War protestors denied right to defense! Please read!

[H2O Man]

Last night I posted a thread with information on the St. Patrick's Four. They are four people from the Ithaca, NY area who took part in a non-violent protest against the war in Iraq. They were originally charged with criminal mischief, and tried in the Tompkins County Court. When the jury heard their defense, based upon their religious and spiritual beliefs, and rooted in the history of civil disobedience in this great nation, 9 of 12 jurors voted to acquit them.

However, the federal government has recently charged them with conspiracy. They will go on trial starting Monday, 9-19, in Binghamton, NY.

I found out today that the federal court will not allow these four to present a defense to the conspiracy charges. This was reported in todays edition of The Daily Star (Oneonta, NY; see: www.thedailystar.com LTTE)

The four face 6 years in prison and $250,000 fines if convicted. How in the hell can they not be allowed to put on a defense? I believe it is because the prosecutor knows that no jury would convict them if they hear the truth.

For more information, see: http://stpatricksfour.com/

Please help.

[iconoclastic cat]

1. Did you post this to any other sites?

[iconoclastic cat]

2. Direct link to the LTTE:

http://www.thedailystar.com/opinion/letters/2005/09/lt0916.html

09/16/05

Trial of dissenters is persecution

For an allegedly peace-loving nation, we spend an inordinate amount of time and money glorifying the culture of violence — in our entertainment, our television news and both our foreign and domestic policies. The virtue of courage has become so strongly associated with aggressive action, that many seem unable to separate the two.

On March 17, 2003, four quiet, devoutly religious people committed themselves to engage in an act of symbolic civil disobedience — shedding their own blood in a military recruiter’s office — to draw public attention to the illegality of the then-imminent invasion of Iraq. In their action, they exemplified the quiet courage of the fictional hero Atticus Finch. They realized that there would be personal consequences, for them and their families, but they stood and spoke when others would not. They acted, compelled by their faith, by international law and by constitutional law.

When tried in the Tompkins County Court on charges of felony criminal mischief, their defense of their actions convinced nine of the 12 jurors to vote for acquittal. The same federal government that committed the highest of crimes, which they had attempted to prevent, has decided to try them again — a second time — in the federal court in Binghamton, beginning Monday. In this second prosecution — which fair-minded people will understand to be a persecution — they will not be allowed to present their defense, which was so persuasive to the jury of their first trial.

Citizens who believe that our country should have a government that honors individual and human rights and respects personal and societal morality should be repulsed and enraged by the federal government’s intent to sentence these four people to up to six years’ imprisonment and $250,000 in fines, each — for a gentle act of conscience that harmed no person.

For more information go to www.stpatricksfour.org.

David J. Cyr , Delhi

[H2O Man]

14. I would appreciate

any/all help posting it at other sites. I do not participate on many other forums. Thanks.

[FourStarDemocrat]

109. Does anyone know WHAT conspiracy they're being charged with?

I've been reading up on the links-- but I don't exactly understand the charge. Conspiracy to do what??

111. conspiracy to impede officer of US

Maybe conspiracy to prevent US from recruitment of army personnel???
I'm in over my head here.


***Section 372. Conspiracy to impede or injure officer

If two or more persons in any State, Territory, Possession, or
District conspire to prevent, by force, intimidation, or threat,
any person from accepting or holding any office, trust, or place of confidence under the United States, or from discharging any duties
thereof, or to induce by like means any officer of the United
States to leave the place, where his duties as an officer are
required to be performed, or to injure him in his person or
property on account of his lawful discharge of the duties of his
office, or while engaged in the lawful discharge thereof, or to
injure his property so as to molest, interrupt, hinder, or impede
him in the discharge of his official duties, each of such persons
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six
years, or both. ***

[FourStarDemocrat]

117. thank you... n/t

[I Have A Dream]

3. We need to get this on the GREATEST page! RECOMMENDED! n/t

[H2O Man]

16. Thank you.

I would hope that DUers would consider it worthy of their attention.

[im10ashus]

77. Um, yes. This IS worthy.

Not only of DUers but of all Americans.

[H2O Man]

80. Thank you.

I always look forward to your posts/threads. It is a pleasure to have the opportunity to work with you on this forum.

[im10ashus]

85. I am humbled by your kind words.

I always know a worthwhile cause when I see one. If only one major picks this up and runs with it, we will have made a difference.

[crispini]

4. kick

:kick:

[Wilms]

5. kick n/t

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[stepnw1f]

8. You Know What Sucks?

Wear your balls and show respect!

[DistressedAmerican]

9. How About You Return From Wence You Came.

You waste bandwidth with this crap. How many BS posts can you get in before you get shown the door?

Have a fine trip back to freeplandia...

Oh Mods!

[DistressedAmerican]

11. Was Nice Seeing Your Tombstone Received So Rapidly!

In case you are still lurking and haven't seen your grave, here it is:

[H2O Man]

23. What? Huh?

Can you speak louder? I can't understand what the heck you are trying to say. Sounds like you got a tombstone in your mouth.

[JAbuchan08]

7. kick

kick

[nashville_brook]

10. can someone explain how there can be a trial w/o a defense?

are they just trying to get a bunch of scary protest propaganda out before the 24th? it doesn't seem possible even in bushworld that they don't get to defend themselves. they aren't terrorists.

[H2O Man]

12. It's not uncommon

in cases where a person wants to present a defense that is not considered "legal" by the court. Teresa Grady, one of the four, has stated that they are confident that if they are allowed to explain their position to the jury, they would win. The prosecutor knows that. Thus, the courtroom structure is used to silence dissent.

Older DUers who remember trials such as the Chicago Seven will recall that those fellows were not allowed to bring in numerous witnesses to support their defense.

In this case, the court has determined that the religious and spiritual beliefs of the St. Patrick's Four, combined with the criminal actions of the Bush administration, as well as the history of civil disobedience in the USA, have no place in the trial.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

35. No it is not silencing dissent. They made their point. They got publicity

Duh.

[H2O Man]

67. You are silly.

Upgrading charges from simple criminal mischief to a federal count of conspiracy would likely strike a rational person as an effort to silence dissent.

[Zynx]

46. Those things are completely irrelvent to a conspiracy charge

Relgious and spiritual beliefs = No defense AT ALL for breaking the law in the US. Has been adjudicated to death.

History of civil disobedience = Not a legal defense. Breaking the law is not protected speech. Adjudicated to death.

Bush Administration has committed criminal actions = Legally unproved, and not a defense to the charge they are accused of anyway.

None of this has any legal grounding whatsoever, and it's totally expected a judge would exclude it.

[H2O Man]

68. While I understand

the flaws in the law, the defense was in fact allowed in the original trial.

[Me.]

13. That's What I Want To Know

too.

[H2O Man]

15. The rules of evidence .....

do not often allow the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth to appear in a court proceeding.

[Jackpine Radical]

17. I recall a case some years ago when a couple was tried for attacking ELF--

they chainsawed some of the poles on which the ELF antenna was strung--and they attempted to raise a defense based on the fact that ELF violated international treaties & building it had constituted an illegal act. They were not allowed to use this defense.

ELF is/was a program for communicating with submarines via Extremely Low Frequency radio waves. It consists/ed of many miles of antenna wire strung through the north woods of WI & the UP. IIRC it violated treaties because of its potential use as a first-strike weapon.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

32. Whether it violates treaties is not a defense against vandalism. Duh.

[U4ikLefty]

42. Like to see you use the "Duh" defense in court!!! n/t

[Bernardo de La Paz]

36. The Rules dont allow you to read the phone book into a jaywalking case.

[U4ikLefty]

45. Who jaywalked??? Who is reading the phone book???

Perhaps you have a weak analogy...but it's so obscure that I don't see it. Try speaking English.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

54. English

Rules of Evidence: what is allowed to be presented by the two sides in a trial. Governs things like hearsay and chain of custody.

jaywalking: Crossing a street illegally not at an intersection

phone book: A listing of telephone numbers printed on thin pages in large books.

Now, to make this clearer for U4ikLefty, if a person is on trial for jaywalking, they are not allowed to read in the telephone book because although it is a listing of true facts, the facts do not have bearing on the charge.

[U4ikLefty]

56. Weak & condescending post...however I will respond.

The phone book has no REAL connection to the act of jaywalking. The perpretratior was not inspired by "the phone book" to jaywalk...but if they think it would fly with a judge/or jury, why not let them lose witha foolish defense??? They would lose anyway...right???

I assert that the act of CIVIL DISOBIDIENCE was indeed connected to the blood spilled by American soldiers. This is a fact realted to their act of FREE-EXPRESSION. If there was indeed "vandalism" tell me how it was NOT related to their expression? Perhaps they did it just to see how red blood looks on the sidewalk??? I seems to me that "consiracy" was oringinally intended to cover a more insidious crime...like gang-meetings to rule a neighborhood by violent intimidation, but has now somehow been used by the gov't to stifle dissent.

This seems to me to be a mis-application of the law from someone whom has not tolerace for us "protestors"...maybe that is you as well. But hey, take refuge in "the law" even though it is just one (authoritariian) judges opinion.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

57. In English it is spelled "Disobedience".

[U4ikLefty]

60. OMG, I misspelled...you MUST be right...thank you oh master!!!

[H2O Man]

70. Resorting to the

jay walking/ telephone book would seem to overshadow any error in spelling.

