Nbadan
09-17-2005, 04:25 AM
09/16/05
Trial of dissenters is persecution
For an allegedly peace-loving nation, we spend an inordinate amount of time and money glorifying the culture of violence — in our entertainment, our television news and both our foreign and domestic policies. The virtue of courage has become so strongly associated with aggressive action, that many seem unable to separate the two.
On March 17, 2003, four quiet, devoutly religious people committed themselves to engage in an act of symbolic civil disobedience — shedding their own blood in a military recruiter’s office — to draw public attention to the illegality of the then-imminent invasion of Iraq. In their action, they exemplified the quiet courage of the fictional hero Atticus Finch. They realized that there would be personal consequences, for them and their families, but they stood and spoke when others would not. They acted, compelled by their faith, by international law and by constitutional law.
When tried in the Tompkins County Court on charges of felony criminal mischief, their defense of their actions convinced nine of the 12 jurors to vote for acquittal. The same federal government that committed the highest of crimes, which they had attempted to prevent, has decided to try them again — a second time — in the federal court in Binghamton, beginning Monday. In this second prosecution — which fair-minded people will understand to be a persecution — they will not be allowed to present their defense, which was so persuasive to the jury of their first trial.
Citizens who believe that our country should have a government that honors individual and human rights and respects personal and societal morality should be repulsed and enraged by the federal government’s intent to sentence these four people to up to six years’ imprisonment and $250,000 in fines, each — for a gentle act of conscience that harmed no person.
For more information go to:St. Patricks Four (http://www.stpatricksfour.org/)
Not allowing a 'bizarre' defense is common in cases where a person wants to present a defense that is not considered "legal" by the court. Such as in cases where a person wants to claim that they were too stoned or too drunk to have know what they were doing. Teresa Grady, one of the four, has stated that they are confident that if they are allowed to explain their position to the jury, they would win. The prosecutor knows that. Thus, the courtroom structure is used to silence dissent. In this case, the court has determined that the religious and spiritual beliefs of the St. Patrick's Four, combined with the criminal actions of the Bush administration, as well as the history of civil disobedience in the USA, have no place in the courtroom.
Rules of Evidence: what is allowed to be presented by the two sides in a trial governs things like hearsay and chain of custody. In this case, lawyers have determined pre-trial that W lieing about WMD's, while it may be a true fact, is not admissable in court because it doesn't disprove that they conspired together to protest using blood.
Some call it justice, others call it the WH's way of making example of dissenters. What say you?
Trial of dissenters is persecution
For an allegedly peace-loving nation, we spend an inordinate amount of time and money glorifying the culture of violence — in our entertainment, our television news and both our foreign and domestic policies. The virtue of courage has become so strongly associated with aggressive action, that many seem unable to separate the two.
On March 17, 2003, four quiet, devoutly religious people committed themselves to engage in an act of symbolic civil disobedience — shedding their own blood in a military recruiter’s office — to draw public attention to the illegality of the then-imminent invasion of Iraq. In their action, they exemplified the quiet courage of the fictional hero Atticus Finch. They realized that there would be personal consequences, for them and their families, but they stood and spoke when others would not. They acted, compelled by their faith, by international law and by constitutional law.
When tried in the Tompkins County Court on charges of felony criminal mischief, their defense of their actions convinced nine of the 12 jurors to vote for acquittal. The same federal government that committed the highest of crimes, which they had attempted to prevent, has decided to try them again — a second time — in the federal court in Binghamton, beginning Monday. In this second prosecution — which fair-minded people will understand to be a persecution — they will not be allowed to present their defense, which was so persuasive to the jury of their first trial.
Citizens who believe that our country should have a government that honors individual and human rights and respects personal and societal morality should be repulsed and enraged by the federal government’s intent to sentence these four people to up to six years’ imprisonment and $250,000 in fines, each — for a gentle act of conscience that harmed no person.
For more information go to:St. Patricks Four (http://www.stpatricksfour.org/)
Not allowing a 'bizarre' defense is common in cases where a person wants to present a defense that is not considered "legal" by the court. Such as in cases where a person wants to claim that they were too stoned or too drunk to have know what they were doing. Teresa Grady, one of the four, has stated that they are confident that if they are allowed to explain their position to the jury, they would win. The prosecutor knows that. Thus, the courtroom structure is used to silence dissent. In this case, the court has determined that the religious and spiritual beliefs of the St. Patrick's Four, combined with the criminal actions of the Bush administration, as well as the history of civil disobedience in the USA, have no place in the courtroom.
Rules of Evidence: what is allowed to be presented by the two sides in a trial governs things like hearsay and chain of custody. In this case, lawyers have determined pre-trial that W lieing about WMD's, while it may be a true fact, is not admissable in court because it doesn't disprove that they conspired together to protest using blood.
Some call it justice, others call it the WH's way of making example of dissenters. What say you?