Defence - Stellan Vinthagen
bread not bombs / english / trial
/ first trial / Defence - Stellan Vinthagen
A reconstruction from notes and memory.
Stellan Vinthagen
Ploughshares activist, Peace Researcher and
Trainer in Conflict Management and Civil Disobedience
Husargatan 28, SE 411 22 Gothenburg, Sweden
Tel: +46 (0)31 711 44 16 (home), +46 (0)31 773 43 10 (work)
Fax. +46 (0)31 773 49 10 ("To Stellan Vinthagen")
Email: svinthagen@hotmail.com
Homepage: http://www.plowshares.se/texter/stellan/index.htm (Swedish texts)
Content:
The Charge
Before the Trial: The Plea
Prosecution: Central Arguments
Examination of Prosecution Witnesses
Opening Speech
Own Witnessing and Evidence I
Own Witnessing and Evidence II
Request of calling Witnesses
Questions to our witness Judge B. Hahnfeld
Final Speech
Mitigation Speech
References/Evidence material
The Charge
"Conspiracy to commit criminal damage, whiteout lawful excuse"
The Act: Dismantling equipment for mass-destruction weapons at VSEL in Barrow-in-Furness 13th of September 1998. Arrested on the way to reach the Trident nuclear submarine HMS Vengence in the attempt to make the submarine unusable through practical disarmament of key parts.
Before Trial: The Plea
At Preston Crown Court on December 11th 1998
Your Honour, as I stand here on the 11th December, three months after our attempt to disarm the Trident nuclear submarine, I together with my two friends Annika and Ann-Britt, am accused of 'conspiracy to commit criminal damage'. I am asked to plead 'guilty' or 'not guilty', but honestly I do not know what to plead.
In one sense I think I am guilty. Yesterday, on the 10th December, it was 50 years since the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted, which gave every human being on this earth equal rights. Among these rights is the right to life, for everyone without exception. But I have, I must confess, been part of a massive conspiracy to commit criminal damage through acts of criminal obedience, allowing the militarism of the rich in defending their property, at the same time as the starvation of the poor.
My obedience, together with others', has made it possible for 20% of the world's population to own 80% of the wealth, at the same time as 30,000 children have been starving to death each day. The damage done to these children and to the poor is a terrible crime to which I plead guilty.
But in another sense I think I am not guilty. Tomorrow, on the 12th December it is 12 years since I, together with three German friends - Heike, Susanne and Wolfgang, disarmed a launcher for the Pershing II nuclear missile at a military base in Germany. Our act of citizen disarmament was one year later confirmed in the INF treaty, in which the superpowers USA and Soviet Union decided to disarm Pershing II. Paid and skilled workers did the disarmament in industries - obviously not an act anyone would regard as 'criminal damage'. So, I believe what we did on the 13th of September at the shipyard in Barrow, UK - carrying our household hammers on our way to the fourth Trident submarine - was simply an agreement amongst ourselves to nonviolently, safely, accountably and openly disarm the world's most powerful terrorist weapon. It is a weapon that is used every day as a pointed gun at someone's head. It is a weapon that is used to keep the poor down and to protect the property of the rich.
So, Your Honour, I believe I am guilty of 'conspiracy to commit criminal damage', but not on the 13th of September.
Prosecution: Central Arguments
"[They had decided that] legitimate means were insufficient.[and] adopted what is sometimes called direct action"
"You decide on the facts"
"You must take direction on the law from the judge"
"You must be sure that they are guilty, that they had no lawful excuse.nothing less than sure, probably is not good enough, maybe is not good enough"
"[Their damage] was unlawful damage.without lawful excuse"
"[Sometimes it is acceptable to damage property, for example,] breaking down a door to prevent a crime or to protect other property".
Under the Criminal Damage Act, lawful excuse is explained. You,
? must have a genuine belief
? the action protects property in immediate need of protection
? the means used must be reasonable in the circumstances
"The Crown says,
? there was no immediate threat or danger to property,
? the action was taken to promote political views,
? Their actions, in all the circumstances, were not reasonable."
A similar defence is available under the Criminal Law Act,
"But the Crown says,
? no crime was being committed,
? their actions were not reasonable"
"It was."
*Intentionally or recklessly
*Genuine belief
*"Damage"
*Morally justified, convicted people, we can feel sympathy
*Compare with the nail-bomber in London, the chaos created
"Publicity Statement"
*Tried to create attention for the CND-demonstration 19/9
*To promote political views
*Making a trial to a "political forum"
*A statement to get attention
*Paragraph 5.8 in handbook about options in a court (disrupt, demonstration etc)
*"Hostile attention at other launches"
*"Pressure group" (according to interviews)
"No Danger"
*No immediate danger (no threat, unarmed, Patrol until 2000)
*No missiles on board
*"In order to protect" but there where no immediate need for protection
"No Crime"
*No crime to prevent
*No dispute of facts
*Prosecution to show no lawful excuse
*Government can do what they want with NW
*They knew it was criminal (see statements)
"Unreasonable"
*Experts needed for disarmament
*The action would not disarm the submarine
*We live in a democracy
*There where other alternatives of action
*"There exist proper ways"
*This is a "waste" (trial and prison)
Examination of Prosecution Witnesses
(Some ten VSEL-Security guards and Police Officers)
Goal of examination: In trying to prove that they where mislead by superiors and lack of knowledge, which led to a wrongful arrest/imprisonment and lack of investigation of the true crime. They where not preventing a crime but simply following orders, through pure routine.
To VSEL-Security and Police Officers:
-How did we talk and behave? (Calm, following orders, threatening?)
-Why did you arrest us?
-Why do you think these persons where there?
-What orders do you have on how to treat people in the area? (Check for permission/right to be there, shooting?)
-Did you have any information on the TP2000 Campaign and the coming actions?
-Do you understand yourself as having the duty to uphold the law?
To protect human life and society?
