[Peace-discuss] USG attacks symbolic oppositon to war

[C. G. Estabrook]

[This is the case kathy Kelly spoke of while visiting C-U.  --CGE]

  The New York Times
  September 21, 2005
  War Protesters Ask Jurors to Heed Their Consciences
  By MICHELLE YORK

BINGHAMTON, N.Y., Sept. 20 -- Four left-wing Catholic war 
protesters who threw vials of blood inside a military 
recruiting center to object to the impending United States 
invasion of Iraq in 2003 likened their actions to those of 
historic figures like Susan B. Anthony and the Rev. Dr. 
Martin Luther King Jr.

In opening arguments at their trial on Tuesday, the 
defendants, who are representing themselves, urged jurors to 
heed their consciences when deciding if those actions 
warranted conviction on federal charges that include 
damaging government property and conspiracy to impede an 
officer of the United States.

"Jurors should decide as human beings -- flesh, blood and 
hearts," Clare T. Grady, 46, said in her opening statement. 
"Otherwise computers could decide verdicts, or legal 
experts, because they know the law much better."

Ms. Grady, 46; her sister Teresa B. Grady, 40; Peter J. De 
Mott, 58; and Daniel J. Burns, 45, are facing federal 
prosecution after a jury in a state court deadlocked 9 to 3 
in favor of acquittal last year.

Before the state trial, the prosecutor offered a plea 
bargain that called for no jail time in exchange for a 
guilty plea to a relatively minor charge. The protesters 
turned it down. If convicted of the federal charges, they 
face harsher penalties than in state court -- up to six 
years in prison and $250,000 fines. Peace activists and some 
legal experts fear that a conviction in the case would make 
it easier, in their words, for the government to quell acts 
of civil disobedience and stifle free speech.

Although they are representing themselves, the group, which 
calls itself the St. Patrick's Four because the actions took 
place on St. Patrick's Day, has a team of legal advisers.

The prosecutor, Miroslav Lovric, an assistant United States 
attorney, has presented his case so far in succinct fashion, 
telling jurors the group conspired to impede a federal 
officer and disrupted the operations of a military 
recruiting office in Lansing, a suburb of Ithaca, damaging 
its interior when they poured blood on the walls, windows 
and an American flag. "That, in a nutshell, is it," he said.

A recruiter, Staff Sgt. Rachon Montgomery, 31, testified 
that the bloodstains had to be removed by professional 
office cleaners and forced him to cancel appointments the 
morning after the protest.

The defendants have at times appeared disorganized and 
blustery. At one point, Mr. Burns threw down his pencil 
after verbally sparring with Judge Thomas J. McAvoy, who 
threatened to have him removed if he could not control himself.

All the defendants began their opening statements by 
introducing their family members and talking about their 
history with the Catholic Worker movement. Three of the 
protesters had visited Iraq before the war and said they 
were horrified by conditions there after years of sanctions 
that were imposed after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990. 
Clare Grady said that when she learned of the coming 
invasion and thought of America's soldiers facing a new war 
in Iraq, her heart broke. "I thought, 'No, you can't do 
that, you can't do that as well. It's too much,'" she said.

The jurors are from a predominately rural and politically 
conservative part of the state. They include a nurse, a 
Wal-Mart manager, a truck driver and a postal worker.

Judge McAvoy is allowing the defendants to talk about their 
state of mind at the time of the protest in their opening 
arguments, but not to raise their belief that the Iraq war 
was illegal or immoral. Dozens of the defendants' supporters 
are holding a daily vigil outside the courthouse, enduring 
curses from a few passing drivers and honks indicating 
solidarity from others.

*****

  Protesters try to speak out against war during federal trial
  By WILLIAM KATES
  Associated Press Writer
  September 20, 2005, 5:53 PM EDT

BINGHAMTON, N.Y. -- Four anti-war demonstrators told a 
federal court jury Tuesday that they were upholding a higher 
law when they spilled human blood at a military recruiting 
station to protest the war in Iraq.

