Saint Patrick's Four / Big Victory!

September 27, 2005

The ruling for the Saint Patrick's Four is "a big victory," according to William Quigley, law professor form Loyola who was serving as legal counsel for the Saint Patrick's Four. They were acquitted of the biggest charge, conspiracy to impede a federal officer which would have resulted in six years and a $250,000 fine. Instead they were found quilty of misdemeanors, trespassing and damaging government property and sentenced to 18 months. The jurors got a standing ovation from the four. I applaud these four that live by their convictions and take actions according to their conscience.

In other news Taniff is up for reauthorization in New York State. The changes? Go to <http://www.otda.state.ny.us/tanf/2006-draft_default.htm>

--Katherine Arnoldi

Teen mothers and "cool " issues

September26, 2005

The jury deliberated for six hours on Friday and did not reach a verdict in the case of the Saint Patrick's Four. stpatricksfour.org Of course I am hoping for leniency for them and that a lenient verdict will not have implications for protesters at abortion clinics, or set a precedent for such action. I will go to the trial on Monday and report.

Recently I heard that in the state of Indiana if a teenager becomes pregnant her parents can have her arrested and sent to a junvenile detention center, where she must stay until she has the child or until her parents decide to take her back. The person who told me this thought that this law has since been revoked.

The rights of teen mothers is not a "cool" issue and you would never know that half the children of the US are raised by single moms, that half the children in the US live in poverty, that if a woman starts life as a teen mom she has a 15% chance of ever getting out of poverty. These are not "cool" issues at a time when the US is having to stop social programmes in order also to be acceptable to the global neoliberal forces. Acceptable issues right now do not interrupt our neoliberal agenda. Look at them and consider all in this light. Thanks for giving this some thought. Katherine Arnoldi

A New Model

September 23, 2005

On Monday night, September 19, I stood up at the Citizen's Tribunal on Iraq, at the United Methodist Church in Binghamton New York and asked a question of James Petras, Professor Emieritus of Sociology at SUNY Binghamton who wrote Globalization Unmasked: Imperialism in the 21st Century. The Symposium is concurrent with the Saint Patrick's Four trial here. I asked, "Since it appears our government is powerless over neoliberal global forces and in order to retain any hegenomy the US apparently believes it must abolish social programs and raise a military to act as global riot control, then do we not need a new model for effective action?" James Petras answered that yes, our government does not have power and must bow to global neoliberal forces and must provide the military, but now the government is having trouble raising its military by recriutment and therefore the Saint Patrick's Four stpatricksfour.org was effective in that they choose the military recruitment center as a place to stage the demonstration. He mentioned the word vulnerable, that it was a vulnerable point now.

But he did not answer my question, which is, is it not time for new model for our actions? Gandhi was effective precisely because he advocated a new model for resistence. Dr. Martin Luther King was effective because he applied Gandhi's ideas in a new location. The marches on Washington were effective during the Vietnam War. Julia Butterfly lived in a tree to stop its destruction and the destruction of the forests of our Northwest.

What I was calling for in my question is not to disparage the work of Philip Berrigan, or the Catholic Workers or the Ploughshares people. All I am saying is that, if we put our heads together could we not develop a new model that no one has thought of before, one that keeps in mind the pressure being put now on governments to get with the neoliberal agenda or, as the United States is, lose their position in the global community. We have the example of Chavez in Venezuela standing up to the neoliberal agenda and instead of signing the welfare bill to "end welfare as we know it" as Clinton did in the US in order to make the US more attractive to foreign investment, Chavez is saying he is going to create more social programs, more hospitals, more schools, more universities.

So, I ask, if we put our heads together, could we think of something not thought of before, just like Gandhi, and like Dr. Martin Luther King, a new model. ---Katherine Arnoldi

September 22, 2005

Just back from the trial of the Saint Patrick's Four stpatricksfour.org where I heard Theresa Grady (left) ask questions of the witness for the defense, Clare Grady. She asked her if she went to the recruitment center to destoy property and Clare said no. She asked her if she impeded the duties of the recruiter and Clare said no, that people were able to enter and leave the recruitment center. She said that she felt it was her duty to enter the recruitment center. She said that, "The blood was already on the flag, that we just made it visible," but that she did not mean to put the blood on the flag, that she had put the blood on the wall. She said she would never disparage someone else's sacred object, meaning the flag. She said she did not knock over any of the placards or destroy the posters in the center. After Theresa concluded her questions and the defense rested, the people in the courtroom applauded.

