Nun, 83, faces ‘life’ sentence in US after nuclear protest

[sps49]

The protestors would have passed a “Deadly Force Is Authorized” sign on their way in. The authorization is law, described by 10 CFR 1047.

10 CFR 1047.7:

gpo.gov/fdsys/search/pagedetails.action?collectionCode=CFR&searchPath=Title+10%2FChapter+X%2FPart+1047&granuleId=CFR-2012-title10-vol4-part1047&packageId=CFR-2012-title10-vol4&oldPath=Title+10%2FChapter+X%2FPart+1047&fromPageDetails=true&collapse=true&ycord=1330

This section describes the conditions and application of deadly force, which the protestors exposed themselves to when they entered the area illegally. Note that it does not mean “shoot or baton on sight.” It does mean that they are placing themselves in grave danger. If an additional set of conditions were present, such as a security drill, power outage, or some other event forced the protective force to divide their attention, it could have gone very badly for all parties.

Although I support peaceful protest, I see this this as an irresponsible act on the whole due to the danger the protestors exposed themselves and the protective force to. These are some of the facts that the judge will consider when considering sentencing.

 

[Tsuwano]

There are consequences for one’s actions. She shouldn’t be treated differently simply because she is old or because she is a nun.

Peace

Tim

Nonsense! Approaching the law without considering extenuating circumstances is to make an idol of the law. The law is not an end in itself. It is a means of acheiving justice. Locking up an 83 year old for life for the little harm she has done, does not bring about justice. It simply makes the law cruel.

 

[Tsuwano]

Buddhism is agnostic with regards to God. In my opinion it’s closer to a philosophy than a religion so you can be a Christian Buddhist without any contradiction.

Buddhism as a philosophy may be agnostic, but Buddhism as practiced by most of its adherants is not agnostic at all. It is very much theistic. Most Buddhists I know, and I know many, do believe in a God (or even more than one) and pray to him, but do not see this as a contradition of Buddhism.

 

[Havard]

Nonsense! Approaching the law without considering extenuating circumstances is to make an idol of the law. The law is not an end in itself. It is a means of acheiving justice. Locking up an 83 year old for life for the little harm she has done, does not bring about justice. It simply makes the law cruel.

I’d be fine with just house arrest with a locator. She’s made it clear that she’s non-repentant, and after having done this sort of thing for 30+ years, she’s not likely to change her mind, so the only consideration in my mind is preventing her from doing it again. It’s not just good for the parties whose property she might trespass or vandalize, it’s good for her own safety.

 

[Tsuwano]

**I don’t have the desire to spend my days in a jail cell, so I follow the law.

Just this last Saturday, I followed the law AND my religion,
and peacefully joined thousands of others protesting abortions in
the Pro-Life West Coast “Walk for Life”.

It IS possible to protest while you follow the law.
Sister should have remembered the old adage…
" If you can’t do the time, don’t do the crime… " **

Well, I have no doubt the Sisters are willing to do the time. Their motives and willingness to suffer for their cause, which they believe to be just, is not in question. The question is whether the penalty proscribed is just. The Sisters are willing to endure an unjust penalty because they believe the possession and production of nuclear weapons goes against the will of God. I would submit that imposing an unjust penalty is also against the will of God. If a law is unjust, then it is permissable to break that law to oppose it. For a Black man to sit at a Woolworth’s counter in South Carolina in the 1950’s was to break the law. It was an unjust law, and in order to oppose that law, it was permissable to ignore it.

 

[april32010]

Nonsense! Approaching the law without considering extenuating circumstances is to make an idol of the law. The law is not an end in itself. It is a means of acheiving justice. Locking up an 83 year old for life for the little harm she has done, does not bring about justice. It simply makes the law cruel.

the law was made for man,man wasn’t made for the law

 

[Tsuwano]

I’d be fine with just house arrest with a locator. She’s made it clear that she’s non-repentant, and after having done this sort of thing for 30+ years, she’s not likely to change her mind, so the only consideration in my mind is preventing her from doing it again. It’s not just good for the parties whose property she might trespass or vandalize, it’s good for her own safety.

