educational tool. We plan to show part of it, and engage people in a discussion on what we can do to reclaim our democracy. Flyby News highly recommends your purchasing a copy. For more information on this, and other actions, visit FlybyNews.com CAMPAIGNS * ACTIONS * EVENTS"The world is a dangerous place to live;
not because of the people who are evil,
but because of the people that don't do anything about it."
– Albert Einstein
1) BUSH STAGES `SHOOTOUT' AT IRAQ CORRAL Court Challenge Still Alive Challenging Bush War Declaration
Marbury v. Madison Celebrates 200 Years as the Law of the Land
BUSH STAGES `SHOOTOUT' AT IRAQ CORRAL
President Orders Saddam To `Get Out Of Dodge'
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Monday, March 17, 2003
Congressman Jesse L. Jackson, Jr. - using language similar to the cowboy and gunslinger image this President likes to project - said, "President Bush tonight announced that he is staging a `high noon' shootout at the Iraq corral in 48 hours. President Bush has ordered Saddam Hussein to `get out of Dodge.' Without UN sanction and with a new doctrine of preemption, the former owner of the Texas Rangers is now acting as the Lone Ranger. Unlike his father's success at building a United Nation's `coalition of the willing' in 1991, this President's failure to get a UN resolution means he is going to war with a `coalition of the wanting.' His actions also shred Secretary of State Colin Powell's military doctrine.
"For over a decade, the Powell Doctrine has served presidents of both parties as a guidepost in determining whether or not American Armed Forces should be committed to battle. As articulated in a 1992 article in Foreign Affairs magazine, Colin Powell provided a prudent template for judging the acceptability of a proposed military action by the U.S. The Powell Doctrine posed several questions:
* Is a vital national security interest threatened?
* Do we have a clear attainable objective?
* Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed?
* Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted?
* Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?
* Have the consequences of our action been fully considered?
* Is the action supported by the American people?
* Do we have genuine broad international support?
"Each question posed by Colin Powell, when applied to Iraq, renders a negative answer - which means Bush has shredded the Powell Doctrine. The Powell Doctrine is dead!
"Finally," Congressman Jackson said, "our lawyers have gone back into the Federal Court of Appeals in Boston to challenge the President's authority to wage war without a declaration from Congress."
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Court Challenge Still Alive Challenging Bush War Declaration
For Immediate Release:
DATE: March 17, 2003
COURT CHALLENGE TO BUSH STILL ALIVE
BUSH MOMENT OF TRUTH COMES TO FEDERAL COURT
Justin Kazmark (646) 495-4960 firstname.lastname@example.org
Andy Morris (646) 495-4958 email@example.com
John Bonifaz (attorney), (617) 524-2675 or (617) 529-4611 (cell)
Charles Richardson and Nancy Lessin (parent plaintiffs), (617) 522-9323, (617) 320-5301 (cell), (508) 277-9466 (cell)
Last Week¹s Court of Appeals Ruling Opens Door To Judicial Intervention In War Against Iraq
-- Plaintiffs Resubmitting Suit Today Because Conditions Are Ripe --
Boston The lawsuit filed by active-duty U.S. soldiers, parents of U.S. soldiers and 12 Members of Congress to prevent the President from waging war against Iraq without a formal Declaration of War by Congress will resubmit the case today. The case will again go before the same three-judge panel of the First U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that dismissed the case on Thursday last week on "ripeness" grounds essentially saying the timing was not right for it to get involved.
"The case is very much alive," said John Bonifaz, lead attorney for the plaintiffs. "We are not going to wait until the bombs fall. If the President moves us closer to war without U.N. authorization, this case will be ripe for the court's review and will demand judicial intervention to prevent an unjust and unconstitutional war."
While the Doe v. Bush case was dismissed by a federal appeals court on Thursday, the three-judge panel gave the plaintiffs a "partial victory" by making it clear they would be open to looking at the issues again should President Bush order an invasion of Iraq without the authorization of the United Nations. The lawsuit challenges the President¹s authority to wage war in Iraq without a Congressional Declaration of War, as required by the Constitution in Article I, Section 8.
This case should be of major concern to the Bush Administration and could slow the timing for an invasion of Iraq should President Bush try to proceed without the authorization of the United Nations, said law professors who studied the 30-page opinion Friday. The First Circuit Court decision is important precisely because it turns on the ripeness of the claim. The court gives every indication that it is taking the plaintiffs' case seriously but that are not yet ready for adjudication. The court leaves open for consideration whether the President actually has power to declare war absent specific Congressional action. It is interesting that they did not find that the plaintiff lacked standing or that the whole case is a political question. Rather, the court emphasized that it is not ripe so the wheel is still very much in spin, said Jamin Raskin, a law professor at the Washington College of Law at American University in Washington, D.C.