But despite the defendants' efforts, U.S. District Judge 
Thomas McAvoy kept them from turning the proceedings into a 
trial on the war and Bush administration policy as he 
repeatedly limited their remarks during opening statements, 
often telling jurors to ignore the defendants' comments when 
they strayed from the charges.

"This case is not about the war in Iraq. It is about what 
happened in Ithaca, New York, in December 2002 and March 
2003," McAvoy told the defendants. "To discuss the war and 
what is happening in Iraq is not permissible. You might not 
agree with that. I'm sorry. But that's the way it has to be."

The four defendants -- Daniel Burns, 45; Peter DeMott, 58; 
and sisters Teresa Grady, 39; and Clare Grady, 46 -- were 
arrested March 17, 2003, at a U.S. Army and Marine Corps 
recruiting station near Ithaca, about 65 miles south of 
Syracuse. They splattered their blood onto the windows and 
walls, posters, pictures and an American flag.

The group, all members of the social justice organization 
Catholic Worker contend the war in Iraq is illegal and said 
they were upholding international law in a justifiable 
nonviolent protest.

"We were thinking of our troops, the people in Iraq, 
Americans. We wanted to prevent innocent people from being 
killed. We wanted to make visible the truth of war," Burns 
told the jury. "We were called by our faith, the law and our 
moral beliefs to peacefully protest the war."

The defendants are representing themselves with assistance 
from a legal team. Each spoke to the jury Tuesday, first 
introducing their family members in the filled courtroom, 
and then giving a brief personal history of themselves so 
jurors "would know what was in their hearts and minds" that 
day. All four said they had traveled to Iraq on mercy 
missions and had long family histories of community and 
charity work.

"We were upholding the best of the law -- the law that says 
'Do not kill,"' said Clare Grady.

She said she took part in the protest "to show the awful 
truth about the war . . . and sound the alarm and warn others."

DeMott likened the group to the abolitionists of the 19th 
century and the suffragettes of the 20th century.

"We acted according to the highest principles," said DeMott, 
an ex-Marine and Army veteran.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Miroslav Lovric avoided any mention 
of the war during his 20-minute opening statement. Instead, 
the prosecutor detailed the charges and outlined the 
government's case. He said he would call no more than six 
witnesses, all of them police or military personnel.

The U.S. Attorney's Office decided to prosecute the four 
Ithaca residents following a mistrial in April 2004 in 
Tompkins County Court, where a 12-person jury ended in a 
deadlock after nine members voted to acquit the protesters. 
The four were tried on charges of trespassing and criminal 
mischief, misdemeanors punishable by up to one year in jail.

If convicted in federal court, each could face up to six 
years in prison and fines as high as $250,000 on the primary 
charge of conspiracy to impede an officer of the United 
States. They also are charged with damaging governmental 
property and entering a military station for unlawful purposes.

Outside the courthouse, dozens of supporters continued a 
peaceful vigil that began over the weekend. On Tuesday, they 
were joined by a group of veterans, who said they were there 
to rally support for President Bush and American troops.

*****

  Albany Times-Union
  Protesters face charges from another era
  Four on trial in what may be first conspiracy prosecution 
  of anti-war activists since Vietnam
  By KATE GURNETT, Staff writer
  Tuesday, September 20, 2005

A group of Catholic activists who say their beliefs 
compelled them to protest the war in Iraq went on federal 
trial in Binghamton Monday, marking what may be the first 
conspiracy prosecution of war protesters since the Vietnam era.

The case, which is drawing national attention, raises 
questions about the right to protest, the true measure of 
faith and government control.

Four members of Ithaca's Catholic Worker movement admit they 
entered a military recruiting center in the Cayuga Mall 
outside Ithaca on March 17, 2003, and poured small vials of 
their own blood in the vestibule. They say they knelt, read 
a statement and prevented no traffic in or out. The 
self-described "The St. Patrick's Four" used blood to 
symbolize the effects of war and the sanctity of the Eucharist.

