On January 15, 1996, members of VITW notified U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno of our intent to publicly and deliberately violate the sanctions against the people of Iraq. In various cities across the United States, many members announced that intent to local offices of the U.S. Attorney by “turning themselves in.” One week later, the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), a branch of the U.S. Department. of Treasury, which has responsibility for enforcing economic sanctions against Iraq, sent a warning letter to VITW informing us of potential penalties for violations of the Iraqi sanctions, including up to 12 years in prison and one million dollars in fines. VITW promptly responded to the warning by letter, thanking OFAC for the clarity of their warning and declaring our intent to continue with the campaign.

More than 30 delegations later, in December of 1998, OFAC followed up with a “Prepenalty Notice.” The notice included Proposed Penalties directed at VitW and four individual delegates: Bert Sacks, Randall Mullins, Dan Handelman, and Joe Zito. VitW was charged with violating the embargo on Iraq through “exportation of donated goods, including medical supplies and toys, to Iraq.” The proposed penalty for VitW is $120,000. The proposed penalty for the individual delegates ranged from $10,000-$12,000. Voices responded by letter to OFAC, reaffirming our commitment to absolute non-cooperation with the sanctions against Iraq. Shortly after sending our response to OFAC, a press conference was held at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., where it was broadcast live by C-SPAN TV and Radio.

There was no response from OFAC until March of 2002, over three years later, when Bert Sacks received a “Penalty Notice” for $10,000. Sacks refused to pay, and instead held a press conference announcing his intent to deliver $10,000 worth of donated medical supplies to hospitals in Iraq.

Voices in the Wilderness has sent more than 70 delegations to Iraq in direct violation of the sanctions. At home and abroad, VitW continues to work for an end to the cruel punishment of an entire society for the crimes of their leader.

• Letter to Attorney General Janet Reno
• Warning Letter from The Department of the Treasury and Voices in the Wilderness’ Response
• “Prepenalty Notice” from the Office of Foreign Assets Control, U.S. Dept. of the Treasury
• VitW Response to “Prepenalty Notice”
• News Release - U.S. Humanitarian Organization Prosecuted for Delivering Medicine and Toys to Iraq
• OFAC “Penalty Notice” to Bert Sacks
• Bert Sacks’ Response to OFAC
• Sacks Announces Intent to Deliver $10,000 in Donated Medical Relief to Iraq

---

Letter to Attorney General Janet Reno [back to top]
January 15, 1996
Dear Ms. Reno,

We the undersigned intend to deliberately violate the UN/US sanctions against the people of Iraq. We are teachers, social workers, parents, church workers, authors. Five years ago, we opposed the Persian Gulf War in a variety of non-violent ways. Some lived on the border between the opposing armies before and during part of the war; others traveled to Iraq immediately before and after the war. Still others filled the streets to denounce the war. Many of us have witnessed the consequences of sanctions first hand and maintained contact with NGOs that continually attempt to deliver relief supplies to neediest groups and individuals in Iraq.

In the five years since the Persian Gulf War, according to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization report, “as many as 576,000 children have died as a result of sanctions imposed against Iraq by the United Nations Security Council.” If the blockade continues, UNICEF officers say that 1.5 million more children will eventually suffer malnutrition or a variety of unchecked illnesses because the sanctions make antibiotics and other standard medicines impossible to get. We can no longer be party to this slaughter in the desert. We realize that we face a possible penalty of 12 years in prison and a $1 million dollar fine.

We invite you, in your capacity as guardian of justice in the United States, and in your concern for children who are the primary victims of the embargo, to join us in demanding that the U.S. government lift this embargo, which in its real effects is immoral and unjust.

During this fifth year since the Persian Gulf War, we are committed to solicit and transport medical supplies to the people of Iraq.

As we invite others to join us, we will inform them of the potential criminal charges for violating U.S. treasury dept. regulations. However, we will also encourage conscientious objection to these regulations which themselves violate international law and are an affront to respect for human life and basic human rights.

Thank you for your consideration. We look forward to hearing from you.

---

Warning Letter from The Department of the Treasury and Voices in the Wilderness’ Response

[back to top]
Response from the Office of Foreign Assets, U.S. Department of the Treasury, Washington, DC

January 22, 1996 Dear Ms. Kelly: The U.S. Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) administers and enforces a comprehensive economic sanctions program and trade embargo against the government of Iraq (”GOI”) as promulgated in the Iraqi Sanctions Regulations, 31 C.F..R. Part 575 (the “Regulations”), under authority of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, 50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq. (”IEEPA”), and the United Nations Participation Act, 22 U.S.C., 287c. The Regulations prohibit U.S. persons from engaging in virtually all direct or indirect commercial, financial or trade transactions with Iraq, unless authorized by OFAC.

This Office has learned that you and other members of Voices in the Wilderness recently announced your intention to collect medical relief supplies for the people of Iraq at various locations in the United States and to personally transport the supplies to Iraq.

Section 575.205 of the Regulations prohibits the exportation or reexportation of goods, technology, or services to Iraq, except as specifically provided in the Regulations. Pursuant to section 575.521 of the Regulations, specific licenses may be issued by OFAC on a case-by-case basis to authorize the exportation to Iraq of donated medical supplies intended strictly for medical purposes in accord- ance with United Nations Security Council Resolutions 661 and 666 and other applicable Security Council resolutions. OFAC has issued many licenses authorizing exportation to Iraq of food, medicine, medical supplies and other humanitarian aid items.

Section 575.207 prohibits U.S. persons from engaging in any transaction relating to travel by any U.S. citizen or permanent resident alien to Iraq or to activities within Iraq, with the following exceptions: * those transactions necessary to effect the departure of a U.S. citizen or permanent resident ???alien from Iraq; * transactions relating to travel and activities for the conduct of official business of the U.S. ???Government or the United Nations and * transactions relating to journalistic activity by persons regularly employed in such capacity by ???a newsgathering organization.

All other travel related transactions to and within Iraq by U.S. persons, to include the payment of one’s own travel or living expenses to or within Iraq, are prohibited unless specifically licensed by OFAC.

OFAC has no record that your organization has requested a specific license to export medical supplies to Iraq and to travel to Iraq to supervise the delivery of such supplies.

Accordingly, you and members of Voices in the Wilderness are hereby Warned to refrain from engaging in any unauthorized transactions related to the exportation of medical supplies and travel to Iraq. Criminal penalties for violating the Regulations range up to 12 years in prison and $1 million in fines. Civil penalties of up to $250,000 per violation may be imposed administratively by OFAC.

