by Charlton “Chuck” Stanley
US District Judge Amil R. Tharpar
U.S. District Judge Amul Thapar of the Eastern District of Kentucky is a George W. Bush appointee to the Federal Bench. This week, Tharper has sentenced an 84 year old nun, Sister Megan Rice, to almost three years in prison. 35 months to be exact. Her crime? Protesting at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory Y-12 plant in 2012. Co-defendants Michael Walli and Greg Boertje-Obed were sentenced to 62 months in prison.
There is no dispute that Sister Megan and her co-defendants cut a fence and entered the grounds of the complex. They painted, “The fruit of justice is peace,” on walls and splashed baby bottles of human blood on the bunker wall.
“The reason for the baby bottles was to represent that the blood of children is spilled by these weapons,” Boertje-Obed, 58, said at trial. When confronted by a security guard, they offered him food and began singing. They were charged with defacing the property and breaking into a secure facility.
Oak Ridge uses private security contractors rather than Federal employees. The break-in caused Oak Ridge to revise security protocols and provide added training to security guards.
A defiant Sister Megan Rice challenged Judge Thapar to sentence her to life in prison, “Please have no leniency with me,” Rice told a stunned courtroom where she had an audience of supporters who had traveled from across the country to be there. “To remain in prison for the rest of my life would be the greatest gift you could give me.”
The prosecutors had asked for sentences of six to nine years and $53,000 in restitution. Judge Tharper seemed concerned that the defendants were not properly contrite. Tharper previously refused requests for leniency from the defendants, including ordering them incarcerated until sentencing. Last October the judge denied requests for acquittal and a new trial, Thapar said he was concerned they showed no remorse and wanted the punishment to be a deterrent for other activists.
The Y-12 plant at Oak Ridge is where critical parts for nuclear weapons are made. It was originally built during WW2 for manufacturing the fissionable cores for the first atomic bombs.
The politics and hypocrisy of the US Attorney asking for six to nine years in prison for the defendants, and then to make the Government whole by demanding $53,000 in restitution would be laughable if it weren’t so serious. The prosecutor seems to either be math challenged or sadistic. Maybe both. He wanted them to get six to nine years, and it costs between $50,000 and $60,000 per year to keep a person locked up in a Federal penitentiary. Older inmates cost even more, as I wrote in my piece on the Turley blog about the greying of our prison population.
I find it interesting that the Obama/Holder DoJ is so hell-bent on prosecuting protesters and whistleblowers, but the banksters and other economic criminals who have brought our economy and workforce to its knees have yet to answer for their crimes. Also, while we see this aggressive prosecution of an octogenarian nun, I find the hypocrisy of the administration’s criticism of crackdown on protesters by other governments to be puzzling. Well, no, not really.
As usual, we look overseas for some of the best news and analysis of stories here in the US.
Nicole Plyler Fisk
Gene Howington
FFS Guest Blogger
Joy of Fishes
Chuck Stanley
shortfinals
Terry Welshans
ann li-summers
wordcloud9
Flowers For Socrates 
I applaud her courage, even though I don’t necessarily agree with her actions.
When you have convictions enough such as these folks…. You’ve earned my respect….. They will go where the spirit moves them….
Brave peope – wrong move.
“I find it interesting that the Obama/Holder DoJ is so hell-bent on prosecuting protesters and whistleblowers, but the banksters and other economic criminals who have brought our economy and workforce to its knees have yet to answer for their crimes. Also, while we see this aggressive prosecution of an octogenarian nun, I find the hypocrisy of the administration’s criticism of crackdown on protesters by other governments to be puzzling. Well, no, not really.”
*****
Those with big money are often safe from prosecution for their misdeeds. Banksters and war criminals go free…whistleblowers and protesters go to jail. Such a travesty of justice in this country. So it goes.
Let see now. An 84 year old nun breached the perimeter and hung out for two hours before security arrived to keep us all safe from terrorists.
They ought to hire her as a security consultant. She clearly has better understanding of the vulnerabilities than the private companies the protect the most deadly substances this nation owns.
I think the judge should have given her time served on the condition she direct the efforts of those guarding the perimeter of important installations like the one in Oak Ridge.
And finally I really, really hope no terrorist group is phishing among nuns for tips on how to breach security. We might be in trouble.
Let me begin by saying I think it would be lovely her sentence is commuted. However, I take Sister Megan seriously and I don’t know that that would make her happy. I also don’t fault her on that. She is a mighty brave woman who believes our weapon arsenal is immoral and wants us not to forget that it exists. I’m with her on that.
