Las Vegas Sun

January 27, 2015

Currently: 55° — Complete forecast | Log in | Create an account


Judge delays decision in ‘Creech 14’ drone trial

Decision expected in January on trespassing case


Dave Toplikar

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.

Click to enlarge photo

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."

Join the Discussion:

Check this out for a full explanation of our conversion to the LiveFyre commenting system and instructions on how to sign up for an account.

Full comments policy

Previous Discussion: 6 comments so far…

Comments are moderated by Las Vegas Sun editors. Our goal is not to limit the discussion, but rather to elevate it. Comments should be relevant and contain no abusive language. Comments that are off-topic, vulgar, profane or include personal attacks will be removed. Full comments policy. Additionally, we now display comments from trusted commenters by default. Those wishing to become a trusted commenter need to verify their identity or sign in with Facebook Connect to tie their Facebook account to their Las Vegas Sun account. For more on this change, read our story about how it works and why we did it.

Only trusted comments are displayed on this page. Untrusted comments have expired from this story.

  1. "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 @

    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

  2. "Judge Jansen's courtroom is also a government-owned 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)

  3. 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."

  4. "Be to be more credible..."

    Oops -- meant "To be more credible..."

  5. "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.

  6. "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.