Should you wish to apply for a specific license, you may do so in writing at the following address:
U.S. Department of the Treasury
Office of Foreign Assets Control
Attn: Licensing Division
1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. (Annex)
Washington, D.C. 20220

If you have any questions concerning this letter, you may call me at (202) 622-2430.
Sincerely,
David H. Harmon
Acting Supervisor, Enforcement Division Office of Foreign Assets Control
[copies were sent to the Assistant U.S. Attorney, Northern District of Illinois and the United States Department of Justice]

Response to OFAC from Voices in the Wilderness

February 1996
Dear Mr. Harmon.

We received by fax your letter of January 22, 1996 which warns us to refrain from engaging in any unauthorized transactions related to the exportation of medical supplies and travel to Iraq.

Literature for this campaign already includes mention of the penalties that could be imposed for aiding people of Iraq. We thank you for the clarity of the warning.

We also want you to know that we will continue our effort to feed and care for the children and families of Iraq. We will do so by collecting medical relief supplies and then by, openly and publicly, transporting these supplies into Iraq for delivery to people in need. We are governed not by rules that license people to bring aid to people in need, but rather by compassion. We invite you to join us in our effort to lift the current sanctions against Iraq and end the cruel suffering endured by innocent people.

Sincerely,

Voices in the Wilderness

---

“Prepenalty Notice” from the Office of Foreign Assets Control, U.S. Dept. of the Treasury

[back to top]
December 3, 1998
Dear Ms. Kelly and Messrs. Handelman, Mullins, Sacks, and Zito:

The Office of Foreign Assets Control (”OFAC”) has reasonable cause to believe that you and Voices in the Wilderness (”VW”) have engaged in certain prohibited transactions, detailed below, relating to the embargo against Iraq in 1997. Inasmuch as no license or approval had been issued by OFAC prior to such transactions, they violated the Iraqi Sanctions Regulations, 31 CFR Part 575 (the “Regulations”), and underlying statutes and Executive orders. See, specifically,  [paragraphs] 575.204-.207 and 575.211 of the Regulations.

Violations

The violations of the regulations and underlying statutes and Executive Orders for which this Notice is issued concern your and VW’s exportation of donated goods, including medical supplies and toys, to Iraq absent specific prior authorization by OFAC and transactions relating to travel to Iraq and activities in Iraq. Additionally, the violations involve transactions for the purpose of , or which have the effect of, evading or avoiding, or which facilitate the evasion or avoidance of any of the prohibitions of the Regulations, as well as a conspiracy formed for the purpose of engaging in transactions prohibited by the Regulations. In this regard, VW has organized members to deliver goods to Iraq in violation of the embargo and made express statements of the organization’s knowledge of its violative actions. As to Messrs. Handleman and Mullins, the violations also concern the importation of goods and services of Iraqi origin. Specifically, the violations are as follows:

1. In March 1996, VW exported goods, including medical supplies, valued at approximately $18,000, to Iraq absent prior specific license or other authorization issued by OFAC;

2. In August 1996, VW exported goods, including medical supplies, valued at approximately $8,000, to Iraq absent prior specific license or other authorization issued by OFAC;

3. In November 1996, VW exported goods, including medical supplies, valued at approximately $10,000, to Iraq absent prior license or other authorization issued by OFAC;

4. In November 1997, VW exported goods, including medical supplies and toys, valued at approximately $30,000-40,000, to Iraq absent prior license or other authorization issued by OFAC;

5. On or about November 21, 1997, Mr. Handelman exported film and videotape to Iraq, through Jordan;

6. Between on or about November 21-30, 1997, Messrs. Handelman, Mullins, Sacks, and Zito, engaged in currency travel-related transactions to/from/within Iraq absent prior lisence or other authorization from OFAC. These currency transactions included, but are not limited to, the purchase of food, lodging, ground transportation, and incidentals;

7. On December 3, 1997, Mr. Handelman imported goods and/or services, into the United States at Detroit, Michigan. Upon entry of the goods, the Untied States Customs Service (”USCS”) seized them (District Case Nos. 98-3801-000235). The goods included an Iraqi water bottle label, an Iraqi stamp, photographic film, video and audiotapes and/or cassettes, postcards, and assorted papers;

8. On December 3, 1997, Mr. Mullins imported goods and/or services, into the United States at Detroit, Michigan. Upon entry of the goods, the USCS seized them (District case No. 98-3801-00238). The goods included a necklace, a wooden drum, audiotapes, a computer disc, notebooks, pictures, and miscellaneous papers and cards;

9. In July 1998, VW exported goods to Iraq absent prior specific license or other authorization issued by OFAC; and

10. In September 1998, VW exported goods, including medical supplies, to Iraq absent prior specific license or other authorization issued by OFAC.

Proposed Penalty

Section 206 of IEEPA, 50 U.S.C. [par] 1705, provides, in part, for a civil penalty not to exceed $10,000 per violation. Section 586E of the Iraq Sanctions Act of 1990, PL.101-513, 104 Stat. 2049, provides, in part, for a civil penalty not to exceed $250,000 for each violation occuring after Nov. 5 1990*. See, Regulations [par] 575.701. Pursuant to [par] 575.702 of the Regulations, you are hereby notified that OFAC intends to issue a claim against each of you and VW for a monetary penalty in the amounts set forth below:

As to VW: $120,000, computed at $20,000 for each Counts 1-4, 9 and 10

As to Mr. Handelman: $12,000, computed at $1,000 for each of Counts 5 and 7, plus $10,000 for Count 6

As to Mr. Mullins: $11,000, computed at $1,000 for Count 8, plus $10,000 for Count 6

As to Mr. Sacks: $10,000 for Count 6

As to Mr. Zito: $10,000 for Count 6

With respect to the disposition of goods seized in the above-cited USCS District Cases from Messrs. Handelman and Mullins, we recommend that, inasmuch as goods have been involved in the violation of U.S. law by U.S. persons, such goods be forfeited to the United States in accordance with USCS procedures.

Election of Proceedings

1. You have the right to make a written presentation to FAC within thirty (30) days of the mailing of this Notice. Such written presentation in response to this Notice need not be in any particular form, but it should contain a response to the allegations herein, and set forth the reasons why the penalty should not be issued, or if issued, why the amount should be less than proposed in this Notice. Such response should be addressed to the Office of Foreign Assets Control (Attention: Civil Penalties), U.S. Department of the Treasury, 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20220.