[I Have A Dream]

104. This is just sad that your response would be a smart-assed crack...

about a misspelling. It's not helpful in reference to keeping a debate civil.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

58. The blood of American soldiers is fine motivation but not a legal defence.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

34. What is mean is not "no defense" but they can't present a bizarre defense

In other words, they poured blood in the recruiting center, which is an act of vandalism. They conspired to do it by discussing it and going together and bringing materials together. They are guilty of conspiracy.

Their web site does not make clear on the front page what their defense is, so either they are witholding it for the trial or they don't have one.

If they want to say something like the Bush regime lied about WMD (a true fact), that is not a defense and is not admissible, because it doesn't deny that they conspired to vandalize with blood.

This is why it is known as "civil disobedience", since it is disobedience and therefore punishable. But of course they would like to escape punishment.

By the way, pouring blood is not civil.

[U4ikLefty]

47. Just ridiculous!!! Seems that the state has no interest in the truth.

It is similar to the defense of neighbors burning down a violent crack-house when the police continued to fail in their duties. I recall the courts didn't allow this defense either..but then again, they have an interest in state-control over justice.

[Zynx]

48. It's actually quite common - you just usually don't hear about it

Lawyers usually parse out the defenses that simply won't fly before going to court and irritating the judge.

For example, many states will not let you claim "temporary insanity" because they don't recognize it in their law.

NO state will let you claim "I was too drunk/stoned to know what I was doing."

Another example would be "I refuse to pay taxes because the Federal government is an Unconstitutional entity controlled by the Illuminati."

[U4ikLefty]

50. Why not??? the Judge/jury had the right to reject their defense AFTER

hearing it.

This seems to be a way to limit the rights of defendants to be heard.

[Zynx]

52. A judge *did* reject this defense, and those I mentioned

Whether or not a defense can be used is up to the judge. The judge is also going to go by the set of laws the person is being tried under. Many of these sets of laws do not acknowledge certain types of defenses as valid - alcohol/drugs being the most common one.

Courts will not let you argue completely garbage claims, or introduce "evidence" that is totally unrelated to what you supposedly did.

Example:

I am accused of robbing a gas station.

I claim at trial the robbery was justified because the station's profits are ill gotten gains from the exploitation of Mother Earth, therefore I am not guilty.

The judge will tell the jury to disregard that and focus on my guilt or innocence as regards the actual elements of the count I am charged with, basically that I intended to rob the gas station and did so.

Any defense needs to be related to the actual elements of the charge, which are generally intent and act.

[U4ikLefty]

53. Terrible analogy!!! Nobody was robbed or victimized!!!

I agree that the judge is the one to make the determination. I am arguing that this defense is TOTALLY related to the act of CIVIL DISOBIDIENCE.

You are arguing the legality of the issue...saying the jugde has "the right" to reject "garbage claims" (your words). I am saying that despite the judges limited view of justice, that the defense is indeed a good one. Perhaps you believe in law more that justice...I hope I am reading you wrong, I won't do that until I get your respose.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

55. If you think nobody was victimized, then you be the one to clean the blood

If you think nobody was victimized, then you be the one to clean the blood the next time. Be sure to wear protective gear so that you don't get HIV or Hepatitis. Be sure to take enough time to do a complete and thorough job so that ordinary citizens, some of them patriotic veterans, are not endangered by blood products or blood borne diseases. Be sure to use enough chemicals to make it very clean. You can pay the costs of materials, equipment, personnel, and lost productivity since you think nobody was victimized.

Like I said, pouring blood is effective at getting publicity but is not very civil.

You don't think these things through very carefully, do you? But then again, it is easy to go off half-cocked, use multiple exclamation points, funny ellipses (three dots) instead of ordinary punctuation, and multiple mispellings. Thinking's hard work. Seems you follow the president in this view.

[U4ikLefty]

59. Gimme a hose & I will wash it off...how hard THAT would be...WHEW!!!

was like the dude whom burned the flag at the anti-Bu$h protest in Century City and the cops beat his ass & charged him with arson even though we had extinguishers to put it's out immediately. I guess you folks like this kind of Nazi tactic...but hey, it THE LAW, because some judge says it's so!!!

You must be an English teacher & a Psychologist to give such a shit about how I express myself ON THE INERNET...does that make you superior?!? As for your insulting "half-cocked" & "misspelling" remarks...I guess when you can't win the argument, you have to resort to tired elitist bullshit like that...lol, I would be disgusted, but I pity you ignorance instead!!!

I give up on losers like you...Bye!!!


on edit: I had to make sure my HANDS didn't hit a wrong key & misspell, because the grammar-Nazi would poo-poo my arguments with their elitist BS, saying I misspelled & was not worthy of their time...lol!!! I betcha he/she/it is looking for mispellings real close...funny shit!!!

[H2O Man]

79. We can only hope

that you were wearing dress pants, a sharply pressed shirt, and a nice tie when you typed this message. Otherwise, it would be hard to take you seriously. Keep in mind you may be responding to a person wearing two ties .... twice as much authority as a normal man. The reason that history ignores Gandhi is because he failed to dress properly.

[elehhhhna]

95. Huh? So if any old fanatic pours blood in, say a women's clinic, furrier,

meat-servng resaurant, a gasguzzling SUV, a casino, on a smoker, in a strip club, wtc ad nauseum, that's okay? COME ON.

[U4ikLefty]

138. You mis-underestimated me....lol!!!

I was not condoning the ACT, but thoughtthey should be allow to mount a defense. If it doesn't fly with the jury, then they only have themselves to blame.

Of course it was vandalism, but denying someone a defense to me seem more distatseful than the act itself.

[elehhhhna]

152. got it. good point.

[H2O Man]

92. Wrong again.

"NO state will let you claim 'I was too drunk/stoned to know what I was doing.'" I am reminded of Mark Twain's saying that the problems of the world were often not mere ignorance, but rather people knowing so darned much that simply was not true. To keep this simple, I will point out that in New York, while drug addiction is not a defense per say, attorneys frequently do defend clients by pointing out that there are issues with addiction. It is very common, in fact, for local judges and justices of the peace to refer such cases to "drug courts." Frequently, the accused is able to comply with recommended treatment, and ends up with no legal record.

Questions of legal competence, based on mental illness, are worthy of all of our attention. A rational person could make a case that there might be cause for a "guilty, but insane" status. As advances are made in the understanding of mental illness, the manner in which laws are applied should also advance.

It's a sad thing that there have been severe restrictions on habeas corpus petitions. The "great writ," as it is known, dates back to the Magna Carta. In 1868, the US Supreme court called it the "best and only sufficient defense of personal freedom." Rigid thinkers may believe that recent restrictions in the "great writ" are a good thing. I don't.

I do point it out, however, to show that the manner in which the law is interpreted and applied is subject to change. More, in what was commonly recognized by legal scholars as the most important habeas corpus case in the past century, the federal judge who decided the case spoke to the ideas of compassion and human decency.

I would submit that the St. Patrick's Four case could benefit from compassion and human decency. Indeed, the rigid thinking that is required to say otherwise would seem a most pathetic form of intoxication, and a signpost of a social insanity that one should pray is temporary.

Again, while you are within your rights to state that I am not competent to post my opinions on this issue, I am confident of my ability to go one-on-one with you, and let other DUers decide who is speaking the truth.

[coeur_de_lion]

100. Everyone has the right to his/her opinion.

However, in this case (so sorry) your opinion is wrong. Moreover, you're missing the point of their protest.

from the "St. Patrick Four" website -- http://www.stpatricksfour.org/support.php

"On March 17, 2003, just hours before "Shock and Awe" the four went into the Lansing, NY military recruiting center and carefully poured a small amount of their own blood in the vestibule. They went to the recruiting center with the knowledge that because the United Nations had not approved the invasion of Iraq, the invasion was illegal and would constitute crimes of war and crimes against humanity. They knew that under the Nuremberg Principles of international law, individuals have international rights and duties to prevent crimes against humanity which transcend the national obligations of obedience imposed by the individual state. They were also compelled to act by their spiritual beliefs and by their consciences.

The St. Patrick Four were tried in state court in April, 2003. They convinced nine (out of twelve) jurors that their actions were justified under domestic and international law. The trial ended in a hung jury.

In February, 2005 the federal government stepped in and chose to prosecute them under federal law. They are now charged with federal conspiracy "by force, intimidation, and threat" to impede an officer of the United States - a felony charge that carries punishment of up to six years in prison and a $250,000 fine. They are also charged with criminal damage to property and two counts of trespass, charges punishable by up to an additional 2 years in prison. Their trial will begin September 19th in Binghamton, NY."

Whether or not you agree with their method of protest, surely you agree that they had the right to protest. I'm trying to understand your point of view, but I don't . . . Just what is it that you are objecting to? And if I may ask, why are you posting on this thread in argument with H2O? What do you hope to accomplish with this argument? What outcome are you looking for, or do you just enjoy arguing?

And my final question (forgive my inquisitiveness) do you think that we should all ignore the war, and let it go on without protest?

[Occulus]

154. couple quick questions

You quoted "(t)hey knew that under the Nuremberg Principles of international law, individuals have international rights and duties to prevent crimes against humanity which transcend the national obligations of obedience imposed by the individual state. They were also compelled to act by their spiritual beliefs and by their consciences."