If the court were then to grant the request for an injunction preventing the President from invading Iraq absent further action by Congress, the issue will be thrown to Congress to vote up or down on whether to go to war without U.N. authorization. Such a decision could delay the start of the war or even force the Bush Administration to wait until it has U.N. backing, should that be the decision of the Congress.
The fact the lawsuit is still alive hinges on an understanding of certain esoteric legal doctrines. The appeals court could have dismissed the case on "political question" grounds, as the lower trial court had. This means that the issues are so political that they would be best left to the legislative and executive branches of government. If the case had been dismissed on these "political question" grounds, it would have essentially killed the lawsuit.
According to Thursday's opinion, the Plaintiffs' claim will be ripe for hearing as soon as it becomes clear either that the Security Council will not authorize war, and that the President will proceed nonetheless.¹ Today we seem to have arrived at that situation. If the president wants to proceed to war without U.N. approval, and without being delayed by proceedings in a federal court, he would be well-advised to obtain Congress' authorization of an attack on Iraq,² said Nancy Lessin, one of the parent plaintiffs in the case.
Those suing include a coalition of U.S. soldiers, parents of U.S. soldiers from seven states, and 12 congress people. Two weeks ago, the group won a rare expedited review by the First Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston of a lower-court dismissal. The lawsuit was originally filed on February 13. The lead plaintiffs are three U.S. soldiers, including a Marine currently stationed in the Persian Gulf. The U.S. Justice Department is representing President Bush and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, the named defendants.
The above press release was written by Andy Morris and Co (contact info above)
Up to Date information on the case with copies of legal filings may be found at
Military Families Speak Out: http://www.mfso.org
and Traprock Peace Center http://traprockpeace.org
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Marbury v. Madison Celebrates 200 Years as the Law of the Land
by Scott Thurston
Marbury V. Madison celebrates its 200th Birthday this year and has received little to no attention. I believe the words written by this nations highest court in this landmark case are worthy of our attention and consideration in light of the fact that; we have a sitting president who has taken it upon himself to unilaterally declare war in clear violation of our Federal Constitution**; we have a judicial system that is corrupt and in which the dispensation of justice is secondary to the dollar; we have a legislature that is manipulated by elite, corporate interests to pass laws, many of which are "repugnant" to our Federal Constitution.
**Article I, Section 8(11) states that only congress can declare war and Article III, Section 2.1 states that "The President shall be commander-in-chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several States, WHEN CALLED INTO THE ACTUAL SERVICE OF THE UNITED STATES";...(emphasis added)
In the battle for Liberty,
Scott Thurston (TJL)http://www.angelfire.com/az/sthurston/RealityZone.htmlhttp://www.angelfire.com/az/sthurston
2) Howard Zinn: War is terrorism
The following is [EXCERPTED] from a special PBS News Hour with Jim Lehrer Transcript "HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVES" March 17, 2003 -
which followed President Bush speaking from the White House
JIM LEHRER: President Bush speaking from the White House.
Some perspective now on what the president just said from four historians. From Boston University: Robert Dallek who has written extensively on the American presidency and the history of American foreign policy; and Professor Emeritus Howard Zinn, author of A People's History of the United States and The Politics of History, among others. Walter Russell Mead, a senior fellow for U.S. foreign policy at the Council on Foreign Relations; and Diane Kunz, a diplomatic historian, formally at Yale University. She's the author of utter and Guns: America's Cold War, Economic Diplomacy.
EXCERPT - for the complete transcript, see:http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/white_house/jan-june03/historians_3-17.html
JIM LEHRER: Howard Zinn, what did you think of the president's case for war?
HOWARD ZINN: Well, as Robert Dallek, says it's the usual case but the one thing that is missing in so much of the discussion is that we are going to kill a lot of people in this operation. It's all well and good to talk about the promise of a different Iraq, a democratic and free Iraq, a promise which is very dubious considering the history of the United States.
It's a history in which it has not been very good at creating democracy, a history in which it has rather supported dictatorships around the world, but we are going to kill -- and think of it this way -- we talk about Saddam Hussein and what he's doing to the people of Iraq -- we are going to kill the victims of Saddam Hussein. The civilians of Baghdad are going to be living under terrorism.
We are concerned about terrorism. War is terrorism. The people of Baghdad are going to be terrorized. Shock and all, we are going to unleash enormous numbers of bombs on the cities and villages of Baghdad. Now we can't... that is certain. What is uncertain is the future. When you face certain horrors in war and uncertainties about the outcome, morally you cannot go along with this war.
