On Choices: War or Democracy?

The Rivers of Blood Trial and the Importance of Citizen Action 

The 31 trial defendants on January 16, 2008

     As the Iraq War drags on, the echoes of a previous war grow stronger, and stronger. PTSD, bombing, torture, deaths of innocents both from the occupying nation and the occupied population. We play a numbers game, with reports of insurgents killed, pounds of bombs dropped, troop casualties, Iraqi casualties, costs in the billions, then trillions, statistics that do not convey the meaning of such a concentration of suffering. Do you remember McNamara? Powell? Rumsfeld? 

     January 15 and 16, of this year, Tim Chadwick and I 29 other defendants on trial for having had the temerity to speak out against the Iraq war in a public space of the United States Capitol. It was a trial unreported in any corporate media, as was the demonstration itself. You can see an account and pictures of the demonstration, which occurred on September 20, 2007, at the website of the National Campaign for Nonviolent Resistance.

     I wrote an article about the trial, published on Couterpunch.com., here, which attempts to convey some of the points of the trial. If you turn to the article, I encourage you to be sure to scan through it for the testimony of Janet Ashby, which captured, for me, the historic moment. It is as if the bones and ghosts of our buried memories of Vietnam are rising through the freshly plowed ground of another war of empire in Iraq. I hear veterans talk of renewed flashbacks, homeless Iraq veterans joining their brother and sister veterans of Vietnam in the streets, horrible injuries to body and spirit that will not be healed in a human life. Below are other testimonies of the trial, not including that of Steve Cleghorn, Jordan Manuel, Levanah Ruthschild, whose voices were all strong and clear. 

     There are already other trials, such as the Blackwater trial in North Carolina that includes co-defendant Peter DeMott – check it out here. I would prefer the Armies of the Night. I would prefer to join tens of thousands in a collective outpouring against the war, against the destruction of New Orleans, against US support for the horrible repression being visited on Gaza and the West Bank, against US aid for a Colombian military that supports terror, and for a set of new policies that will convert our military thrashings to the human challenges that face us all in this moment. There will be further chances, and soon. 

    We just celebrated and commemorated the life of Martin Luther King, who spoke of moments of choice that must be seized before they pass into history.. I believe we allowed a moment to pass in 2007, in acceding to a vicious program of a stunned and numb administration. Another is before us now, as we must choose between waiting another year for a politician to deliver us, or seize democracy as it must always be seized, with the commitment of lives and ideas to create a new politics. 

     Returned soldiers will testify in Washington, DC in mid-March – another generation of winter soldiers will speak on the reality of a war, and on March 12, the National Campaign for Nonviolent Resistance is planning to petition, again, for a redress of grievances. The people of the United States certainly have grievances – will we accede once more to a period of waiting, or will we join together in protest and proposal? -Joe DeRaymond

Statement by Judith Kelly in DC Superior Court for September 20, 2007 “Rivers of Blood Start Here” arrest in the US Capitol Crypt 

     Today the scale and horror of modern warfare –whether nuclear or not-- makes it totally unacceptable as a means of settling differences between nations. War should belong to the tragic past, to history; it should find no place on humanity’s agenda for the future. -- John Paul II (Coventry, England, 1982) 

     Pope John Paul’s words are crystal clear, but our country’s leaders cannot seem to hear, let alone honor, these words. As a US citizen, a peacemaker, a nonviolence trainer, a Catholic and a Pole –a Peace Pole—I stand with those who are clear about the need to speak up –with their whole bodies—to say “no”: I cannot accept any premise that allows for mass murder or even one more death in war. Every night I watch the PBS News Hour, with Jim Lehrer, and often he ends the broadcast with these haunting words: “Once again we bring you our Honor Roll of US military killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. We add them as their deaths become official and their photographs become available. Here, in silence, are 11 more.” MORE. I have kept count since 2003 and it is always more. I make myself watch the screen, to read each name and age, service branch and hometown, and I whisper “Sorry, Pfc. Peter, age 19. Sorry, Staff Sergeant Dan, age 22….” 