However, as I understand it you are turning justice and law upside down. A crime was commited and I assume a fair trai was held. What would you have the government do? Are nuns entitled to break in but we would happily prosecute some right-wing survivalist? Are you ready to call that distinction justice?
And I also question your restitution argument. Let’s say an old KKK arsonist and cross burner has been convicted of burning down my $100,000 house and has been sentenced to pay restitution and 10 years in jail. Is the restitution part of the sentence laughable because it will cost so much more to keep the guy in prison?
“I find it interesting that the Obama/Holder DoJ is so hell-bent on prosecuting protesters and whistleblowers, but the banksters and other economic criminals who have brought our economy and workforce to its knees have yet to answer for their crimes.”
As with Elaine, this phrase from Chuck’s piece stood out with me as a contrast to what is involved in this case. Our government officials in the defense/intelligence complex are so concerned about the exposure of their own incompetence, while they pretend they are keeping themselves safe. The point of this draconian prosecution was to cover up the fact that three less than dangerous civilians could easily penetrate the security parameter around this facility. That is truly embarrassing and must be covered up by a truly hypocritical prosecution policy. Those whose manipulations have done real harm to this country far greater than the 9/11 terrorists get to enjoy their fortunes and their lifestyles with no criminal liability. Manning sits in jail, Snowden stuck in Russia and Greenwald living in Brazil, patriots all, yet the real terrorists in our financial system face neither jail, nor opprobrium from our corporate owned government.
” A crime was commited and I assume a fair trai was held. What would you have the government do?”
How ’bout charging her with vandalism, giving her 90 days or what ever and making her pay to have the fence repaired and the wall repainted – maybe $472 and change?
I think that sounds about right.
Mike, Greenwald is living in Brazil because he wants to. He has been living there for eight years. He has said in an older interview that he lives there because Brazil recognizes his marriage? partnership? and because all of David’s family lives there.
Sorry I’m full of questions these days, but why didn’t Snowden fly to some South American country without an extradition agreement instead of Hong Kong?
PS – I hope everybody will forgive all my typing errors. My laptop is on its last legs.
pdm,
We’re selective about whom we prosecute/jail in this country. Here’s one example:
Blacks Far More Likely Than Whites To Be Jailed For Low-Level Drug Crimes
The Huffington Post
Will Guzzardi
First Posted: 02/01/11
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/01/blacks-far-more-likely-th_n_817105.html
Excerpt:
An African-American convicted of a low-level drug crime in Cook County is eight times more likely than his white counterpart to face prison time for it, according to a new report released yesterday.
The report, published by the Disproportionate Justice Impact Study Commission, analyzed arrest data from 2005, the most recent year that complete data is available. It was commissioned by the General Assembly in 2008 to research the notion that minorities — and particularly young black men in inner cities — were disproportionately subjected to drug arrests, prosecution and sentencing.
That’s just what the report found.
Class 4 possession laws, the least severe felony charges, accounted for the majority of racial disproportionality in incarceration, the Commission writes. In Cook County, home to Chicago, Class 4 possession accounted for the majority of all arrests in 2005. Few of those charged only with Class 4 (and not with some other crime, drug or violent) were sentenced to jail terms. But the overwhelming majority of those who were, by an eight-to-one ratio, were black.
BFM, and would you be comfortabe with that if let’s say a Tim McVeigh did the same thing? For god’s sake – it was a nuclear arsenal. I’m not anxious to give every crazy nut in this country a charge of vandalism if he breaks into a nuclear arsenal.
If the nuns or anyone else blew up the installation as McVeigh did or took materials to manufacturer a dirty bomb then I would expect them to get the same treatment as McVeigh.
Significantly they did not do that. They did not have that intention. What they did was wage a political protest and reveal severe deficiencies in the security system which should have brought great embarrassment to the officials charge with protecting the installation.
I expect people to be charged and penalized for the crimes they actually commit – not for trumped up charges that they did not commit.
Elaine,
Yes. Yes. Yes. I know that and it is disgusting. It is a horror. It makes me weep. But it seems to me you are advocating for continuing that practice if you think Sister Megan should be charged as BFM suggests and that some Duck Dynasty nut who wants to build his own little bomb to teach the “libtards” and the black guy in the WH a lesson gets six years.
” some Duck Dynasty nut who wants to build his own little bomb to teach the “libtards” and the black guy in the WH a lesson gets six years.”
If anybody builds a bomb to teach anybody a lesson by blowing them up I hope they get a lot more than 6 years.
But I would also hope that no one would confuse building a bomb with political protest.
BFM. Is it a crime to break into a nuclear facility?
