BECK index
2003 Peace Campaign This has been published in the book PEACE OR BUST.
Nonviolent Strategies for Protesting the US-Iraq War
Letter to Secretary-General Kofi Annan
Opening Statement by Sanderson Beck, May 1, 2003
Testimony by Sanderson Beck, May 1, 2003
Direct Testimony
Closing Arguments by Sanderson Beck, May 1, 2003
May 2003 Letter to Judge Walsh by Sanderson Beck
Why We (US) Should Get Out of Iraq ASAP (2005)
What Jesus Might Say to George W. Bush (2005)Nonviolent Strategies for Protesting the US-Iraq War
(Sanderson wrote this account of his educational peace campaign
for the Presidency of the United States during his four-month incarceration
for nonviolently protesting the illegal invasion of Iraq.
He has endorsed the candidacy of Dennis Kucinich as the best vote
we can make during the primaries.)I am sitting at a table in the law library of the Metropolitan Detention Center
in Los Angeles on September 6, 2003.
I have decided to write an honest account of my efforts for world peace
in the last year, using only my memory as a resource,
because I will still be in prison for another six weeks.About a year ago the junior Bush administration was beginning its propaganda
campaign for its aggressive war against Iraq.
In September 2002 I am working on an extensive revision of the
282-page The Way to Peace, which I wrote 1979-1982.
To the early chapters I have added since June much relevant material
from the first two volumes of my comprehensive History of Ethics,
which I wrote 1995-2002.
The new book would be 993 pages and have the new title Guides to Peace and Justice.
At this time I am also writing a Movie Mirror each day
and have nearly completed the year 1942.
On September 11, I watch on television the surreal spectacle of George W. Bush
giving a commemorative speech with the Statue of Liberty as a backdrop,
exploiting the horrific consequences of United States foreign policy
as an excuse to make these policies even worse.
This is followed by an arrogant speech at the United Nations in which he warns that
the UN may become like the League of Nations.
He threatens Iraq, which has already been devastated by US military force in 1991,
has suffered misery and hundreds of thousands of deaths because of
US-imposed "sanctions," and is being regularly bombed into submission
in the northern and southern portions of the country.I am doing research and adding sections to my book on Marsilius of Padua, Petrarch,
Gower, Chelcicky, Wyclif, Hus, Anabaptists, Mennonites, and others.
Searching for books by international law pioneers such as Vitoria, Suarez, Pufendorf,
Wolfe, and Vattel, the current international law expert Francis A. Boyle is kind enough
to respond to my email, and friend Howard Richards tells me the Santa Barbara
public library can get me almost any book I want for fifty cents each.
These books help me extend that chapter.I am living in Ojai and have been renting the master bedroom in the house of Max Falk
for the past seven years.
Since I moved in, he married Olga, who is from Guatemala;
recently they have been using the house as a day-care facility.
I like children and have adjusted to this, and Max allowed me to move most
of my extensive library into the garage.
On October 9 (John Lennon's birthday) Max tells me that he wants me to move out
of that bedroom within three months.
My first reaction is that I am screwed.
I could not fit my library into a smaller room.After meditating on this, I decide to go on another peace tour around the United States
as I did in 1987, talking with people and selling my books.
I had founded the non-profit corporation World Peace Communications
and went into debt to publish the Wisdom Bible in May 2002.
Without money for promotion or marketing there were no reviews.
In August we printed thirty copies of Ancient Wisdom and Folly,
the first volume of the History of Ethics.
I would also publish and sell the short Nonviolent Action Handbook
along with the large Guides to Peace and Justice.
Max and Olga agree to give me until March 24 to move out and will allow me
to store all my things in the garage during my planned seven-month tour in 2003.
In 1987 I had visited more than six hundred peace groups and stayed in 130 cities.
This time I want to go to university campuses,
and using the web I draw up a schedule of 180 universities,
one each day on Mondays through Saturdays.Also in October Bush is bullying the UN to try to get it to authorize his attack on Iraq,
and the cowardly US Congress foolishly votes him permission
to launch this aggression whenever he wants.
After adding material on the abolitionists and American pacifists to my chapter
on Emerson and Thoreau, I am writing a new chapter on women's rights
and the fascinating suffrage movements in the US and England.
After adding to the chapters on the Bahá'í religion, Tolstoy, and Gandhi,
I am writing the hopeful but tragic story of the League of Nations.
The fascist tendencies of the current Bush regime are offering frightening parallels
to Germany, Italy, and Japan invading one country after another.
I begin attending vigils in downtown Ojai and learn our town has a local chapter
meeting weekly of Citizens for Peaceful Resolutions (CPR),
a group in Ventura that meets once a month.
I attend a slide show talk on Iraq by Leah Welles.The election results in November 2002 are very disappointing,
as the Republican Party now has control of the Senate as well as the House.
Exactly four years before, I had warned a friend that I was concerned that
Texas Gov. Bush might be elected president in 2000,
and Republicans could control the government.
One month before that election, I said that Bush could win in the Electoral College
even while Al Gore won the popular vote.
Gore won by 540,000 votes; but two days after the contested election,
I predicted that three people would decide who the next president would be—
Souter, Kennedy, and O'Connor.
Nonetheless I was horrified when the conservative US Supreme Court went against
its own states-rights principles and reversed the intelligent decision
of the Florida Supreme Court to recount all the votes.
I never thought I would live to see the day in our country
where the fair counting of votes was blocked.Soon after watching a long documentary about Jimmy Carter on public television,
I dream on the night of November 11, 2002 that I am telling Carter that
I think I have leadership ability.
While living in Georgia I had spoken to Jimmy Carter at his church in December 1990,
asking him to repent on the Carter Doctrine so that thousands of lives could be saved.
He flashed his teeth and said that that only had to do with the Soviet Union.
I thought it had to do with going to war in the Middle East to protect the oil supplies.
On the Sunday in January 1991 before the Gulf War began,
Jimmy was teaching about the wise virgins who had oil for their lamps and told
how his father had taken him to the nearby train station two hours early to make sure
he would get back to Annapolis, and so I raised my hand and asked,
"Suppose there was a country that had plenty of oil;
but they were so afraid they would not have enough, even though they did,
that they were going to war against another country to take their oil.
Would that country be justified in going to war?"
Everyone laughed because people wanted him to talk about the war.
Carter said that he had called Gorbachev and Mitterand that weekend,
and they and he were opposed to the war.As I awoke on November 12, the idea occurred to me that
I could run for president myself.
Even though I have never been in politics before (since high school),
I will be touring the country and could be a voice for peace and disarmament
that students and others could rally around.
By running as a Democrat among the few challenging front-runner Al Gore,
I hoped that I might gain enough support to get into the
televised debates before the primaries.
I spend the entire day, while sitting in a jury pool without being called,
thinking about this idea without telling anyone about it.
That night Oak Grove schoolteacher David Howard presents a petition to the
Ojai city council for a resolution opposing war against Iraq.
In support of this effort I make a short speech opposing the dangerous Bush policies
and noting that his idea of a "man of peace" is Ariel Sharon,
whom I say is one of the worst war criminals in the world today.
Afterward I tell David and Delores Keith
that I am seriously considering running for president.I stop writing Movie Mirrors and watching movies and devote all my time
to developing my policies for peace and justice.
I extend the chapter on the United Nations to include the history
of its peacekeeping operations, and I add much to the chapter on "Women for Peace."
The chapters on the Vietnam War and anti-nuclear protests are also strengthened.
I research a new chapter on Reagan's proxy wars in Central America
and the organized resistance to them as well as senior Bush's invasion of Panama.
In new chapters I am especially inspired by the chapter on Gorbachev
and the ending of the Cold War, and I try to expose the follies
of recent US imperialism by summarizing the
critiques by Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn.
The history and crimes of the first Gulf War are described
by recounting the efforts of former attorney general Ramsey Clark.I find the 2000 platforms of the Democratic Party and the Green Party
on the web and am struck by the contrast.
The Democrats' policies are expressed in vague generalities with much rhetoric;
but Green positions are specific, detailed, and much more comprehensive.
I consider myself a Green Democrat and write precisely what I oppose
and my own ideas of what I think we should do.
I call the Federal Elections Commission to find out
about the requirements of an official candidate.
They send me a package, and I am glad there are no fees.
Getting on the ballots is by states and their parties.
I learn that to get on the Democratic ballot in California I must be a recognized
candidate by qualifying for federal matching funds.
To do that I must raise at least $5,000 in each of 20 states from individual contributions
of no more than $250 each.
If I can raise more than $100,000 in this way, the federal government
will give my campaign an equal amount.
With my planned tour to so many states this seems to me to be feasible.
I organize my ideas into a brochure for my campaign and redesign
my 1982 World Peace Movement brochure to include the Nuremberg Principles
and Nonviolence Guidelines for action—
all under the heading "Principles and Methods of Peace and Justice."I get a thousand copies of each brochure printed locally and begin distributing them.
In December I give them to at least two hundred people while attending
the Americans for Democratic Action (ADA) conference in the
Westwood Methodist church my family went to occasionally when I was a teenager.
However, my only opportunity to speak is briefly in the lunchtime workshops
about the nuclear weapons danger and the need for nonviolent direct action.
Some of the people in the Ojai CPR group seem to resent that I am running
for President and will not allow my campaign brochures to be given out at their table.
However, Cheri Mason is moved by what I say at the Ventura CPR meeting,
and we get together to talk.
Although she is in the Green Party, I persuade her to be the treasurer for my campaign.
We attend Peace Sunday at the Los Angeles Convention Center
and hear speeches by Dennis Kucinich and Barbara Lee.
She represents Berkeley and Oakland and had courageously voted against
the invasion of Afghanistan and the U. S. Patriot Act.
The organizer Leland Stewart is a friend of mine,
but it is too late for me to be able to speak.
Kucinich reads a good speech but is not yet a candidate.
I am discouraged, however, because I do not sell a single copy of the Wisdom Bible.I am inspired to offer a team approach instead of a single candidacy and hope
to be able to pull together a group of progressives including Noam Chomsky,
Howard Zinn, Randall Forsberg, Helen Caldicott, Ralph Nader, Michael Ratner,
Norman Solomon, Kwame Mfume, Jesse Jackson,
Jim Hightower, Juan Gonzales, and others.
I send an email with this list of names to Amy Goodman, asking her to be the
vice president candidate and saying that I am willing to step aside
if this council decides on a better presidential candidate.
I send another email to her and Norman Solomon a week later
but receive no response at all.The semi-annual board meeting of World Peace Communications is attended
by Howard Richards, Eileen Baker, Teri Apodaca, and me
on the first Saturday in January 2003.
I have persuaded Teri to accompany me on my national tour,
and she hopes to make a video.
The next day I write a letter to United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan
about the violations against international law being perpetrated
by the United States and the United Kingdom.
My friend Paul Belgum arranges for me to be on a panel at Ventura CPR,
and 79 people (nearly all there) sign a petition supporting my letter.
I mail these and a Wisdom Bible to Annan.I have been trying to contact ANSWER (Act Now to Stop War and End Racism)
by phone and email so that I could speak at their rally in Los Angeles
on Saturday January 11, but I get no response from them or other sponsoring groups.
Our Ojai CPR has chartered a bus, and with help from John Dixon,
I am able to sell 58 copies of my brand new Nonviolent Action Handbook.
I slip past police in order to hand celebrity Martin Sheen a copy
with my campaign brochure.
I have met him twice before; he bought two of my books at Concord in 1988.
I ask an organizer to give a Handbook to Jackson Browne,
who was arrested the day after me at Diablo Canyon in 1981.
I give one to Rev. Jim Lawson and sell one to Franciscan Louis Vitale.I hear that the American Friends Service Committee (AFSC) of Pasadena
is sponsoring a nonviolence training the next day.
In the morning I send an email to them about my Nonviolent Action Handbook
and get a quick reply from Shaddy that they are already using it from my website.
John Dixon drives me to the training in Boyle Heights, and I sell them some books.
I give my friend Jeff Dietrich a review copy for the Catholic Agitator.
Rev. Lawson gives a great opening speech about his own imprisonment
for refusing to be drafted during the Korean War, his study of Gandhi in India,
and on the long-standing evils of U. S. foreign policy.
He taps me on the shoulder as he leaves.
Before leaving I give the young facilitator a suggestion that he ask for concerns
or reservations before he asks if anyone wants to block consensus;
he is grateful for the advice.
This group plans a civil disobedience action at the federal building for February;
but I have promised Teri I will stay out of jail (at least for a while).After writing the last chapter on "Nonviolent Revolution" and an appendix on
"My Efforts for World Peace" with the letter to Annan,
I complete the typesetting of Guides to Peace and Justice and send it to the printer.
At the Santa Barbara Peace Congress organized by the local Not In Our Name (NION)
on the 18th of January I march in the street with Teri and her friend Nikki,
who also wants to work on my campaign.
During a workshop I ask international law expert Richard Falk
a series of Socratic questions, gaining agreement that President Bush
and the US Congress are violating specific treaties.
Then I suggest we need nonviolent revolution and that the way we do that in this country
is by electing a new president and that I am running.
Penny Little has allowed me to speak on an inter-faith panel, and people applaud
when I say that I have been arrested more than fifty times for nonviolent protests.
I say that war does not determine who is right but who is left.After hearing the outrageous propaganda and warmongering
in Bush's state of the union speech, I write an
"Alternative State of US" address and put it up on my website.
KEYT, the Santa Barbara affiliate of ABC, sends a young reporter
to interview me where I am living.
I explain I am running for president to educate people on nonviolent solutions
to international problems and discuss various issues.
Although I warn him that a major problem is that the media primarily only covers
the "horse-race" aspect of campaigns instead of the issues,
I find that he has edited out all my good statements
and presented the story to show that anyone can run for president.Dave Wass asks me to be on his community-access television show
"War or Peace" in Santa Barbara.
We record eight shows between February 6 and March 20.
Since Teri Apodaca is my most enthusiastic supporter,
I ask her to be my campaign manager.
She recruits another friend named Jody, and we try to get organized.
I am hoping to announce my candidacy on Lincoln's birthday at UCLA;
but this is frustrated because I cannot get any of the student anti-war groups
to even meet with me or sponsor a room for this purpose.
I am finding that efforts to contact other campus groups are difficult
despite the accessibility of email.
With three people working on my campaign I get 10,000 revised
campaign brochures printed with a new photo.
Then I learn that Nikki and Jody have problems in their own lives preventing them
from going on the tour or working on the campaign.
Teri is also trying to get her life in order and has only
raised enough money to buy three cell phones.
After the big peace march on February 15, I tell Teri that I am canceling
the nation-wide tour because of lack of support.
Now that Dennis Kucinich is a candidate,
the peace movement has an experienced politician to support.I have been speaking briefly at the Saturday marches in Santa Barbara,
appealing for people to do more to stop the war.
I propose a national strike if Bush gives Saddam Hussein an ultimatum,
and I declare that I will begin a juice fast at that time.
I say that the people of Iraq are praying for peace and that it is our responsibility
to help stop our nation from attacking them.
In Ojai to a senior citizens group I give a two-hour talk
on the history of Iraq, the oldest civilization.
On March 5, my birthday, I speak to a rally of students in Ventura
after some walked out of class.
I also speak to the Santa Paula Unitarian church.
At the office of Dr. Falk at UCSB I had met film student Dan Reilly,
and he has decided to make a documentary about my peace campaign.
A Not In Our Name group has been organized in Ventura,
and I facilitate a workshop on nonviolence at the Ventura Unitarian church.
Max wants me to move out of my room sooner if I can, and we agree that
by leaving on March 20 that will pay for storing my library
and things in the garage for four months.
When George II gives Saddam Hussein a 48-hour deadline on March 17,
I begin my juice fast.
Two days later Dan and I hear his war speech on the radio just before meeting
in Ventura with people who want to organize a protest action at the office of
Rep. Gallegly on April first.
I had sent emails to the UN Security Council members, asking them to keep
the inspectors in Iraq so that the US would not attack;
but they pulled them out, and the invasion began.On March 20, I become a homeless person, protesting the war full time.
Since the war has started, I break my fast to keep up my strength.
After taping the "War or Peace" show I join the people
marching in the streets of Santa Barbara.
Despite the anger and frustration there is no violence, and a riot is avoided.
NION has developed good communication over several months with the police,
who now let people roam in the streets while blocking some intersections.
That afternoon a few people were arrested for climbing on to
the 101 freeway and blocking traffic.
Teri lets me sleep in her bedroom in my sleeping bag.I wake up early Friday morning and go to talk with three guys
who are fasting in de la Guerra plaza.
I suggest we need to get more organized and direct our protests toward
the warmakers rather than traffic, and they agree.
We discuss planning an action at the weapons manufacturer Raytheon,
the largest employer in Santa Barbara County.
I also meet with David Krieger at the Nuclear Age
Peace Foundation about similar concerns.
That evening at the plaza I propose we let people join different groups for actions.