     Sorry we didn’t stop this horror five years ago. Sorry you are all in an impossible situation where your young, healthy bodies have been destroyed, where your comrades are stuck fighting for some very dubious goals, where our country and Congress are in the same quagmire with no end in sight. I am so sorry for your parents and your kids, for your unit, for all the friends and family who were at your funeral, crying their eyes out. You were a hero for putting yourself out there and risking your precious life, no matter what you thought of this war. I know you believed in duty, honor and country. I also believe in duty, honor and country. This bloodstained shirt is my uniform and I feel I do my duty by honoring those who have died in this miserable war. Whatever the consequences of the “Rivers of Blood” action, I will keep on saying “no” – no to this war and no to all war. War is a totally unacceptable way of settling differences. War is always a failure for humanity. 

     Princeton University Professor Cornel West once said that, as a Christian, he was “a prisoner of hope.” I, too, am a prisoner of hope, and I cannot stop hoping that somehow this witness for peace in the Capitol Crypt will make sense to those who have the duty to de-fund this war and save lives, and to those who have the duty to uphold justice and extend mercy in this courtroom. Today, January 18, 2008, the US military casualty count in Iraq is 3926.

  Statement of Lavine Lawinger in DC Superior Court for September 20, 2007 “Rivers of Blood Start Here” arrest in the US Capitol Crypt 

      As a participant on the Iraq Peace Team in Feb. 2003, we brought as much medicine as possible to Iraq, visited with hundreds of local Iraqis to share on a person to person basis to let them know we opposed both the sanctions and an American Invasion of their country, and we came also to build support with American citizens to oppose an attack on Iraq. 

     One of our visits there was to an elementary school, the Baghdad School of the Arts, where hundreds of students had made 4 inch quilt squares to send back with us for American children. What they depicted with colored pencils was the things that they loved about their lives, family meals, beautiful flowers and parks, playgrounds, mosques and churches, and most of all music and musical instruments to which most of them had access. It was amazing at how positively they viewed their lives, in the midst of the most debilitating sanctions ever imposed by the UN on a civilian population. 

     One month later on March 20th , twelve million Iraqi children became the objects of Shock and Awe bombings and destruction by our country that continue even now five years later. The deaths and wounding of their family members, the destruction of their infrastructure, the contamination of their fertile crescent land with depleted uranium, the pollution of their life-giving Tigris and Euphrates Rivers, and on and on beyond description. For what have we committed such grave crimes? Who among elected leadership is speaking out to stop it? (I can display a vest with the quilt squares or wear it).

      Our team's return and that of many others called us to a single-minded focus to use every energy of our beings to stop this illegal and criminal war, and to do that through public education and legislative actions. For myself it meant working with dozens of Wisconsin groups: WI Network for Peace and Justice, Peace Action WI, Catholics for Peace and Justice, Racine Dominican Sisters and other religious communities. We relentlessly pursued emails, office visits, sit-ins, public demonstrations, and the costs of dozens of DC visits by hundreds of people. (One such visit to Senator Herb Kohl s office resulted in a several days live-in with never an arrest even suggested. I submit here a copy of one such Open Letter to Senator Kohl). Yet our duly elected Congress voted over 15 times (still have to verify the number of votes) to approve billions of dollars to continue a war that they knew was illegal. 

     When we witness wrongdoing of our government we have the duty to use our rights of public assembly and freedom of speech and expression to make these wrongs known. It was this right we exercised in the Capitol Crypt on Sept. 20th 2007. Could there be a more appropriate setting than under the dome of the US Capitol, a symbol of democracy and protection of human rights. There was neither need nor right for security officers to arrest us. If they were concerned for citizen safety, they could have stood by and observed. Nothing about the group gave any indication of the likelihood of violence or disorderly behavior. The goal was a lawful assembly to voice the wrongdoing of our executive branch and the complicity of our Congress in providing the funds to carry out war, torture and abuse of citizen rights. We could not be silent. We thank you for the opportunity of giving this testimony. 

