|
Vigils and Free-Speech
Demonstrations
Everyone has the right to express their views on moral and
political issues, and thanks to the first amendment to the United
States Constitution, people in this country are supposed to be
able to do it without being treated as criminals. To change the
immoral policies of our government it is essential that as many
people as possible express their concern and disapproval as
actively as they can.
All people are encouraged to gather in groups and indicate their
moral outrage at the genocidal and suicidal policies of the
nuclear arms race and the development of first-strike weapons such
as the Trident. These gatherings and rallies may be as often and
in as many places as people wish to hold them. In addition to the
railroad tracks where the trains pass, the other main focuses of
protest of the Trident submarine are the two Naval bases where
they are ported - Bangor, WA and Kings Bay, GA. People can hold
signs and banners, pray or meditate, sing or chant, and make their
presence known to the authorities who are perpetrating these
atrocities.
For those who do not wish to risk arrest by law enforcement
authorities, there are many ways to express one's views and try to
influence the government and other citizens to change these
policies. Whenever demonstrations are held at the Naval bases or
along the tracks, individuals can always feel welcome to attend to
indicate their concern without much danger of being arrested by
mistake. There is always some chance that a few individuals can be
swept up along with others even though they had no intention of
challenging the legality of these weapons. However, in such
instances the charges are usually dropped, or those individuals
are acquitted after a trial.
********************************************
"They are the lovers of law and order,
who observe the law when the government breaks it."
Henry David Thoreau
********************************************
Nuremberg Actions of Civil or
Divine Obedience
Many people in the peace movement believe that our society is
facing a serious crisis with the introduction of these new first-
strike weapons. Because of the overwhelming horror of the danger
of nuclear war we are facing daily, we who in good conscience
cannot go along with these policies, which are not only immoral
and insane but also illegal by international law, feel duty-bound
to respond to the call of our conscience and stand up in an active
way to these atrocities.
Some of these people believe that they are called by God to
intervene nonviolently in the war preparations that could mean the
end of the human race on earth. In placing themselves between
these horrible weapons and their intended use, these individuals
are obeying their conscience and challenging the idolatry of a
society which seems to worship military power. Often these people
believe that the suffering in the world is increased by these
policies not only because of killing and the danger of a nuclear
war but also because these war preparations are robbing our
society of resources it could be using to help the hungry, the
homeless, the sick, the uneducated, the unemployed in this country
and in the world.
Others through a study of our society's problems and the
principles of law and justice as means to resolve conflicts
nonviolently believe that the development, production, and
deployment of these genocidal weapons are in fact illegal, that
the United States Constitution requires the courts to uphold
treaties ratified by the U.S. Senate, that preparations for
nuclear war are a conspiracy to commit mass murder, genocide, and
perhaps even omnicide, the death of everyone. These individuals
believe that we as citizens have an obligation in accordance with
the Nuremberg Principles not to cooperate with the illegal actions
of our government. Thus some have called these direct actions,
which are intended to uphold the Nuremberg Principles and
challenge the crimes of our government, Nuremberg Actions.
Whatever the reasons people may have for protesting the Trident
submarine, we welcome their support as long as they are committed
to the use of nonviolence as outlined in our Nonviolence
Discipline. Many people believe for a variety of reasons relating
to the control of our society by media and incumbent politicians
who are corrupted by the iron triangle of the military-industrial-
government complex, that the best thing we can do at this time in
history to help save our civilization is to take our power back
from our criminal government by acting directly rather than merely
symbolically, as in free speech. From this point of view, only
such self-sacrifice can hope to awaken the sleeping conscience of
our materialistic society.
Thus instead of referring to these actions as civil disobedience,
we now understand that we are acting to uphold the laws of God and
international law when our government is involved in serious
violations of them. (These legal theories will be explained more
fully below in the section "International Law and Nuclear
Weapons.") Thus we refer to these actions as civil obedience
or divine obedience.
Nonviolent protests at the base may take the form of seeming to
violate minor laws and being placed under arrest. Affinity groups
may walk onto the base at the main gate or stop traffic in the
road from entering the base or perhaps undertake more adventurous
actions of attempting to blockade a submarine in the water or
occupy the base from other directions. The reason these actions
are not illegal is because they are justified by the circumstances
-- namely that we have a duty to attempt to stop crimes from being
perpetrated and to stop an overwhelming danger which threatens our
lives as well as others. A criminal conspiracy (the military) has
no right to arrest people simply because they are attempting to
point out to people that they are involved in a criminal
conspiracy.
Another form of Nuremberg Actions is to attempt to stop the trains
carrying nuclear warheads or missile rockets. After serious
reflection and careful planning, some affinity groups may decide
to oppose these horrible shipments directly by sitting on the
railroad tracks and risking arrest. Since the U.S. Navy train ran
over Brian Willson at Concord Naval Weapons Station on September
1, 1987, people need to realize that the U.S. government is not
above playing "chicken" with its own unarmed citizens.
