Posted on 06/07/2007 5:33:50 PM PDT by SandRat
TUCSON — After a short, spirited exchange between a Jesuit priest and a federal judge, the score was Judge 1, Priest 0.
On Wednesday, the Rev. Stephen Kelly wanted federal magistrate Judge Héctor Estrada to allow him to represent himself in an upcoming trial where the Jesuit is accused of trespassing on Fort Huachuca in November, along with Franciscan the Rev. Louis Vitale. The pair also were charged with disobeying an order of an Arizona law enforcement officer.
Estrada was willing to listen to Kelly outline his qualifications to represent himself, but when the judge asked the priest to stand and take an oath, the Jesuit declined.
“It’s against my faith,” Kelly told the judge.
A look of concern came over the judge’s face, leading him to again ask the priest to stand and take the oath.
Kelly responded he had a microphone at the desk and saw no reason to stand and take an oath, although he was willing to affirm he would tell the truth while sitting.
“I’ve asked you to stand,” Estrada said. “I would not treat you any different (from anyone else appearing in his court).”
Kelly refused again.
“Are you going to stand?” Estrada asked the priest one more time.
This time Kelly did not answer but remained sitting, letting that posture be his response.
“I’m not going to negotiate with you,” the judge sternly said.
As Kelly remained sitting — something he and Vitale did, although everyone else rose when the judge entered his courtroom — the judge said “this matter is closed.” The pair also did not stand when Estrada left the bench, although everyone else in the courtroom did.
Estrada had already assigned a public defender to assist Kelly.
Kelly then started talking loudly, leading the judge to tell him to be silent.
With a number of U.S. marshals in the courtroom, Estrada told Kelly that he would be taken into custody if he did not quiet down.
Picks Vitale’s attorney
Then sheepishly, the priest said, “I’m asking Mr. Quigley to be the (his) attorney.”
William Quigley represents Vitale, and the judge asked the defense attorney if he thought there could be a conflict of interest representing both men in light of a newspaper article in which the Franciscan said he expected to be arrested by attempting to enter Fort Huachuca property.
That could be used by the prosecution to connect Kelly to Vitale in the trespass action, the judge said.
Quigley said he doesn’t see a conflict and will represent both priests.
Again turning his comments to Kelly, the judge emphasized that since he did not authorize the priest to represent himself, “you will not be allowed to make an opening statement,” as he could if he were acting as his own lawyer.
The judge set Aug. 13 and 14 for the next hearing to listen to a number of motions filed by prosecution and defense.
An issue facing Estrada is whether he will allow a jury trial that the defense wants and the prosecution has no complaints about allowing.
The judge said he is still researching if he can approve a jury, in light of the law concerning misdemeanors that allows a judge only to hear evidence and render a verdict.
After the hearing was over, Kelly said he was “severely disappointed” he could not represent himself, but he is hoping the judge will reconsider his decision.
Was not disrespectful
“I was not being disrespectful,” the Jesuit said, adding the direction of the defense, he, Vitale and the attorney, “is to put torture on trial.”
Later Wednesday afternoon, Kelly and five supporters drove to Sierra Vista, where they gathered across the street from the fort’s main entrance carrying signs saying “No to torture” and “Torture on trial.”
For four years, protesters, mostly from the Tucson area, have traveled to Sierra Vista to rally against the Intelligence Center by standing across the street from the post’s Main Gate.
Last year was the first time anyone of the protesters tried to enter the fort without approval, and only Kelly and Vitale are accused of doing so.
They carried a letter addressed to Maj. Gen. Barbara Fast, the Intelligence Center and fort commander, which the priests said they wanted to hand deliver.
They also sought to be allowed to talk to soldiers. Both requests were denied, and they were taken into custody, charged and released on their own recognizance.
