ANALYSIS: Francis Boyle distinguishes 'civil resistance' from 'civil disobedience'
Written by Madeleine Lee
Friday, 14 December 2007

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."

...

[edit:] Here are a couple more quotes that I like. Part of the first one was included above:

"Today in international legal terms, the Bush Jr. administration itself should now be viewed as constituting an ongoing criminal conspiracy under international criminal law in violation of the Nuremberg Charter, the Nuremberg Judgment, and the Nuremberg Principles, because of its formulation and undertaking of serial wars of aggression, crimes against peace, crimes against humanity, and war crimes that are legally akin to those perpetrated by the former Nazi regime in Germany. As a consequence, 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."

"If you believe Dante may be right, that 'the hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in time of moral crisis, remain neutral,' you need this book. . . . If you are concerned that our country lives by its Constitution and laws, its often-proclaimed principles . . . you too should read this book. . . . If you cherish freedom, here is your chance to learn how much you have. A person ignorant of her rights has little advantage over those who have none." --Ramsey Clark, Former U.S. Attorney General. [Original source: Rowman & Littlefield