Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
Carrying signs and singing, about 40 people gathered Tuesday morning on the north side of the Clark County Regional Justice Center in downtown Las Vegas to show support for the so-called “Creech 14,” who went on trial later in the day on trespassing charges for their protest April 9, 2009, at Creech Air Force Base against the use of unmanned drones. The drones are remotely controlled at Creech to hit targets in Pakistan and Afghanistan.
By Dave Toplikar (contact) 
Tuesday, Sept. 14, 2010 | 4:53 p.m.
Dozens of demonstrators, including two in Mothers in Mourning costume, protest before Tuesday morning's "Creech 14" trial at the Clark County Regional Justice Center in downtown Las Vegas. Fourteen people were arrested on trespassing charges on April 9, 2009, at Creech Air Force Base while protesting against the use of drones in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The drones are remotely controlled at Creech.
Creech Air Force Base
The real question at the heart of the trial — whether the U.S. should be using drones controlled at Creech Air Force Base in Nevada on bombing missions to other countries — never came up.
Instead, Judge William Jansen tried to keep the trial centered on one issue — were the 14 people who protested on April 9, 2009, at Creech breaking the law by trespassing?
After Jansen oversaw the four-hour bench trial Tuesday, he came to a conclusion: The so-called "Creech 14" case needed much more thought.
"This case has a lot more consequences than a trespass case," Jansen said. "... I want to make sure my decision is the correct decision."
Jansen told the packed courtroom that he needed to take about two to three months before he would render a written decision on the case. He set the date for that decision to be at 8:30 a.m. Jan. 27, 2011.
During the next few months, Jansen said he planned to go over the transcript of the somewhat unusual trial that took place in Las Vegas Justice Court.
Some of the issues he will ponder were raised in testimony by former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark, a member of President Lyndon Johnson's Administration, who brought up memories of social protests during the 1960s, including sit-ins at segregated restaurants in the South.
He'll also consider some of the arguments raised by Bill Quigley, a Loyola University law professor and legal director of the Center for Constitutional Rights, about why such actions to draw attention to government misdeeds may be justified and how it's important "to be on the right side" of history.
And Jansen will consider the testimony given by retired Army Col. Ann Wright, a former U.S. diplomat, as to the culture of the armed forces and how soldiers need to hear more opinions from outside the military to decide whether they want to follow what could be a illegal order.
Jansen will weigh that against testimony from the security officer at Creech AFB and a Nevada Highway Patrol officer, who said the protest group was read a warning to leave and when they didn't leave they were handcuffed and arrested on trespassing charges.
Those facing the misdemeanor charge are the Rev. John Dear, a Jesuit priest; Dennis DuVall; Renee Espeland; Judy Homanich; Kathy Kelly; the Rev. Steve Kelly, a Jesuit priest; Mariah Klusmire; Brad Lyttle; Libby Pappalardo; Sister Megan Rice, a member of the Sisters of the Holy Child Jesus; Brian Terrell; Eve Tetaz; and the Revs. Louie Vitale and Jerry Zawada, both Franscican priests.
The day for the defendants began about 7:30 a.m. Tuesday outside Jansen's courtroom on the north sidewalk in front of the Clark County Regional Justice Center.
About 40 people from across the country gathered, holding signs such as "Thank G-D for Whistleblowers," "Drone Attacks Kill People And Peace," "Ground the Drones, Lest We Reap the Whirlwind," and "Put Drone Warfare on Trial."
Jim Haber, coordinator of the Nevada Desert Experience, said the goal was to bring attention to the issue of the use of drones. It is true, that fewer U.S. soldiers are killed by the use of drones, said Dear, a Catholic priest from Santa Fe who is one of the defendants.
"But some of the reports are that up to 90 percent of the victims are actual civilians," Dear said outside the justice center. "I'm saying, in the long run, we are turning many millions of people around the world against the United States."
Knee jerk nit wits!
Unmanned but professionally piloted vehicles are more or less lethal than unmanned, unpiloted and unguided artillery shells, mortar shells, rocket propelled grenades, bullets, air launched rockets, surface launched rockets, roadside explosive devices, etc.
Did these nits protest the poison gas artillery shells fired by several despots in the last thirty years, or the rockets and artillery fired from the Palestinian territories, any of the weapons used by the Taliban or al-Qaeda?
How about the unmanned bombs placed outside American Embassies in Africa and other countries that killed hundreds of Americans?
Unmanned drones? A misnomer. They do not have a human on board but are actively guided by specially trained pilots with visual contact with the target who go through several layers of safeguards to protect innocent life often causing delays that allow the enemy to achieve safety by seeking shelter in civilian occupied buildings including schools, mosques, hospitals, etc. and resulting in no action against those who attack and murder innocents as well as American military.
These folks need to see a psychiatrist about their uncontrolled medullal babinskis.