After 30 years of protesting nuclear weapons, I doubt the good sister will allow house arrest and a locator to keep her from what she feels is a call to implement justice. I’m fairly sure she knows what the inside of a jail cell looks like. I also don’t think the sister gives two hoots about what you or anyone else thinks about what is good for her safety. It’s also fair to assume that the sister will continue her protests against these nuclear weapon storage sites if released from custody. She certainly doesn’t repent her actions and that begs the question, why. Could it possibly be that she has a point? Could it actually be against the will of God to create and store such weapons of mass destruction?

 

[Pax2u]

Used to be involved in the peace movement…my experiences were that those involved did not extend their ideas of preserving life to the unborn. Abortion was an issue they wouldn’t touch…it was all about the injustice of weapons of mass destruction…abortion was never brought into the equation as being a mass destruction just as evil to innocent people. It left a bad taste in my mouth, and I moved on.

 

[RPRPsych]

I’m pretty sure it’s not that simple. Much as I tend to be a black and white sort of guy, I’m REALLY glad I’ve never been in a position to make such a decision. By deciding to drop the bomb, tens of thousands died, including innocent women and children. But what such critics tend to ignore is the reality of the situation in Japan at the time of surrender. Japan cannot feed itself on home island agriculture and its shipping fleet had been obliterated by 1945. Massive and I mean MASSIVE shipments of food and cold weather gear by occupying US forces is all that prevented hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians from dying of hunger and exposure the winter following the surrender. Examination of Japanese military records indicates that the command was willing to put the Japanese population through that ordeal in order to buy time for additional weapons development and production which they hoped would allow them to negotiate a favorable armistice. Arguably, the use of atomic weapons greatly reduced the number of deaths of American and Japanese military AND civilian casualties that would have resulted from the war dragging through another winter.

We must not do evil that good may come. It’s true that God permitted this evil for reasons best known to Him; but if you use this kind of logic, you might end up justifying the Holocaust or the Communist purges. (And it’s also arguable, as some historians have commented, that the real point of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was to send a message to Russia - and we all know what happened next.)

While I can’t defend the decision to drop the bomb via my understanding of catholic moral theology,

What other grounds are there for defending it?

I’m not prepared to condemn those who did what they judged to be necessary to end the war and get the killing stopped sooner rather than later.

None of us have to condemn people; we can only comment on actions. The final judgement of people is reserved to God.

And let’s not forget that nukes haven’t been used in war since then. That’s actually a pretty impressive achievement for humanity!

The ends do not justify the means. And human history is far from over.

 

[RPRPsych]

http://www.crmvet.org/crmpics/bham3a.jpg

Pardon my ignorance, but what’s the photo depicting?

 

[april32010]

Pardon my ignorance, but what’s the photo depicting?

someone following their conscience being arrested for not obeying the law regarding private property.she sat down at a lunch counter

 

[RPRPsych]

someone following their conscience being arrested for not obeying the law regarding private property.she sat down at a lunch counter

Well, maybe it’s my nationality, but I have no issues with passive resistance.

However, entering a high-security facility without authorization, and spilling children’s blood (where did it come from?) is both wrong and creepy. If they’d protested outside the military plant, that would be another issue altogether. There are many ways to send a message; this one wasn’t appropriate.

 

[Cojuanco]

Ends don’t justify the means. Killing civilians should never be done on purpose.

Breaking the law was part of the protest as is her imprisonment. I’m guessing she knew what she was getting into. I wish I was as brave as her.

Right. I do think the sentence was overkill. A few months, a year at my most heartless. But nine years in the federal lockup for vandalism? Completely excessive.