1) Did the US sign the document(s) in which these rights and duties are spelled out, and

2) Do these documents represent a treaty?

If the answers are yes to both, then those "international rights and duties to prevent crimes against humanity", under our Constitution, are also our laws, which definitely would be relevant information at trial.

They could thus argue that they were attempting to prevent a crime against humanity and were therefore acting according to law. I don't know if it would fly, but the response from the court would certainly be revealing.

[H2O Man]

162. The Nuremberg Trials

established principles that every person is responsible for their own actions. The United States was one of the four nations that were the driving force behind these post-WW2 trials.

These trials established three basic types of crimes: {1} Crimes against humanity, which is attempts to enslave and/or exterminate civilian populations. We usually think of it in terms of genocide; {2} War crimes, which have to do with mistreatment of POWs or "enemy" populations; and {3} Crimes against peace, which is the planning, preparation, and/or participation of aggressive war.

(Others may do a better job of explaining the three. I'm tired, and going off the top of my head.)

The St. Patrick's Four based their defense in the first trial on the concept of "crimes against peace." They would like to be able to present a similar defense in the up-coming trial, but have been barred from doing so. It is truly amazing that a number of DUers are not able to grasp this. Instead, they talk about foolish things such as, "Yes, but imagine they were abortion clinic bombers." Well, they aren't. They are anti-war protestors. And they are being denied the right to use the truth for their defense, that same truth that the world recognized as essential for justice in the Nuremberg trials.

[coeur_de_lion]

179. thanks H, you took the verbs right outta my mouth!

I guess the direction my thoughts were going in went something like "you're missing the point, and this is what the St. Patrick 4 are actually saying,"

Thank you as always for putting it much better than I could myself.

:7

[H2O Man]

186. To be honest

I was quoting you, just before you could actually say it.

[coeur_de_lion]

188. um okay, sure.

Thanks for "quoting" me so eloquently then.

[Occulus]

191. Many thanks.

However, I was asking about the legal status of the Nuremburg trials as our law stands today, and the articles ratified there. My question was regarding whether these were/are considered treaties, because if so, per our Constitution, they are the law of the land.

If the treaties require signatory nations to recognise efforts to avert wars which are pre-emptive, aggressive, and/or unlawful per the treaty, it is part of the Federal law of the United States that the motive of preventing an illegal war is an admissable defense. It must be; the treaty, per our Constitution, is the law of the land.

The law- the Constitution- is very clear on this. The question I'm asking is whether the documents signed by the US at Nuremburg pertain to the situation at hand. If those documents were in fact a treaty, then it seems a defense is available.

I know we did not sign every convention. I'm wondering if what we did sign applies here.

[H2O Man]

74. We have two people

posting who are invested fully in the idea that the only good defense is the one allowed by the court. I prefer the thought expressed by my late friend Abbie Hoffman, after he was convicted in the infamous Chicago 7 trial: "When decorum becomes repression, the only dignity free men have is to speak out."

[Bernardo de La Paz]

81. No, not the only defense, obviously, but the only defense allowed in court

Not a question of decorum, but a question of sticking to the rules of evidence, etc.

If you want to allow bizarre theories of defense, then you will want this guy to get off free because he was only "speaking out".

[H2O Man]

83. Please

you can do better than that. I'm confident that you know fully that which I am supporting, and that which I am not. You do not need to resort to passive-aggressive behaviors, which really only take away from the serious part of your position.

The St. Patrick's Four are engaged in actions similar to those that Phillip and Daniel Berrigan took part in during the Vietnam era. I've pulled out an old letter from Phillip, penned while he was incarcerated years ago. There are a couple of quotes that may help to explain to those interested in this case why those four people took the steps they did:

"The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is law." - I Corinthians 15:56.

"This is the justice of the law: it crucified the only person who knew no sin. " - II Corinthians 5:21.

"You have broken with Christ if you look for justice in the law, you have fallen from grace." - Galations 5:4

"It is through the law that sin became sinful to the fullest extent." - Romans 7:13

[Bernardo de La Paz]

86. Yes, I do respect you for your intentions and goals

You and I both think the Bush regime is extremely foul, to say the least.

However, I think that it is a bit much to say that they can't make a defense. They can make a defense, but they can't present indadmissible evidence. I think they are extremely brave, they have made a statement that is getting lots of publicity, and they may pay a price for it (beyond what they have endured so far). I haven't look at all the details of the case, but people are going overboard to call it a constitutional crisis or a "silencing of dissent". The defendants made their dissent, the pouring of blood. People who don't think things through and make statements like "just hose it away" are the ones who take away from the serious part of your position.

The whole idea of civil disobedience is that it is civil, part of which means accepting punishment for the crime, provided the punishment is commensurate with the actual level of action divorced of political attachments. The other part, the nature of the action, the pouring of blood, is not very civil compared to sitting at a lunch counter, marching, or attempting to register to vote. Of course, they are right to mount as vigorous a defense as they can muster.

In a scenario, call it A, if political motivation is an admissible and ultimately effective defense for acts like pouring blood or mowing down crosses, then both sets of defendants are likely to be acquitted by their peers. In another scenario, call it B, if political motivation is not an admissible defense for acts like pouring blood or mowing down crosses, then both sets of defendants are likely to be convicted by their peers. In both scenarios the majority of people here would cheer for one case but not the other. Thus there are many people here who think that political motivation should be a defense when it is convenient for their cause and not at other times. That is just not thinking things through and no way to run a judicial system.

[H2O Man]

87. If people are prevented

from presenting the truth as their defense, I would submit that they are indeed prevented from putting on a defense. It strikes me as curious that the prosecution can introduce, for example, the fact that some criminals are motivated by hatred, and commit acts of violence against groups of people because of that hatred .... yet in this case, four citizens who are motivated by love, and who participated in a non-violent action based on this sense of love, are prevented from speaking about it in the courtroom.

I say this not as a person who dispises our legal system. Actually, quite the opposite: I admire it greatly. But I recognize it is imperfect, and that people -- even ordinary citizens -- must work to be sure it works.

More, I think that those who engage in civil disobedience should be prepared to "pay a price." Yet I am convinced that the potential for 6 years in prison and $250,000 fines is far beyond what should be the reasonable consequence for even spilling blood in the manner these people did.

It is hard to view the prosecution in federal court as anything other than a tactic by the administration to discourage anti-war protests.

(Regarding the fellow who ran over the crosses: while I disagreed with his motivation and his tactics, I would think it wrong to restrict his ability to explain why he did what he did. Though not required, prosecutors often offer theories on motive. The legal system would not be threatened by allowing either him or the St Patrick's Four to tell the truth.)

[Bernardo de La Paz]

88. Hmm, your last post is becoming persuasive

[H2O Man]

72. "By the way, pouring blood is not civil."

Perhaps it has gone over your head, but that was their point.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

76. Then since it is not civil, it is not civil disobedience, but vandalism.

They get to make their point and they chose to make it their way.

[H2O Man]

82. "When it is relevant,

truth has to be uttered, however unpleasant it may be." -- Gandhi

Of course, many found Gandhi offensive too. The British Empire recognized him as a criminal.

[Zynx]

43. There isn't. The OP is misstating the circumstances

They have been ruled they are unable to present the defense they used at the state trial for the federal trial. This is because of some pretrial ruling regarding their original defense. It was apparently determined to be so off the wall it's not legitimate. This is generally an issue of relevency.

It doesn't change anything about the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard, or right to consul, or right to defend self in court.

Unless their defense is actually related to their guilt or innocence of the charge against them, it's not admissable.

[H2O Man]

73. You are "misstating"

There is no reason for you to make things up. I made clear that the defense they presented in local court will not be allowed in federal court. You say that I misrepresent this, and then say the same thing. Please attempt to be accurate, and indeeed honest, even if you are opposed to the form of protest or the beliefs behind it. That isn't too much to ask.

[Zhade]

116. You have to admit that your thread title is misleading.

When I read it, I thought they were being denied any right to a defense whatsoever.

[H2O Man]

118. Not at all.

They are being denied the right to present their defense. They are being denied the right to tell the truth. Thus, I can honestly say that the title of my thread is not misleading. If you can provide an example of ANY other defense they can offer, let's hear it.

[Ms. Toad]

151. That is what the text of the original post says...

>>the federal court will not allow these four to present a defense to the conspiracy charges<<

>>The four face 6 years in prison and $250,000 fines if convicted. How in the hell can they not be allowed to put on a defense?<<

That would have been extraordinary - but it turns out not to be the case.

Certainly it is appropriate that they, and their counsel, try to put on the defense that suits them best. But, in the end, the court can also rule that based on the rules of evidence that particular defense is not permitted. This is not unusual at all - battered woman's defense is still - decades later - not universally permitted. The "she asked for it" defense was broadly permitted in rape cases for years - requiring women alleging rape to open up their entire sexual history for cross examination - until the rape shield laws were enacted which now prohibit that defense (at least to the extent it relies on sexual history beyond the history of the victim and the accused).

The rules get changed when enough folks like the ones in this article are willing to risk criminal punishment to make a point, and enough of us are outraged enough to change either the substantive law (which prohibits the behavior they have been charged with), or the evidentiary rules (which govern the evidence that is admissible).