Irrespective of nationality?
-Have you been informed on:
International law/Nuremberg?
NW-policies of Britain?
The power and effects of Trident?
Accidents/ecological destruction/etc?
Threats to other ethnic groups/national groups?
-Is it correct that you did not have any information on the legality of Trident, your obligations under the international law, the work of TP2000 or the intentions or permission of the "intruders" at VSEL - and that this lack of information or judgement is of no importance for your work or arrests of these people?
To the Police Officers:
-Is it the duty of the police to investigate alleged crimes if they are seemingly serious and motivated?
Are you aware of accusations saying Trident is illegal under international law?
Has there been any criminal investigation before we did our action?
In our action we brought with us motivated statements, even with specific paragraphs of international law, saying Trident where illegal and it was our and your obligation to disarm it - have you seen them?
Then, has there been any criminal investigation after our action, during the nine months since then?
Why not?
-You said you where sure building Trident was not a crime in England & Wales.
Is murder a crime?
Is conspiracy to commit murder a crime?
Is genocide a crime?
Are you aware of the Genocide Act?
If not then you cannot be sure Trident is not a crime in England, can you?
-If you where given such evidence you where convinced Trident was both illegal and immoral (a danger to the weak), would you still have seen it as your duty to arrest and stop us from disarming Trident?
"No case to answer!"
Your Honour there are no case to answer since the Crown has only proved we where there, intended to disarm Trident, where acting peacefully and friendly and where taking full responsibility. The security officers do not know anything about Trident, their obligations under international law or the law that says Trident is illegal. The police have revealed that there have been no investigations of the crimes alleged by us, despite that we even served a written indictment where we stated the crimes and laws. They have had nine months to do that.
Further the Crown has not even attempted, as is its legal duty, shown there was NO lawful excuse in this case. The Crown has not called any witnesses to show that Trident did NOT pose an immediate danger or constituting a crime.
It all adds up to that we have no case to answer and the trial should be closed and we should be released immediately.
Opening Speech / Defence outline
We are charged with "Conspiracy to commit criminal damage" to property belonging to VSEL/The State.
I will try to show for you members of the jury that this accusation is not correct. It was not a conspiracy. It was not criminal. And it was not damage to property. Further it did not belong to VSEL or the state.
We made a consensus decision, i.e. we all agreed on together, to try to do a lawful, moral and responsible nonviolent disarmament of a Mass-Destruction-weapon (which where something we rightly should call "anti-property") built by VSEL for the British State with resources morally belonging to the poor/starving of the world, in order to stop the further "armed robbery" of the South.
There is no dispute on:
That there where an agreement to do disarmament
That we where and still are, prepared to take full responsibility
There is on the other hand a dispute on:
If this act was justified legally or morally
The reasons behind why we did it in this practical way
I will try to show that:
1: there exists a lawful excuse, since we (only) used reasonable force in trying to prevent a crime and danger (national law defence)
2: there exist a legal right or even an obligation to prevent war crimes / genocide / crimes against humanity (international law defence)
3: Even if it was not legal (or according to the legal practice) I was trying to uphold my moral duty through breaking the (practice of the) law that is then safeguarding the injustice. If what we did was nonviolent, open, accountable and safe - then we where of no threat what so ever to life or society.
4: That our intention was not to present our political views in general, create attention as such, show disrespect for the law or property of others etc.
With my own witnessing and the giving of evidence from other witnesses I will call to this court I will show that Trident is:
*Illegal - as being a Mass-Destruction-weapon or Extermination-tool.
*Posing an immediate danger to life and society, through war, mistakes, accidents or ecological destruction.
*Immoral and unjust against the poor, a threat to the Third World, in the same way as "Armed Robbery".
*Mentally Corruptive, e.g. "Corpus Christi".
*Undemocratic, as being against the national majority in England, Scotland and Sweden (those directly involved) and, more important since they are the targets, the Global Majority.
I will show that individual brave judges as well as courts in Europe, already are saying that nonviolent disarmament of nuclear weapons are lawful and have acquitted activists doing the same thing as we.
Our "Criminal damage" was an attempt of practical disarmament of Trident. It was technically possible, nonviolent, accountable, safe and open. It was under the special circumstances (with no legal alternative, no time to wait, blocking Military/Economical powers, no political will/ability to prevent NW) a proportionate, reasonable and necessary attempt - in trying to avert immediate danger, to us, to millions of people, to the poor that hunger for justice.
Own Witnessing and Evidence I
Members of the jury, ladies and gentlemen, Your Honour -
My name is Stellan Vinthagen; I am 34 years old and a PhD-student in Peace Research. I am here today because I am accused of a crime. I have a family life, a professional carrier and friends. I would have preferred NOT to have to be risking years in prison, in a foreign country, being separated from those I love and risking loosing job and money. The last 20 years of my life has forced me to act. The people, information, documentary films and experiences have lead to certain knowledge and believes. A knowledge and reasonable belief that it was and still is an absolute necessity to disarm Trident Mass-Murder-weapons.
I grew up in a family and environment where a sense of solidarity and personal moral responsibility was emphasised. My grandfather was a professional soldier, sentenced to prison because he against order let Jews escape into Sweden, passing his border checkpoint. He was brought to a military trial, faced accusation of doing a crime and went to prison. Today we all praise people like him for their moral courage. My parents where engaged in the ecological movement. In many respect my parents where pioneers, for example my father where writing articles against nuclear power in the 1950s. I was particularly influenced through reading Gandhi and Millgram, who was an American social psychologist who studied obedience, trying to understand how it was possible that so many people where willing to aid the Nazi project. He showed through his experiment that the vast majority of people where willing to carry out orders, even if the orders where cruel and dangerous punishments of fellow human beings, even if there where no consequences of refusing (except having to leave the room), even if the only authority present was a white coat and a scientific air around the experiment leader. In many respects this social experiment provides an explanation for how it is possible for normally peaceful and kind people to become involved in projects such as building nuclear weapons and carrying out acts of genocide. I will never forget the KZ-commander who said that "I has never killed anyone. I only gave orders!"
