ANZUS Plowshares - As a Nonviolent Campaign
Part 3

[Eds note: This is the third of a four part series, describing the
disarmament actions of the four ANZUS Plowshares, the author, Ciaron
O'Reilly, Moana Cole, Sue Frankel and Bill Streit.  The first part described
how they entered Griffiss Air Force Base, New York on the first January,
1991, and disarmed various pieces of military technology.  The second part
detailed the preparation for the trial.]

Trial
We were to go to trial in an incredibly hostile time, wedged between Memorial
Day and Independence Day, when media reports were claiming a 90% approval
rate for the war.  We were predictably steamrolled in jury selection, wherein
the Judge proved to be no-great-liberal and hardly image conscious in terms
of impartiality.  He reduced the jury interview to a farce.  He would ask the
questions to the large peer conscious group.  Most questions required
monosyllabic responses.  A lot of them required no response at all, as the
judge suggested the appropriate answer.  At one point ten of the fourteen
prospective jurors acknowledged dependence on, or close relatives in the
military.  At another point, eight of the fourteen raised their hands to
displaying yellow ribbons on their homes as the President requested during
the war.  None of these were reasons for jurors being struck.  The Judge
would suggest that none of these factors would prejudice them and the jurors
would nod.

The Judge informed us that the next day the court was otherwise disposed so
we returned to Griffiss for an early, noisy, colourful demonstration.  Five
people crossed the line and were arrested returning our indictment.  During
the first week we also celebrated a large Mass together.  On another evening
Liz McAlister (from the "Harrisburg Conspiracy" and previous "Griffiss
Plowshares") gave a lecture on the idolatry of law.  It was good to inject
some in-depth theological and political analysis into people's personal
experience of the courtroom.

The trial started with opening addresses by the Prosecutor and defendants. 
We each introduced ourselves and the issues we hoped the jury would consider.
We reminded the jury that they had been called here not as "legal experts"
but as the "conscience of the community".  We, too were here for reasons of
conscience.  We also attempted to raise the notions of jury nullification and
a "hung jury".

The next two days the government presented its case.  Predictably the
military witnesses lied through their teeth - denying statements we had made
to them, claiming they hadn't read banners or what had been painted on the
runway, claiming to have seen things that didn't exist.  Most significantly
the Judge refused to accept evidence as admissible that was found on the
site, gathered and brought to the court by the F.B.I. - statements, baby
bottles decorated with childrens' photos covered in blood.  It proved helpful
that we had engraved the hammers and signed the ten-page indictment of Bush
as the government couldn't help but introduce them.  At one point, while
showing a witness the "Swords into Plowshares" banner, we forgot to tell our
lawyers to sit down and left them in silent vigil facing off the jury before
the Prosecutor discovered them.  I, personally, made quite a few mistakes in
terms of losing my temper with the sleaziness of Judge, Prosecutor, and
government witnesses.  All my previous court appearances had been in front of
National Party appointed magistrates in Queensland.  A jury trial is
different.  You've got to remember the people you are concerned to
communicate with - to look at - are the jury!  The Prosecutor, Judge and
government witnesses all work for the government - and are a predictable
distraction in any truth being told or heard.  It took me a while to realize
this.  Our co-counsel were very helpful in developing questions for
cross-examination and also in their appreciation of jury dynamics and
sensibilities.

The decision of when to enter into non-cooperation in the courtroom is a
difficult one.  It has been taken at different stages by various Plowhare
communities.  Helen Woodson, presently serving eighteen years, refused to
participate in her trial at all.  She clearly stated that the courts are
there to legalize the criminality of nuclear weapons.  We had decided to
pursue a two-fold strategy in order to engage those gathered in the court. 
Firstly, "to explore the court's own rhetoric" and have it conflict with
B-52's, Griffiss A.F.B., the nuclear and conventional weapons of mass
destruction.  The rhetoric consisted of the Constitution, International Law,
U.S. legal recognition of the Necessity defence and the question of the
presence of "criminal intent" .  Secondly we hoped to explain our conscience
- faith background, scriptural basis, the threat the weapons and war provided
- to the "conscience of the community" the jury.

As early as the government's case, it was becoming clear that the court was
not open to being held accountable to its own rhetoric.  The Judge was quite
willing to jettison the Constitution, International Law and even legal
procedure "to get the job done".  His ruling irrelevant and non-admissable
evidence collected at the scene was so obviously prejudicial.  He ruled out
an ornamental angel left at the first cut fence and ruled out baby bottles,
photos and statements found under the bomber and on the runway.  We tried our
best to flash the denied evidence at the jury and read the statements over
the cries of "objection" and "sustained".  We discussed entering into
non-cooperation at this point - getting ourselves or people in the gallery to
read out the censored statements to the jury, turn our backs on the court,
etc.  The Judge had already cleared the jury out of the court room on a
couple of occasions as we pushed the parameters.  We decided to press on with
presenting our defense.

