Guilty!
Print Friendly Version| On the Road to Peace by John Dear S.J. | Tuesday, Sept. 11, 2007 |
| Vol. 2, No. 3 |
On Sept. 6, a federal judge in Albuquerque, N.M. found six of us guilty for trying to visit the office of our senator. We will be sentenced in a few weeks. The message? It is a federal crime to attempt to speak to an elected representative about the U.S. war on Iraq. Don't visit your senator. Don't get involved. Don't speak out. Don't take a stand for peace -- or you too may end up in jail.
It all started one year ago, Sept. 26, 2006, when nine of us entered the Federal Building in Santa Fe, N.M., and tried to take the elevator to the third floor to the office of Sen. Pete Domenici to present him with a copy of the "Declaration of Peace," a national petition campaign aimed at stopping the U.S. war on Iraq, bringing our troops home, and pursuing nonviolent alternatives and reparations. More than 375 similar actions took place across the nation that week.
The senator's office manager came downstairs, said she would only allow three of us upstairs, and after 45 minutes of waiting and negotiations, we nine just decided to go upstairs, figuring we had a right as group of constituents to deliver our petition to the senator's office.
As we stepped onto the elevator, a policeman put his foot in the door, and the next thing we knew, the power was turned off. So there we stayed -- for some six hours. At one point, a police officer brought over a chair for one elderly member of our group who uses metal crutches. It seemed the officer was inviting us to make ourselves at home. He even said he supported our anti-war stand.
By the end of that memorable day, with over 20 police officers, SWAT teams, and FBI officials standing in the lobby, the Homeland Security director told us we had the choice to be arrested, jailed and tried, or cited and tried. He never gave us a warning, never told us to leave, never read us our rights. We took the citations, and for the past year, have been in and out of court, waiting to testify about our attempt to visit the senator's office.
The prosecution would hear none of it. As far as the prosecutor was concerned, we went there to disrupt the Federal Building and shut down the elevator. He seemed to think we liked being in an elevator. He, of course, had been a Marine for decades, and now commands a National Guard unit, and was just back two days before the trial from directing military operations in Colorado Springs, Colo. To testify against us, he called the police and the senator's assistant. They said we had plenty of warning, said we threatened to do a sit in, and said we disrupted the government's office work.
| |||
Then it was our turn. One by one we took the stand -- Philip, Michella, Sansi, Ellie, Bud and me. Our excellent pro bono lawyers, Todd Hotchkiss and Penni Adrian, asked us why we went to the Federal Building and what happened. We each testified that we intended to bring a copy of the "Declaration of Peace" statement to the senator's office, in the hope that it could be faxed to him, that he would sign it, and that he would work to stop this evil war.
During my testimony, I was asked about the lists of names I brought with me that day. I had printed out the name of every U.S. soldier killed in Iraq and some 10,000 Iraqi civilians killed, and said I thought they would help remind us why we were there, that perhaps we might leave them with the senator's staff. The judge interrupted me and asked if I carried those names around with me all the time. While unfortunately it's now all too common for many of us to spend our time at demonstrations reading the names of the dead, I held back from saying, "Yes, don't you? Don't you care about the U.S. soldiers who've been killed, and the countless, innocent Iraqi civilians killed?" Instead, I said I always carried with me information about the war and how to stop it.
It was a grueling, exhausting eight-hour day. At the end, the judge returned with his verdict but then launched into a speech explaining why he believed the police and the senator's staff person, and not us, particularly, not me. He said the fact that I carried with me the names of every U.S. soldier killed and 10,000 Iraqi civilians killed proved I intended to be there a long time, and shut down business in the Federal Building. He basically called us all liars, and defended the government's evil war.
I'm not so sure that on the day one year ago I did intend to shut the Federal Building down, as noble a nonviolent act that might be in such times. Only a few months before, I took a group to meet with Gov. Bill Richardson, and he received us warmly, and let me speak for 20 minutes about why he should work to end the war on Iraq, disarm Los Alamos and abolish our nuclear weapons, and end the death penalty in New Mexico. I didn't rule out the possibility that in fact Domenici's staff might be willing to hear us. In the end, however, the police themselves disrupted business as usual. They turned off the elevator. They shut down the Federal Building. They prevented us from visiting our elected representative's office.
