Drone Trial Day 2, With a Verdict by Steve Clemens. June 29, 2014
The jury was out for only 30 minutes – the shortest
deliberation I’ve experienced in at least 7 other jury trials. When Judge
William Price made clear before the noon break that he wouldn’t permit jury
instructions which would allow jurors to consider our justification, it was
almost certain to me that we would be convicted. That is why we had started out
day 2 of our St. Patrick’s Day 7 Drone Protest trial with what is referred to
as an “offer of proof”.
Out of the presence of a jury, the offer of proof is
testimony submitted for the record which could be used in the appeal of a case of
testimony which is disallowed in the official “evidence” the jury considers in
rendering their verdict. Michele Naar Obed was sworn in (actually she affirmed
rather than swore the oath which was to tell the truth – but not necessarily
the “whole truth”) and took the stand to tell part of her story. She lived in
Iraq for three years, working with Christian Peacemaker Teams, first in Baghdad
and then in the Kurdish region in the north. She joined CPT realizing saying
“No” to war was not enough – she wanted to say “Yes” to something that worked
to prevent war and heal its wounds. She told the judge, “I have witnessed
drones flying over northern Iraq and I’ve met [extended] family members where
an entire family with 5 children were killed in their car after visiting family
members in the mountains by a missile fired by a drone. She met another mother
whose child was only “pieces” and asked “how can I bury her with so little
left?” That woman grabbed Michele’s arm, knowing she was an American, telling
her, “Can’t you tell people [in your country] to stop this?” She told the Judge
she “has taken numerous opportunities to try to deliver that message from this
Kurdish woman and when this [nonviolent] action was proposed, I felt I needed
to try to talk about it [to members of the military at the airbase.”
Elliott Adams, followed her powerful testimony with his own.
He described volunteering for Vietnam as a paratrooper and had also served in
the U.S. Military in Korea and Alaska. After his military service, he traveled
to several war zones, including Panama, Gaza, and Grenada to talk to others and
see for himself the realities of war. He served in public office for about 15
years, worked in the Fire Department, served on the School Board, done many
things in a life-long effort to make this a better world.
“I took an oath to
defend the US Constitution when I entered the military … and [that oath] has no
expiration date. … I went to the Iowa National Guard Base to uphold the law. …
to exercise my First Amendment rights and to petition my Government for a
redress of grievances. … The rulings of the Nuremberg Tribunals obligates me to
act. … Article 6 of the Us Constitution … and Supreme Court decisions uphold
International Law as part of our own law.” He went on to cite several US
Supreme Court decisions about the relevancy of International Law and referred
to the Law of War and the illegality of indiscriminate weapons. He then added
that drones also violate US laws as well, citing the War Crimes Act. He
referenced the Geneva Accords. As a treaty signed by our government, “It is
part of our law, not separate from US law, and it applies in every court.”
His voice cracked and quieted considerably when he got more
personal: “When I was in Vietnam, I was tested about whether I would follow
small laws – orders from my [military] officers – or follow the big laws,”
referring to International laws and norms about warfare. “And I followed the small laws.
If someone had warned me, I might not have crossed that line.” [Referring to that line between acting morally
and what has now haunted him for decades since his time in Vietnam – not
crossing a property line at the National Guard base.] “I needed to warn my fellow
brothers and sisters.”
The former National President of Veterans For Peace, Elliott
Adams, began to list all the ways he’s tried to deliver the message including
writing letters to Congress, the President, to the editor. He’s testified
before Congress. “The Nuremberg Principles 4 and 7 say I must act.” He
described the Hellfire missile [fired by military drones] as equal to 14 sticks
of dynamite; it is by it’s nature indiscriminate. Where they are exploded will
have “collateral damage.”
He concluded with a plea to the Judge, asking rhetorically, “Where should I try to seek a redress of
grievances? At a Starbucks?, at the Salvation Army?, the Post Office since it
is a Federal facility? – No, the air base [where these weapons will be operated
from].” He lamented the fact that according to the rules of war, if
military drones are “piloted” from this Des Moines airbase, this area will
become a legitimate military target.
