[GNC] Re: Questions/Concerns for Mesplay from a MASS. delegate (David)
Mike Heichman
mikeh.massed at rcn.com
Mon Jun 14 21:58:40 EDT 2004
Hi Everyone:
Enclosed are responses sent to David's questions from Kent Mesplay.
I wanted to share this with the delegation.
Mike Heichman
on 6/13/04 6:30 PM, Kent Mesplay at kentmesplay at presidency.com wrote:
Hello, David and Mike. Please see, below, for my comments (in bold, for
ease of reading: I am not shouting).
Thanks,
Kent
----- Original Message -----
From: Mike Heichman
Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2004 13:03:49 -0400
To: David Rolde ,, Mike Heichman
Subject: Questions/Concerns for Mesplay from a MASS. delegate
messages to both Kent and David from Mike Heichman
Hi Kent,
At the MA meeting, David Rolde had some concerns/questions about your
candidacy.
I said to him and the group that I would forward any concerns/questions to
you.
I ask that, when you have time, if you would respond to David's concerns and
questions. I would also like to receive and copy, because I'm interested in
your answers.
Hi David,
Actually, David, I'm not mad. However, I'm a little upset that you even
hesitated to send this information to me. You are my brother and your e-mail
reflects the kind of thoughtful and principled person that you are.
So, I'm se nding this to Kent--as you can see.
Mike Heichman
on 6/12/04 11:25 PM, David Rolde at davidrolde at comcast.net wrote:
Hi Mike. I wrote this email early this morning. I was scared to send it to
you because I was afraid you might be mad at me for criticizing Kent
Mesplay. So I printed out the email and brought it with me to the Rainbow
Coalition Caucus meeting to give to you in person instead. But you weren't
there. So I'm going ahead and emailing it to you
------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Mike. I do really like some things about Kent Mesplay and his candidacy.
I like his emphasis on the all-out run-to-win the presidency. I like that he
seems very sincere and caring. And I really liked Kent's response at the
debate to David Cobb's living wage statement when Kent mentioned structural
unemployment and advocated government financial assistance to persons who
don't have jobs. But I have had several concerns about some of Kent's other
positions, mostly about his statements regarding foreign policy.
I've been looking at the presidentkent.org website. At the moment my biggest
concern is regarding Kent's call to "Develop a way for the pentagon to be
independently audited so that wasteful fat is trimmed from this sacred cow.
Additionally, transform the military to include vast peace-keeping
operations to provide the logistical support to the masses of people who are
already forced into migrating to avoid starvation and persecution at the
hands of their own soldiers."
I see three problems in this paragraph from Kent's website:
1. I don't think the main problem with military spending is "wasteful fat".
Military spending creates murder and destruction. It is bad not just
wasteful. I believe the GPUS Platform calls for a 50% reduction in military
spending, and the Mass Greens Platform calls for a 90% reduction in military
spending. Admittedly I'm talking about just one sentence from Kent's
Presidential Platform, but my quick reading of his site doesn't s ee any
other mention of reducing military spending. To the extent that wastefulness
is part of the problem of U.S. military spending, I think it would be more
accurate to call it something like "corrupt transfers of wealth to corporate
interests" rather than "wasteful fat".
AGREED. ONE OF MY GOALS, AS PRESIDENT, WILL BE TO DEMILITARIZE THE PLANET.
I CAN'T "GET THERE," ESPECIALLY WHILE WE ARE A NATION AT WAR, BY BEING SUCH
A FORTHRIGHT DREAMER. MY COMMENT IS A "STEP" IN THIS DIRECTION. PLEASE
BEAR IN MIND THAT I AM NOT WRITING ONLY FOR GREENS, BUT FOR DEMOCRATS TO
READ AND FOR MODERATE REPUBLICANS, AS WELL. I'M BEING HONEST, BUT WE NEED
TO REACH PEOPLE BY SPEAKING THEIR LANGUAGE. EARS CLOSE, IMMEDIATELY, WHEN
ONE TALKS ABOUT THE LEVEL OF CUTS THAT WE GREENS KNOW ARE CORRECT.