BFM. Lots of people build bombs as protests. Seems to me one was done some time ago in Madison. (Christ! If I don’t watch it I’m gonna have Nick over here arguing in my case. THEN, I’ll be sorry.)
“BFM. Lots of people build bombs as protests. Seems to me one was done some time ago in Madison.”
I don’t think people like me are going to get confused about the very real dangers of a bomb – regardless of what it is intended to communicate. What ever the intended meaning of a bomb, it has the capability to kill, maim, and intimidate. Those are all serious crimes.
The problem is that some people seem determined to conflate non violent political protest with terrorism and bomb making.
I have never suggested that there should be no penalty when laws are broken while protesting. But sensible people will understand and distinguish non violent protest from bombs and terrorism.
A government diminishes its creditability when it prosecutes non violent protest as though it were terrorism or posed the same threat as bomb making.
pdm,
Elderly nun sentenced to 35 months for Tennessee nuclear break-in
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/18/us-usa-security-nuclear-idUSBREA1H0SS20140218
Excerpt:
“Fellow peace activists Michael Walli and Greg Boertje-Obed were sentenced to 62 months in prison. The three were convicted of cutting fences and entering the Y-12 National Security Complex in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, in July 2012, embarrassing U.S. officials and prompting security changes.”…
“Rice and the others admitted to spray painting peace slogans and hammering on exterior walls of the facility. When a guard confronted them, they offered him food and began singing.”
*****
Sounds as if they may have helped the government realize its security at a nuclear facility was lacking. It’s a good thing they weren’t terrorists.
I remember the Vietnam War protesters. I thank them for helping to pressure our government into ending that war. There are times that call for civil disobedience. I certainly don’t think Sister Rice should be sent to prison for three years.
We have people in this country who kill unarmed black teenagers and don’t get convicted of murder. Some even get off scot-free.
I would have the government be just.
I think that is the basic consensus on this thread. When “justice” is perverted by power for its own purposes it can hardly be called justice. The obvious cases that have been cited here about the Wall Street cabal getting off not only scot free but essentially made whole in the process is a fine and compelling case in point.
I think that this problem we have in the country of systemic un-just legal system and government as is becoming instantiated in our legislation and as manifested in these verdicts is the actual unraveling of our constitutional democracy.
A system can bear assault from the outside, and ours has. But it is the justice system that bears the responsibility to protect and guard the central tenants of a society. As is evident in other countries where the justice system is a completely owned function of power, that level of corruption creates a horrible state of things.
The American experiment with free speech and civil civil disobedience (where a point is made and no one is hurt) is being slowly turned into something else.
This example is one. There was the young man a few years ago who co-opted an illegal land sale at the end of the Bush Admin, and was jailed for a number of years.. and there are many more.
(ref http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/07/26-13)
I think this woman, as well as that fellow are patriots in the true sense of the word…And they understand the need to endure the consequences of the unjustice to make the point, and hopefully make the change.
A fine essay is needed that would counterpoint the various examples of the consequences of judges being unwilling to adhere to their oath and rather serve the purposes of power.
I remember the closing line of the old movie Judgment at Nuremberg, that explores exactly this question: the old German judge making an appeal for absolution by the head judge says “..you have to believe me … I didn’t know it would come to this…” – about the horrors of the Nazi era. To which the poignant and succinct reply is simply : “Judge… The first time you made an unjust verdict it had come to this…”.
I agree. As verdicts like this one, and so many others that could be cited, we will one day be confronted with the undeniable pain of our own recognition that ‘it had come to that’.
ps. To example our pathetic history more explicitly on that point I consider the impact on our national psyche as well as jurisprudence, as well as our international standing when BushCo decided that we were, after all, a nation who tortures people as a matter of policy.
In so many ways the frog is already half cooked.
Elaine says
We have people in this country who kill unarmed black teenagers and don’t get convicted of murder. Some even get off scot-free.
Elaine, I trust you don’t think that I support those juries verdicts. Zimmerman and Dunn were guilty of murder. Period.
I, too, thank the Viet Nam protesters who committed civil disobediance. But not murder. Someone died in Madison. And I even think “intention” came into play with that action. I may not be remembering correctly, but I don’t think it was their intention to kill anyone.
And please don’tcome back with Sister Megan didn’t kill anyone. No she didn’t and she wasn’t prosecuted for killing anyone. She broke into a nuclear facility. Further, I think she’d be pissed if she got BFM’s sentence. What use is it to protest if the government doesn’t care?
Granted, our justice system is all fucked up. (Worse than this case is plead bargaining.) So should we toss out all convictions until Cheney and Diamond are in jail? Or just the ones that you find are justifiable? And what happens when the right takes over Congress and the WH. Are they, too, justified in not charging the Zimmermans, the Dunns, the next asshole who offends our beliefs?