Daniel Burns, 45, sisters Clare Grady, 46, and Teresa Grady, 
40, and Peter DeMott, 58, all of Ithaca, face up to six 
years in prison and $250,000 in fines if convicted.

Their 2004 trial in Tompkins County led to a hung jury on 
trespassing and felony criminal mischief charges; nine 
jurors favored acquittal.

The U.S. attorney's office later pressed federal charges, 
including conspiracy to impede "by force, intimidation and 
threat" a U.S. officer, saying the mistrial left the case 
undecided.

Federal prosecutors have argued there is no "Iraq War 
justification defense" to excuse the group's behavior.

Bill Quigley, a human rights attorney and law professor at 
Loyola University in New Orleans, said the case likely marks 
the first prosecution of civilians for conspiracy stemming 
from a nonviolent Iraq war protest. The last such 
prosecution, he said, may be Dr. Benjamin Spock, during the 
Vietnam War. His 1968 conviction on encouraging draft 
resisters was overturned.

The uncommon move of pressing federal charges in a 
trespassing case "is trying to put a scare into dissenters 
in this country, on a political level," said Geralyn 
McDowell, who operates Rosa House, a Catholic Worker 
residence in Troy.

The case -- and the war -- should be "a wake-up call to all 
Catholics," she said. "Catholicism is rooted in the word of 
Jesus, who said love your enemy. He said put down your 
sword. So these are people who are using the actual power of 
the gospel."

On Monday, about 100 supporters sang and marched to the 
federal building in Binghamton before jury selection began. 
The case has attracted peace activists from across the 
country. Supporters launched a weeklong "Citizens' Tribunal 
on Iraq" at a local Methodist Church where soldiers, 
religious leaders and legal experts will discuss nonviolent 
civil resistance. Thousands of backers, including actor 
Martin Sheen and some Capital Region residents, have signed 
a support petition.

The Catholic Worker movement grew out of the Great 
Depression, promoting personal responsibility to help the 
needy, sick and imprisoned. The Capital Region has two 
houses, in Troy and Albany.

Catholic workers "are motivated to relieve suffering," said 
Barbara DiTommaso, director of the Commission on Peace and 
Justice of Albany's Roman Catholic Diocese.

"And to form community. They see war as the ultimate 
anti-community. They see the loss of human life as the 
ultimate evil."

The protest "reflects action that the Hebrew prophets took," 
to raise consciousness, DiTommaso said. That motivation 
formed the core of the group's county court defense.

That scenario is unlikely before U.S. District Judge Thomas 
McAvoy, who issued a pretrial ruling that the conspiracy 
issue centers on whether there was an agreement to impede or 
injure an officer. The motivation for those actions, he 
ruled, is immaterial.

The four defendants -- who are representing themselves -- 
have a long history of peace activism. The Gradys' father, 
John, was among the "Camden 28," who were acquitted of 
breaking into a draft board office to destroy records in 1973.

They grew up with Daniel and Philip Berrigan of Syracuse, 
the best-known Catholic anti-war activists of the Vietnam 
era. Philip Berrigan spent 11 years in prison for 
disarmament and protest activities before his death in 2002.

DeMott, a Vietnam veteran who is married to another Grady 
sister, Ellen, has many civil disobedience arrests.

Daniel Burns, a former Hollywood assistant director who 
worked on "Ghostbusters" and "JFK," is the son of former 
Binghamton Mayor John Burns and one of 12 children, 
including the central New York folk duo the Burns Sisters.

"Any harm we caused -- a mess in the vestibule of the center 
-- was minuscule compared to the heinous crimes of mass 
murder, grand theft and torture we were trying to prevent," 
the group wrote in an essay published in the Binghamton 
Press & Sun-Bulletin.

Gurnett can be reached at 454-5490 or by e-mail at 
mailto:kgurnett at timesunion.com

*****

  The Blood of the Righteous
  By William Rivers Pitt
  t r u t h o u t | Perspective
  http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/091905Y.shtml
  Monday 19 September, 2005

During the Vietnam war, a number of anti-war activists were 
prosecuted and jailed for taking direct action against 
recruiting stations and draft board offices. Files were 
burned and blood was poured on records. Few activists during 
this time were as dedicated, or as prosecuted, as the 
brothers Daniel and Philip Berrigan.