U.S. out of Afganistan !!
Knee jerk commenter!
Do they have to protest every use of every weapon in order for you to accept any single protest as valid? I'm sure that they would all agree that your other examples are just a horrendous.
Unmanned is not a misnomer unless by misnomer you mean highly accurate word. Is it manned? by a human?
Wow! Just because you don't agree with the protesters' opinion does not make them idiots.
Well, i guess BRASS is accurate, there's clearly little else between your ears.
RyMan, you are confused. These platforms are manned. Manned every minute they are in operation. The only difference is the operator is CONTROLLING them via electronic means from a distance versus controlling them via electronic means from a short distance. They are more restricted than the manned aircraft.
And yes, they are knee jerk nit wits. Any rational objective thought process would have surely identified that these are not random and uncontrolled systems without discrimination. In fact they are highly controlled.
By the way, BRASS stands for Breathe, Relax, Aim, Stop and Squeeze. The purpose of the 'stop step' I'm sure eludes your highly evolved knowledge base. But you are right, this conscious and deliberate methodology for safe operation and rational selection relates to almost all I endeavor to accomplish.
Would any of the protesting individuals sign up to replace the drones? Instead of protesting the type of weapon, just protest the war. Using a drone is better than losing a loved one. Also, what is the difference when you fire an artillery round down range 23 miles away? One thing to consider is that most of these civilian casualties are at the hand of the enemy purposly hiding behind the women and children. They know they are being watched and we wont attack while there are non-combatants around. In addition, the enemy do not where uniforms, so when the news reports people killed, the use the words civilians mistakenly killed. The point I am trying to make is we dont know who they are killing.
I hate hippies.
"Drone Attacks Kill People And Peace," .....so do terrorists you fools!
Sorry boys -- it's either us or them.
(and I assume you want to keep protesting, right?)
If all these damn priests are going to protest, their churches should be made to pay taxes!
What a bunch of knucklehead protesters.
Drone are use for surveillance and to drop bombs
on the bad guys.Soon they will be used to protect our border and neighborhoods.
This is the 21st century.
Technology at its best.
"It's the approach of death that terrifies." -- Henri Verdoux
"I suppose, if the unborn knew of the approach of life, they'd be just as terrified". -- The Girl
"Wars, conflict - it's all business. One murder makes a villain; millions, a hero. Numbers sanctify, my good fellow!" -- Monsieur Verdoux (Charles Chaplin)
The Prosecutor: Never, never in the history of jurisprudence have such terrifying deeds been brought to light. Gentlemen of the jury, you have before you a cruel and cynical monster. Look at him!
[all heads turn to face Verdoux, who turns around himself to look behind]
The Prosecutor: Observe him, gentlemen. This man, who has brains, if he had decent instincts, could have made an honest living. And yet, he preferred to rob and murder unsuspecting women. In fact, he made a business of it. I do not ask for vengeance, but for the protection of society. For this mass killer, I demand the extreme penalty: that he be put to death on the guillotine. The State rests its case.
Judge: Monsieur Verdoux, you have been found guilty. Have you anything to say before sentence is passed upon you?
Henri Verdoux: Oui, monsieur, I have. However remiss the prosecutor has been in complimenting me, he at least admits that I have brains. Thank you, Monsieur, I have. And for thirty-five years I used them honestly. After that, nobody wanted them. So I was forced to go into business for myself. As for being a mass killer, does not the world encourage it? Is it not building weapons of destruction for the sole purpose of mass killing? Has it not blown unsuspecting women and little children to pieces? And done it very scientifically? As a mass killer, I am an amateur by comparison. However, I do not wish to lose my temper, because very shortly, I shall lose my head. Nevertheless, upon leaving this spark of earthly existence, I have this to say: I shall see you all... very soon... very soon.
: {
Drones don't kill people, AGM-114's do.
Chunky says:
Anything that keeps our troops out of harms way and targets terrorists is a good thing.
If some call center rep in India can remotely tech support Chunky's PC, surely we have capable young men and women that can fly, arm and fire a drone at bad guys.
That's what Chunky thinks!
No one is complaining about the judge...
"This case has a lot more consequences than a trespass case," Jansen said. "... I want to make sure my decision is the correct decision."
Jansen told the packed courtroom that he needed to take about two to three months before he would render a written decision on the case. He set the date for that decision to be at 8:30 a.m. Jan. 27, 2011."
...this judge should be recalled, impeached, fired, or whatever you do to remove an inept judge. Contrary to his false assertions, this case is simply and purely a trespass case and should have been decided after all the evidence was presented. For the judge to say he needs 2-3 months, and by the way your honor, from Sept 14th to Jan 27 is 4.5 months, to make a decision in this case is just an admission of his incompetence.
"Sorry boys -- it's either us or them."