It made me understand complicity and obedience from a new perspective. It all looks for me as a giant moral corruption, where everyone is escaping his or her moral responsibility. If some people "only obey orders", others "only give orders" while mass-murder is committed, there is no one taking responsibility and everyone can blame all evil on someone else, something else, an abstract "system". It seems still to be the normal reaction today, when talking about horrendous and systematic violations of human rights, that we blame leaders of the system who gives order. Others blame on the other hand the rank and field soldiers or workers who follow orders when doing state-organised mass-murder. By doing so, we know who is to blame, and it is never we, is it? But the simple truth must be that we all are responsible; the leaders, for giving orders, the soldiers and workers for obeying them - and you and I for not trying to stop the mass-murder!
At this time a grew up in a morally aware environment (I learned at an early age about the demands from the Third World of a so called New International Economic Order, their demands for a fair trade not dominated by the conditions of the overwhelmingly rich countries) but I must confess that I was mostly interested in football and the dream was to become professional. Anyway it did not turn out like that. I attended Swedish State schools and at the age of 18 majored in environmental protection with the intention of becoming a biologist working against environmental destruction.
In 1980 there where a turning point. I became politically active for the first time. There where a referendum in Sweden about nuclear power. I became involved in the campaign trying to remove nuclear power stations from Sweden, hoping for a success like the one when the peace movement won the battle against a Swedish nuclear bomb in the 1950s. The result was rather muddled in that out of three alternatives; the middle alternative was passed. This provided that the amount of nuclear energy in Sweden where doubled but should be phased out by 2010. Now, twenty years later, there is not one single nuclear power station that has been taken away, there are no solution on the waste problem, there are no serious efforts of development of alternative and ecological energy; and now there are talks of another referendum.It all teached me that voting, even in one single issue, does not automatically ensure democratic justice.
During this struggle I became aware of the fact that nuclear energy and nuclear weapons are twins. We would never have had the energy developed in the first place if it where not for the need for developing these mass-destruction-weapons. We would not still have them if it was not because of the continues need, as the military and political establishment say, of these mass-destruction weapons. I also learned that democratic decisions are not only a question of what the people want but more so of what kind of power structures we live under.
I took part in demonstrations against nuclear weapons in 1983 when there where about a million altogether demonstrating in Europe. In Gothenburg where I live we where 30 000, the biggest ever. I involved myself in the Red Cross and Save the Children, trying to encourage people to give from their wealth to the poor children. During my involvement I learnt that the people of the Third World live on average 20 years less than we, that the total budget of UNICEF (UN aid for children) equals what we spend on playing golf in the west. I decided to become a nurse instead of a biologist so that I could serve the sick in the poor countries. My brother and sister went to Mother Theresa in India but I did not find anywhere where I was needed, since I did only have a simple half-year education as a help-nurse. My only offer was to go to Lebanon during the civil war and I eventually decided not to go since I did not dare to risk my own life.
During this time I tried to live simple and give away all my small earnings to aid projects for children to make it possible for them to go to school and get medical attention. After some years I realised that I am not morally strong enough to give away all that I have to the poor. I started to realise that there are no individual solutions/models to global problems. We need collective action and organising. Even if a lot of individuals try to do well, there are some who do evil and terrible things; and we need to make resistance to them. That is, if we want to be able to organise support for each other in away that is not demanding on all of us to be saints.
I worked for the Swedish Peace Council, an umbrella organisation for the Swedish peace organisations, and helped organise the World Peace Congress in Copenhagen 1986. The Congress involved some thousand people and was one of the major congresses in the world that year. People from all over the world came together to try to work out ways of stopping the spread of nuclear weapons. It should be remembered that this took place at the height of the Cold War between Soviet Union and USA.
>From visiting scientists of physics, chemistry and medicine I learnt about "Nuclear Winter", the word scientists give for life after a nuclear war. An after-time when huge pollution clouds darkens the sky, little grows anymore, radiation and storms spreads around the globe. An after-time when as these scientists say: "The surviving people will envy the dead" (Members of the jury check TP2000 Handbook, Part 4.5). I also learnt about the numerous accidents that have taken place through the history of nuclear weapons, accidents that are often well documented but strangely enough few know about.
What made the biggest impression on me was meeting surviving persons from the Hiroshima nuclear bomb during World War II, the "Hibakshua". Their personal memories and suffering made an unreasonable impression on me. Their stories of burn-damaged bodies, psychological destruction from the chock and the still high level of cancer, genetic damage and deformed badies; reminded me of all the sick people I have cared for during the years I have worked at hospitals.
It became for me for the first time clear that nuclear weapons could as well be illegal! I met lawyers that where associated in an organisation against nuclear weapons. I heard about the 500 judges in West Germany that declared in an add in a morning paper that nuclear weapons where violating the international law. It was all very new and surprising for me who before had thought those nuclear weapons where just simply dangerous, immoral and a politically controversial power-tool.
What has as well profoundly impressed me has been the words I have heard from military personnel that earlier have been working on NW. If they who earlier have been commanding the weapons do not know what they talk about who would else understand? I meet a Norwegian Officer from the nuclear forces of Nato who told me about an military exercise Nato had in Norway, which lead to that he immediately left the military and stared to work for the peace movement. He told that the exercise built on a Soviet attack on northern Norway with a huge troop of soldiers and tanks. The Soviets where stronger and where invading Norway through the north. Then the Nato Officers leading the exercise decided to drop a nuclear weapon on the Soviet military - on Norwegian ground!! He was horrified; realising that they where prepared to "defend" a Nato country through bombing their own people with nuclear weapons! The other officers' motivations where that in order to win the war you have to sacrifice some people during battles. Me, being a pacifist did not even believe the military could be that cynical about their own people. In my naivety I thought that the life of people was of higher value than state-territory.