[H2O Man]

153. No one has identified

what defense the four are "allowed" to put on. I'm not sure that the case can fairly be compared to battering.

[Ms. Toad]

156. They are allowed to put on any legally admissible defense

What specific defense they might present will depend on the details of the case, and the evidence presented by the prosecution, none of which in the article you provided. Conspiracy requires a specific set of facts be established. Depending on what they allegedly conspired to do the possible defenses would range from showing the prosecution didn't establish each element of the crime (either because they presented inadequate evidence that these particular individuals committed the specific elements, or because the elements weren't committed at aoo) - or potentially even that the ultimate crime they allegedly conspired to commit was not a crime. The details will vary depending on what evidence the prosecution has, and what crime they allegedly conspired to commit.

As near as I can tell from the article, they have been barred from presenting evidence related to one specific defense. That is not the same as being barred from presenting a defense. That is not just semantics - even though our legal system is not perfect, it is a vast improvement on past systems in which defendants were literally not allowed to present a defense at all.

What is left as a defense may not be the ideal defense, or the one they wish to offer, but that is vastly different from being denied the opportunity to defend themselves at all.

When you decide to commit civil disobedience, that is the risk you take - you should not be engaging in civil disobedience unless you decide in advance you are willing to live with the maximum punishment that may be imposed if (1) you are arrested (2) you are prosecuted or (3) your "greater good" defense is not permitted - or if permitted is not accepted by the jury.

That is not to say you shouldn't fight to get that defense permitted - but it concerns me greatly when our side presents factually inaccurate information in order to make the problem sound more outrageous than it actually is. It might be a good "rally support" hook, but when the information is carried forward by well intentioned folks who read your original post, and did not research enough to determine that these defendants will be allowed to put on a defense, we end up looking either slimy or stupid, and that hurts our cause in the long run.

FWIW, my point was not that the crimes allegedly committed by these defendants were similar to battering - but that rules which permit or exclude particular defenses (while allowing other defenses) are not that unusual, and often deprive the accused of his or her best defense. Nonetheless, the situation is very analogous - in both cases it is likely that the accused committed a crime. The defense each wishes to offer is not to deny that the crime was committed, but to excuse it (on the basis that it is the only way to escape battering; or on the basis that it was necessary to achieve a greater good). When the excuse defense is deemed not admissible, what is left is often not very helpful - since the crime in each case was likely committed. The same would be true of an abortion clinic bomber, for example, who wanted to defend him/herself by citing the unborn lives saved.

[H2O Man]

157. The four people

in question have not said they think they should not be prosecuted. They are brave people. They are doing what the rest of us probably should.

However, because few of us are as brave as them, we can at the very least support them, and challenge the actions of an administration that is not seeking justice, but rather is attempting to inflict fear into the anti-war people in the country.

I'm fully aware of the laws that are in play here. But, again, I will point out that you are unable to point out a defense available to them. And, without resorting to weak comparisons to batterers and bombers, you seem unabled to deal with the fact that the government is not allowing the four to present a defense based upon the truth.

[Ms. Toad]

160. As I pointed out,

There are other defenses available to them. Generally, in the absence of the affirmative defense they wish to offer, the defense would need to be based on (1) they did not commit each and every element of the crime with which they are charged, (2) the prosecution did not prove each and every element of the crime with which they are charged. The specifics of these defenses will be heavily dependent on the facts and evidence available.

My point is that these individuals are either allowed to put on a defense or not. In this case, they are. They are allowed to offer evidence to establish that they did not commit the crime, or that the prosecution did not prove its case. There have been many times and places in history, including US history, when this was not allowed. That is vastly different from what faces these individuals.

The nature of the defense they are allowed to put on is limited. This limitation is one you find particularly egregious - but it is not the same as not being allowed to put on a defense.

All I am suggesting is that it does not serve us, in the long run, to misstate the facts. That we don't like the remaining defenses is not the same as not being permitted to put on a defense. If we succeed in rallying folks who are outraged because these individuals are not permitted to put on a defense, and it turns out that is not correct, it will be much harder to win them to our side next time.

Even the political opponents of an organization I am associated with comes to it for factual information, because they know that the information provided is factually accurate. While they are there getting factual information, productive conversations occur which lead to real movement on political/social issues. That opportunity would be lost if they were burned by repeating our factually inaccurate information.

[H2O Man]

161. I agree that

injecting falsehoods and outright lies into a discussion is harmful. It is in a courtroom, too. Thus, saying that the four could have a defense based on falsehoods fits smack-dab into that "harmful" area.

The four are attempting to confront the nation with the truth. They are not looking to dodge the truth. Taking the position that they actually have a defense available, because they have the option of being untruthful, indicates that some do not have a clue what these people are attempting to communicate.

[Ms. Toad]

164. I never suggested that they be untruthful,

Individuals engaged in civil disobedience in the past have chosen not to put on a factual defense (or to admit to the elements of the crime), either on general principle or because there is no defense they could truthfully offer. I don't know the facts of this case, but it may also be the case that they can truthfully defend themselves against the specific crime with which they are charged - or can truthfully establish that the prosecution has not proven its case. The point is it is their choice - and they do have one.

Making that choice (not to use the defenses that are legally and honestly available to them) out of principle is far different from the government forbidding them from putting on a defense. It is sort of like saying that the prison was withholding food from a prisoner when the reality is that prisoner chose to go on a hunger strike because the prison refused to serve vegetarian meals. Sticking to vegetarian principles there are likely portions of the meals served that the prisoner could eat. The prisoner's choice to reject all food - even that which is not meat based - in order to make a point is not the same as the government denying all food.

To continue the analogy, in this case there are likely defenses that can be truthfully offered. It is rare, particularly in conspiracy cases, that the government has a perfect case. If these individuals choose not to avail themselves of the remaining defenses in order to make a point, that choice is an honorable one. It is certainly one I support. But it doesn't turn their rejection of the remaining available defense choices into the government denying their right to put on a defense.

[H2O Man]

168. Sure it does.

As they are Catholic Workers, I guess the best way to explain it is that saying that have a Simon Peter defense is nonsense. They do not have the ability to put on their defense.

They are doing what more anti-war people would be doing if they weren't afraid of the consequences. And the government is playing on that fear, by denying them the right to defend their position, and threatening them with extreme punishments that in no manner fit the crime.

Fear is a funny thing. It can paralyze people. I can remember a boxing card in Binghamton, when one of the guys in the locker room I was in was unabled to walk out the door, and down to the ring. Fear did that. I think that the fear of 6 years in prison and a $250,000 scares people, too.

That fear can paralyze people's thinking. It can create the type of anxiety that freezes a person's thinking, so that they are unable to distinguish between a case like this, and a case where someone bombs a women's clinic. They are unabled to move forward in their thinking, and that inability to step into the ring of progressive thinking -- much less action -- puts them into a position where they feel that those who commit civil disobedience simply deserve whatever punishment the government inflicts. Worse, that they should be limited to putting on the same "defense" as the violent offenders.

I admire the St Patrick's Four for doing for others what we/they are unwilling to do for our/themselves. It must be especially hard, when so many people who should be backing them with an opened mind are instead shackled by that fear and anxiety that causes them to lie to themselves. It is the betrayal of Simon Peter.

[Ms. Toad]

169. There is a major difference

between refusing to permit the individuals to put on any defense, and refusing to permit them to put on the defense of their choice when that choice conflicts with evidentiary rules. The individuals' lack of, or rejection of, all other defenses is not government action.

I am not justifying governmental prosecution - I happen to think it is outrageous. That doesn't justify misrepresenting the facts to make the case stronger in the court of public opinion.

Civil disobedience, at its core, requires violating the law for reasons of conscience and being willing to pay the penalties for that violation. It is effective because the public eventually finds it outrageous that people are imprisoned rather than submit to the draft, for example. In my experience it does not involve, and is made less effective, when we attribute the consequences of our choice to be engaged in civil disobedience to a factually inaccurate assertion that the government has denied our fundamental right to put on a defense.

[H2O Man]

170. In quoting the LTTE

that stated the St. Patrick's Four are being denied the right to put on a defense, I certainly agreed with that view. You are convinced that they are not being denied the right to a defense, because they can challenge those things they do not challenge, in regard to "did the prosecution prove its case?" That simply shows that you do not appreciate their defense.

Unlike you, I will not say that you misrepresent the facts. Rather, you do not have a full grasp of them. But I think it is important that everyone -- even you -- continue the discussion. I'm confident that people will be able to decide for themselves if the four are able to put on a defense.

"We are quite certain if given the full conversation in the court room of our concerns about violations of international law, and the history of nonviolent protest in our nation, that a jury of our peers will be able to comprehend the illegal nature of this war, and acquit," Teresa Grady has stated. Note that she isn't saying, "We sure hope we can point out that the prosecution hasn't proven his case, and that the jury will be confused and acquit." The idea is to present the truth, in full confidence of being acquitted. When the defense is based soley on truth, and that truth is not allowed to be discussed in the court, rational people will recognize the right to their defense is being denied.

[Ms. Toad]

173. I do appreciate their defense,

Off and on I have been involved in civil disobedience both directly and indirectly for decades, and understand the rules of engagement. For better or worse, none of the times when I have directly engaged in civil disobedience have resulted in arrest - but if they had I would be angered at any assertion that being on the losing end of a court ruling was the equivalent of a fundamental denial of my rights.