Special precautions must also be taken, because of the history of
the nuclear-weapons train running through Memphis, Tennessee the
last few times it ran before the long pause beginning in 1986.
Several times protestors were on the tracks at Memphis, and the
train kept on running. Each time the protestors removed themselves
from the tracks before the approach of the speeding train.
If protestors intend to block these trains, there must be ample
and clear notification given to all relevant authorities regarding
the intention of the demonstrators to remain on the tracks. Since
the Willson incident at Concord, virtually every weapons train
there has been blocked by protestors. Once the authorities realize
that the protestors are serious and will not move, the normal
regard for safety takes over and a different mode of operation is
put in place, involving the arrest or physical removal of the
protestors prior to the running of the train. However, until that
understanding is reached, demonstrators face a serious danger to
their personal safety.
********************************************
"Whoever advises a leader according to the Way
opposes conquest by force of arms.
The use of force tends to rebound....
Violence is contrary to the Way.
Whatever is contrary to the Way will soon perish.
Weapons are tools of destruction hated by people.
Therefore followers of the Way never use them....
The best soldier is not violent.
The best fighter is not angry....
Those brave in killing will be killed.
Those brave in not killing will live....
For love wins all battles and is the strongest defense.
Heaven gives love to save and protect."
Lao Tzu
*********************************************
In a constitutional form of government, conflicts are supposed
to be handled according to due process of the law. That means that
when people appear to be violating the law, they are to be taken
into custody and brought before a judge to determine if they were
in fact guilty of a violation. However, we know from experience
that sometimes trains may not stop and police may beat people up
or handle them roughly in making arrests. Nevertheless in most
nonviolent demonstrations where the tone is peaceful, these are
the exceptions rather than the common practice. The history of
protests at Kings Bay indicates that the arrests have been made in
a civil manner.
Those who actively protest and risk arrest must realize that they
are going to be thrown into the legal system with all its
complexity. During this process individuals are given many choices
to make. By understanding different options and their probable
consequences, people can make wiser choices.
Arrest
Those who decide to place themselves in a situation where
arrest is likely need to prepare themselves carefully for the
ordeal. In line with the Nonviolence Discipline they should make
sure that they are carrying no weapons and have no drugs or
alcohol on their person. At least one person who is not risking
arrest should know their names and pertinent information.
Once one has entered an arrest situation, it can occur at any
time. However, there is often a warning given by the law
enforcement officer; if so, this is usually the last opportunity
to avoid arrest. At the time of arrest, one is usually handcuffed
and asked to walk with the officer. Everyone has the choice to
cooperate with the arresting officer or not. The extent of
noncooperation is up to each individual. Some may go limp so that
the officers must carry or drag the person. Those who do not
cooperate with the arrest may be given the additional charge of
resisting arrest, and they may suffer physical punishment, such as
the use of pain holds designed to make a person cooperate.
Noncooperation is a tactic that can be used at any time when in
custody.
Police are not required to read one the Miranda rights unless they
are going to ask questions about the alleged crime. Everyone has
the right to remain silent. Remembering the details of the arrest
may be helpful in a trial. Everyone has a right to a lawyer and
can request one at any time.
Those arrested may be taken to a building or police station for
booking. Sometimes people may be released before even being
charged. At booking individuals are charged with a specific
violation. There are two primary legal systems in this country -
the state and the federal government. If the process continues,
one will find oneself in one system or the other. In nonviolent
protests in which property damage is avoided, the charges are
almost always a misdemeanor (state) or a petty offense (federal).
The maximum possible sentence is usually either six months and a
$500 fine or sometimes one year and a $1000 fine. At Kings Bay
state charges have carried a maximum of one year, while the
federal charges have had a maximum of six months. During booking
one is usually asked for information, such as name, address,
telephone, social security number, birth date, etc. Those who
refuse to give their names may be held longer than others.
Often they ask one to sign a citation promising to appear in court
on a specific date, or sometimes they may require bail money
before releasing one. Those who sign the citation or pay the bail
will be released. Those who refuse to sign or pay the bail may be
held in jail or they may be released anyway. If a person remains
in custody, arraignment usually occurs fairly soon, within a few
days. This is a way of speeding up the whole process and
pressuring the system to release people without bail or promises
to appear. However, in Camden County, Georgia the court meets so
infrequently that arraignment may be delayed considerably. If
people stay in jail, men and women are usually separated.
Solidarity Issues and Methods
As Benjamin Franklin once said of the patriots who were
declaring their independence from Britain, "We must indeed
all hang together, or, most assuredly, we shall all hang
separately." This conveys the idea of solidarity. The more
people can "hang together" the stronger is their
political power in relation to the system. Jails are designed to
make people feel powerless and at the mercy of the system.
