U.S. anti-war activist gets 6 months for protest at recruiting station

[Clara T]

U.S. anti-war activist gets 6 months for protest at military recruiting station

BINGHAMTON, N.Y. (AP) - A peace activist was sentenced Monday to six months in jail for splattering his own blood at a military recruiting station to protest the then-looming war in Iraq.

Daniel Burns was the first of four activists to be sentenced this week for splattering their blood on the windows, walls, pictures and an American flag at the army and marine corps recruiting station on March 17, 2003.

The so-called Saint Patrick's Four were convicted for damaging government property and entering a military recruiting station for unlawful purposes.

U.S. District Judge Thomas McAvoy said he wasn't punishing Burns for protesting, but for how he protested and what he did.

"The court doesn't question your motivation," he said. "I know you didn't go there with evil purpose in mind. You went in good conscience. But what you did clearly violated the law."

http://www.mytelus.com/news/article.do?pageID=world_home&articleID=2150183

[Don Claybrook]

1. damaging govt property: I understand this one

Entering a military recruiting station for unlawful purposes: I had no idea that this is apparently a charge unto itself. Has anyone else ever heard of such a thing?

[FloridaPat]

4. What would happen if he did this to a store? A restaurant?

Guy went overboard in his protest.

[DBoon]

13. We get hit with graffiti sometimes

I doubt the perpetrator (if caught and convicted) would go to jail for six months.

[Lance_Boyle]

29. Graffiti and bodily fluids are two very different things.

Splattering one's own blood on someone else's (or the public's) property is not protest - it's biohazard contamination, and quite stupid.

[Don Claybrook]

17. and you'll notice that I never claimed otherwise

I was just wondering about this charge I've never heard of before. One thing is certain: if he did this at a store or a restaurant, he wouldn't be charged with entering a recruting station for unlawful purposes.

Maybe they should get laws on the books against entering a store for unlawful purposes, entering a restaurant for unlawful purposes, etc. Kind of draconian, don't you think?

[Tesha]

20. Yes, he definitely should have just sat down and shut up.

(Like a good German.)

Tesha

[Wickerman]

2. wasn't punishing Burns for protesting, but for how he protested & what he

did.

6 months seems long, but gotta say, peaceful protest is best. Fanatical protests turns folks off at best and gets you tossed in jail for other reasons than protest.

[DerekG]

21. There was nothing "fanatical" about this protest

Burns is a Catholic Worker. And any Christian who swears fealty to the Lord, rather than the state (a minority, that), will find this blood offering to be far more effective than, say, a candlelight vigil.

[Wickerman]

23. I guess we'll have to disagree

I consider flingling blood about fanatical and can't see that he did his cause any good. So, how would you determine that this is more effective than a candlelight vigil? Who was motivated to change, and if so, what position?

[Clara T]

26. Actually he DID NOT fling blood around

that is a complete misrepresentation of the events. Though only a minor point one thing that the defendant was attempting to do was just have one word changed in the verdict and that was to change the wording to "poured" which is the actuality of what occurred.

The wrongful wording gives the connotation that this was "fanatical" which it was not.

As a sidelight those in the Warsaw Ghetto who actually stood and fight had a higher rate of survival than those who passively acquiesced or those who peacefully dissented.

One thing we must ask ourselves, if we are to be honest about methods of dissent in trying to stop the Bush junta from destroying everything we hold dear, is simply "Is it effective?"

If not then repeating those tactics, though they make us feel good, is really of no use.

And of course it is also hard to know what the result of an action is? Who was motivated to change? Probably a few folks, but enough to make a difference? Not yet in America. We are too complacent like sheep being led to the slaughter waiting for a miracle or some saviour to stop the Rumsfelds of the world from pushing the button.

I'm afraid it's up to us but we're not appearing to be up to it.

[DerekG]

28. My response

"So, how would you determine that this is more effective than a candlelight vigil?"