2. I really don't like the idea of the USA launching any more military
interventions in other countries even if they are labelled as humanitarian
interventions or "peace-keeping operations". The world has been through
this before. U.S. military interventions have often been rationalized as
being humanitarian or peace-keeping missions. For example, the Clinton
administration depended solely on the humanitarian rationale to attempt to
justify their brutal unprovoked attack against Yugoslavia. The U.S. military
has been part of the problems of the world and can't be expected to be part
of the solution anytime soon. There should be a moratorium on U.S. military
interventions in other countries.
I WOULD NOT SAY "LAUNCHED," AND I AM CERTAINLY NOT TALKING ABOUT SO-CALLED
HUMANITARIAN MISSIONS. I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT ATTACKING, NOR AM I TALKING
ABOUT HAVING THE MILITARY REMAIN A MILITARY. I AM TALKING ABOUT
TRANSFORMATION. ONLY AN ORGANIZATION WITH THE FUNDING, SIZE, AND LOGISTICAL
CAPABILITY OF OUR CURRENT MILITARIES WILL BE ABLE TO CONTEND WITH THE
PROBLEMS THAT WILL SOON FACE RECORD NUMBERS OF PEOPLE, DUE IN NO SMALL PART
TO THE EFFECTS OF GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE. EVEN THE PENTAGON KNOWS ABOUT THE
THREAT, BUT THEY ARE GEARING UP TO SUPPRESS AND TO FIGHT, RATHER THAN TO
HELP. HOW BETTER A PLAN THAN TO TRANSFORM, EVEN AS ONE REDUCES? OUR REAL
THREATS ARE NOT SO OFF THAT WE CAN AFFORD TO DO EVERYTHING IN A LINEAR
FASHION. IT WON'T BE EASY, BUT JUST CUTTING THE MILITARY, OUTRIGHT, WITHOUT
PROVIDING AT LEAST AN INTERIM REPLACEMENT WILL NOT BE EASY, EITHER. AND, WE
ARE RUNNING OUT OF TIME. I AM THINKING "RED UCE, REUSE AND RECYCLE" AS A
PRAGMATIC AND WORKABLE APPROACH.
3. I believe that "the masses of people who are already forced into
migrating to avoid starvation and persecution at the hands of their own
soldiers" are in this position because of U.S. government policies and
actions supporting repressive undemocratic governments in other countries,
and also (and relatedly) because of U.S. government policies and actions, in
conjunction with international institutions such as the World Bank and IMF
and using international treaties like NAFTA, forcing governments in other
countries into adopting so-called "free market" economic policies that
violate the economic human rights of people in all countries. If the U.S.
government would abandon its support of repressive regimes around the world
that exist to facilitate corporate theft, it would go a long way towards
solving refugee and other humanitarian crises in numerous countries. It
would be nice if Kent's platform could inc lude this sort of analysis - the
analysis of the international anti-globalization movement - rather than
calling for military solutions.
GLAD TO HEAR YOU SAY THIS. HEY, WE'RE IN AGREEMENT. AGAIN, I AM NOT
TALKING ABOUT "MILITARY" SOLUTIONS, BUT ABOUT A TRANSFORMATION THAT WILL
BECOME INTERNATIONAL AND THAT IS GRADUAL, IN SCOPE, TO THE POINT THAT
INDIVIDUAL MILITARIES WILL BE OUTLAWED. I AM SENDING THIS E-MAIL TO MY WEB
DESIGNER, WITH THE INTENTION THAT HE TRY TO ADDRESS THESE CONCERNS. AT THE
VERY LEAST, I WILL DISCUSS THESE ISSUES AT THE CONVENTION. I GENUINELY
APPRECIATE THE COMMENTS AND CONCERNS.
Regarding Kent's position on Iraq, I remember when I looked at his website
in January, I was upset that the website's anti-occupation position was
based on a strong emphasis on the fact that American soldiers were dying
there while having no mention of Iraqis being killed by Americans. I'm glad
that is gone from the website now. Kent's current position on Iraq, as far
as I can tell from his website's single paragraph on this issue, seems ok
... except for the mention of " rewarding good behavior". I don't think that
Americans, after murdering hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and basically
destroying Iraq for over thirteen years, have any right to judge Iraqi
behavior and decide if Iraqi behavior is good or not. For reference Kent's
paragraph on Iraq that I am referring to is: "We bring the troops home from
Iraq, after first giving up on the idea of complete domination. By helping
Iraqi citizens know that they are genuinely in control, and by rewarding
good behavior rather than intimidating and punishing, which breeds ill will,
we can improve more than just our image, worldwide. We can lower the risk of
violence that our arrogant government draws toward us." Come to think of
it, I'm also concerned that "giving up on the idea of complete domination"
might imply that Americans should still seek partial domination over Iraq. I
would prefer a rewording to something like "completely giving up on the idea
of any form of domination over I raq."
AGAIN, MY AUDIENCE IS BROADER THAN JUST GREENS. I AM HEARTBROKEN OVER IRAQI
FAMILIES WHOSE SONS, IN THEIR FORMER ARMIES, WERE ONLY DOING WHAT THEY
THOUGHT WAS GOOD AND RIGHT, ONLY TO BE INVADED AND SLAUGHTERED WITHOUT EVEN
BEING GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO SURRENDER. WE HAVE TWO AIRBORNE GUNSHIPS,
SPOOKY AND SPECTRE, THAT, THROUGH COMPUTER ASSISTANCE, FLY SLOWLY AND "LOCK
INTO" MASSES OF PEOPLE, MOWING THEM DOWN IN HUGE NUMBERS AND CREATING A
NOISE THAT SURELY MUST BE LIKE HELL ON EARTH. I AM AWARE OF THIS. ALSO,
THE INCREASED RESISTANCE TO OUR OCCUPATION IS NOW FUELED BY PEOPLE WHO LOST
FAMILY MEMBERS IN THE INVASION. WHO WOULD NOT BE ANGRY? I FEEL THAT I NEED
TO 'GATHER A LITTLE STEAM' BEFORE I COME OUT IN PUBLIC AND SAY ALL OF THIS
(OR, SO I THINK. CAN YOU IMAGINE WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF I CAME OUT AND
OUTLINED ALL OF THE STEPS THAT SUGGEST THAT OUR OWN GOVERNMENT IS FASCIST?
IT'S NOT THAT I AM AFRAID OF BEING KILLED, BUT THAT I WOULD PREFER TO BE
EFFECTIVE!) YES, "GIVING UP ON THE IDEA OF ANY FORM OF DOMINATION OVER
IRAQ, INCLUDING FINANCIAL" IS GOOD.
The issue I mentioned at the meeting last week is a proposal to the GPUS by
the Ohio GP for a war crimes tribunal to try members of the George W Bush
administration for invading and occupying Iraq. It is a flawed proposal (as
it was worded in February) because it doesn't seek to prosecute members of
earlier U.S. administrations for crimes against the people of Iraq during
the United States' 13 year war against Iraq (while at the same time it does
call for Saddam Hussein to be tried for invading Kuwait). Kent and Lorna
signed on to this. I'm forwarding you a long email about this that I wrote
in February but never got around to sending to the statecom list. It is at
the bottom of this email followed by the actual proposal. I don't know the
current status of the proposal.
I NEED HELP. I WAS IN OHIO WHEN THE ISSUE WAS RAISED. RULES WITHOUT
ENFORCEMENT ARE NOT GOOD, NOR ARE CONTRACTS THAT ARE UNENFORCEABLE, AS
NATIVE AMERICANS HAVE DISCOVERED.
I'm also concerned that Kent doesn't have any position on Palestine. I
believe he told Aimee that he doesn't know enough about Palestine to form a
position. While it is good that he was honest about this, it is troubling
that he hadn't developed a position on this issue.