However, when a group works together, they can exert a much
greater leverage on that system, especially if it is a jail system
already over-crowded and over-burdened or a government already
hugely in debt and in need of money to cover its law-enforcement
expenses.
Thus in the past many anti-nuclear activists have refused to pay
bail or fines to the system which is oppressing them. This is not
only to be in solidarity with each other but also to be in
solidarity with all the poor people who cannot afford to buy their
way out of jail. In California these tactics have been rather
successful in avoiding bail and fines and also long sentences. Of
course, the numbers are a major factor in solidarity, but the
principles remain the same; and many activists refuse to pay on
principle even if they must suffer for it alone. At Kings Bay some
protestors have paid fines of $200 or more. It has been suggested
that individuals who feel they cannot spend time in jail might
want to consider contributing money to the peace movement and
doing support work instead of getting arrested in a symbolic
protest and paying money to the government.
In addition to refusing to pay bail or a fine, another common
solidarity issue is to refuse to accept probation. This is done so
that the movement can grow and not have future actions stifled by
the threats of probation revocation. With probation most of the
sentence is usually suspended, but if the person is convicted
again during the probation then the suspended jail time can be
given from the past action in addition to the new one.
The tactics of refusing to pay or accept probation leave the judge
with what he or she often considers less satisfactory choices. All
that is really left is community service or time in jail.
Community service is becoming more popular, but it still does not
give the government back any of the money it spent on law
enforcement and courts. Also if community service is refused or
not considered serious enough, then the only alternative is jail,
which costs the government even more money. Thus the willingness
of activists to go to jail can put pressure on the government far
beyond the numbers involved could exert in just about any other
nonviolent way.
Other solidarity goals may include the objective that past
offenders get the same punishment as new offenders, although this
can be difficult to achieve. Additional tactics for achieving this
or to add pressure to the government to change its policies, can
be to plead not guilty and have trials or to engage in various
forms of noncooperation while in jail. These may include fasting,
not giving information, singing, refusing to walk or get dressed,
etc.
Pleading
Arraignment is when one is formally charged in court before a
judge by a prosecuting attorney. The judge will ask one, "How
do you plead to this charge?" The defendant has four possible
pleas. Both guilty and no contest are treated as a guilty plea,
but by saying that one does not contest the charges one is not
actually admitting any guilt. The no contest plea cannot be used
as evidence of wrongdoing in a civil suit. The judge usually
accepts the no contest plea as though it were a guilty plea. These
pleas are then usually followed by sentencing. At this point one
has the opportunity to speak as to why one did it, what mitigating
circumstances apply, and what sentence might be appropriate. This
time for elocution is also an opportunity to express one's
feelings or religious beliefs or even make a political speech.
The other two pleas are not guilty and what is called a creative
plea, which is simply to say anything one wishes, which will be
treated as a not guilty plea. If it is not a very brief statement,
one can expect to be cut off by the judge. One can also remain
silent. The judge is required to enter a not guilty plea unless
the defendant clearly pleads either guilty or no contest. As long
as one pleads not guilty, they must either proceed with a trial or
drop the charges.
After a not guilty plea the judge usually releases the defendants
on their own recognizance (o.r.). However, bail may be required.
The federal court in Brunswick, Georgia has required an
unsolicited bond of $2000, which means that defendants do not have
to pay anything unless they do not show up for a court
appointment. Those who did not want to sign the bond were told
that if they did not sign, they would have to stay in jail until
the trial, about 70 days.
*****************************************
"The time has come, or is about to come,
when only large-scale civil disobedience,
which should be nonviolent,
can save the populations from the universal death
which their governments are preparing for them."
Bertrand Russell
*****************************************
Trial
In the federal system one is usually arraigned before a federal
magistrate. Magistrates have been appointed, because there are not
enough federal judges to handle all of the cases. One has a right
to a trial before a federal judge, although one can accept the
magistrate as a presiding judge. Because of a Supreme Court
ruling, the federal government does not give jury trials on petty
offenses where the maximum sentence is six months or less even
though the U.S. Constitution states twice that all criminal trials
are to be by jury. If one is found guilty by a magistrate and
decides to appeal, it is then heard by the federal judge. However,
if one has been found guilty by the judge, the first appeal goes
to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Appeal from the Circuit
Court would go to the U.S. Supreme Court, though they do not have
to hear the case. Other than appeal, the trial before a magistrate
or a federal judge will be similar.