[H2O Man]

174. It appears

that what you consider your own "civil disobedience" was of little if any consequence. It is obvious that you are not abled to understand the difference between what the people going to trial, and those supporting them expressing concern that they are not allowed to put on their defense. This confusion appears to be at the root of your bringing in unimportant and unrelated information, ranging from the mad bomberers of clinics to whatever it is that you have defined as your own brand civil disobedience without consequence.

Better for the sake of this conversation that we concentrate on what is real.

[H2O Man]

176. Part Two .....

I couldn't help but laugh after reading about the "civil disobedience" that had no legal consequence. It reminded me of a part of a speech that Dick Gregory gave, years ago. Now, again, this fits into the context of my comment that you appear to be advocating the Simon Peter defense, rather than telling the truth. Certainly, that is one's "right" within the current legal system. And I wouldn't want to be accused of attacking people's right to be less than honest.

Dick was talking in Selma, at a time when civil disobedience wasn't something that went unnoticed. Like the St. Patrick's Four, Dick views life in a larger context, that involves a quest for truth. And he was challenging the people he was addressing, to try to jolt them from their feeling comfortable about not being active in a meaningful way.

"So it's coming down to this. You have to commit. You're going through the same thing today that folks went through when the Lord was crucified.

" 'Who else is with Christ?' the Romans asked.

"And everyone just stood there. And prayed silently. And they went back and said: 'I prayed.' No, sister, I didn't even see your lips moving.

"Were you there when they crucified the Lord? It's a nice song to sing. But this time, you have an opportunity to be there."

-- Dick Gregory; "Nigger"; 1965; page 205

[Ms. Toad]

181. Are you really naive enough to believe that

every act of civil disobedience results in a legal consequence?

If so, you should perhaps participate in civil disobedience training for the next anti-war event. Every training in which I have participated has been very clear that although everyone choosing to participate in civil disobedience should be prepared to be arrested, it is unlikely that most of those participating will be. That doesn't make the participation of those who are not arrested any less "active in a meaningful way" - as you seem to be implying.

[H2O Man]

185. You are silly.

Very silly indeed.

[Ms. Toad]

187. Silly

While you’re chuckling, make sure to throw in a good belly laugh at all the folks who risked their lives and freedom to shepherd slaves to Canada as part of the Underground Railroad, but whose acts were apparently not of much consequence on your scale because they did not suffer any legal consequences as a result of their acts of civil disobedience.

[H2O Man]

189. They were serious.

And have nothing to do with you.

[Ms. Toad]

190. Please establish that

using only the limited information on which you based your condescending assessment about my acts of civil disobedience - whether or not the acts resulted in legal consequences against the actor.

Unless you can do that, I see no point in continuing the conversation.

[Ms. Toad]

180. It must be nice to be able to divine which

acts of civil disobedience are of consequence, and which are not, based solely on whether there was an arrest or prosecution.

Unless you are truly new to the arena of civil disobedience, I am sure you are aware that the vast majority of acts of civil disobedience do not result in arrest and/or prosecution. That does not diminish the importance of the witness, nor does it diminish the personal risks associated with choosing to engage in an act of civil disobedience, as there is no way of predicting in advance whether the consequences will be arrest and prosecution or the government turning a blind eye.

I shared that civil disobedience is part of my personal history so that you might have some appreciation that I speak from experience, rather than as one who is jumping into the discussion on a purely theoretical level without any personal understanding of the issues. I understand them well, and in the first person, having gone through the process of testing my witness to determine whether it was was compelling enough that I should engage in civil disobedience - and risk the consequences - or not. Sometimes I decided it was, and other times I have decided it was not. That my choices to engage in civil disobedience have not yet resulted in arrest and/or prosecution does not make them any less civil disobedience, of any less consequence, or any less real.

Were you telling my story, I would want it told accurately. My choice, were I in the position of these individuals, not to avail myself of the defenses of factual or procedural innocence would be just that - my choice. I would certainly fight through as many levels of appeal as are available to put on my defense of conscience - but ultimately I would not describe (nor would I appreciate anyone else describing) my choice not to avail myself of any remaining defenses as governmental denial of my right to defend myself.

[H2O Man]

184. While I enjoy

reading your story, I certainly have no interest in telling it. You seem perfectly capable of doing that yourself. And it seems clear that we have little to nothing in common as far as values or goals, hence it would be important for me to not attempt to speak for you. That does not, however, keep me from being able to talk about the people and situations where I have both common interests and common goals .... and the St. Patrick's Four is one of those.

[OregonBlue]

18. Where's Spitzer?

[H2O Man]

19. These are federal charges.

He's not able to do anything. The truth is that this is being prosecuted on a recommendation from the Bush administration. They are looking to send a chilling message to anti-war demonstrators.

[H2O Man]

20. Attack on democrats ---

One of the St. Patrick's Four is Daniel Burns. His father was the mayor of Binghamton, NY, and a former NYS democratic chairman. He was close friends with Robert Kennedy.

Daniel lives in Binghamton with his wife and two young sons, ages 2 years, and another at just 4 months.

Daniel went to Iraq in 2003, as a witness for peace.

Another is Clare Grady. She is married, and has two teen-aged daughters. Her job is feeding the poor.


Then there is Peter DeMott. He is a VietNam veteran, who grew to see the error of violence. He has four daughters, ages 3 to 19, with his wife. Peter also went to Iraq in 2003, as part of the Christian PeaceMakers.

And then there is Teresa Grady. She's a massage therpaist in Ithaca. She lives there with her 16 year old son. They open their home to battered women and Latin American refugees.

So, you see, there is more to this than just some idealistic Catholics getting in a bit of trouble. It's people who are doing what most of us wish we dared to do. They have put themselves on the line.

The least we can do is support them. I am under the impression that Ray McGovern will be in Binghamton. This is a serious case. I have attempted to get in touch with Will Pitt, to see if he could come. I've offered to either put him up at my house, or pay for him to stay at a hotel of his choice. I certainly plan to be in Binghamton myself.

[starroute]

21. There was supposed to be a citizens panel . . .

To present the evidence to the public that the defendents aren't being allowed to present in court. Ray McGovern, Medea Benjamin, John Bonifaz, various other anti-war activists and conscientious objectors, part of the Cindy Sheehan caravan stopping by on the way to DC. I only saw one mention of this and don't know any more about it. Do you have any further inforamtion?

[H2O Man]

22. Only from

what has been linked to here and on the other thread I started on DU:GD last night, plus I think there's one on the DU activist forum with more information.

This seems like the type of thing that DU should be working on.

[Me.]

24. Keep Talking

kick

[buzzsaw_23]

29. Citizens Tribunal in Iraq

The Citizens' Tribunal on Iraq
Our voices will not be silenced.
September 18 - 23
Centenary - Chenango Street United Methodist Church
438 Chenango Street
Binghamton, NY

Monday, September 19: "The Voices of Diplomacy"

Opening Remarks and Moderation by James Petras, Professor Emeritus of Sociology at SUNY-Binghamton. He is the author and editor of over 60 books, including the acclaimed Globalization Unmasked: Imperialism in the 21st Century. His work has been translated into 26 languages. Petras was a member of the Bertrand Russell Tribunal Against Repression in Latin America.


Ray McGovern, served 27 years as a CIA analyst and is now on the Steering Group of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity. He works for Tell the Word, the publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour.

Tuesday, September 20: "The Voices of Victims"

Kathy Kelly helped initiate Voices in the Wilderness, a campaign to end the UN/US sanctions against Iraq. For bringing "medicine and toys" to Iraq in open violation of the UN/US sanctions, she and other campaign members were notified of a proposed $163,000 penalty for the organization, threatened with 12 years in prison, and eventually fined $20,000, a sum which they've refused to pay. Voices in the Wilderness organized 70 delegations to visit Iraq in the period between 1996 and the launch of "Shock and Awe." Kelly has been to Iraq twenty two times since January 1996, when the campaign began.



Medea Benjamin, a powerful and charismatic force in human rights activism, has struggled for social justice in Asia, Africa and the Americas for over 20 years. She is the Founding Director of the human rights organization Global Exchange. She is also the co-founder of Code Pink: Women for Peace, a women's group that has been organizing against the war in Iraq and pushing for a reorientation of budget priorities in the US to focus on heath care, education and housing, not war. In February 2003, Benjamin visited Iraq and met with weapon's inspectors, women's groups and ordinary Iraqi civilians.

More at:
http://stpatricksfour.com/tribunal.php

[snot]

30. If those are the 4, no wonder the *'ers are trying to neutralize them. nt

[H2O Man]

71. Exactly.

There is more to this picture than simply the federal government attempting to protect law & order and the safety of our streets here.

[dalaigh lllama]

25. recommended. n/t

[bvar22]

26. Kick and another nom!

Republican GREED has now KILLED more Americans than Al Qaeda!

The Democratic Party is a BIG TENT, but there is NO ROOM for those who advance the agenda of THE RICH (Corporate Owners) at the EXPENSE of LABOR and the POOR.

[Me.]