IT'S ALSO TROUBLING THAT I WORK A 40-HOUR, 4-DAY WEEK AND CAMPAIGN THE OTHER
THREE DAYS WITH NO SUPPORT STAFF OR VOLUNTEER BASE OR OFFICE. ALSO, I AM AT
THE TAIL END OF A DIVORCE, LOOKING FOR A PLACE TO LIVE, ETC. I THINK THERE
NEVER IS A REALLY GOOD TIME TO RUN, BUT THIS IS RIDICULOUS. IF I PETITION
WORK, THEY WILL GIVE ME A BLOCK OF TIME OFF TO RUN, WITHOUT TERMINATING MY
EMPLOYMENT. SO, I HAVE BEEN MORE ACTIVELY FUNDRAISING SO THAT I CAN DO
THIS. I HAVE IDEAS RE A POSITION ON PALESTINE, BUT I NEED HELP IN THIS
AREA. WITH APOLOGIES TO ALL MY JEWISH FRIENDS, BUT THE STATE OF ISRAEL IS
AS BIG A TERRORIST NATION AS IS THE UNITED STATES, AND THEY REGULARLY
FIELD-TEST THEIR WEAPONS. AM I SAYING TOO MUCH?! MY BIGGEST FEAR IS THAT I
WILL SPEAK MUCH TOO FREELY IN PUBLIC.
In general Kent's foreign policy positions seem to me to be not very
well-thought-out and to not be rejecting enough of U.S. militarism and to
not be fully cognizant of the pervasiveness of global corporatism and of the
fact that the U.S. government acts (using military force and other methods)
to further global corporate aims and of the negative effects that global
corporatism has on many countries. I sense a bit of a paternalistic "white
man's burden" attitude about America's role in the world in some of Kent's
statements. I hope I'm wrong and that Kent can somehow address these
concerns. I would like to have some Green alternative to David Cobb as Cobb
is not perfect on a couple issues that I mentioned at the beginning of this
email. But I can't consider Kent Mesplay to be this alternative as long as I
perceive such a large deficiency in Kent's foreign policy formulations. I
wish that Ralph Nader were running as a Green as Ralph is acceptable and
would get us the 3% of the vote we need to retain ballot status in
Massachusetts. (I had to add that last sentence since I'm the Nader
delegate.)
YOU ARE RIGHT. I NEED TO TALK MORE ABOUT GLOBAL CORPORATISM, ESPECIALLY
SINCE THIS IS DAVID COBBS FORTE, AND SINCE IT REALLY IS A PROBLEM. GROWING
UP IN NEW GUINEA, I SAW, FIRSTHAND, HOW FOREIGN MINING COMPANIES WOULD COME
IN AND RUIN THE LAND AND DESTROY CULTURES. THUS FAR, ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL,
I HAVE BEEN WORKING TO "STAY ALIVE" AND KEEP CAUGHT UP WITH THE USUAL WIDE
RANGE OF ISSUES. ESPECIALLY, AS GREENS, WE NEED TO SHOW THAT WE COMPREHEND
THE IMPORTANCE OF A JUST AND A CONSISTENT FOREIGN POLICY. ONE TALKING POINT
THAT I AM WORKING TO DEVELOP IS HOW, EVEN AS WITH HOW NEGATIVE "WAFFLING" IS
ON DOMESTIC ISSUES (REF KERRY), IT IS IMPORTANT, ALSO, IN MATTERS OF FOREIGN
POLICY TO BE CONSISTENT. WE BUILD UP AND THEN DESTROY REGIMES BASED ON THE
BOTTOM LINE, WHICH IS THE DOLLAR RATHER THAN A GENUINE CONCERN FOR
DEMOCRACY. MUCH OF OUR FOREIGN MILITARISTIC POLICY HAS LITTLE MORE TO DO
WITH ANYTHING OTHER THAN STEALING MATERIAL AND SLAU GHTERING BROWN-SKINNED
PEOPLE. HAVE YOU READ BASIL DAVIDSON'S 'WHITE MANS BURDEN'? I STARTED IT,
YEARS AGO, AND NEVER QUITE GOT TO FINISH IT BECAUSE OTHER THINGS KEPT COMING
UP? AGAIN, I AM WRITING FOR A BROADER AUDIENCE. ALSO, AS AN F.Y.I. I'M NOT
"WHITE" IN MY CULTURAL MAKE-UP. RATHER THAN FEEL A SENSE OF GUILT FOR
ANYTHING SOME OF MY ANCESTORS MAY HAVE DONE I AM ALSO FULLY AWARE THAT OTHER
OF MY ANCESTORS DIED TRYING TO REPEL THE DISEASE-RIDDEN STOMPERS WHO CAME TO
THIS "FREE" LAND.