In the state of Georgia, as in most states, the right to trial by
a jury is granted, but it is usually a jury of only six people. In
jury selection, the lawyers have the right to question prospective
jurors and have individuals dismissed if the judge agrees that
they cannot be fair. In addition each side is given a certain
number of peremptory challenges which can be used to dismiss
individual jurors without giving any reason at all. In a jury
trial the judge still makes all rulings on questions of law and
instructs the jury as to what the law is. The judge will not allow
the jury to hear evidence or testimony that is ruled irrelevant or
inadmissible. However, the final verdict and interpretation of the
evidence and facts are decided by the jury and must be unanimous
(consensus), or else it is declared a mistrial because of a hung
jury. After a mistrial, defendants may or may not be tried again
by a new jury. In other respects a jury trial and a bench or court
trial tend to be fairly similar. Since a single judge gives the
verdict in a bench trial, there is no chance for a hung jury; it
will be either not guilty or guilty.
Everyone has the right to be represented by a lawyer. One can hire
a lawyer of one's own choosing. Sometimes several defendants are
tried to together and may share the same lawyer. If one is too
poor to hire a lawyer, the court will appoint a public defender if
one requests it. As long as one is mentally competent, one has the
right to represent oneself (pro se or pro per) and be one's own
lawyer. This gives one all the privileges of the lawyer in the
courtroom, but one is still expected to follow the proper
procedures and little allowance may be made for the lack of legal
training and knowledge. However, in political trials activists
often find that they can represent their concerns better than a
lawyer who is unfamiliar with their issues.
There may be a pre-trial hearing for motions sometime between
arraignment and the trial date, but if neither side has submitted
a motion, it may be canceled. After the jury has been selected in
a state trial, the state and federal trial formats are similar.
The prosecuting attorney begins with an opening statement which
presents a summary of the case and the evidence in verbal form.
Then the lawyer for the defendant may make an opening statement or
wait until the prosecution has presented their witnesses. However,
in federal court the judge may insist that the defense's opening
statement be given immediately after the prosecution's or not at
all. The opening statement is supposed to focus on what the
evidence will show. If the opening wanders beyond that subject,
the judge may interrupt. If the judge believes the evidence being
discussed is irrelevant, the attorney may argue a theory of
defense to show that it is relevant. This is called an offer of
proof. If there is a jury, they will be dismissed as the judge
listens to this argument and then rules as to whether that
evidence and testimony will be allowed. This is where the defense
of necessity and international law may be argued and then probably
will be prohibited. Sometimes attorneys never mention this defense
in the opening, but it comes up during the questioning of
witnesses. At that point if the prosecution or the judge objects,
the jury may be removed and the offer of proof presented and ruled
on. One is allowed to call expert witnesses to help persuade the
judge of the validity of the theory of defense, but they will not
be heard by the jury unless the evidence is ruled admissible.
Following the opening statement, the prosecution begins to call
their witnesses and question them on the stand. During direct
examination of a witness on one's own side, attorneys are not
allowed to ask leading questions. Questions must be asked in such
a way as not to suggest what the answer ought to be. After the
prosecutor has questioned each witness, the defense is allowed to
cross-exam them on the issues and evidence that has been
presented. During cross-examination of opposing witnesses,
attorneys are allowed to ask leading questions, such as
"Isn't it true that ..." or "Wouldn't it be fair to
say that ..." Cross-examination is an opportunity to expose
the errors or confusion or even lack of credibility of witnesses
by pointing out contradictions or weaknesses in their testimony.
Once the prosecution has presented all their witnesses and
physical evidence, then they rest. At this point the defense often
presents a motion for dismissal, because of lack of evidence. This
is routinely denied. However, on June 19, 1989 federal judge
Alaimo found eight Trident to Life demonstrators arrested on the
previous good Friday not guilty, because of the confusion
regarding the boundary line, before they even presented their
defense. This indicates a case in which defendants never should
have been prosecuted or even arrested. In this instance none of
the eight were even intending on risking arrest; they were merely
at the edge of the base for a religious service where they had
been before without having been arrested.
Next the defense calls their witnesses and presents evidence. They
have the right to subpoena witnesses and compel them to testify if
their testimony is relevant to the case. Defendants have a right
to remain silent and are not required to present any defense
whatsoever and still may be found not guilty. This is because the
burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove that someone
committed an illegal act beyond a reasonable doubt or to a moral
certainty. Though defendants are not required to testify,
activists usually do choose to testify in order to tell their
story of what they did and why they did it. Of course, the
prosecution then has the right to cross-examine. Sometimes also
either side may have additional questions after cross-examination
in what is called re-direct; again leading questions are still not
allowed in re-direct. Re-direct may be followed by re-cross.
Defendants who are representing themselves pro se usually are
allowed to testify in a narrative way, instead of trying to ask
themselves questions. This can make it easier to get in some
points before objection is heard from the prosecutor or before the
judge interrupts. Pro se defendants may gain some advantage,
because they can hardly be expected to know all the legal rules;
but on the other hand, their lack of knowledge can be a
disadvantage in keeping the prosecution honest also.
