このページはフレーム対応ブラウザ用に作成されています。下のリンクは非フレーム使用ページですのでそちらをご覧ください。
この記事をプリントする
注目を浴びなかった犯罪
注目を浴びなかった犯罪
先月行なわれたクリントン米大統領に対する
弾劾裁判の結果は、無罪だった。
訴訟項目は偽証と司法妨害の2つだったが、
それ以外に、大統領が弾劾されるべき
もっと重要な項目があると筆者は考えている。
Back Page Crimes
By DOUGLAS LUMMIS
Feb. 12, 1999: I was driving across the San Francisco Bay Bridge with my sister. On the car radio was the
live broadcast of the vote in the U.S. Senate on the impeachment of President Clinton. The
second article was defeated about the time we were halfway across the bridge. I wondered if drivers
would honk their horns, but none did.
When the impeachment proceedings began, I sent a letter to Senate Republican leader Trent Lott. The
letter said, "I will support the impeachment if you add to the charges: misuse of the state's war
powers, violation of international law and war crimes."
War crimes?
Example: Last August 20 (just when the Monica Lewinsky tapes were released to the press) U.S. forces bombed a site in Afghanistan where Osama bin Laden, the alleged terrorist, was allegedly
staying. It also bombed a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan that was allegedly manufacturing chemical
weapons compounds. What legal authority did the United States have to carry out these attacks? Were
they acts of war? But the it neither declared war on, nor gave prior warning to, the governments of
these countries. So if this was war, it was aggressive war, and a surprise attack, like Pearl
Harbor.
Were they police actions, based on the state's right to punish criminals? But it is not legal to
punish criminals unless they are tried in a court of law and found guilty. It is not legal to bomb
suspects, especially in other countries.
Recently the plant in Sudan was inspected by a team headed by the chairman of the chemistry
department of Boston University. The team reported that it could find no trace of Empta, the dangerous
chemical the plant was accused of manufacturing. This crucial information was on page 9 of the
newspaper in which I read it (San Francisco Chronicle, Feb. 9).
Example: Last December (the day before the U.S. Congress was to vote on whether to impeach President
Clinton) the United States (and, sad to say, Great Britain) bombed Iraq. The reason given was that the
Iraqi government would not allow the U.N. inspection team there to search wherever it wanted. The Iraqi
government said this was because the U.N. inspection team included U.S. spies. The U.S. government denied
this at first, but later admitted that the U.N. team did, in fact, include U.S. spies.
Since then the U.S. military has been regularly attacking Iraq with bombs and missiles. On Jan. 25 we
learned that a residential neighborhood had been bombed, killing 11 people and wounding 59 according
to Cable News. (A mistake, U.S. military spokesmen said.)
At first, many thought the true purpose of these attacks was to divert attention from the
impeachment. But the real effect has been the reverse. While the impeachment has occupied the front
pages of the newspapers for months, William Jefferson Clinton's real crimes — war crimes — have been
buried in the back pages.
Feb. 12, 1999: I was driving across the San Francisco Bay Bridge with my sister. On the car radio was the
live broadcast of the vote in the U.S. Senate on the impeachment of President Clinton. The
second article was defeated about the time we were halfway across the bridge. I wondered if drivers
would honk their horns, but none did.
When the impeachment proceedings began, I sent a letter to Senate Republican leader Trent Lott. The
letter said, "I will support the impeachment if you add to the charges: misuse of the state's war
powers, violation of international law and war crimes."
War crimes?
Example: Last August 20 (just when the Monica Lewinsky tapes were released to the press) U.S. forces bombed a site in Afghanistan where Osama bin Laden, the alleged terrorist, was allegedly
staying. It also bombed a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan that was allegedly manufacturing chemical
weapons compounds. What legal authority did the United States have to carry out these attacks? Were
they acts of war? But the it neither declared war on, nor gave prior warning to, the governments of
these countries. So if this was war, it was aggressive war, and a surprise attack, like Pearl
Harbor.
Were they police actions, based on the state's right to punish criminals? But it is not legal to
punish criminals unless they are tried in a court of law and found guilty. It is not legal to bomb
suspects, especially in other countries.