WOLF DOG
- David
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 02:06:02 -0400
To:
aimee-green-rainbow.org,greengil-comcast.net,afalsafi at igc.org,jsaad-massbay.
edu
From: David Rolde <davidrolde at comcast.net>
Subject: post re GP War Crimes Tribunal proposal
Cc:
Bcc:
X-Attachments:
Hi Aimee, Gil, Aram, and Julie. I'd like your opinion of this email I just
wrote before I send it to the statecom list and to the GP Presidential
candidates and to the Ohio GP people who are submitting this proposal for
the GPUS to call for a War Crimes Tribunal to prosecute George W Bush
administration officials for the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and to prosecute
Saddam Hussein administration officials for the 1990 invasion of Kuwait, but
no mention of prosecuting George HW Bush administration officials for the
1991 invasion of Iraq. - David
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------
-----------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------
While I think it is a good idea for the GPUS to call for leaders of the
United States government to be tried for war crimes committed against the
people of Iraq, the specific terms advocated in this proposal are really
unacceptable.
The 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq was only one episode in a U.S. genocidal war
of aggression against Iraq that has been going on for 13 years and is still
continuing. The mission of the War Crimes Tribunal should be to prosecute
officials of the Bush Sr, Clinton, and Bush Jr regimes for crimes against
the people of Iraq during the entire war. Indeed the worst crimes were
committed by the USA in earlier episodes of the war. Well over one hundred
thousand (perhaps TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND) Iraqi civilians and soldiers were
killed by the Bush Sr administration's 1991 military attack on Iraq. These
Iraqis were killed within Iraq not in Kuwait. The purported justification
for the 1991 at tack was to remove Iraqi forces from Kuwait. Thousands of
Iraqi soldiers were killed as they were retreating or attempting to
surrender. Numerous civilian structures were bombed. Enormous damage was
done to the environment of Iraq and the world. The war crimes prosecution of
Dick Cheney (to take one example) should have as one focus the fact that he
was U.S. Secretary of "Defense" during the USA's 1991 genocidal slaughter of
Iraqis in which the Iraqi oil infrastructure (as well as many other parts of
Iraq's infrastructure) was destroyed. Cheney then went on to be CEO of
Halliburton in the 90s and benefited from contracts to rebuild Iraq's oil
infrastructure (for the oil-for-food program) that he had destroyed.
The prosecution of members of the Saddam Hussein regime for war crimes
during the invasion of Kuwait should not be a stated focus of the War Crimes
Tribunal. To suggest that the prosecution of U.S. leaders be only for
crimes in the 2003 episode of the war against Iraq, while at the same time
calling for the prosecution to target the Iraqi leadership for crimes in the
1990 invasion of Kuwait, is tantamount to saying that the earlier pre-2003
episodes of the U.S. war against Iraq were justified. If the Green Party
were to adopt this position, we would be placing ourselves to the right of
the Democratic Party. The Democrats have now apparently rejected Howard
Dean, who supported the 1991 attack against Iraq, as a presidential nominee
in favor of John Kerry. Kerry for all his ENORMOUS failings (I'm certainly
opposed to his presidential ambitions) at least publicly voted against
allowing the Bush Sr administration to perpetrate the 1991 military attack
against Iraq.
