“I would agree with Saint Augustine that ‘An unjust law is no law at all.’”
-Martin Luther King, 1963 Letter from a Birmingham Jail

Dear Friends:

At a time when the whole world expects our country to be pouring resources into the re-building of Iraq, the US government has decided to prosecute people who brought humanitarian aid and medical supplies to the people of Iraq. As unbelievable as this sounds, it is true.

The US Department of the Treasury sued Voices in the Wilderness for $20,000 in fines for bringing medicines to the people of Iraq. Though law and justice are not the same, I hope that we will have a fair chance to make the following legal arguments and to put on evidence to support each of them.

In every phase of this matter, we must never allow the government to obscure the key point that the sanctions imposed on the people of Iraq caused the deaths of over 500,000 children under the age of five and the deaths of hundreds of thousands of others. VITW and many other human rights, religious and humanitarian groups around the globe have struggled vigorously to stop these immoral and illegal attacks against the innocent people of Iraq. No case, no fine, and no argument can ever be allowed to take our focus off of our sisters and brothers in Iraq. Now more than ever our sisters and brothers in Iraq need the solidarity of all the people of the world. All our work on this case must proceed
with this foremost in our minds.

In court, we will first point out that taking medicines to the people of Iraq does not appear to even be illegal. Neither the statutes cited nor the executive orders cited specifically prohibited the provision of humanitarian aid to Iraq. In fact, they specifically exempt humanitarian aid. The regulations do prohibit unlicensed humanitarian aid, but because the regulations only get their authority from the law, the regulations are too broad and therefore invalid against VITW members. The fact that the sanctions have been lifted further indicates the lack of basis for this fine under current law. Also, VITW is not a corporation. VITW did not go to Iraq to bring medical supplies, some of the people associated with VITW did. Why sue VITW?

Second, we have to raise the protections of our constitution. The actions of VITW members are consistent with constitutional law and it is reasonable to question the politics and the timing of the prosecution. The First, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments protect the freedom of people to engage in speech and political action, to practice their religious and ethical beliefs and practices, the freedom of association, the freedom to travel, and the due process and substantive due process rights of people. Freedom from governmental interference is supposed to be protected whenever possible, particularly when VITW members were helping people. Because VITW members took these actions of providing medical assistance openly, in good conscience and in good faith to assist people who were and remain in desperate need because of years of grave and immoral sanctions that resulted in the deaths of over a half a million children under the age of six, and hundreds of thousands more over the age of six, the VITW actions should be protected by the constitution. The timing and focus of this prosecution gives rise to serious questions about the constitutionality of the actions of those who would try to fine people for providing humanitarian aid to the people of Iraq and we will specifically reserve the right to take discovery and challenge the selective prosecution of VITW. Further, it is inappropriate to sue VITW under freedom of association grounds because not all members of VITW brought medical supplies to Iraq. VITW members all oppose the illegal and unjust sanctions imposed against the innocent people of Iraq, but those political views are not violations of any laws.

Third, the action taken by the government is a violation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 42 usc 2000bb-1. RFRA bars the government from placing a “substantial burden” on a person’s exercise of religion “even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability,” unless the government demonstrates a “compelling governmental interest,” and uses the “least restrictive means” of furthering that interest. Many VITW members have taken their positions and taken action to bring medical supplies to those in need in Iraq because of their ethical and religious beliefs. The government should not punish people for such action and belief.

Fourth, the actions taken by VITW members are consistent with and protected by international law. The sanctions have resulted in the deaths of more than a million people. International law does not support the sanctions nor the application of sanctions against the innocent people of Iraq. People who try to provide medical assistance to innocent victims of illegal sanctions are protected under international law.

Fifth, the actions taken by VITW members are consistent with and protected by the law of necessity. Necessity is the legal doctrine that says that there are just circumstances where one law needs to be violated in order to pursue a higher good. If you have to break into a house on fire to help the person trapped inside, it makes no sense to prosecute people for trespass afterwards. If any of these actions were actually found to be technical violations of law, then they were allowed under an appeal to the higher good of justice.

Sixth, VITW asks for a trial by jury. Wouldn’t you love the chance to talk about the real effect of the sanctions on the innocent people of Iraq and tell what people saw in Iraq and argue about the justice in all of this to the good people of Washington, DC? That would be a true exercise in justice at work.

Everyone is clear that VITW will not pay the fine and asks that no one else pay the fine.

Thanks to all who have contributed ideas and thoughts. Do not let the actions of our government distract our focus from the needs of our sisters and brothers in Iraq.

Peace,
Bill Quigley