83-Year-Old Nun to Be Sentenced for Sabotage

[hue]

Source: abc NEWS

An 83-year-old Catholic nun convicted in a protest and break-in at the primary U.S. storehouse for bomb-grade uranium will find out Tuesday whether she spends what could be the rest of her life in prison.

Sister Megan Rice is one of three Catholic peace activists convicted of sabotage last year after they broke into the nuclear weapons plant in Oak Ridge, Tenn. Sentencing for all three is scheduled for 9 a.m. Tuesday at U.S. District Court in Knoxville.

The government has recommended sentences of about six to nine years each for Rice, Michael Walli and Greg Boertje-Obed (bohr-CHEE' OH-bed'). It also is seeking restitution of nearly $53,000 for damage incurred when the three cut through fences and painted slogans on the outside wall of the uranium processing plant. The protesters also splattered blood and hammered on the wall.

The activists are asking for leniency. They say their actions at the Y-12 National Security Complex were symbolic and meant to draw attention to America's stockpile of nuclear weapons, which they call immoral and illegal.

"These people have been committed peace and justice advocates for decades," defense attorney Bill Quigley said.

Read more: http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/83-year-nun-sentenced-sabotage-22223192

[Downwinder]

1. How many political prisoners are there in the US?

[bravenak]

2. I'm on her side.

Fuck bombs, fuck war, and fuck weapons grade uranium. We need to get rid of all of those death supplies.

[brooklynite]

3. Would people be as understanding if she'd broken into a Planned Parenthood Clinic...

...or does compassion come only when you agree on a political issue?

[Incitatus]

5. They cut a fence and painted an outer wall.

Vandalism and trespassing, okay. Treating them like terrorists, no.

[Orrex]

6. If they'd held up a post office and stolen an enveleope, they'd get 20 years

It seems likely that they knew where they were and what they were doing when they cut the fence.

[LanternWaste]

23. I think the poster was responding to the question of empathy rather than one of consequences.

I think the poster was responding to the question of empathy rather than one of legal consequences.

[Orrex]

31. Possibly, but Meg has a long history of similar acts, and these likely weighed upon the sentencing.

She explicitly doesn't regret committing the crime, so it behooves her advocates to defer to her.

[LanternWaste]

26. think compassion for the acts of others comes in part, from seeing one's own ethical belief system

I think compassion for the acts of others comes in part, from seeing one's own ethical belief system realized through those acts. So I'd hazard it's less a political issue and more a moral issue that compels commiseration.

[Orrex]

4. What is the proper sentence for breaking into a nuclear facility?

Seems fairly open and shut, honestly.

[former9thward]

7. Restitution and community service.

Cutting a fence and spraying some slogans. Big deal.

[Orrex]

10. Breaking into a nuclear facility. Big deal indeed.

By your reasoning, picking up a $20 bill off the ground is the same as breaking into a bank vault and stealing $100,000.

[former9thward]

11. No, I look at the actual facts.

Not the hysterics served up by the prosecutors and their fans.

[Orrex]

12. Show me that the facts are in dispute

They broke into a defense facility. They sabotaged a defense facility. They vandalized a defense facility.
They were convicted of same.


Do you dispute any of these facts? On what basis? Even Meg herself seems not to dispute them.

[former9thward]

21. No, they did not "sabotage a defense facility."

Nothing of importance was broken. The facility kept on going. There was no disruption. Those are the facts -- not the hysterics.

[Orrex]

28. Did they cut the fence?

That in itself is a dsruption because it compromises the security of the site. This is a fact. This is indisputable, because three trespassers were able to gain access to the site and engage in further vandalism. Meg herself doesn't dispute this, and in fact is quoted as saying that she wished she'd done it 70 years sooner. Sounds like she's accepting responsibility for her civil disobedience.


What strikes you as hysterical about this?

[former9thward]

40. You would be a prosecutors dream juror.

Someone who looks at THE LAW above all else and does not think about the law should be applied to the facts.

[GeorgeGist]

41. I think you picked the wrong side of the fence.

[GeorgeGist]

42. You would've send Rosa Parks to jail.

Indisputable logic says so.

[last1standing]

8. So when law and justice come into conflict...

You side with imprisoning an 83 year old for six years for engaging in peaceful protest.