After the defense has presented their witnesses, the trial
proceeds to closing arguments. Because the prosecution has the
burden of proving their case beyond a reasonable doubt, they are
usually given the first and last speech in the closing. However,
in Georgia if the defense has presented no other evidence besides
the testimony of defendants, the order is reversed. Attorneys are
given most leeway in their closing arguments. Rarely is an
objection heard from the other side, and the judge is usually
reluctant to interrupt a closing argument. One is allowed to wax
eloquent and even quote from books. However, one should keep in
mind the patience and forbearance of the judge and jury. Opening
and closing arguments are opportunities to speak directly to the
jury or judge. A pro se defendant thus has great latitude in
attempting to move the jury or judge in this speech. To be
effective the closing argument needs to rebut the arguments and
case presented by the prosecution and do it in such a way that the
rebuttal will still stand even after the prosecution presents
their last rebuttal.
Having heard the closing arguments, the judge will verbally
instruct the jury as to their duty in deliberation and will read
and interpret the relevant laws for them. The jury will then
retire to a private room to deliberate until they reach a verdict.
In a bench trial the judge will give the verdict. If the verdict
is not guilty defendants are free to go out and celebrate. If the
verdict is guilty, the jury will be dismissed before the
sentencing. As with no contest and guilty pleas, defendants who
have been found guilty have the right of elocution prior to the
passing of sentence. At this time the defendants may indicate
their preferences and circumstances in relation to punishment. It
is another opportunity to give a speech to the judge.
Defendants who have been sentenced may be taken into custody. If
an appeal is going to be filed, and one can ask that the sentence
be suspended until the appeal is decided.
Jail
Those who go to jail for misdemeanors are usually housed in
local facilities. State and federal prisons are generally designed
for those who are serving a year or more. The federal government
often pays local facilities to keep their prisoners. Activists are
often introduced to jails at the time of arrest, and the sentence
is just more of the same.
Prisoners are carefully searched, often asked to strip naked and
usually given jail clothes. Some facilities spray new inmates for
vermin. Since most jails in the United States are very
overcrowded, many are under court orders to release people before
the full period of their sentence. In Georgia with "good
behavior" inmates are usually released after half the
sentence. Days spent in jail at the time of arrest are usually
counted. Men and women are separated. Basically the state provides
room and board, and inmates have much free time within their
restricted areas. One can usually get books, sometimes from the
outside also, writing or drawing materials. For many the worst
aspect is the noise and especially the television in the day room.
Sometimes inmates are asked to work. There is an international
tradition that political prisoners are not required to work, but
since local authorities may not consider protestors political
prisoners, one may face disciplinary confinement for refusing to
work. However, often only trustees work, and it is considered a
privilege to gain a few small freedoms. Inmates may receive and
send mail and also have visitors according to the routine of the
jail. Money is placed in a commissary account, and certain items
such as snack food, paper, pencils, stamps, envelopes, toilet
items, or cigarettes may be purchased.
For many, jail can be a time of deep reflection on one's life and
society. One often meets interesting people who for one reason or
another do not conform to our society's customs. For some, jail
may be a difficult experience. As with anything, one's own
attitude is a major factor in determining the value of the
experience. Some even believe that given the horrible policies of
our government it is the only appropriate place to be.
********************************************************
"Nonviolence is the greatest force at the disposal of
humanity.
It is mightier than the mightiest weapon of destruction
devised by human ingenuity....
If the mad race for armaments continues,
it is bound to result in a slaughter
such as has never occurred in history.
If there is a victor left, the very victory will be
a living death for the nation that emerges victorious.
There is no escape from the impending doom
save through a bold and unconditional acceptance
of the nonviolent method with all its glorious
implications."
Mahatma Gandhi
********************************************************
"The survival of democracy depends on the renunciation of
violence
and the development of nonviolent means
to combat evil and advance the good....
Only the nonviolent can apply therapy to the violent."
A. J. Muste
********************************************************
International Law and Nuclear
Weapons
In challenging the immoral policies of our government many
people are turning to the defense of necessity and international
law, because they believe that the U.S. Government is the one who
is committing criminal acts. These two defenses which can be used
in combination with each other are called affirmative or
justification defenses, because instead of merely attempting to
deny that one did the minor violation, they are arguing that
emergency circumstances justified the seeming violation of a minor
law in order to attempt to stop a greater criminal act or to
prevent a serious danger from occurring.
As affirmative defenses, the defense must undertake the obligation
of proving that a reasonable person would believe each of the five
elements that would justify such behavior. For judges to allow any
evidence based on these theories of defense, they must be
convinced that the defendants have a reasonable chance of proving
their case if the evidence were to be allowed. Therefore a verbal
offer of proof is usually requested in order to describe the
evidence the defendants would present on their behalf if given the
chance. Sometimes during the offer of proof, expert witnesses may
be called and even asked leading questions in order to establish
the case. If the judge rules out this defense, none of this
testimony may be heard by the jury.
