NCR on Kindle - NCR classifieds - YouTube - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
Drones on trial, and a judge listens
Drones have raised to a new level the detachment with which modern warfare can be conducted. Operated remotely from great distances away, drones are lifeless, indiscriminate killing machines. They’ve been responsible for countless civilian deaths and a concomitant rising tide of anger against the United States in Pakistan. What follows is an intriguing account of the recent trial of 14 activists who trespassed at an Air Force Base in Nevada protesting the use of drones.
By Jerica Arents
September 17, 2010
I received an education yesterday.
I wasn’t in a classroom. I wasn’t laboring over a paper, strategizing in a small group, poring over a textbook or hustling across campus. I was sitting as a spectator in the front row of Judge Jansen’s courtroom in Clark County, Nevada.
Fourteen peace activists were on trial for trying to hand-deliver a letter to the base commander at Creech Air Force Base in April of 2009. Their letter laid out concerns about usage of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, or drones, for surveillance and combat purposes in Afghanistan. The Creech 14 believe that the usage of remote aerial vehicles to hunt down and kill people in other lands amounts to targeted assassination and is prohibited by international and U.S. law. Soldiers carrying M16s stopped them after they had walked past the guardhouse at the base entrance and a few hours later Nevada state troopers handcuffed the Creech 14 and took them into custody.
The next day, they were charged with trespass to a military facility and released. The charges were later dropped, then reinstated. Defendants, upon learning of a September 14, 2010 court date, had ten months to plan for their trial. They decided to represent themselves pro se and to call, as expert witnesses, former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark, Colonel Ann Wright and Professor Bill Quigley, the Legal Director of the Center for Constitutional Rights. What were the chances that a Las Vegas court that normally handles traffic violations and minor offenses would admit three expert witnesses to testify on behalf of defendants charged with a simple trespass? Slim to zero in the view of most observers.
In an opening statement, Kathy Kelly summarized what defendants would prove regarding their obligations under international law and their exercise of rights protected by the U.S. constitution. The judge told her, quite firmly, that any testimony unrelated to the charge of trespass would be disallowed.
Yet, much to our surprise, Judge Jansen decided that all three expert witnesses would be allowed to testify. Rev, Steve Kelly, SJ rose and called on former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark as his first witness.
After Clark was sworn in, he slowly sat down and scanned the room.
About fifty supporters filled the court. The defendants were seated in the jury box. To me, they represented a choir of my finest teachers. Steve Kelly remained standing, and then, with great care, questioned Ramsey Clark, first to establish his credibility as a witness and then to elicit his testimony regarding the issue of trespass. Steve asked Ramsey Clark about his history as a deputy attorney general during the civil rights era. Ramsey Clark spoke of lunch-counter sit-ins with his soft-spoken charm, emphasizing how important it was for people to violate the “No Trespass” rules that forbade blacks and whites to drink coffee together. Later, he relied on the age-old necessity defense to advocate on behalf of people who protested indiscriminate killing in Viet Nam. Bringing us up to date, Ramsey asked a question. ”When indiscriminate killing is occurring, are you just supposed to stand by the gate [of Creech Air Force Base] and hide your face?”
Despite Judge Jansen’s insistence that the defense could only discuss matters related to a misdemeanor trespass charge, each of the expert witnesses were able to knit together the Nuremburg principles, international law, and the justification of necessity to establish not only the right but sometimes the duty of people to engage in acts that violate trespass laws. Ann Wright spoke about how isolated military members were from public opinion and of how likely it was that, if informed they would respond to any great debate taking place in the public forum.
Bill Quigley, the last defense witness to take the stand, testified that when he taught law students about trespass statutes, he always raised with them the possibility of a necessity defense. Helping demonstrate “the space between law and justice,” he held his hands in front of him, about a foot apart. ”I encourage my students to work, every day, to narrow the gap between law and justice,” said Bill Quigley. “I ask them to adopt a ‘Hundred Year Vision,’ and remember that 100 years ago, Jim Crow laws were permitted, domestic violence was allowed, and discrimination against women, and the disabled were all considered legal acts.
The prosecution clearly hoped to discredit all three expert witnesses. “And do you know any of the defendants?” barked the prosecutor when cross-examining Ramsey Clark. “Of course”, answered Ramsey Clark, maintaining eye contact with the prosecutor. “I love them.”
