[THS] Francis Boyle distinguishes civil resistance from civil disobedience

[The Harder Stuff in news and commentary]

http://www.ufppc.org/us-a-world-news-mainmenu-35/6913/

 ANALYSIS: Francis Boyle distinguishes 'civil resistance' from 'civil disobedience'
Thursday, 13 December 2007 22:22 Madeleine Lee

In a lecture given at Northwestern Law School on Nov. 20, 2007, Prof. Francis A.
Boyle asserted, as he has many times while defending Lt. Ehren Watada's refusal to
deploy to Iraq, that the Bush administration is a criminal regime:  "[I]n many
instances specific components of the Bush Jr. administration's foreign policy
constitute ongoing criminal activity under well recognized principles of both
international law and United States domestic law."  --  In addition, "all high-level
civilian officials and military officers in the U.S. government who either knew or
should have known" that those under them were involved in such crimes are also
"personally responsible for the commission of international crimes."  --  It follows from
this assertion, Prof. Boyle says, that "American citizens possess the basic right under
international law and the United States domestic law, including the U.S. Constitution,
to engage in acts of civil resistance designed to prevent, impede, thwart, or
terminate ongoing criminal activities perpetrated by Bush Jr. administration officials in
their conduct of foreign affairs policies and military operations purported to relate to
defense and counter-terrorism."  --  Such action constitutes not civil disobedience but
"civil resistance."  --  Therefore the idea that those who resist must be willing to be
punished for their acts is a non sequitur:  "Nothing could be further from the truth!
Today's civil resisters are the sheriffs!  The Bush Jr. administration officials are the
outlaws!"  --  "Civil resistance," Boyle said, "is the last hope America has to prevent
the Bush Jr. administration from moving even farther down the path of lawless
violence."  --  Thus the Port Militarization Resistance movement that began in the
Pacific Northwest in 2006 is not civil disobedience with respect to unjust laws, but
rather civil resistance undertaken to uphold the rule of law itself:  "today's civil
resisters are acting for the express purpose of upholding the rule of law, the U.S.
Constitution, human rights, and international law.  Applying the term 'civil
disobedience' to such civil resistors mistakenly presumes their guilt and thus
perversely exonerates the Bush Jr. administration criminals."  --  Boyle's argument is
that in a constitutional democratic regime the answer to the question Quis custodiet
ipsos custodes? is:  the people themselves.  --  (Though he does not evoke the
Declaration of Independence, the same idea appears there, but in an even more
radical form:  "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that
among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.  --  That to secure these
rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the
consent of the governed, -- That whenever any Form of Government becomes
destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to
institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its
powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and
Happiness.")  --  In October, Boyle published a book entitled Protesting Power: War,
Resistance, and Law (Rowman & Littlefield, 2007).[2] ...