Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
The Verdict: Guilty of Protesting US Drones
On Thursday, thirteen of us stood in a Las Vegas courtroom to hear the verdict from Judge Jansen regarding our September trial for trespassing on April 9, 2009 at Creech Air Force Base, headquarters of the U.S. drone operations. Last September, the judge had dramatically announced that he would need at least three months to "think" about the case.
After
telling us how "nice" it was to see us, the Judge presented each of us
with a twenty page legal ruling explaining why he found us guilty. You
argued a defense of necessity, he said, "when an inherent danger is
present and immediate action must be taken," such as breaking a no-
trespassing law to uphold a higher law and save life. "In this case, no inherent danger was present, and so I find you guilty."
Guilty! My friends and I have tried every legal means possible to stop our government from its terrorist drone bombing attacks on civilians in Afghanistan, and so we journeyed to the drone headquarters at Creech AFB near Las Vegas on Holy Thursday to kneel in prayer and beg for an end to the bombings. This nonviolent intervention is determined to be criminal-not the regular drone bombing attacks on children in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
I expected this ruling, but it was sad nonetheless. The judge missed a great opportunity to take a stand for justice and peace, to do the right thing, to help end terrorism. Instead, he sided with the war machine. Worse, he dismissed the loss of life caused by our drone attacks. It does not matter that civilians are being killed by our drones, he said in effect. Some lives are not worth as much as others, he ruled.
Before he sentenced us, we each spoke briefly about our action and why we crossed the line. This testimony was the best, most moving part of our ordeal, so I thought I would share excerpts from my co-defendants remarks.
Brian Terrell of the Catholic Worker told the judge that the evil work of Creech Air Force base does involve immediate, present danger-to the children and people of Afghanistan. He cited a recent interview with a young drone operator who sits in front of a computer screen at Creech. "The war is 7,000 miles away and the war is 18 inches away," the air force operator said. "7,000 miles, the distance from Creech to Afghanistan," Brian explained. "18 inches, the distance from his face to the screen. This distance is an illusion. And it's a very dangerous illusion. The purpose behind our action was to dispel that illusion because it is very close and the danger we were addressing was and is imminent."
Brian should know. He and Kathy Kelly were just back from a three week trip to Afghanistan where they met victims of U.S. drone attacks.
"In Afghanistan, I met a family displaced by a drone attack in the Helmand Province," Kathy Kelly told the judge. "One man showed me the photos of his children's bloodied corpses. The drone attack killed his spouse and his five children. In the Charahi Qambar refugee camp, I sat next to Juma Gul, a nine year old girl whose arm was amputated by the same drone attack. She was punished horribly even though she committed no crime. We want to be in solidarity with her."
"It's criminal for the U.S. to spend 2 billion dollars per week for war in Afghanistan that maims, kills and displaces innocent civilians who've meant us no harm," she said.
"I deplore the high tech technology used for mass killing which destroys and pollutes this sacred planet," Sister Megan Rice said. "I had to enter the base in order to obey higher orders. I have listened to the voice of the victims of drone warfare. These weapons are aptly named drones, predators, reapers. My entry into any place was and is an absolute necessity."
"We each have a responsibility to work for justice and to act in defense of human life," Libby Pappalardo said. "The use of drones has increased hatred and violence in our world. I have tried to work through the system, but it isn't enough. This is an emergency situation. Our country is worse off because of the violence of war and militarism. It's necessary to take this next step.
I will continue to struggle for human rights and nonviolence so that all the world's children can feel safe and embraced by peace and hope."
"I went to Creech to express my deep sorrow and outrage over the fact that my country was engaged in what I believe were acts of terrorism in the use of drones against my brothers and sisters," Eve Tetaz said. "I cannot remain silent. I think of Moses' words: ‘I set before you this day life and death, good and evil. Therefore, choose life that you and your family may live.' It is my prayer that you will be with us in speaking this truth to justice, that one day our nation will lead the world in the attempt to turn swords into plowshares and learn war no more so that the God of peace, mercy, justice and compassion will bring about law and justice. I invite you and all those who are present in the court to join us."
"As a veteran, I care about our guys over there," Dennis DuVall said. "Every time there's a drone strike, most of the victims are innocent women and children and old men like me. The younger men are considered militants. Each attack results in revenge attacks."
"Last Spring I was in New York City during the nuclear disarmament march in Times Square when a car bomb was almost detonated. It's ironic that I was protesting drone warfare at Creech AFB where they're directing drone attacks and a year later I was almost an unwitting victim of a revenge car bomb attempt in Times Square. The young man who built the bomb, Faisal Shazad, said he was motivated by drone attacks against Pakistan. There is a greater harm. If this isn't necessity, what the hell is? We cannot run from the consequences of our drone air war 7000 miles away. Eventually, it's going to come home to us. We're going to be the victims."
"We are attacking people in an Islamic country," Brad Lyttle said. "We are shooting missiles and killing them in an arbitrary manner. It is generating great hatred, and these people have the means to access weapons to cause us tremendous harm. We need to establish peaceful, just ways to resolve disputes. This is the message I would like to have people examine and think about.
We have to develop non-military means for achieving justice and therefore peace."
"I've been hearing about the Afghan youth peace volunteers who work for peace and nonviolence in their land," said Mariah Klusmire. "As long as they're working for peace in their country, I will too, and no punishment can stop me from working for peace."
"Through our presence, we were trying to make the imminent danger posed by drone warfare less remote," Steve Kelly said. "Our presence there was making the connection that would otherwise seem remote. We weren't there to do civil disobedience. We were there to make an intervention. Our intention was lawful. I'm disappointed and saddened that you came to the wrong conclusion."
"As a follower of Jesus as my Lord and Savior, I take seriously his second commandment, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself,'" Judy Homanich said. "As the mother of two wonderful children - my precious daughter, Sarah, who is just starting her adult life and my gone but not forgotten son, David, whose faith, courage and compassion continue to inspire me-I prayerfully acted in solidarity with all mothers, daughters, wives and sisters here and around the world who suffer loss due to war. My son David's death, at age 21, was due to cancer not war, but I understand the heart-wrenching, life-changing pain of losing a child, a loved one. The U.S. government kills countless innocents in drone attacks and calls it collateral damage."
"President Obama should heed his own words, spoken in October 2010 while in India," Judy continued. "He said nothing ever justifies the slaughter of innocent civilians. But the U.S. drone attacks continue. This criminal long distance killing makes us all less human and less safe. I have a duty to bear witness against this killing and I will continue to do so."
"We are all one family," Fr. Jerry Zawada said. "The huge numbers of innocent people being killed by drones is something I have to stand up against. We think of people on the other side of the border or the ocean as being different from ourselves. They're not. That's my family and your family too. We are one family. We have to take risks for one another."
For my two cents, I named these drones are illegal, immoral, and impractical, and said they are bad for us politically, economically, socially and spiritually. I said that crossing the line onto Creech was an act of prayer for an end to these terrorist drones, and for an end to war itself, for new nonviolent ways to resolve conflict. We were obeying a higher law, taking our case to a Higher Power.
In the end, the judge sentenced us to time served. We didn't go to jail, and meanwhile, our drones continue to drop bombs. A new report says unauthorized U.S. drone strikes last year claimed nearly 1,200 lives. According to Pakistani sources, our drone attacks kill almost 50 civilians for every "militant" we target.
Together, through our action and our courtroom testimony, we argued that we can do better than drop bombs through these drone machines. As we left, we pledged to continue to speak out against the drones, to try to wake one another up about the U.S. wars in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and to stir the embers of the peace movement to speak out and take action for a new world of nonviolence. We give thanks for the opportunity to witness to peace, and we go forward determined to promote peace with everyone.
As Father Jerry said, we are all one family.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...

64 Comments so far
Show AllPeace is the goal. Honor and respect are due these true human beings for trying to make it so.
Unfortunately it would probably be extremely rare for a judge in the United States to side with peace activists as that would mean he or she would have to rule against the U.S. war machine. As that judge is certainly aware, that type of ruling would not be the politically correct thing to do.
Blessed be the peacemakers!!!
Damned be those who make war for profit!
All wars are for profit.
Those who make war damn themselves. We need not add to it.
"Nothing ever justifies the slaughter of innocent civilians", Obama said. I guess he and the other warmakers must reduce their cognitive disssonance by thinking of these people as less-than-human as so many of the frontline soldiers do. Anyway, the thirteen of you are heroes, saints even, more power to you.
Barry O also said: "You will never hear the Predator coming."
It seems that American Justice is on the side of the Military Industrial Complex.
This judge showed kindness to the protesters. For them, it was a moral victory.
I hope the protesters are aware of the judicial forbearance, and don't break into that base again.
This is the spirit of our American freedom.
They didn't "break into that base." From the National Catholic Reporter:
"The activists, known together as the 'Creech 14,' walked onto the grounds of Creech Air Force Base near Las Vegas, Nev., on Holy Thursday 2009 and offered the Air Force personnel they met there bread and water as a sign of peace as they started a prayer vigil. After about an hour at prayer they were arrested and taken into custody."
Why do you think these Americans should be grateful for not getting sentenced to prison for praying for one hour? How is this "the spirit of our American freedom?"
What kind of "freedom" is this, to be arrested, jailed, and put to trial for nonviolently protesting on property that belongs to us all?
vomit!
Wrong! This is the spirit of the sheeple being sheared by the Royal Sheep Shearer, which is the sad, pathetic, state of the Judiciary. Freedom was not in the Court Room, nor were Judge Jansen's balls which long ago left him, and who could blame 'em? Forebearance? May the gods have some for such fools as these mortals be!
Kindness? Telling them they were worrying about nothing? (Meanwhile, how many have been killed by drones?). Forbearance? Forbearing to see any significance in the murder of how many innocents?
You're right. This ruling truly is the spirit of what we might laughingly call our freedom.
Alright, technically Trespassing was the offense. But, the object was to protest a cruel government policy.
So what? I think the government was forgiving and did recognize the protest. Many, including the judge, may have agreed with the acts of protest, but not the location.
That is the issue.
"The judge missed a great opportunity to take a stand for justice and peace, to do the right thing, to help end terrorism."
WRONG! As if judges are on the bench to rule by opinion. Irrespective of what one feels about the drones, the changes should come from legislative action, not activist judges. To be a nation of laws, and not of men, we must instruct the legislature to make changes we demand. Judges should rule upon the legality of a situation. To do otherwise detracts from the form of government we are 'suppose to' have.
I absolutely agree. This should be a nation of laws that operate blindly, not offering aid to one opinion or the other. The judge was bound by the law of the land. They trespassed. The remedy to our actions is to take it to the legislatures with our votes.
These people are heroes for resisting and protesting, but part of that is the fact that they will be prosecuted for their actions. The judge was kind and explained the law to them and they made their point. Now it should be taken to the voters.
You are incorrect. The "necessity defense" is a long accepted defense in United States jurisprudence. The judge erred in not applying it to these defendants. The defense should have prevailed. The only reason it would not be applicable would be if Muslim civilians were not considered human beings.
Accurate and revealing analysis.
The necessity defense does have a long history. For an excellent analysis of the necessity defense, read the dissent by former Colorado Supreme Court Chief Justice Joseph R. Quinn in Andrews v. People, 800 P.2d 607 (Colo. 1990), a case involving protestors at the Rocky Flats nuclear weapons plant outside of Denver.
You must remember that almost all judges are political hacks. Very few truly skilled lawyers become judges. I can hear the dissent to that remark before I post this, but I have practiced law for many years and have known many lawyers who went on to become judges, and not one of them was a really superior lawyer. This applies at every level of the law. Of course there are a few exceptions, but they are very few and far between. Joe Quinn was one of those rare exceptions, a former public defender who made it to the top of his profession.
I disagree with your analysis. You are trying to cross American law with an international ideal, not law. I do not approve of armed drones (surveillance is a different argument), but do not believe that the necessary defense argument comes into play here. Should people try to enact legislation to ban armed drones? YES! But I don't agree that a judge on the bench should rule by emotion.
To use the 'necessity defense' one would have to be taking physical action to immediately prevent some harm currently taking place or about to take place.
Two problems with that in this case: first no drone attacks happening anywhere near these people at the time they were sitting on the lawn or whatever. They also weren't near or even trying to interfere directly with anyone directing such an attack.
Second: they were praying, not doing anything that could remotely be interpreted as an attempt to stop an act of harm in progress.
The judge is right, and the protesters attempt to use the necessity defense in this case is laughable and a waste of everyone's time.
Of course they knew that though, and were actually publicizing the drone attacks themselves, a good and noble effort for which they expected and were willing to pay a price. It's people on here trying to say the necessity defense fits the case who don't have a clue, not the protesters or the judge.