Maybe that old saw is worthy of considering….the road to hell is paved with ….you know the rest.
pdm,
I’m not trying to make this a contentious discussion. I’m just expressing my opinion…and attempting to make my point about justice in this country.
@MikeS
You introduce an interesting angle on this discussion; to wit, the issue of the over use of classification of documents/information by the various agencies.
It is well known from historical declassifications of materials that a lot of the purposes for the classification have little to do with National Security and a lot to do with what you suggest here : covering up incompetence, and keeping the perps safe and comfortable.
Two corollaries come to mind:
1. On the need and power of the first Amendment and the notion of a free press : “…. is to comfort the afflicted and to afflict the comfortable….”
It is easy to understand why those in power so hate the exercise of rights that are presumably inalienable. The link back to the specific case of this nun is obvious… They have to destroy her in order to instantiate fear, as best they can. I think she understands this and her provocations to a harsher sentence were to exacerbate the hyperbole of the underlying unjustness.
2. I think it was G.Greenwald who made the point that the government is meant to be open, and the lives of the citizens who are meant to be private. That it is exactly the opposite, and increasingly so, is exactly the causal reason for so many of the problems and issues of the day.
Protests on Wall St. Fine. Protests on campus. Fine. Protests at City Hall. Fine. Protests in front of the WH. Fine. Protest in the House gallery. Fine, I’ll come with you. Protests at the Principal’s office. Fine. Protest OUTSIDE a nuclear arsenal. Fine. I would be more than happy to support my kids should they do any of those things.
Break into a nuclear arsenal? No Way. I think it is imperative that the government maintain the security of the facility from ANYONE who wants to break in no matter their motivation.
Elaine, you are absolutely NOT contentious. I simply disagree with you on this point (and unfortunately on GG, too). That disagreement does not color my regard for you and everybody else who disagrees with me. I will comfort myself by having another bite of a chocolate bar and simply say you are all crazy while fervently wishing I had someone who could speak to the philosophy of law because I’m sure she would agree with me!.
(I’d draw a smiley face at the end of that last sentence, but I don’t know how and I don’t have the slightest interest in learning.)
@pdm re “protests… ” et al…
I can agree with you in the smaller context of your point. To breach a nuclear facility is a serious matter.
However, I wonder why this woman ought bear the brunt of this breach … meaning, shouldn’t the facility operators, in this case a private company as reported, be prosecuted for allowing such a benign intrusion? Isnt the real question and violation that she was so easily able to do it?
I suspect, but do not know, that no charges were filed or perused against the contractor responsible for the facility. (nice touch that this womans actions “…caused Oak Ridge to revise security protocols and provide added training to security guards.”. Wonder why they didn’t have that worked out ahead of time… Maybe she should have been thanked? )
Yet it seems to me that that is the crime. Or to put it differently: The nun committed a “crime” of some weight that was some civil disobedience. A just system would deal with that on its own terms, as others above has suggested.
But the crime of getting into the facility… I get your point… the potential consequences are immense. And in the hands of someone less benign that our 84yo nun could have been catastrophic… But … she did nothing more than minor disruptions and an attempt to make a larger point. (An allusion to my prior posts about free speech and civil civil disobedience)
So if the consequences are so dire, and the ease with which it appears she breached the system and gained entry (all I know is what is reported here and in the comments)… why didn’t the full force of justice come down upon the actual violation/violators?
Maybe it gets back to MikeS : a coverup of their own embarrassment for being so incompetent?
I think yes that. But so very much more…. (Another essay presents itself!) In short, and in part, it surfaces some of the consequences of some of our choices to privatize things that are more properly in the government domain. Which leads the conversation into deeper and different waters…
Michael B,
I don’t know that Sister Megan disagrees with the “unjustness” of the sentence. I think she disagrees with the governments position in maintaining a nuclear arsenal. I’ll bet she doesn’t give a damn about her sentence and she may be dismayed that you are worried about her sentence when she is entirely focused on all those nuclear weapons.
@pdm Sorry if I am putting to much in reply here… I had some time, and the issues surfaced in this discussion are not only interesting but imperative to me… So I proceed…
re yours
I know your responding to Elaine, but I had some immediate thoughts sparked by your comment here…to wit:
So should we toss out all convictions until Cheney and Diamond are in jail?
No. It is not an either / or situation. We should be just in all cases on their own terms and merits, and with respect to the deeper substrate principles of our nation, our philosophic and constitutional moors.
In a just world, where justice would be “blind” to the office of a Cheney and deal with the fact of a Cheney and his actions … he would have been tried, and perhaps judged, and maybe even, depending on the facts of the trial et al, found guilty.
