My name is Thomas George Jackson.

In our defense, we attempted to show that under New Hampshire, United States, and International law, we were licensed and privileged to take the actions we took, at least until we had sufficient answers to our questions which had been faxed to the Senator, or until the Senator spoke out against the war resolution; and we would have shown, had we been allowed to do so, that due to violations of law by the United States through its threats of attack on Iraq, as well as the likelihood of massive civilian casualties in the event of an attack, that in fact it was necessary for us to trespass, we had the right to do so, and we were required to do so.

The 15 questions we faxed to Mr. Gregg¹s office in Washington reflect at least a basic understanding on my part of the fact that the Bush administration¹s plans for an attack on Iraq were not only dangerous, but also violations of various laws.

Despite what George W. Bush and Judd Gregg may believe, International agreements are, under the US Constitution, the supreme law of the land.

Article VI of the US Constitution states that: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;"

On October 8, 2002, the United States was already acting in violation of Article 2 of the UN Charter which states:

"All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."

I was fully aware of the text I just read, when I chose to do the sit-in at the Senator¹s office, and I believed at that time that the US was in violation of the UN Charter, which I further believed was the supreme law of the land.

Article 2 also states that "All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered." It was my belief on October 8, 2002 that even before the attack took place, the level of threat, violence, hubris and jingoism which the Bush administration exhibited was such that these laws had already been violated. I also believed that if the administration was allowed to carry their threats out, that Article 2 would be violated.

In addition to these violations, I was aware that the threatened war of aggression would violate the Principles of Article 33 of the UN Charter, the Geneva Convention, and the Nuremberg Charter.

Article 33 states "The parties to any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, shall, first of all, seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice. The Security Council shall, when it deems necessary, call upon the parties to settle their dispute by such means."

Furthermore, in the threatened invasion, civilian casualties are a completely foreseeable result of the massive bombardment of an urban area, and such a plan was expressed by members of our government. The result of those plans are violations of Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions, Article 51, Sections 4 (b) and (c) and 5 (a) and (b).

As of October 8, 2002, the US government was already in violation of another codified (under United Nations General Assembly Resolution 177 (II)) international law which stemmed from the Nuremberg Charter. Principle VI of the Nuremberg Charter states:

"The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under; international law: a.Crimes against peace:
i.Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;
ii.Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i)."

As a responsible citizen of the United States, I felt it my duty to take any and every nonviolent action possible to prevent my representatives from committing war crimes. Committing a war crime is a federal felony under U.S. Code Title 18, Part I, Chapter 118.

In 1946, the Nuremberg Tribunal rejected German arguments of the "necessity'' for pre-emptive attacks against its neighbours. "To initiate a war of aggression,'' said the tribunal's judgment, "is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.''

Furthermore, under the Principles of the Nuremberg Tribunal, complicity in a war crime is itself a war crime, and the fact that a person was following the orders of a government does not absolve that person of responsibility for committing a war crime.

I will not be complicit in war crimes. Therefore, I believed that it was necessary for me to take nonviolent action at my representative¹s office.

As of October 8, 2002, I further believed that the method by which the US was attempting to carry out its threatened attack would violate the US Constitution, because it states: CONGRESS SHALL HAVE THE POWER TO DECLARE WAR. The so- called "war resolution" before Congress on the day we did our sit-in was not a declaration of war, it was a wholesale hand-over of the power to wage war to one man: George W. Bush. As such, the resolution itself was arguably a violation of the US Constitution, and it was therefore necessary for me to take action to protect that Constitution. It was clear to me at the time that Judd Gregg did not intend to do so.

What I did on October 8, 2002 was also necessary and required under NH law:

NH Constitution, Bill of Rights Art. 8 states "All power residing originally in, and being derived from, the people, all the magistrates and officers of government are their substitutes and agents, and at all times accountable to them. Government, therefore, should be open, accessible, accountable and responsive. To that end, the public's right of access to governmental proceedings and records shall not be unreasonably restricted."

I believed at the time that I took action that my government officials should be open, accessible, accountable and responsive. They were not.

As the court has seen, Mr. Gregg¹s so-called response to our questions did not directly address ANY of the questions. Similarly, Mr. Mayola¹s constantly repeated "response" of "we will just have to agree to disagree" can be characterized as nothing other than UNRESPONSIVE! Therefore I was fully justified in trespassing at least until such time as I received substantive answers to my concerns which pertained to matters infinitely more likely to impose far greater harm.

Despite being served with subpoenas, Senator Judd Gregg is not here today. This underscores my argument that the Senator, who is supposed to represent the interests of the people of NH, is inaccessible, closed, unaccountable and unresponsive despite the urgency of the issue we have tried to discuss with him.

Additionally, Article 10 of the NH Constitution, Bill of Rights states that "Government being instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security, of the whole community, and not for the private interest or emolument of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind."

No other law states so clearly my obligation to take action. The text of Mr. Gregg¹s FAX shows that he is marching in lock step with the aims of a very small class of men, and as we sat in his office protesting the war resolution, he was speaking in favor of it on the Senate floor--- he was speaking in favor of violating our Constitution, and putting enormous power into the hands of one man.

According to another of NH¹s own laws, I was justified in what I did: CRIMINAL CODE, Section 627:3 describes Competing Harms. ­ and JUSTIFICATION as: "Conduct which the actor believes to be necessary to avoid harm to himself or another is justifiable if the desirability and urgency of avoiding such harm outweigh, according to ordinary standards of reasonableness, the harm sought to be prevented by the statute defining the offense charged."

In conclusion:

The Criminal Trespass Law, under which I am charged, RSA 365:2, states that a person is guilty of criminal trespass if he enters or remains in any place "knowing that he is not licensed or privileged to do so." I knew differently.

Though this court may not wish to acknowledge events that have taken place since October 8, 2002, and that are taking place as I speak, everything that I have heard, read and seen since the US invasion of Iraq began has been a realization of the horror which I feared last October. I could not support this vicious act of aggression by my government last Fall, and I will not support it now.

The rule of law will not prevail throughout the world until justice returns to prevail here at home. Our own government, with all its military and economic might will be able to rely on frontier justice in world affairs as long as we fail to hold it accountable. Last October, after so many attempts to reason with my representatives, I determined that an act of nonviolent civil disobedience was absolutely necessary and required of me, as I have described.

For the foregoing reasons I ask this court to find me not guilty.

I thank you for your attention.

Back to the top. Click here.

Contact: info@seacoastpeaceresponse.org