Recently the plant in Sudan was inspected by a team headed by the chairman of the chemistry
department of Boston University. The team reported that it could find no trace of Empta, the dangerous
chemical the plant was accused of manufacturing. This crucial information was on page 9 of the
newspaper in which I read it (San Francisco Chronicle, Feb. 9).
Example: Last December (the day before the U.S. Congress was to vote on whether to impeach President
Clinton) the United States (and, sad to say, Great Britain) bombed Iraq. The reason given was that the
Iraqi government would not allow the U.N. inspection team there to search wherever it wanted. The Iraqi
government said this was because the U.N. inspection team included U.S. spies. The U.S. government denied
this at first, but later admitted that the U.N. team did, in fact, include U.S. spies.
Since then the U.S. military has been regularly attacking Iraq with bombs and missiles. On Jan. 25 we
learned that a residential neighborhood had been bombed, killing 11 people and wounding 59 according
to Cable News. (A mistake, U.S. military spokesmen said.)
At first, many thought the true purpose of these attacks was to divert attention from the
impeachment. But the real effect has been the reverse. While the impeachment has occupied the front
pages of the newspapers for months, William Jefferson Clinton's real crimes — war crimes — have been
buried in the back pages.
Shukan ST: March 5, 1999
(C) All rights reserved
- live broadcast
- 生中継
- vote
- 投票
- U.S. Senate
- 米上院
- impeachment
- 弾劾
- second article
- 2つめの項目(1つ目の項目は、モニカ・ルインスキーさんとの性的関係について連邦大陪審に対する宣誓証言でうそをついたとする「偽証」、2つ目は別のセクハラ民事訴訟での証拠集めを妨げたとする「司法妨害」)
- was defeated
- 無効とされた
- halfway across the bridge
- 渡っている橋の真ん中辺り
- honk their horns
- (賛成して、あるいはやっと結果が出たことを祝って)クラクションを鳴らす
- proceedings
- 訴訟手続き
- Senate Republican leader Trent Lott
- 共和党の声を代弁した上院議員のトレント・ロット氏(共和党院内総務)
- add to the charges
- 告訴の内容につけ加える
- misuse
- 乱用
- war powers
- (戦時下などで大統領・政府が行使できる)非常大権
- violation
- 違反
- international law
- 国際法
- war crimes
- 戦争犯罪
- Monica Lewinsky tapes
- モニカ・ルインスキーさんの肉声が録音されたテープ(元同僚が秘密に録音し、スター独立検察官に持ち込んで、大統領弾劾のきっかけをつくった)
- were released
- 発表された
- press
- マスコミ
- bombed
- 空爆した
- site
- 場所
- Osama bin Laden, the alleged terrorist
- アフリカの米大使館爆弾テロの黒幕だといわれるサウジアラビアの大富豪オサマ・ビン・ラディン氏
- pharmaceutical plant
- 薬品工場
- (was)manufacturing
- 製造していた
- chemical weapons compounds
- 化学兵器のための化合物
- legal authority
- 法的権限
- carry out
- 実行する
- acts of war
- 戦争行為
- declared war on
- 宣戦を布告した
- prior warning
- 事前の警告
- aggressive war
- 侵略戦争
- surprise attack
- 奇襲攻撃
- Pearl Harbor
- 真珠湾
- punish criminals
- 犯罪者を罰する
- are tried
- 裁判にかける
- court of law
- 裁判所
- (are)found guilty
- 有罪となる
- suspects
- 容疑者
- was inspected
- 査察された
- headed by 〜
- 〜 率いる
- chairman
- 学部長
- chemistry department
- 化学学科
- trace of 〜
- 〜 の形跡
- was accused of 〜
- 〜 したとして非難されていた
- crucial
- 非常に重要な
- San Francisco Chronicle
- サンフランシスコの地元紙
- U.S. Congress
- 米議会
- U.N. inspection team
- 国連査察団
- residential neighborhood
- 住宅地
- wounding
- 負傷させる
- Cable News
- 米国テレビのニュース専門局CNNのこと
- purpose
- 目的
- divert attention from 〜
- 〜 から注目をそらす
- reverse
- 逆
- has occupied
- 占めた
- have been buried in 〜
- 〜 に埋もれていた