Army recruiting protesters face federal trial for exercising freedom of expression

[destruction]

September 18th, 2005 3:34 pm

Army recruiting protesters face federal trial

Group that poured blood to protest Iraq war looking at serious charges.

By Michelle York / Alameda Times-Star

They wanted the fresh recruits, the ones they believed had been seduced by video games and government lies, to see the blood and think about those destined to shed it: the Iraqi people and American soldiers. They refused to leave and prayed while they waited to be arrested.

Jesus of Nazareth inspired them, they said, as did their parents and several well-known Vietnam-era protesters, including the brothers Daniel and Philip Berrigan.

In an unusual move, the protesters are now facing federal prosecution and harsher potential penalties after a jury deadlocked in state court. "It's a clear attempt to raise the stakes for those contemplating civil disobedience around the country," said William P. Quigley, a law professor at Loyola University who is a friend of the defendants and their legal adviser.

The group — which calls itself the St. Patrick's Four because the protest took place on St. Patrick's Day in 2003 — faces charges including damaging government property and conspiracy to impede an officer of the United States. Their trial is set to begin Monday in federal court in Binghamton.

The case did not automatically end up in federal court. The protesters were first charged with felony criminal mischief in Tompkins County, which includes Lansing, the Ithaca suburb where the protest took place.

The District Attorney there, George M. Dentes, offered a plea bargain under which members of the group would receive no jail time if they pleaded guilty to a reduced charge. The protesters — Daniel J. Burns, 45; Clare T. Grady, 46; her sister, Teresa B. Grady, 40; and Peter J. De Mott, 58 — refused. "Millions of people all over the world were saying the war would be a mistake and would result in a large loss of human life," De Mott said. "We were a part of that."

All have some experience with the workings of the criminal justice system stemming from previous arrests. They opted to take the case to trial, acting as their own lawyers. "They wanted a soapbox," Dentes said.

During the April 2004 trial, Tompkins County Judge John Sherman allowed the protesters to explain their motivations, and to testify at length that they felt compelled because of their political and religious beliefs. "The moment I learned of that, I knew it was a hopeless case," Dentes said. "This case was about damaging government property. It was preposterous that the trial was not about whether they broke the law — they completely admitted they did — but a philosophical debate about the war."

During the weeklong trial, the defendants also spoke at length about their lives. Teresa and Clare Grady grew up going to the trials of their activist parents. Most notably, their father, John Grady, was among the Camden 28, a group of protesters who were acquitted of stealing and destroying draft records from a federal building in New Jersey in 1971. The acquittal was a major victory for antiwar protesters after five years of draft-record scuffles.

De Mott is a former Vietnam veteran and a seminary student who testified that he was gradually moved to become an activist after he left the military.

Burns is the son of a former mayor of Binghamton, whose family was also involved in antiwar protests.

The jury deadlocked, with nine members voting for acquittal. Dentes said he believed that the protesters had gotten away with a crime, that the outcome created "a system for chaos" and that the spattering of blood had been potentially dangerous. But fearing a similar outcome if he retried the case, he referred it to federal authorities.

If convicted, the protesters would face up to six years in prison and a $250,000 fine.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Miroslav Lovric, the prosecutor in the case, did not return repeated phone calls for comment.

As with the state trial, the outcome in the federal case will most likely be determined by how much leeway the judge gives the defendants to explain their state of mind, Quigley said. "There's a network of lawyers who are worried this case will set a precedent" and nonviolent protesters across the country will now be charged with federal conspiracy, he said.

The judge will also determine how much the jury will learn of their arrest records. In 1984, Clare Grady was convicted of charges similar to those she faces today when she was among a disarmament group called Plowshares that hammered and poured blood on a B-52 bomber at Griffiss Air Force Base in Rome, N.Y. She served 15 months in prison. De Mott has been in and out of jail since 1979 for civil disobedience. He cannot remember the exact number of times he has been arrested, but said he usually "rounds it off to two dozen."

All are members of the Catholic Worker movement, an activist group that encourages civil disobedience, and they model themselves on the Berrigan brothers, two priests who were among the most aggressive and recognized protesters of the 1960s and 1970s.

"We understand protests and people exercising their right to free speech, but when it comes to the point of interrupting the operations of the recruiting stations, it's unacceptable," said S. Douglas Smith, a spokesman for the U.S. Army Recruiting Headquarters in Fort Knox.

Generally, Americans are reluctant to send protesters to prison for such actions, said Lawrence S. Wittner, a history professor at State University of New York at Albany who studies peace movements and public opinion. "It's part of the tradition of nonviolent resistance in the United States, and it doesn't just date back to the civil rights movement and Vietnam," he said, "but to the Quakers and to Henry David Thoreau, who refused to pay taxes to show his resistance to the Mexican War."

The St. Patrick's Four has a better chance for an acquittal or a hung jury today than shortly after their arrest, he said, because of increasing unfavorable opinions over the war.

http://www.insidebayarea.com/timesstar/news/ci_3040534

"Civil disobedience is obedience to God." - Benjamin Franklin

[bigpoppanils]

if they had lawyers instead of defending themselves, they probably would have been acquitted by the jury. dumbasses.

[destruction]

no shit. and as the article says, cases like that usually get thrown out of court anyhow so, what's the diff??? Like I didn't know this???