This has no bearing on parallel criminal cases, except as it provides precedent and example that we are indeed not a nation of laws and “blind justice”, and one where power and money have too much influence on the process.
A further implication of your comment though is interesting to contemplate: what if we did suspend convictions until justice was done at the highest levels… That would be an interesting, though w anarchistic and chaotic, consequences. It occurs that to do it so abruptly would simply speed up the reality of how disruptive and consequential an un-just system is. Like boiling that frog faster, rather than the proverbial torpor inducing slow boil….
As it is, we are only suspending the trials, much less the convictions of those who are causing the most damage to our society. In the end, if not corrected, it will come to the same thing.
And what happens when the right takes over Congress and the WH
Well. I think we have already experienced what happens…. And if your willing to contemplate the power of the right, not in our current political parties, but in the function of how politically “Right” tendencies end up in tyranny and authoritarian states… I think you have your answer.
And quickly I add, so as not to be inaccurately pigeon holed as a left loving commie, I am with those who wonder, and despise, some of the policies of Obama in this area. He is not only no better, but in many ways well documented worse than Bush and BushCo.
@pdm
Of course. I wasn’t making that case at all. Apologies for being unclear.
I agree. Her actions in the court room make your point.
My point was rather that the case itself should have dealt with the actual crimes and their relative merit. Further her wish for harsh sentencing was, as I take it, a desire to expose the hypocrisy of the justice system, as well as her position about the lunacy of the nuclear arsenal, not out of an intrinisic desire to be incarcerated. As such that is part of her civil disobedience.
I was addressing what seemed to me to be an unaddressed, though relevant, issue surfaced in this event and trial.
Michael B. fully agree about the stupidity of privatizing what are governmental responsibilities. Terrbile mistake – especially when guns and bombs are concerned.
But I’m not buying this argument about the “embarrassment” of the government because it was so easily breached. WE spin it as an embarrassment because we hate privatizations and hate the whole idea of this 84 year old nun going to prison, but most do not view privatization that way. They simply see it as a wonderful way to “shrink” the government and save money. Where is the evidence that the government was embarrassed?
Every war movie we have ever seen shows how easy it is to breach defenses. Every Nazi castle, every Viet Nam landing zone, every American Indian encampment, all are easily breached no matter how heroic our guys are. No American is ever embarrassed by such a breach.
And Michael, I mean no disrespect, but you suggest the full force of justice should have come down on the guys who did such a lousy job of guarding the place? What full force of justice should we expect? I can see cancelling their contract, but that should not happen in a court of law.
@pdm… a quick reply to yours on the way out the door…
. no disrepect taken… I appreciate the engagement… hope it continues here and elsewhere…good stuff.
. the ’embarrassment’ argument was first forwarded by MikeS… I take it to mean not simple embarrassment, like we might experience if we got caught cheating on a diet…but I take it that much of our gov. is organized around concealing things that need to be, and should be exposed, so we can more approach the ideal of open government, and the principle that the more open a government we have the more honest, just, and functional it will be….
I know this is a complex and far more nuanced issue than can be explicated in these posts… I think it would be fun/interesting to have a thread dedicated to that proposition….
As to the general thrust of the ’embarrassment’ point : a reading of “My Town”, or any number of other books reveal the lengths to which someone in power will go to cover up decisions and complicities. I suppose we could have a quick list of a hundred examples in no time. Like Cheney and Valarie Plame… and so many more… It is this level that I take the argument of “embarrassment’ to be very accurate and relevant.
. re breaching defenses: here we would have to disagree I suppose… or more likely spend more time surfacing the point: I suppose my particular difficulty is in your term “easily”. Not so much. In Washington state we have Bangor Naval facility where a huge percentage of the nuclear arsenal is maintained… I promise you it is not easy to gain access to that facility. This woman would not have had a chance at breaching that facility.
And even if true, that it is easy, still I think my actual point stands : She is being convicted largely on the facility she breached as much as what she did. She should be prosecuted for what she did, and not for what she didn’t.
. re “What full force of justice should we expect?”…
have to say I wonder at how lightly you would “punish” the responsible party especially given your strong sense of outrage (which I share) at the potential consequence of this sort of breach. I think if this woman is liable for prosecution for breaching the facility, that something more than loss of contract must be in order for those who were charged with protecting the facility and not allowing the breach in the first place.
So it seems to me. Maybe some of the legal minds might weigh in on this point.
Besides, even your light penalty of contract cancel seems not to have happened….
