Depleted Morality Bombs In Afghanistan
From: "Russell D. Hoffman" <email@example.com>
Subject: Depleted Morality Bombs In Afghanistan
Cc: California Senators, governor of California
Depleted Morality Bombs In Afghanistan
Date: November 18th, 2001
by Russell Hoffman, Concerned Citizen
Regardless of the outcome of this undeclared war in Afghanistan, the Depleted Uranium weapons we are using will leave a lasting legacy on a poverty-stricken nation, where, for the past 20 years or so, the closest thing to a hospital operating room has been a closet with sheets tacked up on the walls.
Now, while we "free" the Afghan people (to be "dirt poor", in the truest sense of the term), we make their burden worse by poisoning their countryside.
"All flying bombs - Tomahawk, JDAM etc. - are made of depleted uranium metal." a Pakistani doctor warns his countrymen. (Many rivers in Afghanistan flow into Pakistan.)
"DU is released from fired weapons in the form of small particles that may be inhaled, ingested or remain in the environment." says a UN World Health Organization official.
"We obviously put out instructions about avoiding depleted uranium dust," says Defense Department spokesperson Kenneth Bacon. "Troops are instructed to wear masks if they're around what they consider to be atomized or particle-sized depleted uranium - that is if rounds have struck tanks, there could be depleted uranium dust around," he said.
But the Afghan children -- who are much more susceptible to the effects of radiation than adults are, and who were attacked by packs of rabid dogs during the war (we read), and who will live among the ruins of the war -- are now scurrying over every nuked-out tank, bunker, Mosque, and cave entrance, getting covered in D. U. dust, looking for things of value and curios. We don't give them masks, or even warnings.
I believe we have a duty and a capability to develop safer weapons, which do not pollute the environment. And I believe we have a duty to be sure our weapons are carefully aimed. If we need to start triple-checking our targeting, when now we are only double-checking everything, so be it. [Note: The day after this email was distributed, a talking head on MS-NBC stated (I kid you not!) that the Pentagon may start "triple-checking" their targeting! -- rdh]
One wonders if our miss-rate isn't a cover for when we want to hit something we are not supposed to want to hit -- like a newspaper headquarters (which we did in both this war (Al Jazeera News Agency) and the last one (Chinese News Agency)), or a Red Cross Warehouse.
But beyond targeting problems, it's clear once more that while we say we are avoiding collateral damage as much as possible, we use weapons which do ecological damage wherever they land.
Why do we use Depleted Uranium weapons? Not because of "its high density and the metallic properties that allow it to 'self-sharpen' as it penetrates armor" as the Pentagon claimed in 1998. Other metals have those properties, too -- some even better than D. U.. But D.U. is extremely cost-effective, because anyone who has it just LOVES to get rid of it, and our nuclear industry has many, many tons of it which they are happy to give to the military.
All nuclear weapons, from atomic bombs to D. U. penetrating weapons, should be banned world-wide, immediately. War on guilty parties is bad enough, but war on the environment is always a war on innocents.
Quotes in the above essay were seen in an article circulated on the Internet and apparently originally published in: The Laissez Faire City Times, Vol. 5, No. 44, October 29, 2001.
Below is a letter from Jack Shannon, which includes a related article from Professor & Attorney Francis Boyle.
To all real Americans [i.e. those who believe in the Constitution]:
More good news [shown below] about the destruction of the Constitution and the
destruction of protections under the Geneva Convention.
I see no reason why Bush, Aschroft and Gonzales could not be impeached based
on this information alone. He has clearly violated his oath of office as well
as undermined international treaties and undermined several sections of the
Is anyone still not afraid?
John P. Shannon Major USMC [Retired]
Francis A. Boyle
504 E. Pennsylvania Ave.
Champaign, IL 61820 USA
From: Boyle, Francis [mailto:FBOYLE@LAW.UIUC.EDU]
Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2001 9:43 AM
To: Killeacle (E-mail)
Subject: Bush's Constitutional Coup:Kangaroo Courts & Disappearances
A Coup against the American Constitution
An interview with Professor Francis A. Boyle
Conducted Wednesday, November 14, 2001 by Dennis Bernstein,
host of Flashpoints on KPFA Radio 94.1 FM Berkeley, California
Dennis Bernstein: You re listening to Flashpoints, on KPFA. This is Dennis Bernstein.
George W. Bush declared an extraordinary emergency yesterday that empowers him to order military trials for suspected international terrorists and their collaborators, bypassing the American criminal justice system, its rules of evidence and its constitutional guarantees. The presidential directive, signed by Bush as commander-in-chief, applies to non-U.S. citizens arrested in the United States or abroad.
Joining us to talk about this extraordinary measure is Professor Francis Boyle. He is a professor of international law at the University of Illinois College of Law, in Champaign. I want to thank you for joining us, again, on Flashpoints.
Francis Boyle: Thank you, Dennis. I'm always happy to be on your show and your station, and I hope things go well in your meetings with Pacifica. It's a great station and it really needs to be kept on the air and going the way it's going.
Bernstein: Thank you very much.
Now, secret courts, military tribunals give us, first of all, your sense of what the implication is of this, maybe describe what you understand can happen.
Boyle: First, this executive order must be considered within the context of the massive assault that we have seen inflicted on the United States Constitution by the Bush administration and its Federalist Society lawyers, such as Ashcroft, Gonzales and their staff. We've discussed the Federalist Society on your station before, I think.
Since September 11th, we have seen one blow against the Constitution after another, after another. Recently, we've had Ashcroft saying that he had, unilaterally, instituted monitoring of attorney-client communications without even informing anyone he just went ahead and did it, despite the Fourth Amendment ban on unreasonable searches and seizures without warrant and the Sixth Amendment right to representation by counsel.