Protesting at Vandenberg Air Force Base is also suggested;
but soon after the announcements the people leave to march in the streets again.
I participate in the march and the "die-ins," and no one is arrested.
Dan Reilly kindly lets me stay in his apartment even though a friend of his is visiting him.Peter Lumsdaine, whom I know from the MX missile protests at Vandenberg in 1983,
has been organizing for the Vandenberg Action Coalition,
which called for a demonstration the first Saturday after the war starts.
Dan, his friend, and I go up to Vandenberg AFB.
A vigil holding silent poses for about an hour is led by Dennis Apel,
a Catholic Worker who had been arrested recently for
spraying his blood on the Vandenberg sign.
Just before Sister Mary Pat White is going to cross the line to commit civil disobedience,
a photographer from the Los Angeles Times asks me if I am Sanderson Beck.
I ask Mary Pat if she wants company, and Sheila Baker joins her.
I want to do an interview for the Times reporter, and before I know it,
Mary Pat and Sheila are across the line kneeling in prayer.
They are warned and arrested.
The Times writer conducts a brief interview, and then I announce that
I am going to try to persuade those on the base to stop committing war crimes.As I walk toward the green line, I ask permission to go on the base
to talk with the commander.
I cross the line and charge them with violating international law and US treaties,
such as the United Nations Charter.
At the same time Captain Quigley is reading a warning with a public address system
that I will be arrested for trespassing.
I have to shout to be heard except during the intervals after
the two-minute and one-minute warnings.
Dan is videoing my speech but in his edited documentary cuts out the following:
"If you are Christians, follow what Jesus taught and did. 'Love your enemies.'"
I complain of US hypocrisy, which demands that a weak country not be allowed
to have any weapons of mass destruction when the US has
more than the rest of the world combined.
I declare that I am running for president on a true disarmament platform.
I prophesy that there will be a nonviolent revolution to throw the fascists out.
I appeal to their souls, which take only their experience when they die.
I mention that I was arrested there twice in 1983
for protesting the first-strike MX missiles.
As they handcuff me and escort me away, I shout, "Stop the war!"
Before I am put on a bus, I speak to a line of Air Force men in riot gear,
urging them to become conscientious objectors and informing them that
under the Nuremberg Principles they are responsible;
they do not have to obey illegal orders.The bus takes Mary Pat, Sheila, and I to a processing building on the base.
For about two hours we sit and talk as they fill out forms and take photos.
Mary Pat and Sheila are each questioned by an FBI agent,
but I am interrogated by both of them.
They especially want to know about Peter and those who are occupying
the backcountry of the extensive base.
I tell them I don't know what they are doing because my approach is different.
I am not interested in playing hide-and-seek with the Air Force;
but mine is a moral witness.
They say they don't want anyone to get hurt.
So I suggest that they make sure the people with the guns (Air Force)
are trained not to shoot people who are nonviolent.
Previously the base had announced at a press conference
that the use of deadly force had been authorized.
Peter noted that this has always been their policy,
but in twenty years no protestor has been shot.
Much of the time I talked with Sergeant Malcolm Walton,
an African American who is studying psychology with the man
who comes to pick us up when we are released.
At first we get a citation ordering us to appear in court at Santa Barbara on April 18.
I note that is good because it is the same day that
Dennis Apel and Bud Boothe are to be in court.
They may have overheard me because they changed our dates to June 20.When we get back to the home of Bud Boothe,
we have dinner and talk with others who were in the backcountry.
Lex tells me that he was arrested in San Francisco but cited out
so that he could come down to Vandenberg.
He says 2,300 were arrested for closing down the federal building and Bechtel;
most are staying in jail in solidarity, and they are being held in warehouses on the pier.
Dan returns to drive me back to his apartment.On Sunday morning I assist Leah Wells in a nonviolence workshop at the
Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, and a photo of my arrest is on the front page
of the Santa Barbara News Press.
As I am driving to Ventura, I hear on KPFK that
"none of the three arrested at Vandenberg were killed."
At Dean's house I co-facilitate a nonviolence training with Grant Marcus,
the initiator of the Gallegly action.
Kris Vestuto has been trying to talk with Grant about the scenario,
and during the first part of the workshop the two argue with each other.
After a while I call a time-out and suggest we meditate silently for a while.
After that, the mood is much more peaceful,
and Grant does a better job of facilitating his portion of the workshop.
I facilitate the rest, which is briefly interrupted when Lorraine brings a tape of
Michael Moore accepting his Oscar.
Dean lets me stay overnight, and again I wake up early with ideas of what I am to do.
I am going to go back to Vandenberg and want to tell people why on Pacifica radio.
I call KPFK early and arrange to be interviewed by
Sonali Kolhutcar on the Morning Show by telephone.I go back to Dan's so that he can video the interview.
He also films an interview I do later that morning in the KCSB studio.
After having lunch with my mother I drive up to Bud Boothe's house
to see if anyone wants to protest with me.
The backcountry effort is winding down, although none of them was arrested.
I call a couple of local newspapers and meet a photographer at the main gate.
Jake gives me a ride there, and I walk across the line and down the sidewalk
toward the Visitors Center, where one is supposed to be able to
request permission to go on the base.
Before I get there, I am stopped by Air Force police.
I ask to speak to the base commander;
but as soon as I mention war crimes as the reason, I am arrested.
I am taken to a building where investigator Malcolm Walton interviews me.
I write a short statement of why I came on the base.
I tell him that he might as well as hold me, because I will keep coming back until he does.
I have brought three of my books with me to use as evidence.
Other officers see them and come into the room for a discussion
of some issues of war and peace.
Malcolm tells me that I can be arraigned in Los Angeles on Wednesday.
Since what I want is a speedy trial, I agree to that.
He takes me in a van, calls Bud Boothe, and drops me off outside the base.I stay that night at Bud's, but again I wake up early with new inspiration.
An exhausted Peter Lumsdaine comes in about 4 a.m., and I tell him I am going to
try to get people in Los Angeles to converge on the federal building.
He is too tired to listen to any more.
I drive down to Los Angeles as I listen to Democracy Now.
I go to the Los Angeles Catholic Worker and find Catherine Morris
at their "hippy kitchen" serving food to hundreds of homeless people.
She lets me use the phone in their clinic to call Sonali Kolhutcar,
who says she will make the announcement.
I also visit the Los Angeles offices of Not In Our Name
and ANSWER but receive little support from them.Wednesday is the morning of the Catholic Worker's weekly vigil and protest
at the federal building, which is next to the jail and the courthouse of my arraignment.
The Los Angeles Catholic Worker gives me hospitality,
and I walk from there the two miles to the federal building.
The vigil begins on the other side of the block.
Martin Sheen is there; but to avoid interviews he puts duct tape over his mouth
with the word "peace" on it.
A slow procession marches around the block to a drumbeat.
In front of the federal building with many TV people recording,
a priest leads a prayer service and reads from Luke how Jesus wept
when he saw that Jerusalem did not know the ways of peace.
As he speaks of the current suffering of the Iraqi people in the ongoing war,
I begin to cry uncontrollably and do not stop for a long time.
Two women are going to be arrested, and they receive a special blessing.
I say that I have been moved to protest also.
Catherine speaks on my behalf, and I am blessed also.
I ask to make a statement, but the priest says, "We do not do that."However, he hands me the microphone, and I am allowed to say,
"My name is Sanderson Beck, and I am running for President of the United States.
I am calling for massive civil disobedience to stop this illegal war."
Then I hand the mic back.
As we are walking up the steps, I hold up the Handbook
and say it is a practical book for protesting.
Then I hold up Guides to Peace and Justice and say that it will help people
understand the peace movement.
A reporter asks me how many times I have been arrested,
and I reply, "More than fifty times."
I say that we need to fill the jails the way they did during the civil rights movement.
The three of us stand in front of the row of police
guarding the building because of our protest.
We are told we will be arrested if we do not leave.
I show the officer my arraignment citation but am arrested with the others.
We are handcuffed but are released after about an hour.I walk next door and find the courtroom of my arraignment.
I am an hour late, but it is still going.
Magistrate Judge Patrick Walsh lets me speak privately with a public defender.
She is Davina Chen, and we hit it off right away as both our minds race along.
After questioning me about hearsay, the judge allows me to defend myself
and also permits Davina to serve as stand-by counsel.
I am surprised that he asks me what my defense will be.
After I respond, he states that he will not allow any argument using international law.
I complain that he is obviously prejudiced
because he does not yet know anything about my case.
As soon as I ask for another judge, he slams down his gavel and rules, "Motion denied."
He schedules a motion hearing for April 24 and the trial for May 1.
In solidarity with the protestors in San Francisco
I refuse to sign a bond and am taken into custody.After my pockets are emptied, I am put in a holding cell for several hours.
Late at night I arrive in 9 South at the Los Angeles Metropolitan Detention Center.
My cellmate is from Australia and tells me that he learned from his experience
in the oil business that the oil in Iraq is estimated to be worth $37 trillion.
Later I hear on the radio $7 trillion.
I buy a radio through commissary so that I can listen to Pacifica KPFK.
After about a week I am transferred to 7 South.
Public defender Davina is very helpful about sending me
cases and documents and visiting me.
Whistle-blower Harry Miller tells me how All-State Insurance prosecuted him
after he exposed on 20/20 their phony reports following the 1993 earthquake.
I help him edit a letter.Assistant U. S. Attorney Sharon McCaslin sends me her motion
to exclude all my defenses including international law, necessity,
crime prevention, and the first amendment.
I read several cases and articles, making notes so that I can argue my case orally.
I do not have enough time in the law library to type a written defense.On April 24 they wake me up before 5 a.m. even though my hearing is not until 2 p.m.
Judge Walsh is preoccupied with bail hearings he has to do
and will not even allow the shackles to be taken off my legs.
He allows McCaslin to argue orally for a couple minutes to back up her written motion;
but he will not let me speak at all against it.
Instead, he says I can argue my case the following week at my trial.
He says he does not want me to stay in custody
but to go home because "the war is over."
Davina tells me that Eileen has found a place where I can stay.
Since the judge implied I would not get any more time,
I sign the unsecured bond.By the time I am released, it is after five so I cannot get my money.
Also I am ordered to leave without being allowed to go back and get my radio.
I walk back to the Catholic Worker, which gives me hospitality.
David Faubion and Lorraine had attended the hearing with Eileen
and had gone to KPFK, where M. T. Karthik interviewed them about my case.
On Friday I drive to the KPFK studio and offer my books
for their upcoming pledge drive before being interviewed by M. T. on the news.Saturday I attend the Book Festival at UCLA
and try to find vendors who will sell my books.
I see a young woman furtively passing out flyers
for an ANSWER anti-war conference on May 10.
She tells me that security officers have warned her she could be expelled for doing that.
I guide her to the KPFK booth so that she can tell them about this.
The next morning I decide that I must challenge this outrageous suppression
of first-amendment rights even though under my bond an arrest could be a felony.
A young German named Oliver is visiting his friend at the Catholic Worker,
and he agrees to go with me to the Book Festival.
I pass out my campaign brochures, and it is not long before a Los Angeles Times
security guard threatens to have me forcibly removed if I continue to do that.
He tells us of a "free-speech area" where that is allowed.
Oliver and I go over to see that area.
Then I suggest that we talk to the Times authorities.
We are sent to a room where I recognize a reporter from C-SPAN.
I show them my books and campaign brochure,
but they decline to interview me.
Finally I meet with Jack Rabb, the top UCLA official, and he assures me
it is all right for me to hand out my campaign brochures
except where people are standing in lines.
I suspect they changed their policy to avoid bad publicity,
and I tell the story of this little victory to M. T. Karthik on the KPFK news.
I visit the booth where the writings of John-Roger are sold.
He is not there, but John Morton buys a copy of the Wisdom Bible.
After taking Oliver back to the Catholic Worker, I drive to Ventura,
where a Chumash woman named Cynthia
kindly allows me to stay in a spare bedroom in her house.I meet with Davina and prosecutor McCaslin the day before the trial,
learning that the Air Force has agreed to stipulate that Vandenberg AFB
was involved in the war against Iraq but that their commanders will not testify.
I am defending myself on the trespassing charges at Vandenberg;
but during my opening remarks I am only allowed
to talk about what the evidence will show.
The most important witness for the prosecution is Sgt. Malcolm Walton;
but during my cross examination without even using leading questions,
I am able to get him to talk about the reasons why I was there—
to stop US war crimes and to urge them to become conscientious objectors
because of the Nuremberg Principles.
I also call as my witness their legal aid Donna, who was present at my first arrest,
and she corroborates Malcolm's testimony.
Dan's video of my speech when I was arrested is shown as evidence.I am allowed to testify in narrative form about many of my efforts to stop the illegal war,
and I read most of my letter to Kofi Annan.
My books and brochures are also entered into evidence.
Even though it is well past the lunch hour,
Judge Walsh only allows a short break and goes on.
In my closing arguments I finally am allowed to answer the arguments
that McCaslin had several opportunities to present;
but Judge Walsh repeatedly interrupts me
and does not even give me a chance to answer his points.
I cry out emotionally that he is not listening to me.
Soon he informs me that he will only give me ten more minutes to answer
all these technical legal issues and to argue my entire case.
I feel this is extremely unfair but manage to extend my time a little
by describing a scene at the end of the film Judgment at Nuremberg
when a U. S. judge played by Spencer Tracy tells an imprisoned
German judge played by Burt Lancaster that the horrible crimes of the holocaust
began to happen when he first convicted a man he knew was innocent.Judge Walsh finds me guilty of trespassing twice at Vandenberg,
and then Davina presents a very good technical defense
on the charge in front of the federal building.
She shows that only protestors are arrested for being in that area
and that the signs posted were too far away to be seen.
Judge Walsh ignores all this and convicts me again for refusing to obey the officer.
The sentencing is scheduled for May 13.
On TV that evening I see George Bush land on an aircraft carrier
and declare that the combat phase of the war is over.Cynthia and David Faubion in Ventura let me use their computers to write
an open letter to Judge Walsh that is put up on my website
after David and I get it back on-line.
My website had been down since the invasion started.
Often when the United States is bombing other countries,
my email has been disrupted.
This time I have had my nephew John of beck.org bounce back all email
with the message that I am busy protesting the war.
Now David agrees to screen my email for me until my computer is back on-line.
He also becomes my webmaster.
The 300 copies of the Nonviolent Action Handbook are nearly gone,
and thanks to a generous order from board member Lloyd Fellows just before the war,
I arranged for 3,000 to be printed off-set.
Dean agrees to let us store them at his house, and the books are delivered.
I am interviewed about my trial by Dan Reilly for his film.I write and have printed a one-page piece on
"Strategies for Nonviolent Transformation from Fascism to Peace and Justice."
David and I give them out and sell Handbooks
at the ANSWER conference in Los Angeles on May 10.
In addition to various education and communication methods,
I suggest not paying tax to the IRS and nonviolent direct action with solidarity
on not paying fines or accepting probation.
Once again there is little opportunity for me to speak about solutions
while the speakers dwell mostly on the problems.The next day David and I go to Santa Monica beach to see Dennis Kucinich.
He commends me for my protests, and I give a Handbook
to my acquaintance Arianna Huffington.
On Monday I am interviewed for a feature story in the Ventura Star newspaper,
and David accompanies me to UCSB,
where I give Kucinich my books and tell him that I am endorsing his candidacy.While working in the soup kitchen with the Catholic Workers
the morning of my sentencing,
I meet American Indian Movement (AIM) activist John Owen and learn much
from conversing with him while waiting to see if any journalists
will show up for the sentencing; none do.
Although I tell Judge Walsh that I will not cooperate with probation,
he gives me two years of it on one of the charges.
I am ready to go to jail, but he says I have not violated the probation yet.Cynthia informs me that she needs that bedroom for another visitor.
I call Charlotte Warren in Santa Barbara, because on the first day of the invasion
she told me she had a room I could rent for $300 a month.
I visit Eileen in Ojai.
She has been handling my finances for me, and I give her some special coins
that John Owen gave me for a Handbook.
On May 17, I attend a vigil at Vandenberg AFB; but the speeches are cancelled.
After a while four of us, who had been given "ban-and-bar" letters,
are ordered to leave, or we would be arrested again.
Each of us chooses to go at this time.
The others are Dennis Apel, Bud Boothe, and MacGregor Eddy.
Jeff Dietrich is there too; but apparently he was not noticed.
On Monday I move my computer and some things into the room in Santa Barbara,
where I share a kitchen and bathroom with Charlotte.
We are in the Soul Community that meets every Friday,
and we hope to form an intentional community in this large house,
from which the owners plan to move in September.I am able to visit my mother twice a week and work on
completing the chapter on "Africa and the Middle East 1300-1615."
I also research and write the 70-page chapter on
"America and Its Conquerors" about the same period.
The meetings for the community are difficult, and we struggle
with "nonviolent communication" techniques taught by Marshal Rosenberg.
