Some Answers to Rarely Asked Questions-2

By Skip Schiel, written on July 15, 2005

Referring to the recent events in Cambridge, the US Army celebrating its 230th anniversary on Cambridge Common on June 14, 2005 (my earlier writing and photographs on this issue at: http://teeksaphoto.org/RecentPhotos/ArmyCambridgeCommon/index.html), I’ll try a few more answers, from my perspective, with limited (but slowly growing) knowledge.

The mass of men serve the state thus, not as men mainly, but as machines, with their bodies. They are the standing army, and the militia, jailers, constables, posse comitatus, etc. In most cases there is no free exercise whatever of the judgment or of the moral sense… Yet such as these even are commonly esteemed good citizens. Others, as most legislators, politicians, lawyers, ministers, and office-holders, serve the state chiefly with their heads; and, as they rarely make any moral distinctions, they are as likely to serve the devil, without intending it, as God. A very few, as heroes, patriots, martyrs, reformers in the great sense, and men, serve the state with their consciences also, and so necessarily resist it for the most part; and they are commonly treated as enemies by it.

—Henry David Thoreau, Civil Disobedience, 1849

But first, a brief report on the outcome of our first court appearance on July 15, 2005: inconclusive, a bit worse than expected.

The prosecution (representing the state of Massachusetts, but in league with the police and administration of Cambridge) asked for surprisingly severe penalties. Contrary to my usual bluntness, I can't disclose what these were—our lawyers (two from the American Civil Liberties Union) feel we might prejudice our case by publicly revealing this information. I can say that the likelihood of this going to trial has grown. The State, in my view unwisely, is choosing to pursue this, giving us an opportunity to expand the story. And the issues, in nugget form, are two fold: the right of citizens to peaceably and publicly dissent from governmental policy, enshrined in the first amendment, and the US military's role in fomenting anger and suffering, self destructively, while increasing danger to its citizens and people worldwide.

The ACLU is considering bringing a suit against the city for its violation of civil rights. They have requested details of the agreements between city and Army, as has the city council (see below for the city council resolution). Stay tuned.

We, the “Cambridge Seven” (as named by the first judge) have a second court appearance on September 15th, Friday, 9 AM, Middlesex County Court House, 40 Thorndike St, East Cambridge. I won't be there, excused by the judge because I'll be out of town. As before, we don’t know exactly when in the day our case will be called. If you wish to attend, you probably don’t want to sit there potentially all day waiting so if you're interested in attending, please call the American Friends Service Committee, 617-661-6130 and ask for Robert Dove. He will be in contact with one of the defendants at the courthouse.

This will be the second pre-trial hearing, and might set the stage for a jury trial to be held later.

Now the remainder of those promised answers:

Did police act appropriately?

No, in all cases. Case no. 1, moving dissenters from the front of the audience. The first constitutional amendment guarantees the right of citizens to peaceably dissent from their government's policies. The dissenters at the Cambridge Common were not disruptive, indeed, they were silent. They did not impede the ceremony, standing to one side of the speaker's platform. The signs were civil and reasonable, such as "We support our troops, bring them home." They were irksome to the authorities, no doubt, as dissent often is.

Case no. 2, arresting Joe Gerson and Jamie Bissonette when they sat down. The police might have simply carried them out. Or better yet, let them stay. All the other dissenters were leaving the area.

Case no. 3, my arrest. Two witnesses and one photograph I made shortly before my arrest seem to indicate that I was outside the group being pushed away from the platform. I was photographing, doing my job. One witness reports that a police officer pushed me as I photographed the tumult, then knocked me to the ground, and finally arrested me, charged with unlawful assembly.

Case no. 4, the arrests of those in the Boston Direct Action Project. One might ask, as I have for case no. 1, why not allow the Project inside the perimeter? They were thrown out and then when they climbed over the barrier, they were arrested. (see http://bostondirectactionproject.blogspot.com/ for further information about what they did and who they are.) Others with signs were let in, an apparently capricious application of a policy designed to control dissent.

Why, in a public space, a common, in a land priding itself on free speech rights, a democracy, were the June 14th limits proscribed for free speech?