I fancy this more effective by the mere fact that the St. Patrick's Four are being prosecuted, and candlelight vigil participants--to the best of my knowledge--are not. As one who participated in two such vigils, I can say that such actions demand no sacrifice, and require no risk; Burns and Co., on the other hand, took proactive measures. The difference, as far as I see it, is between prayer and action. Clearly, someone felt threatened by these four pacifists, and it was left to the judge to make an example of them.

"Who was motivated to change, and if so, what position?"

If anything, the Catholic Workers' defiance is demonstrative that some take this horror so seriously that they're willing to take direct action against the government. Whether this causes any ripples has yet to be determined.


Here is a link to an essay about Father Daniel Berrigan, who pursued this action during the genocide/ecocide in Indochina.

--snip--

Later in his life Berrigan reflected on what it was like to pour out his own blood at the entrance to the Pentagon. He broke his vials on the steps, leaving a bright red trail as he moved toward the doorway and then dashed inside, fishing into his pockets for more blood to spill. And before the guards caught him, Daniel Berrigan managed to get down the hall with his crimson message of life and death. He said that you hadn’t seen anything until you saw a military man in a pressed uniform and shiny shoes slipping through puddles of blood on a marble floor. Berrigan thought it was as if the reality of the military enterprise hadn’t ever actually come through the door of that building in Washington . The reality that he wanted to present, the reality that the priest needed to place on one of our national altars, was the simple and profound reality in a drop of human blood. For blood can be life or death, it can move freely or become frozen, it can frighten us terribly or it can revive us again. But it can never be clean. It can never be neutral. And when it is poured out on an altar, it always reveals the god that is being served. As Daniel broke open his vials, he was trying to say that his blood and his faith were real, that they were sacred. He was also trying to say that the Pentagon upon which he poured it was not so real, that it was not so sacred. And he was trying more than anything to say that he did not worship the weapons of war and destruction, he would not idolize them any more. Instead he would worship something more divine, something that brings truth and life and calls for people to wake up and become participants.

--snip--

http://www.covenanthouston.org/BloodontheAltar_000.htm

[rwork]

3. He got more time

then the Warrant Officer who murdered an Iraqi General.

[saigon68]

18. That's Becasue the Iraqi Officer is just a

(insert racial epithet here) Head

[TechBear_Seattle]

5. They were quite lucky

18 USC 2388:

(a) Whoever, when the United States is at war...
willfully obstructs the recruiting or enlistment service of the United
States, to the injury of the service or the United States, or attempts
to do so - Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than
twenty years, or both.

(b) If two or more persons conspire to violate subsection (a) of
this section and one or more such persons do any act to effect the
object of the conspiracy, each of the parties to such conspiracy
shall be punished as provided in said subsection (a).

(c) Whoever harbors or conceals any person who he knows, or has
reasonable grounds to believe or suspect, has committed, or is
about to commit, an offense under this section, shall be fined
under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

And further food for thought: 18 USC 2387

(a) Whoever, with intent to interfere with, impair, or influence
the loyalty, morale, or discipline of the military or naval forces
of the United States:
(1) advises, counsels, urges, or in any manner causes or
attempts to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal
of duty by any member of the military or naval forces of the
United States; or
(2) distributes or attempts to distribute any written or
printed matter which advises, counsels, or urges insubordination,
disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty by any member of the
military or naval forces of the United States -
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten
years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the
United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five
years next following his conviction.

(b) For the purposes of this section, the term "military or
naval forces of the United States" includes the Army of the United
States, the Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Coast Guard, Naval
Reserve, Marine Corps Reserve, and Coast Guard Reserve of the
United States; and, when any merchant vessel is commissioned in the
Navy or is in the service of the Army or the Navy, includes the
master, officers, and crew of such vessel.

Both of these laws were added to the United States Code with the Espionage Act of 1917 and, in one form or another, been federal law ever since.