The 1991 attack against Iraq was not justified. The Bush Sr administration
rejected all attempts at a negotiated Iraqi withdrawal from Kuwait,
insisting on going to war just as the Bush Jr administration rejected the
WMD inspe ction process in 2003.
The Iraqi invasion of Kuwait killed several hundred people. While this was
horrible: in comparison to other atrocities in recent history, sadly, this
was minor, and perhaps not a good priority target for a War Crimes Tribunal.
For instance the U.S. invasion of Panama in the same year killed ten times
as many Panamanians. If the War Crimes Tribunal does prosecute Iraqi
leaders for crimes in Kuwait, then the tribunal should also investigate
allegations that U.S. leaders purposely provoked the Iraqi invasion of
Kuwait in order to have a pretext for their subsequent attack against Iraq.
The Kuwaiti leadership in 1990, allegedly at the instruction of the U.S.
leadership, was waging an economic war against Iraq. Kuwait was selling
more oil than it was allowed to under OPEC agreements in order to drive the
price of oil down. At the same time Kuwait called for Iraq to repay money
that Kuwait had loaned to Iraq in the 80s to finance Iraq's war against
Iran. This repayment was a severe financial burden to Iraq as Iraq could
not raise sufficient hard currency since Iraq was abiding by its OPEC quota
and had to sell oil at the reduced price. The low oil price was not a burden
to Kuwait as the Kuwaiti rulers had major investments in Western
corporations which benefited from low oil prices. Furthermore the Kuwaitis
allegedly were slant-drilling Iraqi oil from across the border. The
historical context of all this is that historically Kuwait had been a
province of Iraq that had been split off from Iraq by arbitrary modern
borders set by Britain in the early 20th century. The Saddam Hussein regime
allegedly received explicit prior permission from the Bush Sr regime to
invade Kuwait.
The worst crimes of the Saddam Hussein regime were during Iraq's war of
aggression against Iran during the 80s. The war went on for years. MANY
HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of Iranians and Iraqis wer e killed. This would be a
more important place for the War Crimes Tribunal to focus against the Iraqi
leadership. However in this case too, the U.S. leadership should be
prosecuted. Hussein's Iraq was urged and supported to attack Iran by the
Reagan and Bush Sr administration. But it wasn't even an honest American
proxy war against Iran. The Reagan/Bush Sr administration also surreptiously
supported Iran in the war. Remember the Iran-Contra scandal. The U.S. goal
apparently was to wreak destruction on both Iraq and Iran so that neither
country would emerge as a power that would be able to challenge U.S.
hegemony in the region. So I would even support extending the mission of
this proposed War Crimes Tribunal to include prosecuting members of all the
U.S. administrations back to Reagan for crimes relating to the
Iraq/Iran/Kuwait region.
Having the tribunal only concerned with Bush Jr administration crimes
relating to the 2003 episode is wrong. The 2003 invasion of Iraq was not an
aberration in U.S. foreign policy, but is part of a pattern of monopoly
capitalists using U.S. military attacks and threats of attack throughout the
world to further corporate interests. This has been going on for over a
century with bi-partisan support in the USA. The Green Party should be
standing firmly opposed to imperialism and to this pattern of genocidal wars
perpetrated by the U.S. government.
I'm very disappointed that some of our Green presidential candidates signed
on to this proposal that only seeks to prosecute U.S. leaders for the 2003
Iraq invasion, and seeks to prosecute Iraqi leaders for invading Kuwait but
not U.S. leaders for invading Iraq in 1991. I don't know much about Carol
Miller. I've met Lorna Salzman and Kent Mesplay, who both seemed ok, so I'll
give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that they signed on to this
proposal without reading it or that they have suggested that it be amended
to include prosecuting U.S. leaders for earlier episodes in the war against
Iraq. I would like to see statements from the Green Party presidential
candidates about this issue.
