Very Civil Disobedience

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Ian McColgin
    Senior Member
    • Apr 1999
    • 51671

    Very Civil Disobedience

    Published on Wednesday, September 15, 2010 by Las Vegas CityLife

    Vegas Drone Trial Makes History

    by Jason Whited

    Fourteen anti-war activists may have made history today in a Las Vegas courtroom when they turned a misdemeanor trespassing trial into a possible referendum on America’s newfound taste for remote-controlled warfare.

    The so-called Creech 14, a group of peace activists from across the country, went on trial this morning for allegedly trespassing onto Creech Air Force Base in April 2009.

    From the start of today’s trial, prosecutors did their best to keep the focus on whether the activists were guilty of allegations they illegally entered the base and refused to leave as a way to protest the base’s role as the little-known headquarters for U.S. military operations involving unmanned aerial vehicles, or drones, over Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan.

    But a funny thing happened on the way to prosecutors’ hope for a quick decision.

    Appearing as witnesses for the Creech 14 today were some of the biggest names in the modern anti-war movement: Ramsey Clark, former U.S. attorney general under President Lyndon Johnson; Ann Wright, a retired U.S. Army colonel and one of three former U.S. State Department officials who resigned on the eve of the 2003 invasion of Iraq; and Bill Quigley, legal director for the New York City-based Center for Constitutional Rights.

    By the time those three witnesses finished their testimony as to why they believed the activists had protested at the base, they’d managed to convince Las Vegas Township Justice Court Judge William Jansen to delay his verdict for four months — and had managed clearly to frustrate prosecutors.

    For the better part of the day, Clark, Wright and Quigley testified under direct questioning from witnesses and a surly cross-examination from the Clark County district attorney’s office.

    Each witness spoke eloquently, and at length, about the need for nonviolent civil disobedience in the face of criminal actions by the U.S. government — which is how most in today’s anti-war movement and many international observers have characterized America’s drone war.

    “[People] are allowed to trespass if it’s for the greater good — and there are certainly exceptions [to the law] when there is an emerging, urgent need,” said Quigley, while on the stand.

    By all accounts, the Creech 14 trial is the first time in history an American judge has allowed a trial to touch on possible motivations of anti-drone protesters.

    No one knows how Jansen will ultimately rule, but most took it as a good sign when, at the end of the day’s proceedings, applause flooded the courtroom and Jansen sent the Creech 14 — all of them part of a robust Catholic anti-war movement — on their way by echoing the words of Jesus Christ with his call of “Go in peace!”

    Copyright © 2010 Las Vegas CityLife
  • Ian McColgin
    Senior Member
    • Apr 1999
    • 51671

    #2
    Re: Very Civil Disobedience

    Norm, we disagree on civil disobedience. As an organizer, here are my thoughts.

    Firstly, the goal is to highlight the issue in ways that cause those in power to change what they are doing both by erroding their support and by directly (sometimes) getting them to change. In that context, any demonstration has an early question as to whether we would use an "arrest strategy" or not. If not, any picket would follow the rules, usually just barely since the goal is to provoke. This is especially fun if we could provoke the authority into violating their own rules.

    The Los Vegas action was meant to be an arrest strategy. The next moment after the arrest is the trial. You absolutely use the trial as a platform to say why you did it. In every instance to date, the judge would try with varying success to muzzel any articulation of a "just cause defense". This could often backfire, as it did for Julius Hoffman as he muzzeled the Chicago Seven in court, leading to bigger headlines everywhere else.

    I'm sure the defense did not expect the judge to even hear a just cause defense. Those articulate expert witnesses would have said their bit to the media on the courthouse steps if the trial had gone as normal Much to everyone's surprise, the judge let the just cause defense get articulated in court.

    Thing is, in a civil disobedience one must be prepared to take what comes, whether it's a beating at the hands of Frank Rizzo's cops or a little uncomfortable jail time for chaining one's self to the court house doors to "stop" another trial, but the goal is NOT to suffer. The goal is to change minds. It's not a betrayal of the cause if the judge decides not to punish you.

    Comment

    • Ian McColgin
      Senior Member
      • Apr 1999
      • 51671

      #3
      Re: Very Civil Disobedience

      Law can be a bit complex. I forget who said that the surest way to get rid of a bad law is to sedulously enforce it. But that aside, a civil disobedience that confronts the law itself, as the civil rights movement did, is based directly on the notion that those who disobey that law should not be punished, but the law should be eliminated. Of course they were willing to suffer, but that was not the goal. Changing the law was.

