US Indymedia Global Indymedia Publish About us
Printed from Boston IMC : http://boston.indymedia.org/
Boston.Indymedia
IVAW Winter Soldier

Winter Soldier
Testimonies
Brad Presente

Other Local News

Spare Change News
Open Media Boston
Somerville Voices
Cradle of Liberty
The Sword and Shield

Local Radio Shows

WMBR 88.1 FM
What's Left
WEDS at 8:00 pm
Local Edition
FRI (alt) at 5:30 pm

WMFO 91.5 FM
Socialist Alternative
SUN 11:00 am

WZBC 90.3 FM
Sounds of Dissent
SAT at 11:00 am
Truth and Justice Radio
SUN at 6:00 am

Create account Log in
Comment on this article | View comments | Email this article | Printer-friendly version
News ::
Boston Appeals Court DIDN'T throw out lawsuit on war powers declaration (english)
14 Mar 2003
Modified: 04:25:52 PM
mp3 of interview; John Bonifaz is the lead attorney for plaintiffs in a suit against a U.S. war on Iraq without Congressional approval.
John Bonifaz is the lead attorney for plaintiffs in a suit against a U.S. war on Iraq without Congressional approval. Initial media reports of the appeals court decision were misleading. The case isn't dead in the water. It's unclear just how much of a thorn in the Dubya Whitehouse the case will prove to be, but the story is still developing.

John Bonifaz was on WBAI's Wake-up Call today. The segment is attached, mp3 format.

The Reuters story below is an example of backpedaling by media.

runtime: 7:35

====================

Legal Bid to Block War Rejected by U.S. Court
Thu March 13, 2003 03:47 PM ET
By Greg Frost
http://reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&storyID=2377470

BOSTON (Reuters) - A U.S. appeals court on Thursday upheld a lower court ruling rejecting a legal bid by a group of soldiers and lawmakers to keep President Bush from invading Iraq without a formal declaration of war by Congress.

But the lawyer who filed the lawsuit said its rejection by a three-judge panel of the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals contained a silver lining that could allow him to bring the case back depending on the outcome of U.N. diplomacy.

"This case is still very much alive," John Bonifaz, the plaintiffs' lead attorney, told Reuters.

Unlike U.S. District Judge Joseph Tauro, who threw out the case on political grounds last month, the appeals court dismissed the lawsuit on "ripeness" grounds -- essentially saying the timing was not right for it to get involved.

Bonifaz said that meant he could take the matter back to court depending on a number of unresolved issues -- including whether the U.N. Security Council authorizes the use of force in Iraq.

"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 illegal and unconstitutional war," he said.

The Department of Justice did not immediately comment on the ruling.

Some 200,000 U.S. and 50,000 British troops are poised to invade Iraq, and Bush has vowed to go to war to disarm Iraq without U.N. backing if necessary.

The United States said on Thursday it might drop its search for a Security Council majority to authorize an invasion of Iraq as its diplomatic efforts encountered new setbacks.

COURT LEAVES DOOR OPEN

The civil lawsuit, brought by three members of the military, six parents of U.S. troops and members of the U.S. Congress, sought an injunction to stop potential U.S. military action on the grounds that only Congress has the right to declare war.

The suit, which named Bush and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld as defendants, said the framers of the U.S. Constitution aimed to deny presidents the imperial war-making powers of European monarchs.

Although Congress passed a resolution in October backing the possible use of U.S. military force against Iraq, the plaintiffs said that was an unconstitutional measure and did not amount to a formal declaration of war.

Tauro found in his ruling that the lawsuit boiled down to "political questions ... which are beyond the authority of a federal court to resolve."

Judge Sandra Lynch, writing for the appeals court, disagreed with that reasoning and cited the question of "ripeness," or timeliness. While the panel dismissed the case, it left open a door for the plaintiffs.

"This conclusion does not necessarily mean that similar challenges would never be ripe for decision before military action began," she wrote in a footnote to the ruling. "Here, too many crucial facts are missing."

Lynch noted the Iraq situation remained fluid and that "many important questions remain unanswered" about whether a war would actually take place. The answers to those questions, she indicated, could ultimately make the case ripe.
Add a quick comment
Title
Your name Your email

Comment

Text Format
Anti-spam Enter the following number into the box:
To add more detailed comments, or to upload files, see the full comment form.

Comments

I think this shows ( or should show) all (english)
14 Mar 2003
I think (above article)this shows ( or should show) all
SOMETHING.......

That ONLY in AMERICA can you even think about bringing a suit to stop what you feel may be unjust. There are some
who want to see these rights vanish, as well as other rights
you now posses and can enforce in many forums, administrative or judicial.

WHY?

Because a citizen ship with the allotment of rights we maintain can not work in a totalitarian environment..,
i.e. like Sadams.. a dictatorship.

I love to see people exercise their rights accorded to them
by law, constitution, (Bill of Rights), case law and statute
among other means. Rights secured by those all should glance at, who's names appear on national memorials accross our great nation, like The Wall in DC. They pais the ultimate price for what we see in action above.

Do you REALLY want to give up these rights for a system that has proven itself internationally as a failure, oppresive, devoid of rights, Socialism or Communism?

SOON you will have a choice ( unlike others who are forced to follow the governments line )and the only one who can truely weight the evidence and make that decision is you.

Despite all the LOUD noise around you from all sides, go
to the quiet, sit down and weigh the facts.

Your decision will impact the rest of your life and millions of others.

I for one enjoy the fact we live in one of the most diverse
nations of the world, side by side and when it hits the fan,
arm in arm, hand in hand... be it a national disaster or a
missing person, or a counry less fortunate that we, via our tax base send aid to.. in the form of food, shelter, clothing, scools, medical facilities.. and on and on..
No other nation on the face of this planet has ever been
so generous.

The LEFT ( not the die hard communists ) and the rest need
to sit down and map a cours to see our traditions continue and expand, first here in the states then internationally.

You know you really have what you seek in your collectives,
and there isw no need to take it by violence or seperation
of peoples, but, there is a need to water what we have as
one country, respecting all our heritages, and watch all
prosper.. Though some equate "prosperity to $$$" most
know that is not the real bottom line in life.. we just
need to learn to respect those who do, they are living part
of their dream, we need to live within our own, and work
for the respect by those who differ to differ in love.

Just an Indian.