So what do we learn from this experience? What is the message from Federal Court in New Mexico? I suppose it's this: Anyone who dares visit their senator to speak against this evil war is liable of a federal crime. Don't presume you have any rights in this so-called democracy.
The judge said he would sentence us within 30 days, so there's more to come. He asked each of us to submit a statement to him. We face 30 days in jail and a $5,000 fine, which I certainly won't pay.
Meanwhile, the real crime continues, and the real criminals get away with mass murder, with the crucial, full backing of our courts. The war goes on, the killings go on, and the lives of our sisters and brothers in Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine and elsewhere are shattered. Our government, in its race to become a global empire, has sunk to all new levels of corruption, lying, repression and old fashioned hubris. Our task is permanent nonviolent resistance against the culture of war; nonviolence as a way of life; full-time non-cooperation with violence, war, and empire; pursuing peace as if our very lives depend on it.
All things considered, then, it's a great blessing to be found guilty of speaking out against this evil war. I hope more and more people will write their senators and congress people, especially Sen. Pete Domenici of New Mexico, and demand that they end this war; that more and more people will sign up at wwwdeclarationofpeace.org and keep building the movement against this war; that more and more people will march for peace, vigil for peace, organize for peace, agitate for peace, speak out for peace, fast for peace, cross the line for peace, pray for peace, and find themselves guilty of pursuing a new world without war, standing beside Jesus who was also arrested, tried, and condemned for pursuing justice and peace.
In such times as these, there may be no greater blessing.
| Archives | Signup for Weekly E-mail |
John Dear's new book, Transfiguration (Doubleday, with a foreword by Archbishop Desmond Tutu) is available on line or from your local bookstore. John is featured in a new DVD, "The Narrow Path," with music by Joan Baez and Jackson Browne (Find it at www.sandamianofoundation.org). He lives in northern New Mexico. For information, see: www.fatherjohndear.org.
"Common people who are not
"Common people who are not directly involved in social debates and political conflicts have their lives to live, they become angry at those who are disturbing their lives or damaging property that has to be repaired using public funds. Thus the average person, whose support is often necessary for lasting success, is alienated. Rather than leading to a resolution, they escalate the conflict and create more deeply entrenched opponents." (Legacy of Love by Arun Gandhi – page 132)
It seems to me that Arund Gandhi’s statement applies to John Dear’s protest.
Please clarify what you
Please clarify what you mean, instead of quoting Gandhi.
Are you saying John Dear, SJ was disturbing the public space and therefore brought this reaction to his behavior on to himself from the police and the judge at the court?
If so, it is not clear how a citizen practices being a democratic member of the society?
Irene
I tend to agree with Mr.
I tend to agree with Mr. Horan that Fr. Dear's actions may do more to repel support than they do to rally support against the war. It seems obvious that Fr. Dear got exactly the attention he was seeking. He desires to have an injustice perpetrated against him in order to discredit those with whom he has a disagreement on another matter (the war).
A citizen can be more effective in a democracy when he or she exhibits a clear willingness to back away from confrontation and by taking pains to be nonthreatening toward those with whom he or she disagrees. This is called being civil and is the premise of the saying that one can catch more flies with honey.
Which is sometimes effective
Which is sometimes effective and sometimes not.
Didn't they try this in
Didn't they try this in Bavaria, say around 1939 ?
Beauty is not opposed to truth. It is simply truth in its most attractive form.
Does Fr. Dear's approach
Does Fr. Dear's approach work? How long have people been demonstrating against the war? I think it started before the invasion, and it's been disregarded. It will continue to be disregarded, particularly now since there is some concern that withdrawing will result in more violence than staying will. Accusatory behavior rarely convinces the accused to consider an alternative.
It worked for Gandhi and
It worked for Gandhi and King.
Frannie, Ghandi and King
Frannie,
Ghandi and King were protesting social oppression. Iraq in particular and war in general are just a different kind of issue. Declaring the government to be an enemy of the people because one representative may have treated one group of voluntarily allied protestors unjustly on one occasion is not enough to convince people that their government is wrong about war.