General George Lee Butler (USAF Ret., Former Commander, US Strategic Air Command, October 3, 1996) says: ".nuclear weapons are inherently dangerous, hugely expensive, military inefficient and morally indefensible."
Evidence submitted to the court: Statement issued on the 5th of December 1996 by 60 Admirals and Generals.
In 1986 I came in contact with the Ploughshares movement (which had started in US 1980). I was inspired by the Gandhian commitment to nonviolence but had learned that the efforts of the peace movement so far, after more than 50 years of struggling against the nuclear bomb had only very small progress. I was impressed by the way the plowshares activists combined a life of support of the poor (shelters and food-kitchens for the homeless), strict nonviolence against all people they met and direct disarmament of nuclear weapons where they always took responsibility for their acts by staying at the site of the peace action. It struck me as a very democratic form of action, since they respected the life even of those who prepared mass-murder, openly took responsibility and encountered everyone whom where interested into a dialogue. This dialogue did then as well involve the courts where the discussion centred on the legality or illegality of people's own nonviolent disarmament. But as well, of course, the government, as is tried in this campaign against Trident (Members of the jury check TP2000 Handbook, Part 2.7). So far, thou, the government have not been interested. But 33 MP's from Britain has instead signed a declaration of support for the work we are doing. In their view this is perfectly democratic, legal and necessary.
I was then 15 years ago and am still using traditional methods of politics as well. I am writing articles, doing demonstrations as well as research around conflict resolution, nonviolent resistance and democracy. I am doing lobbying of politicians in certain issues, writing letters and making speeches. I am conducting educational workshops and writing educational material, e.g. for nonviolent resistance in Lithuania, conflict resolution in South Africa and environmental actions in Poland. I am involved in dialogue and negotiations with different parties in conflicts, e.g. Bofors/Celsius (The main weapon exporting company in Sweden). I am
Organising conferences, e.g. a European gathering on nonviolent resistance Hope & Resistance since 1989-; and organising alternative projects like the Living and Working Community in Hammarkullen 1989-.
The peace movement has done numerous attempts to get rid of nuclear weapons. Practically all kinds of peaceful methods have been tried (Members of the jury check TP2000 Handbook, Part 1.7). It is in this historical perspective of attempts to stop nuclear weapons you must judge the reasonableness of our action. In our view it was necessary to do after 50 years of attempts with other means.
I made my first disarmament action of nuclear weapons 1986, when I together with three Germans with boltcutters and household hammers practically disarmed the missile launcher for a Pershing II mid-range nuclear weapon at a US-Nuclear Missile Base outside Stuttgart. Our act of citizen disarmament was one year later confirmed in the INF treaty, in which the superpowers USA and Soviet Union decided to disarm Pershing II. Paid and skilled workers did the disarmament in industries - obviously not an act anyone would regard as 'criminal damage'. So, I believe what we did on the 13th of September at the shipyard in Barrow, UK - carrying our household hammers on our way to the fourth Trident submarine - was simply an agreement amongst ourselves to nonviolently, safely, accountably and openly disarm the world's most powerful terrorist weapon.
This disarmament action where made in a situation where 3 000 ordinary people from all strands of life came together and made civil disobedience against nuclear weapons. The main action form was blockades. Priest where holding their sermon on the very roads at the very entrance where the nuclear weapons where transported for training or war. Ex Auswhitz prison camp members where blockading in their old striped uniforms. Elderly were blockading sitting on chairs since they did not have strength enough to sit on the road, while saying; "I was part of the complicity of Nazi Germany. I was passive then out of fear for my life. Today I will not once again be silent in the build up of organised mass-murder". I even then witnessed the first trial against one of the judges that made a blockade, dressed in their courtroom coats. It was giving a deep impression on me to see and hear one judge saying to another judge that: "We where following the letter of the law during the Nazi times, and by that did not challenge the illegality of the system. We cannot make the same mistake once again".
Also in this massive campaign in the mid-80ies in Germany there where reasonable demands put on the government on how to make the disarmament and then be able to stop the civil disobedience. They refused and said: "We do not negotiate with criminals!" But some years later when the campaign had reached 3 000 persons who promised to make at least one new action each year as long as the nuclear weapons where still there - negotiations started between the police, US-military, district level government and the activists. But a couple of months later the INF-treaty where signed. Well, to make a long story short, the final result was that the Supreme Court in Germany acquitted in 1995 all of us thousands of activists! So sometimes it only takes a few years for the very same courts to change their mind on how to understand what the law says. Today we know that in the trial I saw, back then in 1987, the judge who was charged where on the side of the law, and the judge who presided in court where on the side of illegality. Interesting, I must say.
Well, during the 80ies and 90ies I as well worked in Sweden against nuclear power stations, weapon export (e.g. cranes for Pershing nuclear weapons).
During 1988 I spent a year studying the history of nonviolent resistance at a school outside Gothenburg.
1989 I moved into a community working with nonviolent resistance and living among the poor (50 % unemployment and refugees from some 100 countries)
I travelled fairly extensive, trying to learn and make research about other movements for human rights and solidarity. For example I interviewed activists in Turkey who risked torture for refusing to take part in war and I interviewed those who dared to make nonviolent resistance against the brutal apartheid regime in South Africa, who finally against all odds liberated their country from racial oppression.
Today 13 years after 1986 I have done practical disarmament again, the question is if it is right this time also, if I should be regarded as doing the right thing, morally, politically and legally once again. Now we have no Cold War anymore and there has been a reduction of the number of nuclear weapons since then.
I would claim that yes, it was necessary and right once again. Trident is:
1) Not a step in disarmament but an escalation.
2) Not a "last resort" of defence
3) Not an "insurance against war"
4) Not a weapon but an Extermination Threat and Power Tool.