2. In the event that you elect not to respond, OFAC will conclude that you have decided not to submit any new facts or explanations for our consideration. In such instance, OFAC will issue a Penalty Notice in accordance with [par] 575.704 (b) of the Regulations, finding a violation and assessing a penalty generally in the amount proposed herein.

3. Should you elect to resolve this matter informally absent any final agency finding of violation, you may initiate settlement negotiations by telephoning the OFAC staff member named below under “Contact Person” at any time before you are issued a Penalty notice. If the negotiations result in settlement, you are not required to make a written response to this Notice, which will be withdrawn without a formal determination of violation, provided settlement occurs within the time period set in this Notice.

Collection

Section 575.705 of the Regulations provides that this matter shall be reffered to the United States Depatment of Justice for collection if the penalty is not paid within thirty (30) days of the mailing of a Penalty Notice, should one be issued imposing a penalty pursuant to [par] 575.704 of the Regulations.
Prior to such referral, OFAC may undertake administrative collection through the Office of Financial Management of the U.S. Treasury Department.

Contact

In view of the short response time, if you have any questions concerning this matter, please feel free to contact the appropriate member of my staff, Mrs. B.S. Scott, Chief, Civil Penalties program, at telephone number (202) 622-6140.

Sincerely,

R. Richard Newcomb Director Office of Foreign Assets Control

*Section 4 of the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990 (Pub.L. 101-410, 104 Stat. 890, 28 U.S.C. 2461 note), as amended by the Dept Collection Improvement Act of 1996 (Pub.L. 104-134, sec. 31001 (s)1), Apr. 26, 1996, 110 Stat. 1321-373 — jointly, the “FCPIA”), requires each Federal agency with statutory authority to assess civil monetary penalties (”CMPs”) for inflation according to a formula described in [par] 5 of the FCPIA. Accordingly, on October 23, 1996, OFAC published in the Federal register the required amendment, effective October 21, 1996, to the Regulations adjusting its CMP to $275,000. See 61 FR 54936 at 54939.

---

VitW Response to “Prepenalty Notice”

[back to top] December 30, 1998

R. Richard Newcomb, Director Office of Foreign Assets Control
U.S. Department of the Treasury
1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20220

Dear Mr. Newcomb:

This letter is in response to your prepenalty notice of December 3, 1998. The notice proposes a fine of $120,000 to Voices in the Wilderness (VitW) for engaging in prohibited transactions “relating to the embargo against Iraq”, specifically, the “exportation of donated goods, including medical supplies and toys.” In addition, four members of our campaign, Messrs. Handelman, Mullins, Sacks and Zito, face proposed fines of $43,000 for engaging in “currency travel-related transactions to/from/within Iraq.”

On January 15, 1996, we notified U S. Attorney General Janet Reno of our intentions to publicly challenge the morality and legality of the economic embargo against the civilian population of Iraq and asked Ms. Reno to join us. To this end, VitW has  led nineteen delegations to Iraq, including our most recent delegation, which arrived in Baghdad on December 19, 1998, at the height of the U.S. led bombing campaign.

On January 22, 1996, David H. Harmon, of the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), warned members of our campaign to “refrain from engaging in any unauthorized transactions related to the exportation of medical supplies and travel to Iraq.”   Mr. Harmon warned that “criminal penalties for violating the Regulations range up to 12 years in prison and $1 million in fines” and “civil penalties of up to $250,000 per violation…” VitW informed Mr. Harmon in February, 1996, of our intentions to “continue our effort to feed and care for the children and families of Iraq…by collecting medical relief supplies and then, openly and publicly, transporting these supplies intoIraq…”  We further stated that “we are not governed by rules that license people…but rather by compassion”  and invited Mr. Harmon to join us.

With respect to the enforcement of this embargo, we are conscientious objectors. We will not allow a government to dictate to our conscience. We will not allow the U.S. government, in the name of democracy or national security, to order us to cooperate with   a strategy designed to starve the people of Iraq, to deprive them of medicine and medical supplies, spare parts for infrastructure, pencils for school children, chlorine for water and sewage treatment, toys, employment, or any of the essentials necessary to sustain daily life.

We object to the licensing regulations which your office upholds and we, in good conscience, will not participate. We believe it is our civic responsibility to speak out against injustice and our moral and religious responsibility to act on conscience: to do justice; to feed the hungry and care for the sick. The licensing process is an obstruction of our right to exercise these civic, moral and religious duties. We will not participate in the enforcement of an embargo which uses food and medicine as a weapon, which has led to the deaths of over one million Iraqis and is a Crime Against Humanity.

Since March, 1996, delegation members have delivered symbolic amounts of medicine, medical supplies and (in some cases) toys, directly to public hospitals and, in some instances, to the Iraqi Red Crescent Society for distribution. Our members have witnessed the devastating conditions of civilian life resulting from the 1991 Gulf War and the ensuing eight and one half years of the most comprehensive embargo in the history of the United Nations. The embargo has prevented Iraq from restoring its infrastructure, including the public health care system and water, sewage and sanitation treatment facilities.

While in Iraq, our delegations have met with U.N. officials, NGO’s, religious leaders and children and families. We have visited internal refugee camps, clinics and hospitals. Members have held dying children in their arms. We have talked to their parents who tell us they cannot provide sufficient food nor clean water for their children. We have talked with doctors who have the skills to save lives, but lack the facilities and medical supplies.

Our experience has taught us that comprehensive sanctions, such as those imposed on Iraq, are an insidious form of warfare that target the poorest, weakest and most vulnerable populations. UNICEF reported on April 30, 1998 that “Economic sanctions on Iraq over the past seven years have had a devastating effect on the majority of the Iraqi people, particularly children…Over half of the children are dying  from malnutrition, never a problem before sanctions.”  UNICEF cites the following statistics on death: a child dies every 12 minutes; 250 people die a day; 90,000 a year because of sanctions.

No military or political objectives can justify a form of economic warfare that exacts such a civilian toll. International law and the U.N. charter prohibit acts of warfare that target civilian populations. The embargo as applied amounts to the commission of a Crime Against Humanity as specified in the Nuremberg Judgment. Our own Declaration of Independence declares that all people are created equal and endowed with inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Surely this applies to innocent children and powerless civilians in Iraq.

Upon returning from Iraq, our members have felt compelled to speak to the media, schools, universities, civic organizations, churches, synagogues and mosques about what they witnessed. This education has become a critical counterpoint to stated U.S. foreign   policy objectives. It should be noted that over the past eight years, to our knowledge, no Member of Congress or official of the Administration has visited Iraq to witness the effects of the embargo on its civilian population. For a democracy to function information must be available. Since Iraq is a major foreign policy focus, and billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars have been allocated to maintain this policy, our members have taken it upon themselves to bring back vital information.