I won't go through all the [recently promulgated] measures here, but this is one of the more outrageous and dangerous. As you correctly point out, it applies both to alleged terrorist suspects here in the United States, who are not U.S. citizens and, also, abroad. We have to consider that separately. As for those here in the United States, clearly aliens here are entitled to the protections of the Due Process clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, as well as to the Article III (Section 2, Clause 3) basic constitutional rights in criminal cases, including indictment, trial before a Federal District judge or jury, [rights relating to] venue and things of that nature. It would take me an entire law review article to go through all the problems with this executive order.
Moreover, there is the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which the United States Government is a party. It's a treaty and it, again, affords basic due process protections to everyone here in the United States, irrespective of their citizenship.
As for the applicability to alleged al Qaeda members, or even former al Qaeda members, over in Afghanistan, [there is] an even more serious problem there. The third and fourth Geneva Conventions, of 1949, clearly apply to our conflict now with Afghanistan. These alleged al Qaeda members would be protected either by the third Geneva Convention (if they are fighters incorporated into the army there in Afghanistan), or by the fourth Geneva Convention (if they are deemed to be civilians). Both conventions have very extensive procedural protections on trials that must be adhered to. This is not to say that a trial cannot happen. It can happen, but there are very extensive rules and protections. Basic requirements of due process of law, set forth in both of these treaties, must be applied, under these circumstances. [Failures] to apply these treaties would constitute war crimes.
Second is the question of reprisals. This executive order is extremely dangerous, because what it is basically saying to the Taliban government and to al Qaeda is, We are not going to give you the protections of either the third or fourth Geneva Conventions guarantees on trials. What that means is that they could engage in reprisals against captured members of the United States Armed Forces. As you know, we have soldiers on the ground, now Special Forces in Afghanistan and we also have pilots flying over Afghanistan. Any of them could be captured by the Taliban government, by al Qaeda.
If a U.S. military [person] were to be captured, clearly, he or she would be entitled to all the benefits and protections of the third Geneva Convention, on prisoners of war. But the problem now is that President Bush has basically said, openly, publicly and officially, that we are not going to give prisoner-of-war benefits, or fourth Geneva Convention civilian benefits, to al Qaeda members, to former al Qaeda members, or to those who have sheltered, harbored or assisted them. That opens us up for reprisals. It opens up our own armed forces to be denied prisoner-of-war treatment. So, what we re doing here is exposing them to a similar type of treatment, which would be a summary trial, in secret, subject to the death penalty.
Bernstein: Let me jump in here, Professor Boyle.
According to the presidential directive, the president himself will decide which defendants will be tried by military tribunals and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld will appoint each panel and set its rules and procedures, including the level of proof needed for conviction. This sounds almost like sort of a quiet coup.
Boyle: Clearly. What we've seen, since September 11th, if you add up everything that Ashcroft, Bush, Gonzales and their coterie of Federalist Society lawyers have done here, is a coup d'etat against the United States Constitution. There's no question about it.
When you add in the Ashcroft police state bill that was passed by Congress (and several members of Congress admitted, We never even read this thing when we voted for it. ) that's really what we're seeing now, Dennis, a constitutional coup d'etat. There's no other word for it.
Bernstein: What are the implications when the president and the secretary of defense decide who will be the defendants and what the necessary level of truth will be? I mean, it's hard to imagine how that would work.
Boyle: This is really like the old Star Chamber proceedings, in the British Empire, where someone accused of treason would be called before a chamber in quiet, in secrecy. (It was called the Star Chamber because there were stars on the [ceiling]). There would be a summary hearing and the person would be sentenced to death. That was that.
The important point to keep in mind is that the president and secretary of defense are bound by the third and fourth Geneva Conventions for anyone over in Afghanistan or Pakistan. They have no discretion there.
As for here, in the United States, they are bound by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and they are bound by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. There is no exception that the president can unilaterally announce ipse dixit. That's exactly what this executive order you can read about it in today's New York Times is attempting to do.
Bernstein: It is, obviously, very concerning to Arab-Americans, to people on visas, with green cards. We now have a thousand people in custody. Ashcroft is talking about five thousand more that they want to take into custody. These are all people that could be tried secretly and convicted without [any] evidence that we would know anything about.
Boyle: That is correct. It's like we're becoming a banana republic here in the United States, with disappeared people, which was the phenomenon that we all saw down in Latin American dictatorships in the 1970s and 1980s, with the support, by the way, of the United States Government. The latest figure I've read is upwards of eleven hundred aliens, Arabs, Muslims, who have just disappeared somewhere. We don't know where they are or the conditions under which they are being held. We have no idea whether they have access to attorneys. We do know one of them died, under highly suspicious circumstances, while in custody. There have been reports that he was tortured to death.
I should point out that the phenomenon of disappearance is considered a crime against humanity [by] the International Criminal Court. This is very dangerous.
The critical question is: When will the FBI, the CIA and the National Security Agency start to turn these powers, that they have under the Ashcroft police state bill, against American citizens? Clearly, that will be the next step.
Bernstein: Well. We have been speaking with Professor Francis Boyle. He is a professor of international law at the University of Illinois College of Law, in Champaign, Illinois. We thank you.
Francis A. Boyle
504 E. Pennsylvania Ave.
Champaign, IL 61820 USA
In an opinion piece by Maureen Dowd today, an Afghan woman states, "They say the Taliban beat first and asked questions afterward. They say the Northern Alliance asks questions first and beats afterward."
11th hour protest against nuclear power:
For more information please visit:
Learn about the effects of nuclear weapons here:
This web page has been presented on the World Wide Web by:
The Animated Software Company
First posted November 18th, 2001.
Webwiz: Russell D. Hoffman