Anti-torture activists on trial

[depakid]

Source: Washington Examiner

WASHINGTON — Anti-torture activists who were arrested earlier this year at the U.S. Capitol say they will tell a judge they had no choice but to resort to such action.

Twenty-seven members of Witness Against Torture were arrested at the Capitol on Jan. 21 as they called for President Barack Obama to shut down the Guantanamo Bay prison.

At their trial on Monday for unlawful entry charges in Washington, activists say they plan to use a "necessity defense" — arguing they broke the law because they had exhausted all legal means of opposing the continued detention of terror suspects at Guantanamo.


Read more: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/breaking/anti-torture-activists-on-trial-96283673.html

---

A bit more on the trial from the Institute of Public Accuracy:

http://www.accuracy.org/newsrelease.php?articleId=2266">"What's Wrong With This Picture?": Prosecuting Torture Protesters -- Not Perpetrators

[Ozymanithrax]

1. I understand how they feel. They've taken a brave stand..

but the necessity defense did not work for Scott Roeder. I doubt it will work here

[Robb]

2. Agreed, on all counts.

Importantly, it's in the news. And that's the real idea, IMO.

[Soylent Brice]

3. i fail to follow.

Scott Roeder is a murderer.

these people are protesting torture.

:shrug:

how are these two things even remotely comparable aside from the defense they are using?

i do agree, though, it is a brave stance they have taken.
i'm of the mind that they are willing to do time for their offense, all things considered.

[Ozymanithrax]

9. It is the defense they are using. Roeder's defense hinged on the idea..

that babies were imminently in danger and he was just saving their lives. The defense did not hold up, in part because he was attempting to stop a legal act.

These people chose non-violent non-compliance of the law to make their very important point. But whether the defense holds merit is going to come down to whether there was a immanent danger and if laws were really broken. Gitmo's prison should be closed, but it is still considered legal under U.S. code.

These people chose to violate the law for good reason. Fortunately, the punishment will only be a fine or some small slap on the wrist. It is my hope they will go out and do it again until the damned place is closed.

[Soylent Brice]

15. i understood the parallel you were drawing, just didn't understand why you

were using that example.

in any case i completely agree with your entire 3rd paragraph.
:)

[fascisthunter]

5. How can you compare Roeder, a Murderer to Peace Activists

protesting torture?

[Ozymanithrax]

10. It is the defense that I'm comparing, not the act.

As long as Gitmo and what happens there is protected under the cloak of law, this defense will probably found without merit.

That just means when they get out, they should go out and do it again to keep the issue in the open.

[fascisthunter]

14. ah... thank you for that

[24601]

25. Like activists who spike trees, endangering the lives of union

(as well as any non-union) lumberjacks?

This is why the law focuses on intent to commit an act rather than the motive for the end-result.

[sabrina 1]

7. Can you explain how Scott Roeder remotely

compares to people who are attempting to get their government to uphold the law? You do know that torture is illegal in this country don't you? I can understand anyone forgetting that as our President thinks we should just forget about it and look to the future. But it is still illegal and no one is being held accountable for it. Your example of Scott Roeder makes zero sense.

[Ozymanithrax]

11. They are using the same defense. It did no work for him...

What they are protesting is still covered by the cloak of law. There was no imminent danger. I suspect they will be convicted. Then they should go out and do it again.

[sabrina 1]

13. They were charged with unlawful entry

Their attorney said they were in public place:

Their trial on unlawful entry charges is scheduled to begin Monday in D.C. Superior Court.

Defense attorney Bill Quigley says protesters were in a public place exercising their right to free speech.

I think the outcome will depend on whether or not they were in a public place.

They are using the other part of the defense to draw attention to the Torture Crimes imo. Also, it is not the same defense. They were trying to prevent crimes against humanity. He was trying to defend being a murderer by claiming he was trying to prevent it. That defense made no sense.. If they had attacked or killed someone, then it would be the 'same defense'.

But if the judge believes they were in a public place, all charges will be dismissed.

[Ozymanithrax]

16. You are pointing at their intent and the different crime, not at the defense...

The other dude believe sincerly that he was saving babies lives. He was deluded, but that was his belief. The question in the court will be if what they were protest is legal, and from what I've seen it is. Was anybody under an iminent threat. That will probably be a no.

