July 11, 2002
Today was a day of creative defenses and much legal argumentation, defending our First Amendment Rights
Summer Nelson and Abi Miller (their cases joined), plead Not Guilty, acting Pro Se (i.e. self-representation).
Government witnesses were called, to testify to Ban and Bar letters, details of the videotape of the Nov. 18, 2001 Action, and of posted and bullhorn-announced warnings to Defendants on that date.
The defendants’ defense was that they had been part of the legal protest, but went inside solely to deliver an “Indictment” to the commandant (or his representative) of the SOA, charging them with specified crimes against humanity, and “to confront the fact that our government is training torturers.” The videotape from Nov. 18 showed officers waving the defendants towards the base, while warnings were issued to protesters as they were forced to the ground and into a waiting bus. The defendants’ closing argument centered around “our constitutional right to petition our government to redress grievances.” The judge rejected all arguments and found them Guilty, as charged.
Peter Gelderloos, plead Not Guilty, acting Pro Se
The same government witnesses were called, this time adding information about various Fort Benning checkpoints and how people are vetted to enter the base. The judge repeated his contention that “a breach of the law is a breach of the peace.” Major Joe Blair (U.S. Army, retired) was called to the stand by Peter. Major Blair had long been in charge of instruction at the SOA, after also being a “Political/M ilitary Officer” in Latin America and Viet Nam. Major Blair confirmed the SOAW allegations that some of the routine courses taught at SOA included interrogation and torture, and techniques of physical abuse, torture, and infiltrating (labor) unions. Major Blair later became outspoken on these issues when he became aware that this was a violation of the Executive Order of U.S. President Jimmy Carter, who had prohibited the use and teaching of these “Project-X” classified manuals that had been used in VietNam and elsewhere. After a recent visit to SOA/WHISC, Major Blair concluded “there are no substantive changes besides the name.” He continued in saying “they teach the identical courses that I taught and changed the course names, and use the same manuals.” They also continue to teach courses on U.S. military strategy, tactics and use of technology, although torture techniques are no longer taught.
During his testimony, it was pointed out that Latin America only fights wars internally, not to defend their country. They are taught these techniques to use against their own civilian population. He agreed that what is taught at SOA/WHISC directly results in violations of U.S. treaty law, human rights law, human rights treaties, international agreements on tariff and trade, and the North America Free Trade Agreement.
Major Blair closed by saying that the vast majority of the officers who teach at the SOA/WHISC are Latin American, and that he considers SOA/WHISC a quasi-Latin American military school, but he was glad that they are starting to teach a new 8-hour Human Rights class.
Peter then took the stand himself. He said that he legally protested outside the gate, then entered to deliver an information document to the SOA/WHISC commander, and insisted that we all have a clear First Amendment right to lawful assembly and to petition for redress of grievances. Peter raised many reasons for innocence and acquittal, based on the Supremacy Clause, on International law, on the OAS Charter, on the Equal Protection law, on First Amendment rights, and others.
There were some tense moments as the prosecutor unsuccessfully struggled to keep up with Peter’s creative defense and cool demeanor. An exciting debate on Free Speech took center stage, with Peter’s assertion that people are ultimately ruled by their own morality. He insisted that Free Speech is the main foundation of our freedom, and especially objected to men with guns (and power) using coercion to silence people, both in Latin America and in this very courtroom. “It is important to listen,” he stated to the judge and prosecutor, “especially when your basic assumptions are being challenged.” Following up the prosecution’s former statement “a protest by any other name…” comment, Peter closed with “The First Amendment, by any other name, is valid.” He pointed out that Law and Justice are not identical, and challenged Judge Faircloth to uphold both of these ideals.
Peter was found guilty as charged.
Palmer Legare, acting Pro Se, plead Not Guilty.
Palmer contended simply that his case, as well as the others, should be acquitted because of international law. “I thank the prosecution for selecting me as one of their [quota of ] 43,” he said, and then told a touching story of personally learning the pain of oppression of minorities, how this led him to a life of activism to help alleviate suffering, and of his experiences in Guatemala. “I couldn’t understand that when some one knew about this oppression going on, that they did not do anything about it.” He said that it seems that “WHISC is needed so that the U.S. can continue to make money overseas, and generally keep the people of Latin and South America powerless,” for that purpose.
Palmer challenged Judge Faircloth directly, explaining that he and others were upset with the court’s behavior and treatment of the defendants. He also showed compassion for the judge and his point of view. To everyone’s surprise, Judge Faircloth wanted to know how he was perceived and why people would be upset with him. Although in the end the Judge concluded that they simply misunderstood each other, the dialog was electric. Palmer concluded by asking the Judge to look him in the eye when sentencing him, and to know that any sentence he passes makes him complicit with the SOA atrocities, that he can slow down the SOA Watch, but not stop it.
Judge Faircloth stated “You mentioned that Martin Luther King and Malcolm X did what they thought was right no matter the consequences. You all talk about doing what you think is right. This is the first mention of consequences. You all knew there would be consequences for your actions. I admire you for acknowledging this and for saying it.”
The judge also said, “While I am not authorized to break the law, I can bend procedure in court. I have bent it to the extent that I have allowed you all to say whatever you have to say. I do not know another judge who would have allowed this. [However,] I am bound by the law.”
Judge Faircloth also said, “I am glad to hear that they are no longer teaching torture at SOA. When I go out there, I want to take Major Blair with me. I want to see what you see. I want you to point it out to me.”
Palmer was then pronounced Guilty, as charged.
John Heid, plead Not Guilty, acting alone, Pro Se
As time was short, the Prosecution presented their case quickly. John raised many questions during his cross exam of the government’s two witnesses, such as how SOA students are screened, if at all. He asked the Chief of Administration and Civil Law if he was aware that one SOA instructor was a convicted war criminal from Chile, how such an appointment could happen and questioned whether the SOA students + instructors are immune from U.S. Federal law.
John will present his defense case tomorrow. John’s case is the last of the 37.
So far, 35 guilty and one acquittal. Tomorrow afternoon (Friday), sentences will be pronounced for the SOAW 37.
