Many friends of Voices in the Wilderness joined with War Resisters League members and were arrested today for acts of civil disobedience in front of the Pentagon. Jerry Zawada, OFM, Farah Mokhtareizadeh, Jeff Leys, as well as the author of the following article, Mike Ferner, were among our close friends that were arrested. Farah Mokhtareizadeh and Jeff Leys, along with Ed Kinane and Joel Gulledge, are on their 14th day of fasting for economic justice outside the headquarters of the International Monetary Fund (I.M.F.) in Washington, D.C. In the morning the fasters will be in New York City in front of the United Nations building to continue their call for the cancellation of the $125 billion of debt incurred by Saddam Hussein that is now thrust upon the Iraqi people.

Members of Veterans for Peace Mike Ferner and Bill Perry (photo: David Swanson, AfterDowningStreet.org)

by Mike Ferner

Washington, D.C. - In a pre-dawn civil disobedience action Monday morning, 41 War Resisters League members and others sat down and were arrested at a pedestrian entrance to the Pentagon, slowing foot traffic at that location and prompting officials to close the U.S. military headquarters’ sole stop on Washington’s Metro line for a period.

Protesters, including Elizabeth McAllister and her daughter, Frieda Berrigan, Susan Crane, Ken Crowley, Jeff Leys, Farah Mokhtareizadeh, Joel Gulledge and others with a long history of peace activism and arrests for civil disobedience, leafleted or sat down to block people from entering Entrance Three of the sprawling U.S. military command.

In one group of six, Crane repeated to the backed-up line of civilians and military personnel waiting at the security checkpoint, “Remember the innocent victims in Iraq.” Another protester urged officers to think about what they were doing and “resign your commissions.”

St. Patrick’s Four Trial -
The Only Federal Conspiracy Trial of
Civilian Resisters to the Iraq War

JUDGE CENSORS TESTIMONY, CHARGES ST. PATRICK’S FOUR MEMBERS WITH CONTEMPT

BINGHAMTON, NY (Sept 21) The federal government flexed it’s muscles on this first day of testimony by peace activists, charging two defendants with contempt of court, and interpreting the charges in the indictment to make it easier for the prosecution to attain a conviction.

Senior U.S. District Judge Hon. Thomas J. McAvoy charged Peter DeMott and Teresa Grady with contempt of court for testifying about the fact that there was a previous trial.

McAvoy previously informed the defendants they were forbidden from testifying on a laundry list of topics including: the illegality of the Iraq war, international law and its relevance to their actions, the mandates in the Geneva Convention, the Doctrine of Necessity, facts or statistics about the Iraq war, descriptions of the damages or deaths caused by war, descriptions of what defendants had seen when they traveled to Iraq, and more. They were also prohibited from testifying about their previous State court trial, which ended in a mistrial, with nine of twelve jurors favoring acquittal.

Following a round of questioning by U.S. Assistant Attorney Miroslav Lovric that one observer called “McCarthy-like,” DeMott was charged with an additional count of contempt when he refused to name possible other co-conspirators.

Finally, on a technical matter of tremendous significance concerning a difference in wording in the Grand Jury indictment, versus the wording in the code of law on which the indictment is based, McAvoy ruled in a way that makes it much easier for the government to obtain a conviction.

“The Government has charged the defendants with crimes based on a rarely used statute, so there isn’t guiding case law telling us how the statute should be applied,” said Bill Quigley, acclaimed public interest lawyer and law professor at Loyola University School of Law, who is acting as legal advisor to the defendants. “But the implications of the judge’s rulings today should not be underestimated. The government has disregarded the defendants’ rights to due process and in effect, changed the language of the indictment after trial has begun. Further, the government has taken what would have been considered a State level misdemeanor offense that would result in 6 months local jail time and literally crafted federal law to fit, that, if convicted, will now result in 6 years incarceration in Federal prison. The effect this will have on the public’s right to dissent - a cornerstone of our democracy - is absolutely chilling.”

The indictment says that the defendants are charged with conspiracy, “for the purpose of inducing by force, intimidation, AND threat, officers of the United States to leave the place where their dutiesS( are required to be performed, AND
for the purpose of injuring officers of the United StatesS(on account of their lawful discharge of dutiesS(AND for the purpose of injuring officersS(while engaged in the lawful discharge of their dutiesS(AND for the purpose of injuring the officersS( so as to molest, interrupt, hinder, AND impede them from the discharge of their duties.”

