Three Practical Principles

    1.   Talk impressively in easy words, and promote active peace around us.

    2.   Social practices from a humanitarian stand point.

    3.   For peace by civility, for daily life by politics.

Five Fundamental Purposes

    1.   Peace actions that our behaviors indicate.

    2.   Be role models of awareness revolution for next generations.

    3.   Create new legacies of global civilizations and hand them down.

    4.   Coalition of goodness by dialogues like Socrates in decaying civilization.

    5.   Dedicate us to what is the most important.

From Latest Messages

[PEACE 1129] 5 Points on Our Costly Nukes

Steven Crandell Wrote:

What a week.

-- An extra $5 billion on nuclear weapons

-- The Pentagon's $150 million missing missile defense test

-- Biden's praise for WMD jobs.

--unquote

Santa Barbara County, at the center of which Nuclear Age Peace Foundation sits, itself is very much "legal community" surrounding traditional Court House. You have got rid of garbage cans from every road and citizens are disciplined to keep your environment clean. Skies are dark and you see Milky Way like my home village Gero, Japan, because every illumination outside has set to light downward keeping skies dark; if you have fireflies like Gero they prefer darkness. Your community colleges focus on global citizenship and concerned students are joining disarmament movement one after another. David Krieger speaks gently and quietly but resolutely to play a main role of world disarmament, Tamaki was deeply impressed.

The United States has been settled with religious ideals written such as the Mayflower Compact. Original Settlers defined themselves "Puritan Separatist," isn't which the Declaration of Independence? We fought and got democracy of ourselves, by ourselves, and for ourselves.

But, The Constitution of United States of America reads:

Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_Am2.html


The Constitution of Japan (came to effect 1947) reads:
Preamble
...We, the Japanese people, desire peace for all time and are deeply conscious of the high ideals controlling human relationship, and we have determined to preserve our security and existence, trusting in the justice and faith of the peace-loving peoples of the world. We desire to occupy an honored place in an international society striving for the preservation of peace, and the banishment of tyranny and slavery, oppression and intolerance for all time from the earth. We recognize that all peoples of the world have the right to live in peace, free from fear and want. We believe that no nation is responsible to itself alone, but that laws of political morality are universal; and that obedience to such laws is incumbent upon all nations who would sustain their own sovereignty and justify their sovereign relationship with other nations...

Chapter II. Renunciation of War
* Article 9. Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order, the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes.
(2) In order to accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph, land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained. The right of belligerency of the state will not be recognized.
http://www.peace-ashram.org/constitution/index-jp.html#c2

In the U.S., instead of mentioning Gun Control we had better abolish Amendment 2 of the Constitution of United States, because how do we need private militia and the human rights of weaponry possession after Pentagon, FBI, and CIA? We have become having strongest arms in the world, but the most violent and dangerous country, supported by death merchants. We need tools for culture of peace and may need policemen in the world, but never destructive weapons.

General Douglas Macarthur and American Occupation Army wished to disable dangerous Japanese military after World War II, but changed the policy at the Korean War and wanted Japan's militarization again. Prevailing interpretation of Article 9 then was that the existence of SDFs are violation of the Constitution, but precedents has been changed by coward Supreme Court. Now the statement of so-called Pacifist Constitution of Japan and Article 9 especially are even violated by having Self Defense Forces dispatched to Middle East, their own NMD system, spy satellites, and Defense Ministry progressed by former conservatist Administration before Hatoyama, younger generations and concerned activists are promoting Global Article 9 movement starting 2008. Hatoyama and Democrats Administration withdrew from Indian Ocean SDF mission and supports humanitarian reconstruction of the Middle East instead.
http://www.article-9.org/en/index.html

Sincerely,

--
Tamaki, PT, Malden, MA
http://www.peace-ashram.org/

[PEACE 1599] Treason of the attorney - opinion from London

On behalf of The Japan Times I subscribe to, editors allow me to quote an opinion from London on you.

Sunday, July 11, 2010
Treason of the attorney By GWYNNE DYER

LONDON ― Eighty years ago, just after the First World War and with the world rapidly sliding toward the next, the French philosopher Julien Benda wrote a book called "The Treason of the Clerks"― "clerks" in the medieval sense, educated men, intellectuals, who despite their high calling chose to serve the State rather than Truth. They were the ones who provided the justification for the wars and made them possible.

...(skipped)

Goldsmith knew that Blair wanted to join President George W. Bush in the attack on Iraq, and that Bush didn't care a fig for international law. Britain, on the other hand, did, and the attorney general emphasized that Bush did not have a legal leg to stand on. To invade Iraq without an explicit U.N. Security Council resolution authorizing it would be an act of aggression and therefore a war crime.
...(skipped till the end)

Gwynne Dyer is a London-based independent journalist whose articles are published in 45 countries.
Read whole article:
http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/eo20100711gd.html

SGY02023, Soka Gakkai Yellow 02023, Owner/Moderator


Re: A brave lawyer compile war criminal lawsuits on ICJ or ICC

Every war is an act of aggression. The United Nations must have regretted that they had formed UN Army (=American Army) and fought on the Korean Peninsula in the early era of Cold War, although I'm not sure which side attacked first.

