Even though the universal convictions with absolutely no personal evidence were disappointing, that was to be expected. The small fines probably express the extent of sympathy any U.S. judge feels able to express for civil resisters.
—Ellen Barfield, Baltimore, MD; post-trial comment
In the first half of the last century our government made a number of serious efforts to expand international law and extend the reach of international legal institutions. In 1945 we took the unprecedented step of setting up war crimes tribunals for German and Japanese officials, and we pledged ourselves to be subject to the same rules. We set up the UN. But in the late 1960’s we lost our forward momentum and for the last 30 years we have been reneging on our commitments.
—Richard Duffee, Stanford, CT; from his sentencing statement
In particular I mentioned that I continue to pay a high personal price for having failed to comply with, failed to enforce, International Humanitarian Law. Let me be clear about the long-term, delayed, cost of failing to comply with IHL.
Night after night at 4am you heard the scream in your ear. There was the image. You and your squad hit the dirt because there was suspected enemy activity. Through a break in the brush you see something moving. Over your sights you see it looks like a woman, and it looks like she is carrying a baby. You ask, “Should you open up and fire on her?” Your orders are that this is a free fire zone and all people are considered the enemy. You double-check yourself; can she be a threat? She could be a weapon courier, she could be growing the rice for the Viet Cong, and she could be a scout for an ambush.
As you jolt awake you know you followed the wrong law, you asked the wrong questions. Instead of asking, “Is she in a free fire zone?” you should have asked your command, “Is it legal to force a population to leave their homes and ancestral village under threat of death?” Instead of asking, “Could she be growing food for the Viet Cong?” you should have asked. “How is it legal for you, a U.S. soldier, to be lying in wait in her field?” If I had asked the right questions, if I had followed the right law, only our imagination can say how many innocent lives would have been saved? That was an opportunity to support IHL—I failed the test. These opportunities come and we are tested.
—Elliott Adams, Sharon Springs, NY; from his sentencing statement
We emphasize that our intent on March 19 was not to commit a crime, but to prevent a crime; to keep the law, not break the law. Judge Canan, although you have ruled that International law is not a valid defense in this case, we ask you to please reconsider your position and reverse your ruling in light of all the evidence we have presented.
What more evidence is needed to show the applicability of international law in this case than the testimony and closing statement we just heard from Mr. Adams (regarding atrocities he was ordered to carry out in Vietnam—-actions he now knows were in violation of International humanitarian law)…. We acted on March 19 because there were no other political or legal alternatives available to us as the executive and legislative branches of government continue to wage war.
We acted to prevent an imminent harm from occurring. People are dying now as a direct result of U.S. drone attacks and other U.S. military actions, just as they were dying at the time of our March 19 action. These people aren’t merely statistics—they have names and families. We seldom hear in the media who the innocent dead really are! For example, you heard Joan Nicholson testify that on March 1, 2011, U.S. military forces in a helicopter gunship, killed nine boys in Afghanistan as they collected firewood. But do we know their names? Do we know anything about them or their families? Do we, as society, even care? The youngest of the boys killed was named Shahidullah, son of Rahman—-he was 7 years old, 7 years old! As the father of a young son, I went to the White House on March 19 to be a voice for Shahidullah…
Judge Canan, who will speak for the victims? What recourse do we, as citizens have, when people, even young children, are being killed indiscriminately, but to engage in nonviolent acts to seek redress such as we did. What recourse do we have when an estimated 2 million Iraqis have died over the last 20 years as direct result of U.S. bombings, U.S.-UN lead sanctions, and U.S. invasion?
—Art Laffin, Washington, DC; from his sentencing statement
There was an older black woman sitting in the courtroom amongst our supporters during today’s sentencing process. She was waiting for her son to be sentenced—he had been brought into the courtroom in orange jail garb with chains connected to his feet and hands before our case was called. During our sentencing statements I saw her paying close attention and at times crying; so after we were finished, right before the judge began to pass judgment on her son, I went up to her and wished her good luck. She looked deeply into my eyes and said, “I am so proud of you people.”
It is not only the people in Iraq-Afghanistan-Pakistan-Libya-Yemen-Somalia who are being destroyed at the hands of U.S. militarism. The poor in our own country are left without jobs and then have to turn to selling drugs or their own bodies on the streets in order to make a buck so they can survive. They are then locked into the jails of the Prison-Industrial-Complex. The judge is just one more cog in this evil machine.
For several days this week we interrupted the judge’s mundane job of sending legions of poor people from the nation’s capital to these cells of desperation. For a short time we challenged him, his clerk, the U.S. Marshall, the court stenographer, the two Park Police who testified against us, and the two government prosecutors to think outside their normal boxes. But the most important heart we reached during this trial was the black mother who feels alone in our heartless society as she sees her beloved child suffer inside this demented and broken system.
—Bruce Gagnon, Bath, ME; from his blog
One of the basic physical laws first articulated by Isaac Newton in 1687 is that an object in motion stays in motion until acted upon by an opposing force. The same is true about democracy, as many of those in the courtroom today have been witness to that change which has only occurred through opposing forces such as Rosa Parks, Dr. King, and many others who have acted in contradiction to current law.
I stood with my brothers and sisters on march 19th to be such an opposing force, a non-violent force, to the illegal, immoral, violent, unjust wars that continue in our names, which are a continuation of wars past. I stand before the court today with the individual belief that although the court may believe it acted justly, that it’s ruling is allowing for the continuation of the illegal, immoral, violent, and unjust wars for Empire that continue in our name and serves only to preserve the union and keep It’s violent trajectory unchanged.
Therefore, I ask that the court take this into consideration in its sentencing, and any future rulings, to help correct the trajectory of this society by giving the defendants a sentence of time-served, as well as finding all future defendants, who acted in the same vein, only guilty of love, peace, and respect.
—Richard Marini, Staten Island, NY; from his sentencing statement
Everything said by the defendants during this trial was compelling, but not as powerful as how it was said. These were not dry legalities being related; these people were talking about lives devoted to Peace and openness, the time and expense and courage required to stand up to the government and its supporters, their dedication to a future without war. Clarity, articulateness, and profound emotion were communicated along with detail, to the point that many observers in the room were clearly moved. This quality was what the process in court was all about, and should be about, for every defendant, in every court.
—Jay Wenk, Woodstock, NY; from an article he wrote about the trial
When I left Vietnam I pledged to the guys I served with who did not come back that I would speak out against my country whenever my country decided to commit our troops to war based on lies.
—Chuck Heyn, Damascus, PA; from his sentencing statement
0 comments:
Post a Comment