Seven reasons why Trident is an immediate danger to life and society, especially the poor:
1) Risk of deliberate limited attacks (Sub-strategic Trident). 100 000 - 1 million dead (See target list from John Ainslie)
2) Full-scale war (Strategic Trident) where only one Trident will be able to release more explosive power than the combination of all wars in human history (200 Hiroshima's)
3) World war involving e.g. Russia, US, France and China. Which will lead to Nuclear Winter or the extermination of the human race.
4) Accidents (see list compiled by Angie Zelter)
5) Dangerous misunderstandings of intelligence (e.g. radar) or communications (list of mistakes, "Broken Arrow")
6) Environmental destruction and pollution through mining, transport, nuclear reactors, warhead production, storage etc. E.g. nuclear reactor meltdown in Trident.
7) Everyday threat from Trident as a power-tool, as a pointed gun against someone's head, which secures economic domination.
Judge Weeramantry from the ICJ says in a summary, after hearing the evidence presented for the court by NW-states and Anti-NW-groups, that there are several unique effects of NWs, among them are that it like no other weapon;
Produce cancers, damage of environmental rights of future generations, deformations, mental retardation, genetic damage, destroy the food chain, imperil the Eco-system and all civilisation as such, threaten human survival, span a time range of thousands of years, threaten all life on the planet, exterminate civilian populations, damage neighbouring states. (Weeramantry, Dissenting Opinion to ICJ Advisory Opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, 8 July 1996)
The UN General Assembly says 1981 (in its "Declaration on the Prevention of Nuclear Catastrophe"):
"All the horrors of past wars and other calamities that have befallen people would pale in comparison with what is inherent in the use of nuclear weapons, capable of destroying civilisation on earth".
During the Cold War the existence of nuclear weapons where explained by the idea of the MAD-doctrine (Mutual Assured Destruction) or what was know as the "Terror-balance". When the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact ceased to exist - Nato has been expanding, the western countries have started war and now England is improving its nuclear weapons.
There has been a reduction of NW in the world but what do that mean?
We must like Nelson Mandela did when he talked to the UN General Assembly - ask ourselves ".why do they need them anyway!" There is a reason and it is not defence of life and society.
There is a link between starvation and Trident.
There is an ongoing and undeclared war against the poor:
1) 80 % of the wealth of the earth is owned by 20 % of its population
2) 20 % of the earth's population (1.2 billion) lives in "absolute poverty" - and the proportion is growing (Aid < Dept service)
3) 30 000 children dies every day because of starvation or related sickness, i.e. 11 million each year (1 every 3 sec. Or 2 times the Nazi-Holocaust)
4) The wealth of the 100 wealthiest persons could get rid of the absolute poverty and the death of these children (Possible to avoid).
= There is a ongoing and undeclared war between the absolute rich and the absolute poor.
But why this cynicism? Well, it is the only way if you do not want to share the wealth. There is a combined dilemma facing the rich of an increasing poverty among a growing poor population - and an increasing wealth among a stagnating (or even declining) rich population. The demands for justice and fair distribution of wealth are very likely to grow. The demands will become more desperate as the time passes and nothing happens. The only proper way to handle this situation is to make a radical wealth redistribution on earth.
This is not just a political question about believes or a sad fact or mistake of our world system. Nuclear weapons upholds the unjust world order that kills 30 000 children each single day. Since it is possible to prevent, this starvation and poverty is a form of structural genocide or systematic denial of basic human rights (which as well are regulated in the international law).
We have tried to avert this danger from Trident in a multiple of other ways. We are co-operating with the Trident Ploughshares 2000 Campaign in which some 100 people like we have pledged, openly in press-conferences and letters to the government and military, to start the disarmament of Trident if the government do not promise to do that by the year 2000. We work in co-operation with a global network of peace-, environmental- and solidarity groups trying to get nuclear weapons disarmed. In the international network Abolition 2000 there are over 1 200 other organisations from some 90 countries, among them 11 Noble Peace Laureates (by March 1999).
Own Witnessing and Evidence II
For the court 990510:
Summary of the last witnessing
Illegal to threaten with Trident
Evidence submitted to the court: Letter from Lord Advocat of Scotland, Murray.
Vengeance is a Mass-Murder threat, in its very nature (400 Hiroshima's) and in its use as threat against Third World countries (protecting political and economical interests) On this matter I have been deeply impressed by the writings of Prof. Paul Rogers and the researcher Milan Rai.
1) There is an extreme unequal wealth distribution, a world with absolute poverty together with absolute wealth
2) Britain is strongly dependent on trade (its foreign investments is equal to the combined of France, Germany and Italy)
3) SDR produced by the Labour Government clearly states that Trident is suppose to secure interests of some 300 Billion £ by the threat/use of "warning shots" on non-nuclear states (the Rifkind Doctrine). The same goes for the use Nato and EC (its WEO) This should be understood as a permanent threat.
4) There exist of course a difficulty to document these cases but there is no lack of well-known examples. Example: Iraq 1990-91 concerning the oil in Kuwait with official reason to stop the invasion of Kuwait by the Iraqi's. There where leaked hints to the press (e.g. Daily Mail), public statements (e.g. by PM John Mayor), private warnings (a 200 page plan shown for Iraq was revealed by a Swedish Major) and actual deployment (by something between 8 to 16 nuclear weapons). The result of the conventional war backed up by NW was that the oil remained in the control of British interest and Iraq has since then been harassed because of its assumed possession of NW by those we know have NW and for sure have it tens, hundreds and thousands times more.
1961 Iraq was threaten when not prepared to accept the independence of Kuwait. NW from Britain where deployed at Malta (Aircraft carrier) and at the Gulf (V-Bomber). It has as well been used as a threat at Guatemala 1972 and Argentina 1982. In all these cases Britain itself has never been threaten! And no mass-murder where present as a threat to other states in these occasions except in Iraq 1991.