On December 3, 1997, U.S. Customs agents confiscated goods from returning delegation members, including photographic film, video and audio tapes, notebooks, pictures, “a wooden drum” and other goods. When asked by Messrs. Handelman, Mullins, Sacks, and Zito why these items were being confiscated, agents replied that they  were “evidence of crime.” We sincerely hope you have reviewed the video, pictures and notes, for we believe this material represents compelling evidence of a Crime Against Humanity. We request you return this property to its rightful owners at your earliest convenience.

While acknowledging that we have violated the embargo regulations and will continue to do so, we believe that the proposed fines should be dismissed for the cited reasons. In any case, we will not consent to pay any fine; to do otherwise would betray the very foundations of our democracy as written in the First Amendment to the Constitution:   freedom of conscience and worship, freedom of association and expression for both religious and political purposes, freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Further, our funds have been contributed by citizens across this country for the expressed purpose of purchasing medicine and continuing the work of ending the embargo. In conscience, we cannot deviate from our stated mission.

In the spirit of Martin Luther King Jr., we believe that those who have violated the embargo were taking reasonable, nonviolent steps to mitigate violations of   international law and to provide humanitarian assistance to victims in Iraq of Crimes Against Humanity.

If your office or any official charged with enforcing the regulations seeks to test our commitment or the correctness of our conduct, we would welcome that opportunity as yet another forum for public debate on the morality and legality of the embargo against Iraq.

We ask what kind of nation have we become, when the government of the most powerful country on Earth prosecutes its citizens for the simple act of providing humanitarian aid to our brothers and sisters in Iraq. We simply reject the government’s contention that we cannot carry medicine to the sick, and assert that it is a greater evil to let the children die.

We ask you to join in our effort to end the scourge of the embargo on the children and families of Iraq. Sincerely, Kathy Kelly for Voices in the Wilderness

Attachment #1: Prof. Richard Falk - International Law Argument [back to top] Implementing Sanctions Against Iraq Involves the Commission of Crimes Against Humanity

Given our knowledge of the massive civilian suffering that has resulted from more than eight years of sanctions imposed on the people of Iraq, it becomes clear that their continuation amounts to a serious violation of international humanitarian law. And for those responsible for implementing such a policy there is the added element of criminal accountability for complicity in the commission of crimes against humanity. At the Nuremberg Judgment in 1945 it was decided that such crimes, if connected with   underlying war policies, would qualify as crimes against humanity. Here, ever since the cease-fire ended the Gulf War in 1991 there has been knowledge of the high level of civilian death arising from the sanctions.

The fundamental rule of international law with respect to the use of force of any kind is that it be directed at military targets, and that civilian damage is only acceptable to the extent that it is collateral. This rule is incorporated into binding treaties in the form of the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 on warfare and the Geneva Conventions of 1949 on humanitarian responsibilities. The sanctions policy against Iraq was a direct outgrowth and continuation of the Gulf War, and it has been implemented ever since 1990 in a manner that is mainly directed at the civilian population. It amounts to an indiscriminate weapon that is relied upon over and over again.

The fact that these sanctions have been endorsed and renewed by the United Nations Security Council does not change their status in relation to international law. The Organization and its members are responsible, as is any individual state, for acting in accordance with international law, especially in the setting of uses of force. Indeed, the United Nations, as dedicated to peace and justice by its Charter, should uphold a higher standard than states when it comes to upholding international law.

It is well known that the US Government has been the most ardent supporter of sanctions, rejecting efforts by other countries to end them. These efforts by political leaders subject them to potential criminal responsibility, especially given the well-documented knowledge of the large number of civilian deaths attributable month by month to the sanctions. This responsibility is aggravated by the efforts to penalize individuals who seek to bring medical supplies and other forms of relief to the people of Iraq. The Treasury Department regulations that implement the sanctions and impose penalties for their violation are null and void due to their flagrant disregard of applicable international law.

American citizens who are aware of these realities have a legal right to ignore the sanctions, and any domestic laws that attempt to punish non-compliance, are themselves “illegal.” It was a major finding at Nuremberg that individuals are directly accountable to international law in relation to this fundamental subject-matter, and have under certain circumstances a legal duty to ignore “superior orders” intended to implement policies in violation of international law. In fact, following government orders or laws in such circumstances is not a good defense against a subsequent prosecution. The situation here is less defined, but the same reasoning applies. To follow US laws and regulations that implement the sanctions against Iraq, given knowledge of their illegality, would itself involve complicity with a policy at odds with international law.

Those individuals who are bringing medical supplies to Iraq in defiance of the sanctions are pursuing a reasonable, nonviolent approach that acknowledges the moral and legal duty of all persons to uphold the fundamental international law protecting the rights of people. It is their witness that contributes to a wider appreciation of the illegality and depravity associated with maintaining the sanctions at this time, and  adds weight to the demand that the United Nations itself conform to international law, and terminate the sanctions immediately. It is their tangible assistance to the Iraq victims of sanctions that gives symbolic relief. To uphold international law the sanctions must be ended, and a massive humanitarian effort under UN auspices initiated to overcome the lingering effects as quickly as possible.

Attachment #2: Prof. Howard Zinn - Historical Argument [back to top] The Role of Civil Disobedience in Promoting Democracy in the United States

There is a long and honorable tradition in the United States of citizen actions of civil disobedience,  that is, of technical violations of law to serve important social values. Either at the time these actions took place, or later, in the judgment of   history, they became recognized as justified because they served a vital purpose for society. What follows is a list, far from complete, of such events:

1. The acts of civil disobedience in the period preceding the Revolutionary War are quite well known, but often ignored when contemporary acts are judged, not by standards of   justice, but by narrow technical standards of war. The various oppressive British laws were disobeyed by colonists, in protest against the harshness of British rule: there were demonstrations against the Stamp Act of 1765; there were violations of the Tea Act, including the dumping of tea in Boston Harbor, known as the Boston Tea Party.

2. The Fugitive Slave Act of 1793, requiring the return of escaped slaves to their masters, was violated repeatedly. In 1830, for instance, an escaped slave brought into federal court was rescued by anti-slavery people and set free. The people who committed that act of civil disobedience were not prosecuted, despite their violation of the law, because it was recognized that the moral end of their action superseded the technicality of breaking the law.