Following the prosecutor’s cross-examination of Bill Quigley, Judge Jansen asked him several questions, the last of which pertained to Quigley’s advice to law students who might contemplate crossing a line for idealistic reasons. “Now if some of your students informed you of their intention to cross onto an Air Force Base clearly marked with a No Trespass sign,” Judge Jansen wondered, “What would you say to them?”
“I would tell them to weigh the consequences carefully”, answered Bill Quigley, noting that their convictions would come at a steep price.
With the possible exception of the prosecution, all assembled seemed in agreement that they had witnessed an extraordinarily rich education about our collective duties to uphold basic human rights. But, so far, the word “drone” had been mentioned only in the opening statement. Brian Terrell rose to deliver a closing statement. Brian referred to a metaphor already employed by two of our witnesses, that of a baby trapped inside a house on fire. “We fourteen are people who saw the smoke,” said Brian, “We’ve seen the babies dying in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and no trespass sign can keep us from trying to reach the children.”
Judge Jansen then addressed all of us. He said that he had just celebrated his 25th anniversary as a judge, but in all those years every trespass case that came before him was settled with a plea. This was the first time that defendants took a trespass case to trial. Given that this was his first time trying such a case and considering the many important issues raised, Judge Jansen stated that he would need time to study the issues and write his decision. He said he’d need at least three months and then invited the defendants to quickly examine their calendars and propose a date for their next court appearance. All agreed to return on January 27th 2011.
It’s one thing for me to announce that I’ve received an exceptional education over the course of an unusual day. It’s quite another for a U.S. judge who has been on the bench for 25 years to voice appreciation for what he has learned from defendants and witnesses, and then promise his continued attentiveness to the issues that were raised.
His delayed decision gained him entry into the choir of teachers. “Go in peace,” he said, as he left the courtroom.
Jerica Arents (jerica@vcnv.org) completed her M.A. in Social Justice at Loyola University at Chicago in 2010. She co-coordinates Voices for Creative Nonviolence and lives with the White Rose Catholic Worker community.
--






This case addresses a concern
This case addresses a concern I've shared: a drone cannot tell who was alreday in a house or other shelter or place of individual concealment, before the drone turned its attention to the same. It can tell who leaves while it 'watches', and who arrives. But it cannot tell who was already there. If the drone is responding to military intelligence information, that information is only as reliable and unbiased as the original source. Thus there are serious risks:
1. There may be any number of wholly innocent people in that location.
2. The source of information may be using the US to solve a personal problem, such as that the place in question harbors:
a. the competitor suitor for a young lady's hand
b. the business competitor, whatever that business may be
c. the other side in a family feud
3. The identified target may not be the one which intelligence meant the drone to attack.
Thus the drone may be engaged in murder for hire, if the source or the source's source was not speaking in good faith, and in any event the strike may kill innocent people Collateral damage is not collateral when it comes to the relatives and friends of a deceased. Every mother killed means children with a cause to hate the US, some of who may pick up the family rifle and go hunting.
In short, the drone's missile does not have a human intelligence that can see with its 'eyes' and can look around just before exploding to make sure it should, and could decide to become benign and bounce off the floor gently.
P.S. I served in the Army and know what it's all about. "Class of '68" ...
Kudos to the peace activists
Kudos to the peace activists with Padre Steve Kelly SJ, walking in the footsteps of Padre John Dear SJ, Padre Daniel Berrigan SJ, Padre José Mulligan SJ and our recently demised Padre Bill Callahan SJ. and Padre Robert Carter SJ. and so many other unsung heroes who have latched onto the task in our modern world of working for the Kingdom of Abbá Father, “on earth as it is in heaven” in the public world, that “other possible society,” that “other possible world”.
This fine article by Jerica Arents certainly is a shot in the arm for this expatriate of the US of North America. Born, raised and living in the USA for the first 27 years of my life, and now 55 years living in Nicaragua Central America, I have come to realize that LOOKING IN FROM THE OUTSIDE is very helpful to analyze public life, political policy and even the Roman Catholic Church in the United States of North America.
From the outside looking in, things seem much clearer, and something like the “DRONES ON TRIAL” seems almost ridiculously simple to unravel in JUSTICE, if not in legality. Here are a few similar cases that happen to pop into my mind:
Our Popular Nicaraguan Sandinist Revolution, on July 19th 1979 threw out the 40 year dictatorial Somoza family which had been backed up by the USA government from beginning to the end. In the 1980’s the USA President Ronald Reagan declared what TIME called “Reagan’s Dirty War On Nicaragua” where we lost some 50,000 young Nicaraguan Americans also thanks to the $$ support of Oliver North and his “Iran-Contras-Gate”.
