Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Editorials & Other Articles
Showing Original Post only (View all)Kangaroo Court Looming for Y-12 Nuclear Weapons Critics [View all]
Three disarmament radicals that snuck into the Y-12 nuclear weapons complex last summer are preparing for their February 2013 trial, and face the prospect that any mention of nuclear weapons will be forbidden.
Y-12 is the 811-acre site in Oak Ridge, Tenn. thats been building H-bombs and contaminating workers and the environment since 1943. On July 28, Sr. Megan Rice, Michael Walli and Greg Boertje-Obed snipped through fences and walked up to the new Highly Enriched Uranium Materials Facility building. They unfurled banners, spray-painted the building with phrases such as Woe to the empire of blood, poured blood, prayed and broke bread.
Now they face felony charges that carry a maximum of $500,000 in fines and 15 years in prison. Additionally, in what looks like an attempt to scare them into pleading guilty now, federal prosecutors have mentioned bringing two heavier charges, including sabotage during wartime, which together carry up to 50 years imprisonment.
As with previous cases of symbolic damage to nuclear war systems, a kangaroo court is being arranged in advance. If the government gets its way again, the trial judge will keep facts about nuclear weapons away from the jurors and make sure that questions about the bombs outlaw status are left out of jury instructions. Instructions are the jurors marching orders, the last thing they hear before starting deliberations.
...
via: http://www.zcommunications.org/kangaroo-court-looming-for-y-12-nuclear-weapons-critics-by-john-laforge
Y-12 is the 811-acre site in Oak Ridge, Tenn. thats been building H-bombs and contaminating workers and the environment since 1943. On July 28, Sr. Megan Rice, Michael Walli and Greg Boertje-Obed snipped through fences and walked up to the new Highly Enriched Uranium Materials Facility building. They unfurled banners, spray-painted the building with phrases such as Woe to the empire of blood, poured blood, prayed and broke bread.
Now they face felony charges that carry a maximum of $500,000 in fines and 15 years in prison. Additionally, in what looks like an attempt to scare them into pleading guilty now, federal prosecutors have mentioned bringing two heavier charges, including sabotage during wartime, which together carry up to 50 years imprisonment.
As with previous cases of symbolic damage to nuclear war systems, a kangaroo court is being arranged in advance. If the government gets its way again, the trial judge will keep facts about nuclear weapons away from the jurors and make sure that questions about the bombs outlaw status are left out of jury instructions. Instructions are the jurors marching orders, the last thing they hear before starting deliberations.
...
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
53 replies, 6201 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (8)
ReplyReply to this post
53 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Should their motives be allowed in the defense? The fact that they did it as
limpyhobbler
Nov 2012
#2
So you support a gag order that forbids them from stating their motives in the crime.
limpyhobbler
Nov 2012
#4
So you support gagging these protesters from raising their MOTIVES as part of their defense.
limpyhobbler
Nov 2012
#6
I didn't say any of those things. Only that they should be able to speak in their own defense.
limpyhobbler
Nov 2012
#10
The difference in our worldviews seems to be that I play by the rules...
a geek named Bob
Nov 2012
#41
You seem to be willing to allow "noble reasons" to mitigate/abrogate the law.
a geek named Bob
Nov 2012
#45
maybe the judge doesn't want to say "national security," to avoid a media spectacle...
a geek named Bob
Nov 2012
#23
If the prosecution tried to stop the affirmative defense based on a national security claim,
limpyhobbler
Nov 2012
#31
The only thing I'm talking about is whether they should be able to present an affirmative defense.
limpyhobbler
Nov 2012
#37
but the article wouldn't rouse the populace (as much) without the "kangaroo" phrase... n/t
a geek named Bob
Nov 2012
#13
What do you do when society's ostensible leaders are willing to ignore the laws of the land?
PETRUS
Nov 2012
#40
Personally, I want to see Elizabeth Warren lead an Untouchables style raid on Wall street...
a geek named Bob
Nov 2012
#47