NO! ; RIGHT ! There are higher laws than fascist amerikas laws, like "Thou salt not kill". All of the fascist amerikan military/corporate complexs' laws that support violence, imperialism, and its terrorist acts, should/ must, be opposed and broken; at all levels !
The author is correct here: the judge took an activist stance in ruling them guilty: by the written law, one may defend not only oneself, but others. A strict Constitutionalist, or as close to such a thing as might exist, would have had to have found them innocent, whatever his moral or political judgement might have been.
If I used force to take a weapon away from a very angry or demonstrably insane or irresponsible person who was waving it around in a crowded store and had already shot people, the odds that I would be arrested, tried, and convicted for assault and battery would be very slight. In part, that would be because most of the people involved would approve of the action. But it would also be because that would be considered as an example of defense against immediate threat, as allowed for under the law.
The reasons here are extremely similar. The US government and military has killed well over a million people for motives which, for that we may not know about them, clearly bear little relation to any of the motives stated by their leaders. The threat of violence by the American government is indeed imminent and immediate all over the world because they continue to kill and few if any of us have much idea when and where they will kill next. If all the other examples were not enough, the bombing of Yemen that was advertised as done by the Yemeni government should be sufficient example. The US government could well be guilty of almost any organized murder around the globe that one might even arguably consider in the interest of extending its power.
Most likely it is innocent of some, but how am I to know which?
Certainly most of the guns are not firing at the moment, but how am I to know how long?
No. The judge here had an agenda, not a case.
The people were "protesting", not activly trying to destroy the machinery used to fly, arm and fire drones. And as your post points out, the "immediate" aspect is also in question. As such, they were not activly trying to 'defend' any other. At best, they were attempting to achieve "nullification" of the laws which allow drones to fly, by staging an informational picket. But they were found guilt
Those who wish for outcomes not perscribed by law should be very cautious of what they wish, lest it come true. (in my opinion). Being "extremely similar" is not always justification for similar actions nor outcomes. It is not that I disagree with the 'intent' of the protestors, but rather the concept of posters who believe that judges should act as quasi gods. To impose some perceived moral law upon those before them. I would be similar to a person protesting a 60 mph speeting ticket in Maine, arguing that Montana has an 80 mph law.
This the defense the German Judges used at Nuremberg. Due in part to their rulings Many Jews and Gypsies and Homsexuals and Communists were sent to the death camps and had their properties seized. The Judges made much the same claims. They could not have a "Moral Opinion" . They could only impose the law.
All of those laws were LEGAL under German law.
Well stated Buck.
Judge Jansen's unfortunate decision represents yet another lost opportunity to establish recognized international links of human solidarity in the on-going struggle for basic human rights.
The judge and other members of the MIC can continue along their well-trodden path of non-recognition.
But, as the courage and determination of these protesters at Creech AFB illustrates, the truth inherent in the struggle for human rights will continue, recognized or not.
"Those who make non-violent revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable."John F Kennedy
Bravo for your courage and moral stance on the slaughter of innocent lives. Nothing, apart from immorality, justifies predator drone bombings with 97% "collateral damage" in the form of innocent lives. Nothing.
The few posters who place the idea of "law" as defined by and through property trespass before the higher law (as represented by the incredibly courageous actions of the "Creeh 13") suggest authoritarian proclivities of their own.
The whole point of the protest is to align what passes for law in this broken land with its higher equivalent.
Those military bases technically belong to THE people. Since decisions that lead to the MURDER/MAIMING and MUTATION of significant numbers of innocent persons are being taken in our name, without any true regard for citizens' (our) actual choices, is any viable law truly broken when peace activists do their part to bring public attention to matters that qualify as morally outrageous?
While the judge didn't pass a tougher sentence (his conscience at least remains viable), he DID miss a critical moment not only in his career, but in his own moral reckoning.
He showed an absence of courage. He acted to protect his own status at the DIRECT expense of how many hundreds, the next ones in line for predictable drone attacks? Had the judge taken a daring moral stand, perhaps these operations would be brought into question, forced into a standstill. Do citizens who watch FOX or habitually listen to Hate Radio understand these drone operations? You can bet they're told these attacks operate with precision, and only take out enemy combatants or dangerous insurgents. (The rest are just "mistakes," except that the human lives erased never come back.)
What does law mean when it protects trespassers, when citizens do NOT know what is being done in their names?