Probably because the Army wanted a clear shot at the populace, especially those of draftable age. To allow dissident might encourage potential recruits to consider more carefully what they were signing on to. And might influence those supporting the Army to withdraw their assent—wasn't this a celebration of all that the Army and most importantly the veterans have done for this country and the world?

Here’s the first amendment from the Bill of Rights to the US Constitution:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE PEACEABLY TO ASSEMBLE,AND TO PETITION THE GOVERNMENT FOR A REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES. (emphasis added)

Some arrested were charged with “unlawful assembly.” Is this an accurate charge? Who in fact unlawfully assembled?

In my view, the Army unlawfully assembled. Without a clear mandate from the people of Cambridge, they exhibited their usual dominant posture, invading rather than waiting for an invitation. Contrariwise, the dissenters were lawfully assembled to further this democracy by offering alternative opinions.

Others arrested were accused of “disturbing the peace.” Whose peace? And what does the US Army itself do to foster peace?

The peace of the recruitment effort was disturbed. The Army is far from being a peace force, altho with some tweaking—or maybe more radical alteration is required—this formidable force could be remolded into something useful to the globe, rather than something feared and fought. Imagine if we could resurrect and install Mahatmas Gandhi, as General in Charge, his mandate to form a more perfect army, finally bringing to fruition his vision of a Peace Army.

The Cambridge City Council has passed resolutions opposing war on Iraq, not complying with the USAPATRIOT act, and declaring itself a sanctuary city (from the days of Central and South Americans fleeing political violence.) How do these resolutions relate to the Cambridge Common events?

At the moment, not much, if at all, sadly. Which suggests the lack of power of the city council and thus the people in formulating and implementing policy. As with other groups I'm part of, Quakers in particular, I'm reluctant to report that we are experts at crafting statements, but to enact those statements, especially when costs are involved—security, comfort, wealth, life itself—we frequently hesitate and settle back, consulting the dictionary rather than our consciences.

Is the Army responsible for committing war crimes, in Iraq and elsewhere?

This is for others to decide, perhaps the International Criminal Court. My own feeling is yes, the United States is committing war crimes, not only in Iraq. And if another entity such as the European Union ever gains enough power, rulings to that effect might be promulgated. As Robert McNamara admitted in the stunning movie, The Fog of War by Errol Morris, who is held accountable is determined by who wins the war.

One aspect of the so-called “war on terror” is treatment of prisoners. We know about Abu Ghraib, we know about Guantanamo. Consider how the treatment squares with the requirements for humane treatment of prisoners, from the Geneva Conventions:

From Article 13:

Prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated. Any unlawful act or omission by the Detaining Power causing death or seriously endangering the health of a prisoner of war in its custody is prohibited, and will be regarded as a serious breach of the present Convention. In particular, no prisoner of war may be subjected to physical mutilation or to medical or scientific experiments of any kind which are not justified by the medical, dental or hospital treatment of the prisoner concerned and carried out in his interest.

Likewise, prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity.

Measures of reprisal against prisoners of war are prohibited.

From Article 14:

Prisoners of war are entitled in all circumstances to respect for their persons and their honor. Women shall be treated with all the regard due to their sex and shall in all cases benefit by treatment as favorable as that granted to men. Prisoners of war shall retain the full civil capacity which they enjoyed at the time of their capture. The Detaining Power may not restrict the exercise, either within or without its own territory, of the rights such capacity confers except in so far as the captivity requires.

And from Article 15:

The Power detaining prisoners of war shall be bound to provide free of charge for their maintenance and for the medical attention required by their state of health.

Why does the US refuse to be under the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court?

This seems fairly clear, given the role of the US in world affairs.

If the US is guilty of war crimes, is this responsibility—and potential guilt—now shared by the city?

Another question for courts. Which points to the importance of moving beyond individual sovereignty to a realm of global accountability. The Nuremberg principle declares that "just following orders” (or complying with the Army’s request for a “birthday celebration” on the Cambridge Common) is not a sufficient defense for illegal actions. Specific individuals might be held guilty for actions of the nation, but we are all responsible. We are all connected.

What is the true mission of the US military?