And I think that's why most of the world is outraged at what the United States is about to do. They are right. President Bush is right now the greatest danger to world peace. He is also the greatest danger to our young men and women whom he is sending into combat. Those who die, not just those who die in Iraq, but those people in our armed forces who die, they will die because President Bush has grandiose ambitions for American power in the world. They will die because of oil. They will die because of politics. They will die because of the need of the United States government to expand its power. Those are not good reasons for people to die -- there or here.
How will posterity remember this era?
JIM LEHRER: I take it then you disagree with what Walter Mead just said that over time public opinion throughout the world will swing to the Bush position and the American position?
HOWARD ZINN: Nobody knows how public opinion will look. Predicting the future and predicting public opinion, we don't know what is going to happen in the future.
We do know what is going to happen immediately. And what is going to happen immediately is that the United States is going to be really endangering the people of the United States, not just the people of Iraq because even the CIA has said that the threat of terrorism will grow if we go to war.
The United States government, by going to war, is making the American people less safe, is putting us in greatest danger. For Bush to talk about national security doesn't make any sense. He is endangering the security of the United States just as he is endangering the security of the people in Iraq. I might say one more thing. Iraq was a real danger... just one more sentence.
If Iraq was a real danger to the world, then why is it that all the countries around Iraq and why is it that the countries of the rest of the world do not want to go to war? Why is it that the most powerful military country in the world with oceans on both sides is going to war against Iraq? The reasons are not the ones given by President Bush.
3) Greenpeace Uniting for Peace Link
The leaders of the most powerful nations on Earth have failed us. The Security Council has failed us. The world stands on the brink of war.
If ever there was a need for the United Nations to rise to the challenge it was conceived to meet, now is that time.
Through a little-used mechanism known as Resolution 377A, the "Uniting for Peace" resolution, the General Assembly may be the last hope for disarming Iraq peaceably and stopping the US war machine.
You can write to your UN ambassador to support this resolution from here:http://act.greenpeace.org/aas/e?a=ufp&s=amb_s
The Uniting for Peace resolution empowers the General Assembly to meet in emergency session to address acts of aggression or a breach of the peace when the Security Council has been unable to act. Its was first used to bring about a cease-fire in the Suez crisis of 1950, forcing Britain and France to withdraw from Egypt within a week, even after they had vetoed calls for a cease-fire in the Security Council. It's been used ten times since then, most often at the request of the United States.
If you believe, as we do, that the very future of the world, and of the United Nations, is being put at risk in the name of a pre-emptive war, please join the call for the UN General Assembly to respond. Ask that the Uniting for Peace resolution be invoked, that the war on Iraq be condemned, and that peaceable means of disarming Iraq be sought.
The next hours may provide our last chance to change a dangerous course in history. The United Nations must not allow a world order based on multilateralism to be replaced with one in which the mightiest and richest make the rules.
You can read more here:http://www.greenpeace.org/international_en/news/details?item_id=179491
and, again, you can write to your UN ambassador to support this resolution from here:http://act.greenpeace.org/aas/e?a=ufp&s=amb_s
You can visit the Greenpeace No War website for more news:http://nowar.greenpeace.org
Please take a few minutes to act now.
This information came from Greenpeace Cyberactivist Community at:http://act.greenpeace.org
Flyby News will post this information also at our updated URL: http://www.flybynews.com/cgi-local/newspro/viewnews.cgi?newsid1045091648,41257,
"Uniting for Peace to Resolve the Iraq Crisis"
We have days or hours to help activate this plan!
4) Rachel Corrie - Peace Activist Killed by Israeli Bulldozer
On Sunday, March 16, 2003, at the age of 23, Rachel Corrie, of Olympia, Washington, USA, was killed -- crushed to death by a US-made Israeli bulldozer -- while protesting the demolition of Palestinian homes by Israeli army.
ISRAELI BULLDOZER DRIVER MURDERS AMERICAN PEACE ACTIVIST
Photo story: Israeli bulldozer driver murders American peace activist
Nigel Parry and Arjan El Fassed,
The Electronic Intifada, Mar 16, 2003http://electronicIntifada.net/v2/article1248.shtml
Rachel Corrie: In her own words
Rachel Corrie, writing from Rafah, occupied Palestine.