The Unitary Executive "theory," along with its corrupt enablers, has led this nation down a slippery slope. Acts taken by a lawless nation suggest a loss of moral footing... while so much is covered up through expensive shadow dancing. And this depraved indifference, the theme of American foreign policy, is largely facilitated through an enabling media that has become every bit the product of Bernays' and Orwell's worst nightmares.
The Creech 13 risked their own liberty to summon a collective wake-up call. Our nation is not immune to the Law of Karma, and the blowback will be severe if a change of consciousness--leading to HUMANE, generous actions--does not SOON come about.
Thank you, Creech 13, everyone in this forum should have stood with you. In Spirit, many of us did and do.
"What does law mean when it protects trespassers, when citizens do NOT know what is being done in their names? "
The law means the law whether or not the citizens know what is being done in their names.
If you think that you get to violate some laws because the laws are bad and you accept that you are going to be prosecuted and that prosecution will be the news, that you use that to get your point across, then you are using non-violent protest like King and Ghandi did.
They went into disobedience WELCOMING the arrests and trials.
If you think that you should not be prosecuted because the law is wrong then you are just the same as someone that steals a purse or breaks into a home or kills someone. Same thing. You believe that you are above the law and therefore if that one law you don't like is bad, that gives *me* the right to violate laws that *I* think are wrong.
If you want to change a law or a government position, you need to vote and do it through the system. If you bypass the system, then you can't really cry when the system comes down on you.
If you're planning on "Protesting Power," you must first read Professor Francis Boyle's book by that title. You may be surprised by the rights you do have. I'm not saying a judge will uphold them but a jury sometimes does.
In the book, Boyle affirms: Civil resistance activities designed to prevent or impede ongoing criminal actions of our government under well understood principles of international and US domestic law represents one of the few constitutional avenues open to the American people to preserve their historical commitment to the rule of law and human rights.
Boyle carefully explains the difference between civil disobedience and civil resistance. "Resistance" is trying to stop an illegal act by our government. "Disobedience" is disobeying a law to publicly make a point and to show you won't go along with a bad law. Rosa Parks disobeyed the separation laws in her act of civil disobedience.
The defendants in the Creech AFB case were acting according to the lawful privilege they have to try and stop the illegal drones, which kill far more innocent civilians than they do the so-called "enemy."
Boyle stresses the importance of staying clear of the Federal courts and instead relying on a jury of local peers to decide the case.
Why didn't these defendants insist on a jury trial?
I suggest you watch "Judgement at Nuremberg" where the Judge On trial indicated that it was only his duty to uphold the German Law as he saw it and that all of the Jews that were sent to the Concentration camps and exterminated in part due to his rulings were merely a "Moral Issue" and not one of "legality".
Remember that everything Nazi Germany did was LEGAL under German law.
People have every right and in fact the DUTY as people to resist and ignore such laws or do you suggest the Jews should of waited for the next election to Vote a Governmnet more friendly to their interests?
I would also point out your country was founded by law breakers . George Washington did not "welcome arrest" and try to change the system via elections. Nor did any of the other Conspirators. They took up arms and started shooting.
Many citizens of the United States of America also ignored the "Fugitive Slave Laws" and helped many blacks escape to Canada.
GW, you certainly like to cite nazi Germany. First, MOST German people were not aware that exterminations were under way. Even after the war, many communities refused to accept the truths being told to them. They knew that things were bad, and that concentration camps (labor camps) existed, but did not know the truth of their ultimate intent.
You cite examples from history that DIRECTLY effected the individuals involved, not some hypothetical scenario. These protestors were in no immediate danger (ala George Washington), nor were they attempting to give direct aid (ala the underground railway). You do need to study some history however. The colonists DID write to King George with grievances and asked for change before taking up arms (yes, some requests were known not to be reasonable). It was the elite of the day that wished for indepedance, not the ordinary farmer/worker for the most part. Few of the common folk gave a tinkers damn, except they wanted lower prices and lower taxes on lands and goods.
What you and several others call for is ANARCHY. Yes, that is one form of (or lack of) government, each man for himself, Once people decide to live in close proximity to one another they usually adopt a system of laws. IF you don't like the system of laws, change the laws, or relocate to an area that adopts your concept of what laws should be enacted. I'm NOT, I repeat NOT saying "love it or leave it", I'm saying if you don't like it, change it.
