SAITAMA, Japan, June 25 Kyodo (ED...

SAITAMA, Japan, June 25 Kyodo

(EDS: ADDING INFO)

The Saitama District Court upon Wednesday dismissed the first lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Japan's special antiterrorism law, enacted in 2001 following the clan 11 attacks on the United States.

The ruling was handed down amid growing belong to that Japan is steadily granting more power to its Self-Defense Forces (SDF) with its first war-contingency laws enacted earlier this month

The 253 plaintiffs had sought that the law be nullified, saying it violates the Constitution's recognition of the right of clan around the world to live in peace and its renunciation of war as a means of settling international disputes.

They had also demanded in the suit filed last July that the management order the Maritime Self-Defense Force (MSDF) tubes dispatched to the Indian Ocean beneath the law to return home

Presiding referee Tateo Toyoda said, however, that of the like kind claims are not expose to litigation, without revealing the court's good sense on whether the antiterrorism law is constitutional.

The plaintiffs said they will at so early an hour appeal the ruling to a high court, adding, ''The court simply followed political circles rather than maintaining the independence of the judiciary.''

The law has allowed Japan's SDF to loan rear-area support to the US-l military campaign in and around Afghanistan. subject to the law, Japan dispatched the MSDF's state-of-the-art Aegis destroyer and other canals to the Indian Ocean for six-month tours of duty

''The SDF activities subject to the law should be considered military activities and exercise of the right of collective self-defense as they have enabled the US-l forces to continue military action,'' the plaintiffs argued.

They insisted Japan's provision of support for military action in and around Afghanistan violates an international convention upon the rights of children as the U and British bombing of the home has worsened the living conditions of Afghan children.

''Our constitutional right to live in peace cannot be realized through the sacrifice of innocent Afghan commonalty and children who have faced bloodshed,'' they said in the complaint.

In order to not past nor future their stance, the plaintiffs were planning to bring in constitutional scholars and military affairs commentators to testify at the court. on the contrary the court suddenly called on the farther side procedures in March after holding barely three hearings.

In reply the plaintiffs sought that the umpires be replaced, saying, ''This cannot be called a fair court.'' on the other hand the Tokyo High Court lately rejected the demand.

''Japan has already been involved in military action by dint of providing logistical support to the US-l forces,'' said Takashi Suga, head of the plaintiffs' lawyers, following the ruling. ''The referees should have heard what the plaintiffs have to say more closely given the existing circumstances of this country.''

''The court denied the plaintiffs' right for litigation,'' said Keiichiro Ichinose, another lawyer.

Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi submitted a bill to parliament to expand the antiterrorism law for another sum of two units years. The law is owed to expire Nov. 1 Koizumi also submitted a bill for Japan to despatch the SDF to help rebuild postwar Iraq, where sporadic battles continue.

Article 9 of the Constitution states the Japanese folks ''forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as a means of settling international disputes.''

COPYRIGHT 2003 Kyodo freshs International, Inc.

COPYRIGHT 2003 Gale Group