Seems reasonable.

[Orrex]

9. No, I side with the verdict that found someone guilty of breaking into a nuclear facility

You can spin it in whatever way makes you feel better, but even civil disobedience demands that the activist accept the consequences of that disobedience.

[last1standing]

13. So what you meant to say was "Yes."

There is nothing in your response that mitigates the fact that you support the rule of law over justice. You have just stated that you believe that "even civil disobedience demands that the activist accept the consequences of the disobedience." I do not see how that statement can be interpreted as anything other than a blind acceptance of law regardless of ethics.

Do you also believe that Martin Luther King deserved to sit in that Birmingham Jail? Did Nelson Mandela deserve to rot in prison for over 27 years? Are those the lawful consequences of which you speak?

[Orrex]

14. I said what I meant to say.

I side with the verdict that found someone guilty of breaking into a nuclear facility.

You can spin it in whatever way makes you feel better, but even civil disobedience demands that the activist accept the consequences of that disobedience.

You are arguing that civil disobedience means doing whatever you want without facing consequences.
You are arguing that all laws are subject to the interpretation of any person who would break those laws.

[last1standing]

16. So you do think MLK and Mandela got what they deserved. Nice.

n/t

[Orrex]

29. I think that they knew what they were commiting to.

Why are you second-guessing them?
Do you presume to understand their struggles better than they did?


If King or Mandela had broken into, sabotaged and vandalized a nuclear facility, they would say "you can't arrest me."

[last1standing]

33. What a stunning rationalization.

I guess protesters just have to accept the consequences of their actions, regardless of how harsh they may seem.

Death from being tazed by police after shouting down a politician. Should have expected it.

Maced with pepper spray for joining a sit in? Reasonable.

Beaten into a coma for rallying to Occupation Wall Street? Had it coming.

I'm sure MLK and Mandela would agree with you that they deserved imprisonment as well.

[Orrex]

38. What exactly do you think protesters are doing?

Protesters throughout all of history have faced danger. It is preposterous to pretend that it has ever been otherwise.

It is also preposterous to pretend that I am therefore excusing violent response to protesters. I am recognizing that it happens and that protesters know that it happens, and you are foolishly accusing me of rationalizing that violence.


That's like blaming me for the rain because I say "It's raining." Preposterous.

[sked14]

15. Hardly a peaceful protest.

If they had just stood outside the facility and protested, then it would have been peaceful, but the fact that they cut a fence, spray painted walls, splattered blood on the facility and hammered on the same walls does not make for a peaceful protest.
They should only get probation and community service in my opinion.

[last1standing]

17. Are we now charging protesters for violence against inanimate objects?

Where in your fact pattern does the violence come in? If there was no violence it was a peaceful protest.

[sked14]

18. It's always been a crime to deface/destroy govt/private property.

The form of violence comes in by cutting the fence, defacing the facility and beating on the walls.
They knew that if caught, they would be facing charges and possible prison time/fines.

[last1standing]

19. Vandalism is not violence. This was a peaceful protest.

n/t

[sked14]

20. Vandalism is a mild form of violence, and can cost lots of money

to repair depending on the amount of destruction/damage.
I guess that those that break windows of businesses, deface private property during protests are being peaceful also?

[last1standing]

22. No, vandalism is NOT "a mild form of violence."

It may be a crime but it is not violence. One cannot, in any way, commit a violent act against a fence or a wall. Is Bansky committing violent protest with his street art? Did the Wisconsin protesters commit violence at the State House?

If you want to argue that these peaceful protesters deserve punishment for the crime of vandalism and trespass, fine, but it is insane to suggest that they committed violent acts against objects. That only serves to demean their purpose and to obscure the nature of their protest.

[sked14]

24. You can argue it any way you want,

but the fact is that when you vandalize/destroy something, whether it's an inanimate object or a living thing, you are committing an act of violence.

[last1standing]

25. Great. So Bansky is a violent criminal. Good to know.

I kind of liked his work but now I see he is violent and should be considered dangerous.

[sked14]

27. Did he vandalize or destroy something?

If so, then he committed an act of violence.

[last1standing]

30. LOL! That is completely insane!

You obviously have no clue what violence, protest, and/or vandalism are. I wouldn't have thought it possible but there you go.

