BECK index

Closing Arguments by Sanderson Beck, May 1, 2003

This has been published in the book PEACE OR BUST. For ordering information, please click here.

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 U. S. 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 U. S. Constitution.

The Court:
Okay. Well, you can argue the U. S. -

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 U. S. 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 U. S. A. 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 U. N. 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 U. S. 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 U. S. 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 U. S. 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 U. S. 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 Court:s 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 Base 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 me 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'll 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 U. N. had authorized the U. S. to push Iraq out of Kuwait.

The Court:
So when the U. N. authorizes Americans to exercise force, it's okay, and you won't protest. It's based on what the U. N. says whether or not it's legitimate or not.

Dr. Beck:
I'm saying it's much more definitely a crime when the U. S. makes war in violation of the U. N. Charter. That's obvious to me, and it should be to most scholars of international law, that the U. S. ­ 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 U. N. Charter, and it is a treaty. Therefore it's a U. S. law. It's like the U. S. 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 U. N. 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 U. N. 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.

This has been published in the book PEACE OR BUST. For ordering information, please click here.

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
Nonviolent Strategies for Protesting the US-Iraq War
Letter to Secretary-General Kofi Annan
2003 Peace Campaign

BEST FOR ALL: How We Can Save the World
HISTORY OF PEACE Contents

BECK index