 Press Release from The Campaign for Nonviolent Resistance

 THIRTY ONE PEACE ACTIVISTS FACE JAIL IF INVOLVED IN PROTESTS IN NEXT SIX MONTHS 

WHO: The National Campaign for Nonviolent Resistance (NCNR) was formed for individuals willing to engage in nonviolent civil resistance to protest the war in Iraq and pressure Congress to withdraw all troops. NCNR organized a die-in at the crypt of the U.S. Capitol on September 20, and thirty four activists were arrested during a dramatic attempt to convince Congress to cut off funding for the occupation of Iraq. Because the public rarely sees the endemic death and devastation caused by the occupation, the activists each wore a tee shirt splattered with red paint symbolizing the bloody conflict in Iraq and read the name of an Iraqi or U.S. soldier killed in the war. To further dramatize the conflict, each person fell to the floor. During the die-in, two participants held a banner “Rivers of Blood Start Here.” 

WHAT: Thirty one of the activists appeared for trial in Superior Court of the District of Columbia on January 16 facing charges of disorderly conduct and unlawful assembly. They initially appeared before Magistrate Judge Richard Ringell who tried to convince the government to allow the defendants to each make a donation to one’s favorite charity rather than go to trial. Assistant U.S. Attorney Jeffrey Shapiro rejected the suggestion, arguing that many of the defendants repeatedly break the law. The judge explained that jailing them will not deter the peace movement. Nevertheless, the case was moved to Associate Judge Ann O’Regan Keary’s courtroom, and Shapiro did prosecute. The activists went pro se, and assumed different roles during the trial. The only witness for the government was the “arresting officer.” She was not present for the entire die-in, nor did she individually ask all defendants to leave. Once in custody of the Capitol Police, each defendant had their photograph taken with this “arresting officer.” She never identified what a single defendant did. Instead her testimony targeted the group. She repeatedly said “many”of them or “some”of them. The defense did not bother to cross examine her, as it assumed her testimony was lacking. A number of defendants testified and sprinkled their comments with a severe condemnation of the war. Not one denied participating in the die-in, though each emphasized the solemn nature of the nonviolent drama. Testimony was provided that the group was not loud or boisterous, and did not obstruct any hallways. In fact, it was pointed out that the space occupied by the antiwar advocates was no larger than that of other groups present. Yet on January 17, Keary found everyone guilty of unlawful assembly. Her rationale was that the tee shirts and banner were provocative and a breach of peace. She claimed that the die-in could have caused others to engage in violence. Shapiro broke the defendants into three groups based on prior convictions, though his data was faulty. Keary gave suspended jail sentences to all ranging from three days to ten and six months of unsupervised probation. All were ordered to pay at least $50, though for some it is $100, by April 30 to the victims of violent crime fund. Some defendants also received stay-away orders for the Capitol Crypt. 

WHEN: January 17 & 18, 2008 

WHERE: Courtroom 214, District of Columbia Superior Court, 500 Indiana Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20001 

WHY: It was evident that the government would argue that since a protester was arrested, s/he was guilty. Shapiro consistently presents this argument in protest cases and does not bother to have a witness identify the exact criminal behavior of each defendant. Once again, a Superior Court judge accepted such a flawed prosecution.  What disturbed the defendants was Judge Keary’s characterization that the nonviolent theater, most especially the tee shirts and the banner, could have caused others to get violent. No witness testified that anyone was angered by the die-in. In fact, defense witnesses testified that some visitors to the crypt applauded. Many of the defendants expressed their disbelief that the judge claimed it was their intent to breach the peace. For example, one of the defendants, Max Obuszewski, reminded the court before sentencing that the striking garbage collectors in Memphis, TN, that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. supported, marched with signs “I AM A MAN.” Using the judge’s logic, those signs were a breach of peace because a racist could have gotten upset and possibly violent. Many of the defendants traveled great distances to participate in the die-in and the trial. Janet Ashby, for example, works with refugees in Cambodia. Four women came from Massachusetts. Don Muller from Sitka, AK sought an apology from Shapiro, as the prosecutor described the action as inappropriate. Muller explained that the war is what is inappropriate not the efforts to end it. Sister Virgine Lawinger rode an all-night bus from Germantown, WI to testify about her efforts, while in Iraq, to prevent the war. More than ten defendants have appealed the conviction, and more are expected to do so within the next thirty days. Two Washington, D.C. lawyers who witnessed portions of the trial have agreed to be involved in the appeal. Some of the defendants informed the judge they would not accept the sentence. A few said they would pay the fee, as long as the money went to the victims of the Iraq War. Despite the conviction, the defendants were energized by the trial experience. And even though the government wants to stifle dissent, many defendants are already planning future antiwar actions. It is quite possible that some of the defendants will eventually be sentenced to jail by Judge Ann O’Regan Keary for probation violation. But the activists take seriously their Nuremberg Obligation to speak out, as this government continues to violate innumerable international laws. 