Defense of Necessity
The necessity defense has been a part of common law in England
and has become an established principle in U.S. criminal law. In
United States v. Ashton, 24 Fed Case 873 (1834) the crew was found
to be justified in refusing to obey a captain's order to continue
sailing when they acted upon a "bona fide reasonable
belief" that the ship was unseaworthy. The Ashton case
established that "not just peril, but a well-founded belief
in impending peril is sufficient to raise the defense."
There are five elements in the defense of necessity, each of which
must be proven:
1. There is a danger or harm.
2. The danger is imminent.
3. Other methods have been inadequate to remove the danger.
4. The action taken was a lesser evil than the violation of law.
5. A reasonable person would believe that this action could remove
the danger.
International Law Defense
The international law defense may be combined with the defense
of necessity by substituting violations of international law for
the danger in each of the five elements. Thus defendants felt
obligated to act in order to prevent the commission of crimes.
The judicial system of the United States is required to apply
international law and U.S. treaties as is stated in the U.S.
Constitution Article III Section 2: "The judicial power shall
extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this
Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or
which shall be made, under their authority." Article VI makes
it even clearer that international law as defined by treaties that
the U.S. has entered into are to be the highest law along with the
Constitution and are to take precedent over any other laws:
"This Constitution and the laws of the United States which
shall be made in pursuance thereof and all treaties made, or which
shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be
the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every State shall
be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any
state to the contrary notwithstanding." The U.S. Supreme
Court in Paquete Habana, 175 US 677, (1900) stated,
"International law is part of our law, and must be
ascertained and administered by the courts of justice of
appropriate jurisdiction as often as questions of right depending
upon it are duly presented for their determination."
The following are some of the U.S. treaties and generally accepted
principles of international law that can be used in presenting
this defense:
* The Hague Convention With Respect to the Laws and Customs of War
on Land, July 29, 1899 (signed by the U.S.):
Until a more complete code of the laws of war
is issued, the High Contracting Parties think it right to
declare that in cases not included in the regulations adopted by
them, populations remain under the protection and empire of the
principles of international law, as they result from the usages
established between civilized nations, and from the laws of
humanity, and the requirements of the public conscience.
* The Hague Convention Concerning the Rights and Duties of
Neutral Powers in Naval War, October 18, 1907:
Article 1. Belligerents are bound to respect
the sovereign rights of neutral Powers and to abstain, in
neutral territory or neutral waters, from any act which would,
if knowingly permitted by any Power, constitute a violation of
neutrality...
* The Hague Convention Concerning Bombardment by Naval Forces
in Time of War, October 18, 1907:
Article 1. The bombardment by naval forces of
undefended ports, towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings is
forbidden....
Article 5. In bombardments by naval forces all the necessary
measures must be taken by the commander to spare as far as
possible sacred edifices, buildings used for artistic,
scientific, or charitable purposes, historic monuments,
hospitals,...
* The Hague Declaration Prohibiting the Discharge of
Projectiles and Explosives from Balloons, October 18, 1907.
* Treaty of Renunciation of War as a National Policy, sometimes
referred to as the Kellogg-Briand Pact or the Pact of Paris,
signed August 27, 1928 by fifteen powers including the U.S. The
treaty was ratified by the U.S. Senate on December 4, 1928 with
only one dissenting vote. Compatible with the United Nations, it
is still in force in 62 nations as of 1969:
Deeply sensible of their solemn duty to
promote the welfare of mankind; persuaded that the time has come
when a frank renunciation of war as an instrument of national
policy should be made to the end that the peaceful and friendly
relations now existing between their peoples may be perpetuated;
convinced that all changes in their relations with one another
should be sought only by pacific means and be the result of a
peaceful and orderly process, and that any signatory power which
shall hereafter seek to promote its national interests by resort
to war should be denied the benefits furnished by this treaty;
hopeful that, encouraged by their example, all the other nations
of the world will join in this humane endeavor and by adhering
to the present treaty as soon as it comes into force bring their
peoples within the scope of its beneficent provisions, thus
uniting the civilized nations of the world in a common
renunciation of war as an instrument of their national policy;
have decided to conclude a treaty ... Article 1. The high
contracting parties solemnly declare in the names of their
respective peoples that they condemn recourse to war for the
solution of international controversies, and renounce it as an
instrument of national policy in their relations with one
another. Article 2. The high contracting parties agree that the
settlement or solution of all disputes or conflicts of whatever
nature or of whatever origin they may be, which may arise among
them, shall never be sought except by pacific means....