[Mithras61]

6. You presume that the U.S. is at war...

but no declaration of war has been made. Authorising "Military Force" is not the same as a declaration of war.

[TechBear_Seattle]

10. Tell that to the White House and the "Justice" department

How often has the Current Regime been harping on the string, "We are at war?" With all of the other bushcrap going on in the name of "homeland security", I have little doubt that section 2388 could be successfully prosecuted.

[Mithras61]

12. By your reasoning...

we've been in a state of war for several decades (the "war" on drugs, remember?). Just because a pResident & his staff yell war-war-war don't make it LEGALLY so.

[TechBear_Seattle]

14. That is a matter for the courts to decide

And the courts have routinely refused to state whether we are or are not actually at war. The leeway they have given the president, however, suggests that we are.

And arguably, we have been at war since Korea: the Congressional authorization for the Korean War remains in effect and is why we have had a continuous military presence there for more than 50 years. The new-fangled "war on terror" is irrelevant.

[tabasco]

19. Just like the Romans - always at war.

We spend more than the rest of the nations of the world combined on defense.

I am saddened to see the US military become a tool for corporate empire.

The robber barons will force a draft on us if we allow them to remain in power.

Maybe that will wake the people to the fact that war is more than a reality show on tv to make them feel "proud to be Americans."

[Tippy]

7. "U.S. District Judge Thomas McAvoy said

he wasn't punishing Burns for protesting, but for how he protested and what he did."

And I say bullshit, the Judge did exactly what he was ordered to do.

[Danieljay]

8. rightfully so, with 1 in 40 Americans having Hep C...this tactic is insane

There are better ways to get a point accross. A radical is a radical is a radical, I don't care what their cause.

Unlike HIV, Hepatitis has about a 30-50% infectivity rate upon exposure to blood, and the virus can stay active for days, even in dried blood. These tactics only tend to polarize politically and potentially harm others.

The war in Iraq is wrong, I'll agree. But two wrongs don't make it right.

[MrPrax]

16. Right Said...

I support direct action and it's fine for some MaryKnoll nun to sit in an empty field, pray and symbolically dab her blood on a silo hatch...it's QUITE another thing to throw 'blood' around a recruitment office.

Shit like that is likely to get you beat up by your own people--forget the army.

Go bust the place up if you have to--but chrissakes, throwing real blood around...just plain stupid and even a highly sympathetic judge, can't overlook that nonsense.

(But I do hope their prison stay is--um--uneventful...sentencing people like this to regular correction facilities for any length of time, is not the answer either)

[DerekG]

22. Two questions

1. Would your position change if you knew Burns didn't have Hepatitis C?

2. What is so offensive about a Christian sullying an empire's flag with his blood?

[Danieljay]

32. Question one: NO. Question 2. I never said it was offensive.

I said I thought it was wrong. And it wasn't only a flag my friend he and his pals were "splattering their blood on the windows, walls, pictures and an American flag".

[DerekG]

35. True, but for an hour at least, the R.C. had the appropriate decor

n/t

[President Kerry]

31. we're living in radical times.

I can't imagine having an administration of more rabid radicals, and if it takes extreme measures to make the world see it, it must be done.

[Danieljay]

33. Then I guess you would also support shoving pictures of aborted fetuses

in the faces of children as was done to children who were entering my faith community not long ago? How about PETA throwing buckets of blood on politicians or exclaiming to children as they exit the nutcracker that their motheres slaughter animals and show them pictures of skinned rabbits? Thats radical too and also inappropiate and emotional violence.

Becoming a radical to expose a radical simply creates another radical. As Einstein once said "you can't solve a problem with the same mind that created it."

Radicalness comes from the same place in an unhealthy consciousness.

[DerekG]

34. So I take it you aren't an admirer of the armed abolitionists?

Another Christian, Capt. John Brown, was so pained by the inhumanity of chattel slavery that he waged guerilla warfare in Kansas (killed five pro-slavery settlers) and Missouri (killed one slave-owner and freed eleven slaves), before he and his cadre of idealists struck at Harper's Ferry.

