U.S. Peace Activist Released After 20 Years, Picked Up After 2 Days

by The Nuclear Resister - USA Sat Mar 27, 2004 12:43

We received a letter from Helen Woodson on Tuesday, and she phoned Thursday evening. Helen is (relatively) comfortable, residing in 'the hole' at a small county jail in Missouri. She is currently charged with probation violation, namely the destruction of government property described below that violated the conditions of her mandatory release.

She can receive mail at:

Helen Woodson 03231-045
Bates County Jail
P. O. Box 60, Butler, MO 64730

The jail is about six months old, and Helen writes "the jail 'library' consists of only one cardboard box of books, so donations would be welcome. I read serious nonfiction in prison, but here I'd like classics of literature, good recent fiction and the genre of LeCarre, Ludlum, etc., and these all would be popular with the other inmates, too. These kind of books should be available inexpensively used... Individuals can send me books so no need to order from a publisher."

Helen may also receive magazines but NOT newspapers or clippings. You may also send her self-adhesive postage stamps in a letter, but not the lickable ones.

Of her arrest, Helen writes:
"On the morning of [March] 11th, as agreed, I reported to the federal courthouse, which also houses the probation and marshal's offices. I had with me my release papers upon which I had written "I will not abide by these conditions," and a plastic coffee mug filled with red enamel paint. When the guards at the lobby desk called me over, I told them I was reporting, then since it as obvious I wouldn't get beyond them with the cup, I said, "The government has blood on its hands," and dumped the paint on their countertop. I was taken into custody by the marshals (one of whom I met 20 years ago, "same time, same station.")"

Helen was visited by a postal inspector and told that additional charges will be brought against her based on letters she wrote during her two days out of custody. She has indicated she will not contest any truthful information behind these charges, so as to avoid the delays of a grand jury indictment and allow her to proceed to what she hopes will be a single arraignment and probation violation hearing in federal court, possibly within a couple of weeks.

by - Sat Mar 27, 2004 12:44

she did well.

by Fisk on Vanunu Sun Mar 28, 2004 15:55

Robert Fisk on Vanunu
http://www.k1m.com/antiwarblog/archives/000101.html

by AWOL Wed Mar 31, 2004 08:07

''When you look at the war and you look at the reasons that took
us to war and you don't find that any of the things that we were
told that we're going to war for turned out to be true, [....]
When you don't find there are weapons of mass destruction and
when you don't find that there was a link between Saddam Hussein
and al Qaeda and you see that you're not helping the people and
the people don't want you there and, to me, there's no military
contract and no military duty that's going to justify being a
part of that war.''

- US Army Staff Sgt. Camilo Mejia
{ Now Iraq War Resister, Charged with AWOL }

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/29/60II/main609216.shtml

by Ithaca, NY, Catholic Worker Wed Mar 31, 2004 08:09

Defense Limited for St. Patrick Four

For More Information: Jessica Stewart 256-8529 or [email protected]
March 30th, 2004
For Immediate Release, Ithaca, NY

The St. Patrick Four, Daniel Burns, Peter De Mott, Clare Grady and Teresa Grady, and their supporters were disappointed Saturday, March 27th, to learn that their chance to defend themselves has been curtailed.

Judge M. John Sherman ruled in a written decision that the four will be limited in their assertion of the defenses of necessity and international law. In his ruling, Judge Sherman prohibited any expert witnesses or documentary evidence relating to necessity or international law, but said that the defendants could speak to these matters in their personal testimony. He found that there was "no applicability of [international law] in the present case" and that "the proffered proof does not demonstrate the type of true emergency envisioned by the [necessity] statute."

"This decision is a blow to our defense and a blow to the American right of trial by jury", said Daniel Burns. "How can a jury accurately determine guilt or innocence when they are not allowed to hear the whole truth?"

Noted attorney and Loyola University Law professor William Quigley, who is part of the legal team, said "This is another tragic step towards depriving citizens of the right to a full and complete jury trial. Especially in times of national and international crisis like the present, it is important for regular citizens to have a chance to hear all the evidence about the conduct of our government."

The four are charged with felony criminal mischief for an act of nonviolent civil resistance to war at the recruiting center on March 17, 2003, two days before the invasion of Iraq. They respectfully and carefully poured a small amount of blood around the vestibule of the center, knelt and prayed. Teresa Grady said, "We did this to make visible the bloodshed that would result from our government's criminal actions."

Specifically Judge Sherman ruled that former Attorney General Ramsey Clark would not be allowed to offer expert testimony on international law. Had he been allowed to testify, Mr. Clark would have testified that the war on Iraq was illegal under international law. Mr. Clark would have informed the jury that according to the US Constitution, Article 6, the United States is bound by international law.

Mr. Clark would also have testified that citizens have a right and obligation under the Nuremburg Principles, a body of international law, to intervene when their government is acting criminally; otherwise they face criminal liability themselves.

Clare Grady said, "This ruling is an attempt to prevent citizens from holding our government accountable for illegal and unjust actions."

Judge Sherman prohibited the necessity defense on the basis of an appellate court case, People v Craig, a trespass case involving a protest against US crimes against Nicaragua. The crux of the necessity defense is that an act which would otherwise be criminal is not criminal when taken to prevent a greater harm. Appellate courts rulings are contradictory on the issue of the right of defendants to present the defense of necessity.

"I am saddened," said Teresa Grady, "that both the Court in Craig and Judge Sherman were not able to show courage and foresight in ruling on whether citizens seeking to prevent illegal activities by their government have a right to offer a full defense. When judges make these types of rulings, it sends the signal to our leaders that they are free to act with impunity."

"How a person could find that, immediately before 'Shock and Awe' began, wanton killing and destruction was not imminent or that the harm was speculative, is beyond me", said Peter De Mott. De Mott went on to say, "Our country was about to engage in an illegal action that would take the lives of thousands of Iraqis, Americans, and others and was stirring outrage in much of the world. To my mind, that certainly constitutes an emergency."