ANZUS Plowshares Trial

A baby's bottle as a pivotal component of a disarmament trial?  As an
international symbol of peacemaking?  It's hard to imagine.  Yet such was the
case at the trial in late May in Syracuse, New York, of the ANZUS Plowshares
peacemakers.

The four Catholic Worker defendants, Ciaron O'Reilly of Brisbane, Australia,
Susan Frankel and Bill Streit of Washington, DC, and Moana Cole of New
Zealand had pleaded not guilty to federal charges of conspiracy and
destruction of government property resulting from their disarmament action at
Griffiss Airforce Base, Rome, N.Y. on 1 January 1991, World Day of Peace.

The State alleged they hammered on a B-52 bomber armed with nuclear Cruise
missiles, dug up the runway to prevent the plane leaving, poured blood over
both and spray painted "swords into plowshares" and other Biblical quotes on
the plane and tarmac.  In so doing they were guilty as charged and thus
eligible to up to fifteen years imprisonment.  The peacemakers claimed that
they merely sought to prevent the B-52 from flying to Iraq, and doing what it
had done previously in Cambodia, Vietnam and Panama:  the carpet bombing of
civilian populations resulting in mass slaughter and destruction of thousands
of innocent people including defenceless children.

They argued the justification or necessity defence.  That is that they had to
break minor laws of property in order to obey God's law and prevent crimes
against humanity and breaches of international law.  Judge McCurn disagreed. 
He ruled out the necessity defence saying that the United States Government
and the war were not on trial but the defendants were.  He thus ruled out
expert testimony from such figures as former U.S. Attorney-General Ramsay
Clark, former NATO Chief of Operations Admiral Eugene Carroll, and veteran
peacemaker Sister Anne Montgomery who had been in Iraq during the war and had
seen the devastation wrought by the bombers.  Also he refused to allow the
baby bottles which had carried the defendants' own blood to the airbase to be
produced as exhibits on the grounds that they were 'irrelevant'.  What he
really meant was that they might appeal to the hearts and minds of the jury;
and remind them of dead children. He did allow exhibits like the hammers and
wire cutters which the state produced as evidence of property destruction.

The baby bottles came to represent the international dimension of the case.
If international law, divine injunctions and Biblical morality could be
argued then the baby bottles would be accepted.  If property law only was
discussed, then they were out.  They became a very graphic symbol of the
innocent victims of war especially the 55,000 children who have died in Iraq
as a direct result of the bombing campaign.  The blood they contained, which
was spilt over the B-52 and the runway, represented the deaths of those
children.  But the jury were not allowed to hear such argument.  Judge McCurn
instructed them that the law of property was all they were allowed to
consider.  Baby bottles were out.

In so doing he maintained the U.S. judiciary's generally consistent policy in
such trials of separating law from the wider context of morality and justice.
Regrettably in the U.S. and elsewhere law and justice are not synonymous
terms.  What Christians like the ANZUS Plowshares defendants have come to
recognise, is that the law is not sacrosanct and never should be.  What is
sacrosanct is true justice, the dignity and equality of all people before
God, and respect for people over and above every other consideration.  These
are the sacred principles of life.  The law should not serve sectional
interests.  It should serve these sacred principles of life as a vehicle for
their achievement.

From the moment the baby bottles were excluded, the result of the trial was a
fait accompli.  After a retirement of three hours, the jury returned to a
courtroom filled with sixty singing and praying supporters of the
peacemakers.  With the entire peace community present standing, arms linked
in solidarity, the defendants were found guilty as charged, and remanded to
20 August 1991 for sentence.

Yet somehow the Government's victory seemed hollow.  It was the defendants
and their friends who revelled well into the night, who made congratulatory
speeches and thanked God for the day's work.  They celebrated a victory of a
different nature: of spirit and truth over lies, deceit and  a loaded court;
of love and nonviolent action over militarism and war-making; of justice over
law.

The truth had been spoken, the demon unmasked.  There is a further price to
pay.  But for the moment the victory was won.  Baby bottles ruled. 
Jim Consedine