The "Land of the free" as long as you don't protest I think

Remove all ads!

Now I'm not gerally a fan lawbraking protests against government in this country or elsewhere in the "Free" world.

However, when it comes to dealing with this when it happens, I think the prospect of three Colorado nuns facing up to 30 years in prison for the following offences:

Per UK law this would be - Criminal damage, vandalism, breaking and entering. Endangering national security? Nah, I don't think so.

Please read and follow this story and tell me what you think?

I wouldn't have taken much note of the maximum sentence being 30 years normally, but I heard an interview with a journalist from Colorado on UK radio last night who thought there was every chance that it would in fact be imposed! Unbelievable in my opinion and in the opinion of the BBC journalist doing the interview.

 

They interfered with US security. Send them to camp Xray. (Very sarcastic...)

 

You don't think breaking into a missile silo threatens national security?!? Suppose some terrorist was making them do it, figuring the gaurds would not shoot the nuns. I think it constitutes 20 years in jail.

 

Why the missile solo in the first place. I'm just not overly paranoid. Wait! there is someone behind me... Oh! It's ASIO....

 

Don't want to face the time, don't do the crime. Sorry, but these sisters will get exactly what they deserve.

Oh, and one of the reasons that this thread is in English instead of Russian is because of those missile silos.

More and more countries are becoming nuclear powers. As a new cold war is inevitable, why should the US tear them down, only to have to rebuild them in 20 or 40 years? Though it would please some of those to hate America to see the US get bullied by some third world dictator with and ICBM.

 

Well, than I better get started with my chinese lessons

That's a joke. Endangering national security would in my opinion need intention to endangering national security. This intention is clearly not given.

 

As for beeing bullied by others with missiles (and bullying back) :

Ever wondered why the US are so keen in aquiring a missile defence system? It would enable the US to engage other nuclear or WMD powers without fearing retaliation, or at least, by minimising enemy WMD effect. Protecting the force is a very postive thing, and missile defence can contribute to that. Who wouldn't want the best possible protection for the boys?

A missile defence system, even though "defensive" on first view, can also be destabilising by tendency as it undermines the effect of bilateral deterrence and makes a first strike under missile defence cover possible.
The possibility of a first strike (and the incredible costs of missile defence programs) were the reason for the ABM treaty beeing signed. The Bush administration clearly had reasons not to continue it.

Beeing deterred from doing anything doesn't fit Bush's military agenda. As the US don't want to be deterred from intervening in regional powers aereas of influence missile defence can be seen as a very agressive, offensive move. Missile defence is the other side of the coin, the counterpart of positioning nuclear missiles such as the Pershing 2, and, even though defensive by name, a move just as agressive.

 

Just to clarify:

As far as I can gather they did NOT break into the silo(s). They painted a cross on one (in blood - their own) and bashed it with sledgehammers.

Now consider how those things are made - I've seen them here and they are solid. 10ft concrete solid. I live a mile away from a now decomissioned missile base here in the UK. Anyway, the point is: to damage these things you need more than a sledgehammer wielded by a 60 year old nun.

But Darkwolf - this is the point. They are not getting what they deserve. 20 years for a symbolic protest + 10 years for minor criminal damage is not fitting. I'm not arguing against the missile silos - I do remember the cold war very well, don't worry on that score.

If you think that these are fitting potential sentences, then I think your penal code is more screwed up than I realised.

What do you get for burglary over there? Life?

 

Blackthorne, the sarcasm in your post tells me, we agree at least on one thing, a statement like this is just ridiculous:

The national defense is threatened by nuns which paint on walls ? If this is truly so, than I have to say, the US has no national defense.

The Law concerning national defense wasn't made to get nuns for 20 years behind bars for painting a wall.

[ April 01, 2003, 20:36: Message edited by: Yago ]

 

Ragusa,

I hate to sound like the overbearing American, but the dominant society of its time has always dictated terms to others, and I believe that if you look at the US compared to previous "Empires", (though I argue that the US is not an Empire in the traditional sense) you will find that in most cases the US has been very benevolent to nations it has conquered and attempted to influence (i.e. dominate). We have not demanded that nations change their languages, religions, or currencies. Yes, we have put in place puppet governments, though I believe that this trend has declined and that we are now attempting to install some form of representation. (I hope we are finally starting to learn a lesson)

Throughout history there has either been a dominant society, or struggle to establish one. These struggles have oft been brutal and bloody. The alternative to the US being the dominant society was to the Soviets, and that was not the choice that the majority of the modernized world wanted. Europe, while they definitely tried their best, simply could not balance the 2 against each other forever, and the US rose to the top. This may have been due to a lot of different reasons, but I believe that primarily it was the result of a happier populace based upon the freedoms ensured by the US Constitution, and the fact that capitalism simply works better than Marxism in the real world.