112. One Good Kick

deserves another

[lonestarnot]

27. Jury Nullification!

[H2O Man]

75. "A conspiracy of silence

speaks louder than words." -- John Lennon

I think that a jury will most likely understand that there was a reason that these four acted in the manner they did. And court is a funny thing -- you just never know what a person might say! And when the judge instructs a jury to ignore something that has been blurted out ..... well, those jurors may realize that the court is attempting to keep something important from them.

[lonestarnot]

108. You give juries to much credit... in conservative states they are sheeple.

[H2O Man]

114. That may be.

I am from rural upstate New York, not far from Binghamton. Hung out in Binghamton as a young man. Boxed at the Broome County Community College, and at the Broome County Arena. I have been at the federal building there in Binghamton numerous times, for a variety of reasons. If memory serves me correctly, it was around April of 2001 that Rubin Carter introduced me to the audience when he was speaking at the Anderson Center at SUNY-Binghamton.

I am confident that any jury of Binghamton people, were they introduced to the full story in this case -- as is being advocated by the editors of the Binghamton Press & Sun-Bulletin in their editorial today -- would acquit the St. Patrick's Four. They might convict some folks from the administration, however.

[buzzsaw_23]

28. Keep this posted through the week

as this trial will go on for the week and is very important. Judge who heard the first case really wanted to make an example of these people. The Grady's are a family of lifelong war protesters and Peter DeMott, Viet Nam Vet, has quite a long record as a war protester. They are being made examples. Make no mistake this is to SEND A MESSAGE TO THE ANTI-WAR MOVEMENT.

There are a number of events involved in Binghampton during this trial, one being a mock trial of the Warmongers in the Beltway.

These activists are friends of mine.

[Tigress DEM]

31. Conspiracy to what? Voice their opinion?

What are they going to do with 200,000 plus in DC in a week? Is this their way to get protesters to ratchet back in fear? Might do just the opposite.

[TheStates]

33. What in the world did they do?

Why are we allowing secret courts to decide citizens rights?!??

Thats total bull as far as I'm concerned. These boys need to be stopped, and the Jury needs to acquit.

[nofurylike]

37. what can we who can not get to that area do? eom

[H2O Man]

102. One good thing

is to write LTTE. The Binghamton newspaper (the Press & Sun-Bulletin) can be reached at pressconnects.com and the Oneonta paper (The Daily Star) at www.thedailystar.com .

[nofurylike]

163. thank you for the suggestion. will do. eom

[nofurylike]

38. this is very important! thank you for posting it. eom

[nofurylike]

39. kick

[Just Me]

40. Um, where are the public defenders, where is the ACLU, where are,...

,...the advocates for constitutional rights? :wtf:

This is insane! Is it the "blood" thingy that repulses others? :cry: Their passionate expression was still pure non-violent expression of opposition.

This situation makes me feel terribly sad.

Where is the ACLU? :shrug: Have they been "appropriated" on behalf of these people?

[Zynx]

41. Sorry, I don't buy this.

You're deliberately misstating what the law is on this matter, or you're completely clueless and should not be posting this sort of material.

[H2O Man]

69. Too bad ....

Please identify the law being "misstated"?

I'm willing to post my thoughts next to yours, and to let the readers decide who is telling the truth, and who "should not be posting this sort of material."

These four were tried in 2004 on a local level for their civil disobedience. When a jury heard their side of the issue, 9 of 12 voted to acquit. You may or may not agree with the jurors. However, the fact that 9 of 12 voted to acquit is not being "misstated."

After the local trial failed to convict, the federal government filed conspiracy charges. You may believe in your heart of hearts that this makes the country safer. I do not. Either way, the federal charges were reportedly filed only after the local charges failed. If you are aware of information indicating the federal government was prepared to file conspiracy charges from Day One, but choose not to until the criminal mischief charges had been heard, please let us all know.

As I stated, the rules of evidence in court proceedings frequently do not allow significant information into court. Just one example: I was involved in a case where a fellow who ran two stop signs and a red light was ticketed by police. I had a copy of the ticket. Yet my attorney was not allowed to introduce that ticket into evidence, so that the jury was aware of it. Now, that isn't my "misstating the law." But it's an example that most DUers would probably think is evidence that the court system does not always allow the truth to be presented to a jury. You have the right to feel otherwise.

You certainly have the right to not "buy this." And you can dismiss what I have posted with the "you're completely clueless and should not be posting this material." I support your right to be fully okay with the law as it now stands and is interpreted. But I would remind you that everything done in Nazi Germany was legal -- fully recognizing that the vast majority of people taking your stance would say that the law in Nazi Germany has nothing to do with the situation in the United States today.

The whole of non-violent civil disobedience, including Gandhi's experiments in truth in India, to King's work for civil rights in the USA, is aimed at opening the eyes, the minds, and the hearts of people like yourself. And it does require people willing to be "punished" for violating what they believe to be unjust laws, and unjust policies, inflicted by governments. Yet it does not require that we sit like bumps on a log, and not tell the truth outside of the courtroom.

[nofurylike]

44. kick

[U4ikLefty]

49. Why not have about 10,000 protestors "spill blood" in a massive protest???

I wonder how the arrest & conviction of thousands of Amercians would play because they can't hose off the street.

Just food for thought. I don't wanna be arrested on a consipracy charge by the Reich... I mean courts!!!

[H2O Man]

78. I have mixed feelings

about the spilling of blood. I am more inclined to advocate protests where people do things such as a "meditation/prayer-in." I think that if 1000 people were to sit/kneel quietly, not disrupting the public order, but focused on uniting people -- no matter what their value or belief system -- in a different form of protest, it could help to wake the nation.

[U4ikLefty]

137. I agree about the spilling of blood. I find it kind of repulsive myself.

I was just offering up the notion that it would be a lot harder to deny the defense of 10,000 people. It would not play as well in the media (if they cover it) if 1000's were not allowed to mount a defense in America.

Great thread!!!

[nofurylike]

51. kick

[nofurylike]

61. kick for morning folks eom

[nofurylike]

62. kick

[nofurylike]

63. kick

[nofurylike]

64. kick before going off. all should know about this. keep kicked! eom

[opihimoimoi]

65. Late kick from the Pond

:kick:

[Nothing Without Hope]

66. Oh. My God. This has to be media-blasted big-time - CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS!

I hope this thread continues to be updated with developments. THis is a true nightmare, a foretaste of the martial law that the neocons want. It cannot be allowed to stand unopposed.

Recommended

[annabanana]

84. kick . . . n/t

[DemonFighterLives]

89. My 2 cents on the matter

If a jury of their peers already acquited them, that should be the end of it. For the PNAC/Neocon crowd to up the ante is despicable. This is some of that Patriot Act BS, that the world and coutry can do without. This is not saying that the blood spilling was right or wrong, but dubby can go around spilling blood everyday (not his own of course, except for pretzel incidents) and no one ever calls h*m on that.
The 6 years seems plenty harsh, if they need any time away at all.

This is just not right and I am surprised that several DU'ers think it is ok. See you in Gitmo!
:party:

[H2O Man]

90. Well said.

It seems clear that the administration is intent on intimidating those who would question their spilling blood in Iraq.

[buzzsaw_23]

96. You go H2OMan!!!!!

Awaken the people to the creeping (or already here?) fascism.

The St.Patrick's Four are my friends. They are the cream of the crop and are willing to put their bodies in the way of the machine for they realize how serious the problem is as well as having a deep religious conviction to uphold a higher law that supercedes any law of man that involves endless rounds of circuitous discussion and supposed points of law (as established by the powers that be).

Possibly we will meet in Binghampton.
The problem goes back to when the powers, beauties, and deep knowledges of the age-old women's traditions were supplanted by military-caste mystiques & the accumulation of heavy metals

From d.a. levy
"Really"
                     the police try to protect
                     the banks - and everything else
                     is secondary"

[H2O Man]

101. "Once to every man and nation.

Comes the moment to decide
In the strife of truth and falsehood
For the good or evil side;
Some great cause God's new Messiah
Offering each the gloom or blight
And the choice goes by forever
Twixt that darkness and that light.

Though the cause of evil prosper
Yet 'tis truth along is strong
Though her portion be the scaffold
And upon the throne be wrong
Yet that scaffold sways the future
And behind the dim unknown
Standeth God within the shadow
Keeping watch above his own"

This verse by James Russell Lowell was how Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., ended his greatest speech, "A Time to Break Silence (Beyond Vietnam)." There were those who did not understand what King was attempting to teach the country, and who reacted with the same fear, rooted in ignorance, that we witness today, in the sad reaction that even some DUers have to this case.

[acmavm]

106. Signed. Everybody needs to read and sign. Or else we'll all be on

trail with no right to defend ourselves.

[DemonFighterLives]

107. Thanks Man!

On another thread I am back on the Anthrax thing which also intimidated folks who didn't want to be Wellstoned. If this regime can get by with their strong arm techniques, we are through.

In the initial case, the defense was good enough, why should the defense be stupid now.
Sorry for the non legal terms.
:argh:

[Seeking Serenity]

140. Let's consider this

If a jury of their peers already acquited them, that should be the end of it.

A jury of their peers acquitted the men who murdered Goodman, Schwerner and Chaney. Good thing the feds didn't let that be "the end of it."

[DemonFighterLives]

143. So do you think there is something deeper here that we are not seeing?

I can't disagree with your point, but fail to see the connection here.