In 1967, Philip Berrigan poured his own blood on Selective 
Service records in Baltimore, and handed out Bibles while 
waiting to be arrested. In 1969, Berrigan used home-made 
napalm to incinerate 378 draft files in Catsonville, 
Maryland. In 1980, the Berrigan brothers entered a General 
Electric nuclear missile factory in Pennsylvania, hammered 
on the nose cones, again poured their own blood, and again 
were arrested.

In every instance, the Berrigan protest actions were 
grounded in their Christian beliefs. Both brothers were 
Roman Catholic priests. After the 1969 Catsonville action, 
Philip Berrigan said, "We confront the Catholic Church, 
other Christian bodies, and the synagogues of America with 
their silence and cowardice in the face of our country's 
crimes. We are convinced that the religious bureaucracy in 
this country is racist, is an accomplice in this war, and is 
hostile to the poor."

As the American people grew more and more hostile towards 
the Vietnam war, actions of conscience taken by people like 
the Berrigan brothers became more and more threatening to 
those in government who wished to see the war continue. 
Punishments became harsher, threats became more dire, all in 
an effort to derail a popular wave of resistance against the 
war, and against those who pushed the war.The wheel has come 
around again.

Today in New York, a Federal trial has begun against four 
anti-war activists who went into an Ithaca recruiting office 
on St. Patrick's Day in 2003 and poured their own blood on 
the walls, windows and the American flag. The protesters -- 
Daniel J. Burns, 45; Clare T. Grady, 46; her sister, Teresa 
B. Grady, 40; and Peter J. De Mott, 58 -- believed the young 
would-be recruits in the office had been seduced by video 
games and government propaganda videos, and wanted to remind 
them what war was really about. All four opposed the 
invasion and occupation of Iraq. All four are members of the 
Catholic Worker movement, and model their activism after 
their heroes, the Berrigan brothers.

"War is bloody," said the four protesters in a statement 
they read after their action in Ithaca. "The blood we 
brought to the recruiting station was a sign of the blood 
inherent in the business of the recruiting station. Blood is 
a sign of life, which we hold to be precious, and a sign of 
redemption and conversion, which we seek as people of this 
nation. The young men and women who join the military, via 
that recruiting station, are people whose lives are 
precious. We are obligated, as citizens of a democracy, to 
sound an alarm when we see our young people being sent into 
harm's way for a cause that is wholly unjust and criminal. 
Blood is a potent symbol of life and death."

"Blood is the sacred substance of life," they continued, 
"yet it is shed wantonly in war. As Catholics, when we 
receive the Eucharist, we acknowledge our oneness with God 
and the entire human family. We went to the recruiting 
center using what we have -- our bodies, our blood, our 
words, and our spirits -- to implore, beg, and order our 
country away from the tragedy of war and toward God's reign 
of peace and justice."

This trial is not the first time the St. Patrick's Four have 
faced prosecution for their 2003 action. Initially, they 
were tried in Tompkins County for felony criminal mischief 
in April of 2004. All four were offered a plea bargain to 
avoid trial, and all four refused. The trial itself, to the 
dismay of the local prosecutor, became a forum on the Iraq 
war. The four plaintiffs represented themselves. After 
hearing at length the motivations and life stories of the 
protesters, the jury in the trial deadlocked, with nine 
members voting for acquittal.

The prosecutor knew he could not win a re-trial, and 
referred the case to Federal authorities. Today, the 
protesters face a variety of serious charges including 
damaging government property and conspiracy to impede an 
officer of the United States. If convicted, the four face up 
to six years in prison and fines of $250,000. Many fear that 
if the St. Patrick's Four are successfully prosecuted, it 
will set a national precedent which would allow non-violent 
protesters to be charged with conspiracy in Federal courts.