3. There were many violations of the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850, in which groups of white and black abolitionists rescued, or attempted to rescue, escaped slaves. They took place in Christiana, Pennsylvania, Syracuse, New York, Boston, Massachusetts, and Oberlin, Ohio, among other places. In several of these instances, juries refused to find the defendants guilty, judging their technical violation of the law to be superseded by a higher moral objective.

4. The rights of working people in the United States,  the eight hour day, decent wages, safe working conditions,  were achieved by many decades of struggle, including violations of trespassing laws and other statutes. The occupation of factories in 1936 and 1937,  the famous “sit-down strikes” were illegal, but resulted in the recognition of unions and the betterment of working conditions.

5. In more recent times, the civil disobedience in the civil rights movement of the 1960s is well known. Not only were local segregation laws violated, but when people engaged in “sit-ins” in 1960 and 1961 to protest racial segregation, they were in violation of recognized federal law, as enunciated in the Civil Rights Cases of 1883.  The nation soon recognized that these violations of law were honorable, and that punishment of people seeking to support the principles of the Declaration of Independence was wrong.

6. Also in the 1960s and 1970s, the movement against the war in Vietnam involved countless acts of civil disobedience, but these violations of law were recognized as playing a crucial role in bringing that disastrous war to an end, and thus saving many lives.

In short, American history sustains the idea that CIVIL disobedience, the violation of laws on behalf of human rights, against starvation and sickness should be distinguished from CRIMINAL disobedience, where a law is violated for individual gain. Civil disobedience therefore is not to be punished because it is a technical violation of law, but to be honored as part of the American tradition, enhancing democracy.

Howard Zinn is Professor Emeritus, Boston University and author of numerous books, including A People’s History of the United States. Attachment #3: Fr. Simon Harak, S.J. � Moral and Religious Argument [back to top] A Voice cries in the Wilderness: Prepare ye the way of the Lord …  (Isaiah 40: 3)

“Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, stood to address them: ‘Rulers of the people, and elders! If you are questioning us today about an act of  kindness done to one crippled, then I am glad to tell you all . . . it was done in the name of the Lord’”   (Acts of the Apostles 4:10).

To the Leaders of our Government:

We write to you with great respect and hope. We write because you are questioning us today about an act of kindness done to a crippled people: we, who call ourselves “Voices in the Wilderness,” have brought medicines and toys to the people of Iraq, though your laws forbade us. We offer you the same explanation that the apostle Peter, and so many others before and since, have offered to their rulers: we have done this, and will continue to do it, in the name of God.

What does it mean when we profess that we are “one nation, under God”? It means logically that our laws and customs, our practices and policies, are lower in importance than the laws and commands of God. And yet governments, especially powerful governments, and rulers of the people, often forget that. They even go so far as to convince themselves that their own will - euphemistically called, national self-interest, in all its forms - must also be identical to the will of God.

Nevertheless all through our history, individuals and groups have arisen to challenge their governments’ and rulers’ claim to divine authority. Their resistance was always met with persecution, trial, and sometimes even death. We know many of them. Most of them we revere; some we even worship. Yet even now, even here, governments and rulers repeat the persecution of those who raise their voices to recall their people to the pathways of God.

From our Western tradition, we might recall the actions of Antigone, immortalized in Sophocles’ play. Faithful to the higher law of her religious principles, Antigone buried her brother, though Creon, the ruler of Thebes, had forbidden it. For this she suffered death.

From the same tradition, we hear the story of Socrates. Faithful to the higher law of the Oracle of Delphi and of the call of his inner god, Socrates pursued his quest for truth among the people of Athens. For this he was accused of misleading the youth of the city, and sentenced by the state to drink deadly poison.

In the story of the Buddha, we hear that the Buddha’s father tried to prevent his son from becoming the Buddha, so that his son could rule the world. Instead a higher power, the gods, intervened. They showed the young Siddhartha the “four signs” which drew him from the wealth of his father’s home, to seek a solution to the suffering of the world. When he discovered it, he became the first religious leader in recorded history to proclaim the doctrine of  nonviolence toward all living things.

From the Jewish tradition, we find that prophets are always challenging their leaders and people to return to the ways of the Lord: to care for the widows and the orphans, to tend to the sick and to liberate the oppressed. This was entirely in keeping with the covenant and character of the Hebrew God, revealed most decisively in the Exodus. There, God did not side with the rich and powerful Egyptians, with their “super-weapons” of chariots and horses. He sided with the oppressed and led them to freedom. God proved Himself to be a power greater than the rulers of Egypt and all their weapons.

Later the prophets, voices for that God, continued the tradition of challenging rulers in solidarity with the oppressed. We see, for example, the prophet Nathan challenging King David. King David had sinned by committing adultery. Then the king arranged to use a war to cover over his crime. Though he was successful in killing his rival, God sent the prophet Nathan to expose and challenge the king himself. For God is no respecter of persons, or of offices.

And while it is true that the God of Moses gave the talionic law [Eye for eye, tooth for tooth], that same God always called for mercy for the oppressed and helpless, and promised the most dire punishments to those who ignored that call. Then, as the Jewish people moved closer to strict monotheism (Isaiah=40ff.), we hear a stronger and stronger call to nonviolence. In the song of  Isaiah 52:53, we see that once again the one who espouses the call to nonviolence is persecuted and killed. And yet all the while the “Suffering Servant” is praying for those who persecute him.

That same talionic law is presented in Qur’an. But there Allah reminds us that, though one has the right to self defense, God loves the merciful, and will bless those who forgo that right for the sake of peace. And we know that the prophet Muhammad was also persecuted by the religious, economic and political leaders of Mecca, until following the Voice of God, he had to withdraw to Medina in a hijra that marks the beginning of the Muslim calendar. A reading of Qur’an also offers us strict laws to restrain the practice of war, laws which, we cannot help but observe, our government has consistently violated in its more-than-eight-year war against the Iraqi people.

The Jewish movement toward nonviolence found its principle expression in the teachings of Jesus, who expressly taught His followers, “You have heard it said, ‘You shall love your friends,’ and hate your enemies. But I say to you, Love your enemies, pray for your persecutors …”  (Matthew 5:43-44).