In June, David is elected to the board of World Peace Communications
when we meet at Lloyd Fellows' house in Ojai.
The next day board member Eileen Baker dies when the friend's car she is driving
goes off a mountain road on her way to a Theosophical camp.
I attend a memorial service for her in Ojai that reveals her giving qualities
and the enormous respect she had for all living creatures
and her teaching skill with children.
She helped me much in my life and was one of my very closest friends.
I know that her spirit is in a good place now.
Lloyd is recovering from a serious leg infection,
and he asks me to drive him out to his properties near Palm Springs.
I consider the possibility of moving out there
but decide that Santa Barbara is a better situation for me.I call the probation officer and agree to a scheduled re-sentencing
rather than be arrested at home.
I have arranged to have the second volume of my
History of Ethics Age of Belief from 30 BC to 1300 printed.
I get a copy of Dan's 28-minute film "Vandenberg Action: Crossing the Line"
from Penny Little, who interviews me for an hour on the problems
with the media in which I suggest taxing commercials.
I show Dan's video to the Soul Community.
Howard Richards offers to pay for copies, and I give one to MacGregor
to take to the Veterans for Peace conference in San Francisco.On August 4, six people, including David, Charlotte, and MacGregor
go down to Los Angeles with me for the sentencing.
Lynn makes a sign that says, "U. S. v. Beck Who is the criminal?"
for a vigil outside the courthouse.
MacGregor takes notes and later writes an article
about the sentencing that is published in Hope Dance.
Judge Walsh comes in with the idea he will give me five more months
that were suspended with more probation and possibly more time.
I am shocked that he is being so harsh and that he does not even know the law.
I explain probation has no effect if the maximum sentence is imposed
because he cannot give any more than the maximum.
He grants my point, and federal public defender Michael Tanaka
convinces him that "in the universe of trespassing cases" this is excessive.
So Judge Walsh sentences me to three months,|
and I say I want to start serving the time right away.I am put in 7 North and share a cell with Carlos.
In the law library I see Ken Taves, and he kindly gives me the contact lens solution
he retrieved from my cell in April.
I give him Irving Stone's The Agony and the Ecstasy,
an excellent book about Michelangelo.
I buy a radio but have to mail it home when I am transported
to the San Bernardino county jail on August 13.
After spending all day in a holding cell with several "illegal aliens,"
I am put in a ten-man cell.
Three TVs in the hall outside the bars make the noise level high,
but we have a racially mixed group and get along well.
The dining hall seems like the Gulag, because no talking
or sharing food is supposed to be permitted.
Because I chew my food thoroughly, I often remain after the others are told to get up;
but I am allowed to stay or go to a "slow-eaters table."
Compulsive gambler Keith tells me how he robbed seven banks with only a note
before he was caught after a car chase in which he jumped off a bridge into a river.
His wife still supports him, and he is intent on reforming.
Ex-marine Herman tells us many stories and keeps our spirits up.On August 21, I am chained and driven back to MDC Los Angeles
Andres Islas is with me, and we are put in the same cell in 5 North,
where sentenced men are assigned jobs.
I tell the authorities that I need to work on my appeal and will only work
teaching inmates or perhaps helping in the law library.
On September 7 I am called down to work in the kitchen.
When I refuse to work, because I consider myself a political prisoner,
the supervisor calls a lieutenant.
Apparently the hole (punishment cells) is crowded from a fight on the 7th floor,
and after an hour I am taken back to 5 North.
Since then I have not reported to that job but have not been bothered.During my last week in prison at a "town meeting" I complain that we are not allowed
to wear a jacket to the law library and that I caught a bad cold because of that.
On Thursday I am called into the library to take a basic education test
because they do not have evidence of my high school diploma.
Avery tells the teacher, "Jesus here says he has a Ph.D."
The teacher says I should get an A then.
When the test is not completed before lunch, we are to be called back;
but the next day I refuse to go there without a jacket.
Avery says he wants to send me to the hole;
but the teacher says that I will have start taking his classes the next week.
Knowing that I will be gone, I just walk away.On November 3, I am released and take a bus back to Santa Barbara.
MacGregor has planned for me to speak to a peace group in Sacramento,
and I drive up there on Wednesday.
The next day I am interviewed in Davis for community television
and speak in Sacramento for the Vandenberg Peace Legal Defense Fund,
talking about long-term solutions to our current war crisis.
I continue to work on my writing and do several interviews,
including by Blaize Bonpane on KPFK and by Marcellino Sepulveda on KCSB.
This article also includes:
Letter to Kofi Annan, Jan. 5, 2003
Dear Secretary-General Kofi Annan,
For twelve years the military forces of the United States and the United Kingdom
have been violating international law in Iraq.
Those of us in the world peace movement are especially concerned about the imminent war
threatened against Iraq by the United States and the United Kingdom.
We believe that the numerous attacks on Iraqi air defenses and other targets
in the so-called “no-fly zones” are illegal by international law
according to the United Nations Charter, Article 2, Sections 3 and 4, which read,3. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means
in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.
4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force
against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state,
or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.These attacks and the preparations for the aggressive war are also crimes
against peace according to the Nuremberg Principles, which are defined as,Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression
or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances.Although the economic sanctions that were imposed on Iraq by the United Nations
Security Council in 1990 may have been justified in order to get Iraq to withdraw
from Kuwait, since that goal has been achieved, we believe that they are no longer justified.
Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children have died
as a result of these immoral and illegal sanctions.
We believe they are crimes against humanity according to the Nuremberg Principles,
which are defined asMurder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhuman acts done
against any civilian population, or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds,
when such acts are done or such persecutions are carried on in execution of
or in connection with any crime against peace or any war crime.They also clearly violate the Geneva Convention Relative to the
Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, Articles 27, 30, and 31, which read:Article 27. Protected persons are entitled, in all circumstances, to respect for their persons,
their honor, their family rights, their religious convictions
and practices, and their manners and customs.
They shall at all times be humanely treated, and shall be protected specifically against
all acts of violence or threats thereof and against insults and public curiosity.
Women shall be especially protected against any attack on their honor,
in particular against rape, enforced prostitution, or any form of indecent assault.
Without prejudice to the provisions relating to their state of health, age and sex,
all protected persons shall be treated with the same consideration by the Party
to the conflict in whose power they are, without any adverse distinction based,
in particular, on race, religion or political opinion.
Article 30. The High Contracting Parties specifically agree that each of them is prohibited
from taking any measure of such character as to cause physical suffering or
extermination of protected persons in their lands.
This prohibition applies not only to murder, torture, corporal punishment,
mutilation and medical or scientific experiments not necessitated by the medical treatment
of a protected person, but also to any other measures of brutality
whether applied by civilian or military agents.
Article 31. No protected person may be punished for an offense
he or she has not personally committed.
Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited.
Pillage is prohibited.
Reprisals against protected persons and their property are prohibited.The stated purpose of these sanctions and the threatened war against Iraq
is to make sure that they do not have any weapons of mass destruction,
and we support thorough inspections in Iraq by agents of the United Nations
to make sure that Iraq does not have any such weapons.
Thus far several weeks of inspections have not revealed any evidence that they do.
If any programs for developing weapons of mass destruction are found,
they should simply be dismantled.
A war over this would be unnecessary, immoral, and illegal.
Yet the United States and the United Kingdom are in clear violation
of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, Article 6, which reads,Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith
on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date
and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament
under strict and effective international control.Therefore we call upon the United Nations General Assembly,
as the representatives of the political voices of humanity, to pass a resolution condemning
these violations of international law by the United States and the United Kingdom.
We further request that the United Nations Security Council keep their inspectors
in Iraq to prevent an aggressive war by the United States and the United Kingdom
against the people of Iraq until the United States
removes its threatening forces from the region.
We also ask the International Court of Justice to bring charges against the
United States and the United Kingdom so that they will cease and desist
from committing these crimes against international law.In the Light of God,
Sanderson Beck
for the world peace movement
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 bas
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 US 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 US 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.
The following is a transcript of Sanderson Beck’s testimony 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.
The Court
All right. Dr. Beck, you’re going to have to stand, please,
and raise your right hand.Dr. Beck
Sir, I do not swear, but I do tell the truth.The Court
All right. You’re going to swear—well, you don’t have to swear
based on under God, but you have to swear to tell the truth.Dr. Beck
Oh, I thought you could affirm.The Court
All right. You affirm. Go ahead.Sanderson Beck, defendant, affirmed.
Dr. Beck
Yes, I do. So help me, God.The Court
Please have a seat. All right. Now I know you’re representing yourself
though you have stand-by counsel, and you understand the importance of
being straight-forward and being honest, and regardless of what the oath is,
the oath insures that you will tell the truth, and if not,
the government can come back after you.
You know that, sir?Dr. Beck
Yes.The Court
All right, Dr. Beck. Why don’t you state your name and
spell your last name for the record, please.Dr. Beck
Sanderson Beck, B-e-c-k.The Court
And you’re a doctor.
What’s your doctorate in?Dr. Beck
It’s a Ph.D. in philosophy.The Court
Okay. You are going to be allowed to narrate what your testimony is today,
and you’re going to testify as to what happened out there
and why you did what you did.Dr. Beck
Yes. I thought maybe it would make the most sense
if I testified basically chronologically.The Court
That would be great.Direct Testimony
Dr. Beck
So the first part would go to what I was talking about, efforts that I had made
to try to stop the war in other ways that are legal.
I could go a long ways back.
I mean, I was a Conscientious Objector during the Vietnam War,
and I’ve worked for world peace for a long time;
but I’ll jump ahead to basically this war.In June of 2002 I became very concerned—at that time
I was writing a history of the world, a history of ethics.
I had been working on it for many years.The Court
June of 1982?Dr. Beck
No, 2002.The Court
I’m sorry. Okay.Dr. Beck
I’m not going to go too far back.The Court
All right.Dr. Beck
For the brevity of the court because I do have a long history of working
for world peace, and I’m just going to focus on the Iraqi war.
It was at that time—oh, excuse me.
Would you bring my two books?
I forgot—yeah, bring all three, I guess. Thank you.The Court
Thanks, Ms. Chen.Dr. Beck
I might mention that I did mention something actually about
Saddam Hussein in this book here, which I wrote in late 1994.
It was published in early 1996.The Court
Why don’t you tell us for the record what the title of that book is.Dr. Beck
The Future and How: A Philosopher’s Vision.The Court
By Sanderson Beck?Dr. Beck
Yes.The Court
All right. We’re not going to introduce that into evidence, right?Dr. Beck
No.The Court
You just wanted to show it.
Okay, but the record will reflect that he has the book
on the stand and is flipping through it. Okay.Dr. Beck
And in this book I was talking here about disarmament because I prophesy,
suggesting that that would be a much better future if we could have complete
worldwide disarmament, and I was—maybe I could just read this one paragraph.
It’s a dialog.
The question isWhat if some dictator, like Saddam Hussein, refuses to give up his armies
and weapons, would you go to war with his nation,
or would you try economic sanctions against them?And the answer, which I wrote as the Philosopher,
A key point here is to insist on individual responsibility and not sloppily
go about punishing whole groups of people rather than
only those who are responsible for the crimes.
I’m afraid that economic sanctions are not very effective against
militaristic leaders who have plenty even while their people suffer.
Instead the sanctions punish the people of the country who are not necessarily
to blame for their leader’s policies.
At the same time by punishing an entire nation in this way,
the people tend to rally around their leader even stronger,
as has occurred in Iraq and for so many years in the face
of the very unjust US embargo against Cuba.The Court
You don’t have to sit so close to the microphone.Dr. Beck
Oh, okay.The Court
Your voice is more than loud and clear enough.Dr. Beck
Okay.The Court
All right.Dr. Beck
And I also talk about a non—about having world law and world decisions,
because I think my whole life reflects that, and I’m really glad to be here
actually in this courtroom today because I believe very deeply in law
and the process of justice and the nonviolent settlement of disputes,
and I believe that the effort is, like Jesus said, to try to solve it on our way
before you get to the judge.
You should do everything you can to become reconciled with your brothers
and sisters, and that I actually think of going to the judge or the court
as the last resort, and I do not believe in war
as a last resort or violence in that sense.
So, as I was saying, so that was earlier; but in June of 2002 I put aside
my writing on the history of the world in order to put together this book,
which I wrote, which is based on an earlier book, The Way to Peace,
but it’s only 280 pages; but this is 993 pages, and this then took till January.
It was published, and it’s called Guides to Peace and Justice:
Great Peacemakers, Philosophers of Peace, and World Peace Advocates,
and I would like to move this into evidence.The Court
Okay. Any objection from the government?Ms. McCaslin
No objection.The Court
All right. Now you understand that that’s coming into evidence,
but I’m not going to read it.Dr. Beck
Okay.The Court
All right. It’s not any reflection on the book or the merits of the book,
but I’m going to decide this case today or tomorrow.
That book is 900 pages long.
If there’s any specific parts of it you would like me to consider,
I will read those parts, but I’m not going to read the whole book tonight.Dr. Beck
Right. I will be referring to it later.The Court
All right.Dr. Beck
And—The Court
And the nature of that book is how you—is that non-peaceful changes
in the world—I mean, I’m sorry, peaceful, nonviolent changes?Dr. Beck
Yes. It’s a history of the great peacemakers from Amos and Isaiah
to Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn, the great philosophers,
and efforts for world peace.
The main themes are nonviolence and world law, international law.
So, like, there’s a chapter in here on the international law pioneers.
You know, like Grotius and Vattel, and so on.The Court
Okay.Dr. Beck
And I also have a website, and many of my writings are on the website,
and they’re available for free to people,
and a lot of these writings are on nonviolence.
And this little handbook has been on my website for years,
and because of my concern about the war I published this also.
This was published in January of 2003.The Court
Okay.Dr. Beck
And it’s called a Nonviolent Action Handbook by Sanderson Beck,
and I’d also like to move this into evidence.The Court
Any objection?Ms. McCaslin
No objection.The Court
My same ruling, that it comes into evidence without objection;
but as you know, Dr. Beck, I’m not going to have an opportunity
to read that entire book before I make a ruling in this case.Dr. Beck
Right.The Court
It’s Nonviolent Action Handbook, right?Dr. Beck
Yes. In November I began having the idea of doing everything I can
to bring about the changes that we need to prevent these kinds of wars
that we were seemingly rushing into, and it occurred to me,
since in 1987 I had toured the entire country trying to influence people
who were running for President and to have people influence them
to be more for peace and justice, and I had gone to 47 states
and talked to 600 peace groups and so on for six and a half months.
And in November of 2002 it occurred to me that I could go on
similar tour of the United States and try to work for world peace
and to communicate these ideas.
And then I suddenly had the idea, well, if I’m going to do that, you know,
it’s really hard to try to ask—beg other people to take good positions
on these peace issues that we could have disarmament and peace and justice,
I thought, well, I might as well run for President myself.
So I decided to do that, and I began working on that,
and in December 2002 I published two—or printed two brochures
as part of this effort to prevent the war,
and one of them was the campaign brochure, this one—The Court
Okay. Do you want to take a look at it?
“For Peace and Justice, the Campaign of Sanderson Beck
as a Democrat for President of the United States.”
Did you want to move this into evidence?Dr. Beck
Well, actually, it was reprinted a month or two later,
which is really a more revised form,
and I’d rather move the second one into evidence.The Court
All right.Dr. Beck
But I just wanted to give the history.The Court
Okay. There’s a revised one.Dr. Beck
Yes. So, there—The Court
Any objection from the government?Dr. Beck
- three copies of this for—Ms. McCaslin
No objection. We’ll get our copy when he steps down.The Court
All right. That’s fine. Now we need to be marking these exhibits.
So let’s start. We’re up to 105, Exhibit 105 with the defendant?The Clerk
Yes.The Court
All right. The first book that you identified, Dr. Beck, the big one.Dr. Beck
Yes.The Court
That will be Exhibit 106. All right.
The second book you’ve identified.
So the first book, Guides to Peace and Justice, is Exhibit 106.
All right. The second book is going to be exhibit 107,
and that’s Nonviolent Action Handbook.
The third exhibit is going to be Exhibit 108, and it’s your
campaign brochure for the 2004 presidential election, correct?Dr. Beck
Yes.The Court
I’m going to write 108 on this if that’s all right with you. Okay?
In fact, when the trial is over, I’m going to allow you to take your books
out of the record, and we’re just going to have a record that these books
were introduced into evidence.
They’re obviously easy enough to figure out what’s what and to recreate
if we need to for appeal or anything. All right.
So we are now to Exhibit 108, which was your revised campaign brochure
for the 2004 election.
It is your revised—You are still running, correct?Dr. Beck
Yes. That’s correct.The Court
All right.Dr. Beck
And I would like just briefly to draw attention to the very beginning.