So many aspects of this situation are compelling. One cannot 
help but be moved by four people who went beyond protest 
marches, pamphleteering and writing letters to the editor, 
and decided to take direct non-violent action. One cannot 
help but be gladdened that these four, representing 
themselves, convinced a jury that their actions were not 
worthy of prison time. One cannot help but be terrified by 
the implications of a potential Federal conviction of these 
four, which would further marginalize the citizen right of 
protest in a time when more actions, not fewer, are 
desperately needed.

Yet perhaps the most significant aspect of all this is the 
simple fact that these four protesters are working to take 
back the mantle of Christianity from the brigands and 
radicals who have hijacked and polluted it. When men like 
Pat Robertson and George W. Bush are allowed to stand as 
avatars for all things Christian, when hate and fear 
replaces love and tolerance and violence becomes the chief 
focus of the so-called faithful, it is all too clear that 
the words and teachings of Jesus Christ have been subsumed 
by low people who have more in common with the Taliban than 
with the fellow called the Prince of Peace.

"Herein lies a riddle," said Philip Berrigan about the very 
people who have stolen Christianity and perverted it for 
their own ends. "How can a people so gifted by God become so 
seduced by naked power, so greedy for money, so addicted to 
violence, so slavish before mediocre and treacherous 
leadership, so paranoid, deluded, lunatic?"

One day, perhaps, we will have a solution to that riddle and 
a cure for the disease which birthed it. In the meantime, 
four Catholic peacemakers stare down the barrel of a 
prosecutorial gun today in New York. If you stand against 
the war, if you stand against the so-called Christians who 
have so perverted both that religion and our nation entire, 
if you happen to be the praying type, now would be a good 
time to put in a word on their behalf.

http://Peacejournalism.com

*****

  September 19, 2005
  Today, the Antiwar Movement Goes on Trial
  by Leigh Saavedra

"If you fall on the side that is pro-George, and pro-war, 
you get your ass over to Iraq and take the place of somebody 
who wants to come home. And if you fall on the side that is 
against this war and against George Bush, stand up and speak 
out."
-- Cindy Sheehan, mother of Casey Sheehan, a U.S. soldier 
killed in Iraq

Today, the rights of all peace activists go on trial. 
Representing us are four Catholic antiwar activists who have 
already stood trial for their stand against the invasion of 
Iraq. Now, more than two years later, cleared of the 
original charge of criminal mischief, they are being charged 
with conspiracy and will be tried again.

THE ACCUSED: Four Catholic workers from Ithaca, N.Y. Daniel 
Burns works in the film industry and traveled to Iraq in 
2003 to promote peace and reconciliation. Clare Grady has 
worked for 17 years as a kitchen coordinator at Loaves and 
Fishes Community Kitchen, a ministry that feeds the hungry. 
Peter de Mott is a former marine who served in Vietnam, then 
joined the Army and took a NATO post as a linguist. Peter, 
too, has traveled to Iraq as part of a Christian peacemaker 
team. Teresa Grady is a dance instructor and founder of the 
Ithaca Catholic Worker community with a long history of 
working with the homeless.

THE CRIME: On March 17, 2003, Dan, Clare, Peter, and Teresa 
entered a military recruiting center in Lansing, N.Y., and 
poured a half cup of their own blood around the vestibule. 
No one was prevented from entering or leaving the recruiting 
center as they then knelt and read the following statement:

"Our apologies, dear friends, for the fracture of good 
order. As our nation prepares to escalate the war on the 
people of Iraq by sending hundreds of thousands of U.S. 
soldiers to invade, we pour our blood on the walls of this 
military recruiting center. We mark this recruiting office 
with our own blood to remind ourselves and others of the 
cost in human life of our government's warmaking.

"Killing is wrong. Preparations for killing are wrong. The 
work done by the Pentagon with the connivance of this 
military recruiting station ends with the shedding of blood, 
and God tells us to turn away from it. Blood is the symbol 
of life. All life is holy. All people are created in the 
image and likeness of God. All people are family, and 
everyone is loved by God.