Kelly, Vitale and their supporters contend the trespassing and disobeying counts are basically insignificant misdemeanor charges, with them alluding at the time they were taken into custody they were not on post property but which fort officials claim is not true. The priests face a maximum of 10 months confinement if convicted of both charges. Both have served prison terms for other acts of civil disobedience.
Focused on the fort
Fort Huachuca and the Intelligence Center is the focal point of the priests’ defense because of their allegations of torture being taught on the post.
“We are here to put torture on trial,” Kelly said in the corridor outside the courtroom after the hearing.
However, the government’s team, under the guidance of Army Capt. Evan Seamone, who is the fort’s military prosecutor, and U.S. Attorney Daniel G. Knauss filed a motion to preclude the two priests and their attorney from introducing evidence by raising “the morality or immorality of the government’s use of interrogation techniques; training of soldiers in such techniques; the legality of Operation Iraqi Freedom (the campaign in Iraq), Operation Enduring Freedom (the campaign in Afghanistan), or other operations to support interrogations in foreign countries; the legality of the Military Commission Act of 2006 … the application of the defense of international law; or the wisdom of any political question or government policy as an attempt to establish the defense of justification.”
Quigley, director of the law clinic at Loyola University in New Orleans, said the prosecution is trying to eliminate part of the defense that is germane to the actions of the priests last November.
One of the issues the defense wants to argue is that the actions of the two priests had a higher interest, which is to bring before the court that the United States condones torture and is using the military to do it under the guise of interrogation.
The defense, Quigley said, must be allowed to bring in everything the government is trying to eliminate.
After the hearing, a number of the priests’ supporters who were in the courtroom were in the corridor and began singing “We shall overcome” until a court official asked them to disburse and leave the courthouse’s third floor and go to the first floor, which the group did.
Before the hearing began, nearly 60 supporters gathered outside the federal courthouse and held a combination prayer meeting, protest demonstration and political rally.
Retired colonel concerned
One of the participants, outside and inside was retired Army Reserve Col. Ann Wright.
Regardless of what Fort Huachuca officials say, any type of coercion to obtain information is torture, she said.
Putting a hood over a prisoner’s head for long periods of time as part of sensory deprivation is torture, “just as much as using thumb screws,” Wright said.
Fort officials have continuously denied that torture is taught on post.
Wright served as deputy ambassador in Mongolia and Afghanistan, and she said she finally resigned in protest in 2003, just before the United States attacked Iraq.
During her time in Afghanistan, when she helped reopen the U.S. Embassy in Kabul, Wright said she was remiss by not checking on the status of prisoners being held by Americans.
If she had, she would have seen firsthand what kind of torture was big applied, she said. “I will live with that (decision) until my dying day,” she said.
America’s downward trend into the torture abyss began after the terrorist attack on Sept. 11, 2001, and it has continued, said Wright, who spent nearly three decades as a career Army Reserve officer.
What the Army, specifically, and the military, in general, cannot address are the types of torture methods used on suspects that are similar throughout the service, so, Wright said, that means somehow the procedures are being taught.
During her Army career, she worked in a number of operations positions and taught the Geneva Conventions rules, which she said has become a victim of politicians in Congress, the White House, the courts and other federal institutions. “We no longer obey the Geneva Conventions,” Wright said.
As bad as the military’s involvement in torturing, the retired colonel said, “I don’t know what the CIA is doing.”
It’s people such as the priests who are standing up and being counted, Wright said, adding the nation has to be jerked back on to the right path by eliminating any kind of torture. “It’s important for the moral future of the country,” she said.
Herald/Review senior reporter Bill Hess can be reached at 515-4615 or by e-mail at bill.hess@svherald.com.
Maj. Gen. Barbara Fast, the Intelligence Center and fort commander
Really?
Yep! Soon to be replaced with a new CG named Custer.
No!!!! NOT THAT CUSTER!!!!
More tolerant than the average federal judge. If the priests keep this up, they may end up doing more time for contempt than they’ll do for the crime.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.