Passing strange…
it occurs, just now… , that when something doesn’t add up, like this, that there is something stinky under the surface. We are seeing this in the “bridgegate” scandal… and I’ll just bet that if we were to drill into the relevant facts of this facility, contracts, who made what decisions about these matters we’d find yet again, a whole rats nest of duplicity, bad thinking (at best), likely some corruption, and heads would roll. “Heads” that thus have a vested interested in not having that level of scrutiny.
Thus ibid all the discussions about the press, rights, power, corruption and relationships of citizen to state…
@pdm… a quick reply to yours on the way out the door…
. no disrepect taken… I appreciate the engagement… hope it continues here and elsewhere…good stuff.
. the ’embarrassment’ argument was first forwarded by MikeS… I take it to mean not simple embarrassment, like we might experience if we got caught cheating on a diet…but I take it that much of our gov. is organized around concealing things that need to be, and should be exposed, so we can more approach the ideal of open government, and the principle that the more open a government we have the more honest, just, and functional it will be….
I know this is a complex and far more nuanced issue than can be explicated in these posts… I think it would be fun/interesting to have a thread dedicated to that proposition….
As to the general thrust of the ’embarrassment’ point : a reading of “My Town”, or any number of other books reveal the lengths to which someone in power will go to cover up decisions and complicities. I suppose we could have a quick list of a hundred examples in no time. Like Cheney and Valarie Plame… and so many more… It is this level that I take the argument of “embarrassment’ to be very accurate and relevant.
. re breaching defenses: here we would have to disagree I suppose… or more likely spend more time surfacing the point: I suppose my particular difficulty is in your term “easily”. Not so much. In Washington state we have Bangor Naval facility where a huge percentage of the nuclear arsenal is maintained… I promise you it is not easy to gain access to that facility. This woman would not have had a chance at breaching that facility.
And even if true, that it is easy, still I think my actual point stands : She is being convicted largely on the facility she breached as much as what she did. She should be prosecuted for what she did, and not for what she didn’t.
. re “What full force of justice should we expect?”…
have to say I wonder at how lightly you would “punish” the responsible party especially given your strong sense of outrage (which I share) at the potential consequence of this sort of breach. I think if this woman is liable for prosecution for breaching the facility, that something more than loss of contract must be in order for those who were charged with protecting the facility and not allowing the breach in the first place.
So it seems to me. Maybe some of the legal minds might weigh in on this point.
Besides, even your light penalty of contract cancel seems not to have happened….
Passing strange…
it occurs, just now… , that when something doesn’t add up, like this, that there is something stinky under the surface. We are seeing this in the “bridgegate” scandal… and I’ll just bet that if we were to drill into the relevant facts of this facility, contracts, who made what decisions about these matters we’d find yet again, a whole rats nest of duplicity, bad thinking (at best), likely some corruption, and heads would roll. “Heads” that thus have a vested interested in not having that level of scrutiny.
Thus ibid all the discussions about the press, rights, power, corruption and relationships of citizen to state…
ummm… maybe I have exceeded my welcome?
Seems my post got “eaten” somehow…one more go,and then I’ll let it go…
———————–
@pdm… a quick reply to yours on the way out the door…
. no disrepect taken… I appreciate the engagement… hope it continues here and elsewhere…good stuff.
. the ’embarrassment’ argument was first forwarded by MikeS… I take it to mean not simple embarrassment, like we might experience if we got caught cheating on a diet…but I take it that much of our gov. is organized around concealing things that need to be, and should be exposed, so we can more approach the ideal of open government, and the principle that the more open a government we have the more honest, just, and functional it will be….
I know this is a complex and far more nuanced issue than can be explicated in these posts… I think it would be fun/interesting to have a thread dedicated to that proposition….
As to the general thrust of the ’embarrassment’ point : a reading of “My Town”, or any number of other books reveal the lengths to which someone in power will go to cover up decisions and complicities. I suppose we could have a quick list of a hundred examples in no time. Like Cheney and Valarie Plame… and so many more… It is this level that I take the argument of “embarrassment’ to be very accurate and relevant.
. re breaching defenses: here we would have to disagree I suppose… or more likely spend more time surfacing the point: I suppose my particular difficulty is in your term “easily”. Not so much. In Washington state we have Bangor Naval facility where a huge percentage of the nuclear arsenal is maintained… I promise you it is not easy to gain access to that facility. This woman would not have had a chance at breaching that facility.
And even if true, that it is easy, still I think my actual point stands : She is being convicted largely on the facility she breached as much as what she did. She should be prosecuted for what she did, and not for what she didn’t.