If you open it up, I oppose the main thing here, “Wars and arming for wars”
and the next item, “US bombing of other countries;
all weapons of mass destruction.”The Court
Okay.Dr. Beck
Also at the same time that I printed the brochure the first time in December,
I printed a thousand the first time of each, that and this.
The second time I printed 10,000 of these.
I’d like to move into the record this one.The Court
I’m identifying as Exhibit 109 what has been handed to me,
“Principles and Methods for Achieving World Peace and Justice
for the Good of All Humanity and Life on Earth.”
Any objection from the government to this coming into evidence?Ms. McCaslin
No, your honor.The Court
All right, and this is going to come into evidence as Exhibit 109. All right.Dr. Beck
And again, just to hit the main points that are most relevant to this trial,
under “World Peace Principles” if you’ll look at—starting with item 7,
if I could just read a few items here.The Court
All right.Dr. Beck
Respect for individual freedom and dignity requires the protection
of human rights by means of a universal system of justice.
8. Justice in human affairs is best attained by
democratic means and due process of law.And that’s why I’m glad to be here in a court of law
to try to settle this nonviolently.Number 9: The use of force is justified only when a legal authority
designated by consent of the people is required to restrain violence
and bring to justice a violator of the law.Ms. Chen
If I could just ask Dr. Beck to speak back.
I think it’s very loud for the people sitting over here.The Court
Yes, you don’t have to read into the microphone.Dr. Beck
Oh, I thought he was saying it wasn’t loud enough. It’s too loud?The Court
Yes.Dr. Beck
Okay. Sorry. So you can hear me better like this. Okay.
The next point is I think really important, number 10.
It goes with 9:A law enforcement official has legal authority only within the country
of the people who designate that official.
No nation has a sovereign right to use any force outside its national borders.The Court
Okay.Dr. Beck
War, use of force and sale or transfer of military weapons
outside one’s territory should be prohibited by international law.And so then I go into what I guess some people
might consider utopian, but I don’t.
I think it’s really the most practical way that we can solve this serious problem
that we have in the world—in recent history especially it’s getting worse—wars.
So I would suggest that these are efforts that I made to educate people
and try to persuade them that there are better ways to solve our problems
and our conflicts than by killing each other.
I made—like I said, we put things on my website.
One of the things—my website has actually been down.
I haven’t even been able to access it since the war started,
which has been a frustration, and I don’t know why,
but it seems to happen whenever there’s a war.
But anyway I put things on my website by suggesting strategy—
I think it was maybe sometime around December or January
that I put up something suggesting that people use legal means to try to prevent
the war from occurring in the first place; in other words, vigils, demonstrations,
educating each other, marching in peace marches and doing teach-ins
and doing everything that we could in legal ways to try to stop,
prevent the war from occurring.
And I think evidence shows that there was a tremendous effort.
It wasn’t just me. It was a worldwide effort.
Millions of people actually demonstrated and tried to stop this war
because—which was so unnecessary.
Among other things that I did, as I was running for President
I would try to speak to groups.
I did many things.
I gave a two-hour lecture in Ojai, where I live, on the history of Iraq.
I met with local peace groups.
We had a Citizens for Peaceful Resolutions in Ventura
and a weekly meeting in Ojai.
I attended many of those meetings.
There’s a particularly important time, I think, I wrote a letter
and I’d like to refer to that.
It’s in the book here.
I didn’t—I wasn’t able to bring a copy.
This letter was to Kofi Annan, the United Nations Secretary-General,
and I wrote and took this letter to the Citizens for Peaceful Resolutions
meeting in Ventura, and I believe that was January 6th, 2003,
and there was about maybe ninety or a hundred people at that meeting,
and I had a petition form so people could sign their names to support
the letter to enclose it with the letter to Kofi Annan.
Seventy-nine people signed their names out of less than a hundred
to that petition in favor of the letter.
I don’t want to read all of it.
Can I read maybe some parts of it.The Court
Go ahead.Dr. Beck
I think it’s important because I think the United Nations is really important
in this particular war, and it was really a lot of the effort to try to prevent the war,
was done through the United Nations.Dear Secretary-General Kofi Annan,
For twelve years the military forces of the United States and the
United Kingdom have been violating international law in Iraq.
Those of us in the world peace movement are especially concerned about
the imminent war threatened against Iraq by the
United States and the United Kingdom.
We believe that the numerous attacks on Iraqi air defenses and other targets
in the so-called “no-fly zone” are illegal by international law
according to the United Nations Charter, Article 2, Sections 3 and 4.And maybe this would be a good time, and I could refer to it later,
to quote these particular articles.
Then I can just refer to it later, and I won’t have to repeat,
because I think these are really key.
Article 2, Sections 3 and 4 of the U. N. Charter:All members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means
in such a manner that international peace and
security and justice are not endangered.
4. All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat
or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence
of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent
with the purposes of the United Nations.And I just might add, as we all know, the purpose of the United Nations
was to try to stop or end the scourge of war.
So the letter continues:These attacks and the preparations for the aggressive war are also crimes
against peace according to the Nuremberg Principles, which are defined as–And again maybe this will be the time to quote that definition
of the crimes of peace according to the Nuremberg Principles.Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression
or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances.And the letter goes on:
Although the economic sanctions that were imposed on Iraq
by the United Nations Security Council in 1990 may have been justified
in order to get Iraq to withdraw from Kuwait,
since that goal has been achieved,
we believe they are no longer justified.
Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children have died as a result of these
immoral and illegal sanctions.
We believe they are crimes against humanity according
to the Nuremberg Principles, which are defined asmurder, enslavement, and so on.
I guess I won’t read that because we really—
this trial is more related to the war rather than the sanctions.The Court
Well, this trial is really related to you going onto that property.Dr. Beck
Right, but the reason I went onto the property was
to try to prevent those crimes in the war.The Court
And I completely—and I’m going to allow you to go on,
but I completely understand what you’re saying.
Your view is that these laws—this war against Iraq was a
violation of international law and the Nuremberg Principles
as well as other principles that you’ve enunciated in your
“Principles and Methods for Achieving World Peace,”
and that your only way to stop this war was to go onto the base
and tell the commander to stop, and to advise the soldiers in the Air Force,
the members on the base that they should be Conscientious Objectors.
So I do, I think, completely understand what your defense is,
and through today and through the other times that you and I have met,
and you get an opportunity to state your beliefs on the record,
I feel satisfied that I completely understand what your position is.
And I’m going to allow you to go ahead if you’re—Dr. Beck
Okay. And then it related to the sanctions I quoted, the Geneva Conventions —
serious violations of those, but that’s rather long, and I’ll skip over that
since it has to do with the sanctions.
And then the letter goes on:The stated purpose of these sanctions and the threatened war against Iraq
is to make sure that they do not have any weapons of mass destruction,
and we support thorough inspections in Iraq by agents of the United Nations
to make sure that Iraq does not have any such weapons.
Thus far several of inspections have not revealed any evidence that they do.
If any—The Court
Let me stop you for a second.Dr. Beck
Yeah, yeah.The Court
This isn’t about the facts right now. This is about—Dr. Beck
But this is the letter to Kofi Annan.The Court
I understand that, but this is your—this isn’t about whether you—
I know this is why you went onto the base.Dr. Beck
Okay.The Court
I know what you’re saying here.
So you don’t have to repeat it.
You don’t have to read me that letter.Dr. Beck
Okay.The Court
You’re not telling me anything that I didn’t know before you started reading
this particular paragraph, and what I’m trying to do is give you
a fair opportunity to tell me everything you want me to know.Dr. Beck
Yeah.The Court
But, you know, I know what your view is on Iraq and sanctions and the way
Vandenberg’s role in it and playing up—you know, working up to the war.Dr. Beck
Okay.The Court
Is there anything else that I should know in order to make a fair decision
in this case about whether what you did was right or wrong.Dr. Beck
The reason I’m presenting this evidence is because of the—The Court
You tried other—Dr. Beck
- element that I tried other methods, and so I believe that Kofi Annan,
being the top authority in the UN, that
that was an intelligent way to try to go about it.The Court
I find that you made other efforts to stop this war, and I do not think the
government is objecting that you—I completely accept your representation and
your testimony that you did other non-unlawful means to try and stop this war.Dr. Beck
Right.The Court
So what we’re talking now, and what I want—so let’s assume,
you have to assume now you proved that to me. You have.Dr. Beck
Okay.The Court
I’m the fact-finder. You proved that.
Let’s get past that now, and you’re going to be allowed
in your closing to make these points.
And I’m not going to sustain any of the government’s objections
if they’re saying at this time, well, he didn’t exactly testify about all these
methods of non-unlawful—he didn’t testify to each of these lawful methods
in which he tried to stop this war.
I’m going to listen to you argue that.
So you don’t have to testify to it now.Dr. Beck
Okay. Okay. So anyway, the letter—it’s nearly done
It’s just the idea—then I talk about that the war is unnecessary, illegal,
and immoral, and I ask them to try to stop it with his authority.The Court
Okay.Dr. Beck
Okay. Some of the other efforts I made:
I was on a community-access television program in Santa Barbara,
and I could move this into evidence.The Court
Okay. This is going to be Exhibit 110, and Dr. Beck went on TV,
community-access TV in Santa Barbara and tried to stop the war.Dr. Beck
This was a weekly program—The Court
And the government has no objection to that coming in?Ms. McCaslin
No.The Court
And they’re not objecting.
They’re not opposing that position. All right.Dr. Beck
This was a weekly program called “War or Peace,”
and I was on that actually eight consecutive weeks.The Court
Okay.Dr. Beck
All right. Another factor, which I guess maybe is related to what led me
to go to Vandenberg was I did meet and talk with Peter Lumsdaine,
who is a friend of mine from the earlier Vandenberg Action Coalition in 1983.The Court
All right. Is he here today?Dr. Beck
No, he’s not.The Court
Okay.Dr. Beck
But I do have a couple of other exhibits.The Court
All right.Dr. Beck
I don’t have any other copies of these actually.The Court
All right. We’re going to identify this.
We’re going to call this Exhibit 111.
Can I write 111 on this?Dr. Beck
Sure.The Court
All right. It’s going to be Exhibit 111, and this 111 is entitled
“Stop the Masters of War,” and this appears to be an emergency response
action for Armed Forces Day, Saturday, May 17th, 2003
rally at Vandenberg Air Force.
So now we’ve just put the government on notice that someone’s going to be
back there on May 17th for another protest.
But this is a friend of yours—Ms. McCaslin
Actually, your honor, we would like in all seriousness
a copy at some point of both sides of that.The Court
It’s going to be admitted into evidence.Ms. McCaslin
Yes.The Court
And you’re going to get a copy of both sides. All right.
This is your friend, Peter—What’s his last name?Dr. Beck
Lumsdaine.The Court
Mr. Lumsdaine, and he is involved in this? Is this what—Dr. Beck
He was, yeah, the main organizer—one of the main organizers.The Court
All right. So this continues is what you’re saying.Dr. Beck
Well—The Court
Because this is in the future. This isn’t yet.Dr. Beck
Well yeah, they put that date on there way back.
That was put out in October or November, I think.
So it was—that’s just one—it’s not just that date.
Actually the thing I’d like to refer to also on this—
Maybe we could just go ahead and move this into evidence also.The Court
Right.Dr. Beck
This is a smaller thing that Peter gave me actually in person
at a peace march one day on a Saturday in Santa Barbara.The Court
Okay. This next one you handed me, Dr. Beck, is going to be marked
as Exhibit 112, and Exhibit 112 says “Wage Peace,” and it talks about
“back-country security zone occupation at Vandenberg Air Force Base
to disrupt the targeting guidance and command systems for the assault
on Iraq starting week of”—It doesn’t say which week. I’m sorry.
This was talking about by October 2002.
So this is admitted into evidence.Dr. Beck
Yes.The Court
Is there something you wanted me to see on that?Dr. Beck
Yeah, there’s a couple of things on both of these in terms of actually—
the idea was to meet as soon as the war starts.The Court
All right.Dr. Beck
Because we didn’t know when the war was going to start.
He didn’t know.
No one really knew when the war might start.
So the idea was to try to stop the war from starting;
but if it did start, then we were going to—then it would be like an emergency.
We would need to make more of a sacrifice.
And I had a conversation and went to a couple of meetings
with Peter in small groups, and we talked about how people in the military
make very, you know, full sacrifices.
They sacrifice their lives often fighting in wars, and we believe that
the people working for peace should make strong sacrifices too.The Court
Okay.Dr. Beck
But without using any violence.
What I’d like to particularly note is on the back here.
I’d just like to read this one sentence.The Court
Go ahead.Dr. Beck
By October 2000 an Aviation Week and Space Technology report confirmed
that Vandenberg had moved six of its billion-dollar KH-11s and the cross
satellites into position over Iraq, continuously sending classified surveillance
and target data back to VAFB’s computers for designing
the operational attack plans of the new war.The Court
Can I see that for one second, please?Dr. Beck
Yeah.The Court
That is Exhibit 111, and 111 I’m going to refer to as the
May 17th, 2003 Protest Leaflet.
That’s just for my records.
You guys can refer to it whatever way you want.
And then the other exhibit, which was the paper one—Dr. Beck
Right.The Court
- which should be 112, right?Dr. Beck
And this same sentence appears on this one also.The Court
Right, and what you’re establishing is that they’re playing a role in that.Dr. Beck
Yes. They gave me a reasonable belief that Vandenberg was going
to be actively involved in the targeting in the war.The Court
And you have established, and the government does not object,
to my conclusion that Vandenberg played some role in the Iraqi war.Dr. Beck
Right.Ms. McCaslin
You know, what we can say is truthfully there were
people from Vandenberg deployed overseas.The Court
All right, and what I’m trying to do is short-circuit the requirement
that we prove that, and I’m just going to assume for purposes of this trial
that Vandenberg played some role in the war effort.
If they didn’t, then, you know, that’s my bad.Ms. McCaslin
No, people went. That’s what we know.The Court
All right.Dr. Beck
I just want to point out that on this one, 112, it refers to that,
the week the bombing starts in terms of gathering at Vandenberg.The Court
All right, and the bombing started, I guess, in the beginning of March, huh?Dr. Beck
No, the war itself—well, I’ll get to that chronologically,
and I’m almost to that point actually.The Court
Go ahead.Dr. Beck
As we got closer to the war, we were concerned that it might start around the
new moon in early March, and I believe it was sometime in late February
after we had in the middle of February, you know,
there was millions of people marching for peace by that point.
And I made a statement at the Santa Barbara peace march and to other people
and on my website that I just wanted to do everything I could to try to stop
this illegal and immoral war, and that as soon as President Bush made a kind
of an ultimatum to Saddam Hussein that by a certain date, if he did not,
you know, give up his government or, you know, whatever,
that a war would begin.
As soon as President Bush made that, I was going on a juice fast,
and I was also suggesting that other people vigil and march every day,
and I called for a general strike in the United States in order to peacefully,
legally put as much pressure as we could on the government not to do that.
And as it turned out, that statement by President George W. Bush did not
occur until March 17th, and so at that time I began a juice fast;
but then he only gave 48 hours’ warning; so my juice fast only lasted a
little more than a couple of days.
And it was on the evening of March 19th that President Bush went on the
television and radio again and announced that
he was ordering the invasion of Iraq.
So I was extremely concerned. I felt that it was an emergency,
that people—especially since they were talking about the “shock and awe.”
They were talking about, you know, six or seven thousand cruise missiles,
which would kill many, maybe tens of thousands.
It didn’t turn out to be that way, but there was a reasonable belief that
it could be, and it looked—and it was a lot of people
being killed by this aggressive war.
And so it just happened in my life that I had to, because I was going to go
on a tour around the country for my presidential campaign,
that I had to move out of the room where I was living, and it just happened
to coincide by divine providence, or whatever you want to call it,
that the day the war started was the day I moved out of my room,
March 20th, that morning.
I went to Santa Barbara, and that was a Thursday, I believe,
and I was actually on this TV show.
We did a taping of two shows that afternoon, and by the time I got to the rally
at De La Guerra Park people were in a large circle and were ready to go
marching out in the streets, and I participated in that, and I witnessed it.
Some people had been arrested for blocking the 101 Freeway
in Santa Barbara that afternoon, and some people had gone toward
the off-ramp, and it was naturally—
It was the first day of the war and the bombing, and a lot of people were
very frustrated and upset, and they were just roaming around the streets.
Fortunately Santa Barbara had a very good relationship between the
Not In Our Name group that organized these marches and the police,
and we were—because of that good communication there was no one being
arrested without really having to make that choice.
And there was no—what we would consider to be property damage
or looting or anything of that kind.
But I was concerned because I believe that a situation like that could
degenerate into rioting, and I definitely would want to avoid anything like that
because I am dedicated to nonviolence, and there were
more serious incidents were occurring in San Francisco and in Los Angeles.