Other defendants were willing to add to the “Offer of Proof”
but our lawyers felt this powerful testimony was enough to lay an adequate
basis for a future appeal if we decide to go that route. At that point, 8:50 in
the morning, the State rested its case and our lawyers entered their motion for
a directed verdict of acquittal on two grounds: the State’s witnesses didn’t
know exactly where the property line was for the base, claiming it was the
responsibility of the Civil Engineers; and, the defendants attempted to raise a
justification and the State’s evidence did not show we didn’t have
justification.
The Prosecutor claimed he just needed to establish the
elements of the trespass defense and argued that “without justification” is not
an element unless it is recognized by the court as an affirmative defense. He
stated they had “proven it was private property” and the Major testified they
were at least “50 yards past [the painted line].”
Judge Price said “when someone is there to petition the
government, just having [military] officers telling them to leave is not
sufficient.” He went on to point out that we were advised to leave by both the
military and the Des Moines Police, saying he felt this was sufficient evidence
to give the decision to the jury. “At this point, no justification has been
raised [since the offer of proof was not delivered before the jury]. The State
can’t anticipate all possible defenses. …Reasonable minds can differ on this.”
He stated the case should continue to go to the jury and dismissed the Motion
to Dismiss. He said both Michele and Elliott could testify about their personal
backgrounds and history but his ruling on the Motion in Limine would continue
meaning they couldn’t talk about their “philosophical beliefs” in describing
their attempts to deliver it [our letter of indictment] to the military.
“The place to petition the Government is not in this Courtroom but
rather the halls of Congress and on the streets of America. It does not give
rise to justification to being in a particular place,” the Judge
stated. Funny, but I was always taught
in high school civics that the Judiciary was a third and co-equal branch of
Government and all three should be held responsible for the failings and
oversights and excesses of the other two. I guess not in his courtroom!
The Judge had previously noted that some law students
serving as interns at the Iowa Appeals Court were present to observe and looked
at them when he remarked wryly, “The Appellate Court has given us no guidance
in this matter,” referring to the “without justification” language in the
trespass law. After the Prosecutor remarked, “We’re not here to punish speech
but to punish conduct. We’re not here about the First Amendment,” Michele said,
“I have a question. If we carried chains and a lock [to lock the gates of the
airbase closed], would the Prosecutor try to use that as evidence against us?”
after the Judge stated he would not allow the letter of indictment we carried
into evidence. The Judge allowed that we would be permitted to say our intent
was to present that document but said what we carried “was a slippery slope.
You could carry a book [and what it to be submitted as “evidence” for the jury
to consider].” As a sop to the defendants for ruling against all our other
motions, he did allow the photos we carried or had taped to our bodies as
evidence – over the objections of the Prosecutor.
When the jury entered the room at 9:40, the State officially
rested its case and our defense was allowed to begin. Ruth Cole, a 26-year old
member of the Rye House Catholic Worker Community in Minneapolis was the first
on the stand even though this was her first trial! She talked about her
education in the field of Early Childhood Education, teaching in elementary
school and her special interest in helping children suffering from childhood
trauma. She described the Catholic Worker values and commitment to hospitality
as well as advocacy. She said their goal was to “live your life in a way that
creates social justice.” When asked by the Prosecutor [attempting to defeat any
“necessity defense”] if she felt in imminent danger while at the airbase, Ruth
was clear with conviction in her answer: “I represent more than myself, … my
“body” was not in danger but I am connected to others who are.” I was so proud
to hear a first-timer when pressed in court to have such an insightful answer.
Julie Brown, a Des Moines Catholic Worker, skated as close
as she dared to the Judge’s “philosophical” line when she asked, “How can you
mourn your own child who is now just in small pieces?” She told the jury she
carried the photo of a child who had been killed in a drone strike “in case
they [the military personnel] wouldn’t talk to me. I had to find another way to
communicate my message.”
Elliott Adams described his military and post-military
experience when questioned by our lawyer. After saying he “felt obligated to go
to the base to prevent war crimes; it is my responsibility as a citizen,” he
was prevented by the Judge from talking about his belief of “small laws” versus
“big laws”. He told the jury he was open to more suggestions about ways he
could petition his government, recognizing that this Judge wasn’t interested in
performing that function in this trial.