Havens22 -- considering your post is the lesser of several rants from buffoons, I'd love to see you post an explanation of exactly how ANYTHING in Pakistan and Afghanistan justify involving lethal U.S. military force.
Before you do I highly recommend you first check out "Taxi to the Dark Side." You should start @ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dilawar_(to...)
No wonder the world hates U.S.
The rest of you should keep in mind 1) Creech is a government-owned facility, -- who owns this government? and 2) so long as these protesters were assembled peacefully (and there's nothing in this article showing they were not), at least the Nevada officer was duty bound by his oath to support them, not arrest or even hinder them. It's called the First Amendment, dolts!
"This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it." -- Abraham Lincoln, first inaugural address, 1861
KillerB,
I've kept in mind your 1) and 2) points. Judge Jansen's courtroom is also a government-owned facility...so according to your faulty logic then any 14 dissenting protestors should be allowed to set up shop there with the protection of law enforcement. I guarantee you that Judge Jansen would not need 4.5 months to decide whether to cite them for contempt of court or not! Decide the damned case, Judge....it's your job!!!!
"Judge Jansen's courtroom is also a government-owned facility...so according to your faulty logic then any 14 dissenting protestors should be allowed to set up shop there with the protection of law enforcement."
enteaser -- your post isn't clear about what you mean about "set up shop." Courts are open to the public, and peaceful assembly doesn't normally include disrupting proceedings. So those supporting protesters would have an absolute right to attend -- under the protection of the court's officers.
Exactly what part of "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble" do you need explained to you? And the oaths of officers to support and defend those liberties securted by Constitutions?
"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rulemaking or legislation which would abrogate them." -- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 491 (1966)
"He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would fully suffice. This disgrace to civilization should be done away with at once. Heroism at command, senseless brutality, and all the loathsome nonsense that goes by the name of patriotism, how violently I hate all this, how despicable and ignoble war is; I would rather be torn to shreds than be part of so base an action! It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder."
~Albert Einstein
Like right-wing talk radio, I notice the supporters of the military in the comments section here begin and sometimes end their comment with a personal attack or insult in an attempt to paint those with whom they disagree with a broad brush. This is because they are either incapable of subtle thinking or refuse to look at their cupability for the murders and maimings of so many innocent men, women, and children via the U.S. military.
I also notice a refusal to look at the history of the involvement of the U.S. in creating the "terrorist" problem. And can a rational person expect that our death dealing in other countries will not have a result of resentment among the population, further likely to fuel more "terrorism"?
"Terrorism is the war of the poor, and War is the terrorism of the rich."
"The invasion of Iraq was a bandit act, an act of blatant state terrorism, demonstrating absolute contempt for the concept of international law. The invasion was an arbitrary military action inspired by a series of lies upon lies and gross manipulation of the media and therefore of the public; an act intended to consolidate American military and economic control of the Middle East"
manaus -- good points. Be to be more credible it's usually better to include the source of your quotes.
By the way, what the herd calls terrorists today would include our Revolutionary War's Minutemen. It's only guerrilla warfare, a tactic as old as warfare, and explained in Musashi's "A Book of Five Rings" as the strategy "Rat's Head, Ox's Neck."
"Be to be more credible..."
Oops -- meant "To be more credible..."
Who Would Jesus Bomb?
The thumping echo chamber of hysterical war mongers howls for the blood of innocents and cannot seem to get enough.
Many Americans, among them not a few self-professed 'Christians,' seem not to understand that the ethic of reciprocity, as in 'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you,' is not some supine mystic's quaint, silly notion, but rather a moral and religious imperative that accurately reflects spiritual reality.
The USA uses its military, by far the world's most powerful, most expensive, most technologically sophisticated, and most destructive, to rain down death from the skies upon the heads of the poorest of the world's poor, the most desperate of the world's destitute, many if not most of them defenseless civilians, women, and children. Yet most Americans, high and mighty in their self-righteous anger, resentment, and hate, seem to know no shame. How to understand and reach the selfish greed-goons, self-satisfied super 'patriots' and self-proclaimed 'great Americans' who fail to recognize that there is no greatness without goodness?
The angels responsible for our progress must weep as they watch the great American experiment degenerate into a hideous fascist caricature of itself. Does God have mercy on the mighty who have mercy on none?
KillerB,
What part of my post isn't clear to you? I posted...."so according to your faulty logic then any 14 dissenting protestors should be allowed to set up shop there with the protection of law enforcement."
Somehow, you incorrectly inferred from that post, this..."Courts are open to the public, and peaceful assembly doesn't normally include disrupting proceedings. So those supporting protesters would have an absolute right to attend -- under the protection of the court's officers."
You even agree with me that peaceful assembly does not include disrupting proceedings, ie. dissenting protestors, so apparently my post was clear afterall.