* The Atlantic Charter was signed by President Franklin
Roosevelt and Winston Churchill on August 14, 1941 and by the USSR
on January 1, 1942:
The President of the United States of America
and the Prime Minister ... believe that all of the nations of
the world, for realistic as well as spiritual reasons must come
to the abandonment of the use of force. Since no future peace
can be maintained if land, sea or air armaments continue to be
employed by nations which threaten, or may threaten, aggression
outside their frontiers, they believe, pending the establishment
of a wider and permanent system of general security, that the
disarmament of such nations is essential. They will likewise aid
and encourage all other practicable measures which will lighten
for peace-loving peoples the crushing burden of armaments.
* The United Nations Charter was signed June 26, 1945 and by
votes of both houses of the U.S. Congress the United States became
an official member on December 20, 1945:
We the peoples of the United Nations
determined to save succeeding generations from the scourge of
war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to
mankind, and to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in
the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights
of men and women and of nations large and small, and to
establish conditions under which justice and respect for the
obligations arising from treaties and other sources of
international law can be maintained, and to promote social
progress and better standards of life in larger freedom, and for
these ends to practice tolerance and live together in peace with
one another as good neighbors, and to unite our strength to
maintain international peace and security, and to ensure, by the
acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that
armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and
to employ international machinery for the promotion of the
economic and social advancement of all peoples, have resolved to
combine our efforts to accomplish these aims ...
Article 1. The Purposes of the United Nations are:
1. To maintain international peace and security, and to that
end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention
and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of
acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring
about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles
of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of
international disputes or situations which might lead to a
breach of the peace;
2. To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect
for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of
peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen
universal peace;
3. To achieve international cooperation in solving international
problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian
character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human
rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction
as to race, sex, language, or religion; and
4. To be a center for harmonizing the actions of nations in the
attainment of these common ends.
Article 2. The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the
Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the
following Principles:
1. The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign
equality of its Members.
2. All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and
benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfill in good faith
the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present
Charter.
3. All Members shall settle their international disputes by
peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and
security, and justice, are not endangered.
4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations
from the threat or use of force against the territorial
integrity or political independence of any state, or in any
other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United
Nations.
* Treaty of London authorizing the Nuremberg War Crimes
Tribunals on August 8, 1945 was signed by the US.
Article 6a states that "waging of a war of aggression"
is a "crime against peace" imposing "individual
responsibility....
Article 8. The fact that the Defendant acted
pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior shall not
free him from responsibility, but may be considered in
mitigation of punishment if the Tribunal determines that justice
so requires.
* Charter of the two War Crimes Tribunals known as the
Nuremberg Principles were expressly reaffirmed by unanimous
resolution of the United Nations General Assembly in 1946 and,
according to international law expert J. L. Brierly, are now
undoubtedly accepted as part of general international law:
Principle I. Any person who commits an act
which constitutes a crime under international law is responsible
therefor and liable to punishment.
Principle II. The fact that internal law does not impose a
penalty for an act which constitutes a crime under international
law does not relieve the person who committed the act from
responsibility under international law.
Principle III. The fact that a person committed an act which
constitutes a crime under international law acted as Head of
State or responsible Government official does not relieve him
from responsibility under international law.
Principle IV. The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of
his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from
responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice
was in fact possible to him.
Principle V. Any person charged with a crime under inter-
national law has the right to a fair trial on the facts and law.
Principle VI. The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as
crimes under international law:
a. Crimes against peace:
i. Planning, preparation, initiation or
waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of
international treaties, agreements or assurances;
ii. Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the
accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).
b. War crimes:
Violations of the laws or customs of war which include, but
are not limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to
slave- labor or for any other purpose of civilian population
of or in occupied territory, murder or ill-treatment of
prisoners of war or persons on the seas, killing of hostages,
plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of
cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by
military necessity.
c. Crimes against humanity:
Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other
inhuman acts done against any civilian population, or
persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds, when
such acts are done or such persecutions are carried on in
execution of or in connection with any crime against peace or
any war crime.
Principle VII. Complicity in the commission
of a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against
humanity as set forth in Principle VI is a crime under
international law.
* Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian
Persons in Time of War, August 12, 1949, ratified by the U.S. and
went into force February 2, 1956:
Article 27. Protected persons are entitled,
in all circumstances, to respect for their persons, their honor,
their family rights, their religious convictions and practices,
and their manners and customs. They shall at all times be
humanely treated, and shall be protected specifically against
all acts of violence or threats thereof.... The High Contracting
Parties specifically agree that each of them is prohibited from
taking any measure of such character as to cause physical
suffering or extermination of protected persons in their lands.
This prohibition applies not only to murder, torture, corporal
punishment, mutilations ..., but also to any other measures of
brutality whether applied by civilian or military agents.
* Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons done at
Washington, London, and Moscow July 1, 1968, ratified by the U.S.