Excerpts from an e-mail from Rachel Corrie to her family on February 7, 2003
I have been in Palestine for two weeks and one hour now, and I still have very few words to describe what I see. It is most difficult for me to think about what's going on here when I sit down to write back to the United States--something about the virtual portal into luxury. I don't know if many of the children here have ever existed without tank-shell holes in their walls and the towers of an occupying army surveying them constantly from the near horizons. I think, although I'm not entirely sure, that even the smallest of these children understand that life is not like this everywhere. An eight-year-old was shot and killed by an Israeli tank two days before I got here, and many of the children murmur his name to me, "Ali"--or point at the posters of him on the walls. The children also love to get me to practice my limited Arabic by asking me "Kaif Sharon?" "Kaif Bush?" and they laugh when I say "Bush Majnoon" "Sharon Majnoon" back in my limited Arabic. (How is Sharon? How is Bush? Bush is crazy. Sharon is crazy.)
Of course this isn't quite what I believe, and some of the adults who have the English correct me: Bush mish Majnoon... Bush is a businessman. Today I tried to learn to say "Bush is a tool", but I don't think it translated quite right. But anyway, there are eight-year-olds here much more aware of the workings of the global power structure than I was just a few years ago--at least regarding Israel.
For more, "Rachel Corrie: In her own words" see:http://electronicIntifada.net/v2/article1254.shtml
Rachel Corrie's letter to her parents from Gaza. http://electronicIntifada.net/v2/article1248.shtmlhttp://electronicIntifada.net/v2/article1254.shtml
Remembering Rachel Corrie.
Statement from Rachel Corrie's parents
March 16, 2003
"We are now in a period of grieving and still finding out the details behind the death of Rachel in the Gaza Strip.
"We have raised all our children to appreciate the beauty of the global community and family, and are proud that Rachel was able to live her convictions.
"Rachel was filled with love and a sense of duty to her fellow man, wherever they lived. And, she gave her life trying to protect those that are unable to protect themselves.
"Rachel wrote to us from the Gaza Strip, and we would like to release to the media her experience in her own words at this time.
Craig and Cindy Corrie, parents of Rachel Corrie
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~"..I am just beginning to learn, from what I expect to be a very intense tutelage, about the ability of people to organize against all odds, and to resist against all odds."
– Rachel Corrie
4) Felicity Arbuthnot: "There is going to be a bloodbath"
British journalist Felicity Arbuthnot speaks on Iraq
"There is going to be a bloodbath"
By Barbara Slaughter
18 March 2003
Felicity Arbuthnot is a freelance journalist who has visited Iraq 26 times since the 1991 Gulf War. She worked as senior researcher on the film Paying the Price—Killing the Children of Iraq, which investigated the devastating effect of United Nations sanctions on people of Iraq.
The film's title refers to a statement by then US Secretary of State Madeline Albright in 1996 that the deaths of over half a million Iraqis as a result of embargo related causes was, "a hard price but the price is worth it."
Arbuthnot was interviewed by Barbara Slaughter just before she returned to Iraq.
The US and the UK accuse Saddam Hussein of non-compliance with UN resolutions, but the US and the UK don't even have any mandate from the Security Council to comply with. There is no mandate from the United Nations for them to be patrolling the no-fly zones or indeed for the no-fly zones themselves. The continuous bombings of Iraq by American and British forces is illegal.
I personally am convinced that this will be a nuclear war. I think that Bush and Blair are prepared to break that sacred vow on the Hiroshima memorial, which says, "Rest in peace. The mistake will not happen again." And I'll give you one of the reasons why. In 1991 in Tel-Aviv, just before the Gulf War, the Israeli military gave a press conference, and one of the questions was, "What will happen if Iraq lobs anything into Israel?" And the spokesman replied, "We will turn Baghdad into a sheet of glass."
Israel has the fifth largest nuclear arsenal on earth, with two hundred nuclear warheads. Also US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his British counterpart Geoffrey Hoon have made it clear that they won't hesitate to use nuclear weapons.
Nobody has really looked at what Britain and America are rather chillingly referring to as "the day after". We all remember that film in the 1980s about nuclear war called The Day After. Who is going to take over?
There is going to be a bloodbath that the British and the Americans have not thought through. Not because these are a warlike people but imagine if the Iraqis or anyone else said "OK, we'll come in and sort out Tony Blair."
For the complete article, see:http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/mar2003/arbu-m18_prn.shtml
A "Fair Use Policy" that describes Flyby News' use of copyrighted material is posted at flybynews.com.
The views expressed herein are the writers' own and not necessarily those of Flyby News.
Your feedback, networking Flyby News, and forwarding us articles of interest, are welcomed and appreciated. You can write to the publisher/editor Jonathan Mark firstname.lastname@example.org
FLYBY NEWS=====Fit to Transmit in the Post Cassini Flyby Era====> = = = = = = www.flybynews.com = = = = =