 |
Part 1: Is There a Plan to Crackdown on War Resisters in D.C.?
When it comes to funding our troops, some in Washington should spend more time responding to the warnings of terrorists like Osama bin Laden and the requests of our commanders on the ground and less time responding to the demands of MoveOn.org bloggers and Code Pink protesters.? George W. Bush to the Heritage Foundation, Nov. 1, 2007
With an ongoing quagmire in Iraq, a frustrated George W. Bush took a very public cheap shot at MoveOn and Code Pink. This suggests the ongoing resistance to the war is getting under his skin. Should we suspect then that the Bush administration has a plan to rein in a boisterous peace movement?
During a status hearing on Nov. 16, 2007 in Superior Court of the District of Columbia, Assistant U. S. Attorney Jeffrey Shapiro vocalized his frustration with the antiwar movement. He was trying to convince Judge John Ramsey Johnson to send me and seven other resisters to jail. Shapiro, like Bush, was bemoaning the protesters. He claimed the activists do not pay fines, disregard stay-away orders, don?t show up for court and refuse to accept the consequences of their actions by appealing convictions. This will continue, he contended, until very punitive sentences are meted out.
This hearing was a continuation of a legal process which began when we were arrested during Declaration of Peace activities on Capitol Hill on Sept. 26 or 27, 2006 and later convicted by Chief Judge Rufus King III. He congratulated the protesters for their nonviolent behavior, and asked everyone to pay $50 to the Victims of Violent Crimes fund. A group of us refused to pay, as we believe we were unfairly convicted, and on May 11, 2007, King found us in contempt. It was his intent to incarcerate us, but Mark Goldstone, a First Amendment attorney, argued, by law, we had a right to a trial since we were facing imprisonment. The judge agreed, and the case was sent to Judge Johnson.
He has since presided over three status hearings, as it seems our case has landed in uncharted legal waters. At the hearings and in briefs filed, Shapiro argues we should be incarcerated without going to trial. On Nov. 16, three of the eight defendants were in court, and we argued that the case should be dismissed. John Briley, an attorney for the defense, informed the court that failure to pay the assessment is endemic in Superior Court. He estimates the government has failed to go after 50,000 scofflaws. In his research, he could only find five cases where the government prosecuted for failure to pay.
Despite Shapiro?s protestations, Johnson ruled to continue the case since the original convictions are on appeal. It is unclear when a decision might be reached on the appeal, so he set the next status hearing for May 16, 2008.
Having many years of experience with civil resistance and its legal consequences, I was concerned by Shapiro?s rant. Most any citizen is aware that upon conviction, a defendant has a right to appeal. It is my suspicion that the attorney general?s office in D.C., fed up with a constant stream of protest cases, would like to quell the peace movement and its repeated acts of civil resistance. The government has not had to deal with such a movement since the Vietnam War protests.
If my suspicion that there is a plan to crackdown is accurate, I have to wonder how far up the chain of command does the decision-making go. Shapiro has been handling almost all mass protest cases in D.C., but it is very unlikely he makes any major decisions.
A number of resisters have been jailed after being convicted. Usually this happens to repeat offenders or those who refused to accept their sentences. I think more activists will be facing incarceration in this clumsy attempt at cracking down on the peace movement. We will have to face this challenge with some courage, and it is hoped that the threat of jail does not derail the resistance. Too many lives are at stake, and sacrifice will be necessary when risking arrest in the nation?s capital.
I plan to discuss further this suspected crackdown in parts two and three. Part 2 will analyze the Witness Against Torture arrests at the Supreme Court and the subsequent two days of incarceration. Part 3 will focus on a trial in D.C. where the judge blamed peace activists for inciting violence.
Max Obuszewski is with the Pledge of Resistance-Baltimore and the National Campaign for Nonviolent Resistance. He can be reached at mobuszewski [at] verizon.net.
1:31
Optimisé par  | | Anglais | | Albanais | | Arabe | | Bulgare | | Catalan | | Chinois | | Croate | | Tchèque | | Danois | | Néerlandais | | Estonien | | Philippin | | Finnois | | Français | | Galicien | | Allemand | | Grec | | Hébreu | | Hindi | | Hongrois | | Indonésien | | Italien | | Japonais | | Coréen | | Letton | | Lituanien | | Maltais | | Norvégien | | Polonais | | Portugais | | Roumain | | Russe | | Serbe | | Slovaque | | Slovène | | Espagnol | | Suédois | | Thaï | | Turc | | Ukrainien | | Vietnamien |
|