PDA

View Full Version : How the US Turned Three Pacifists Into Violent Terrorists




sailingaway
05-18-2013, 12:35 AM
In just ten months, the United States managed to transform an 82 year-old Catholic nun and two pacifists from non-violent anti-nuclear peace protestors accused of misdemeanor trespassing into federal felons convicted of violent crimes of terrorism. Now in jail awaiting sentencing for their acts at an Oak Ridge, TN nuclear weapons production facility, their story should chill every person concerned about dissent in the US.

Here is how it happened.

In the early morning hours of Saturday June 28, 2012, long-time peace activists Sr. Megan Rice, 82, Greg Boertje-Obed, 57, and Michael Walli, 63, cut through the chain link fence surrounding the Oak Ridge Y-12 nuclear weapons production facility and trespassed onto the property. Y-12, called the Fort Knox of the nuclear weapons industry, stores hundreds of metric tons of highly enriched uranium and works on every single one of the thousands of nuclear weapons maintained by the U.S.

...

Sr. Megan Rice has been a Catholic sister of the Society of the Holy Child Jesus for over sixty years. Greg Boertje-Obed, a married carpenter who has a college age daughter, is an Army veteran and lives at a Catholic Worker house in Duluth Minnesota. Michael Walli, a two-term Vietnam veteran turned peacemaker, lives at the Dorothy Day Catholic Worker house in Washington DC.

In the dark, the three activists cut through a boundary fence which had signs stating “No Trespassing.” The signs indicate that unauthorized entry, a misdemeanor, is punishable by up to 1 year in prison and a $100,000 fine.

No security arrived to confront them.

So the three climbed up a hill through heavy brush, crossed a road, and kept going until they saw the Highly Enriched Uranium Materials Facility (HEUMF) surrounded by three fences, lit up by blazing lights.

Still no security.

So they cut through the three fences, hung up their peace banners, and spray-painted peace slogans on the HEUMF. Still no security arrived. They began praying and sang songs like “Down by the Riverside” and “Peace is Flowing Like a River.”

When security finally arrived at about 4:30 am, the three surrendered peacefully, were arrested, and jailed.

The next Monday July 30, Rice, Boertje-Obed, and Walli were arraigned and charged with federal trespassing, a misdemeanor charge which carries a penalty of up to one year in jail. Frank Munger, an award-winning journalist with the Knoxville News Sentinel, was the first to publicly wonder, “If unarmed protesters dressed in dark clothing could reach the plant’s core during the cover of dark, it raised questions about the plant’s security against more menacing intruders.”

...

Sr. Megan Rice walked out of the jail and promptly admitted to gathered media that the three had indeed gone onto the property and taken action in protest of nuclear weapons. “But we had to — we were doing it because we had to reveal the truth of the criminality which is there, that’s our obligation,” Rice said. She also challenged the entire nuclear weapons industry: “We have the power, and the love, and the strength and the courage to end it and transform the whole project, for which has been expended more than 7.2 trillion dollars,” she said “The truth will heal us and heal our planet, heal our diseases, which result from the disharmony of our planet caused by the worst weapons in the history of mankind, which should not exist. For this we give our lives — for the truth about the terrible existence of these weapons.”

Then the government began increasing the charges against the anti-nuclear peace protestors.

The day after the Magistrate ordered the release of Rice, Boertje-Obed, and Walli, a Department of Energy (DOE) agent swore out a federal criminal complaint against the three for damage to federal property, a felony punishable by zero to five years in prison, under 18 US Code Section 1363.

The DOE agent admitted the three carried a letter which stated, “We come to the Y-12 facility because our very humanity rejects the designs of nuclearism, empire and war. Our faith in love and nonviolence encourages us to believe that our activity here is necessary; that we come to invite transformation, undo the past and present work of Y-12; disarm and end any further efforts to increase the Y-12 capacity for an economy and social structure based on war-making and empire-building.”

Now, Rice, Boertje-Obed, and Walli were facing one misdemeanor and one felony and up to six years in prison.

But the government did not stop there. The next week, the charges were enlarged yet again.

On Tuesday August 7, the U.S. expanded the charges against the peace activists to three counts. The first was the original charge of damage to Y-12 in violation of 18 US Code 1363, punishable by up to five years in prison. The second was an additional damage to federal property in excess of $1000 in violation of 18 US Code 1361, punishable by up to ten years in prison. The third was a trespassing charge, a misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in prison under 42 US Code 2278.

Now they faced up to sixteen years in prison. And the actions of the protestors started to receive national and international attention.