On the Friday of the first week of trial, the government closed its case.  We
moved "no case to answer", got over-ruled and presented our first witness. 
Juggling the availability of expert witnesses with the progress of the trial
was very difficult - as many had to fly in and out on the same day.  We would
also make the expert witnesses available to the local media.

We started with Sr. Anne Montgomery (participant in five Plowshare actions
and the recent Iraqi Peace Team).  The Prosecutor objected, called for an
"offer of proof".  The Judge cleared the court of the jury.  She described
the nature of the threat of B-52's as perceived by herself in Iraq.  She
described the evening of January 16th, when she heard the threat roaring
overhead, passing from "imminent" to "actual".  The Judge took a recess, came
back and ruled Anne's testimony irrelevant.  The jury filed back in.  We then
put on Ramsey Clarke (former U.S. Attorney-General), who had been aware of
the threat and explored all legal alternatives to stay it.  He had been in
Iraq during the Air War and had witnessed the results of B-52 bombing raids).
The Prosecutor objected, called for an "offer of proof".  The Judge cleared
the courtroom of the jury.  Ramsey gave a powerful afternoon of testimony of
his first hand experience of the effects of aerial bombardment on human
populations in WWII, Europe, Vietnam, Grenada and Panama.  He then told of
how by January 1st, all legal alternatives to stay the threat had been
exhausted.  He then described in moving detail the towns, morgues, hospitals,
countryside and people of Iraq that had recently experienced the effects of
B-52 bombardment.  His testimony was greeted by a standing ovation in the
crowded courtroom and coverage in the local media.  Without leaving his seat
the Judge ruled the testimony "very interesting but irrelevant", closed for
the day and announced he would deliver a ruling on our necessity defense
before resuming in five days.  He brought the jury back in and dismissed them
for the day.  In our first day of defense the jury had spent less than ten
minutes in the court.

Over the break we rested, worked on our testimonies, and with our co-counsel
planned briefs to submit defending the legitimacy of our necessity defense. 
Bill and Sue prepared a brief that outlined the validity of the necessity
defense, its essential elements and how we planned to fulfil them with our
remaining expert witnesses.  This took a lot of research and preparation and
was completed by Wednesday morning.

The Judge and his assistants spent Wednesday morning studying the briefs and
developing a response.  In the afternoon the courtroom was packed with
supporters and military.  Also present was the Judge and Prosecutor who had
sent the previous Griffiss Plowshares away for two and three years in '84. 
Judge McCurn came in and ruled our necessity defense inadmissible on some
pretty wild reasoning.  He claimed, amongst other deficiencies that we would
have had to disarm every B-52 in the U.S. arsenal to have qualified for one
element.

At this stage we were left with our personal testimonies and Paul Walker, who
the government had recognized (and paid expenses for) as an expert on
independent inspection.

Our personal testimonies would be the best opportunity to relate to the
jurors as human beings and present our motives.  We spoke to the influences
on our life that had shaped our moral development and response. We told of
our growing awareness of the threat and the necessity to act. We all
recounted the early hours of January 1st and how these life experiences,
morality and awareness coalesced in the act for which we had been brought to
trial.

We all had our own individual stories, styles of telling and responses to
combating the Prosecutor's  objections.  We all succeeded in answering
cross-examination while looking at, and talking to the jury rather than the
Prosecutor.  There is not room here to go  into a description of each
defendant's powerful testimony.

Our major weakness was that we had not found time to role-play
cross-examination.  We had not prepared to combat the levels to which the
Prosecutor would stoop.  For Sue, he attempted to widen the conspiracy. Who
drove you there?  Where did you stay? Where did you stop for gas?  Who was
with you? etc. etc.  This comes up in every Plowshares trial and we should
have been better prepared.  The second day of our defense ended dramatically
with the Judge adjourning to decide whether he would hold Sue in contempt for
not informing and imprison her immediately.  He came back the next day to
rule further questioning on a wider conspiracy irrelevant.  A great relief
for us and the co-conspirators present in the courtroom.  For Bill, he tried
to make a "National Inquirer" case  about him being a Catholic priest who was
now married.  This  ended up being self-defeating for the prosecution.  Armed
with my Queensland Police Record (thanx guys!), my ASIO file, I.N.S. and
Interpol reports, he set out to prove my habitual criminality (Who me?).  We
called for an offer of proof.  The Judge removed the jury and I set out to
successfully convince him that life behind "Banana Curtain" (Queensland}
under Joh Bjelke-Peterson was not protected by the freedoms guaranteed by the
U.S. Constitution.