 

[Havard]

After 30 years of protesting nuclear weapons, I doubt the good sister will allow house arrest and a locator to keep her from what she feels is a call to implement justice. I’m fairly sure she knows what the inside of a jail cell looks like. I also don’t think the sister gives two hoots about what you or anyone else thinks about what is good for her safety. It’s also fair to assume that the sister will continue her protests against these nuclear weapon storage sites if released from custody. She certainly doesn’t repent her actions and that begs the question, why. Could it possibly be that she has a point? Could it actually be against the will of God to create and store such weapons of mass destruction?

I believe the point is lost on all parties due to such people’s actions, as is the case with anyone who uses such measures. E.g. people who would break, enter, and spray blood all over abortionist’s clinics are right that abortion is murder, but that doesn’t legitimize their actions either, and if anything, it hurts the cause.

Used to be involved in the peace movement…my experiences were that those involved did not extend their ideas of preserving life to the unborn. Abortion was an issue they wouldn’t touch…it was all about the injustice of weapons of mass destruction…abortion was never brought into the equation as being a mass destruction just as evil to innocent people. It left a bad taste in my mouth, and I moved on.

I see this as well. It’s sad that people cherry-pick their justice causes. *All *life is sacred.

 

[JimG]

I’d feel better about the whole thing if they had also protested in Russia against the new generation of Russian ICBM’s. A deliberately weakened U.S. deterrent force makes war more likely.

 

[Cojuanco]

Pardon my ignorance, but what’s the photo depicting?

A woman who defied laws in the southern part of the United States that mandated that restaurants be segregated based on race, by being a black woman who sat down in the section of the restaurant reserved for whites.

 

[maryjk]

someone following their conscience being arrested for not obeying the law regarding private property.she sat down at a lunch counter

And as RPRPsych, that would be totally different from breaking into a government facility and spraying human blood around.

Want to protest, go for it. Not a problem. But what the nun did was not a simply protest.

 

[pnewton]

It was an unjust law, and in order to oppose that law, it was permissable to ignore it.

What was an unjust law? Is it unjust to prohibit trespass and vandalism? That is the law she broke and that is what she is being tried for. Unless on can say that any person has a right to trespass and vandalize the property of another, as per the Golden Rule, then the law is just.

I do not know if what I see is a failure of logic or a failure of understanding English, but the section of the Catechism that is being quoted does not apply here. The section does not “oblige her to act”. It is a negative admonishment, not a positive one.

The citizen is obliged in conscience** not**

to follow the directives of civil authorities when they are contrary to the demands of the moral order, to the fundamental rights of persons or the teachings of the Gospel.** Refusing** obedience to civil authorities, when their demands are contrary to those of an upright conscience, finds its justification in the distinction between serving God and serving the political community. “

A person is **not **required to follow an unjust law. To turn this around as a mandate to act is not only a logic error, it is also vigilantism. I can’t kill an abortionist or burn down a drug store that sells contraception based on this. The nun cannot use this to justify her criminal activity.

That being said, I would hope that her age will play a mitigating role in her sentence.

 

[RPRPsych]

A woman who defied laws in the southern part of the United States that mandated that restaurants be segregated based on race, by being a black woman who sat down in the section of the restaurant reserved for whites.

That was an unjust law: segregation based on race is immoral.

She sat down and resisted passively, but didn’t spray “CIVIL RIGHTS OK” using her fellow men’s blood on the wall. I’m perfectly all right with that.

 

[Tsuwano]

I believe the point is lost on all parties due to such people’s actions, as is the case with anyone who uses such measures. E.g. people who would break, enter, and spray blood all over abortionist’s clinics are right that abortion is murder, but that doesn’t legitimize their actions either, and if anything, it hurts the cause.

I see this as well. It’s sad that people cherry-pick their justice causes. *All *life is sacred.

Don’t get me wrong. I agree with you on this. I also think the point is lost on most people due to the nature of the act. I don’t necessarily think the sister’s actions are legitimate, but neither do I think we should simply ignore the reasons she is acting. Her actions are primarily theater. She is raising a question which I think is worth reflecting on. In addition, I don’t think any penalty given to her will pursuade her to refrain from her actions

I agree that all life is sacred. I feel sure the sisters involved in the action above feel the same.