forgot to mention their website :  http://disarmnowplowshares.wordpress.com/

Ratcliffe trial continues ,and now you and you next??
Aren't the courts for criminals???
Oh don't get me started on Environmentalists having mobile phones///

Please discuss..truth in one hand a corporate turd in the other!!

Please debate!

Disarm Now Plowshares: Motions to Dismiss DENIED!
 http://disarmnowplowshares.wordpress.com/2010/11/22/den...tice/

Friends,

The Disarm Now Plowshares were in court again; this time for the
pre-trial conference in which a most important issue – the motions to
dismiss their case – was argued.

All five Disarm Now Plowshares co-defendants - Bill “Bix” Bichsel, SJ,
Susan Crane, Lynne Greenwald, Steve Kelly, SJ, and Anne Montgomery,
RSCJ – were present for the proceedings in Judge Benjamin Settle’s
courtroom at the U.S. District Court, Tacoma, Washington on November
22, 2010.

Susan Crane began the defendant’s testimony; the following are some of
her key points.

“Our action on Nov. 2, the testimony of Ramsey Clark, the motions we
filed, make clear that we are concerned about the trident nuclear
warheads…”

“The trident nuclear weapons system is illegal and immoral. It’s a
system preparing for the mass murder of innocent civilians that will
affect generations to come.”

“As loving human beings, we have a responsibility, right and duty to
use nonviolent actions to prevent the trident nuclear weapons system
from operating.”

Crane went on to invoke the heart of the Plowshares vision and its
vital importance in addressing Trident (and nuclear weapons) that
constitute the taproot of violence in our nation (and the world).

“On Nov. 2, 2009, we remembered the words of the prophet Isaiah, who
had a vision of beating swords into plowshares”…convert weapons of war
into something useful for human life. It is our firm understanding
that these Trident nuclear weapons are illegal under national and
international law, as well as the teachings of our faith, and general
humanitarian law and conscience.”

Crane worked to build the defense case for applying the necessity
defense; that “the indisputable facts of Trident are hard to face, but
we can’t deny that it is in preparation for the use of nuclear
weapons.” Understanding that there is
“imminent harm” from the manufacture, deployment and preparation for
the use of Trident, the Disarm Now Plowshares acted out of conscience,
and moral and legal duty. “The harm we created (cut fence) is minor
in comparison with the harm of a nuclear explosion.”

Anne Montgomery spoke to former Attorney General Ramsey Clark’s
previous testimony in this case before she moved on to discussing her
first Plowshares action, King of Prussia in 1980. She remembered
thinking at that time that, “If someone had a gun in his or her hand,
I would have to knock it out of that hand.” She stated that they cut
the fences because there was no other way in; no criminal intent.
Montgomery also stressed that they have tried all other means to bring
light to these weapons, and had to do this Plowshares action because
the public is ignorant of the existence of the weapons. “We were
willing to give our own blood to avoid shedding the blood of others.”

In reference to the justification defense, Montgomery quoted Judge
Spaeth from a concurrent opinion in the Superior Court in Pennsylvania
in a 1983 appeal of the Plowshares Eight trial.

“Accordingly, whenever a defendant pleads justification, the court
should ask, ‘What higher value than the value of literal compliance
with the law is defendant asserting?’ The trial court failed to ask
this question. Apparently in its eyes no higher value is implicated
in this case. And for the dissent, this case is to be decided as we
would decide a case involving ‘the theft and destruction of guns or
explosives by altruistic and well-meaning citizens who sincerely
believe that guns or explosives possess the potential to kill at
sometime in the future.’ But appellants are not pleading the danger
arising from ‘guns or explosives;’ they are pleading the danger
arising from nuclear missiles. One who does not understand that
danger does not understand appellants’ plea.”

“Appellants do not assert that their action would avoid nuclear war
(what a grandiose and unlikely idea!). Instead, at least so far as I
can tell from the record, their belief was that their action, in
combination with the actions of others, might accelerate a political
process ultimately leading to the abandonment of nuclear missiles.
And that belief, I submit, should not be dismissed as ‘unreasonable as
a matter of law.’ A jury might – or might not – find it unreasonable
as a matter of fact. But that is for a jury to say, not for a court.”

Although not referred to in today’s proceedings, the following text
from the closing argument for the Plowshares Eight appeal (referenced
above) is most powerful, and sums up the reality of the peril of
nuclear weapons.