Senate and entered into force on March 5, 1970:
The States concluding this Treaty ...
considering the devastation that would be visited upon all
mankind by a nuclear war and the consequent need to make every
effort to avert the danger of such a war and to take measures to
safeguard the security of peoples, believing that the
proliferation of nuclear weapons would seriously enhance the
danger of nuclear war, in conformity with resolutions of the
United Nations General Assembly calling for the conclusion of an
agreement on the prevention of wider dissemination of nuclear
weapons,... declaring their intention to achieve at the earliest
possible date the cessation of the nuclear arms race and to
undertake effective measures in the direction of nuclear
disarmament, urging the cooperation of all States in the
attainment of this objective, recalling the determination
expressed by the Parties to the 1963 Treaty banning nuclear
weapon tests in the atmosphere in outer space and under water in
its Preamble to seek to achieve the discontinuance of all test
explosions of nuclear weapons for all time and to continue
negotiations to this end, desiring to further the easing of
international tension and the strengthening of trust between
States in order to facilitate the cessation of the manufacture
of nuclear weapons, the liquidation of all their existing
stockpiles, and the elimination from national arsenals of
weapons and the means of their delivery pursuant to a treaty on
general and complete disarmament under strict and effective
international control, recalling that, in accordance with the
Charter of the United Nations, States must refrain in their
international relations from the threat or use of force against
the territorial integrity or political independence of any
State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of
the United Nations, and that the establishment and maintenance
of inter- national peace and security are to be promoted with
the least diversion for armaments of the world's human and
economic resources, have agreed as follows: ...
Article VI. Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to
pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating
to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to
nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete
disarmament under strict and effective international control.
War Tax Resistance
Since about two-thirds of federal income tax goes to pay for
past, present and future expenses of the military, many activists
feel that in good conscience they cannot contribute any money to
this effort. The simplest way to do this is to earn less than the
minimum amount required in order to owe any federal income tax.
This is now $6400 for a single person .
Others whose incomes are larger choose to refuse to pay a portion
or all of their income tax owed. This means that the Internal
Revenue Service may attempt to take the money from bank accounts,
salary checks, or any other way they think they can get it.
Individuals are not usually put in jail for refusing to pay, but
they occasionally can be found guilty of violating tax laws or
perjury laws if subterfuge is used.
The following organizations are able to provide more information:
National War Tax Resistance Coordinating Committee
P. O. Box 774
Monroe, ME 04951
207 525-7774
800 269-7464
War Resisters League
339 Lafayette St.
New York, NY 10012
212 228-0450
***************************************************
You shall not kill....
You shall love your neighbor as yourself.
Moses
***************************************************
Blessed are the peacemakers,
for they shall be called the children of God....
You heard that it was said to the ancients, 'You shall not kill,
and whoever kills will be subject to judgment.
But I tell you that all who are angry at their brother or sister
will be subject to judgment....
You heard that it was said,
'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.'
But I tell you not to oppose the bad,
but whoever strikes you on the right cheek,
turn to them also the other....
You heard that it was said,
'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.'
But I tell you, 'Love your enemies, do good to those hating you,
bless those cursing you, pray about those abusing you.
Jesus
****************************************************
Building Community in the
Peace and Justice Movement
There are many ways that each of us can contribute our skills
and assets to the work for peace and justice in this world. In
this process it is important that we remain true to ourselves and
our own personal relationships. By cooperating together and
supporting each other in the many ways people can work on these
issues, we can strengthen and improve the quality of our lives and
efforts.
By appreciating the work of various people and organizations, we
can see how we are part of a larger movement for social change in
this country and the world. Establishing peace and justice in the
world are such overwhelming challenges that we need to form
coalitions with like-minded people, while we each do our little
part to make the struggles of so many eventually successful.
Ultimately our children and grandchildren will inherit the world
we leave them. Let us hope that by our actions, both personal and
collective, we will have passed on a planet that is closer to our
goals and aspirations. The problems we face, not only in regard to
the dangers of war but also with environmental deterioration, call
us to special efforts, because it is likely that the next few
years will be critical to the future of human civilization and
planet earth. Let us then do our best to be true to ourselves, our
communities, our species, our planet, and our God.
Call to Conscience
For the good of all the people in the world,
for the preservation of our mother earth,
for the future of all the children,
let us work together in harmony
to remove all the nuclear weapons,
to stop all the wars,
to learn to live together in peace,
to establish justice throughout the world
by using nonviolent judicial processes.
In this time of mortal crisis for humanity and the earth,
let us commit our lives to loving nonviolent action
to transform our own consciousness and our society,
to refuse to support or cooperate with government evils,
to willingly go to jail to protest violent wrongs,
to suffer without inflicting any harm in return,
to persist until these goals are attained,
to communicate the truth as clearly as we can,
to share in community with the poor,
to live in friendship with all the people in the world,
to respect and care for our mother earth,
to trust the Spirit of all to sustain us in this life and beyond,
and to maintain our own center of peace.
Copyright 1996 by Sanderson Beck
NONVIOLENT ACTION HANDBOOK
|
