vox
19th June 2002, 17:55
I don't know how many of you are following the story about Bert Sacks. In a nutshell, Sacks has taken medicine to Iraq, in violation of the sanctions, in order to keep children from dying. For this, the US fined him $10,000, which he refused to pay. (Source (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0618-01.htm)) From a recent statement (http://www.commondreams.org/news2002/0617-03.htm) Sacks made, quoted by the Institue for Public Accuracy, I don't even think he gets a day in court.
Here's what Howard Zinn, an historian, had to say about the case:
"The punishment of a citizen for engaging in a humanitarian act -- bringing medicine to people in desperate need -- should not be accepted in a society claiming to believe in justice. To disobey a law, when that law violates a fundamental human right, is part of the American democratic tradition. We now honor those who, before the civil war, disobeyed the Fugitive Slave Act and helped black people escape from slavery. We honor those black people in the South who disobeyed the law in order to protest against racial segregation. The right to food and medicine is something guaranteed by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which Eleanor Roosevelt helped frame in 1948, and to which our nation is a signatory. Any law or regulation which eliminates that right does not deserve to be obeyed, and those today who bring food and medicine to people in need should be honored, not punished."
This is an outrageous and barbarous action that the USA has taken. The US used sanctions to destroy the water supply (http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=11398) in Iraq, in direct violation of the Geneva convention and knowing that it would cause terrible disease, especially among children. Now, the US punishes a man who tries to help those sick children. By the way, one wonders how many of those children invaded Kuwait or are developing (the perenial excuse) "weapons of mass destruction."
At what point will the moral depravity of the United States stop being acceptable to the rest of the "civilized" world?
vox
Here's what Howard Zinn, an historian, had to say about the case:
"The punishment of a citizen for engaging in a humanitarian act -- bringing medicine to people in desperate need -- should not be accepted in a society claiming to believe in justice. To disobey a law, when that law violates a fundamental human right, is part of the American democratic tradition. We now honor those who, before the civil war, disobeyed the Fugitive Slave Act and helped black people escape from slavery. We honor those black people in the South who disobeyed the law in order to protest against racial segregation. The right to food and medicine is something guaranteed by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which Eleanor Roosevelt helped frame in 1948, and to which our nation is a signatory. Any law or regulation which eliminates that right does not deserve to be obeyed, and those today who bring food and medicine to people in need should be honored, not punished."
This is an outrageous and barbarous action that the USA has taken. The US used sanctions to destroy the water supply (http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=11398) in Iraq, in direct violation of the Geneva convention and knowing that it would cause terrible disease, especially among children. Now, the US punishes a man who tries to help those sick children. By the way, one wonders how many of those children invaded Kuwait or are developing (the perenial excuse) "weapons of mass destruction."
At what point will the moral depravity of the United States stop being acceptable to the rest of the "civilized" world?
vox