HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Hancock 15 Drone Resister...

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 10:28 AM

Hancock 15 Drone Resisters Found Guilty

Syracuse. Last night, in DeWitt Town Court,
in a swift four and a half hour trial, Judge Jokl found
eleven of the original fifteen protesters of Reaper drones,
guilty of trespass. Hancock Air National Guard Base is
home of the MQ-9 Reaper drone maintenance and training
center, adjacent to Syracuse Airport where soldiers pilot
drones used in the extra judicial killings in Afghanistan.

The eleven pro se* defendants argued that their action of
civil resistance, of blocking the front gate of the base,
on June 28th, was two fold.
First, to present grievances to the government by delivering
a War Crimes Indictment, co-authored by former
Attorney General of the U.S., Ramsey Clark, indicting

Hancock base personnel, up their chain of command

to President Obama, of war crimes. Second, to prevent

war crimes of: extra judicial killings, killing of innocent civilians,
wars of aggressions, and the violation of
national sovereignty.

Defendants argued that civil resistance is upholding
law, as opposed to civil disobedience which is about
changing laws as was done during the civil rights era,
through protest.

This action was done in accordance with
customary law, which prohibits acts of aggression by all nations.

In his closing argument John Hamilton said,
"There is no exception anywhere, for you, for me, for anyone
from this overarching legal certainty: acts of aggression are always
and everywhere illegal, and must not by ignored by the courts.
Extra-judicial murder must be called out and stopped." Using the
analogy of extra judicial killings by lynching of African Americans
throughout US history, Hamilton stated, "We ask that you take a bold step
tonight to end lynching, not in some backwood Alabama town in 1912,
but here in Dewitt in 2012. We ask you to find us not guilty of the (trespass) charges.

In Daniel Burgevin's closing, he stated,
"I am innocent of trespass. The unlawfulness of trespass is when a hellfire
missile enters through the roof of a family's home, exploding and spreading
fire and shards of metal through the bodies of the family living inside. ...
That is the unlawfulness and the criminality of trespass."

Judge Jokl did not allow the war crimes indictment into evidence, thus

limiting his scope of interpretation to NY State law.
Within ten minutes of deliberation the j udge found the eleven guilty.

The judge sentenced Ed Kinane and Rae Kramer,
of Syracuse, Clare and Ellen Grady, and James Ricks of Ithaca,
to 15 days in jail.

Dan Burgevin, Dave McClallen and Nate Lewis of Trumansburg,
George and Judy Homanich of Binghamton, and John Hamilton of
Ithaca, were all given fines and community service and one year
conditional discharge.

Last night Ed Kinane and James Ricks started their 15 day sentence in
Onondaga County Jail. The other three report to jail at 5 pm
on January 11th, 2012.

On January 10th, 2013, two groups of drone protesters will
be in De Witt Town Court to argue motions with their trial
dates to be announced possibly that night. On Oct. 25th, 2012,
the protesters closed all three gates of the base, blockading it,
for two hours and forty minutes.

An order of protection was signed by Judge Jokl on behalf of
Col. Earl A. Evans, preventing protesters from going near his
"place of employment", or face the penalty of seven years in prison.


3 replies, 526 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 3 replies Author Time Post
Reply Hancock 15 Drone Resisters Found Guilty (Original post)
Earth_First Dec 2012 OP
rug Dec 2012 #1
Earth_First Dec 2012 #2
rug Dec 2012 #3

Response to Earth_First (Original post)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 10:30 AM

1. Why are they representing themselves?


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to rug (Reply #1)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 10:35 AM

2. I'll admit, I am not thrilled to see a pro se defense here...

It certainly opens up potential hurdles in future cases by missteps taken in a pro se defense.

My thoughts are, however that it was probably done as a matter of moral defense in their opposition to drone technology; however again, potentially shortsighted for future cases.

At any rate, however...kudos to these activists for taking the courage to stand up to the DoD and their drone weapon program.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Earth_First (Reply #2)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 10:44 AM

3. I agree. I admire their standing up to this.


A lawyer might use technical defenses, rather than a moral one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread