THE HANDSTAND |
FEBRUARY-MARCH2010
|
What Americans
Really Have to Fear
Violation of
Rights by Military
By Scott Fina
February 04, 2010 "Santa Barbara Independent" --Feb. 02, 2010 - I was
among the several people arrested on Sunday, January 31,
while protesting outside the main gate of Vandenberg Air
Force Base. The purpose of my protest was to criticize
the development, maintenance, and potential use of
nuclear weapons by the United States.
I believe the nuclear arsenal of the United Statesthe
largest and most advanced in the worldcontributes
to the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Consider the
perspective of countries like North Korea and Iran. If
the most powerful nation in the world with the greatest
military capability finds it necessary to maintain
several thousand nuclear warheads, why shouldnt
they have some? Moreover, the more prevalent nuclear
weapons become, the more likely terrorists are to obtain
the materials needed to construct one.
On Sunday I was also protesting the American development
of a space-based, anti-missile defense system. This
system undermines our previous and future efforts at
negotiating nuclear treaties with Russia and China. So my
protest on Sunday, at heart, concerned the security of
the United States and the world.
The story of my arrest on Sunday (along with six other
people) outside the gate of Vandenberg Air Force Base,
however, had nothing to do with the security of our
countryalthough we were cited for a violation
of a security regulation (50 USC Sec 797). If
convicted, my fellow protestors and I face a potential
fine of $5,000 and up to one year in prison. The real
story of our arrests concerns the United States
Constitution.
Most of us were arrested for refusing to present
government identification to the military security
officials. All of us were orderly and peaceful. None of
us was interrupting base operations. Most were elderly (several
in their 70s and 80s). We were simply standing quietly
along the shoulder of Route 1 holding peace signs. We
were protesting in a location and at a time pre-arranged
with Vandenberg Base security. Base security officials
were expecting us and knew our purpose.
If there was one group of people that Vandenberg security
officials did not have to be concerned about, it was the
11 grey haired protestors standing outside the gate under
the scrutiny of at least a dozen soldiers in a place and
time known in advance by the base.
Nonetheless, shortly after the protest began, the
soldiers came out through the main gate of Vandenberg,
and, while filming us, requested that we each provide
government identification under the threat of arrest and
criminal charges. While they confronted us outside the
gate along Route 1, the soldiers ignored numerous people
in civilian clothing that drove past us through the gate
and onto the base. The soldiers did not know the purpose
of these civilians or the contents of their cars. In fact,
had I not been part of the protest, I could have driven
my car 50 yards past the protest site onto the base and
left it in a parking lot without being confronted and
ordered to present identification. People in civilian
clothing can also walk past the protest site onto the
base to wait for a public bus without being stopped and
ordered to present identification.
I and my associates, holding peace signs, provided the
soldiers with no reason to believe (i.e., no probable
cause) that we were a threat to base security or
operations. We did make it obvious that we were critical
of nuclear weapons and space-based, anti-missile systems.
We refused to comply with the orders of the soldiers
because, as peaceful and orderly citizens, we are
afforded a right to privacy inherent in the Fourth
Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. By ordering us to
present identification and then arresting us because we
refused to do sowithout probable cause that we were
a security risk or were committing a crimethe
soldiers violated our protection against unlawful search
and arrests under the Fourth Amendment. The fact that the
soldiers singled us out on the basis of our protest (while
ignoring other civilians who actually penetrated the base
gate) violated our right to free speech under the First
Amendment.
When I was confronted by the soldiers, I declared that I
had no intention of compromising base security and
operations. I admitted that I had a government-issued
identification on my person, but refused to present it
because of my Constitutional protections. Ironically, no
soldier or security official ever looked at my government
issued identification while I was arrested, handcuffed,
searched, had the contents taken out of my pockets (including
my wallet with my identification); finger printed,
photographed, and released. In fact, the soldier writing
out my citation simply trusted me to state my correct
name, age, address, and Social Security number.
If it was so vital for security purposes that my failure
to present a government issued identification outside the
base gate should lead to my arrest and possible
imprisonment, why didnt any Vandenberg base
official look at my government-issued identification
while I was in their custody for hours inside the base
gate?
Nothing is more detrimental to American freedom and
security than a military that ignores the rights of
peaceful and lawful citizens. Americans dont need
intercontinental ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads
to keep them safe; they need their soldiers to uphold and
defend the law of the land.
Scott Fina, of Santa Maria, is a former trooper with the
New Jersey State Police. He served for several years on
its special teams unit, where he worked with the Secret
Service in protecting President Ronald Reagan and Vice
President George H. Bush. He has a Ph.D. in political
science from Temple University. This is the first time he
has ever been arrested for anything.
Copyright ©2010 Santa Barbara Independent, Inc.
|