This same Jesus told us that we would be judged by what we did to the least of our sisters and brothers, since Jesus would “take it personally,” as though it had been done to Him (cf. Matthew 25: 31ff). For 300 years the early Christian Church practiced this nonviolent love for others. They would not take part in war, or abortion or infanticide - practices most common in the empire of their day. They would not even go to the gladiatorial contests, since it meant the shedding of blood. For their “defiance” of the practices of empire in the name of their God, these Christians were persecuted and martyred in their thousands by their own government. Yet still they refused in the name of   God to take part in killing, and in the shedding of blood. They refused to take part in any of the violent revolutions against their government. You see, they understood their “love of enemies” to extend even to their own government which was persecuting them.*

It is this same love we extend to our Iraqi brothers and sisters. In the name of  our God, we respectfully refuse to have anything to do with shedding their blood. We refuse to support our bombing of their country, now defenseless against our attacks. We refuse to participate in any way with the sanctions, which kill so many hundreds of thousands of them. We go so far as to love them and minister to them, as God wants us to.

We know that the sanctions are “legal.”  But we remember that everything the Nazis did during the Holocaust was “legal.”  And again, we remember that whatever we might call “lawful”  has first to be subject to the laws of God. And our God is a God of nonviolence.

It is that same love we extend to you, our persecutors. In love, we ask you to examine yourselves before the Last Judgment about which the various religious traditions speak. In the playing out, in the historical drama of our religious tradition, which role are you playing?

The “law” we have violated is to take medicine and toys to our sisters and brothers without a license. We brought the medicines and toys because of the higher law of God’s love of the people of Iraq. But to this reason, we add our higher, religious reasons. If we sought a license from you, it would be acknowledging your right to levy these massively lethal sanctions on the people of Iraq. We do not believe that anyone has such a right, for any reason. We respectfully and nonviolently prescind from the entire regime of the sanctions, including seeking a license.

Further, in our love for you, our persecutors, we cannot support you in doing such an evil thing. No one who truly loves would allow another to pursue a path that would jeopardize his or her soul’s standing before God. Instead of  persecuting us, we ask you to work with us to end the sanctions on Iraq which quietly and inobtrusively kill some 250 of our brothers and sisters each day. We beg you to abandon the ways of the pharaohs and the emperors of our own time, and to take up the way of God.

Even if you choose not to join us, however, we will not stop challenging the sanctions which, by reliable UN reports, claim the lives of 5,000 to 6,000 children of Iraq each month. Precisely because we obey a higher Law, we refuse to pay the proposed fine, or in any way cooperate with the evil of  the sanctions regime. It is our duty, under God, to help our Iraqi sisters and brothers. It is our duty, under God, not to cooperate in any way with evil, or bend to its false claims to power. For the sake of those divine duties, we are ready endure any suffering, as did Socrates and Antigone, the prophets, Buddha, Jesus, Muhammad, and all our other ancestors in the struggle before us. But we will not stop calling our country to repent for the harm we have done. We will not stop calling for just, nonviolent, God-led solutions to our problems with Iraq. We will not stop speaking in the voice of prophecy, the voice of one crying in the wilderness. We will continue to challenge the sanctions on Iraq, openly and publicly.

To quote Socrates in the Apology, we respectfully say, “We will not abandon our ways, even if you were to kill us many times.” To quote Peter and John in their defense for their good deed, “Judge for yourselves whether it is right for us to obey God, or to obey human beings. As for us, we cannot stop proclaiming what we have seen and heard.”   (Acts 4:19-20).

• Later, the Church became the official Church of the Roman Empire, and began to think of ways to accept limited acts of war. Such a process resulted in the informal adoption of what is now called “Just War Theory [JWT].” However, the sanctions against Iraq violate the canons of JWT as well. Principally they violate the criteria of non-combatant immunity, since the sanctions target particularly the weak, and proportionality, since no possible good can overbalance the harm done in killing so many hundreds of thousands. This JWT position against the sanctions is best laid out in a letter to President Bill Clinton, signed by 54 Catholic Bishops, dated January 1998 on Diocese of Detroit letterhead.

  ---

News Release - U.S. Humanitarian Organization Prosecuted for Delivering Medicine and Toys to Iraq

[back to top]
Wednesday, December 30
National Press Club Building, Washington, DC

Speakers include: Bishop Thomas Gumbleton, Detroit & Kathy Kelly, Voices in the Wilderness (both recently returned from Iraq after delivering medical supplies)

The U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), has proposed fines of $163,000 against Voices in the Wilderness (VitW), a Chicago-based humanitarian organization. The prepenalty notice of December 3, 1998, accuses VitW of engaging in prohibited transactions relating to the embargo against Iraq, specifically, the exportation of donated goods, including medical supplies and toys.

Since January 15, 1996, VitW has sent nineteen delegations to Iraq, in public violation of United Nations sanctions. Delegation members have delivered symbolic amounts of medicine, medical supplies and (in some cases) toys directly to public hospitals and, in some instances, to the Iraqi Red Crescent Society for distribution. Members have witnessed the devastating conditions of civilian life resulting from eight and one half years of the most comprehensive embargo in the history of the U.N.

Campaign Coordinator Kathy Kelly, who returns from Iraq on December 29, stated “with respect to the enforcement of this embargo, we are conscientious objectors. We will not allow the U.S. government, in the name of democracy or national security, to order us to cooperate with a strategy designed to starve the people of Iraq, to deprive them of medicine and medical supplies, or any of the essentials necessary to sustain daily life. We will not participate in the enforcement of an embargo which uses food and medicine as a weapon, and has led to the deaths of over one million people.”  While acknowledging violating the embargo regulations, Ms. Kelly said “we will not consent to pay any fine, we simply reject the government’s contention that we cannot carry medicine to the sick, and assert that it is a greater evil to let the children die.”

---

OFAC “Penalty Notice” to Bert Sacks

[back to top]

May 17, 2002

Dear Mr. Sacks:

A Prepenalty Notice (”Notice”) dated December 3, 1998, was issued to you, by the Office of Foreign Assets Control (”OFAC”) for having engaged in certain prohibited transactions relating to Iraq, as detailed in the Notice. No license or approval was issued by OFAC for these transactions.

Accordingly, such transactions violated the Iraqi Sanctions Regulations, 31 CF.R Part 575 (the “Regulations”), promulgated pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, 50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq. (”IEEPA”) and underlying statutes and Executive Orders. See §§ 575.207 and 515.211 of the Regulations.