And so the next—some people established a vigil at the park,
stayed overnight and went on a water fast, and I came back early
the next morning and started talking to them and others about what
I considered maybe a better strategy, a more nonviolent strategy for trying
to stop the war and focusing efforts of our peace protests to really try to
stop the war and as peacefully as possible, you know,
without degenerating into a riot.
And also I didn’t think, like, blocking cars like some people
might do sometimes was really that purposeful because those
people driving around weren’t necessarily the ones that were doing the war.
Okay, so I started talking to people, and I went to the
Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.
I talked to its founder and head, David Krieger, about different strategies,
and I talked to a lot of people in vigils.
And that evening then when people gathered in that park again to go out
and march in the streets, I persuaded the leaders to have a time
where each person could get up and suggest different possibilities
of ways to work and see if we could, you know, because we talk about,
this is what democracy looks like, to try to find ways that we could try to find
ways that we could try to stop the war that would be more purposeful and
directed to the people who were really perpetrating the war.
So we did that for a little bit, and we didn’t have a mic.
So actually I couldn’t be heard too well, and I was told that, and maybe
that’s one of the reasons why I was shouting so loud at Vandenberg
because people had told me that I wasn’t speaking
loud enough on that particular occasion.
So some people did meet, and one of the ideas was Vandenberg.
Another idea was maybe to protest at Raytheon, which was the biggest
employer in Santa Barbara and a big weapons contractor.
Others wanted to say, you know, not to pay taxes and so on.
And then they just went out and marched again.
And so we had a repeat of what happened the night before, basically again,
fairly peaceful, but still people roaming
around the streets kind of aimlessly in a way.
So that was then Friday night.
And then Saturday I went to Vandenberg Air Force Base becaus
there was, because of these leaflets I showed you, a standing plan to meet there
the first Saturday after the war started, that that’s when the protest
would take place, the first one.
And so I went. We had a vigil there, what we would consider a legal vigil,
exercising our first amendment right.
We had only a very narrow space along the highway there;
but we did—miming the suffering of the people of Iraq in different poses,
like five minutes for each poise.
It was like a silent vigil that lasted about an hour.
And after that Dennis Apel suggested that there’s some people might
want to make a further sacrifice and walk maybe across the line to protest
in some way Vandenberg’s complicity in the war.
And so as it turned out, while he was explaining that,
the man next to me looked at me, and he said, “Are you Sanderson Beck?”
And I said, “Yes.”
And he said, “Are you running for President?”
And I said yes.
“Well, maybe I’d like to talk to you or something.”
I said, “Well, can you wait till he’s through talking.”
But then after Dennis was through talking,
Mary Pat said, well, she was going to do this.
And I said, “Well, Mary, do you want to do this alone?
Do you want some company?”
“Oh, I’d like some company.”
And another woman named Sheila Baker,
she said, “Well, I’d like to do it also.”
Meanwhile I wanted to talk to this—it turned out he was a photographer
for the Los Angeles Times—about my presidential campaign,
because I knew I might, you know, be taken into custody,
and I wanted to have a chance to do an interview or whatever.
So the two women, while I was talking, trying to find him,
just walked right across the line and knelt down and prayed,
and they were given the written—the warning, the written warning.
I believe it’s probably the same one that’s entered in the evidence here today,
and they were taken into custody.
And so I—the reporters from the L. A. Times, they were over across
the line covering this because they were allowed to go over across the line
without being arrested or anything.
And so it took a little while before they came back,
and then I did a little interview with the Los Angeles Times.
And now I think we can go into the video because the beginning
of the video is the end of that interview where he’s asking me,
“What do you think about the war?”
And I briefly say, and then you’ll see, I particularly want to notice
that I asked permission to go on the base, and then I made a speech
while I’m on the base, and then I’m arrested,
and that’s what the video will show.Ms. Chen
And this we previously marked as 101, and the government has no objection.The Court
Thank you.The video contains the following:
Dr. Beck
Sir, I would like permission to go on the base.
(Sanderson Beck crosses over the green line.)
This base is in violation of international law.
You are complicit with war crimes.
You are murdering the people of Iraq.
These are crimes against international law, the Nuremberg Principles,
the United Nations Charter, the Geneva Conventions.
You people are war criminals.
I’m asking you to stop, and now you’re violating my right of free speech
by drowning out my voice with your megaphone system.
What happened to free speech?
Stop the war crimes!
I would like to see the commander of the base.
The commander is a war criminal.
God knows what you are doing.
Your soul knows what you are doing.
You will live with this forever.
You only carry your experience when you die.
You take nothing else with you but what you have done.
And when you participate in the murder of innocent people, you are responsible.
Retire; quit your jobs.
Do not participate in killing innocent people.
The United States is becoming a fascist nation;
we are aggressively attacking other nations.
It is immoral; it is illegal.
Everyone in the world is turning against the United States
because the United States is becoming a war criminal.
People need to rise up and nonviolently protest—
to lovingly put yourself between the war to
tell people not to commit these kinds of crimes.
It’s our responsibility; it is our nation that is killing people.
Wake up! Wake up, America!
We could lead the world to peace.
I am running for President of the United States
on a true disarmament platform.
It is not disarmament to tell another country that is weaker than us,
you cannot have any weapons of mass destruction while we have
more than anyone else in the entire world put together.
It is hypocrisy; it is arrogance; it is war crimes.
Stop the war!
There will be a nonviolent revolution in this country
if you do not stop these wars.
There will be a new American revolution.
The people will take over and throw the fascists out.
You are being warned.
There will be a new American revolution in this country.
We will not allow you to murder people.
Listen to your conscience.
If you are Christians, follow what Jesus taught, what Jesus demonstrated.
Love your enemies.
Make peace.
Resist not the evil, because if you resist the evil, you just make more evil.
If you resist violence, you make more violence.
The answer is not violence.
The answer is love and understanding.
We need complete disarmament.
We need disarmament in this country first, because we have
more than anyone of these illegal weapons.
Vandenberg Air Force Base is one of the biggest criminals in this country.
I was arrested here for protesting the MX missile in 1983.
The MX missile is a first-strike weapon system.
(Sanderson Beck is taken into custody and is led away.)
Stop the war! Stop the war! Stop the war!
Make peace through nonviolent action.
Stop the war!
Vandenberg is committing war crimes!
Quit your jobs!The Court
Okay. I’ve watched the videotape of Dr. Beck’s crossing over the green line
at Vandenberg Air Force Base, spending several minutes on the property,
and he then was arrested after being warned if he didn’t leave,
he would be arrested.
All right, Dr. Beck.
Anything further you want to add before—Dr. Beck
I think you could see in that video that there were reporters
walking around in that area who—The Court
But that’s argument, and I did see that.Dr. Beck
I understand. Okay, okay.
I just wanted to note that you saw it. Okay.The Court
All right.Dr. Beck
As you see, I am testifying without notes, and so—The Court
I understand.Dr. Beck
If I might go back, one incident, one other thing that occurred of my efforts.
There was a Peace Congress in Santa Barbara on January 18th in which
I was on a panel, and there was another panel on which an international expert
on international law and human rights, Dr. Richard Falk, was present,
and he gave a presentation.
Afterwards I asked him a question, and just briefly he essentially agreed that
the United States—that the President of the United States
was violating the United Nations Charter even then.The Court
All right. Well, his testimony, though, is hearsay,
and I’m not going to allow it.Dr. Beck
Okay, okay.The Court
What other people have told you doesn’t come into evidence.Dr. Beck
Okay.The Court
What I’m going to try and do now is I’m going to give you five more minutes
to present any further evidence you want me to consider,
and then I’m going to allow the government to cross-examine you if they wish.
And I feel that I have given you more than enough time.
We’ve been putting on your case since about five after twelve.
We’ve given you an hour and five minutes of unrestricted court time
and given you every opportunity that I think you’re entitled
to present the best defense you can in this case.Dr. Beck
I’m nearly completed with my testimony.
I’m wondering, though, if we might take a lunch break
before the closing argument.The Court
We’ll talk about that when we’re done with the cross-examination.Dr. Beck
Okay. So I’ll just proceed chronologically.
I was taken about fifty yards down there, and there was a time period
before I was put on the bus, you know, escorted onto the bus,
in which I did talk to—there was a row of soldiers in riot gear,
whatever you want to call it.
I guess they were Air Force personnel, and I did make a little speech
to them about the Nuremberg Principles,
and I asked them to be Conscientious Objectors.The Court
All right, and Sergeant Walden—Dr. Beck
Walton.The Court
- Walton testified to that as well.Dr. Beck
Yes, but I—The Court
So it’s clear that you were trying to convince these military personnel to quit,
to be Conscientious Objectors.Dr. Beck
Yeah, or to apply for Conscientious Objector. Yes, that’s right.
And to give them that choice so that they could become aware,
because you know, it may be within our society and within the military and
our media the way it is that they might not have been aware
that this was an illegal war.
And also they may not have been aware
that they do not have to obey orders which are illegal.The Court
All right.Dr. Beck
So I was trying to give them that moral choice.
And then I was taken into a building, a processing, and again,
just to be succinct, I did similar type of conversations.The Court
Exactly, and we had testimony to that,
and Sergeant Walton testified to that as well.
No doubt you were trying to convince them not to be part of the war.Dr. Beck
Right, and so then I was given a citation and released.The Court
Yes, and you were given a letter don’t come back.Dr. Beck
That’s correct.The Court
All right. You got all those facts down, and you came back two days later, right?Dr. Beck
Yes, sir.The Court
Okay.Dr. Beck
And the reason I did was because I felt—I go by divine guidance
from within myself to do—to help humanity in the best way that I can,
and on Sunday, the next day I participated
in facilitating two nonviolence trainings,
one in Santa Barbara and one in Ventura,
to help prepare people in the methods of nonviolence.The Court
Right.Dr. Beck
And then really on Monday when I woke up quite early and was meditating
and praying, whatever, I was guided into the idea that I should return to
Vandenberg Air Force Base because that’s wher
they were really perpetrating the crimes.
So that was the best place that I could go to make my protest in this emergency.
And so I did that, and I went essentially by myself.
Now this was a different circumstance because they weren’t expecting a protest,
and so they didn’t have a lot of people out there where the green line was.
In fact, there wasn’t anybody there.
There was a reporter who came to take a picture of me, and she—The Court
Did you tell them you were going out there?
Is that how he knew, or was he just out there?Dr. Beck
It was a lady actually.
Yes, I did call a couple of newspapers and asked them if they wanted
to cover my story of going back, and they sent someone out,
and she took a couple of pictures as I walked onto the base.
And then she went—I warned her that her car was not in the safe area,
that she might want to get her car and go, and so she did.
I hope she got safely out.
And I started walking toward what I thought was the Visitors Center,
which apparently is the main gate, hoping that I could get permission—
that maybe since there wasn’t a protest happening, that I might be able
to get permission to talk to the commander.
And so I was just—actually I was carrying these two books
that I put into evidence, which is one of the reasons why
I put them into evidence, these two.
And I just walked on the sidewalk, and I got about half-way there.
I think I would say it’s about a hundred yards from,
you know, the line to the Visitors Center.
Anyway I got about half-way there, and a police car—Air Force Police, I guess—
stopped and asked me what I was doing, and they put handcuffs on me
and put me in the car, and I said that I wanted to speak to the commander
at the base, and so they made some calls,
and they parked the car, took me somewhere.
I got out of the car, and then I believe it was Colonel Wright
Lieutenant Colonel Wright—appeared with Captain Quigley,
and he asked me why I was there or what I wanted or something,
and I said that I wanted to speak to the commander of the base
because I was concerned that there were war crimes occurring.
As soon as I said the words “war crimes,”
he said, “Take him in,” and that was the end of the conversation.
They took me then to a building handcuffed, and in that building
I went into a room with Malcolm, Sergeant Walton, Malcolm Walton,
who testified, and we had become kind of friends, actually I would say, earlier.
And we had a long conversation and talked about philosophy and
Martin Luther King and Malcolm X and a lot of things.
But I particularly—like I talked about the responsibilities
of the war crimes and so on.
And then even there was a time where some other officers
I guess they had seen my books.
They were out of the room somewhere, and they were looking at them.
Then they came in, and they mentioned some of the pictures,
some of the names of the people who were on the front of the books
and started—we got into a philosophical discussion about international law
and war and peace and philosophy and so on.
And then I had longer, other conversations with Malcolm.
Now he did ask—he did in terms of—I did state—
I think my words were more exactly, “You might as well keep me in custody
because if you don’t, I’m going to keep coming back.”
I don’t believe I used the words “every day,” but I understand that
people’s memories are not exact, and sometimes people remember,
and this is pretty similar.
I did indicate that I wanted to be in custody because I wanted to get before
a judge as soon as possible, and the reason for that is because I believe that
in our Constitution we have checks and balances, and that the presidential,
the President and the Congress are abusing their powers committing crimes.
It’s the responsibility of the judiciary—it should be independent
to hold them to account.
And so I wanted to get to a judge as soon as I could
because of the war emergency.
And in the previous time when I was arrested on Saturday, at first,
I was given a court date April 18th, which was actually the date for
Bud Booth’s trial because I had been at his arraignment,
and also it was the date for a sentencing of Dennis Apel
for an action he had done.
And so I was kind of pleased that that might be a good date.
And then they changed it and made it June 20th, and that was, like,
more than two months later, and that to me was unacceptable
in terms of trying to get a speedy trial.
I’m under the impression that if you’re in custody, you’re more likely
to get a speedy trial than if you’re not.
And so that was why I came back, and that’s why I told him that
I wanted him to just keep me in custody.
And so what he did was he made a call, and apparently he talked to the
Assistant US Attorney here, Sharon McCaslin, and they arranged for me
to have an arraignment two days later on Wednesday, March 26th.
And he asked me if I would accept that, and I agreed to that basically
so he could release me and I would promise to go,
and I said, “Yes, that’s what I want.
I want to get before a judge to bring these issues so that we can resolve them
in a judicial process nonviolently.”
And so I accepted that citation, and he took me off the base and dropped me off,
and I was picked up by a friend.The Court
Okay.Dr. Beck
So then—The Court
And I know what happened after that.Dr. Beck
So that’s all that’s really relevant, I guess, in terms of the sequence of events,
because I’m letting Ms. Davina Chen represent me on the other charge.The Court
Okay. Great. Anything further you want to add?
You’re still going to have a chance to do closing argument.Dr. Beck
Yeah, right. I think that’s it in terms of actually the evidence.The Court
Great. Ms. McCaslin, you have an opportunity to cross-examine the witness
if you’d like, the defendant in this case.
Please go ahead.Dr. Beck
Wait a minute. Can I just think for a moment? Because—The Court
Yes.Dr. Beck
- like I don’t have notes.The Court
You can think of—Dr. Beck
So I’m trying to think of the elements.Ms. McCaslin
While he’s thinking, may I approach the clerk—The Court
Yes.Ms. McCaslin
- and present her with a proposed exhibit, and I need a stapler.The Court
You can just cut right through there, Sharon.
You can just cut right through.
Okay, anything further, Dr. Beck?Dr. Beck
I think given what you said and have assumed that I’ve presented
a lot of evidence in terms of my belief that what I was doing
could stop the crimes to some extent, and that’s one of the elements—The Court
There’s no doubt in my mind that that—Dr. Beck
I think there’s a lot of evidence that I had that belief.The Court
There’s no doubt in my mind that that’s what you believe.
The government, I don’t think, is contesting that.Dr. Beck
Okay.Closing Arguments, May 1, 2003
The following is a transcript from the trial of Sanderson Beck before
Magistrate Judge Patrick Walsh in Los Angeles on May 1, 2003
for having entered Vandenberg Air Force Base on March 22 and 24, 2003
to protest nonviolently the US invasion of Iraq.Dr. Beck
It may take more than ten minutes because here’s my problem with
what’s happened in this trial, and I think in many ways you’ve been fair;
but I do have a problem on this point, on this motion because we were
supposed to have a hearing last week.
She presented a motion in writing, and I gave reasons
why I didn’t answer it in writing.
I had good reasons because I was in custody, and I didn’t have more than
two and a half hours in a law library in that one-week period
when I would have had to do that in writing.
I was very well prepared to present it orally, and she even was allowed
to make a couple of minutes—in addition to having done the written motion
in favor of it orally.
I was not allowed even thirty seconds to rebut her arguments.
Now I come to this trial today, and my stand-by counsel assures me
that I’ve won the motion because he hasn’t granted her motion,
and you’re allowing me to make all these defenses.
But now I find out that basically you still have what I consider a prejudice
in your mind because I have not been allowed to argue against that motion.
Because in the opening argument I’m not allowed to argue,
I’m only allowed to say what the evidence will be.The Court
That’s right.Dr. Beck
And in my testimony I’m not allowed to argue.The Court
That’s right.Dr. Beck
And so I have not had a chance to refute, rebut her arguments in the motion,
and so I would like to do that.The Court
Let me tell you what I did say.
What I did say throughout is that I’m going to hold these under submission.Dr. Beck
Right.The Court
That I’m going to take them under submission.