On August 10, 2012, the New York Times ran a picture of Sr. Megan Rice on page one under the headline “The Nun Who Broke into the Nuclear Sanctum.” Citing nuclear experts, the paper of record called their actions “the biggest security breach in the history of the nation’s atomic complex.”

At the end of August 2012, the Inspector General of the Department of Energy issued at comprehensive report on the security breakdown at Y-12. Calling the peace activists trespassers, the report indicated that the three were able to get as far as they did because of “multiple system failures on several levels.” The cited failures included cameras broken for six months, ineptitude in responding to alarms, communication problems, and many other failures of the contractors and the federal monitors. The report concluded that “Ironically, the Y-12 breach may have been an important “wake-up” call regarding the need to correct security issues at the site.”

On October 4, 2012, the defendants announced that they had been advised that, unless they pled guilty to at least one felony and the misdemeanor trespass charge, the U.S. would also charge them with sabotage against the U.S. government, a much more serious charge. Over 3000 people signed a petition to U.S. Attorney General Holder asking him not to charge them with sabotage.

more: http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/05/15/how-the-us-turned-three-pacifists-into-violent-terrorists/

TheTexan
05-18-2013, 12:55 AM
Plead guilty or spend the rest of your life in prison

Carson
05-18-2013, 02:03 AM
I'm not sure if I agree with the headline.

First they destroyed property and trespassed.

They were arrested, removed and charged.

They could have left it there.

They then went on to divulge illegally obtained security information.

I would think new charges would be expected. They had more to do with what happened to themselves and don't really have anyone to blame... though they may see this better than us and were willing to go this route regardless.

WhistlinDave
05-18-2013, 02:52 AM
Obviously making an example of them... Holder demands respect for the law. (Unless you're him, in which case, free assault weapons to drug cartels!!)

erowe1
05-22-2013, 09:04 AM
https://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/05/15-7


In just ten months, the United States managed to transform an 82 year-old Catholic nun and two pacifists from non-violent anti-nuclear peace protestors accused of misdemeanor trespassing into federal felons convicted of violent crimes of terrorism. Now in jail awaiting sentencing for their acts at an Oak Ridge, TN nuclear weapons production facility, their story should chill every person concerned about dissent in the US.

Here is how it happened.

In the early morning hours of Saturday, July 28, 2012, long-time peace activists Sr. Megan Rice, 82, Greg Boertje-Obed, 57, and Michael Walli, 63, cut through the chain link fence surrounding the Oak Ridge Y-12 nuclear weapons production facility and trespassed onto the property. Y-12, called the Fort Knox of the nuclear weapons industry, stores hundreds of metric tons of highly enriched uranium and works on every single one of the thousands of nuclear weapons maintained by the U.S.
...

FrankRep
05-22-2013, 09:24 AM
cut through the chain link fence surrounding the Oak Ridge Y-12 nuclear weapons production facility and trespassed onto the property.

That was stupid. Don't goof around nuclear weapons on private property.

amy31416
05-22-2013, 09:27 AM
That was stupid. Don't goof around nuclear weapons on private property.

They did a favor by showing how insecure the plant is.

LibertyEagle
05-22-2013, 09:39 AM
There should be no such thing as "federal trespassing". We own federal lands. They are OURS. Federal land = public property.

sailingaway
05-22-2013, 09:44 AM
I'm not sure if I agree with the headline.

First they destroyed property and trespassed.

They were arrested, removed and charged.

They could have left it there.

They then went on to divulge illegally obtained security information.

I would think new charges would be expected. They had more to do with what happened to themselves and don't really have anyone to blame... though they may see this better than us and were willing to go this route regardless.

I think trespass and destruction of property charges would be fair game. Not terrorism though.

erowe1
05-22-2013, 09:46 AM
That was stupid. Don't goof around nuclear weapons on private property.

Yeah. I know. Because then you'd be guilty of destroying someone's property.

But that's all you would be guilty of.

Seraphim
05-22-2013, 09:48 AM
Unfortunately this is an age old delusion and not applicable in the real world.

Governments have always been, are today and will always be seperate incorporated entities that have ZERO regard or accountability to "the public"...let alone free range access to their domicile/jurisdiction.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with your premise...to arrest these people for this is a crime (TERRORISM...REALLY?!?!?).

Nonetheless. It's high time even the minarchist types start realizing that "government for the people" never was and never will be.


There should be no such thing as "federal trespassing". We own federal lands. They are OURS. Federal land = public property.

LibertyEagle
05-22-2013, 09:57 AM
Unfortunately this is an age old delusion and not applicable in the real world.

Governments have always been, are today and will always be seperate incorporated entities that have ZERO regard or accountability to "the public"...let alone free range access to their domicile/jurisdistion.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with your premise...to arrest these people for this is a crime (TERRORISM...REALLY?!?!?).