[Seeking Serenity]

145. The connection is

that the feds often come in behind with federal charges (when applicable) when the locals fail to secure conviction on state charges.

It was a good thing in the case of Goodman, Schwerner and Chaney. Now, some here see it as a bad thing (because of the people being charged).

Now, I am in no way comparing an act of civil disobedience and protest with murder. But insofar are the principle of the feds acting when the locals have failed to act, sometimes we have to take the bad with the good. We can't argue for selective application (hey, feds, only use that power to prosecute people that liberals don't like, but don't use it to prosecute liberals).

That standard won't work.

[DemonFighterLives]

147. Where did the locals fail?

It seems they had a trial and were acquitted. By the bushies attempting to make more out of this than a protest shows their hand IMHO.

[H2O Man]

150. Right.

The local prosecutor did not fail to try the case, because he shared a hatred of a race of people who were victimized by the St. Patrick's Four. The reasoning is very weak in comparing the two.

In fact, it is just the opposite: in this case, the federal government is attacking four people because of the administration's hatred of a larger group of people: those who oppose the war in Iraq.

The federal government only takes a position of this type in cases where they are looking to make a larger point. In the civil rights case that was mentioned, we recognize the point was to racist thugs, letting them know there would be consequences for murdering people who simply wanted to have a voice in their government. Compare that to this case, where the federal government is being used to silence dissent.

[DemonFighterLives]

166. I can't even believe the feds are pushing this relatively minor incident

They should admit that mistakes were made and the defendents should have to pay for the cleanup. This administration wants to push anything that makes them look like they are steadfast and defending against all forms of terror.
It's a waste of time and money which they seem to excel at.
:freak:

[indepat]

91. Some idiots think this is still a free country, the land of life, liberty,

and the pursuit of happiness, but the neocons have made a mockery of everything this country should for.

[bettyellen]

93. KICKED + RECOMMENDED, TKS H2O MAN

[H2O Man]

94. Thank you.

I appreciate your support.

[bettyellen]

98. i appreciate your well spoken analysis for the apologists here.....

a certain segment of the population is finding it hard to believe the laws are being used to silence dissent and nothing more. it's so disturbing i can see why some people resist believing it, but they better wake up. i'm glad you're getting the word out.

[zippy890]

97. recommended

Thanks for your work on this

[splat@14]

99. As shamful as it is scary. Who is next? Voted. n/t

[HysteryDiagnosis]

103. We have seen the enemy, and he is us. KICK.

[livvy]

105. A way to offer support.

Here is something you can do in support. Add your name to the list of supporters, and pass the letter on to others, and ask them to sign. Here's a portion of the letter, and the link.

We are parents, lawyers, workers, teachers, students and others who are deeply concerned about the direction our country is going relative to war, civil liberties and justice. We are saddened and angered by the ongoing war and occupation of Iraq. >snip
In an attempt to prevent this horrible scenario from unfolding, millions of people worldwide took to the streets in demonstrations during the weeks prior to the war. In the week before the war, over 7,000 people were arrested for trying to prevent the war. Among them were the St. Patrick Four, Teresa Grady, Daniel Burns, Clare Grady and Peter De Mott. >snip
Peter, Clare, Danny and Teresa all have children and are active, involved members of the community. They risked their freedom because they care about the young men and women in the military and the people of Iraq. We are outraged by the inflated charges they are facing. We are also concerned about the way this case could be used over and over again to chill dissent. If they are convicted, the consequences could be serious for all people who engage in nonviolent civil resistance to war and injustice. The government's strategy of charging people with a serious conspiracy charge could be applied to many instances where a group of people act together to end or prevent injustice.
http://www.stpatricksfour.org/support.php

110. here is a video link for the story

Video link - binghamton news station

http://www.newschannel34.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=15B2549F-29E6-40A8-9201-BA0EF694B4AD

[H2O Man]

113. Thank you for that!

I no longer have access to the "local" Binghamton stations. Years ago, a friend worked for WBNG, and at times for 34 and 40. We had a lot of fun working on a few stories of regional interest.

There's also a good newspaper put out by Opportunities For Broome. It's called The Reporter. I wish it were "on line." I spoke with a good friend from OFB over the past couple days, and may do a story on this for The Reporter. Of course, one of the regulars will be covering it, too.

[Rex]

115. Democracy, shimocracy!

If it can happen to them, then it can happen to ANY of us!

[H2O Man]

119. Exactly.

A person who I respect on DU (but frequently disagree with) stated that my "title" was indeed misleading, because they are actually being allowed to present a defense.

Respectfully, that is not true. They are not allowed to present the defense they want; the defense that surely kept them from being convicted in the 2004 trial; the defense the government knows would keep them from being convicted again; and, by no small coincidence, the defense that is based upon the truth.

I'd challenge anyone to list the top ten defenses this leaves them. Or, if the top ten is too many, just list five. What the heck, even one.

Now, considering that the idea of the trial is to produce "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth," and that truth is not allowed to be presented in court, what defense is allowed? Only one that allows the prosecutor to point a finger in self-righteous indignation, and say, "You are lying!"

Without any question, the St. Patrick's Four are being denied the right to present a defense.

[jbnow]

121. There would still be a problem

if they could present that defense that worked.
The defense in itself shows there was a conspiracy and conspiracy is the charge. Adding a conspiracy charge is often used to get people to plead guilty to another charge...since the defense to the first charge would prove the conspiracy of part of the other charges.

I can't imagine society is served by jailing these people or imposing huge fines. That is just destroying families. They were acquitted. Why go back? Unless things have changed federal crimes don't have reduced time for good behavior. You serve the full sentence.

What are they trying to prove making this charge? God, I am sick of stupidity.

[sattahipdeep]

122. U see anything wrong with that kind of protest?

Two days before the invasion of Iraq, four Catholic Workers from Ithaca
(NY), in an act of non-violent civil resistance, entered a military recruiting
center, read a statement, and carefully poured their own blood around the vestibule.

The four, all parents, were tried in Tompkins County Court in April 2004 on charges of criminal
mischief. Nine of twelve jurors voted to acquit.

In the days of AIDS?


That's why they aren't leaving them alone.....sends the wrong message to the radicals.


They should have a defense.......but it's obvious they r taking up court time for
something they admit to doing.

Why they did it is moot.......that is over with...but spreading blood around isn't
the thing to do.

The jails r full anyway.

It would be like me running over a cop........then saying the reason I did was I
hate the color blue. This doesn't make running over the cop any better.

Those people in the recruiters have nothing to do with the protest.
They were just doing their jobs.

[H2O Man]

123. I think your point

about the use of blood is valid. It is worthy of serious discussion.

To say that the administration is prosecuting them out of concern for AIDS is not a valid point, and thus is not worthy of further discussion.

To compare their actions in protesting the invasion to running down a cop because of the color blue is nonsense, and takes the focus away from the one valid point that you did make, regarding the blood.

I served on the Souther Tier AIDS Program's board of directors. Hence I am aware of the value of a discussion about issues involving blood. Because they have nothing to do with the persecution of these four, I would suggest it might make a good issue for a separate thread. If you start one, I will read it and perhaps participate on it.

[Rex]

125. The fact that they are charged with conspiracy for non-violent

protest says it all IMHO. This is the future we call all expect to see and soon. Kangaroo Courtrooms where half-truths and rigged verdicts allow the gummit to do as they please.

It won't surprise me when they start calling all liberals "enemy combatants", for aiding an enemy They created! Ugh!

[H2O Man]

131. Right.

They do not view these four as fellow Americans. The see them as "the enemy." They do not have the slightest respect for these four's religious beliefs. They view this type of Christianity as "threatening."

[Rex]

141. Snake charmers, speaking in tongues and poison are okey dokey

but don't you try and make any kind of non-violent, grandiose statements! No sir! We own the crazy department! We worship the Prince of Peace, scum! :crazy:

Listening to the Wall.

[TankLV]

120. Because in bushco*s repuke dictatorship, they don't have to LET them.

Silly person - you have no more "rights" thanks to the Patriot Act! and the gang of repuke criminals who currently control OUR government.

[H2O Man]

124. I apprecxiate your point .....

and think that it is a shame that a few DUers do not grasp the significance of it.

[kohodog]

126. Unbelievable and sick

The truly horrendous crimes are being done by those with money and power. Crimes against nature and humanity, and no prosecutors or politicians lift a finger. But they'll go to the wall against anyone who exposes them.

I think a national funeral march is in order for our democracy. Perhaps some more musically talented than I can make a little space in Washington next week.

[Me.]

127. Newsday

Anti-war protesters back in court for spilling blood

“If convicted in federal court, each could face up to six years in prison and fines as high as $250,000 on the primary charge of conspiracy to impede an officer of the United States. They also are charged with damaging governmental property and entering a military station for unlawful purposes.

The prosecution is unusual but not unprecedented, said Barrie Gewanter, head of the Central New York chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union. Gewanter said the federal government has been fairly consistent about pursuing prosecutions where the protests involved damage to government property.

While the ACLU does not support acts of civil disobedience _ even nonviolent ones _ it is concerned about how the government is handling this case, she said.

"It seems the government has decided they weren't punished enough," Gewanter said. "This appears to be about more than just keeping order and enforcing the law ... this suggests the government is more motivated by the message than by the conduct of the defendants and is retaliating for that message and opposition to government policy."