“The people in the Pentagon offices and their counterparts in the
Kremlin where the questions of coping with war injuries are dealt with
must be having a hard time these days, looking ahead as they must to
the possibility of thermonuclear war. Any sensible analyst in such an
office would be tempted to scratch off all the expense items related
to surgical care of the irradiated, burned, and blasted, the men,
women, and children with empty bone marrows and vaporized skin. What
conceivable benefit can come from sinking money in hospitals subject
to instant combustion, only capable of salvaging, at their intact
best, a few hundred victims who will be lying out there in the
hundreds of thousands? There exists no medical technology that can
cope with the certain outcome of just one small, neat, so-called
tactical bomb exploded over a battlefield. As for the problem raised
by a single large bomb dropped on New York City or Moscow, with the
dead and dying in the millions, what would medical technology be good
for? As the saying goes, forget it. Think of something else. Get a
computer running somewhere in a cave, to estimate the likely numbers
of the lucky dead. L. Thomas, On Medicine and the Bomb, reprinted in
L. Thomas, Late Night Thoughts on Listening to Mahler’s Ninth
Symphony. Nor is the peril confined to those who will be ‘irradiate,
burned, and blasted.’ It extends much farther, to our survival as a
species. If only a small fraction of the nuclear missiles now able to
be fired, either by us or by the Soviet Union, are fired, a ‘dark
nuclear winter’ will occur: a cloud of debris will block off our
sunlight; temperatures will plunge; and our death by freezing of
starvation will follow. Scientists have identified a 100 megaton
explosion as the ‘nuclear war threshold’ that once crossed will lead
to such a global catastrophe. See ‘After Atomic War: Doom in the
Dark,’ Phil. Enquirer, November 1, 1983. It is in the light of this
peril that the reasonableness of appellants’ belief must be judged.”

Steve Kelly then summed up the legal case. He stated that U.S.
voluntary participation in international law is well established, and
that Ramsey Clark clearly established this fact in his earlier
testimony. Kelly also cited the International Court of Justice (ICJ)
decision on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear weapons.

Constitutionally, the laws are clear that the threat of use of nuclear
weapons is unlawful, and the presence of Trident (which targets
civilian populations) is grossly unlawful. He further stated that the
conditions of necessity have been met; the defendants were not trying
to change the law, but were “trying to block any intended threat or
use of those weapons,” and they did in fact successfully do so; the
base was locked down and no work was done on the warheads for up to 11
hours that day.

Earlier in the proceedings Crane stated (in justifying the Plowshares
action) that over many years people have tried many, many other
avenues, including fasting, vigils, war tax resistance and
demonstrations, to bring the government’s attention to this issue, but
they have still been ignored. The prosecution later declared that the
Disarm Now Plowshares co-defendants had taken the lazy path; “Going to
Bangor is easy,” stated the prosecutor. He further stated that the
hard thing is engaging in the democratic process, using speech, etc.

William Bichsel responded to the prosecution’s statement, saying that
they engaged in nonviolent action to turn these weapons (symbolically)
into plowshares, and inform the public about the presence of these
weapons so that the democratic process could be fulfilled. After 40
years of using every method conceivable, any reasonable person would
consider these actions reasonable and necessary. Bichsel also spoke
to the traditions that have been so important and effective over a
long period of time; that the defendants are standing in the tradition
of people like Harriet Tubman and Rosa Parks, and are schooled in the
nonviolence of Martin Luther King, Jr.

Following the testimony, Judge Settle denied both motions to dismiss,
and stated that although he understands that the defendants “are
acting out of conscience,” that does not apply here since the court is
supposed to uphold the Constitution. It must therefore follow, by
precedent, that the Nuremburg Principles and necessity defense are not
applicable in this case.

When Crane responded that all five co-defendants “feel we are entitled
to a full defense,” Judge Settle replied that court is bound by
precedent, and that the defendants can appeal should there be a
conviction. Case closed???

The Disarm Now Plowshares five trial begins at 9:00 AM on December 7,
2010. Although the government has essentially denied the defendants
any reasonable defense, the five are prepared to forge ahead with
joyful hearts. Let all who believe in extinguishing the violent fire
of nuclear weapons before it erupts support these courageous
individuals who are fully prepared to give up their freedoms for this
just cause.

There are many opportunities to support Disarm Now Plowshares. In
addition to coming to the court to witness the trial and join in
vigils outside the courthouse, there will be evening programs in
Tacoma beginning on Monday (December 6) and continuing each evening of
the trial. These will be opportunities to meet the members of Disarm
Now, hear speakers, and enjoy music, food and fellowship.

On Monday evening, December 6, Angie Zelter will be the main speaker.
Zelter, a peace, human rights and environmental campaigner, has
written several books, including "Trident on Trial - the case for
people's disarmament."

On Tuesday evening, December 7, Colonel Ann Wright, is the main
speaker. Wright, who served in the U.S. Army and Foreign Service,
resigned on the eve of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, stating that without
the authorization of the UN Security Council, the invasion and
occupation of a Muslim, Arab, oil-rich country would be a violation of
international law. Most recently, she was on the May, 2010 Gaza
Freedom Flotilla that was attacked by the Israeli military.

There are other speakers not yet confirmed, and all the event
information will be posted on the Disarm Now Plowshares “Events” page
at  http://disarmnowplowshares.wordpress.com/events/ as they are
confirmed.

Read the Disarm Now Plowshares Blog at
 http://disarmnowplowshares.wordpress.com/ for ongoing reflections
leading up to trial and daily reports during the trial.

Finally, please spread the word about Disarm Now Plowshares and their
courageous act of resistance so that everyone may learn of these
immoral and illegal weapons of mass destruction (Trident) and their
duty, as citizens, to speak out against them.

Related Link:  http://disarmnowplowshares.wordpress.com/