I’m going to listen to all the evidence and make a ruling.
Now, a couple of things.
One is you want a chance to file something in writing.
I will not make a ruling today, and I will consider your written argument,
and I will make a decision on her defenses.
But I want to tell you something, and maybe it’s a little fine point in the law.
Even if international law came into play in this case,
I would find in this case that it did not justify what you did.Dr. Beck
But it’s not international law. See, that’s it.
I haven’t had a chance to argue, and you have this prejudice.
It’s the US Constitution.The Court
Okay. Well, you can argue the US—Dr. Beck
That’s the supreme law, right?
Isn’t that what you’re sworn to uphold?The Court
Yes.Dr. Beck
Okay. That’s my argument.
You don’t even have to use the term “international law.”
You are obligated to uphold the Constitution of the United States.The Court
Right. What constitutional violation—Dr. Beck
And all my arguments are constitutional—The Court
Tell me the constitutional violation. Free speech?Dr. Beck
Article VI. Treaties are the supreme law of the land.The Court
Right. What treaty?Dr. Beck
Or overcome any laws of states notwithstanding.
So, it’s like a law. It’s US law. You’re obligated to—The Court
Well, you’re mixing apples and oranges.
You’re saying the treaty provision overcomes all laws of the states
even if they’re—This isn’t a law of the state.
This is a law of the federal government.Dr. Beck
I know that. I know.The Court
Are you arguing to me that treaties between the United States
and another country usurp—they overpower federal laws?Dr. Beck
No, but they are equal to federal law.The Court
Okay. Let’s just call it—Dr. Beck
That’s what I’m arguing.The Court
Let’s call it equal.Dr. Beck
So that’s what I’m saying. You—The Court
What’s the treaty?Dr. Beck
The United Nations Charter is the most important one.The Court
All right. And how did they violate the Charter?Dr. Beck
And we are a party to that treaty.The Court
Yes. And so when we violate the Charter, you can violate federal law.Dr. Beck
What I’m saying is, this is USA versus Sanderson Beck.The Court
Yes.Dr. Beck
Every case has two sides.The Court
Yes.Dr. Beck
Right? Okay. Now one or both or neither may be guilty, correct?The Court
Well, in this—Dr. Beck
It is possible sometimes the government commits crimes.
They might torture somebody to get a confession or something like that.The Court
Okay.Dr. Beck
And in that case you would have to judge,
and you couldn’t let them get away with that. Right?
You would have to say in this case the government stepped out of line.The Court
No, I wouldn’t prosecute them.
You want to know what happens when they torture someone to get a confession.
We exclude the confession.
We still prosecute you.
You can still go to prison even though they tortured a confession out of you.
We remove the confession.Dr. Beck
All right.The Court
All right. So what I’m saying is even when the government violates laws,
there are mechanisms in place, and we can overcome that.
And there are still mechanisms in this case.
No, you cannot go on to federal property—Dr. Beck
What is the mechanism?The Court
You have to let me finish.Dr. Beck
Okay.The Court
You cannot go on to federal property
because you believe that you are enforcing UN law.
You can’t do it.
No, that’s not a defense. That’s not going to work.Dr. Beck
Well, I’d like to argue. First, I’d like to go through her motion and—The Court
Go ahead.Dr. Beck
On the first page she refers to US versus Maxwell, and she makes all kinds of
unsubstantiated ideas here and just keeps repeating them.
It’s kind of like the big lie approach, and people believe it after a while,
like there’s a connection between al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein.
Actually people believe that even though there’s no evidence for it.
In this case, if you look at US versus Maxwell on page 26, direct quote:
The District Court did not hold that
affirmative defenses to section 1382 were categorically barred.
To the contrary, the court entertained the possibility that a necessity defense
could be interposed.
It then made a case-specific judgment, examining Maxwell’s offer of proof,
and concluding that it was insufficient.
In other words it is possible—she seems to be arguing it’s impossible.
Okay. So that’s the first point.The Court
You’re right. It’s not impossible.
I am not ruling that there would never be a case—Dr. Beck
Right.The Court
- where you would not, if the government was torturing someone on the
Anderson Air Force Base, and you entered the base to stop them
from torturing that might be a different issue.Dr. Beck
Right.The Court
If your wife was on there, and they were holding her illegally,
and you couldn’t get her out, and you went on there,
that would be a different issue.
You went there to be arrested.Dr. Beck
No. I went there to try to stop them from killing people.The Court
You told the guy on the TV, the TV guy,
that you were going to go get arrested.Dr. Beck
I don’t think so.
I knew there was a chance that I—
a very strong probability that I would be arrested.The Court
99 out of a hundred.Dr. Beck
Obviously that’s not the purpose.
I mean, no intelligent person tries to get arrested
just to get arrested unless they—The Court
Well, not only did you try and get arrested—Dr. Beck
- want free room and board or something. I mean—The Court
Not only did you try and get arrested in this case,
you refused to let me let you out of jail for thirty days.
I argued against—Dr. Beck
I did not agree to the conditions.The Court
I argued against you staying in jail.
I did not feel it was appropriate pretrial.
You fought me on that, and in fact you prevailed and stayed in jail for thirty days.
So what you’re telling me is normal—Dr. Beck
But there were conditions I had to agree to—The Court
No, you have to let me finish when I talk.
I’m the judge here, and that’s the way the program works.
Normal people—and let me say this on the record.
I have been in front of you—well, you’ve been in front of me
several times I heard you testify.
You are completely lucid, completely sane.
You have a position that you promote in this case.
But you argue to me, normal people don’t go to get arrested.
No, but you went there to get arrested, and you stayed in jail
when I told you to get out. In fact,
I basically had to convince you last week to sign the paper and
go home because the war is over.
So yes, I understand that I wouldn’t go to Anderson Air Force—
Vandenberg Air Force Base to get arrested,
but you and I have different approaches to the way we do things.
You go ahead, sir.
You tell me why this international defense and the treaties in this case,
the United States treaties with other countries should justify what you’ve done.Dr. Beck
Well, first, I want to respond to the thing about I was wanting to get arrested,
and I was wanting to stay in jail.
No, that’s not accurate.
I was willing to undergo the sacrifice in order to
try to stop the crimes from being committed.
And in terms of staying in jail, I was not willing to agree to the conditions
because the war was still going on at that time, and I felt it was an emergency—
and going to this other argument.
So, just to clarify, I do not like being in jail.
I’ve got better things to do.
I wish I didn’t have to be out protesting a war.
I wish this country wasn’t in the war, and I would have to do it.
So, you know, it was an emergency.The Court
All right. I accept that.Dr. Beck
That’s part of my defense.
Now I’d like to go through her argument. On page 2—The Court
Yes.Dr. Beck
—she refers to the three cases.The Court
Durell, Lowe, and May.Dr. Beck
Yes, and particularly, mostly, based on May.
So let’s start with that one.The Court
Okay.Dr. Beck
What I want to point out is how those cases are different than my case,
and therefore they’re not relevant. Okay.
And in the case of May, this is, I believe,
a Trident case in Washington, and it said
That there was no reasonable belief that a direct consequence of their actions
would be the termination of the Trident program.That’s page 1008. And so they’re arguing, you know, that what you granted me,
that I did have a reasonable belief that I could affect the war
because the war is actually going on.
And we’re not talking—The Court
No, no, no. I didn’t say you had a reasonable belief.
I said that that’s what you believed.Dr. Beck
Okay.The Court
There’s no doubt from the time I’ve met you
until now of your sincerity in your beliefs.Dr. Beck
Okay. I’m arguing it was reasonable and that’s—The Court
That you would have stopped the US war in Iraq by protesting at Vandenberg.Dr. Beck
Not by myself.
I said that’s an unreasonable standard.The Court
All right.Dr. Beck
I don’t think any fair court would try to make a person have that standard.
In fact, I will cite you cases further on that you don’t have to do it all by yourself,
that you can do it with other people to stop a crime.The Court
All right.Dr. Beck
And in the Lowe case it talks about a theoretical future harm to all of us
that may or may not occur.
Because we’re talking about the Trident system of the MX or whatever,
and these are considered, well, government policy or whatever.
However, actually I would argue in those cases that by the
Non-Proliferation Treaty, the US actually is in violation of law.
But what they’re saying is it’s not an imminent danger.The Court
Non-Proliferation of what?Dr. Beck
The NPT, Article VI.The Court
Non-Proliferation of what?Dr. Beck
Nuclear weapons.The Court
Right, and they didn’t use nuclear weapons in Iraq.Dr. Beck
Oh, I know. I’m talking about Lowe and May.The Court
All right.Dr. Beck
Those cases involve nuclear weapons.The Court
Okay.Dr. Beck
So I would disagree with the court.
But the main point here—that’s kind of irrelevant—but the main point here is
that those cases are different than this case because the court determined
that this is some theoretical future harm.
Whereas in my case it’s a real emergency because this war is happening.
In those cases the people, the protestors, were afraid that some day
there might be a nuclear war.
But in this case, it’s not some day.
It’s right now already happening.
The murders were happening at the time.The Court
And that makes it a necessity.Dr. Beck
That’s a big difference.
That makes it a necessity and emergency.The Court
All right.Dr. Beck
So that distinguishes from those cases.
On the next page the Ninth Circuit Court—
there’s a quote here in the center of the page.The Court
What page are you on?Dr. Beck
Page 3 of her motion.The Court
All right. I’ve read that.
You don’t have to read it to me again. Every time you—Dr. Beck
I have to read it myself. It’s been awhile. Okay.
“He must be able to show some direct harm to himself
not a theoretical future harm” is the point I was making.
Although there are other cases that have ruled that
it doesn’t have to be harm to oneself, it could be to other people too.
I think that should be clear in the law.The Court
Right.Dr. Beck
Now as to this point where it says—The Court
So there was no harm to you, right?Dr. Beck
Well—The Court
I can’t consider a theoretical future harm to all of us that may or may not occur.
Are you suggesting there was harm to us?Dr. Beck
Well, it’s mostly a harm to the people of Iraq.
But I consider it a harm to our country to be committing such crimes
because it worsens our whole country.The Court
All right.Dr. Beck
And I’m part of the country.
But in terms of usurping the functions of the Constitution
that are given to Congress and the President—this is an important point
because the judicial branch—and that’s why I’m here to you,
and I know it’s hard to overcome prejudices in one day
like Socrates said in his trial; but you’re obligated to uphold the Constitution.
You’re under no obligation to follow the orders of the President.
You are independent.The Court
I don’t have any orders from the President.Dr. Beck
That’s right. That’s why I’m asking you to in your conscience to consider—
to be the check and the balance that the judiciary is intended to be
when the executive and the Congress steps out of line
and starts committing crimes.The Court
I think that’s the role the courts play.Dr. Beck
Yes.The Court
But this is not what we’re talking about.Dr. Beck
Well, I think it is.The Court
In other words, the judge doesn’t order that the President stop the war.
You can’t protest—get on to Vandenberg Air Force Bas
and have a magistrate judge in Los Angeles stop the war.
There are mechanisms in place in this country for peaceful protest,
for soliciting your congressperson, for soliciting the senator in the state,
for writing to the President of the United States for protesting here,
protesting in Washington DC.
All of those legitimate, lawful means were utilized during this exercise.
In fact, the evidence that they presented
I thought was admirable what the government did.
They put up the fences so nobody can get hurt.
They gave you a place to park.
They gave you places where you could stand.
They let the media come out so they could take pictures of you.
What they didn’t do was let you drive on to the base and take over the base,
and that’s what you’re trying to do. That’s what you want to do.Dr. Beck
No, but—The Court
You wanted to go talk to the commander or the colonel that runs the base
and tell him to stop the war, and no, that’s not right.Dr. Beck
With all due respect, your honor, I feel you’re arguing against m
as if you are a prosecuting attorney.
You’re not letting me—The Court
I’m a judge about to make a decision.Dr. Beck
Okay. I know, but you keep arguing against me
and not letting me make my arguments.The Court
Well, no, I’m going to let you make your arguments,
but what you don’t like to hear is no.
That’s the problem. You don’t—Dr. Beck
But you make eight points without letting me interrupt—The Court
No, you have to listen when I talk.Dr. Beck
And then I can’t answer them all.The Court
You have to listen. You have to listen. You don’t want to hear no.
Your so convinced you’re right you spent thirty days in jail for this situation.Dr. Beck
YOU’RE NOT LISTENING TO ME.
(This was said with great emotional intensity.)The Court
Dr. Beck, I want to tell you something right now, and Ms. Chen will tell you this,
I’m sure, and back you up.
There are fifty judges in this courthouse right now.
I’m willing to bet 49 of them would have ended this case before lunch. Okay.
If you go down and ask chief judge Marshall or Judge Hatter or Judge Real,
could I have four hours to present my trespassing case
at Vandenberg Air Force Base, I think the answer is no.
I have read all your papers.
You have argued—you have been in front of me now three times.
I let you testify for an hour and five minutes,
and what I really think is happening is you’re not listening to me.Dr. Beck
No, your honor.The Court
Go on.Dr. Beck
I grant that you allowed me to present evidence.
I grant that, and I thank you for it.
I respect you for it.
What you are not allowing me to do is make arguments.The Court
Go ahead.Dr. Beck
And you’re making, like I said, you make eight arguments,
and I would like to take them one at a time.
In fact, if—but then you’re saying, “You only have ten minutes.”
But if we could go back and look at the record,
and I could respond to each of those things you said,
but now it’s really hard for me to remember them all.The Court
All right. Well, let’s—Dr. Beck
So I’ll just go back to where I was and maybe I’ll get a chance.The Court
Let’s just talk about the points.
You did go to the base.
You did cross the line.
You did know when you went—Dr. Beck
But those weren’t the points.
You’re going over the facts again.
I do not question the facts.The Court
I’m the judge of the facts.Dr. Beck
I know.The Court
All right.Dr. Beck
But I’m trying to argue the law.The Court
Okay.Dr. Beck
I’m not questioning the facts.
I could have stipulated.
I could have stipulated to all those things.
I’m not challenging them.The Court
All right.Dr. Beck
I’m trying to argue the principles of the Constitution, the judicial independence—The Court
The Constitution justified what you did.Dr. Beck
If the case comes before you—I’m not saying you have the authority
to order the President to stop the war.
That’s absurd.
I’m saying if a case comes before you in which the war is an issue,
you are to be independent.
You are to consider that that might be a crime.
And if that is a crime, which is what I’m arguing, and I think it’s clear that it is,
then, you have to take that into consideration that that could be a justification
that I was trying to prevent a crime.
And that’s what I was arguing on the first case,
and I have other arguments that I’m going to go into on the second case.The Court
Okay.Dr. Beck
So I’ll go back to where I was in terms of the Congress and the President—
that the judicial branch has a responsibility to be independent
to uphold the Constitution of the United States.
And I’m not saying that you’re trying to usurp—
I’m not trying to make you usurp the other branches’ functions—
just to be what you’re supposed to be, a check and a balance on their abuses
so that when they make an abuse and a crime, then you’re supposed to say,
no person is above the law.
Because the President—we respect the presidency
because we have a constitutional form of government.
But when a President commits crimes, he is not supposed to be above the law.
And I know it would be a great risk for a magistrate who maybe wants to be
appointed a judge by some future President,
who was appointed by a President—The Court
I consider myself a judge already, but—Dr. Beck
—would be difficult.The Court
Go ahead.Dr. Beck
—or you know, a full judge or a circuit court—The Court
A real judge.Dr. Beck
Well no, I understand you’re a judge.
I’m not saying you’re not a judge.
I mean a district judge—The Court
Okay.Dr. Beck
—is above—would be the next step up, right?The Court
Yes.Dr. Beck
I mean, I argued before Judge Wallace Tashima, okay, in 1983.
He’s now on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
He gave me time served at the end of the trial.
I mean, he wasn’t afraid, although he didn’t accept—The Court
Did you tell him about your international law defense?Dr. Beck
Yes, that’s true.The Court
What did he say to you about your international law defense in 19—Dr. Beck
Well, it was interesting.The Court
Let me finish.Dr. Beck
Okay.The Court
In 1983 what did Judge Tashima tell you about that defense?Dr. Beck
It was interesting because at first he got kind of emotional and said,
“I’m not going to allow you to make any posse comitatus
or that you’re a vigilante or anything like that.”
It was kind of like the situation with you.
At first sight, it’s like, you think you’re trying to be a vigilante.
But I explained, no, I’m not trying to enforce the law.
I’m just trying to point it out.
I’m just trying to ask people to stop committing crimes.
I’m not trying to take over the functions of the other branches,
and I’m not asking you to.
I’m just asking you to take judicial notice that these may be crimes,
and that if they are crimes, they should be taken into consideration.The Court
The war is a crime is what you’re saying?Dr. Beck
Yes, sir.The Court
I just disagree with you.Dr. Beck
Okay. Well, I would—The Court
And I don’t think this is the right forum, and I’m the right judge to decide
that the Iraqi war or the Iraqi military action is a crime.Dr. Beck
It’s a very serious crime because it’s mass murder.