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/newyork/ny-bc-ny--recruitmentprotes0917sep17,0,2042219.story?coll=ny-region-apnewyork

[H2O Man]

129. Today's Binghamton paper's editorial:

".... You don't have to agree with the actions of the St. Patrick's Four. You don't have to agree with the concept of the Citizen Tribunal or the opinions of its speakers. However, we should all agree that they have the right to have their day in court and to speak freely on an issue that is so important.

"That, after all, is what America is about."

[livvy]

128. It appears they got quite a few more signatures today.

There are about 170 names after mine. Let's see how many more we can add to it. I think this is important. Our civil liberties are too precious. The conspiracy charges are over the top. They've already had their day in court, and been acquitted. That should have been the end of it.

edit to add link: Here's the link again. A portion of the letter is in post 105.
http://www.stpatricksfour.org/support.php

[H2O Man]

130. I went to a wedding

this afternoon, with a reception through the evening hours. There were a number of good-natured jokes from the bride's family about the very few democrats among the crowd. Every family there is connected to law enforcement.

At a table of mainly republicans, with a number in law enforcement, the discussion on the St. Patrick's Four was perhaps surprising. No one expressed any belief other than that the administration is attempting to punish them for opposing a war that is becoming very unpopular.

[livvy]

132. That is part of what is so wrong with this.

To take four, what seem to be good, kind, decent people, and harass and punish them for expressing their beliefs is so very wrong. They hurt no one. They don't deserve this.
Not to mention the precedent it sets. First these four, then a group of five or ten or whatever. I mean technically anytime a group of people gets together and plans to do something, they are conspiring.
It is an abuse of power, and I'm tired of this maladministration thuggery. I'm getting :mad: by the day, because there seems to be no end to the insults being tossed at the people of this country.

[H2O Man]

133. Pretty much everyone

except me that was at the wedding belongs to a small, rural Christian church. Its members are about 90% republican, maybe more. You could take any 12 of them, and the St. Patrick's Four would be acquited. And the administration knows that. And that's exactly why they are taking the cruel stance they are.

[livvy]

134. Any other suggestions to help them? n/t

[H2O Man]

135. I think that the

publicity is very important at this time. For those who are able, donating to their legal defense should be considered important. It is obvious that it is important to keep this conversation going, to keep people informed of what is really going on. And, of course, bringing the message to other internet sites.

[buzzsaw_23]

139. Know anything about the judge

who will be hearing the case?

[H2O Man]

149. I'm not sure.

My guess is that it might be Thomas J. McAvoy. He heard the two SuperFund cases that I was involved in, which were heard in Binghamton.

[Mr_Spock]

136. wtf?

These people need to be thrown in jail - IE the government!

[Nothing Without Hope]

142. I fear what they may do to crush dissent in the big Washington protest

later this month. They are itching for an excuse to expand martial law. Read this thread and you will see why I worry about this.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4790112
thread title: Missing A KEY POINT in *'s speech: POWER GRAB FOR POTUS AND MILITARY
Bush can do it. The Constitution actually has been eroded that far. "Civil unrest" is one of the excuses he can use, and he has the military behind him.

I will consider it a great victory if the protests go off without signs of military police attacking or arresting protestors. By all means, let's all go, all of us who can.

By the way, did you see that interview of Karl Rove in the Huffington Post, where he said - among other monstrous lies - that Cindy Sheehan is a clown and that there is no real anti-war movement? He wishes.
thread title: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2097700

Kick for this vitally important thread. We are at a turning point now, and I think we can all feel it. One way or another, things are going to change.

[livvy]

144. Sunday morning kick. 9:45 n/t

[DemonFighterLives]

146. I'm signed on

:dem:

[H2O Man]

148. Great!

Thank you.

[political_invader]

155. According to this article in this mornings paper

BINGHAMTON -- Clare Grady admits she and three others spilled blood in a Tompkins County military recruiting office on St. Patrick's Day, 2003. What she wants the federal government to admit is that the war in Iraq is illegal and that, under international law, she has the right -- in fact, an obligation -- to prevent the United States from breaking the law.

<snip>

None of the four have any regrets about what landed them in New York's federal court system. On March 17, 2003 -- St. Patrick's Day -- just days before the United States began combat operations in Iraq, the four carried containers of their own blood into the recruiting office and splashed it on the walls, floor, some photographs and an American flag in the lobby. They admit to the act, but they dispute the monetary value of the damage they caused. They say about $200; prosecutors say more than $1,000.

<snip>

"The status of the war in Iraq is absolutely irrelevant as to the question of whether defendants are guilty or not guilty of the commission of the criminal offenses charged," Lovric wrote in court documents. The prosecutor cited a U.S. Supreme Court opinion: "(Defendants') professed unselfish motivation, rather than a justification, actually identified a form of arrogance which organized society cannot tolerate."

<snip>


McAvoy will let the protesters' legal advisers question potential jurors or conduct questioning himself, he wrote in court documents. The judge also has approved some jury questions proposed by the protesters, although he vetoed more than half of the survey, including queries about religious backgrounds and feelings about protests, court records indicate.

this story at:
http://www.pressconnects.com/today/news/stories/ne091805s191497.shtml

:wtf: is this "(Defendants') professed unselfish motivation, rather than a justification, actually identified a form of arrogance which organized society cannot tolerate."

[BeHereNow]

167. Everyone knows it is an act of retaliation against any who oppose

the neocon policies.
I just read all the links.
There is no question among those close to the situation that
these four people are being used as an example to
induce fear in any others who are contemplating
anti-war actions of protest.
Unfortunately, I think they prosecution will focus
on the "destruction of government property" and
the charge of "impeding a government official" and I fear the jury will agree that they are guilty as charged in those areas.

I understand why they spilled blood as a form of protest, however, I think
that is what will be used as the proof for
the charge "destruction of goverment property."

I predict they will play the "conspiracy" aspect in the
charge of "impeding."
If the jury is even remotely conservative- they will
agree with the prosectution and ignore the
fact that the defendants are not allowed to
present their defense...
Welcome to Bushler world.
BHN

[H2O Man]

171. Exactly.

You hit the nail on the head. The sentences they receive will be in direct proportion to the pathology of the federal government.

[BeHereNow]

172. Related question-

H20 Man-
Do you know know, by chance, if the Bill Quigley
mentioned in the links is related to the author of
"Tragedy and Hope," Carroll Quigley?
BHN

[H2O Man]

175. I do notr know. n/t

[buzzsaw_23]

178. Interesting aspect of the first case

was the fact that essentially the Evidence that the St. Patrick's four wanted to submit, in fact their entire line of defense was not allowed. At the same time the degree of crime they were to be charged with hinged on proof that the damage that they did to the recruiting station was over a certain dollar amount, I think $1500. The dry cleaners that did the estimate was pretty much caught red handed falsely inflating the receipts. Any even moderate judge would have thrown the case out immediately. However the fascist judge that heard the case is the same guy who let an SUV driver who purposefully ran over a pedestrian and then drove away pretty much off the hook.

[buzzsaw_23]

177. Bill Quigley

walks the walk. He is commited to helping the poor as a calling in his life. Don't know if related to Carroll. More on Bill, a genuine human being.

Bill Quigley is a law professor as well as Director of the Law Clinic and the
Gillis Long Poverty Law Center at Loyola University New Orleans.

We go to New Orleans and Law Professor Bill Quigley who is trapped in Memorial Hospital with hundreds of other people. There is no water or electricity in the hospital and relief efforts have yet to reach them.

We go now to New Orleans and the second part of our conversation with Bill Quigley. He is law professor at Loyola University and is currently trapped with hundreds of other people in Memorial Medical Center on Napoleon Avenue without food, water or electricity. I spoke to him on his cell phone on Tuesday night from the hospital. He has been volunteering there since the hurricane hit, helping his wife, Debbie, an oncology nurse.


BILL QUIGLEY: There are 1,300 people in this hospital, a couple hundred of whom are patients, hundreds of family members of the patients, hundreds of staff, and everything -- little babies, little children of staff members and who came in. The only way you get people to work in a hurricane in New Orleans is that you tell them you can come in and bring your whole family with you. So, people brought their children, and we had little babies, we’ve got parents. We got that sort of stuff. It’s about 1,300 people here in this hospital.

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/09/01/146255

[political_invader]

158. This is dictatorial

something the KGB would have done. Bring a tank to a fist fight.
I am signed on blasting California media and radio.

This needs to be follwed, there is alot at stake here.:grr:

[bee]

159. this is absurd.

so lets see. 4 regular people spilling blood in a recruiters office as a sign of protest is conspiracy. But the president leading a country to war based on lies and trumped-up "intelligence" is an oops-aw-shucks-oh-well incident? its nice to see the federal govt has its priorities straight. if only they put as much effort into upholding our constitutional rights as they do denying us of them...

this makes me ill.

[wovenpaint]

165. Had to go look for this, so....

:kick:
Important info for all!

[Nothing Without Hope]

182. This is so important, but it is now off the Greatest Page. Perhaps

this should be reposted with a link to this thread, so that more people will see it and people with dialup connections will be better able to read the updates.

[political_invader]

192. I so much agree, I have looked all day for an update from yesterday

with the start of the trial and I an unable to find anything not even in the local papers. We MUST stay on top of this.

[ladylibertee]

183. sad