- David Rolde
member of the State Committee of the Green-Rainbow Party of Massachusetts.
At 6:03 PM -0800 2/18/04, Jim Bosman wrote:
Adcom/Statecom:
Anyone want to pick this up and run with it?
I am just forwarding this from the grp office email
account.
Jim
--- pauld at columbus.rr.com wrote:
> To: office at green-rainbow.org
> Subject: War Crimes Proposal for Nat'l Convention
> From: pauld at columbus.rr.com
> CC:
> Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 23:59:17 +0000 (GMT)
>
> --------------------------------------------------
> Here is a message for you from http://web2mail.com
> The easy way to read and send POP email on the web
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> Dear Massachusetts Green-Rainbow Party:
>
> The Green Party of Ohio seeks co-sponsors within the
> Party for its proposal calling for formation of an
> International War Crimes Tribunal to investigate the
> Bush Administration. We want to put this proposal
> on the agenda for the National C onvention.
>
> At the bottom of this note the proposal is
> reproduced and it can also be found at
> http://www.ohiogreens.org/war_crimes_proposal.html
> (the appendices referred to in the proposal below
> are only found on the website).
>
> This proposal was passed at the State Convention of
> the Green Party of Ohio on 1/31/04. Recent
> testimony by WMD-hunter David Kay only reinforces
> the importance of pursuing this issue.
>
> Please consider co-sponsoring this proposal for
> these reasons:
>
> 1. The proper means of holding the Bush
> Administration accountable for the atrocity of the
> Iraq invasion is to put them on trial.
>
> 2. The Green Partyís Platform is to support
> International Law; this proposal builds on that
> foundation.
>
> 3. Most Democrats will not challenge the
> military-industri al complex and the culture of
> violence. This proposal shows how Green Values
> provide strikingly different leadership.
>
> As of 2/18 we have recorded the following
> endorsements:
>
> 1. Lorna Salzman, Green Party Presidential
> Candidate from New York
> 2. Carol Miller, Green Party Presidential Candidate
> from New Mexico
> 3. Kent Mesplay, Green Party Presidential Candidate
> from California
>
> The Green Party of Illinois is considering
> co-sponsorship, as is the International Committee of
> the GPUS.
>
> Please let me know if your Green Organization will
> consider co-sponsoring this proposal and what the
> Green Party of Ohio can do to assist in that effort.
>
> Paul Dumouchelle
> Secretary, Green Party of Ohio
> 614-563-9449
> pauld at columbus.rr.com
>
> War Crimes Proposal ñ 2003 Ir aq Invasion
>
> Proposal Drafted for Consideration at the 2004 GPUS
> National Convention
>
> A. Whereas, the current Defense Policy of the
> United States is to wage ìpreemptive warî against
> countries who are deemed a threat; and,
>
> B. Whereas, this Defense Policy was put into action
> by the Presidential Administration of George W.