That said, there has been a series of doomsday devices that were going to lead to the domination of one nation above all others: the crossbow, ballista, black powder fire arms and cannons, the machine gun, Panzer and Tiger tanks, air warfare, nuclear weapons, and finally the latest and greatest, the missile defense system.

Short of closing all our ports, and using our military to patrol all our boarders and coasts, there is simply no way for us to prevent a nuclear attack from being delivered. Even if we did all that, I doubt that we could prevent a nuke from being smuggled into the country.

IMO there is a major downside the development of a missile defense system, and that is it will probably lead to more terrorist types of attacks in any future struggles. As is being seen in Iraq, when one combatant has no ability to inflict significant damage to the other though conventional means, they will be forced to look for unconventional means. Suicide bombers seem to be the on the path of least resistance for this area of thought.

BTA,

I couldn’t agree more.

 

Well said, Blackthorne. I'm all for free speech and the right to PEACEABLY ASSEMBLE (note the word "peaceably" in there, as opposed to, say "violently" or in this case "illegally"). Not that their assembly was illegal, but certainly they need to be punished. The system of law on which government hangs MUST be unbiased. If you make breaking and entering a crime, you can't let it apply to one person and not another.

The nuns broke into a military base and started smashing it (albeit with crusty ol' nun arms) with hammers. What if it had been terrorists with jackhammers and a tactical nuke?

Perhaps the two are extremes, but the fact is that the law applies to one. To be fair, it MUST apply to the other.

You don't like it? Change it. Talk to your congressmen and speak out. Do something to make it different.

Although, IMHO, I don't think congress will go for an amendment which states "This law shall now no longer affect angry nuns with sledgehammers."

 

I think it is perfectly legal to say they interfered with national security. Threatening it, on the other hand, is a different matter. I think that the entire issue, all in all, is a bit silly.

 

Yago, please note that the nuns have only been charged, not convicted. It's up to the DOJ attorneys to make a decent case. Chances are that they're pursuing the case to make others think twice before attempting similar actions ("Hey, you might not go to jail but look what it'll cost you!") as much as to get a conviction.

 

The Republican party has been pushing the SDI for a long time now. Everytime you think it has gone away, it comes right back again. In that light, it should come as no surprise that Bush did not renew the nuclear arms treaty with the Russians given the aggressive policies that his administration is pursuing, especially with the N. Koreans as well (I'm sure that will come later). No matter how you cut it, SDI is an "implied" threat to the rest of the world. Just more of the madness of King George.

[ April 03, 2003, 03:44: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

This proves that the security is a joke, while they did do jack all they still should be punshed for breaking and entering. On the first point how did they get in in the first place, is the security really that bad. They should have been shot on sight, if I wanted to break into something I would do it as a nun and weapons have been smuggled across borders by kindly middle aged priests. There's no way to know from 100 yards weather they really are nuns, especially in the dark.

 

America should be congratulating them for testing their security and showing them where they need to fix it. If three nuns can sneak into military bases and missile silos then I'd say that America is inviting a terrorist attack

 

And that makes it okay? The U.S. may not be the classic conquerer but it doesn't mean it isn't as domineering. The U.S. makes demands in terms of economic concessions which are blatantly one sided in its favor. The U.S. also puts pressure on other governments, especially that of developing nations (PC term for third world countries), to pass laws that are to its benefit and at times to the detriment of those countries. This might be okay if your American. You won't feel the negative effects of U.S. policy.

To the Americans here, how many of you have been outside your country? Canada and Mexico do not count. How many have been to a third world country? How many have been to the Middle East? How many of you really know what is happening in the world outside of what your leaders and media tell you?

Edit:
The questions above go to everyone else. It is frustrating for those at the receiving end of the first world's "benevolence" to hear its citizens rally to their nation without being sure how it will affect others. If you couldn't care less as long as your country benefits, that's fine. If you're a rightist, that's fine. Just say so. At least I'll know where you're coming from and I won't wonder if you truly care for the welfare of other nationalities or care only for your country and make it seem as if you care for others. I hate hypocrites!

[ April 02, 2003, 13:02: Message edited by: Charlie ]

 

Would the nuns have still interfered with national security, if the did the same thing, but instead of protesting against the facility, blessed the facility ?

 

BTA you're right to say that the protesters did break the law. Indeed they did. Me bad. Put them away for life (a 30 year sentence would be life). After all they committed: Trespass on Federal Land, criminal damage, vandalism of Federal property.

The only "endangerment" to national security here is the lack of security at the base that allowed this to happen.

The reason I posted the thread was that in the interview on BBC radio the Colorado journalist maintained that they were actually likely to receive the maximum sentence available, ie the 30 years. I'm not saying they haven't broken laws, but a 30 year sentence, even the threat of one, is outrageous. It simply does not fit the crime.

The fact that protesters are being threatened with 30 year sentences for what were onstensibly peaceful actions (minor damage to property, no violence) just might indicate that you're not as free over there as you all think you are. I trust you don't have labour camps for them in Alaska?