"Dr. Martin Luther King reminds us that 'we are called to 
speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for the victims of 
our nation, for those it calls "enemy," for no document from 
human hands can make these humans any less our brothers [and 
sisters].'

"We come here today with pictures of Iraqi people -- 
mothers, children, those who have been the victims of U.S. 
bombardment and sanctions for the past 12 years. We also 
come here with love in our hearts for the U.S. 
servicepeople, also victims of warmaking.

"We find hope in these dark times when sisters and brothers 
around the world resist the spirit of hatred and violence, 
lift up prayers for peace -- together with works for peace.

"The St. Patrick's Four"

The following month the four were tried for criminal 
mischief. Nine of the 12 jurors voted to acquit them, and 
after 20 hours of deliberation, the judge declared a 
mistrial. At such declaration, the crowded courtroom gave 
the four a standing ovation. The district attorney said that 
he would not prosecute them again, expecting that another 
jury would yield the same verdict.

A year later, however, the U.S. government decided to retry 
the four peace activists, this time on the more serious 
charges of conspiracy. Technically, they are charged with 
conspiracy to impede "by force, intimidation, and threat" an 
officer of the United States, and three lesser charges. The 
trial begins Monday Sept. 19, and if the four are convicted, 
the penalty could be up to six years in prison and $250,000 
in fines.

This will be the first federal conspiracy trial arising out 
of civil resistance to the invasion of Iraq. It will also be 
the first federal conspiracy trial of antiwar protesters 
since Vietnam.

When Dan, Clare, Peter, and Teresa cut themselves and drew 
their own blood to make a powerful statement about the 
feared invasion, they were not alone. A month earlier, 
throughout the world, primarily in Europe but including such 
remote places as Antarctica, people appeared by the millions 
to demand that no such war be started. The UN Security 
Council had not sanctioned it, so that aside from the 
immorality of attacking a sovereign country without the 
means to defend itself, the invasion was illegal both 
through lack of UN approval and through the breaking of the 
Nuremberg Principles, ratified by the U.S. in 1950.

Since that day, much has happened. The people of the world, 
even in those countries whose leaders side with George Bush, 
such as Britain and Italy, remain staunchly against the 
invasion and occupation.

I recently witnessed the popular response of people Bush 
considers "allies." In May, in Italy, I noticed anti-Bush 
graffiti on the walls of the narrow streets of Rome and 
Florence, some of it strongly worded. While we were there, 
there was one demonstration against the so-called war. An 
artist near the Uffizi got into a heated conversation with 
me, though we were both on the same side.

"At first," he said, "we just thought the people of your 
country didn't know better. Bush wasn't that well known. But 
then, he broke all the rules. He ignored the world and 
started a criminal war. We thought he was through, but then 
he was reelected. WHY?"

I couldn't answer, still can't. I also couldn't find an 
Italian who supported the so-called war against Iraq.

The great blind nationalism that props up support for what 
Bush did and does is eroding now, according to all the 
polls. The initial reason for attacking Iraq, to rid the 
country of its weapons of mass destruction, was rendered 
null when it was discovered that Iraq had none. Further, 
there have been strong indications that the planning of the 
war began long before the attacks of 9/11, so that many now 
think that WMD was never an issue, only a way to raise fears 
and, consequently, support for war. The "evidence," it began 
to appear, was created to fulfill the neocons' desire to 
conquer Iraq, whether for its oil or for a better foothold 
in the Mideast or for the economic boon to a few who profit 
from war.

The erosion of support for the so-called war (I do not refer 
to the invasion/occupation as a war, as Iraq had no real 
means of defending itself) seems to be based primarily on 
costs -- in money and human lives. Over $194 billion dollars 
have been spent, and we do not yet have the man who was 
allegedly behind 9/11, Osama bin Laden. Many would question 
whether the handful of true terrorists the U.S. has killed 
are worth that much, an amount that could have fully funded 
global anti-hunger efforts for eight years, or could have 
provided four-year scholarships at public universities for 
almost 10 million students.