      In this case, however, the arrest strategy is solely to get more serious public attention. If that's because they go to jail and others are impressed with their seriousness of purpose, fine and normal. But our legal process has several legally legitimate variations on "just cause" or "necessity" defenses for a variety of crimes. One of the great things about our system is that sometimes the law is flexable.

      By the way, this is by no means confined to "liberal" or "activist" judges. In the '60's it was not that odd for police riots to be legally excused on the premis that while demonstrators had not physically broken any laws, they had uttered "fighting words".

      Comment

      • B_B
        Banned
        • Sep 2001
        • 6506

        #4
        Re: Very Civil Disobedience

        Originally posted by Norman Bernstein
        .... the obligation is to 'take what comes', but what SHOULD come is a normal prosecution of the law.
        What?
        They've been prosecuted, they supplied a defense, now a judge will decide if the defense is valid. What's "abnormal" about that?

        FWIW anyone has the right to access property, AFAIK, if there is sufficient reason. i.e. if you drive by a property with "no trespassing" signs but see a child being attacked by a dog inside that property no-one will charge you with trespassing if you enter that property to save the life of the child. The judge in the O.P. is deciding whether or not protesting the illegal drone war constitutes sufficient reason to access the property.

        Comment

        • Scott Rosen
          Senior Member
          • Feb 2000
          • 5390

          #5
          Re: Very Civil Disobedience

          I'm interested in the substance of their protest. Are they opposing the use of drones in all circumstances? Or just in these circumstances? Also, what is illegal about the present use of drones?

          Comment

          • Y Bar Ranch
            Uberlubber
            • May 2005
            • 2968

            #6
            Re: Very Civil Disobedience

            Originally posted by Scott Rosen
            I'm interested in the substance of their protest. Are they opposing the use of drones in all circumstances? Or just in these circumstances? Also, what is illegal about the present use of drones?
            Yea, are they arguing against them observing and shooting, or just shooting?
            It will all be OK in the end...so if it's not OK, you're not at the end.

            Comment

            • Ian McColgin
              Senior Member
              • Apr 1999
              • 51671

              #7
              Re: Very Civil Disobedience

              They are against the whole war but on the drone issue they are spotlighting the very high non-combatant death rate. Drones, they argue, are terror devices.

              Comment

              • Scott Rosen
                Senior Member
                • Feb 2000
                • 5390

                #8
                Re: Very Civil Disobedience

                Obviously a very successful use of civil disobedience. I approve of their methods, but I don't understand their cause.

                Do they differentiate between the use of drones and the use of manned aircraft to direct long-range artillery, for example?

                I can understand opposition to the war. I'm a bit confused on why they would oppose one particular type of conventional weapon.

                Comment

                • Y Bar Ranch
                  Uberlubber
                  • May 2005
                  • 2968

                  #9
                  Re: Very Civil Disobedience

                  Originally posted by Ian McColgin
                  They are against the whole war but on the drone issue they are spotlighting the very high non-combatant death rate. Drones, they argue, are terror devices.
                  Overflying and hitting the high value individuals with manned platforms would result in more non-combatant deaths, as you have limited timelines due to fuel and people for those. Hitting the targets with autonomous weps (cruise missile) would result in more deaths due to the delay between shooting and hitting. Going after them on the ground would put us in a potential Blackhawk Down situation. Using surrogates would work if we had surrogates that were effective, but the Paks and Yemenis...not so much. We could just let them have their sanctuary, but that obviously leads to bad outcomes too.
                  It will all be OK in the end...so if it's not OK, you're not at the end.

                  Comment

                  • Bruce Hooke
                    Senior Member
                    • Mar 2000
                    • 14297

                    #10
                    Re: Very Civil Disobedience

                    Originally posted by Y Bar Ranch
                    Going after them on the ground would put us in a potential Blackhawk Down situation.
                    I think the counter-argument to this is that if an "air-power based" solution is not viable (or would result in even more civilian deaths) then if the target is valuable enough we should be willing to risk our ground troops lives to take out the target, and if the target is not valuable enough to take then risk then maybe the target is also not worth risking lots of civilian deaths by using drones.

                    Comment

                    • Ian McColgin
                      Senior Member
                      • Apr 1999
                      • 51671

                      #11
                      Re: Very Civil Disobedience

                      A review of such limited and contradictory information as we have - and the knowledge gaps are so large that almost any argument is possible - shows that:

                      - There have been some notable killings that likely could not have been done any other way, much less as safely to US personnel;

                      - The colateral casualty rate, not well tabulated by US intelligence, is that our drones kill at least one non-combatant, mostly children and women, for every three Taliban or other enemy. That's our figures. Other estimates put it at more like one for one.