Okay. Why don’t I go on to the motion.The Court
Go ahead.Dr. Beck
So in the Schoon case, which is the case actually where defendants splashed
“simulated” blood around an IRS office.The Court
Right.Dr. Beck
And obstructing office operations.
Well, I grant you that’s much more serious than what I did.
I mean—The Court
You didn’t do that.Dr. Beck
Right. So, that’s not that relevant in that sense.
Because what I did was I just walked across the line.The Court
But didn’t he think he had to do that.
Didn’t he think there was a necessity involved in that.
Didn’t he think that the ends justified the means?
That he was doing something that he felt—Dr. Beck
Yes.The Court
- as strongly as you feel today.Dr. Beck
Yes. Yes. Yes.The Court
And he felt he should be able to go into a government office
and disrupt what they were doing.Dr. Beck
Yes, but there’s a difference between my case and theirs,
and that’s the main point, that I didn’t do anything disruptive.
And sometimes often when those people do that,
they’re willing to take the consequences for it.The Court
Well, I mean—Dr. Beck
But I didn’t do anything like that.The Court
Well, you did cause them to take you into custody, didn’t you?
Didn’t you cause two officers of the United States Government to take you
into custody and process you for several hours?
At least from what I understand, an hour?Dr. Beck
But, but they—The Court
Isn’t that disruptive?Dr. Beck
But they chose to arrest me.
If they had listened to me and my arguments,
maybe they wouldn’t have arrested me.
So I didn’t really cause them absolutely to do that, no.The Court
And the other point that I make here is you continue to tell me
if people would listen to your argument—
Sergeant Walton listened to your argument.
He did not quit the military.
All right. I’ve listened to your argument.
The government has listened to your argument.
The JAG officer has listened.
We listened to your argument.Dr. Beck
Yeah.The Court
I just don’t think everybody agrees with your argument.Dr. Beck
Obviously, but that doesn’t mean—that doesn’t say who’s right?The Court
No, it doesn’t.Dr. Beck
Because people have vested interests.
They have, you know, a person with a job and so on.
It’s a big thing to quit their job.
So, you know, there’s various prejudices or factors.The Court
All right. Go ahead with your argument.Dr. Beck
Now we get to the case, the situation in the Schoon case,
the difference between—we’re talking about defense of necessity now,
and the reference here is to indirect civil disobedience.
I would like to talk about direct versus indirect civil disobedience,
and this is pertinent to the second charge
because I went against the debarment letter.
So I have to argue defense of necessity.
Whereas in the first case I think I was justified
without even it being considered civil disobedience.
It was more like civil obedience.
I was just doing my duty to report a crime.
But I realized in the second one it’s more like civil—The Court
Who are you reporting the crime to?
Did you think that—who didn’t know—Dr. Beck
Vandenberg was killing people.
That’s a crime.The Court
They didn’t know that?Dr. Beck
Murder is a crime.The Court
Who were you reporting it to?Dr. Beck
I was—see, this is the problem.The Court
Answer that question. Who?
Name the person you were reporting the crime to.Dr. Beck
Every person I talked to at Vandenberg Air Force Base.The Court
Did they not know they were involved in the Iraqi war,
and they needed you to tell them.Dr. Beck
They knew. No, they knew they were involved in the Iraqi war.
They did not necessarily know that it was illegal.The Court
Okay. I understand.Dr. Beck
You see, it’s like in Nazi Germany, how would you have stopped it?
You see. That’s the problem.
If the government is committing the crimes,
it’s a very difficult situation to try to respond to.
Okay. In Schoon on page 58—see, my contention is that the
Vandenberg Air Force Base case was direct civil disobedience,
not indirect, and you see on Schoon on page 58
in the first column almost half-way down:In contrast, civil rights lunch counter sit-ins, for example,
constituted direct civil disobedience because the protestors were challenging
the rule that prevented them from sitting at lunch counters.You see, they went right to where the wrong was happening.
They weren’t being given a meal at a lunch counter.The Court
Right.Dr. Beck
So they stayed there, and they were—
I would assume they were charged with trespassing.
But they weren’t saying that anyone has a right,
even after they’ve eaten their lunch,
to continue to sit at a lunch counter.
They weren’t saying that the statute for trespassing was wrong, right?The Court
Right.Dr. Beck
They were saying that prejudicial treatment, that they weren’t allowed
to have a lunch there, was what was wrong. Okay.
So that’s considered direct civil disobedience.
I think that’s very analogous to what I did.
I didn’t go to block traffic or whatever.
I went directly to where the wrong was happening and asked them to stop
and said I’m going to sacrifice myself.
I’ll suffer in order to make people aware that this is wrong.The Court
You could have asked them to stop from the other side of the green line.Dr. Beck
Yeah, but, see, it would—it’s completely ineffective.
So you have that point of alternative.
It’s not effective.The Court
No, no, no. You could have, and that’s not an answer.Dr. Beck
No, it is.The Court
You could have stopped.
You could have yelled from the other side of the green line,
“You guys need to quit.
Go tell colonel to shut down the base.”
You chose. You chose to get arrested.
You chose to step over the green line knowing that
that would prompt your arrest,
knowing the cameras were rolling,
and knowing that that is what you wanted to do.Dr. Beck
Because I wanted to talk to a commander.
I couldn’t talk to the commander from beyond the line.The Court
You didn’t think there was any way on God’s green Earth
that they were going to walk you from the green line—Dr. Beck
People on the base.The Court
- to the commander’s desk inside some secure location in that base.
There’s no way. I don’t accept that. There’s no evidence of that.
You were crossing the green line to get arrested.Dr. Beck
But it’s like it’s a criminal conspiracy.
Of course they’re not going to let me go in and break up
their criminal conspiracy in prosecuting the war.The Court
Do you hear what you’re saying?Dr. Beck
But that doesn’t mean I shouldn’t report
that there’s a criminal conspiracy, right?The Court
Well, they’re part of it. They know of it.Dr. Beck
That’s right. That’s right.The Court
All right.Dr. Beck
And I’m trying to ask you because you’re independent.
You don’t have to be a part of that criminal conspiracy.
Basically I’m challenging you because I think if you rule against me on this,
that you then become complicit also, and you could be—The Court
Well, that’s going to be—maybe that’s your argument on appeal,
and if the appellate—Dr. Beck
Yeah. Violation of Nuremberg Principles.The Court
If the appellate judge agrees with you, you know,
then that’s where the conspiracy ends.
But no, you cannot—because you disagree with American policy
regarding this war in Iraq, you cannot go on to military properties.Dr. Beck
Okay. Shall I move on?The Court
Yup.Dr. Beck
Okay. And it even gives the example here in the Schoon case of people,
you know, stopping the war, but I’ll go on.
On the column on the right there’s a paragraph in the middle that starts—The Court
No, I don’t want you to read Schoon to me, and I don’t want—
you can tell me how your case is distinguished from Schoon.
You can move on to the other cases, but no, we’re not reading
paragraph by paragraph of the cases they cited.Dr. Beck
Okay. Well, I think it’s my last cite.The Court
Go ahead.Dr. Beck
What all the traditional necessity cases have in common is that the
commission of the crime averted the occurrence of an even greater harm
—or crime.
I’m adding that—in some sense the necessity defense allows
a particular criminal provisional or crafting a one-time—
because of the emergency, because of the necessity.
I’m adding that exception to it subject to court review—
which is what we’re here for—when a real legislator
would formally do the same under those circumstances.Okay. Okay.
The Court
And that’s a 1970 case, Schoon, right?
So you presented that—Dr. Beck
Well, she used it quite a bit in her—so I’m just trying to respond to her motion.The Court
So you presented that to Judge Tashima in 1983?Ms. Chen
It’s a 1992 case.Dr. Beck
It’s 1992? Stand-by counsel informs me—The Court
‘92. She’s right.Dr. Beck
So it is fairly recent actually.
1991 it was submitted, and, yeah, decided in 1990 and ended in 1992.The Court
Yes, it’s relying on U. S. versus Moylan, the Fourth Circuit case,
which was a 1970 case. Okay.Dr. Beck
Okay. So I might as well, I guess, go into the four elements.The Court
Ms. McCaslin, did you want to release your witness
there so she can catch her plane?Ms. McCaslin
Your honor, I offered that, and she may be leaving momentarily.
Maybe we can get an estimate from Dr. Beck
how much longer he’s going to be.The Court
Dr. Beck, what do you think?Dr. Beck
I think we should be done by 2:30.The Court
You know, I’m not going to give you till 2:30.Ms. McCaslin
I anticipate no rebuttal.The Court
Okay. I’m going to give you till 2:20, and that is going to be instead of
the ten minutes I offered to give you, it’s going to be forty minutes,
and it’s going to be almost as long as the trial, your closing, or about half as long.
And I know that you think that I don’t understand the principles
you’re trying to enunciate.
I think I do, but I’m going to give you ten more minutes to tell me
why your actions were justified and why you shouldn’t be found guilty.
And actually we agree on the facts.Dr. Beck
Yeah.The Court
The only thing is your justification.
We agree you trespassed.Dr. Beck
Yeah. See, we spent I don’t know how many hours on the facts,
which we all agree on, and then I get hardly any time on the part I need time on.The Court
Dr. Beck, you could have had all day to argue.
That was your choice.Dr. Beck
But I did need time to bring out the—like what Sergeant Walton testified
that I did make these arguments and requests and so on.The Court
They would have agreed to that.Dr. Beck
And I had to prove all these different elements.
The first element is—okay.
Well, first of all, on the first charge I don’t think I have to prove necessity
because I think I was just like reporting a crime, and therefore I had a
lawful reason for being on the base,
and therefore it shouldn’t be considered trespassing.The Court
And I rejected that.Dr. Beck
Okay. That’s my argument, and I think it’s a good one.The Court
I’m rejecting that because everybody on the base
knew they were involved in the war.
Your argument is just a little fine tuned; but they didn’t know there was
a violation of the Nuremberg Principles and international law
and the U. N. Charter, and you needed to go tell them.Dr. Beck
Right.The Court
And that’s why you were going on the base.Dr. Beck
Are you familiar with the Nuremberg Principles?The Court
I read them today.Dr. Beck
Okay.The Court
You know, I’m sure I read them at some other time in my life,
but you presented them—Dr. Beck
I’d just like to quote number 4 because it’s a key one here.The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his government
or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility
under international law, provided—The Court
So this is just like the Nazis.Dr. Beck
Excuse me.The Court
This is the same thing as the Nazis.Dr. Beck
Yeah.—provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.
That’s the key point.
I was bringing them the moral choice.
If they didn’t know it was wrong, they’re not really responsible.
So I was doing my duty as a conscientious citizen to try to stop these crimes,
to make them aware that they had a choice.
They did not have to be accomplices to murder.The Court
Okay.Dr. Beck
Mass murders.The Court
And you couldn’t yell that over the green line?Dr. Beck
Not as effectively because I couldn’t reach as many people, and they’re—The Court
How many more people did you reach on the inside of the green line—Dr. Beck
But also—The Court
—that you didn’t reach on the outside?Dr. Beck
The other point is that I wanted to bring it to a judge.The Court
You wanted to be arrested.Dr. Beck
I wanted to challenge it through the legal process, which is the way we’re
supposed to resolve conflicts instead of by wars and who’s mightier
and who has worse weapons and is better at killing people.The Court
We have a civil side in this courthouse as well, and when you want to try
and stop the war, you can file a civil action, and you can ask for
an injunction that every single military person is told that there are options,
and they can be conscientious objectors.
You do not have to disrupt—Dr. Beck
I don’t believe I have standing to sue the government, do I?The Court
You’re making my point.
You don’t have standing. Probably not.Dr. Beck
That’s what I mean.
I can’t go to a civil court.The Court
Nor do you have standing in the criminal case to tell us
that you were going to tell them to stop the war.Dr. Beck
No, I think I do.
Because you have to take the crimes into consideration,
into relationship to the trespass, whether it was really a trespass
or whether I was reporting crimes.
It is like Germany, because what would you have done if you were in Germany
if you were going to try to stop what was going on.
Hitler was elected.
I mean, they are—you know, everybody in the country
thought it was great for Germany, most people,
and they would dismiss the people who were objecting.
You know, it seems to me this is an emergency situation,
and we have to—I’m praying, I’m hoping where we have a great constitution
in this country, and it’s the judge’s responsibility, again, to be this check
on the abuses of the other branches.
No person is above the law.
So I’ll just go through the—so that’s the first case
I’m saying it doesn’t even need to be necessity defense.
You disagree. Okay.
So I don’t have much chance, but at least I’ll argue the necessity
and the four points on the second one
because I grant that I was given the debarment letter.
Therefore I went back because of the emergency,
and the justification defense of necessity is required for me to be acquitted.The Court
You tried peaceful means. You had gone through all the other—Dr. Beck
Right. So the first thing is that there is an imminent danger or harm or crime.
Well, you’ve already granted the first point because you’ve acknowledged
that there was a war going on and that Vandenberg was involved in it.
So that is obviously an imminent harm or a danger.
People are being killed. Okay.
So I was trying to stop those people from being killed.
The second point is—The Court
People were being killed in the first Iraqi war too.
So you had a right to go onto that base and shut the war down.Dr. Beck
First—it’s kind of irrelevant—but the first—The Court
Actually, I’m the one who rules on relevant here.Dr. Beck
Okay. The first—just to answer you—the first Gulf War
was not as illegal as this one
So it’s different.The Court
All right.Dr. Beck
This one was a much more illegal war because Iraq had gone into Kuwait,
and the UN had authorized the US to push Iraq out of Kuwait.The Court
So when the UN authorizes Americans to exercise force, it’s okay,
and you won’t protest.
It’s based on what the UN says whether or not it’s legitimate or not.Dr. Beck
I’m saying it’s much more definitely a crime
when the US makes war in violation of the UN Charter.
That’s obvious to me, and it should be to most scholars of international law,
that the US—that this was an illegal—that Kofi Annan essentially said as much,
that this is an illegal war, because there’s only two ways that you’re allowed
to make war according to the UN Charter, and it is a treaty.
Therefore it’s a US law.
It’s like the US law.
It’s according to the Constitution.
This is a constitutional argument.
Now the only way is if it were self-defense, if you are under imminent attack,
or it’s part of collective security, that the UN Security Council says
this is needed to keep the peace.
We authorized this.
But that was not the case.
It was not authorized.
You see, they tried, but they failed, and then they went ahead and—
then it becomes really a crime because they went ahead without it
being authorized, according to the treaty which we are part of.
So it’s a clear violation of the UN Charter treaty,
and therefore it’s a crime against peace under the Nuremberg Principles.
And I think if you really had an open mind you would see that.
The second point on defense of necessity is that the harm or the danger
is worse than the alleged crime.
In this case trespassing is obviously a very minor crime,
especially since I didn’t try to pour blood or disrupt anything.
You know, all I did was walk there, and they had to arrest me.
That was their only inconvenience was they thought they had to arrest me.
There was no other harm or anything.
So that is about as minor a harm as you can do.
I think it was about as completely nonviolent—
and you’ll probably agree—as it could possibly be.The Court
I agree.Dr. Beck
And if you compare that to the murder of thousands of people
which was happening at that time,
I think it’s pretty obvious which is worse.The Court
I don’t agree with you that it was murder.
We haven’t gotten to that.
We’re not here to—I’m not here to tell you what I think about the Iraqi war.Dr. Beck
Okay, okay. Well, let’s just say an illegal war.
That’s a very serious situation.
And then the third point is that there is no other legal means available,
or that this was the only means—
the best means available in an emergency situation.
Now I think “necessity” is really the wrong word because it should be
“justification” because even if you have a situation with a burning house,
and there’s a “No trespassing” sign, and a person rushes in to save
a child from the burning house, they’re not obligated—that’s a free choice.
I mean, I’m a philosopher.
We only have to do one thing in this life, and that is die.
Everything else is a choice.
So that person chose to go in there and save that child.
Okay. But it was a good thing to do.
So that’s the idea.
If it’s the best thing that you can do, then it’s justified.
It doesn’t have to be an absolute necessity.
There is no such thing.
So the point is that every other means had been attempted to stop the war,
to persuade the President not to go to war in this case,
and I presented evidence, and you recognized that evidence,
that I did try alternative means; but it was only when it became an emergency,
when they were actually killing people, that I had to take this step,
and I explained why I went to Vandenberg Air Force Base.
And the fourth and final point of the defense of necessity is that
I had to have a reasonable belief that what I did might in some way lessen
the danger or the harm or the crimes that were taking place.
And I think I’ve argued that, that some might become conscientious objectors—
and if a few of them did, that might to some extent mitigate the process.
And also that in concert with other people protesting
we might have even stopped the war.
