Kings
Bay Plowshares Anti-Nuclear Activists Prepare for Trial
Interview with
Mark Colville, founder of the Amistad Catholic Worker House in New Haven,
Connecticut, conducted by Melinda Tuhus
Posted Aug 15, 2018
On April 4, the 50th anniversary
of the assassination of Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., seven Catholic activists
carried out the 100th Plowshares protest action against nuclear weapons, this
time at the Kings Bay naval station in Georgia, the largest nuclear submarine
base in the world. Carrying hammers and bottles of their own blood,
the seven symbolically attempted to “convert” the submarines that carry nuclear
weapons. Plowshares actions take their name from the biblical imperative
to beat swords into plowshares, and activists focus on non-violent direct
action against nuclear weapons.
After spending a few months
in jail, four of the Kings Bay Plowshares participants were bailed out to
address personal issues and to organize support for their upcoming trial. Mark
Colville and his wife Luz have run the Amistad Catholic Worker House in New
Haven, Connecticut for the past 25 years. Colville has served more than a year
in prison in the late 1990s for another Plowshares action. He’s one of three
Plowshare activists who remain in prison.
Between The Lines’ Melinda
Tuhus spoke with Colville by phone in jail. After describing prison conditions
– no activities or time outdoors, and very little opportunity for exercise – he
talked about the Plowshares legal case and the arguments their lawyers will be
bringing to trial.
MARK COLVILLE: There was
a preliminary hearing – it’s called a motions hearing – both sides in the case
present written motions to the court ahead of time and the hearing is an
opportunity to argue those motions. Sort of the main motion that we had filed
was a motion to dismiss the charges, based on six reasons. One is that nuclear
weapons are illegal under U.S. law; number two is that nuclear weapons are
illegal under U.S. and international law; third is therefore the property in
question that we’re accused of damaging is not entitled to protection under the
law. Fourth, there’s a religious freedom argument which is kind of interesting;
basically that our necessity to go on the base is rooted in our religious
faith. All seven of us are actually Roman Catholics, and we’re prepared to make
an argument that what we did at Kings Bay is actually a requirement of our
faith process. Then number five is that the government is engaged in selective
and vindictive prosecution, which is related to the last point in that we’ve
been charged with the same offense in more than one count.
Actually, the charges we’re under are three felonies and a misdemeanor,
the misdemeanor being trespass. The felonies are destruction of government
property, depredation of government property, and conspiracy.
Basically, the arguments we’ve made are kind of interesting.
First of all, we’re trying to make the point that nuclear weapons are illegal.
Really, this is the whole point, or in large part the point of Plowshares
actions is that there has been no way to get nuclear weapons judged in a court.
Obviously, we’ve tried many other ways. Plowshares actions are a way of trying
to do that. And what we find in the federal courts is that clearly the laws are
in place – domestic laws as well as international laws – that make it clear
that nuclear weapons are illegal. The problem is that the way the law is
applied in the federal courts essentially puts nuclear weapons beyond the reach
of the law. So not only has nobody in 73 years voted for a nuclear weapons or
been able to approve or disapprove of one, but their legality has never been
challenged in a court of law, and in fact Plowshares cases are mostly designed
to try to change that, and it’s a sad commentary that citizens have to put
themselves at such risk, both in terms of physical risk and then lengthy jail
time, just to change that reality that they’ve managed to place nuclear weapons
beyond the reach of law. So we’ve tried to argue that our actions were
necessary based on that.
The religious freedom thing is, actually it’s kind of ironic.
We’re actually making a new argument here based on recent developments with
something called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which has really gotten
some teeth in the past few years with Trump being president, but even before
that. People may recall there was a case out in Colorado with so-called
Christians – bakery owners – refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding, and
that, I guess, went all the way to the Supreme Court. Their argument was based
on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The law says that in cases where the
government needs to restrain people who are practicing their religion they must
do so in the least intrusive way available. So part of our argument is that we
didn’t need to be charged with three felonies and a misdemeanor for what we
did, that there are much less restrictive ways of limiting our actions. We could
have been brought up on civil charges, for example.
Copyright © 2017 Squeaky Wheel Productions,
Inc.
Donations can be sent
to the Baltimore Nonviolence Center, 325 E. 25th St., Baltimore, MD
21218. Ph: 410-323-1607; Email: mobuszewski2001 [at] comcast.net. Go to http://baltimorenonviolencecenter.blogspot.com/
"The master class
has always declared the wars; the subject class has always fought the battles.
The master class has had all to gain and nothing to lose, while the subject
class has had nothing to gain and everything to lose--especially their lives."
Eugene Victor Debs
No comments:
Post a Comment