Liz McAlister Speaks on International Law at Show Cause Hearing, DC Superior Court, Washington, D.C.

Judge King, I wrote you a letter after appearing here on March 14. The thrust of that letter was that I could not pay the imposed assessment. In response, I received a motion from US Attorney Keil in which she charged me with contempt. My letter was an effort to speak as one human being to another about some of the issues in this case. I never intended it as a motion. But given where we are today, there are two issues I am compelled to address - I believe they constitute elements of a "Show Cause" Hearing.

FIRST - Ms. Keil explicitly stated that you, as judge in this case, had no choice but to impose the assessment for victims of violent crimes. While it is true that you must impose the assessment it is also true that, at times and for good reason, judges have permitted options in the payment of such assessments. To me, her motion reads like sentencing guidelines - taking responsibility away from the judge in a case and reducing sentencing to mathematics. But a judge, as the only one with access to the specifics of a case, can engage in downward or upward departure from such guidelines. I submit that there is a parallel here: it is within your power as judge, knowing the specifics of this case, to rule that defendants can contribute to victims of violent crime by making a single or on-going contributions to them. I made that proffer to you in my letter. Ms. Keil's point (bottom of page 3) that I failed to state with any specificity any relief which this court could grant may be less true that it seems on its face.

Often people like me stand before judges who say, in effect: "You have tied my hands... You give me no choice!" I believe you do have choices; I hope and pray that your choice with be for a just course of action which, all too often in our world, is at odds with the law as it is handed down to us (often by people all too willing to violate it themselves).

SECOND - I believed when I acted, I believed when I was in this court, I believe now that, far from being a criminal action, my friends and I acted to expose crimes and to seek to prevent further crimes being committed. The multitude of deaths, the rampant destruction, the horrendous crimes against humanity and violations of international law were in my mind and heart when I acted.

I tried to address some of that in my letter to you. Ms. Keil dismissed my concerns as "misplaced." I think her interpretation of Nuremberg and International Law is narrow and I am compelled to spend a few minutes on the substance of that issue. Ms. Keil is correct in asserting that "Under the Nuremberg, you have an obligation NOT to follow the orders of leaders who are preparing crimes against peace and crimes against humanity." But we are all bound by what U.S. Chief Prosecutor, Robert K. Jackson, declared in 1948: [T]he essence of the [Nuremberg] Charter is that individuals have intentional duties which transcend the national obligations of obedience imposed by the individual state ." At the Tokyo War Crimes trial, it was even more explicit: " Anyone with knowledge of illegal activity and an opportunity to do something about it is a potential criminal under international law unless the person takes affirmative measures to prevent commission of the crimes ."

My friends and I watched, listened, read and talked as the idea of war with Iraq was floated by this administration. The outcry against it from legal experts was overwhelming. By November of 02, 315 law professors signed a statement entitled " A US War Against Iraq Will Violate US and International Law and Set a Dangerous Precedent for Violence That Will Endanger the American People ."

More - The Lawyers' Committee on Nuclear Policy and the Western States Legal Foundation wrote that " War is Not the Path to Peace. Aggressive war is one of the most serious transgressions of international law." In fact, at Nuremberg, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Jackson stated: " We must make clear to the Germans that the wrong for which their leaders are on trial is not that they lost the war, but that they started it... Our position is that no grievances or policies will justify resort to aggressive war. It is utterly renounced and condemned as an instrument of policy ."

And there is no basis in international law for dramatically expanding the concept of self-defense, as advocated in this Administration's Sept. 02 "National Security Strategy" to authorize "preemptive" strikes against states based on potential threats. Such expansion destabilizes the system of UN Charter restraints on the use of force. Further, this administration's reliance on the need for "regime change" in Iraq as a basis for use of force is barred by the UN Charter, which prohibits "the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state." Thus the rationales given to the world, to us and the armed forces are illegal on their face.

In addition to the violations of international laws, the attack on Iraq is a direct violation of national law as Bush claim authority to decide whether the US would go to war. Our Constitution is explicit on this. Only Congress has the authority to declare war and it cannot delegate that right to anyone. The Constitution spells out clearly the responsibility of the President and his oath to ... preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.

Senator Robert Byrd of WV spoke for our hearts on the floor of the Senate on Oct 3, 02 when he said: " The resolution before us today is ... breathtaking in its scope. It redefines the nature of defense, and reinterprets the Constitution to suit the will of the Executive Branch. It would give the President blanket authority to launch a unilateral preemptive attack on a sovereign nation that is perceived to be a threat to the United States . This is an unprecedented and unfounded interpretation of the President's authority under the Constitution, not to mention the fact that it stands the charter of the United Nations on its head. "

When we went to address Congress last September, it was with all of this as backdrop. Having tried meeting with Congress people (forget meeting with Bush - one can't even go to one of his appearances without security clearances), we were trying again to urge them to uphold the law.

See the full statement at www.the-rule-of-law.com/IraqStatement

August 12, 1945, Department of State Bulletin. For a copy of the Lichterman and Burroughs report see www.lcnp.org/global/IraqLetter.htm