. re “What full force of justice should we expect?”…
have to say I wonder at how lightly you would “punish” the responsible party especially given your strong sense of outrage (which I share) at the potential consequence of this sort of breach. I think if this woman is liable for prosecution for breaching the facility, that something more than loss of contract must be in order for those who were charged with protecting the facility and not allowing the breach in the first place.
So it seems to me. Maybe some of the legal minds might weigh in on this point.
Besides, even your light penalty of contract cancel seems not to have happened….
Passing strange…
it occurs, just now… , that when something doesn’t add up, like this, that there is something stinky under the surface. We are seeing this in the “bridgegate” scandal… and I’ll just bet that if we were to drill into the relevant facts of this facility, contracts, who made what decisions about these matters we’d find yet again, a whole rats nest of duplicity, bad thinking (at best), likely some corruption, and heads would roll. “Heads” that thus have a vested interested in not having that level of scrutiny.
Thus ibid all the discussions about the press, rights, power, corruption and relationships of citizen to state…
BFM, I may misunderstand your meaning regarding those who conflate bomb making and protest and terrorists. I have – nor would I ever – call Sister Megan a terrorist. She is a brave protester WHO BROKE INTO A NUCLEAR ARSENAL. That is too far. It is a crime. It is dangerous stuff. I don’t want anyone breaking into nuclear arsenals.
I don’t think that Sister Megan was charged with building a bomb. She was charged with breaking into a facility. I asked you before. Isn’t that a crime? If the government charged her with building a bomb that would be stupid. They did not.and therefore I don’t think they diminished their credibility by overcharging.
Michael B., you make a good point that I’ve managed to miss throughout these comments. Shouldn’t each case be judged on their own merits? Again, maybe I misunderstand, but it seems to me many (all?) on this thread do not believe that. So many protest again and again on this and other posts, that why does thus and so happen while the banksters and the Cheneys are still enjoying their freedom.
@pdm… a quick reply to yours on the way out the door…
. no disrepect taken… I appreciate the engagement… hope it continues here and elsewhere…good stuff.
. the ’embarrassment’ argument was first forwarded by MikeS… I take it to mean not simple embarrassment, like we might experience if we got caught cheating on a diet…but I take it that much of our gov. is organized around concealing things that need to be, and should be exposed, so we can more approach the ideal of open government, and the principle that the more open a government we have the more honest, just, and functional it will be….
I know this is a complex and far more nuanced issue than can be explicated in these posts… I think it would be fun/interesting to have a thread dedicated to that proposition….
As to the general thrust of the ’embarrassment’ point : a reading of “My Town”, or any number of other books reveal the lengths to which someone in power will go to cover up decisions and complicities. I suppose we could have a quick list of a hundred examples in no time. Like Cheney and Valarie Plame… and so many more… It is this level that I take the argument of “embarrassment’ to be very accurate and relevant.
. re breaching defenses: here we would have to disagree I suppose… or more likely spend more time surfacing the point: I suppose my particular difficulty is in your term “easily”. Not so much. In Washington state we have Bangor Naval facility where a huge percentage of the nuclear arsenal is maintained… I promise you it is not easy to gain access to that facility. This woman would not have had a chance at breaching that facility.
And even if true, that it is easy, still I think my actual point stands : She is being convicted largely on the facility she breached as much as what she did. She should be prosecuted for what she did, and not for what she didn’t.
. re “What full force of justice should we expect?”…
have to say I wonder at how lightly you would “punish” the responsible party especially given your strong sense of outrage (which I share) at the potential consequence of this sort of breach. I think if this woman is liable for prosecution for breaching the facility, that something more than loss of contract must be in order for those who were charged with protecting the facility and not allowing the breach in the first place.
So it seems to me. Maybe some of the legal minds might weigh in on this point.
Besides, even your light penalty of contract cancel seems not to have happened….
Passing strange…
it occurs, just now… , that when something doesn’t add up, like this, that there is something stinky under the surface. We are seeing this in the “bridgegate” scandal… and I’ll just bet that if we were to drill into the relevant facts of this facility, contracts, who made what decisions about these matters we’d find yet again, a whole rats nest of duplicity, bad thinking (at best), likely some corruption, and heads would roll. “Heads” that thus have a vested interested in not having that level of scrutiny.
Thus ibid all the discussions about the press, rights, power, corruption and relationships of citizen to state…
pdm,
She “BROKE INTO A NUCLEAR ARSENAL.” What does that mean? Did she get inside the building? What was her terrible offense?
84-Year-Old Nuclear Activist Nun Sentenced to Jail Time
By Associated Press
http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20788571,00.html
Excerpt:
At a sentencing for an 84-year-old nun and two fellow Catholic peace activists who stole onto the grounds of the “Fort Knox of uranium,” the judge seemed to struggle with how harshly he should treat protesters who authorities say never posed any serious national security threat.