5) Clearly illegal according to international law: ICJ Part 47: "There is no distinction in law between threat and use" and further "Thus it would be illegal for a state to threaten force to secure territory from another state, or to cause it to follow or not to follow certain political or economical paths".
See Handbook Part 4.6 on the illegality of nuclear weapons.
Brave judges as well as courts in Europe are already saying that nonviolent disarmament of nuclear weapons are lawful and have acquitted activists doing the same thing as we. See Handbook on Part 5.7
= Vengeance is a crime,
At least in its use as threat
Our disarmament action is done in co-operation with the Trident Ploughshares 2000 Campaign. Its handbook is part of the evidence from the Crown. Members of the Jury, if you check on Part 1, you will find an outline of the campaign and it's motivations.
In our entire attempt to disarm Trident we had taken all reasonable caution to be able to do it proper and safe (Members of the jury check TP2000 Handbook, Part 3). We had a map of the complete interior of the submarine (See Part 3.2) so that we knew what to disarm safely. We had decided to disarm the tracks on where the submarine would be rolled out a week later on the day of the public launch. If we would have reached the submarine we had agreed on disarming the front part, which have weaker material because of radio communication or the communication equipment on the tower. If we would have reached the interior of the submarine we in the same way had already decided on where to disarm, and most importantly where we would NOT disarm. We knew that the submarine where not already equipped with nuclear weapons but still we avoided to do anything to missile tubes. We also avoided the rear altogether since that is where the nuclear reactor is.
We had decided to make a decisive amount of practical disarmament to make sure the submarine would not be able to launch nuclear weapons. Yet we are aware that what we do can in some time be repaired if we are not understood and therefore our action would mainly be symbolic. We are just three ordinary citizens, and we can only do so much. But that is fine, it should not be possible for a small group to enforce their own views on others. We need a democratic dialogue and decision where we together realise the illegality and destructive nature of nuclear weapons. Our aim has been to practically do what we are able to do and by that as well inspire others to follow our example and challenge the powers that uphold this injustice.
In our preparation we have made all our decisions by consensus and have had extensive preparation meetings since May 1998 (Members of the jury check TP2000 Handbook, Part 2.6.1 - 2.6.6). In this preparation the practical planning has only been a minor problem. Our real problem has been and still is; how can we be able to dare to make such a thing? Our solution has been to create as much support as possible. We have received a lot of support from people in Sweden, England and other countries. During our prison time we got more than 1 000 letters of support and 100 visits. After our release from the last trial, when a part of the jury-members where convinced it might be possible that we acted legally, we have met up with a few of these supporters. We have received support from Catholic Priests, Trade union organisers, Buddhist nuns, ex-prisoners, prison wardens, feminists and a lot of others.
Nonviolence and Safety Guidelines govern our group and the Campaign against Trident, see Part 2:3 in the Handbook.
If we would have reached the submarine
*We would have prevented an ongoing and serious crime against humanity and the peace (under International law, National British law and moral principles) *and we would have taken away 25 % of the NW-capacity of Britain (which would have lead to less risk of accidents, mistakes, war, ecological destruction and threats to people - i.e. a reduced immediate danger of an amount bigger than what was used during W.W.II!)
Not bad for three normal citizens trying to take responsibility!
Request for calling witnesses
With respect Your Honour, the ruling made on our defence build on several incorrect assumptions on the nature of our defence.
If I could call witnesses and show evidence on following areas I can prove our innocence (I have several willing and alternative witnesses to call when allowed to. I therefore do not call them now by name).
There are nine elements as far as I can see that are needed to be proven to show that we are not guilty of any crime. Probably each one of them is enough to convince of our innocence.
Your Honour I request the right to call witnesses in order to prove;
1) All reasonable alternative means of averting the danger or crime where exhausted or shown not enough. Lobbying, information, demonstration etc. Criminal investigations and court rulings. Party-work, reforms of programs and forming of new parties. Media contacts. Negotiations.
2) How the ploughshares movement we are part of is trying to uphold the law, stop crimes against humanity and support the poor, on an global scale AND how it at similar occasions have played a role in preventing crimes effectively.
3) How we are trying to uphold our obligation under the Nuremberg Principles and how the threat and use of Trident are/would be illegal under international law. Rifkind doctrine and its implementation. The doctrines of First use or Flexible response. First strike policy and capability. Factual evidence on how Britain deploys Trident.
4) How breaches of international law have legal force in Britain, when it concern Tridents use as threat.
5) How Trident or nuclear weapons are used by UK armed forces in specific occasions to threaten countries in the third world in order to force them into obedience in accordance with British economic and political interests (Nato/WEO).
6) The immediacy, permanence and catastrophic dimensions of the danger which Trident pose as being part of certain parts of British defence policy. Mistaken judgements, accidents, ecological destruction and nuclear war. How the level of the risk is higher now then before.
7) How the securing of British commercial "vital interests" obstructs Third World development in these cases of criminal threat from nuclear weapons.
8) How these criminal threats/forms of use of Trident is both made possible through the way Trident is technically constructed at VSEL, and how the intended threat/use in fact is part of deciding how the submarine is constructed. First strike capacity. Sub-strategic capacity. Strategic capacity.
9) That it was practically possible to start disarmament of Trident with hammers and that the disarmament would in fact avert the crime and danger posed by Trident.
Questions to our witness Judge B. Hahnfeld
Final Speech
HIROSHIMA
140 000 dead
His Honour said we all know - Do we?
If - really - we would fight every day against the threat posed to our children
Hiroshima was not only an explosion hotter than the sun that made beautiful houses flat and human bodies to steam,
But miles away, glass-windows where flying in the air, firestorms hunting the ground - which lead to burn-damages in thousands (where modern hospitals manage to take care of some 5-10 burnt patients each.)
Hiroshima means decades of silent, invisible, tasteless radiation that poison thousands of our fellow human beings, the children born today 50 years later.
I have met survivors.
I
Do not understand; do not know what Hiroshima really stands for
I try to forget and close my eyes
If
We really understood, we would not support, pay taxes for or be passive in our acceptance of the construction and threat of 400 Hiroshima's - the Mass-Murder-Machine Trident.
If
We really understood we would understand its criminal nature, its threat to the very idea of society and humankind
Having said all this I still think that we DO understand (deep inside)
But we are too afraid or isolated to confess it
We dare not see, we lie to ourselves - and turn Blind
We dare not take responsibility, cant take the burden of the consequences, follow orders and does our individual job and nurture our own home of safety - so we turn Obedient
Blind Obedience
Is our real enemy, which makes production of mass-murder-tools possible,
It turns the absurd, unthinkable nature of mutual assured destruction into the logical and natural world order of today.
The worst horrors in history; the Nazi-Holocaust concentration camps, the Soviet Gulag prison camps and the Capitalist Slavery Colonialism which each of them lead to the death and suffering of millions
- they are no sudden explosions of evil or chaos,
but effective, well organised, planned by government administrations,
carried out by state officers,
built and run by ordinary workers,
in blind obedience, to their culture, state, law,
taken for granted at the time,
seen as abnormal or sick afterwards, by us from a distance
and every surviving culture has said the same: "Never again! We are different!"
These horrors of history and of blind obedience are indeed abnormal and sick,
But dismissing them as a result from abnormal or sick people, makes us loose the truth,
The truth that it always was ordinary citizens, who run it in an everyday life,
That it was possible through Blind Obedience
That it was possible through the lack of responsibility for each other
The lack of honesty towards ourselves of the true nature of what we do
It is an everyday-effective mass-murder - an undeclared war between the rich and the poor. Nuclear weapons are a central part of our self-deceptive lies trying to hold on to possessions that are in fact not ours.
Despite maybe having good motives World War II forced us to develop the nuclear bomb. Then the enemy was fascism. Despite maybe having good motives the Cold War forced us into an arms race and an insane safety correctly called "MAD" (Mutual Assured Destruction). Then the enemy was communism.
Now, living in the time after the Cold War, with no obvious enemy and no reasons to keep nuclear weapons, we still keep enough to destroy the world several times, several thousands of nuclear bombs. Today when even the military is saying there are no enemy threatening us anymore, we want to keep the nuclear bomb among us.
The obvious question pressing upon us is - why do we still keep them? Have we grown used to the illusionary safety of mass-destruction weapons? Have peace finally become the mutual threat of extermination?
My simple point is that the plain possession of the nuclear bomb makes all good intentions without serious meaning, since having the bomb changes us as a person and the culture our society. Threatening our brothers and sisters becomes a way of life. The threat of mass-destruction, of extermination of another society's life, culture and existence (in the same way as a pointed gun against somebody's head is a way of using that gun during a robbery)
If the gun happens to be the strongest gun in the world then the mere threat probably is the most effective use of the gun. If we are the ones protected of the nuclear weapon-gun we might get a feeling of security, especially if during a long time the pointed gun has not harmed us. We just do not see the desperate hate growing among the excluded and threatened, how hatred is inherited from generation to generation, in refugee camps, in daily hopeless poverty. How they are hold down by our threat.
The means to destroy have taken control over us. Destruction has become our source of pride, community and safety. Evil possesses us. We where fighting against Nazi-extermination camps and ended up protecting ourselves with flying extermination-tools. We where fighting against Soviet Gulag-prison camps and ended up on an earth imprisoned by "mutual assured destruction" - or in plain English, the danger of the extinction of humanity.
We have, in the words of Gandhi, conquered Hitler with Hitlerism.
The bomb creates victims and villains, their roles and their mentalities. All are losers. You loose your life or you lose your humanity. It creates a vicious circle that possesses all of us which need to be broken. The dignity of people is destroyed and we start to lie to ourselves and others. Nuclear missiles becomes "Peace Keepers". The threat to kill the whole world becomes "Defence". Naming a US-Trident submarine "Corpus Christi", the body of Christ. We are murdering for life and creating terror threats for "Justice" and "Truth". Committing Genocide for "Democracy".
War becomes Peace Keeping and Nonviolent Disarmament of weapons of Mass-Destruction becomes "Conspiracy to commit Criminal Damage".
Members of the jury, Your Honour;
On the 13th of September 1998 we tried to practically disarm the Extermination-tool Trident Vengence. Our act of responsibility led us to 6 months in prison and to this trial. I am not happy being in this trial but I see it as important since we now has a possibility to find out if nonviolent disarmament of NW are legal or not.
I do believe sincerely and honest that what we did was not only morally and politically justified, but as well legal, according to laws valid here in Britain.
We have presented a judicial defence and a moral-political defence.
A) Judicial Defence
International law:
We have shown that the use and threat of Trident is illegal according to international law. For me as a pacifist I am against all kinds of use of weapons. But that is not why I think you should agree with me that we where justified. I am aware that pacifists are a small minority. But I do believe that NW probably are illegal in them selves, purely from the fact of its mass-destruction character. On the other hand I am, after carefully studying the subject, certain that the threat and use of nuclear weapons are illegal. 500 judges in Germany said so. 20 of them had the courage to risk their professional future by blockading NW-exercises, which lead them to court, in the same way as we stand in front of you today. They where sentenced as where over 3000 others from other strands of society. 1995 they where all, like me, acquitted in the Supreme Court in Germany. 1996 declared ICJ that the use and threat of NW where (in general) illegal. Acquittals have since then happened in courts in Scotland, Belgium and Germany.