It's sometimes very
It's sometimes very difficult to say "what works." In fact, there has been very little in the way of public demonstration at all in this war, which seems to have little to do with what people think about this war. I suspect it has a lot to do with protest fatigue, since we do manage to find our way into one war or another pretty frequently; we have a lot of "interests." And certainly with the lack of a draft, which, if present, would turn this war pretty quickly.
There are those who feel the extensive protests against the vietnam war shortened its life. There's an opposite critique which says that they extended the war, or at least had little effect on its duration. I tend to think the discomfort caused by protests tend to shorten unnecessary wars because of their impact on groupthink (which was such a factor in this war) and allow space for the middle views. While I do think there's reason to suggest that "accusatory behavior rarely convinces the accused to consider an alternative," I suspect that has more to do with personal relations and less to do with the public discourse. In this case, protests seem to have opened up the middle space in an overwhelming "groupthink" environment, and when it comes to wars, that would seem to be a necessary, and perhaps prophetic, voice. People who feel the need to do something more are often just right to do something more; in this present instance, they may speak well for others who aren't doing the same thing.
The knowledge that getting into this war was going to create an inability to get out of this war was clearly spoken in my own smart but humble household and well known to insiders and experts, and even the politicos involved in running the administration (there is a great clip of Dick Cheney explaining why this kind of war would be a fatal error that you might want to view sometime.). I happen to agree that we have created the moral quicksand that will take us generations of struggle to move past, well or poorly. God clearly was not on our side in creating this one, but will nevertheless be with us as we struggle to find some justice in our way through it. We will have different responses to that call, but can hope that the different responses get us through somehow more thoughtfully and prayerfully than how we got into it.
Once again I am reminded
Once again I am reminded that the teachings of Jesus doesn't mean much to "Christians".
I thought it was a novelty when Dan and Philip Berrigan and Sister Elizabeth McAllister were arrested for burning draft card files in Catonsville. After that war ended I thought that America had learned Christians could not support war.
I have lost faith with the Church. It seems to me that the teachings faith and morals are more important than whether Jesus' mother was immaculately conceived or was assumed into Heaven. Why, if the church teaches that the pope is infallible that the church hasn't made more important statements.
Peace!
Having stumbled onto this
Having stumbled onto this page and your comments, I would agree that the church tends toward its clearest statements in matters that are often less than relevant to the bigger issues of the times. Its long and substantial comments on social justice issues tend to be put aside by many in church and society because they are not sexual or sexy, and sexual and sexy always sells. But the church doesn't actually teach papal infallibility to the extent that many people on here believe. It is only a carefully circumscribed area of faith and morals, with clear declaration of intent, that is involved in the promulgation of infallibility. Given the church's difficulties in its interface with social/political issues, it may be just as well that it mutes its own voice. Universal statements, given the diverse and multiple social and political realities in the world, would be fraught with even more peril, would rarely be listened to, and would be so diluted as to be insufficient for any statement of infallibility.
I am disappointed that the
I am disappointed that the Senator did not allow people to express their views. He could have given the group a time limit and required that they stick to it as a pre-condition for meeting with him or a member of his staff. He also could have asked them to schedule an appointment at a future date. Then it would've have been up to the group to decide whether or not it was worth the wait.
The Senator's actions directly exacerbated a situation that could have been resolved peacefully. It shows weakness, especially in the area of negotiation. I am glad there were witnesses to the peaceful nature of the protestors. I hope the Senator will reconsider his actions and justice will be served.
We need to continue working for peace and we need to continue to support each other, sharing ideas for better ways to enable our voices to be heard.
Peace be with all of you.
PS. Thank you for speaking out against the war. Too many people are under the impression that the Catholic Church supports it. I wish it were a higher priority in our local parishes. I wish that local churches would offer parishioners the ability to join in, support, and encourage an end to the war in Iraq.
I understand that the Church is worried about our servicemen. We are too. We never should have sent them over there. They are between a rock and a hard place. They went to Iraq because they were sent to Iraq. BUT we cannot support the war, nor can we pretend to support the war. I believe that's a schism, isn't it? Pope John Paul II made his assessment of the war in Iraq very clear.