We introduced Paul Walker as our next witness.  He estimated that it should
have cost only $477, not the $6,300 quoted by the Air Force, to repair the
fuel tank.  We then began to ask Paul to describe to the jury the nature and
destructive capacity of the napalm, cluster bombs and Fuel-Air-Explosives
dropped by the B-52.  Prosecutor and Judge aggressively suppressed our
questions.  The Judge, fearing undue influence then called a recess to clear
the jury from the court.  I quickly stood up and told the jury, "This  trial
is about the massacre of 55,000 children by B-52's and aerial bombardment. 
The government rules these children 'irrelevant', because the government has
ruled these children expendable."  After the jury was cleared from the court,
Judge McCurn threatened to remove me from the court for the rest of the
trial.  It was a spontaneous act of non-cooperation with the suppression of
our defense and felt appropriate.  Paul Walker, a veteran of over a dozen
Plowshare trial as an expert witness was an artist in handling
cross-examination.

In the evenings following the first three days of our defense (and the
government's attempts to suppress it) we would form a large circle with the
extended community and process the day's events.  Understandably, quite a few
of the support folks were keen to resist inside the court.  It was a
difficult time for such intense discussions as the defendants were all
exhausted.  We concluded that the four of us all wanted to testify, some
folks would plan scenarios and wait for our O.K.  Meanwhile, three wise
monkeys, complete with blindfolds, gags and signs reading "SEE NO DEAD
CHILDREN", "HEAR NO DEAD CHILDREN", "SPEAK NO DEAD CHILDREN" took up position
at the court's entrance as the jury entered each morning.

Moana was the last to take the stand.  She attempted to speak of how nuclear
testing in the Pacific and accompanying destruction of her Polynesian kin had
influenced her decision to go to Griffiss.  Judge and Prosecutor clamped down
severely.  The nod was given and three people progressively stood up in the
gallery and addressed the jury to the government's suppression of evidence. 
They were progressively led from the courtroom by Federal Marshals.

In cross-examination, the Prosecutor laid out a scenario to Moana, "What if
she awoke one morning to find four people with hammers taking up the Catholic
Worker driveway?  What if they started beating on the Catholic Worker soup
van?"

We concluded our defense with one question on re-direct.  "Moana describe the
destructive payload of the Catholic Worker soup van."

Moana explained that the van doesn't carry cluster bombs, napalm and nuclear
weapons.  It carries soup and water to those who hunger and thirst.  It was a
beautiful analogy on which to conclude.  Our closings and the verdict were to
be delivered the following week.

The last trial day was preceded by a large march led by "prosecutor" and
"Judge" in legal gowns.  The crowd would chant "TRUTH" the Prosecutor would
respond "OBJECTION" and the Judge "SUSTAINED" - a very clear, colourful and
appropriate procession.

Closings are stacked against the defendant.  The prosecutor gets to speak
first and last.  Theoretically, he is not suppose to raise anything new in
his response to our closing.  We each delivered closings, reemphasising the
issues, the jury's role not as legal experts but as the conscience of the
community, the ability of even one of them to break the consensus of death
and hang the jury.  The Prosecutor rose on the second occasion to rant, rave,
throw the sledge hammer on his desk and invoke Pearl Harbour, WWII and
America's glorious victory over the Nazis.  We had no right of reply.

The Judge issued the jury a questionnaire with the charges and boxes to tick
"guilty" or  "not guilty".  This was a swift manoeuvre that really outflanked
our "If they offer you two alternatives, choose the third plea" to the jury. 
The possibility of not reaching a decision had been factored out on the
sheet.  We didn't realize this until it was too late.

The jury retired for three hours. They came back once for a question of
clarification - a sign that some were thinking.

We were eventually called back.  The jury was ushered in and we all stood
waiting for the Judge who was delayed.  Then from the gallery "We pray for
the children of Iraq."  A collective response, "Lord, hear our prayer".  "We
pray for the soldiers who refused to kill"..."Lord hear our prayer" and more.

A moment of prophetic transformation.  A den of untruth and injustice turned
into a house of prayer.  The Judge returned to restore "order".  Verdict
delivered - guilty on both counts.

That night we celebrated.  The next morning we were back at Griffiss. Our
"MAKE PARTY NOT WAR" action planned for the Base golf course was foiled by
security.  So we regrouped and marched on the front gate behind a banner that
read "NONVIOLENT RESISTANCE CONTINUES!" complete with drums, singing and a
huge peace bird.  Twelve folks were arrested re-delivering the indictment.
To be continued... 
Ciaron O'Reilly
03810-052,
Reeves County Law Centre,
PO Box 1560, TX  79772  USA.