Do you support the St. Patrick's Four?

[Earth_First]

Poll question: Do you support the St. Patrick's Four?

If you are not familiar with the St. Patrick's Four, a little background:

On March 17, 2003, two days before the invasion of Iraq was launched, four members of the Magnificent Catholic Worker community of Ithaca New York walked into the waiting room of the local Army-Marine recruiting center and carefully poured their own blood on the walls, the windows, the posters, cardboard mannequins of soldiers, the door and the American flag. They brought pictures of Iraqi mothers and children into the recruiting center along with a letter from American peace activists in Baghdad Iraq who called on peace activists in the US to nonviolently resist the promise of shock and awe. They read a statement, then knelt in prayer and awaited the authorities.

The four, Daniel Burns, Peter DeMott, Clare Grady and Teresa Grady were each arrested and charged by the local District Attorney with felony criminal damage to property. They became known as the "St. Patrick's Four." Because they knew that the invasion of Iraq was being condemned by international law authorities around the world, they felt their actions were authorized under the Nuremberg Principles which make it legal to break local law in order to resist war crimes. Because of their faith they felt that pouring of their own blood, though messy and shocking, was a small disturbance compared to the death and bloodshed that was to follow. Because they were each parents, they chose the recruiting center because they wanted to try to stop the death and damage to American sons and daughters as well as to Iraqi daughters and sons.

http://www.peacecouncil.net/pnl/04/731/731StPats4.htm

The St. Patrick's Four and Resistance to the War in Iraq
by Bill Quigley

"Have you heard about the St. Patrick's Four? Of course not. They aren't going to tell you about the St. Patrick's Four. The St. Patrick's Four were four people from the Catholic peace movement who, on St. Patrick's Day last year, poured their blood around at a military recruiting station in Ithaca, New York, and they were put on trial. And the jury refused to convict. It was a hung jury. So I'm hopeful about the future of this country based on the idea that people have a certain common decency and that when they learn the truth, the truth has a power that can overcome even the most sophisticated of propaganda machines that they government has and the media collaborate with."
- Howard Zinn, May 8, 2004,

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0317-32.htm

The reason behind this post is that the St. Patrick's Four will be sentenced this week in Binghamton Federal Court in Binghamton, New York. Each of the four will be sentenced starting Monday at 9:15, beginning with Danny Burns on Monday January 23, Peter DeMott on Tuesday, Clare Grady on Wednesday, and Teresa Grady on Friday, January 27.

Thanks for taking the time to read.

SOLIDARITY, -EF!

[meganmonkey]

1. I stand with these folks in solidarity

Nonviolent creative civil disobedience. They are courageous and they took a risk, and I fully support them.

:thumbsup:

[iamahaingttta]

2. I support their protest...

And every other protest against this rogue regime!

However, I do believe that if they committed a crime - and pouring blood onto walls, windows, posters, etc. is probably against the law - then they should plead guilty and happily accept whatever "punishment" is given to them. This will also be a form of protest! Nobody is above the law!

[meganmonkey]

3. And that is precisely what civil disobedience is

Knowingly breaking the law, and accepting the consequences as a powerful form of protest. Some people write off this type of protest as useless, but history remembers those who did it, from Rosa Parks to Thoreau, these folks will be remembered as heroes in the long run.

:patriot:

[iamahaingttta]

4. Yes, but...

In the article, it says:

"...they were put on trial. And the jury refused to convict. It was a hung jury..."

That would only happen if they pleaded not guilty.

I'm sorry, but even though I understand that going to trial would get more publicity, pleading not guilty is NOT accepting the consequences of one's actions!

But that's just me...

[meganmonkey]

5. There are a few different schools of thought on this

With this one, as you point out, what they did was clearly a legal violation. Most activists (including Gandhi, IIRC) believed in always pleading not guilty so you would be able to go on trial and defend your actions, since they are always in reaction to much greater crimes, generally on a governmental level, and attention needs to be brought to this. Other people think it is better to pay the fine, come out clean, and avoid any significant punishment/jail time so you can do it again.

But, for example, last fall I got arrested with 400 others for "demonstrating without a permit" on the White House sidewalk. Well, since Bush came to office you can't even get a permit for that, so based on our consitutional right to assembly and free speech everyone pled not guilty. Even though we knew we were technically breaking the law of that particular sidewalk, we felt that the constitution overrides that. Most cases from that event are waiting appeal.

Here is an interesting guide to CD that mentions the lack of consensus on this issue in the activist community:

How to plead after performing an act of civil disobedience is a personal yet controversial discussion. Some argue that a civil disobedient should never plead guilty. If the law being challenged is proven to be unconstitutional then the conviction will be reversed. It is important to note, though, that this occurs in only a very small percentage of cases and if the law is ultimately upheld (which almost all are), the defendant could face a prolonged prison term and a fine, not to mention the potentially high costs of a legal defense. Other civil disobedients choose to pay the fine first offered by the police and then regroup to plan their next action of protest. Which course you take must be your personal decision. However, before you enter a plea it is imperative to speak with a lawyer to learn the full implications of your decision.

http://www.animal-law.org/library/pamphlet.htm

[petronius]

6. I'm going with 'Other', because I'm not sure what you mean by "solidarity"

While I oppose the war, this action seems extremely counterproductive, and has no chance of encouraging anyone to think seriously about anti-war arguments. To me, it seems more likely that the 'ick factor' will drive people away from any engagement with opposition ideas.

In a broader sense, I think the idea of civil disobedience is overused. There seems to be a mindset that an illegal action in the context of a demonstration/protest gains additional credibility merely because a law is being broken. I would argue that, while there are situations where CD is appropriate ('free speech zone'/no protesting laws are a prime example), it is more appropriate to use CD to directly protest a particular law by violating that law, and it becomes less useful when the illegal act is merely being used as an attention getter for a purpose urelated to the law being broken.

(As an aside, if these are the people who ended up facing federal charges because the feds were unhappy with the local results, then I am strongly opposed to that federal action.)