Miroslav Louvic then stood to cross examine Clare. He said, "I never had a standing ovation before," and the people in the courtroom then applauded him. The courtroom has not been without humor each time I have observed this trial. Miroslave Louvic then asked Clare if it was true that she had participated in an action on a military base in which the group of which she was a part had taken hammers and a crow bar into the facility. Clare answered that it was a kitchen hammer. He asked her if she intended to damage the planes or other equipment in the hanger and she said that she felt it was her duty to prevent the death and destruction of human lives. He asked her if she had gone to jail for that action and she said that she had for eighteen months. He asked her if she knew that the damage she had done was $50,000 (or was it $70,000?) and asked her if she had repaid that money. She said that she had received no notice that she was to repay the money. He asked if she had made an attempt to repay the money anyway and she said no. The prosecuter is doing everything he can to portray the Saint Patrick's Four in the worst possible light.

The feeling that I had after my last observation of this trial was that the Saint Patrick's Four fully expect to serve six years in prison for their actions, which Clare had called a die-in. It seems that they are happy to have a chance to explain why they took the very serious measures that they have. I heard out in the area in front of the courthouse where the supporters of the Saint Patrick's Four are holding posters, singing songs and standing in support that at least one of the Saint Partrick's Four has said that they are willing to go to jail and even die for the protest for which they feel they have been called by their conscience and by God. stpatricksfour.org

Saint Patrick's Four

September 20, 2005

I just came back from the courtroom for the Saint Patrick's Four. First the judge spoke to the jurors, interrupted by Daniel Burns, which resulted in a sidebar and then Judge McAvoy admitted that he had been wrong and told the jury to disregard portions of his statement. (Later, after lunch, Judge McAvoy asked the four to begin their cross examining of a witness. "But the jury is not in the room," one said. The Judge laughed out loud at his mistake and said, "Yes, of course, we'll let them in." )Then came the opening remarks of Miroslav Louvic, the Assistant US attorney, the prosecutor, in which he told the jury that he would prove that the four entered a recruitment center, caused damage to the property and prohibited officers of the government from performing their duties.

I heard the opening remarks by Clare T. Grady, (left) explaining how it was she came to go into the Army recruitment center and pour her blood on the floor along with Daniel Burns, Peter DeMott and her sister, Teresa Grady. She spoke eloquently about her trip to Iraq with the Voices in the Wilderness campaign and the development of her conscience. Judge McAvoy interrupted her several times, reminding her that while he would permit her to describe how she came to enter the recruitment center, the events leading up to her protest and her reasons for her actions, she could not discuss the war itself. He stopped her when she gave casualty reports or other mentions of the events leading up to the invasion of Iraq. The courtroom was full to capacity with other Catholic Workers, including priests from all over the country. All four of the defendents are Catholic Workers.

The prosecuter called the recruiter from the Coyoga Mall Recruiting station who had been on duty during both of the demonstrations. He said that "No one wants to come to work and have to deal with this," and he kept repeating, "I had blood on my hands." I don't know if anyone else noted the irony in his constant repitition of this. At another point he started to say that the four started reciting their "scrip...their poetry and chantings and the like." He almost said scriptures then decided that may make them look good which did not seem to be his intention. The four declined to ask him questions. In fact, after the state trooper's testimony when the four were asked to cross examine the state trooper, Clare just thanked him for his respect, professionalism and kindness. She gave a smile and a little wave when he left the podium.

Outside a small group (three, four) including Veterns in support of the troops played "My Country Tis of Thee" over a loudspeaker. The Catholic workers held signs including "Blessed are the Peacemakers." Beginning Sunday night, September 18, a Citizens Tribunal on Iraq has been held in the Chenango Street United Methodist Church. Sunday night I attended and on Monday, a photo of the audience including me appeared on the front page of the Press and Sun Bullentin, the local Binghamton paper. Monday morning I stood with the protesters and in the evening attended the Tribunal and today, Tuesday, I went into the court. I acted as a "court artist" making drawings, above, of the sidebar with Thersa Grady, Clare Grady as she spoke to the jury, Daniel Burns and Peter DeMott (left). Tonight I am looking forward to seeing Kathy Kelly at the Tribunal, one of the founders of Voices in the Wilderness. Stay tuned. For more information about the Saint Patrick's Four go to stpatricksfour.org

Moms of the World Unite!

September 5, 2005

What mom wants to send her child off to war? I say no mom, not one. We want our resources spent on education, on making sure our children and the children of other moms are safe, secure and not about to be deluged by a broken levee. We know now there is a mom holding her children displaced by Hurricane Katrina, a mom who cannot find her children, a mom who has lost her child in Iraq, or a mom who has lost her child to the prison system and we get angry. We love our children and we say no more, no more, no more.

 While we will help with the relief effort, we know that temporary help is not justice, and that justice takes much more effort then sending a sweater, a check, some diapers.

For example, in Binghamton, New York four Catholic Workers, parents, are going on trial in federal court for protesting the war by pouring their own blood at a military recruitment center. They are called the Saint Patrick's Four: stpatricksfour.org and their trial will begin September 19, 2005 in Binghamton, NY.

---Katherine Arnoldi