OUR CONSTITUTION HAS BEEN FOUND GUILTY 

     On January 17, I and 30 co-defendants were found guilty of "unlawful assembly" for actions we took in the Capitol building on September 20, 2007. I submit that we were surrogates for the U.S. Constitution, in particular its Article VI, Section two (see below), and for the First Amendment, which, along with Amendments Two through Ten, constitutes our Bill of Rights. Washington, D.C. Superior Court Judge Ann O'Regan Keary failed to protect these precious rights, and our sentence is meant to muzzle further protests involving civil resistance against the Iraq War and other illegal actions by the Bush/Cheney Administration. 

     The action of September 20 took place in the Crypt of the U.S. Capitol, a large lobby through which the public must pass in order to view the proceedings in the House or Senate. It was a "die-in" which we called "The Rivers of Blood Start Here". We gathered in a circle on one side of the Crypt, out of the way of the entrance, and easily avoidable by anyone who wanted to ignore us. After reading the name of either a U.S. military or Iraqi civilian who has died in the Iraq War, one by one we fell to the floor. We wore t-shirts spattered with red paint, and draped red streamers over our bodies to simulate the blood being shed by victims of the war. We lay there until we were arrested. We did this to dramatize to Congress and to the public that we are engaged in an illegal war that has taken a terrible toll in human life. All of us had tried to reach Congress by other means, including lobbying, letters, phone calls and petitions, yet Congress has continued to fund the war. A school teacher visiting the Crypt with her students was heard to remark, "This is an example of democracy in action." We did not do this in order to get arrested, but to exercise our First Amendment right "peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." 

     In our defense, we also asserted that our Constitution, in Article VI, Section two, asserts that "...all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." We were referring to the fact that the U.S. is a signatory of the U.N. Charter which makes wars of aggression illegal; and the Geneva Conventions, which protect the rights of civilians in war and occupation; and is an author of the Nuremberg Principles which state that obeying orders is not an excuse for committing a crime. 

     In supporting the government's case against us, in what was a very sloppy attempt to make us all guilty by association, Judge Keary found us guilty of "Unlawful Assembly" and took the one police witness's word for it that we were blocking passageways. But more surprising to us was her assertion that our conduct threatened the peace because our banner ("the rivers of blood start here") and our "blood"-stained t-shirts were provocative and MIGHT be offensive to SOMEONE, who MIGHT react with violence. In other words, if someone didn't like our action or our appearance and became violent, that would be our fault. Furthermore, she stated that because we "intended to lie down" we therefore intended to commit a crime. The sentence from Judge Keary was unusually harsh for this type of offense, and the prosecution stated to the judge that he wanted an even harsher sentence because "these people keep coming back and appearing in court again and again, and there needs to be a deterrent like there is for other criminals. 

     We received sentences of from 7 to 10 days in jail, suspended; six months of unsupervised probation during which we are forbidden to return to the Crypt of the Capitol building or get arrested for anything anywhere in the U.S,. and a fee of $50 to $100. I ask you, who is guilty? Is it the judge who is sworn to uphold the Constitution, or the protesters who are using nonviolent means to stop an abuse of power? Whereas we defended ourselves without lawyers during this trial, our appeal will require us to raise money to hire an attorney. However, we think our Constitution is worth it. -Sherrill Hogen Conway, MA 01341 

Opening Statement by Jordan Manuel, Rivers of Blood Trial, January 17, 2008

     My name is Jordan Manuel, a senior at Catholic University, and on September 20th, 2007 I along with 32 others were arrested in the U.S. Capitol while resisting the unlawful war in Iraq. We believe that it is imperative for us to stand against this war and make our voices heard in the halls of power. On September 20th, that is exactly what we were doing. We were not disturbing the peace or being disorderly, but exercising our First Amendment right to speak out against war and occupation. 

