By Judith Gayle | Political Waves (the Planet Waves politics blog)
Last week, the courts gave a nod to vigilantism as the people of Kansas heard arguments in defense of Scott Roeder. Ultimately, the jury deliberated a mere 37 minutes — always a bad sign for the defense — before finding Roeder guilty of premeditated, first-degree murder in the shooting death of Dr. George Tiller, one of the few remaining providers of late-term abortion.
The doctor, who sustained not only personal and legal attacks over the last decade but was the target of a FOX News propaganda blitz portraying him as a serial killer of the innocent, was shot dead in his church on a Sunday morning in May of last year. During the trial, radical Christianist activists marched around the courthouse, holding signs that said, among other things, “Tiller murdered 60,000.” Fundamentalists consider abortion a continuing holocaust of the unborn.
Pleading voluntary manslaughter, Roeder’s attorneys were permitted to argue the defendant’s justification for murder for the first time in US legal history; in short, that he was compelled by his conscience to perform a justifiable homicide. Pro-choice activists were stunned by the judges acquiescence to this strategy, as the case was promptly turned into a rallying-point for pro-life activism and had the potential to weaken penalties for home grown acts of terrorism.
Eventually it became clear that the defense — arguing that Roeder had an unreasonable but honest belief that deadly force was justified — could not make its case, and the judge ruled that he would not allow the jury to consider a verdict of manslaughter or second degree murder because Roeder’s act was premeditated, he was not acting in defense of an immediate threat to life.
Indeed Mr. Roeder, a white separatist who came to Jesus one day in 1992 watching Pat Robertson’s “700 Club,” testified that he had been planning Dr. Tiller’s death for 17 years. He had considered cutting off the doctor’s hands, but then decided Tiller could continue to teach, so he must die. Roeder showed no remorse, and after the fact, jurors said that his testimony gave them no recourse. The jury foreman said abortion per se, played no part in their decision, although the tightened security that surrounded the trial made the whole process surreal. The constraints of the legal system won this round.
But what if? What if the defense had been more persuasive in convincing the jurors that “an unreasonable but honest belief” was all it took to get someone off the hook for murder? Couldn’t such a defense have been applied to the Ft. Hood incident? Hasan was convinced that he was acting to save Muslims from being murdered by the American military. And couldn’t all the terrorists around the globe benefit from such a defense? Assassins everywhere could plead their sincerity, hoping to win their freedom. And — lest we forget — this nation used just such a justification when it went to war twice in the last decade.
Sincere belief in one’s cause can’t be the whole of a defense against taking another person’s life — except in these extraordinary times, belief has turned rationality on its head. I read recently that England’s academia is coming down hard on creationism; the evangelical movement sides with Muslim fundamentalism in this instance and seems to be growing disproportionately in secular Europe.
This is the legacy of Pluto in Sagittarius — the ‘all or nothing at all’ radicalism that still echoes around us and, despite our shift of focus to corporatism and economic wobble, religion continues to impede political progress. In the US, choice is at the core of the culture war and has played a major role in the failure of healthcare reform. Irrationality is still alive and well in politics, in our personal lives and certainly in Kansas. God/dess bless the Roeder jury for sticking to the rule of law — but with this case, we find ourselves still skidding around on the slippery slope.
I happened to have the television set on Court TV when the decision was announced. The courtroom was full of security, beefed up by a prudent Wichita police presence, in full force outside, keeping an eye on the activists. Like it or not, when a movement feels justified in killing to make their point, we’re dealing with terrorism — even if they’re our neighbor.
The GOP howl over trials for terrorists in our nation’s courts refuses to acknowledge this fact. We have home-grown problems here, our share of radicals and wing nuts; too many of them in the Republican base. If Wichita can manage this trial, New York City can get its act together for Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, and if American justice IS just, there’s no real argument to prevent it. Too bad KSM isn’t a Republican — then he’d get his day in court.