Section 206 of IEEPA, 50 U.S.C. § 1705, provides, in part, for a civil penalty not to exceed $10,000 for each such violation. Section 586E of the Iraq Sanctions Act of 1990, PL.IO1-S13, 104 Stat. 2049, provides, in part, for a civil penalty not to exceed $250,000 for each violation occurring after November 5, 1990.’ Pursuant to §§ 575.702 of the Regulations. the Notice proposed a penalty against you in the amount of $10,000. You were advised of your right to make a written presentation to OFAC setting forth reasons why the penalty should not be issued or, if issued why the amount should be less than that proposed. Such written response was required to be made within thirty (30) days of the mailing of the Notice.
OFAC mailed the Notice to you on December 3,1998. Delivery is evidenced by a signed United States Postal Service Form 3811, Domestic Return Receipt.

By a response received at OFAC January 8. 1999, you made a written presentation setting forth reasons why you engaged in certain prohibited transactions relating to the embargo against Iraq. You admitted the Notice’s allegation in Count 6 that you exported goods to Iraq absent prior OFAC approval and also stated that you decided to violate the U.S-Government’s economic sanctions against Iraq as an act of civil disobedience.

OFAC notes that you have admitted to Count 6 alleged in the Notice. The allegations included your currency travel-related transactions to/from/within Iraq absent prior license or other authorization from OFAC. The Regulations prohibit persons subject to United States jurisdiction from engaging in any transaction relating to travel to Iraq. See § 575.207 of the Regulations. Accordingly, OFAC finds that you have violated the Regulations as alleged in Count 6 of the Notice.

After a careful review of the entire file, it is determined that you did violate IEEPA and the Regulations. It is further determined that, while some relief is warranted to take into account the fact that the instant violation was your first offense on record at OFAC, such relief must be balanced against aggravating factors present, specifically your willful violation of the Regulations.

Accordingly, the proposed civil penalty in the amount of $10,000 is hereby imposed upon you pursuant to § 575.704 of the Regulations.

A check payable to the “U.S. Treasury” in the amount of $10,000 should be sent within 30 days of the mailing of this Penalty Notice to the Office of Foreign Assets Control, (Attention: Civil Penalties), U.S. Treasury Department, 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue. N.W., Washington, D.C. 20220. Please note that interest, administrative charges and late fees will commence to accrue after 30 days of the mailing of the Penalty Notice. Under Public Law 97-365, 31 U.S.C. § 3717, interest at an annual rate inter of 5% and an administrative charge of$12.00 will be added monthly if the amount is not paid by the due date. Should the amount not be paid within ninety (90) days, an additional late charge of 6% will be added.

Please note that § 575.705 of the Regulations provides that this matter shall be referred for administrative collection measures or to the United States Department of Justice for collection if the penalty is not paid within 30 days of the mailing of the Penalty Notice.

Please further note that 31 U.S.C. § 7701 requires that a person assessed a penalty by a Federal agency furnish a taxpayer identification number/Social Security Number and also requires the agency to disclose that we intend to use such number for the purposes of collecting and reporting on any delinquent penalty amount in the event of a failure to pay the penalty imposed. Sincerely, (signed) Richard Newcomb, Director Office of Foreign Assets Control  Mr. Bertram Sacks,127 NW Bowdoin Place, #103 Seattle, Washington 98107

cc: U.S. Customs Service Fines, Penalties & Forfeitures Office (Attn: Mr. Don Zainea), Patrick V. McNamara Bldg. 477 Michigan Avenue. Rm 200 Detroit, Michigan 48226

---

Bert Sacks’ Response to OFAC

[back to top]

June 17, 2002 R. Richard Newcomb, Director Office of Foreign Assets Control Department of the Treasury Washington, DC 20220 Ref: FAC No. IQ-162016 and IQ-162433

Dear Mr. Newcomb:

This is in response to your letter to me, dated May 17, 2002 (and postmarked from Washington, DC, on May 21, 2002) which imposes a $10,000 fine on me for alleged violations of U.S. sanctions regulations.

In your letter you state that I “admitted the Notice’s allegation in Count 6 [”travel-related violations”] … as an act of civil disobedience.”  This is incorrect.

Count 6 [in your letter to us of December 3, 1998] deals only with “travel-related transactions … the purchase of food, lodging, ground transportation and incidentals.”  I have never admitted to, nor supplied information about, any such transactions.

Therefore, since your claim that I admit to the violation is untrue, I assert that you must either withdraw the fine against me or provide evidence of your claim. I have stated — as I did in my reply to you of December 28, 1998 and to Customs agents in Detroit and Seattle — that I admit to bringing medicines to Iraq.  This is the only violation of United States sanctions regulations I admit to.

As a further defense against the fine you’ve imposed on me, I assert that you have not offered me, in any of your correspondence, the opportunity to have a meaningful hearing before an independent judicial officer about the alleged violation you claim.

A person alleged to have committed the same violation with respect to other countries, Cuba for example, is entitled to such a hearing.  With respect to Iraq, it appears that I am not.  I assert that it is unconstitutional to treat the two classes of individuals differently, and that it is unconstitutional to impose this type of penalty without affording a meaningful opportunity to be heard and to seek judicial review of an adverse determination.

I assert that I am denied my rights under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.  The fact that administrative penalties under the regulations may total $275,000 makes the lack of any independent judicial review especially egregious.

If my understanding of the regulations is incorrect, then I hereby request an independent judicial hearing concerning the fine you’ve imposed against me.

A further defense against the fine you’ve imposed on me concerns the relation of U.S. sanctions law to international law.  Professor Richard Falk in his attachment to our reply to you of December 28, 1998, began this way:  “Given our knowledge of the massive civilian suffering that has resulted from more than eight years of sanctions imposed on the people of Iraq, it becomes clear that their continuation amounts to a serious violation of international humanitarian law.”  I enclose his statement to you again.

In the intervening three and a half years, the United Nations itself has provided further strong evidence of the “massive civilian suffering” and the “serious violation of international humanitarian law” which Professor Falk described.

On August 12, 1999, UNICEF described the results of their recent survey of child and maternal mortality in Iraq.  UNICEF’s Executive Director. Carol Bellamy, is quoted this way:

“Ms. Bellamy noted that if the substantial reduction in child mortality throughout Iraq during the 1980s had continued through the 1990s, there would have been half a million fewer deaths of children under five in the country as a whole during the eight year period 1991 to 1998. As a partial explanation, she pointed to a March statement of the Security Council Panel on Humanitarian Issues which states: ‘Even if not all suffering in Iraq can be imputed to external factors, especially sanctions, the Iraqi people would not be undergoing such deprivations in the absence of the prolonged measures imposed by the Security Council and the effects of war.’”

The enclosed “UNICEF in Iraq” booklet shows, in pictures and in text, exactly what we see in Iraq.  The booklet states, “In 1997, the United Nations Human Rights Committee noted that ‘the effect of sanctions and blockades has been to cause suffering and death in Iraq, especially to children.’”