Seriously, I can't continue this discussion unless you first educate yourself on the differences.

[sked14]

32. Right back at you.

I have a lot more clues than you think I do, but you're right.
The continuation of this conversation is useless until you educate yourself on the subject.
Bye Bye.

[bravenak]

34. I totally didn't agree with you about vandalism/property damage being violence.

Then I looked in the dictionary. I guess you're right.

[sked14]

35. Thank you.

There are degrees of violence, for instance, committing an act of vandalism on an inanimate object is much less violent than committing an assault on a living being., but, it's still an act of violence, however mild it is.

[melm00se]

43. from Findlaw

Vandalism, on its own, is often considered a non-violent crime that generally affects ones "quality of life", but may escalate to more serious crimes typically involving juveniles including theft/larceny, burglary, drug possession, disturbing the peace, and other random acts of violence. - See more at: http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/vandalism.html#sthash.nlgWHQdE.dpuf

[antigone382]

36. You are tapping into a dispute about the definition and nature of violence.

One definition is "behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something." In that the definition is not clear whether "something" includes living as well as nonliving things, there is a certain amount of ambiguity in interpretation, although I suppose one should default to the broader interpretation.

Another definition of violence I have learned is the "behavior which deliberately causes bodily harm or death, or which threatens to do so." In that sense, violence can only be committed against living beings.

For myself, I have always sided with the second definition. There is something about the harshness which the word violence connotes in every day usage that I feel is exploited and diminished when it is applied to petty acts of vandalism or property destruction. Note, this does not mean property destruction cannot be violent. If you poison someone's well, burn down their house, or contaminate their food, you are indirectly putting them at risk of bodily harm.

In the case of the nuns, I feel that their acts did more to highlight the potential for violence at the facility, as opposed to being acts of violence themselves. The fact that they were so easily able to break through the security at the facility proves that someone who did in fact wish to do grievous harm would have a greater potential to do so than we would like.

[sked14]

37. That's one way to look at it,

however, when you use force to deface/destroy something, that is an act violence.
An example would be breaking a window purposefully, you have just used force to break that window which is a form of violence.

Personally, those people should get a medal and monetary reward for showing what a joke the security was at that facility, suppose this had been a well trained, well disciplined terrorist org.?

[Judi Lynn]

39. Octogenarian nun awaits sentence for ‘sabotaging’ Tennessee nuclear plant

Octogenarian nun awaits sentence for ‘sabotaging’ Tennessee nuclear plant
By Karen McVeigh, The Guardian
Monday, January 27, 2014 15:02 EST

On Monday morning, three days short of her 84th birthday, Sister Megan Rice ate a hearty breakfast of pancakes and oatmeal at the ungodly hour of 4.30am in Knox county jail, Knoxville, Tennessee.

Rice, a white-haired Catholic nun and anti-nuclear activist, was in fine spirits, giving a broad smile and a thumbs-up sign through the glass partition that separates her from visitors to the jail where she is awaiting sentence, according to her good friend, Pat McSweeney.

~snip~
Rice – who joined the order of the Society of the Holy Child Jesus as a teenager – and her co-defendants describe themselves as the Transform Now Plowshares a reference to the passage in the Bible, Isaiah 2:4, which states: “They shall beat their swords into ploughshares, and their spears into pruning hooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more”. Their actions, on 28 July 2012, were intended to highlight the vast gulf between the US’s obligations under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty to disarm and its ongoing activities and production of nuclear weapon components at the Tennessee facility.

She said she expected to go to prison, but cites her personal responsibilities under the Nuremberg principles for “committing only that which is the responsibility superseding all domestic and international laws; opposing and exposing crimes of government and contracting agents.”

More:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/01/27/octogenarian-nun-awaits-sentence-for-sabotaging-tennessee-nuclear-plant/

[leftyladyfrommo]

44. Oh, just let her go.

For God's sake. This makes us look like North Korea or China.

Rap her on the knuckles with a ruler and make her promise not to do it again.

What they are talking about is most probably a life sentence for her. Her crime certainly doesn't deserve that.

[ColumbusLib]

45. I'm not Catholic...

But this nun is my hero.

[Judi Lynn]

47. Same here! She's standing for a moral world powerful others shun.

Welcome to D.U., ColumbusLib.