> Bush, with active involvement of Vice President
> Richard Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald
> Rumsfeld, and others, during the March, 2003
> invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq; and,
>
> C. Whereas, the United States is a signatory of the
> Charter of the United Nations, whose Chapter 7,
> Article 51, declares the only legal justification
> for engaging in military action without Security
> Council authorization is self-defense, or collective
> security actions, as authorized by the Sec urity
> Council (Chapter 7 reproduced in its entirety,
> below); and,
>
> D. Whereas, initiating a war of aggression was
> declared during the 1945-49 War Crimes Tribunal in
> Nuremburg to be a War Crime (see Article 6 of War
> Crimes Tribunal Charter, reproduced below); and,
>
> E. Whereas, the Green Party of the United States
> considers the Defense Policy described in Point A
> (above) to be a policy that leads to the US engaging
> in wars of aggression, as demonstrated in the Bush
> Administrationís 2003 invasion of Iraq; and,
>
> F. Whereas, the Bush Administrationís rationale for
> embarking on the 2003 invasion of Iraq was that Iraq
> posed a threat to the United States and Iraq was in
> violation of multiple Security Council disarmament
> resolutions (none of which specifically authorized a
> military invasion); and
>
> G. Whereas, the rapid dissolution of large-scale
> Iraqi resistance to the United States invasion with
> very light casualties among US forces is extremely
> strong evidence that Iraq was incapable of
> threatening the security of the United States; and,
>
> H. Whereas, the United States failed to find
> substantial physical evidence that Iraq was in
> violation of the Security Council disarmament
> resolutions, despite a significant effort from
> April, 2003 to September, 2003 by US Government
> Personnel inside Iraq, to find such proof; and,
>
> I. Whereas, the Green Party of the United States
> National Conference of July, 2003, called for the
> impeachment of President George W. Bush for his
> actions regarding the March 2003 invasion of Iraq
> and the appropriate authorities, including the
> leadership of the Democratic Party, have failed to
> hold President Bush and others accountable for their
> actions in authorizing an illegal war of aggression,
> and,
>
> J. Whereas, the Green Party of the United Statesí
> 2000 Platform states ìthe support of democracy,
> human rights and respect for international law
> should be the cornerstone of American foreign
> policy,î meaning that that the security interests of
> the United States are best served through effective
> and just implementation of international legal
> standards (such as the International Criminal
> Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, which has
> indicted and is trying Slobodan Milosevic, among
> others), and,
>
> K. Whereas, the former leaders of Iraq (Saddam
> Hussein, among others) should also be investigated
> for their roles in the invasion of Kuwait in 1990
> and possibly other crimes, and their fates resolved
> by an International Court.
>
> Therefore, be it resolved by the Green Party of the
> United States, meeting in Convention in Milwaukee in
> June 2004, that:
>
> 1. The Green Party of the United States rejects any
> Defense Policy of the United States advocating
> preemptive war.
>
> 2. The Green Party of the United States considers
> preemptive wars initiated by the United States
> Government to be illegal wars of aggression and the
> leaders who authorize such military action should be
> investigated for possible trial as war criminals.
>
> 3. The Green Party of the United States considers
> the March 2003 invasion of Iraq to be an illegal war
> of aggression and we believe sufficient evidence
> exists to support a War Crimes trial for those who
> authorized this action.
>
> 4. The United Nations is called upon to establish a
> War Crimes Tribunal for Iraq & Kuwait (modeled after
> the The International Criminal Tribunal for the
> former Yugoslavia) and this Tribunal should initiate
> a War Crimes investigation of the leaders of the
> United States who authorized the March 2003 invasion
> of Iraq, specifically President George W. Bush, Vice
> President Richard Cheney and Secretary of Defense
> Donald Rumsfeld, such investigation to determine if
> War Crimes indictments should be prepared against
> those individuals, and calls for an investigation to
> determine who else could be charged. (Note: the
> results of the Nuremburg trials regarding the counts
> addressing ìwar of aggression,î reproduced below,
> may be instructive in identifying those individuals
> who should be tried.)
>
> 5. It is the policy of the Green Party of the
> United States to aggressively pursue US c itizens who
> are guilty of war crimes and should the individuals
> responsible for the March 2003 invasion of Iraq not
> be investigated for War Crimes indictments prior to
> the time when Green Party members holds public
> office with the authority to pursue War Crimes
> indictments then it will be considered those
> membersí duty to pursue such indictments at that
> time (we note that there is no statute of
> limitations on War Crimes).
>
> 6. The War Crimes Tribunal for Iraq & Kuwait should
> also have jurisdiction over the investigation,
> indictment and trial of those leaders of Iraq
> involved in the decisions to invade Kuwait in 1990
> and other possible war crimes committed by the
> government of Iraq (specifically Saddam Hussein,
> Tariq Aziz and others).
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Re ad only the mail you want.
http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools
_______________________________________________
StateCom mailing list
StateCom at green-rainbow.org
http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.green-rainbow.org/pipermail/gnc/attachments/20040614/fed60a99/attachment.htm
More information about the GNC
mailing list