*****
The protesters “never posed a serious national security threat.” Yet, they get sentenced to serve years in prison. Why? Does the punishment fit the crime?
Elaine, they broke through 2 link fences and, as I understand the Al Jezerra and Guardian accounts, hung some banners and painted some slogans on what is called a “bunker” (I’m imagining a big fortress kind of a building). And although it seems by those accounts that they did not access the main building, I will stand by my position that I do not want anyone to break into a nuclear facility.. However, I will amend (somewhat) the embarassment factor after reading the accounts Charlton provided. Other accounts I had read had not reported on the amount of time it took the nimcopoops to confront the trio. And you and others are right that it is all good that their contract was cancelled. Points to you and others.
Sorry, but I remain firm that you don’t mess with a nuclear facility. And as your quote implies, the judge did seem to take into account the Sister’s age and history. IMO, he was not one of those crazy draconian old Testament judges. Further, it may be grossy presumptuious of me, but I think she will have a very worthwhile ministry within the prison. This is a serious woman and she will make a difference.
Elaine, your link to People Magazine does not work. But Elaine, People? You may have read that I cringe when people source The Daily Mail. People makes The Daily Mail look like the NYT.
I’d like to reply to a post from pdm, and have , but unlike all times before the post does not show up? I’ll try again in parts. I hope I am not doubling up somehow?
Michael,
You got caught in Askimet’s spam trap. I released them. Once the filter decides your IP is spam, it is hard to get anything to go through.
alas…for some reason that comment just wont post… again… so… point to pdm! you win the argument by default!
I take it back!! I didn’t see Charlton’s post until after!
game still on…
pdm,
I agree that we should be concerned that someone might break into a nuclear facility for malicious reasons. I think these three individuals didn’t do that. I do think we should be worried that people with evil intent might be able to do so because security at these facilities isn’t tight enough.
btw, re my post above,
Here is a functional link to the article…
84-Year-Old Nuclear Activist Nun Sentenced to Jail Time
I forgot to put the explanation in this post… the link is the link Elaine posted above that pdm found, correctly, did not work. I simply fixed it and reposted. (didn’t want to misconstrue anything)
It links to her original reference to the article in People magazine.
I have corrected Elaines People mag link… It was a technical thingy when the system made it into a link.
http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20788571,00.html
opps… ok… thought I would… what is happening is the system is choking on the two ,, in the url.
I’ll try submitting it as an url link (just for science… to see if it works!)
I am testing to see if this works… If it does it will link to Elaines original article
Ok.. if anyone cares… delete the prior 2 messages
Here is a functional link to the article…
84-Year-Old Nuclear Activist Nun Sentenced to Jail Time
Michael B – I like this and it prompts me to do some more considering…
“As to the general thrust of the ‘embarrassment’ point : a reading of “My Town”, or any number of other books reveal the lengths to which someone in power will go to cover up decisions and complicities. I suppose we could have a quick list of a hundred examples in no time. Like Cheney and Valarie Plame… and so many more… It is this level that I take the argument of “embarrassment’ to be very accurate and relevant”
*************************************************************************************
Oh yeah- there is no end of that kind of “embarrassment”. But I need a better word.. To me, it is a smidgen of cover my ass with a huge component of bullying and entitlement. Run of the mill embarrassment suggests to me a slinking away. I thought Mike S was referring to the slinking away type. I now see that he (and others) probably meant a more complex embarrassment..
One correction – I’m pretty sure one of Charlton’s links said the contract was canceled.
Thanks for the lesson about the possibility of a touch defense of a facility. I pled too many movies and no military service. Of course the recent exposure of Air Force cheating at nuclear launch sites doesn’t build any confidence about anyones competence.
touch sh/be tough. pled sh/be plead. As an explanation for all these mistakes (besides any spelling skills disappearing with the birth of spellcheck) something wierd happens when I type any more than a few lines. The box in which I write shrinks in size and completely hides anything that I write. I then have to just trust that the old fingers are moving the way my brain intends. I don’t get to see what I’ve wrought until it posts.
Elaine, will you allow me to be semi intelligent, extend my hand, and say I’m mighty pleased we have gotten to this point?
Too late on the “misconstruing” part. I opened the damn thing and found myself reading an…ugh…People article. What will I tell my children?
You (and Elaine) are only forgiven as the author was from AP. But I’m warning everybody….NO Daily Mail without full disclosure!
As long as there is no intentional incitement of violence, people should be able to support or protest whatever they want. Just my thoughts.