     On September 20th, 2007, we walked into the Capitol Building around 10:30am. We wandered around the inside of the building for awhile until we decided to proceed to the Rotunda. We were blocked from entering the Rotunda at around 11:00am, since we were not with a tour group, therefore we decided to conduct our action in the Crypt at 11:15am, where we had noticed many tourists gathered. We gathered in a circle in the right hand corner of the room, out of the way of any doors or exits. Revealing red paint stained shirts and photos of dead Iraqis and U.S. soldiers, we began to make statements against the war and performed a vigil in remembrance of those who have died. While doing this, we noticed several members of the Capitol Police standing in the room, but made no move to arrest us or tell us that we could not perform our action. One by one we fell to the ground to symbolize our solidarity with the dead. After everyone was laying on the ground, it was then that we received warnings from members of the Capitol Police to disperse or be arrested. After five minutes, the officers started to arrest members of our group. 

     The evidence will show that we are completely innocent of the charges against us and that the prosecution’s case does not meet the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. According to DC Code 22-1321, the charge of Disorderly Conduct can be asserted if the defendants commit any or all of the following actions: 1) acts in a manner that annoys, interferes, disturb, obstruct or be offensive to others 2) congregates on a public street and refuses to move on when ordered by the police 3) shouts or makes a noise either outside or inside a building during the nighttime to the annoyance or disturbance of any considerable number of persons 4) interferes with any person in any place by jostling against such person or unnecessarily crowding such person or by placing a hand in the proximity of such person’s pocketbook or handbag 5) Causes a disturbance in any streetcar, railroad car, omnibus or other public conveyance by running through it, climbing through windows, or upon the seats. 

     Your Honor, the evidence will show that we are innocent of these charges as we have not violated any of the aforementioned points. Regarding the first point, acting in a manner that disturbs, annoys, etc. We did not act in the manner described in that statement. As we performed our action, there were several groups of students, teachers and tourists who watched us with interest. At this time I would like to mention the tourist standard, which was established in Wheelock v United States. It stated that “As to the general prohibition against demonstrating, the seminal case in this area explains why appellants' conduct cannot constitute the basis for penalizing the exercise of their constitutional rights unless it interfered with the rights of others to a greater degree than tourists do.” There was some applause from the onlookers but no one shouted at us or made visible signs that they were offended by our action. To prosecute us on that charge would necessitate the prosecution to bring forth witnesses testifying that they were indeed annoyed or otherwise disturbed. 

     The second point, is that we were not on a public street. We were inside the Capitol building, in a public area with many other people and were simply expressing our First Amendment right to freedom of speech. There were no markers or signs designating the area off limits. There were also no signs stating that the area in which we in was not available for public expressions of opinion. We felt that we were acting in accordance with the law. The third point, is that we did not make noise or shout inside the Capitol during the nighttime, which the clause clearly states. We were there during normal business hours when a considerable amount of tourists and other visitors were also looking around the building. There were no signs prohibiting talking or making noise, except for the House and Senate galleries, which we observed. Also, there is no way to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that we annoyed or disturbed anyone in the area where we were protesting. That would require a degree of evidence that the prosecution cannot provide. 

     Your Honor, the final two clauses of the charge are completely invalid in our case. No one in our group ever came into physical contact with anyone around us or made any move that could be construed as jostling or crowding. In fact, I believe we made a concerted effort to on the one hand, be visible and able to be heard and on the other hand to be out of the way and not to block any doors or exits. Also, since we conducted our action inside a building and not on a mode of public transportation as stated in the last clause, that part is not applicable to our case either. We will show that we did not violate any of the aforementioned clauses and therefore are innocent of the charge of disorderly conduct. We went to the Capitol to show our noncompliance with the policy of war and occupation that is being carried out in Iraq. We feel that our actions were and are justified because of the illegality of the actions of this Administration. We were following the example of Jesus, who taught us to follow the tenant of “turning the other cheek” and to love our neighbors as ourselves. Our action was completely nonviolent and at no point did we ever endanger the people around us or the officers. 

     In commencing this action, we felt that we had to do something to speak out against this war. We have all written letters to Congress, attended hearings, signed petitions, attended rallies and lobbied our representatives. We have done everything in our power to make our voice heard against this illegal and immoral war. Our feeling is that if we do nothing to work for an end to this war, then we ourselves are complicit in this abomination. Simply put, we had no choice but to act as we did, in full accordance with the law.