His efforts were pivotal in sparking the Civil War...which resulted in the emancipation of millions of human beings.

Brown was the quintessential radical, and he helped solved a big problem by utilizing the bloodlust shared by his opponents.

[Psephos]

36. Brown was only the match that lit wood already piled high

If Brown hadn't come along to get things started, someone else would have. The war had long been an inevitability by that point.

Addressing the larger point, every time and place in history can be called a critical juncture, an extreme situation, or a dire moment, all calling for radical action if one is so disposed.

Some people find physical or emotional violence acceptable means of registering their opinion, and others don't. I've always found it illuminating that those who advocate repugnant acts on behalf of their own agenda can't seem to abide them as legitimate when committed by those with different opinions.

Peace.

[Clara T]

37. How many have bore witness and how many simply attend

candle light vigils and mega marches where everyone quietly goes home feeling a bit invigorated and a bit unsure if what they did was "worth it." Maybe just another paper ceremony that in some ways actually validated empire.

There is another kind of revolution or transformation, one that does not emerge from politics of convenience, or the media culture of the consumer, or from theory, or from philosophy, abstracted from sense but instead from our bodies and from the the heart.

There are those who do not resign themselves to being slaves or meekly acquiesce to the system that enslaves them and murders the world. There are those who decide to be uncomfortable, there are those who do not sell themselves, there are those who do not surrender themselves.

By the way Daniel Burns has been to Iraq and has been to Palestine. He has bore witness. How many can say that?

[superconnected]

9. But if you're in the military and you suffocate an iraqi general to death

it's only $6000 and moderate 40 day confinement.

[gratuitous]

11. Burns knew what he was getting into

And I find it curious that this brief article doesn't have any comment from Daniel Burns or any other defense spokesperson. I know that for me, if I were to engage in such a protest, I would vigorously defend myself in any subsequent criminal action, but if it was the verdict of the court to send me to jail after a fair trial, I'd do the time.

And then I'd likely do something else when I got out. I don't consider it any particular hardship to be jailed for doing the right, honorable, and moral thing. The dishonor attaches to my jailers in those circumstances.

[Exiled in America]

27. Fuck that. I don't recognize the right of the jailor to jail me.

And I'd have no conflict of conscience in doing anything I could to avoid being wrongfully imprisoned for standing up for what I believe to be morally right.

Very much a similar philosophy to Daniel Berrigan if you remember him at all. Who avoided federal authorites for a long while as he poped up randomly to speak out against the vietnam war before disappearing into hiding again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Berrigan

"Berrigan was arrested and was sentenced to three years in prison, but he refused to serve his time. Instead, he went underground, living discreetly among like-minded individuals. The FBI, to its great embarrassment, was not immediately able to apprehend Berrigan, although he frequently showed up briefly at public events, made impromptu speeches, and went back into hiding. During this time Berrigan was also interviewed for a documentary titled "The Holy Outlaw," by Lee Lockwood."

Though it should be noted that...

"Eventually, the FBI managed to find and arrest Berrigan. He was released from prison in 1972."

[maxsolomon]

15. tell me again how we're the greatest country on earth

this is straight out of China

6 months in jail for blood spattered on the walls. do they tack property damage onto the charges for bloody murder scenes? did he have Hep C? AIDS? if he didn't, then no one was endangered.

when you say a protestor "goes too far", you're buying their frame of events.

[sattahipdeep]

24. Islands of sanity an injury to one is an injury to all.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=226673&mesg_id=226673

[Voltaire99]

25. Free Daniel Burns!

Another political prisoner in a long line of such.

[bcoylepa]

30. Protest of conscience

Read their website and then tell me that they were careless in their protest - they are truly living what they preach - if only we all could do that
they said that the flag already had blood on it - they were just making it visible...

http://www.stpatricksfour.org/