                      - Based on interrogation results, the terrorism spread by drones has become the most effective recruiting tool for our enemies in Afganistan and Pakistan. People figure we're trying to kill them anyway.

                      Our use of drones in Pakistan is very likely a prosecutable war crime according to treaties we have signed. Even the use in Afganistan is arguably a war crime. Even if our war in Afghanistan can be justified - which I sure can't do on any moral or practical or self-interest grounds at all - our use of drones is a tactic that actually puts us in greater general peril than its limited success and even more limited saving of US lives and thus the costs, militarily, much outweigh the benefits.
                      Last edited by Ian McColgin; 09-15-2010, 12:34 PM. Reason: Big error leaving number out in second bullet

                      Comment

                      • Cuyahoga Chuck
                        # 7727
                        • Dec 2003
                        • 12984

                        #12
                        Re: Very Civil Disobedience

                        I don't get much out of this story. These folks were charged with trespass on a military base and were tried buy what? A Las Vegas County Justice Court! Something is not kosher. They trespassed onto federal property and should have been charged under the federal codes in a federal court. I think the federal prosecutor out there didn't want to give those folks a big stage for their protest to play out on so he fobbed the case off on that county court.
                        And I don't see why the opinions of Ramsey Clark et. al. should have any bearing on the trespass charge.

                        Comment

                        • Ian McColgin
                          Senior Member
                          • Apr 1999
                          • 51671

                          #13
                          Re: Very Civil Disobedience

                          Those unaware of the long tradition of the necessity defense in US law might glance at this preamble from the WIkipedia article [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessity]
                          as a start:

                          In U.S. criminal law, necessity may be either a possible justification or an exculpation for breaking the law. Defendants seeking to rely on this defense argue that they should not be held liable for their actions as a crime because their conduct was necessary to prevent some greater harm and when that conduct is not excused under some other more specific provision of law such as self defense. Except for a few statutory exemptions and in some medical cases [1] there is no corresponding defense in English law.[2]
                          For example, a drunk driver might contend that he drove his car to get away from a kidnap (cf. North by Northwest). Most common law and civil law jurisdictions recognize this defense, but only under limited circumstances. Generally, the defendant must affirmatively show (i.e., introduce some evidence) that (a) the harm he sought to avoid outweighs the danger of the prohibited conduct he is charged with; (b) he had no reasonable alternative; (c) he ceased to engage in the prohibited conduct as soon as the danger passed; and (d) he did not himself create the danger he sought to avoid. Thus, with the "drunk driver" example cited above, the necessity defense will not be recognized if the defendant drove further than was reasonably necessary to get away from the kidnapper, or if some other reasonable alternative was available to him. However case law suggests necessity is narrowed to medical cases.
                          The political necessity defense saw its demise in the case of United States v. Schoon.[3] In that case, thirty people, including appellants, gained admittance to the IRS office in Tucson, where they chanted "keep America's tax dollars out of El Salvador," splashed simulated blood on the counters, walls, and carpeting, and generally obstructed the office's operation. The court ruled that the elements of necessity did not exist in this case.[4]

                          Comment

                          • pefjr
                            Humorist
                            • Dec 2008
                            • 14330

                            #14
                            Re: Very Civil Disobedience

                            Originally posted by Ian McColgin

                            No one knows how Jansen will ultimately rule, but most took it as a good sign when, at the end of the day’s proceedings, applause flooded the courtroom and Jansen sent the Creech 14 — all of them part of a robust Catholic anti-war movement — on their way by echoing the words of Jesus Christ with his call of “Go in peace!”

                            Copyright © 2010 Las Vegas CityLife
                            He may rule guilty and require three hail marys. These guys could be easily be American heros....if any American was listening or any cared. Apparently we are truly a war mongering nation, blind and deaf to our own acts of murder.
                            what is illegal about the present use of drones? Scott Rosen
                            It might be easier to ask, "What is legal about our use of drones?"



                            Comment

                            • Y Bar Ranch
                              Uberlubber
                              • May 2005
                              • 2968

                              #15
                              Re: Very Civil Disobedience

                              Originally posted by pefjr
                              It might be easier to ask, "What is legal about our use of drones?"
                              They're just another weapon. We're shooting the enemy in Afghanistan with guns and drones. No difference. In Pakistan we're invited in to use them. Same as having our guys crawling around using guns. Ditto for Yemen. They've just turned out to be very highly effective.
                              It will all be OK in the end...so if it's not OK, you're not at the end.

                              Comment

                              Working...