Chet Guinn, a retired Methodist minister, had worked for the
church for 44 years and continues to function in ecumenical and interfaith
circles. When he attempted to read an excerpt of a statement from the World
Council of Churches condemning military drones, he was prevented from doing so
by the Prosecutor’s objection. Stating that his birthday was only 6 months different
from Martin Luther King, he claimed, “I wanted to inject King’s values into our
society today.” As soon as he tried to continue that he believed King would be
protesting drones with us today, he was cut off and he wasn’t able to continue
about his wealth of experience during Freedom Summer 60 years ago and his
life-long work for peace and justice. It was an honor to have this man with us.
He told us during our trial prep gathering, “I know I came late [to the
demonstration] but I felt it was necessary to have the church present.”
Michele Naar Obed told of her degree in medical pathology as
well as her commitment to nonviolence. She told of her decision to join
Christian Peacemaker Teams and spending 3 years in Iraq during the recent war.
However, she was cut off and not allowed to talk about her witnessing the use
of drones and meeting with victims’ families when the Judge ruled in favor of
the Prosecutor’s objections.
Eddie Bloomer, another military veteran and member of Vets
for Peace told how he has been a member of the Des Moines Catholic Worker
family for 21 years. “As a former member of the military, I love my country,”
he stated while trying to explain his participation that cold St. Patrick’s Day
morning last March.
The Judge called a recess at 10:40, leaving me as the final
defense witness. When I got to the stand 15 minutes later, when asked by our
lawyer what I carried with me that day, I showed the indictment, and described
the blue scarf I wore that day, saying it had been given to me by friends in
Afghanistan. I then held up the large photo of Abdulhai that I carried and told
the jury he and his friends gave me a letter to carry back to the US to deliver
to the President via Keith Ellison, my Congressman, three years ago this
Spring. It called on our President (and all other combatants) to end the use of
military means and use diplomacy instead. They have never heard back from
either the Congressman or the President. I wanted to carry their message to the
airbase that morning. I also talked about 4 presentations by a Pakistani
Federal Police Officer, Mubarak Zeb, who described how drones make his law
enforcement job much more difficult in his home country, especially in the
tribal areas.
The lawyers and Judge discussed jury instructions while five
of the defendants went to lunch with some local supporters. After lunch,
despite our objections, the Judge allowed the State to present a rebuttal
witness – a Lt. Colonel who is the Base Civil Engineer to officially establish
the base property line. Although none of us testified in any official capacity
as to where the property line was, thus no “rebuttal” was warranted, The Judge
let him say the property line was 70’-80’ from the fence (not the more than 50
yards testified to the day before by the Major) but he had to admit on cross
examination that all of the “Federal Property” keep out signs were posted on
the fence and gate, a line we did not cross.
The closing statements were next and jurors were forbidden
from taking any notes during them “since they aren’t evidence.” The Prosecutor
said “This isn’t the ‘Crime of the Century’ but it is a crime. It is not less
of a crime if no one is hurt. … Liberty can only be maintained when laws are
enforced. …Motives are immaterial to the fact that they [broke the law].”
Michele quoted from the Bible where she said she was instructed that if she had
a disagreement with a brother or sister to go to them directly, then go with
another, before you go to court. That was what she was trying to do in speaking
directly to the National Guard. “Which is more important,” she asked, “property
or life? We came to humanize, to bring life, to bring hope. We walked down that
drive to change hearts and minds of the people behind that fence. We tried to
uphold the Spirit of the law.”
Elliott told the jury that he remains haunted from his experience
in Vietnam because he followed only the “small laws.” Glenn Downey, one of our
pro-bono lawyers concluded by again talking about lines and boundaries.
Finally, in rebuttal, another Prosecutor said they [the State] must prove 3
elements of trespass – “everything else is smoke and mirrors. … The only thing
that matters is that they were on that property. We need to take all laws
seriously. They chose to get arrested.” No word, apparently that, for him or
the State, “all laws” might include the “bigger laws,” International Law, which
Elliott and others of us wish the court (and jury) would address.
30 minutes later we had our answer and off we went to jail
for reasons of conscience and compassion.
