The Bellingham Sanctuary Movement is facing a big challenge. In her op-ed Sanctuary city Pro: Support for troops should mean all of them published June 13 in the Bellingham Herald, Marie Marchand, executive director of the Whatcom Peace and Justice Center, writes:
Given Bellingham’s reputation, it is an especially stinging affront that four AWOL soldiers of conscience have been housed in our jail. Most of us in this city consider people like Robin Long and Cliff Cornell heroes for their refusal to bear arms and kill. … As it stands, law enforcement is under no obligation to report AWOL soldiers to the military. We are asking our city to abstain from doing the military’s job. These individuals have broken no law. Our local resources should not be spent on their apprehension and detention.
On October 9, 2006, Bellingham became the first city in the state of Washington to pass a Troops Home! Resolution. The issue now is a sanctuary resolution. “The ordinance is not about adjudication” states Marie Marchand in her op-ed. “The Sanctuary City Movement … is not asking police to break the law.” Tim Carpenter, a Whatcom County resident and Vietnam veteran who wrote the opposing view Sanctuary city Con: Sanctuary idea would do more harm than good has a different take on the question of law:
Federal law provides, under the category of Treason, Sedition and Subversive Activities, that it is a crime for any person to advise, counsel or urge insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny or refusal of service; to conspire to commit those acts; or to harbor any person who commits such an act. Does the city council’s involvement facilitate and abet treason?
He attempts to paint proponents of the sanctuary resolution as “emotional rather than rational” and finds that their arguments “rely on unsubstantiated statistics, or attempt to reach a logical conclusion built upon an inherently false premise”. He really doesn’t cite anything to support this, just innuendo.
On the issue of Free Speech (around which Ithaca’s Sanctuary Resolution turned) he writes that “This is not a ‘free speech’ issue. The right of free speech is not absolute. Speech that advocates the commission of a crime is not protected.”
The attendant legal questions appear to be the most productive ones to pursue, and it would be well worth the effort for sanctuary supporters in the Ithaca area to engage in the debate in Bellingham not only out of solidarity, but also to hone our own arguments for what may lie ahead. It is easy to imagine a similar scenario developing in Ithaca were war resisters jailed here, or were the city sanctuary resolution strengthened to explicitly instruct law enforcement not to arrest anyone on the basis of their military status when had not broken the law. (As an aside, I recall that Trevor Loope was arrested in St. Lawrence County on bogus charges of bounced checks, not for being AWOL). It would be really good to solicit wider legal opinion on this debate over what the law requires.
Wing-nuts seem to dominate the story chat on the Bellingham Herald (just like in Ithaca). It only takes a few minutes to register in order to comment. Pleasew consider doing so.
Russell Brown has been blogging on the situation in Bellingham on adoptresistance.org. You can also follow posts on the website/blog of Veterans For Peace Corporal Jonathan Santos Memorial Chapter 111 in Bellingham. –Cris McConkey
I’ve read the Commentary and am unclear about the following piece of it: Federal law provides, under the category of Treason, Sedition and Subversive Activities, that it is a crime for any person to advise, counsel or urge insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny or refusal of service; to conspire to commit those acts; or to harbor any person who commits such an act. Does the city council’s involvement facilitate and abet treason?
If the above is indeed the law, it seems to apply in the Bellingham case. I didn’t see this being refuted; I assume I may be missing something?
Good question. To help clarify the question, I obtained the text of the proposed resolution from the Bellingham Peace & Justice Center. The 6th and 7th “Whereas” statement lay out the legal thinking:
…
WHEREAS, when requests for discharge or reassignment based on conscientious objection are denied, servicemembers may be forced to deploy to, or remain armed in, a combat theater, leaving no conscientious choice but to go absent without leave, thus being labeled deserters and criminals, having committed no crime outside of the Uniform Code of Military Justice; and,
WHEREAS, United States Code, Title 10, Section 808 authorizes civilian law enforcement agents to apprehend deserters, but establishes no requirement to do so; and, …
Certainly, it would be an enormous stretch to call this proposed ordinance treasonous, though I am sure some detractors would. No one advises, counses or urges insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny or refusal of service under this proposed ordinance; nor does it in any way constitute a conspiracy. It simply asserts a choice in a very limited case where there is no legal mandate to comply.
The issue seems to be one of jurisdiction.
I have uploaded the file of the proposed ordinance here.