As much as I'd like to believe that my protesting with the Viet Nam Vets Against the War back in '72 and '73 brought about the end to that conflict, the truth is, it was the fact that we were losing too much money that caused Nixon to sign the peace accord. I believe that you and I want the same outcome, but subscribe to different paths. BUT, not everybody that does not agree with your methods is a neo-nazi so you do not have to cite that example with each and every post you make.
>> First, MOST German people were not aware that exterminations were under way. Even after the war, many communities refused to accept the truths being told to them. They knew that things were bad, and that concentration camps (labor camps) existed, but did not know the truth of their ultimate intent.
People today KNOW what is going on with these Drone Attacks. You know. I know. Every American KNOWS the attacks are happening and Civilians are being killed.
Yet you are saying they should do nothing except "try and change the law" as the executions continue.
Again to the German Example. Had they all KNOWN is it your contention that as long as their immediate lives not in danger and it was someone else being killed they should have JUST obeyed the law and continued to Turn in Jews, Communists and Homosexuals otherwsie it would have been anarchy? That is the most selfis statement I have ever heard.
As to using Nazi Germany as an example. I will continue to do so. That you take offense at the example while you continue to claim that NO ONE SHOULD IGNORE the law shows cleary the reason WHY it must remain as an example of the Consequences.
Your defense of the "Rule of law makes" citing Nazi Germany even more valid.
GW, use what ever example your simple understanding of history allows you. People are certainly free to do what they wish in protest, but don't piss and moan when they get arrested for their actions.
They have every right to piss and moan in response to unjust laws.
Only Authoritarians buy the notion that STATE law rules over all. Your simple minded nonsense shows me exactly what YOU would have done if you heard your neighbours were hiding runaway slaves in a basement in Wheeling.
You would have obeyed the law. It all to convenient to hide behind "The rule of law" when commiting crimes against humanity. "Not my fault..nothing to do with ME..I was obeying the LAW"
J. Shade
"The law means the law whether or not the citizens know what is being done in their names."
Laws change.
"If you want to change a law or a government position, you need to vote and do it through the system."
- Unless you have the systemic problem of having no means to address the problematic law in question.
Kohlberg's Theory of moral reasoning suggests that people can move beyond absolute laws/rules psychologically when they consider socially agreed upon standards of individual rights and matters of conscience such as justice, human dignity, and equality.
Such principles guided the writing of our own constitution.
G
Totally agree,with Siouxrose; yet, the amerikan empire's karma is now so heavy; the empire's collapse IS under way ! Can the people wake up and become compassionate as the fall continues ?
"Nor does justice consist in strictly governing our conduct toward other men by the rigid rules of legal right. If there were a community anywhere, in which all stood upon the strictness of this rule, there should be written over its gates, as a warning to the unfortunates desiring admission to that inhospitable realm, the words which DANTE says are written over the great gate of Hell: “LET THOSE WHO ENTER HERE LEAVE HOPE BEHIND!”
Albert Pike
1809-1891
Every Day is an Anniversary
Every day another death, or more.
Blown apart, shot, starved,
Military or civilian, young or old,
Innocent or guilty, they die.
Looking back through history;
Egyptian, Jew, Babylonian,
Greek, Roman, European or American;
As today, they died.
Peaceful farmers raising their crops,
Came the conqueror, they died.
Poets writing of Peace.
A Dictator’s decree; they died.
Lovers picnic in a mountain meadow.
Overflies the drone, a missile fires;
Blast of fire and steel.
Must have been terrorists, they died.
Collateral damage is a convenient term.
Doesn’t sound like weeping widows,
Crying children and shattered homes.
Just pay them compensation and forget them.
Forget them all, soldiers, civilians, young and old.
Forget the wasteland of war, the trampled crops.
There are always lots more where they came from.
Forget that every day is an anniversary.
Steve Osborn
28 May 2006
My guess is that even "progressives" within the legal profession will be satisfied with this verdict, and give the judge credit for apparently giving the matter due consideration and writing an elaborate decision before bringing down the hammer... er, correctly applying the law.
Juries in Liverpool and Dublin acquitted Plowshares protestors for comparable crimes. This was not actually "jury nullification", since the jury determined that the defendants properly met the criteria of a statutory "lawful excuse defense".
If the cumulative effect of legal training and a professional career in the belly of a corrupt institutional beast doesn't altogether extinguish compassionate wisdom and moral conscience, it certainly affixes institutional blinders, harnesses, and a short choke chain to them.