Jude
Patty
The Christians that I spoke of in this article do not represent, I presume, mainstream Christianity. They are radical members of the Army of God (AOG) which is a Christian terrorist anti-abortion organization, as listed by the FBI, that sanctions the use of force to combat abortion in the United States.
As well, no one is arguing that there aren’t additional choices available to those who seek an abortion, and women should be encouraged to explore all their options. I can’t imagine, however, that the families who find themselves with the necessity to end a pregnancy that is nearing term do so with anything but considerable personal anguish. These late-term procedures are extremely limited and must meet strict legal criterion.
The question posed had to do with justifiable homicide. If you, for instance, could kill Hitler, would you? Is murder a solution that one can live with a good conscience, no matter the provocation? That was the unprecedented defense offered in this trial, and one complicated by religious passions and moral ambiguities. We do not live in a black and white world — and it seems to get greyer by the minute.
E2, Government steals from the rich all the time.
This whole story compared Christians to the terrorists when the trial was (I thought) about one person.
You know, MSK bragged about beheading Daniel Pearl and others. So the comparison to the doctor was very apt. Both killed their victims by beheading. I don’t know how else to look at this.
Should late-term abortion be illegal? I don’t know. But let every young woman you know, know – you are there for them if they need help. Most women go through abortion because there is no father and no money or the parents can’t help. For all the wrong reasons, they terminate the baby. I and every other woman
Patty,
Look at it this way. You are the best possible match for a person who needs a kidney, and will die without one. The government panel who handles this has determined that you must donate this kidney, and your feelings about this, and indeed, even your consent, is not necessary. You are the only person who can save this person and the government has the right to force you to do so.
We must inform you that you may experience life long complications from this operation, and you are at risk for surgical mishaps and or unforeseen occurrences. As you know, any time there is surgery and anesthesia, there are risks that may lead to disability, brain damage, and death. Your surgeon will do everything possible to make this procedure as safe as possible, but nonetheless, you will bear scars both physically and mentally for the rest of your life. But you will have had the satisfaction of having saved the life of another human. You may not like this human, and you may find out later that your kidney enabled this person to perform acts that you find deeply repugnant to you. However, you are not allowed to make this decision based on your personal feelings and circumstances. The government has made it for you as we do not allow our citizens to make their own decisions-too messy and we may not like the outcome.
Is this acceptable to you? Should the government be making this decision for you? You may have donated the kidney out of altruism-many people have. You may have donated a kidney already. The point is, you made this decision. You were not forced to continue on a path that has far reaching medical impacts, up to and including death. It was your own decision, although it was a decision that saved the life of another person.
If you want to read a compilation of eye-opening stories about late term abortion, and how that option actually saved some pregnancies that would have been terminated, go to
http://www.theatlantic.com/fs/esearch.php?sort=time&source=sullivan&words=its+so+personal&btnG.x=37&btnG.y=8
I doubt I change your mind. But the stories about families coming to grips with a tragedy may expand it. I know I was deeply moved. I remain convinced that these decisions are best left to women and their doctors, and no one else has the expertise or right to decide.
Although I understand Judith’s concern about the allowing to present the deeply held belief defense, by allowing the attempt, and then dismissing it, the grounds for appeal will be much more difficult to establish. However, this argument is really only appropriate for an appellate court as it would have established new law in criminal defense. I’m sure it will be part of the appeal, and I’m sure the state attorney general will squash it flat. After all, acting on deeply held belief would allow some of us to rob the rich and feed the poor without criminal consequences, yes?
I wouldn’t term it a fundamentalist issue at all. The animal rights activists go nuts when cattle are killed exactly the same way – knife to the base of the skull. It is a barbaric practic and hardly the same thing as taking a morning after pill. I for one do not buy that a late term abortion is a life and death issue. Most (not all) the women I’ve known who had abortions have suffered horribly for the guilt. I am not standing to accuse, but to stop anyone who thinks this is a way out of an unbearable situation. Don’t do it! There are alternatives.