And why would you address these questions to me?..."Exactly what part of "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble" do you need explained to you? And the oaths of officers to support and defend those liberties securted by Constitutions?"
...I never mentioned free speech or free assembly rights, of course I support them. The issue here is trespassing on a US military base. As I said in my initial post..."this case is simply and purely a trespass case and should have been decided after all the evidence was presented."
"The issue here is trespassing on a US military base. As I said in my initial post..."this case is simply and purely a trespass case and should have been decided after all the evidence was presented."
enteaser -- I don't think I misunderstood anything about your post.
I see you failed to address anything about the threshold point -- how is it possible for the People, peacefully assembled, to trespass on what We the People own? It isn't private property we're talking about here. Of course this is the paranoia era where the federal government, through Homeland Security, label "law-abiding citizens" as domestic terrorist suspects.
You're right about some things, of course, which we both keep missing -- all the evidence has been presented, it's time for this judge to give his decision. But considering the low quality of your average sitting judge, who knows when that will be.
Judge Jansen is to be strongly commended both for allowing expert witnesses to testify and for admitting he needed time to study the testimony before rendering a decision. I am heartened to hear of a fair trial.
KillerB,
You may not think that you misunderstood my post but your posted words say otherwise...
"Somehow, you incorrectly inferred from that post, this..."Courts are open to the public, and peaceful assembly doesn't normally include disrupting proceedings. So those supporting protesters would have an absolute right to attend -- under the protection of the court's officers."
You even agree with me that peaceful assembly does not include disrupting proceedings, ie. dissenting protestors, so apparently my post was clear afterall."
And don't include me when you admit that you missed some points...
"You're right about some things, of course, which we both keep missing"
...I didn't miss anything. You should have quit after your first two words!
"You even agree with me that peaceful assembly does not include disrupting proceedings, ie. dissenting protestors, so apparently my post was clear afterall."
And don't include me when you admit that you missed some points..."
enteaser -- you can't see the difference between a closed room proceeding with established rules, like a courtroom or formal hearing, and just a facility like Creech? Our opinions vary -- let's leave it at that.
I so tired of these bleeding hearts. Let's give them a gun and ship them to Afghanistan and see if they have change of heart.
KillerB,
Of course I can see the difference between a closed room proceeding with established rules, like a courtroom or formal hearing, and just a facility like Creech. And if that's all you said I would never have replied to you. But that's not what you said! You said and I quote again..."The rest of you should keep in mind 1) Creech is a government-owned facility, -- who owns this government? and 2) so long as these protesters were assembled peacefully (and there's nothing in this article showing they were not), at least the Nevada officer was duty bound by his oath to support them, not arrest or even hinder them. It's called the First Amendment, dolts!"
Peaceful or not, these protestors were trespassing; it has nothing to do with First Amendment rights. This is what I responded to and I used the analogy of Judge Jansen's courtroom as another public area where protest (peaceful or not) would not be allowed. That was very clear and even you agreed with me when you said..."Courts are open to the public, and peaceful assembly doesn't normally include disrupting proceedings".
This has nothing to do with our varying opinions, for one thing, I haven't even stated my opinion. This has everything to do with you being wrong when you claimed my post wasn't clear and the fact that you are too proud and arrogant to admit it!
Convict them as traitors then hang them!
I think some people forget that the United States is a prduct of war. When did this trial become a debate on war. The simple matter is these people were trespassing. That is what they are being tried for. Guilty or not guilty, what is going to take 4 months to decide? Regardless of whether or not it was on government property, it is a matter of security.
And I support our troops 100%, but is there time better spent over seas or at home right now??
And.... keep in mind that some of these countries train their women and children to kill as well, so I will shed no tears for the loss of their lives during war. Just as they shed no tears for the innocent men and women that were killed on 9-11-01!!!
"But some of the reports are that up to 90 percent of the victims are actual civilians," Dear said outside the justice center. "I'm saying, in the long run, we are turning many millions of people around the world against the United States."
So in the end, his argument is a national policy argument. But who is delegated the power to create national policy in this country? The elected administration and Congress, or some random Catholic priest?
It really concerns me that this judge is trying to overstep his bounds. His job is to determine whether they broke the law by trespassing or not. Instead, he is considering whether they have a good argument and are therefore justified in entering a US Military base without the military's consent. At what point does a judge have the authority to allow for exceptions to laws, especially when they are clearly posted and then the accused were told that they were trespassing? It is unconstitutional for a judge to act this way.
I agree with dre04003. They are on trial for one specific reason.
And to goingbust. I don't really care how the United States looks to other countries. For too many years we have been the "world's police". We have to look out for ourselves now. Maybe if they don't like us, they will stop asking up for help and money!!!!
I wish someone would send a UAV over these CodePinkos and let loose with sewer water