Worse for many is the cost in human lives. Approximately 
1,900 U.S. soldiers have been lost in Iraq, in addition to 
200 from other countries that have sent token support. The 
number of Iraqi deaths, mostly civilians, soars, estimated 
to be as high as 28,000 by some counts and closer to 100,000 
by other independent studies.

This was the "war" that the St. Patrick's Four spilled their 
own blood to try to stop. And now, with the war machine down 
in the polls and the civil war in Iraq growing more violent 
and claiming more lives each day, it appears that breaking 
the Nuremberg Principles is something that will haunt the 
United States for years as we fight to regain a measure of 
world respect.

None of these points, none of the evidence that the war was 
based on mistakes and lies, is allowed as part of the 
defense of the St. Patrick's Four. Not in the coming trial. 
Further, the four are under a gag order, unable to discuss 
their reasons for demonstrating their objections as they did.

To counter the gag order, a large support group for the four 
has been set up in Binghamton, N.Y., where the trial will be 
held. I spoke with William Meyer of the group today, and he 
hesitantly mentioned the number 200 for the number of people 
expected. A moment later, he added, "A thousand is possible."

For such numbers, citizens tribunals are set up as seminars 
on what is happening in Iraq, the facts that the four are 
not allowed to mention. These meetings and speeches will 
continue throughout at least the early days of the trial, 
certainly throughout jury selection. Among the moderators 
are James Petras, author and editor of over 60 books, 
including the acclaimed Globalization Unmasked: Imperialism 
in the 21st Century. Ray McGovern, former CIA analyst, and 
Ann Wright, who resigned from the U.S. Foreign Service on 
March 19, 2003 to protest the invasion of Iraq, will be 
involved in the tribunals.

Because of this kind of persecution of those who don't 
conform to the neocon notion of "patriotism," all of us who 
fight media manipulation of news and the ongoing occupation 
are in danger. If four ordinary parents are not allowed to 
make a somewhat graphic display of their objections to the 
war, then how can we assume that to write of the blundering 
mistakes and deceit of George Bush, Dick Cheney, and Donald 
Rumsfeld is not an invitation for a knock on the door, an 
arrest, a trial?

My empirical bent does not allow me to be lax with 
conspiracy theories. I'm not cut that way, nor are most of 
the writers I know. But if Clare Grady, who has spent most 
of her adulthood working to feed the hungry is not allowed 
to cut herself and mark a spot with her own blood, how can a 
writer who regularly accuses George Bush of being a liar 
feel secure in his or her freedom? What about someone who 
attends a march, such as the one approaching on Sept. 24?

How safe is dissent? As much as we care about four brave 
individuals who did what they could to stop the invasion in 
2003, we must go beyond them and consider the thousands, 
maybe hundreds of thousands, who wear antiwar or anti-Bush 
tee-shirts, who attend rallies, who write letters to the 
editor. Dare they keep their bumper stickers?

The fact that these four pacifists are being tried again, 
even after the war has been shown to most people's 
satisfaction to have been a mistake, and worse, that they 
are not allowed to express their feelings or use the 
illegality of the war in their defense throws open doors and 
windows that even the most cynical weren't truly expecting 
two years ago.

Whether our constitutional right to freedom of speech will 
live or not is the point. What happens in Binghamton in the 
coming week or weeks will probably be a barometer. If 
Daniel, Clare, Peter, and Teresa are found guilty of 
conspiracy, then all those who vocally support them are guilty.

And if we are, then our worst fears about the so-called 
PATRIOT Act have grown as real as a match held up to our 
Constitution.

*

Further details about the accused and about the case can be 
found here [http://stpatricksfour.org/index.php ]. Also at 
the site is a letter of support that people may sign, and 
contact information for those who want to expose this event 
and show their objections not only to the invasion and 
occupation of Iraq but also to the retrying of four people 
who attempted to do their part in stopping the invasion of a 
sovereign country.

Please go to the Web site. Please sign the letter. And if 
you're near Binghamton, N.Y., please consider attending the 
trial and lending your support.

http://www.antiwar.com/orig/saavedra.php?articleid=7310

*****