This has been published in the book PEACE OR BUST. For ordering information, please click here.
The following is a transcript of Sanderson Beck's opening statement in his trial before Magistrate Judge Patrick Walsh in Los Angeles on May 1, 2003 for his having entered Vandenberg Air Force Base on March 22 and March 24, 2003.
Dr. Beck:
She said that it's a simple case, but I think it's a little more
complicated than that. On March 22nd and on March 24th the United
States armed forces under the direction of President George W.
Bush were actively engaged in a war in the invasion of Iraq, and
I believe that the evidence will show that Vandenberg Air Force
Base was involved in that military operation.
The Court:
All right. I'm going to just accept for purposes of this case
that we were involved in a war, which I am aware of from sources
outside the trial -
Dr. Beck:
Right.
The Court:
And I'm assuming that Vandenberg Air Force Base and every base
in this country played some role in that conflict. So you've established
that in my view.
Dr. Beck:
Okay. And I believe the evidence will show therefore in addition
to that that I had a justifiable reason for going to the Vandenberg
Air Force Base on March 22nd, and that there's many issues
involved; but the evidence will show, for example, that there
was other media beyond the line. I was not given the opportunity
to request permission to go on the base. My concerns were not
addressed by the Air Force. So I believe that I was justified.
The Court:
Do you think that you had a right then to go on to the base? In
other words, did you have a right to request permission. Is there
a constitutional or statutory right that you have a right to request
permission to go on to a U. S. military base?
Dr. Beck:
It seems to me yes. I mean, there are people that go on to the
base who get permission, and they have a legitimate basis. They're
allowed to go on. And I believe that my business in terms of attempting
to stop crime and we're talking about serious crimes here
murder of thousands of people and destruction of millions,
maybe even billions of dollar's worth of property. I believe that
those are crimes. The evidence will show that those are crimes,
and that by U. S. law, the Constitution is to uphold the treaties
according to, you know, Article VI of the Constitution. Treaties
are the supreme law of the land. And so I believe the evidence
will show that I was there for the legitimate purpose of preventing
crimes from taking place, or reporting crimes, you might say.
The Court:
Well, who are you reporting it to? Did you think that the people
that were participating from Vandenberg Air Force Base didn't
know that they were bombing Iraq?
Dr. Beck:
Obviously, I think they knew that they were bombing, -
The Court:
So they didn't need to -
Dr. Beck:
- but I'm not sure that they knew that it was illegal, and that's,
you see, where the Nuremberg Principles come in. I mean, you're
getting me into argument here by asking a lot of questions. So
I hope that's not coming out of my time, because I thought I was
just supposed to describe the evidence.
The Court:
Go ahead.
Dr. Beck:
Okay. So I believe that I was justified, that I was doing my constitutional
duty by going to just as if someone were well, that's
argument. I don't need to give the analogy now. I believe the
evidence will also show that I tried all alternative methods trying
to stop the war, and there's a lot of evidence that I can present
on that, and many different ways that I tried to prevent these
crimes from occurring in the first place.
And I think the evidence will show that this was an emergency, that there was, obviously, as you've already admitted, a war going on, and so it was very much of an emergency situation.
I also the evidence will show that I did not do anything disruptive. I wasn't trying to hide. I didn't have any tools or weapons or paint or blood or anything to try to spray on the base or anything like that. That I was just openly and honestly trying to communicate to the people there my serious concern about those crimes.
So I think that in the first instance the evidence will show that there was nothing unlawful. Therefore it's not trespass because obviously people, if they have a good reason, like the press, or anyone for some particular reason, can go on the base. So there has to be a reason. There has to be something unlawful that I was doing on the base or intending to do, and I contend that I was actually trying to uphold the law the first time.
The second time I realized I had been barred, and so now we're dealing with the necessity defense, and I believe that the evidence will show all the elements of the necessity defense, which I've already started to go into, and I'll just repeat, that there was an imminent harm, danger, or crime, being the war itself, which was not only imminent, it was ongoing. It was actually happening at that time, both dates.
And it was, secondly, that this crime, these harms, these dangers were much more serious than anything that I did which might have been considered illegal, in this case re-entering after having been barred, that being obviously less serious, having a less harmful value to our society than these murders of thousands of people. I think the evidence will show that that's rather obviously a huge difference.
The third point is what I've talked about. The evidence will show that I made many, many efforts to try to stop the war and to prevent the crimes from occurring, and that there was no other option available, that this was the very best way that I could do my duty as a citizen to try to prevent those crimes from taking place, and so present evidence on that.
And the fourth element, the evidence will show that I had a reasonable belief that my going there and talking to them might in some way mitigate those crimes or lessen some of them. I think it's obviously an unreasonable standard to think that I would believe that I could stop the war all by myself because that's, you know, that's absurd.
I do not have to believe that. I only have to have a reasonable belief that what I my report that I make in concert with what other people might do just like when you report a crime. Someone might have to trespass in order to report a crime or report a fire or save a child from a burning building if its, you know, where it says "No trespassing."
They are justified in doing that because they don't do the whole thing themselves. They don't have to go stop the murder from occurring. Just by reporting it they're helping to have that murder be stopped.
So it's unreasonable to expect that the person would have to believe that they could stop the whole thing by themselves. You only have to believe that you would actually influence a lessening of it, and I would argue that, I mean, the evidence I believe will show that all these protests, not only myself but others, resulted in fewer killings in this war than in previous wars.
And it was reasonable also for me to believe that it might have been possible that if more people did something similar to what I did, that the war might have even been stopped and reversed, because we didn't know at that time whether the war was going to be difficult or not, and if it turned out to be difficult, like in Vietnam or whatever, that it might have made the difference to pulling out sooner.
I believe also the evidence will show that there's a selective prosecution here, that protestors were singled out for arrest, and that others were not.
And I think the evidence will show that there's kind of a free speech, I think, first-amendment issue here involved, because the evidence will show that I did ask permission to go on the base, and that I was just there to communicate, and I wanted to ask for permission, and I just wanted to talk to the base commander, and they didn't really listen to me. They didn't really give me the fair opportunity to have that kind of communication.
And I also would argue in terms of reducing the amount of murders going on, that when I talked to the various Air Force personnel about not obeying illegal orders or retiring from the military or applying for Conscientious Objector, that I had a reasonable belief that some of them might do that, and that there's evidence that more than a hundred people actually did apply for Conscientious Objector during that war.
Am I answering questions that you have? Because I would like to, you know, respond if you have questions along the way.
The Court:
No. I'm going to let you finish. I've given you a little bit more
time than I thought I was going to do, but.
Dr. Beck:
Yeah. Well, I think that's about ten minutes.
The Court:
Anything further you want to add?
Dr. Beck:
I think that's the summary for the opening.
The Court:
Okay. Now you get to call your first witness. First of all, does
the government have any objection to The Court: taking notice
of the fact that there was a war in Iraq at the time, and that
there was that Vandenberg Air Force played some role in
the war effort?
Ms. McCaslin:
Only to the extent that I haven't figured out the terminology,
if we were officially at war or it was a conflict that we were
definitely engaged, and perhaps my legal counsel can tell me the
appropriate term.
The Court:
He's going to tell me it's Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Captain Jackson:
It was a military conflict other than war, your honor, but it
was a shooting conflict.
The Court:
All right. For purposes of this trial we are going to call it
the Iraqi war over the government's objection. I'm going to overrule
their terminology only because it's simple and straightforward
to refer to it as a war. All right. Now, Dr. Beck, you can call
your first witness.
This has been published in the book PEACE OR BUST. For ordering information, please click here.