Nonetheless. It's high time even the minarchist types start realizing that "government for the people" never was and never will be.

I don't think anarchy for the people ever was and ever will be, either.

I prefer a very limited constitutional government about 98% smaller than it is now and very constrained.

But, this is really a pretty stupid conversation to be having, given that we have a million miles to go together before even having to decide what to do with that little bit of government that was left if we were able to get it back within its constitutional bounds.

How about we row together until then?

FrankRep
05-22-2013, 10:20 AM
There should be no such thing as "federal trespassing". We own federal lands. They are OURS. Federal land = public property.

Do "we" own the nuclear weapons too?

LibertyEagle
05-22-2013, 10:22 AM
Do "we" own the nuclear weapons too?

Actually, yes. The federal government owns nothing. Now, that doesn't mean there can't be protection for them. But, ownership... the people who pay for the thing, own it.

erowe1
05-22-2013, 10:26 AM
Do "we" own the nuclear weapons too?

Great question.

Similarly, did "we" take over Iraq and Afghanistan? Are "we" aiding militant Islamic extremists in Syria? Did "we" put Hosni Mubarrek in charge of Egypt and then did "we" decide we didn't want him any more?

Do "we" threaten ourselves with deadly force demanding that we give money to ourselves? Do "we" mandate that we buy health insurance whether we want to or not? Do "we" prevent ourselves from buying raw milk?

Etc.

Seraphim
05-22-2013, 10:26 AM
Just saying, that in order for this movement to be successful there has to be a mental acuity that understands that government bodies ARE seperate enties from the public.

I know that more people than "normal" understand that within this movement but I think for the movement to expand we must be able to articulate this to "the public".

There is no benevolent, fairy tale, for the public government.

The more people understand this, the fewer statists there will be.

As long as the majority believe government is public representation, there will be tyranny. ALWAYS.


I don't think anarchy for the people ever was and ever will be, either.

I prefer a very limited constitutional government about 98% smaller than it is now and very constrained.

But, this is really a pretty stupid conversation to be having, given that we have a million miles to go together before even having to decide what to do with that little bit of government that was left if we were able to get it back within its constitutional bounds.

How about we row together until then?

LibertyEagle
05-22-2013, 10:28 AM
Just saying, that in order for this movement to be successful there has to be a mental acuity that understands that government bodies ARE seperate enties from the public.

I know that more people than "normal" understand that within this movement but I think for the movement to expand we must be able to articulate this to "the public".

There is no benevolent, fairy tale, for the public government.

The more people understand this, the fewer statists there will be.

As long as the majority believe government is public representation, there will be tyranny. ALWAYS.

I think we all know that already.

noneedtoaggress
05-22-2013, 10:38 AM
Great question.

Similarly, did "we" take over Iraq and Afghanistan? Are "we" aiding militant Islamic extremists in Syria? Did "we" put Hosni Mubarrek in charge of Egypt and then did "we" decide we didn't want him any more?

Do "we" threaten ourselves with deadly force demanding that we give money to ourselves? Do "we" mandate that we buy health insurance whether we want to or not? Do "we" prevent ourselves from buying raw milk?

Etc.

http://mises.org/easaran/chap3.asp


With the rise of democracy, the identification of the State with society has been redoubled, until it is common to hear sentiments expressed which violate virtually every tenet of reason and common sense such as, "we are the government." The useful collective term "we" has enabled an ideological camouflage to be thrown over the reality of political life. If "we are the government," then anything a government does to an individual is not only just and untyrannical but also "voluntary" on the part of the individual concerned. If the government has incurred a huge public debt which must be paid by taxing one group for the benefit of another, this reality of burden is obscured by saying that "we owe it to ourselves"; if the government conscripts a man, or throws him into jail for dissident opinion, then he is "doing it to himself" and, therefore, nothing untoward has occurred. Under this reasoning, any Jews murdered by the Nazi government were not murdered; instead, they must have "committed suicide," since they were the government (which was democratically chosen), and, therefore, anything the government did to them was voluntary on their part. One would not think it necessary to belabor this point, and yet the overwhelming bulk of the people hold this fallacy to a greater or lesser degree.

We must, therefore, emphasize that "we" are not the government; the government is not "us." The government does not in any accurate sense "represent" the majority of the people.[1] But, even if it did, even if 70 percent of the people decided to murder the remaining 30 percent, this would still be murder and would not be voluntary suicide on the part of the slaughtered minority.[2] No organicist metaphor, no irrelevant bromide that "we are all part of one another," must be permitted to obscure this basic fact.