Hi Obedient Servant
I am one of your "progressives within the legal profession." The judge's ruling was incorrect. Under U.S. law, as I pointed out in a posting earlier in this thread, a citizen has a right to break a lesser law to try to prevent a greater harm. This greater harm certainly includes the loss of innocent life. Given that innocent Muslim lives are being lost regularly and that all other means of protest, including millions of people around the globe marching in the street, have failed to stop the violence, no reasonable person could say that the necessity defense does not apply to these defendants.
Glad to hear it, nosurrender.
I've become a bit soured and frustrated over what I've come to see as an unfortunate professional "mind-set" because I've worked with attorneys who are nice people with progressive attitudes, but (to my mind) distressingly process-fixated when evaluating social justice cases.
They seemed programmed to resist the assertion that cases ostensibly conducted with due process and the "rule of law" can still be miscarriages of justice-- e.g., Aafia Siddiqui, Lynne Stewart, Omar Ahmed Khadr, and John Walker Lindh, to name a few.
Even if they think the outcome is harsh and a real shame, they tend to vindicate the system by ticking off a few key elements that establishes to their satisfaction that the parties fulfilled the letter of the law, and the process worked about as well as one could expect.
Although they don't mean to be personally condescending or supercilious during our friendly chats, these summary defenses are inevitably predicated on the premise that those who truly understand the law, i.e. members of the bar, have a superior perspective on such matters. Whereas we laymen are naturally inclined to let our passions get the best of us, and are simply angry because we didn't get the outcome we both would prefer.
I'm also troubled by lawyers like Glenn Greenwald who support the "Citizens United" precedent by employing internally consistent and logically correct arguments that nevertheless strike me as overly reductionistic-- a case of studiously refusing to see the forest for the trees.
I would be happy to find that I'm overgeneralizing.
See my rants on the subject at:
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/01/26-4
Dear Judge Jansen:
I'm glad that you were kind and sentenced them to time served, and nothing more.
I'm glad that you took three months to think it over, but in three seconds I had an epiphany:
You have sentenced every human being on the planet to join the legions of "Collateral Damage."
I am interested in knowing what U.S. Law permits the killing of 50 or even one innocent person to one "enemy." Maybe someone can give me the exact reference.
One more question: Would an illegal enemy combatant be a combatant from another country that did not wear a "uniform"? Did the Minutemen at Concord and Lexington, for example, have "uniforms" or were they illegal enemy combatants for the British?
One last question: How would you distinguish a combatant, "legal" or "illegal," from a terrorist, say in Irak, Afghanistan, or Concord or Lexington?
The ludicroulsly vague laws define Terrorists as those that use violence against civilians for political goals. The Sons of Liberty were Terrorists as is the US Army, BY THIS DEFINITION! Luckily King George wasn't as big a douschebag as "W" or Obummer, nor was he so cravenly deceitful and cowardly as to engage in fabricating such meaningless terms as "Enemy Combatant". We were lucky to have an Honorable enemy; pitty the Afgans don't! Honor in combat ended during WW1; thereafter civilians went from 10% of the casualties to 90%+! Welcome to the 21st century!
I'm kind of a fan of the late William Kunstler who was unequivocal in his view that you must not confuse obeying the law and doing the right thing. The Creech 13 did the right thing and I'm definitely sending a donation to Father John.
Christ's teaching in action. If we are acting in accordance with His Great Commandment to love one another, we are in keeping with God's law. If man's law is in opposition to this injunction, we must choose love over law.
Thoreau also, citing one's conscience.
I, too, am a Kunstler fan. He also said that judges are just tools of the establishment.
During my Trial the judge would not allow the jury to see the video of the protest. The jury verdict was GUILTY.
Some judges try to be fair. Most do not. Think about the judges who changed Lynne Stewart's sentence from 2 years to 10 years! Atty Stewart was found guilty of forwarding some paperwork at the request of her client.
Heads up! when I clicked on the link to donate to Catholic Releif Services, I was redirected to a U.S. government website---Consumer Protection Services---which immediately asked for I.D. The surveillance state may be at work here. I hate to be paranoid, but...
These days the sunlight almost seems total.
A few men and women, trees, stand between heaven and earth.
In the light of their shadows we others are reading
still
messages the dead have stopped sending
these days of almost fatal sunlight.