As a college student I enrolled in Naval ROTC, believing then that my charge was to protect and defend this great nation by learning and practicing the arts of naval warfare. In those two years, thanks to the YMCA and YWCA on the Iowa State University campus where I learned in some depth about the history of this country, I came to a different conclusion. My personal role as a naval officer would have been to avoid being killed while being ready to kill, and killing when ordered, or actually ordering the killing. And this with the higher purpose of projecting national power. What that power really meant—and the requirement to kill—directed me from the military onto a different path. The true mission of the US military, I came to understand, was to protect access to resources, open markets to commerce, and assure the dominance of US ideology.For the 225th birthday celebration, then Secretary of the Army Caldera stated proudly "Older than the republic itself, the Army has earned over 173 battle streamers, fighting in more battles, serving in more wars and contributing more soldiers to the cause of peace and freedom than any other service".

What has the United States become?

No surprise, to state it has become an empire, inhumane, terroristic, inflicting on itself possibly irreparable damage. And many openly admitted this imperiousness,with pride. But within the empire are the seeds of its own destruction. There is a certain madness reigning in our land. And this is what alarms me, along with the suffering this once great nation perpetrates abroad and at home. Many wise sages from different traditions have proclaimed that when the gods want to destroy a person, they first make that person mad.

In light of that answer, what is the proper role for we citizens?

A true patriot rises beyond a single family, a single community, a single nation, and seeks to help parent a wider vision, an extended interconnected family of peace and justice and happiness for all.

We must learn to live together as brothers or perish together as fools.

—Martin Luther King, Jr.

Postscript:

On July 6 this year, I had the good fortune of hearing the historian and peace and justice activist Howard Zinn quote from memory some words inspiring many in this land, from the past, for the present moment:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

—US Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776

I include a photo collage of events just prior to the first arrests. It shows who and what and where. In addition, I made the left-most photo, holding my camera up to visualize the tumult caused by the police as they jammed people. Seconds later, apparently, an officer struck me from behind, knocked me down, and arrested me.

The other two images provide more context for my story, “Bravery” and “I Want You.”

Cambridge Resolution about the Army in Cambridge, adopted as amended by the affirmative vote of eight members, June 20, 2005:

Ordered: that the City Manager be and hereby is requested to provide the following information to the City Council:

Who decided on behalf of the City and the process in which it was decided that the City would become a host to a birthday celebration coordinated by the Army recruitment office; the extent and specifics of resources and contributions provided by the City of Cambridge including the School Department; the process by which Cambridge elementary school children were invited, including the invitation process to schools, and the notification process to parents, and the relevance of the event to their curriculum; and be it further ordered:

[that further information be provided about the] City of Cambridge and the military including the details of the agreement signed by the City Manager and the Army regarding recruitment and partnerships with the Army; and be it further ordered:

That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to report back to the City Council on a legal opinion regarding the following:

The criteria for creating a protest pen including the denial of entrance on public land to individuals who disagree with the intent of the event taking place on public [land]; whether endorsements or partnership by the City (aside from the provisions in the schools of No Child Left Behind) which promote the military or with a recruiting component violate the Human Rights Ordinance.

The Army’s Mission Support Mission cinema van for recruitment—

http://www.usarec.army.mil/MSBn/

The America Friends Service Committee journal with much material about this story, June-July 2005—

http://www.peaceworkmagazine.org/pwork/0506/050624.htm

A surprisingly candid press conference with the Army’s recruiting commander—

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/jun2005/mili-j01.shtml

(original official site, now removed) http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2005/tr20050520-2881.htm

Young Marines—

www.youngmarines.com/About/general_info.htm

International Criminal Court new 'monolith' of human rights - World Catholic New Times, June 1, 2003 by Kevin Spurgaitis—

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0MKY/is_10_27/ai_104550788

Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, adopted on 12 August 1949 by the Diplomatic Conference for the Establishment of International Conventions for the Protection of Victims of War, held in Geneva from 21 April to 12 August, 1949, entry into force 21 October 1950—

http://www.criminal-justice-careers.com/crime/the-geneva-conventions.html

Parts one, two, three, four, and five of my story with photos:

http://teeksaphoto.org/RecentPhotos/ArmyCambridgeCommon/index.html