What they did was right. But, I don't think their defense will work.

[sabrina 1]

18. A lot of murderers believe they were justified

for the crime they committed. But no matter what someone's motive may be, no matter how high-minded it appears to be, once they do harm to others, that changes everything.

Otoh, if the crime was just trespassing and the motive is good, a jury or judge may weigh the good against the minor crime. But if they commit murder, the good will be far out-weighed by the magnitude of the crime. I would prefer a jury for a case like this. They tend to be more logical about these matters. And, it still all comes down to whether or not they were on public property.

[boppers]

19. "torture is illegal in this country"? er, no.

There are both legal, and illegal, things considered "torture" in the United States.

For example, ritualistic sleep deprivation is not only normal, but considered a required practice, to become a medical doctor, or a soldier. Human experimentation is part of being an astronaut. Waterboarding is part of becoming a SEAL. Simulated drowning (in many forms) is part of our religions, as is the removal of body parts. Forcing our children into physically stressful situations is not only habitual, but it's celebrated, and we call it "sport".

We torture people all the time, and then act horrified when it's done by our military, instead of our corporations, our churches, our schools.

[Bragi]

4. Sadly, this makes pefect sense.

I see no reason why, in today's America, people protesting against torture would not end up on the wrong side of the law. The system is working as intended.

[azul]

6. Topsy-turvey world injustice needs bruiting .

When people take a stand for justice denied, and become casualties of same corrupted faux-justice machine, the least the media can do is squawk, really loudly.

It's not about technicalities or personalities, it's the overall picture of justice that has lost integrity and transparency by being thus be-smirched.

[No Elephants]

8. sadly. taking a brave stand means that you may suffer negative consequences,

that's what makes it a "brave" stand, as opposed to simply a stand.

[Solly Mack]

12. K&R

shaking head

[defendandprotect]

17. And we'll never see the torturers or those who approved it on trial . . !!

[harry_pothead]

20. They were acquitted.

In a motion granted by the judge.

[depakid]

21. Not much media play- so not sure on what grounds- but they surely were acquitted

A judge has acquitted two dozen anti-torture activists who were arrested at the U.S. Capitol.

Members of Witness Against Torture were arrested at the Capitol on Jan. 21 as they called on President Barack Obama to shut down the Guantanamo Bay prison.

Their trial on unlawful entry charges was held Monday in D.C. Superior Court. Most of the activists wore black shirts as they sat in the courtroom for their bench trial.

Judge Russell Canan granted a motion for judgment of acquittal, dropping charges against all 24 defendants after federal prosecutors presented their case.

Jeremy Varon, a spokesman for the group, said they consider it a victory for free speech.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/wire/sns-ap-us-guantanamo-rally-trial,0,6467797.story

Kind of begs the question re: what would a jury have done?

[harry_pothead]

22. 9 vote to acquit, and the 3 teabaggers vote to send them to a labor camp for treason

So a hung jury.

[24601]

23. BS - you always have a choice. Even is someone is holding a

gun to your head, you still have a choice and just have to consider consequences. They didn't exhaust ALL their options - for example that could run their own candidate for President on the "free all the Gitmo detainees" platform. Then the people could decide. They went this route because they knew they had scant support and would lose their fight if they stayed in the legal lane.

[depakid]

24. I knew we'd get a torture supporter chiming in!

Nicely done.

Our readers from abroad need very much to see that.

[24601]

26. I knew we'd get someone supporting anti-choice chiming in!

So don't put torture words in my mouth - they are not there and you know it. I posted about our freedom to choose and accepting consequences when we do. I'm banking that our readers abroad are smart enough to understand that inherently and don't infer that our nation leaves people without choices. It's the occasional domestic reader I worry about.

[Ignis]

27. "they knew they had scant support"

What a steaming pantload. :thumbsdown:

Torture is one of the issues that cost the Republicans so many seats in '08.

[24601]

28. Then explain why if dealing from a position of strength, with the

support you imply, they had to resort to getting arrested at the Capitol. Why did they say they had no choice if all they had to do was wave their public support numbers and Congress would do exactly as they demanded?

[Ignis]

29. I invite you to study the "False Dilemma" fallacy.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=false+dilemma&l=1