On June 21, 2000, the UN Sub-Commission on Human Rights, in a paper titled “The adverse consequences of economic sanctions on the enjoyment of human rights,” found “The sanctions regime against Iraq is unequivocally illegal under existing international humanitarian law and human rights law. Some would go as far as making a charge of genocide.”

On May 3, 2002, Professor George E. Bisharat of Hastings College of Law, University of California, began a published article this way: “A serious legal argument can be made that sanctions imposed against Iraq in 1990 by the United Nations have come to constitute genocide.”

In a paper “Sanctions as Genocide” in “Transnational Law & Contemporary Problems” from Fall 2001, Professor Bisharat writes: “This Article concludes, with some caution, that a prima facie case can be made that the sanctions program has become a form of genocide and that criminal liability for that offense may rest with U.S. government officials responsible for originating and maintaining the sanctions program.”

On June 21, 2001, Ms. Katrina C. Pflaumer, the former United States Attorney for the Western District of Washington, in a published article stated that Gulf War bombing of Iraq’s civilian infrastructure, followed by economic sanctions, violates both the Geneva Convention and U.S. federal statutes.

On April 21, 2002, the Annual General Meeting of Amnesty International USA voted overwhelmingly to call for an end to economic sanctions against Iraq, stating that they are an insupportable violation of the human rights of the Iraqi people.

I attach a legal brief supplied to me by Professor Francis Boyle of the University of Illinois College of Law.  I wish also to incorporate this brief into my defense against the fine you’ve imposed on me. 

The arguments in the brief assert my legal right — and even my legal obligation — to violate U.S. sanctions law.

I am also troubled by the selective enforcement of this penalty against me.  However I am pleased to be among a distinguished list of individuals and groups who have, like me, brought medicines to needy people in Iraq.  This group includes Nobel Peace Laureates, a Catholic bishop, clergy from major religious institutions, representatives of the American Friends Service Committee, Veterans for Peace, the Fellowship of Reconciliation, Washington Physicians for Social Responsibility, Pax Christi USA, the Baptist Peace Fellowship, various Quaker meetings, Dominican nuns and priests, Jubilee Partners, 46 Voices in the Wilderness delegations, and hundreds of others.

I have traveled to Basra, Iraq, where we delivered some of our medicine in 1997.  The antibiotics we brought saved lives, especially the lives of young children who are most vulnerable to illness from unsafe water.  After his visit to Iraq in 2000, U.S. Representative Tony Hall wrote, “I share UNICEF’s concerns about the profound effects of increasing deterioration of Iraq’s water supply and sanitation systems on its children’s health.  The prime killer of children under five years of age - diarrheal diseases - has reached epidemic proportions and they now strike four times more often than they did in 1990.”

In September 2001, Professor Thomas J. Nagy published an article “The Secret Behind the Sanctions: How the U.S. Intentionally Destroyed Iraq’s Water Supply.”  It begins, “Over the last two years, I’ve discovered documents of the Defense Intelligence Agency proving beyond a doubt that, contrary to the Geneva Convention, the U.S. government intentionally used sanctions against Iraq to degrade the country’s water supply after the Gulf War.  The United States knew the cost that civilian Iraqis, mostly children, would pay, and it went ahead anyway.  The primary document, ‘Iraq Water Treatment Vulnerabilities,’ is dated January 22, 1991.  It spells out how sanctions will prevent Iraq from supplying clean water to its civilians.”

I attach a document titled “Civilian Infrastructure Destroyed” which contains quotes from that Defense Intelligence Agency document, from Pentagon bombing planners after the Gulf War, from

---

Sacks Announces Intent to Deliver $10,000 in Donated Medical Relief to Iraq [back to top]
June 11, 2002
American fined $10,000 for admitting to bringing medicines to Iraq

Press Conference to be held at 10:00 am, Monday, June 17, 2002 at the National Press Club, Zanger Room, 13th floor, 529 14th Street NW, Washington, DC

Washington, DC–Seattle resident Bert Sacks, the first American to be fined by the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) for his admission that he brought medicines to Iraq, will hold a press conference on June 17, 2002 to display samples of medicines he has carried to Iraq and announce his intent to continue nonviolently resisting the UN/US economic sanctions against Iraq.

In what appears to be the first case of its kind, OFAC has imposed a $10,000 fine on Bert Sacks.  Sacks says he will not pay the fine and will elaborate on his reasons at the Press Conference. June 17 marks the last working day within the 30-day period which the US Treasury Department and OFAC have allotted as a response time before they will attempt collection and add penalties.

Mr. Sacks traveled to Iraq with a delegation of four from the Chicago-based group Voices in the Wilderness.  In December 1998, the Treasury’s OFAC threatened the entire group with fines totaling$163,000.  However, this is the first time an actual fine has been imposed, and only on Mr. Sacks. Returning in late May from his eighth trip to Iraq, Bert Sacks explained his position: “I have seen the children of Basra, ill and dying because of unsafe water.  How can I ask the government which deliberately bombed civilian infrastructure during the Gulf War — knowing it would create conditions of unsafe water and doing so as a tool of coercion — how can I ask this government for permission to bring medicines to those still in need?”

Kathy Kelly, co-founder of the group Voices in the Wilderness, will attend the Press Conference.   She says, from her many trips to Iraq, that the sanctions regime represents one of the greatest injustices of our time, having brought starvation and disease to millions of innocent Iraqis.  The recent UN Security Council Resolution endorsing so called ’smart sanctions’ won’t solve the economic and social catastrophe facing ordinary Iraqi citizens,” said Kelly, describing it instead as a grim perpetuation of a failed policy.  “We will continue resisting economic warfare by sending delegations to Iraq and, if need be, taking up residence in Iraq in advance of and during any new massive military assault against Iraqi civilians.”

Peter Lems, of the American Friends Service Committee, will have returned from Iraq days earlier.  He is expected to attend the Press Conference and speak of what he has just seen on his fact-finding trip.

All three cite the paper from the U.N. Subcommision on Human Rights: “The sanctions regime against Iraq is unequivocally illegal under existing international humanitarian law and human rights law. Some would go as far as making a charge of genocide.”  Bert Sacks says, “Given this finding, I am morally and legally obligated NOT to obey U.S. laws which violate international law.”  He also notes, “If I’d received a $100 traffic ticket, I’d be entitled to a hearing before a judge, but with this fine of $10,000, I am not.”