The USA government’s continual efforts to destroy the Cuban Revolution with such things as the “Bay of Pigs” invasion and now almost 50 years of a commercial blockade against Cuba
The infamous “9/11”, NO, not in New York in the year 2001, but “9/11,1973” in Santiago, Chile when the CIA delivered on the coup against the first popularly elected socialist president of our Mestiza America. Chile is the wealthiest of our countries. The elected President Salvador Allende Gozens was killed and the bloody Dictator Augusto Pinochet put into his place.
The infamous military “School of the Americas” which has systematically trained the military “strong men “ of our countries during the past many years.
Again in our backyard, we just commemorated the bloody murder by the Salvadoran military of 5 Jesuit priests together with their house keeper and her daughter, in the University UCA of San Salvador, El Salvador, just 20 years ago. Recently declassified documents confirm that the USA government and its CIA were well informed previous to this “military action.”
As I say, looking in from the outside at USA policy, it seems almost ridiculously simple to unravel in JUSTICE, even though not in legality.
Justiniano de Managua
It is small comfort to
It is small comfort to recognize that the message of your first two sentences has been uttered time after time over centuries, mutatis mutandis. The exact same thought has arisen at the introduction of the lance, the bullet, the rifle, the howitzer, the rocket, the cruise missile, etc. -- new level - modern warfare - from great distances - lifeless, indiscriminate killing machine. It seems rather odd to focus in on drones since all the other examples except lances remain in common, lethal use in modern wars.
Thanks, Jerica, for this very
Thanks, Jerica, for this very good article about a powerful courtroom witness, with truth spoken throughout about international law, the necessity defense, nonviolent civil resistance and drones (extrajudicial killing) - a victory before the verdict is even determined!
Thank you for this posting.
Thank you for this posting. I have been praying for the Creech 14. I will continue to pray for the judge during his time of study. May we all learn to live in peace.
A powerful testimony that
A powerful testimony that demonstrates that the supporters of war, aggression and violence have no arguments left with which to defend the indefensible wars of aggression. Good work by dedicated peace activistss - thank you so much for being there.
I was deeply moved and
I was deeply moved and inspired by this story.
Another machine, another death maker without conscience challenged conscience.
All gratitude to the Creech 14 and the witness they bear.
Thank you for posting this
Thank you for posting this article. Ramsey Clark? You can't be serious!
meanwhile as he deliberates
meanwhile as he deliberates so nobly on the obvious ( i.e. civil disobedience IS often justified ) for 3 months, the charge remains hanging over the heads of the protesters like the sword of damocles, just like it does in the cases of so many activists that go to court like this. How much of a victory is that. It's a common tactic to drag these things out to take up the time and wear down the resolve of those willing to protest. Even if the protestors are let off, the process still takes its toll and discourages dissent whilst staying within the letter of the law. not victory in my book.
meanwhile as he deliberates
meanwhile as he deliberates so nobly on the obvious ( i.e. civil disobedience IS often justified ) for 3 months, the charge remains hanging over the heads of the protesters like the sword of damocles, just like it does in the cases of so many activists that go to court like this. How much of a victory is that. It's a common tactic to drag these things out to take up the time and wear down the resolve of those willing to protest. Even if the protestors are let off, the process still takes its toll and discourages dissent whilst staying within the letter of the law. not victory in my book.
A minor quibble, but I think
A minor quibble, but I think it's a mistake to speak of 'basic human rights', as if some human rights were more important than others. All human rights are interdependent and indivisible.
After so many years of
After so many years of waiting for a court, any court, to allow this to be said. WOW. The precedent just overwhelms me. Not only was this a great victory for the peace movement, regardless of the decision, but a victory for democracy. A victory for the entire world, as it will bring so much light to the devastation our military, and its allies, bring on the people.
I sense that some don't really see the significance of what just happened. In due time, thank you, Creech 14.
Thanks to Olivia for not
Thanks to Olivia for not minimizing the fact that all human rights are "interdedendent and indivisible"!
And great gratitude to the Creech14, great American patriots all. When will we ever learn??? These
drones are loaded with uranium dipped nose cones - and leave this toxic poison for our own troops
(never mind the children and other innocents) to trudge through and be poisoned by - and then look at how we treat
these young people we send to the ME to do this dirty work when they come home!!! Have we ALL no shame left?? Love/peace, Elizabeth
Post new comment