A man of adultery Wilhelm Clinton and what every journalism calls invader of Iraq George W. Bush Jr. still appear together and speak about foreign affairs, security, and peace, but is it allowed? Both Father Bush and Bush Jr. developed usable small type nuke, depleted uranium bombs and used on Iraq, Afghanistan, and Iraq causing a lot of leukemia victims especially children, but are they allowed?
http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&source=hp&q=leukemia+iraq+picture&um=1&ie=UTF-8...
http://www.rense.com/general70/deathmde.htm

Lawyers, Judges, or Attorney Generals themselves are bound to federal governments as well as international lawyers; aren't they cowards being afraid of losing their positions? Yes.

What we need is a brave lawyer who will compile war criminal lawsuits in terms of act of aggression, and the nearly unconditional use of nuclear Weapons of Mass Destruction (Depleted Uranium Bombs) on civilians against Father Bush and George W. Bush Jr. as well as then-British Prime Minister Blair in terms of his collaboration on either International Court of Justice or International Criminal Court.

    Sincerely,

-
mis_Tamaki_guchi Hosoe, PT, NDT, Case Manager, Wasa, servant of harmony :) Gero, Japan

http://www.peace-ashram.org/essay/president.html (2003)
http://www.peace-ashram.org/essay/obama.html (2009-2010)

http://groups.google.com/group/sgi-peace/files Download Kennedy, J. F., King, M. L. Jr. "I Have A Dream" audio - spoken Constitution of the 20th Century.

When Does the U.S. Supreme Court Limit the Freedom of Expression of You, Pr. George W. Bush?

July 4, 2003
Revised September 14, 2003

   Since the judgment of this case is essentially spiritual, constitutional, international, religious, and philosophical, first the U.S. Supreme Court quotes both international and domestic laws, especially to clarify the supreme principles of human dignity, equality, freedom and peace. Let us listen carefully to the justice of Law deep inside of us all. Here is human voice.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights reads:
(PREAMBLE)
“Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,
Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people, …

“Article 1. All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood,
“Article 2. Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.
“Article 9. Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”

United States Constitution reads:
Amendment 1. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or non-profiting the free exercise of thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably assemble and petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

   The U.S. President George W. Bush, understanding the above quoted principles of supreme virtue in Law, judges today agreed that the U.S. Supreme Court warn you NOT TO LABEL the sovereign nations with dignified people. Those words such as “axis of evil” you have chosen to express them represents complete ignorance and beast nature of yours. No doubt, it is harassing; even elementary children know they should not label classmates “yellow” or “black.” You are in beyond human horizon. The U.S. Supreme Court will limit your freedom of speech and expression, and dismiss you from your title next time you label or harass. Listen to the justice of Law sunk deep inside you. Although you claim you are similar to George Washington, the comparison itself expresses your arrogance over ignorance, doesn't it?, because “double you” stands for ambiguity of beast and human nature of yours. The Supreme Court calls your human heart now. Nobles oblige, proverb says meaning the high rank persons such as you must have high responsibility and duty. Freedom of speech or expression can be limited when the person’s free expression compete with and attack other human rights such as dignity or equality. Therefore, your verbal harassment is as harmful as Adolf Hitler now because of your superior position of the U.S. Presidency in international community.

   Freedom accompanies responsibility. It is free for you to choose the expression “axis of evil,” but you are responsible to have formed your character with which you have chosen and used it to mention other sovereign nations with dignified people. The expression was extreme as a responsible leader. Our fellow President George W. Bush, are you human, or beast? No doubt, the latter. Beasts kill. Humans don’t. You could have acknowledged that your order of so you call preemptive attack on Iraq was an “invasion” so that every journalist call and violation of UN Charter Chapter 7, prohibition of act of aggression. Now Afghan and Iraqi war victims, especially voiceless orphans who have lost their innocent civilian parents by bombing and fighting, can sue both you and the U.S. for themselves and on behalf of their family as international crimes at the International Court of Justice or International Criminal Court, the U.S. Judges agreed today. Aren't you afraid before you order initiating use of force because you have nuclear button to launch such as John F. Kennedy was? Why don’t we take a leading role of disarmament involving CTBT, NPT, anti-ABC, and START III in the UN. After Iraq war, the UN and people of the United Nations can replace the leading role of reconstruction process with ceasefire activity and humanitarian support. NGOs are ready to join. Anyway, people of the United Nations experienced three wars including 9/11 in 2 and half years after your inauguration, you may aware of the facts, because other countries are sensitive and over-reactive at the U.S. international policy and actions.

   Listen, Pr. George W. Bush. Since the judges agreed today it is decisive turning point whether our future will be better or not, the Supreme Court CAUTION YOU again:
“Why can’t you listen to the justice of Law tearing deep inside you?
“NEVER AGAIN LABEL sovereign nations with dignified people. Be careful, and abstain from delivering harmful messages to people of the United Nations worldwide because you are a responsible key person. Homo-sapiens are suspicious to each other. When next time you make verbal harassment such as “axis of evil,” it is the time the Supreme Court will limit your freedom of expression, and dismiss you from the title. Furthermore, Afghan and Iraqi orphans will soon sue you at either international court. Nobles Oblige.”

When Does the U.S. Supreme Court Limit the Freedom of Expression of You, Pr. George W. Bush?