The law is (basically) the same during this period of 1980-1999. The law is binding on all states and citizens. But courts and judges have different views. Not all courts and judges have the courage to live with the moral and political consequences to say that disarmament is legal and NW illegal. Instead they say, "I can't believe that the Government can do crimes. They are the ones who make the law"
In Amtsgericht in Stuttgart peace workers where accused of jointly committing property damage to a NW-installation, i.e. a similar case to ours. On October 28th 1996 Judge Wolf is acquitting all of them saying, "The court shares this view about the illegality of nuclear armaments under public international law".
National British law
We did have a "lawful excuse" and since it is enough to be found not guilty according to the law we are accused of breaking, we have in fact not been breaking that law at all.
We had a genuine and honest belief that we where preventing a crime and danger.
The danger was immediate, massive (threatening the lives of thousands or millions of persons) and permanent (could happen at any time)
It was practically possible to prevent the crime and danger, if we would not have been arrested (at an early stage), i.e. it was not simply a demonstration.
It was reasonable since there where no alternative (Negotiations and criminal charging of the government had not been taken serious) and the danger imminent (it would have been to later after!)
It was a proportionate act since it was nonviolent, open, accountable and safe; i.e. there was no threat to society or life.
The Crown has only proved we where there, intended to disarm Trident, where acting peacefully and friendly and where taking full responsibility. The security officers do not know anything about Trident or the law that says we where acting legally and that Trident are illegal. The police have revealed that there have been no investigations of the crimes alleged by us, despite that we even served a written indictment where we stated the crimes and laws.
Further the Crown has not even attempted, as is its legal duty, shown there was NO lawful excuse in this case. The Crown has not called any witnesses to show that Trident did NOT pose an immediate danger or constituting a crime.
Members of the jury, you should be clear about that our evidence of the crime that Trident pose was decided by this court something for you not to see. You where then not able to hear evidence of specific occasions of criminal threat with Trident in breach of International Law. This evidence should have been brought forward to you to judge its validity by e.g. Professor Paul Rogers from Bradford Peace Studies, a Commander of the UK Air Force and Navy, an engineer who where part of constructing Trident for 30 years and the Lord Advocat of Scotland.
His Honour will tell you the law when directing you. He will try to do that despite the complicated matters present in this case. It is the first time the ICJ-Opinion is tested in a Crown Court in England; an Opinion made by the highest court in the world and which took ICJ a long time of looking into evidence from several experts.
I am convinced His Honour will make an honest interpretation of the laws and I wish him the courage and integrity to disregard the reactions from political-economical and military powers when directing you.
BUT - Members of the jury, whatever His Honour says, YOU are the centre of the court and the verdict. You are the moral voice of the people - The Moral Judges, deciding supremely on what facts or evidence that counts.
In the words of the Crown from her opening speech; You need to be absolutely SURE we did NOT have lawful excuse to find us guilty. If you have the slightest doubt, that we maybe had a lawful excuse, you have to find us not guilty. (That does not mean you have to agree with us, it is the POSSIBILITY of an excuse that counts).
The law supports us - courts might or might not. The law, courts understanding of the law and democracy are in a permanent historical change. The Ancient democracy in Greece where only for the free men (not for slaves or women). The 19-century democracy for only for the rich (the others had no right to vote). Peoples movement mobilised the excluded, e.g. suffragettes, anti-slavery, workers movement, the movement for free-religion who by a combination of lobbying, using law and breaking unjust laws. They gave women, slaves and workers greater freedom and rights. Today the Global Majority is excluded.
Martin Luther King used nonviolent resistance against discrimination of black people and Mahatma Gandhi used it against the colonial rule of India. They both succeeded to liberate their people.
The Ploughshares movement is a part of the tradition of nonviolent and responsible resistance. The Crown has in all these cases been on the wrong side and is threatening us like the ones before us with years in prison, why?
B) Moral Defence
We have as well a moral defence in where we say even IF there would not exist any legal right for us to disarm Trident, it does exist a Moral Duty to protect our brothers and sisters from mass-murder. It is simply to urgent and to important to be just a question of formal law. Sometimes the law lags behind the moral demands of society and its people.
We do NOT advocate a disrespect of the law. There is a need for a justification or excuse from the circumstances to say that - yes, this is something right to do. There does not exist any automatic duty to follow or break a certain law, to be obedient or disobedient. This principle is even accepted in the law itself, formulated in the Nuremberg Principles and the Tokyo Tribunal (where it is said there exist a duty on citizens to make resistance against their own government when it takes part in crimes against humanity or the peace). We need to make a moral judgement from case to case. But that moral judgement can't be made by us or by any individual citizen. That is why you are sitting here in this court - You are the moral judges.
The judicial system is a rule-system that exists to protect the needs of society and life; i.e. the law is built on a moral legitimisation from the start until the end.
The legal role of the jury is to be the moral judges. There is a reason why the court consists of ordinary citizens like you. It is because there is suggested that we need a non-judicial judgement or decision, a moral voice that cares for the basic interests of law (the needs of society and individuals). It all means that for the judicial system to be just and fair, to be judicially moral, it needs the non-judicial judgement, morality. You are in the court to safeguard from the greatest of injustice, from extreme misjudgements - to prevent us from those laws, prosecutors or judges who threatens the moral ground of society.
There will be NO explanation or motivation asked from you Members of the jury when you give your judgement. The jury in Liverpool Crown Court had the courage to acquit the ploughshares after disarming an aeroplane going to war in Indonesia.
I refuse to believe that;
-the end of the world/humanity
-mass-murder of millions
-poisoning of our children
-global starvation/poverty
could be LEGAL!
If you Members of the jury would declare us guilty you would legalise mass-murder ad criminalise hope and future.
I am firmly convinced that NW are;
-illegal extermination tools
-immoral threats against the 30 000 children dying of starvation each day
-corruptive
-dangerous
-undemocratic
Which justifies practical disarmament
Members of the jury,
I will finish of by saying that you do not have to agree with us on everything, it is basically a question if you think we MAYBE have right, which would need you to say we are not guilty and which would make you giving justice and peace a chance.