And I think it could even be argued in retrospect that we did put such pressure
on the public opinion that this war was not nearly as deadly
as the ‘91 Gulf War in which about 175,000 Iraqis were killed,
including 50,000 civilians.
This time there were not as many civilians killed, in the thousands,
but maybe only two or three, four thousand, and the number of soldiers
we don’t even know, but it certainly wasn’t 125,000 like it was in the ‘91 war.
And it could be argued that actions of people like me put such pressure—The Court
Why did you stop that?
Why did you help kill less people in Iraq by walking over the green line?
How did that make it better?
Tell me what you did to save those lives when you crossed the green line?Dr. Beck
And it wasn’t just that, but it was all the people marching in the streets
every Saturday and so on, was that the President realized that politically
he should be careful not to kill too many civilians and Iraqis
because there was a lot of people who were opposed to the war.The Court
And if you stayed on the other side of the green line,
he would not have understood that?Dr. Beck
It’s all a combination of all these efforts, I think.
So I think that’s part of it.
But I think the more pertinent argument is that people would become
conscientious objectors and so on.
So I think that fourth element also has been demonstrated by my arguments.
The other—and I’m just about done, I guess—point is that there was,
I think, a selective prosecution, and this really should be
an open part of the base, and that they—The Court
There were other people that didn’t cross,
that crossed the line that weren’t arrested.
I’m not talking about the media.
I’m talking about other protestors.Dr. Beck
Well, but the other people going to the base—and partly the idea of the selective
is that other people are given—are allowed to ask permission to go on the base.
I wasn’t because I was a protestor.The Court
Well, did you call them up and ask them?Dr. Beck
In other words, there’s a pre-prejudice there.The Court
Did you call them up and ask them, “Can I come on the base?”Dr. Beck
No.The Court
Did you write a letter to the commander and ask him?Dr. Beck
I did in 1983.The Court
All right. But—Dr. Beck
But you see—The Court
No, your letter—let’s talk about your 19—Dr. Beck
But I got no answer in 1983.
So why should I believe that this year would be any different.
I mean, you see, you have to have a reasonable belief.
I mean—The Court
Well, when you went to trial in 1983—Dr. Beck
Do you think if I wrote a letter, they’re going to give me permission?The Court
When you went to trial in 1983 in front of Judge Tashima on these same type
of charges, you thought today would be a different answer.
So you’ve proven to me that things can change,
and you still have faith in the system, and despite the fact that
twenty years ago a judge told you no, necessity and justification
aren’t going to satisfy your trespass,
that in 2003 you thought it would change.
Why doesn’t that apply to letters to the commandant of the base?Dr. Beck
Well, you know I’m not saying—it wouldn’t be a wrong thing to do.
I’m just saying I have to try to do what’s the best with my time,
and I’m telling you all these different efforts I did,
and my belief was that the chance of persuading someone in the military
was less likely than a judge, quite frankly.
I didn’t know what kind of judge I would get.
I think if I had a liberal judge I’d have a good chance.
So that’s the question of my priorities in terms of what I—The Court
How do you know I’m not liberal.Dr. Beck
Well, it just seems to be that way.The Court
Are you familiar—any cases you can cite?
Now obviously you weren’t the only person that was arrested.
Do you know of any cases where somebody was acquitted
on these charges since this war effort?Dr. Beck
I haven’t heard about any other trials.
I’ve heard of people being arrested.
This is the first trial I know of.
There are people who have been acquitted
on defense of necessity on protest cases, yes, sir.The Court
All right. Okay. Anything further you want to add?Dr. Beck
So my final plea basically is, if I could quote briefly Henry David Thoreau.
He said,Law does not make men free.
It is men who have got to make the law free.
They are the lovers of law and order
who observe the law when the government breaks it.So what I’m asking you today is to think in your conscience and in your heart
and try to be independent.
You are to uphold the Constitution, and that if you rule against these—
not take into consideration I think these are crimes.
I think that I can demonstratively prove that if you do not—
if you rule against my effort to stop these crimes, it’s a kind of growing fascism,
and you become complicit, and in the Nuremberg Principles
you become responsible for these crimes because I’m giving you a moral choice.
And just finally, and I don’t know if you like movies;
but there’s a movie called Judgment at Nuremberg with Spencer Tracy.
Have you seen that movie?The Court
No.Dr. Beck
Burt Lancaster.The Court
I may have when I was a kid. I don’t remember.Dr. Beck
It’s about the Nuremberg trials.The Court
I know what it’s about.Dr. Beck
But it’s not about the big trials.
There’s a recent one with Alec Baldwin where the big leaders were tried.
This one was the judges in Germany, and at the final scene
Burt Lancaster was a very distinguished judge in Germany.
He played a distinguished judge, and Spencer Tracy was an American judge
from the Midwest or something.
He went to see him in his prison cell, and Burt Lancaster, the German judge,
said, “How could this happen here?”
And Spencer Tracy said, “The first time that you convicted an innocent man,
that you knew he was innocent, that’s when it started happening.”
I rest my case. Amen.Letter to Judge Walsh, May 6, 2003
Dear Magistrate Judge Walsh,
In my trial on May 1, you found me guilty of trespassing onto
Vandenberg Air Force Base on March 22 and March 24 during the Iraq War.
Following precedents of the United States Supreme Court,
you did not grant me the constitutional right to a jury trial.
You did allow me to defend myself with the able assistance of the
public defender Davina Chen as stand-by counsel.
At the arraignment on March 26 you stated that you would not allow
any international law defense.
When I noted that prejudice and asked for another judge,
you quickly replied, “Motion denied.”
At the motions hearing on April 24 after I had been in custody for thirty days,
you allowed the Assistant US Attorney Sharon McCaslin to argue briefly
in favor of her written motion to exclude defenses of international law, necessity,
and free speech; but despite the fact that I was prepared to respond verbally
to her motion even though I had not been allowed enough time in the law library
to prepare a written response,
you would not let me speak at all against her motion.
At the trial, you did allow me to present evidence
based on my theories of defense; but I was still not allowed to argue against
the points in her motion until my closing remarks.
Thus I was not able to rebut your prejudice and her arguments until that time.
Then you repeatedly interrupted me and began arguing against me
as if you were prosecuting me,
not even allowing me to respond to each of your points.
When I begged you to listen to me, you said that you would only allow me
ten more minutes in which to respond to all the points in her motion
and to present all of the complicated arguments in my closing speech
in which I should have been able to explain to you with legal arguments
why I was justified in doing what I did.
Because I can expect that you will probably also limit the length
of my remarks at the sentencing,
I am writing you this letter.
You told me that people could write letters to you on my behalf
and that you would read them.
I am not asking anyone to write such letters to you,
but I cannot stop anyone who wishes to do so.
I am making copies of this letter public so that people can learn
what issues are at stake here and understand the dangerous trends
currently operating in our country’s government.
You and the attorney for the United States Government acknowledged
by stipulated evidence that Vandenberg AFB
did participate in the U.S. war against Iraq.
Actually, I did not have to argue international law.
Instead, I pointed out that the massive killings of Iraqi civilians and soldiers
were serious violations of U.S. law for the following reasons.
The U.S. Constitution in Article 6 states that treaties
ratified by the United States are the supreme law of the land.
The United Nations Charter, the Treaty Renouncing War (Kellogg-Briand Pact),
and the Geneva Conventions have been ratified by the United States
and are thus part of U.S. law.
Since the U.S. was not authorized by the United Nations Security Council
to invade Iraq nor was it self-defense against an imminent attack
on the U.S. by Iraq, the U.S. invasion of Iraq was clearly a crime against peace
as defined by the Nuremberg Principles and a violation of the UN Charter.
The Nuremberg Principles, which were formulated by the United States
and other nations following World War II,
are also a generally accepted part of international law.
Neither did the U.S. Congress use the constitutional process
of declaring war on Iraq.
Since the war was not justified, that means that the killing of Iraqis
in their own sovereign territory was actually mass murder
along with huge amounts of property damage.
Obviously there are U.S. laws against murder, conspiracy to commit murder,
aiding and abetting murder as well as destruction of property.
I pleaded with you that I went to Vandenberg AFB only to report those crimes
and to try to stop them by peacefully making them aware that the war was illegal
and that they did not have to obey the illegal orders of a criminal regime.
You acknowledged that I did nothing violent nor damaging nor disruptive
in any way except that officers at VAFB chose to arrest me for walking
across a painted line outside of the main gate.
Both times I asked permission to speak to the base commander
about these war crimes; but instead of being given a civil answer,
I was handcuffed and put under arrest.
You acknowledged the evidence I presented of many efforts I had made
in cooperation with other people to try to stop this illegal war before it began,
including publishing books and brochures I had written,
my candidacy for President of the United States in the Democratic Party,
my letter to UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan,
and my speaking to groups in person, by community TV, and radio.
I went back to Vandenberg a second time so that I could come before
a federal judge as soon as possible in order to ask for redress from the
judicial branch of our government as an additional effort
to try to stop those ongoing crimes.
Instead of exercising your constitutional duty to check the abuses
by the other two branches of government, no person being above the law,
not even the President, you abrogated that responsibility by failing to consider
the importance of these serious crimes.
I gave you the moral choice referred to in the fourth Nuremberg Principle,
and now by your decision you have become complicit in those crimes also.
I will be coming to be sentenced by you on Tuesday May 13 at 1:30 p.m.
at 312 N. Spring Street on the eighth floor in Los Angeles.
Because I believe I was unjustly convicted, I do plan to appeal.
In good conscience I cannot agree to accept conditions of probation
that would limit my choice to act nonviolently in pointing out
serious crimes by our government.
I believe this is my duty as a citizen.
Because of my devotion to God and humanity,
I must be guided by the Holy Spirit to the best of my ability.
I cannot afford to pay a fine, and I will not pay a fine to the U.S. Government
as long as it is involved in such crimes.
Before you decide to sentence me to more time in jail or prison,
you may want to consider how it will look to the world to imprison a
Presidential candidate merely for pointing out the crimes of the U.S. President
and those obeying those illegal orders.
I accept full responsibility for my actions, and I am willing to suffer
being imprisoned unjustly in order to help make people more aware
of the serious crimes our government has committed.Why We (US) Should Get Out of Iraq ASAP (2005)
Although I agree with much of what the McGoverns say about
the US withdrawing from Iraq, I strongly disagree with the strategy they suggested,
saying, “The United States should accelerate and pay for the training of
Iraqi security forces with the help of Egypt, Jordan, and other Arab allies.”
This would only prolong and escalate the civil war by making it a proxy war
supported by the imperialistic United States.
Currently the US is trying to train and equip a new Iraqi army to fight
the insurgency so that the US can withdraw.
The problem with this strategy is that this makes that regime a client state
of the US, and the likely scenario is that the US
will continue to give them military aid, will maintain military bases in Iraq,
and thus will be in a position to dominate Iraq’s economy.
As in the Vietnam War, this puts the US against those who are struggling
against an imperial power for self-determination.
Thus the civil war is likely to drag on even as the US tries to gradually
withdraw forces in an “Iraqization” (recall Vietnamization) of the war.
The fundamental injustice of the US trying to use military force to dominate
the oil resources of the region is ethically insupportable
and can never permanently stand.
As long as Iraqis are willing to fight for their own independence,
it is only a question of how much more suffering must occur
before the US realizes it cannot dominate another country
and completely withdraws.
Thus the wisest course of action now and in the future
(for as long as the stupid policy continues) is for the US and UK to admit
they made a mistake and de-escalate the conflict by removing their own forces
and weapons to truly disarm Iraq as they are replaced by
UN Peacekeeping contingents from other countries.
The United Nations Security Council could authorize such a neutral force
that could legitimately help protect the democratic processes of writing
a constitution and holding new elections.
As with the American-Vietnam War, the longer the US continues
its wrong-headed militaristic policy the worse it will be
for US personnel, for the Iraqis, and for the world.What Jesus Might Say to George W. Bush (2005)
GEORGE W: Dear Lord Jesus, I need your help.
Things are not going well.
Please listen to me.JESUS: I always listen to you, George,
but until now you have not been listening to me very well.GEORGE W: I’m sorry, Lord.
I try.JESUS: I thought it was especially disgraceful when you implied that
I told you to go to war against the people of Iraq.
How could you do that?
Do not people call me the Prince of Peace?GEORGE W: Yes, Lord, you are the Prince of Peace.
JESUS: Did I not teach that we should love our enemies?
GEORGE W: Yes, I remember that now.
JESUS: George, I love you like a son or a brother,
but you have strayed very far from my teachings.
You have been responsible for much killing—
first in Texas with all those executions, and some of them were innocent,—
and then in the world with your wars.
Why do you help the greedy instead of the needy?
Why do you give big tax reductions to the rich while
cutting the programs that help the poor?
Does not every person in your country and in the world
deserve good health care?
Remember, when you help the poorest people, you are helping me.GEORGE W: I’m sorry, Lord Jesus.
I will try to do better.JESUS: Do you really mean that, George?
Instead of being a war President,
would you like to become a peace President?
Will you listen to my counsel and follow my advice?GEORGE W: Oh yes, Lord.
That would be great!
I would like to be your boy.
Please tell me what to do, and I will do my best.JESUS: First you need to repent and admit your mistakes.
You need to confess to the people in the United States and the world
that you are sorry for what you have done;
but now you have seen the Light and will try to do better.GEORGE W: I can do that, Lord.
I can give speeches if I know what to say.JESUS: You need to start helping people
instead of threatening them and hurting them in wars.GEORGE W: But what about the terrorists?
Don’t we need to be protected from them?JESUS: They will have to atone for their crimes too.
Do not judge others lest they judge you harshly also.
Let the rule of law work.
These crimes should be handled by law enforcement and judicial processes
in their proper jurisdictions.
Do not invade other countries;
that just increases the violence and the crimes.GEORGE W: What about Iraq?
That has really become a big mess.JESUS: You must stop the violence from your side by withdrawing
all your forces immediately while using diplomacy
to develop peaceful solutions to the problems.GEORGE W: Just cut and run?
JESUS: Real peacemaking requires faith and courage, George.
If you believe in democracy and the freedom of self-determination,
you should not be trying to impose it by armed force.
That is hypocrisy, George.
Let people be free to solve their own problems.GEORGE W: But what about the oil?
You know the supply is not endless, and gas prices are getting high?JESUS: This is a major crisis for humanity that requires serious adjustments.
People are going to have to learn how to live in less materialistic ways
with conservation and alternative energies,
or they will come into deadly conflicts with each other.GEORGE W: Are you going to give me advice on the energy crisis too?
JESUS: Listen to your heart, George, and learn how to take everyone
into consideration in order to discover what is best for all.
Christ is love; you need to learn how to love everyone, George.GEORGE W: Why I am suddenly hearing you now?
I have prayed, but you never spoke to me like this before.JESUS: I respect the freedom of every soul.
I do not force my ideas on anyone, but people who sincerely turn to God
and the truth may hear my voice.
Until now you had not really opened your heart to me.
For some people, things have to get very uncomfortable
before they open up to listen to my voice.GEORGE W: The things you are suggesting are very radical.
Do you think the American people are ready for this?JESUS: I do, George; people want justice and peace.
The United States can lead the way by starting with the disarmament
of its weapons of mass destruction and then negotiate
a treaty of global disarmament with all the nations.GEORGE W: Wow, that is radical.
That would free up a lot of money.JESUS: Yes, George.
You need to start by giving much more money to help the poor around the world.
Please help those suffering in Kashmir right away.
No one can be truly happy until all the poor people in the world
are truly being helped.
Take care of your brothers and sisters, George.GEORGE W: That sounds like a big job.
JESUS: Take one step at a time, George, and I will walk with you.
Instead of blocking progress in the world, you need to be a facilitator
of peace, liberty, and justice for all.
You have been given special warnings about global warming
by the recent hurricanes.
Do not delay any longer the adjustments that need to be made.GEORGE W: How can I have been so blind?
JESUS: You were listening to bad advice, George.
You need to get better advisors,
who will act for the good of all, not for selfish interests.GEORGE W: Wow, this is going to be the biggest turn-around in history.
JESUS: You can do it, George.
Do what is best for everyone,
and you will have your reward in heaven and on Earth too.GEORGE W: Thank you for speaking to me, Jesus,
and please continue to guide me.JESUS: I will.
God bless you and everyone on Earth.
Copyright © 2004, 2008, 2025 by Sanderson Beck
This has been published in the book PEACE OR BUST.
For ordering information, please click here.Nonviolent Strategies for Protesting the US-Iraq War
Letter to Secretary-General Kofi Annan
Opening Statement by Sanderson Beck, May 1, 2003
Testimony by Sanderson Beck, May 1, 2003
Closing Arguments by Sanderson Beck, May 1, 2003
May 2003 Letter to Judge Walsh by Sanderson Beck
Why We (US) Should Get Out of Iraq ASAP (2005)
What Jesus Might Say to George W. Bush (2005)BECK index