Speaking of martyrs for a cause, here’s what the Village Voice has to say about KSM’s trial in NYC:
http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/archives/2010/02/feds_trial_of_9.php
“There are many causes I am willing to die for. There is not a single one I am willing to kill for.” – Gandhi
This is a red herring issue, pardon the visual pun. Late term abortions are rare and rarely elective. They are done for many reasons – but rarely elective. That the fundamentalist political movement chooses to fixate on this is a distraction.
The same arguments could be made against abortion at any point during pregnancy; nobody has proven that a four week old fetus is not fully sensory and conscious.
But in any event none of this justifies the murder of someone who is performing a legal medical procedure no matter what anyone may think of it. In Haiti there are thousands of people needlessly having limbs amputated. We could just as well object to that.
“In 1997, the Guttmacher Institute estimated the number of abortions in the U.S. past 24 weeks to be 0.08%, or approximately 1,032 per year.[14]”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late-term_abortion#Incidence_of_later_abortion
This figure, in a nation of 300 million, seems a reasonable incidence of normal medical necessity.
D&X” (dilation and extraction) The woman’s cervix is dilated. If necessary, the fetus is rotated until it is facing feet downwards. The surgeon reaches into the uterus and pulls the fetus’ body, with the exception of its head, out of the woman’s body. Surgical scissors are inserted into the base of the fetal skull, and withdrawn. A suction tube is inserted and the fetus’ brains are removed through aspiration. This partially collapses the fetal skull. The fetus is then fully removed from the woman’s body.
This is the description of a late term abortion. Anyone who thinks this is ok is as sick as any terrorist, in my book. What kind of human being could do this to a baby? It is wrong, and should be against the law. That isn’t personal at all, it is just wrong and should be illegal.
i hear the lobster there is very good
The Newburgh mayor made a bid to have the trial there – it would give the town, known to some as Nukeburgh, some economic stimulus. If the trial is moved there you can be sure I’ll get as close as I can and send back some pictures.
Newburgh, Hmmm.
Maybe eric can set up camp there to cover for PW?
Nothing like Capricorn to sober up the party! The economy prevails. I just read that the mayor of little Newburgh, New York (pop 28,000, 90 minutes upstate from NYC) has offered to host the KSM trial. They evidently think they can do the job without spending multi-millions, as Bloomberg suggests. I’d like to see them try and succeed; we need further examples of myth-busting.
We have come upon a time when those meeting your definition of terrorists are shifting from religious fanatics to those who justify their actions with the old phrase “it’s just business, nothing personal”. From hot to cold.
Len:
Last night I saw a commercial for a trading company that cast a Wall St. trader in the back seat of a limousine on his cell phone trying to convince his long-time customer that he needed to stay with him–so that the trader could continue to live his high roller lifestyle and make scads in bonuses.
In the end, the broker was losing the customer on the phone and so pissed off the limousine driver that he slammed the brakes on the car forcing the broker to bump against the plexiglass window separating him from the driver. That commercial made me laugh. Madison Avenue is now characterizing Wall Street as Brand X – the Bad Guys. Interesting turn of events.
Jude:
There seems to be a groundswell of NYC folks uprising against having the KSM trial in Manhattan, so the WH may have to look at other venues in NY. Can’t verify if this story is more AP crap or not, but will report on more if and when it happens.
Jude,
Thank you for serving the cause of a clear mind. Your writing dispels the mental fog better than any coffee i’ve ever had. The jury obviously did the right thing by showing no hesitation. The system worked resoundingly. The true believers will never go away completely. It takes all kinds. However, it appears that the age of Pluto in Sagittarius is over. We have come upon a time when those meeting your definition of terrorists are shifting from religious fanatics to those who justify their actions with the old phrase “it’s just business, nothing personal”. From hot to cold.