In contrast, the actual statute, Title 18, United States Code, Section 372 uses the disjunctive OR in each of the above instances where AND is indicated.

Despite the fact that Lovric wrote and signed the indictment with the AND language, Lovric argued that OR was intended. McAvoy agreed, and ruled that the OR language would apply. The implications of this ruling strongly favor the Government, which now must prove that only one of the four above transgressions occurred, whereas with the conjunctive AND the government would have had to prove that all had occurred.

Further, the actual statute indicates that the “use of force, intimidation or threat” clause is to be considered as a component for each form of transgression, whereas today McAvoy ruled that the “force, intimidation or threat” clause only applied to the first transgression of inducing an officer to leave the place where duties are performed. To prove the other transgressions, McAvoy has ruled that no proof of force, intimidation or threat is required. This interpretation also makes it easier for the Government to attain conviction.

On St. Patrick’s Day 2003, two days before the US military invasion of Iraq began, four peace activists, all parents and members of the Ithaca Catholic Worker movement, entered their local military recruiting station, knelt, said a prayer for peace and then carefully poured a small amount of their blood on recruiting center posters, walls and flag to symbolize the violence of war and the sanctity of life.

The first federal conspiracy trial against war protesters since the Vietnam war, resumes Thursday 9:30 am in the Binghamton Federal Courthouse Building.

For more information see www.stpatricksfour.org

To view indictment http://www.stpatricksfour.org/documents/StPatsIndictment2005.pdf

To view Title 18 Unites States Code Section 372 see http://tinyurl.com/adolz

Tarik Abdelazim
SP4 Support Team Coordinator
Binghamton, NY
607-651-9109 office
607-239-1219 cell
info@stpatricksfour.org

by Lucia Dailey
September 19, 2005

Day 1
“We’re All in This Together”

Mary Anne Grady the sister of two of the St. Patrick’s Four defendants on trial this week in Binghamton, NY asked me to write some impressions of events surrounding the trial of her sisters Clare and Teresa Grady and two others charged with conspiracy by the Federal government.

On March 17, 2003 Teresa Grady, Clare Grady, Daniel Burns and Peter De Mott performed a non-violent act of protest against the impending invasion of Iraq. They poured a small amount of their own blood in the vestibule of an army recruiting center, read a statement, then knelt and prayed and no way obstructed access to the office its exits or its officials. Arrested by local authorities, charged with felony “criminal mischief,” they eloquently defended themselves in court and explained they believed their actions were justified in light of the US Constitution, international law, and moral imperatives while expressing their shared revulsion and outrage at the killing of innocents by the US in an illegal, unjust, unprovoked war against Iraq. The trial in Tompkins County, NY resulted in a hung jury, nine of the twelve jurors voted for acquittal and the District Attorney chose not to retry the case.

by Mike Ferner

All last week I had a rare opportunity – to join several impressive speakers on the “Bring Them Home Now” tour’s northern route. Al Zappala, whose son was killed in Iraq last year; Tammara Rosenleaf, whose husband is due to deploy to Iraq this fall; Stacy Bannerman, whose husband has already served a tour in Iraq; Carlos Arredondo, whose son was killed during a second tour in Iraq; Elliott Adams, former Army paratrooper in Viet Nam; and two Iraq war veterans: former Marine, Michael Hoffman, and Cody Camacho, former Army Specialist.

At each stop I was with them: Detroit, Buffalo, Syracuse, Rochester, Albany, Amherst, and Boston, we explained what motivated us to be on the tour. We condemned the war and ongoing occupation. We urged people to attend the massive demonstrations planned for September 24-26 in Washington, D.C.

by Carl Davison, Michael Lynn

CHICAGO (September 15, 2005) -The Chicago City Council Wednesday passed a resolution demanding the removal of US troops from Iraq. Passing by a Council vote of 29 to 9, with 12 abstaining or not voting, the resolution urges ‘the United States government to immediately commence an orderly and rapid withdrawal’ from Iraq. In addition to the death and suffering of the war, the resolution stressed that ‘Chicago residents’ share of monies appropriated for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan now exceeds $2.1 billion.’

Chicago is now the largest U.S city to take this stand. The only other major US city to pass a similar resolution is San Francisco. The Evanston, IL City Council voted against the war yesterday, and Gary, IN did so last month.