Next week, the Saint Patrick’s Four will be sentenced for two misdemeanor charges of damaging government property and trespassing for their act of civil disobedience on March 17, 2003, two days before “shock and awe,” when they entered the Lansing military recruiting center and poured some of their own blood about the vestibule of the center.

Three of the four—Peter DeMott, Teresa Grady, and Danny Burns—also face sentencing for contempt of court charges. Clare Grady managed to avoid a contempt of court charge. All four were acquitted of the most serious charge of conspiracy to impede an officer of the United States, which carried a sentence of up to six years in prison.

The contempt of court charges stem from the defendants disobeying Judge McAvoy’s orders to not speak of their first trial for the same protest, not to speak of the “alleged” illegality of the Iraq War, and not to speak of International Law or even the United States constitution. Imagine that—they were tried in United States Federal Court and were not allowed to speak to the jury about the United States constitution.

While it is undoubtedly a victory that they escaped the felony conspiracy charge, there are still many unanswered questions about the case. For example, why did the US Attorney General’s office go after them, when 7,000 other protestors were also arrested that same week? Why were they singled out? One of the defendants’ legal advisors, Bill Quigley, believes it was a clear sign of intimidation on the part of the federal government against non-violent war protestors: a warning of sorts to anyone considering acts of civil disobedience in protest of our war against Iraq.

Former Tompkins County District Attorney George Dentes told the Ithaca Journal that he merely “reminded” the feds that the “crime” was committed on federal property; he also told the Journal that he knew no jury in liberal Tompkins County would convict them (and I suppose he knew that because he’d already tried?).

And yet—even in a conservative part of the state, with a jury where half the members said they have yellow ribbon bumper stickers on their cars—the verdict came back “not guilty” on the most serious charge. They did not “conspire” to impede an officer of the United States through “force, intimidation, or threat.” Did they make a mess? Yes, they did (although it’s nothing compared to the mess we are making in Iraq). They also knelt and prayed and read a statement of non-violence. What they did not do is splash blood on the recruiter as reported in the Binghamton paper and consequently re-reported all over the Internet. The recruiter, Sergeant Montgomery, testified under oath that he got “a little” blood on his hands when he went to lock the door of the recruiting center. Fortunately, although the public didn’t hear it, at least the jury did.

Regrettably, however, the jury did not hear all sides of the story. They weren’t allowed. But they must have heard enough to understand that the Saint Patrick’s Four are not violent, crazy protestors (well, maybe a little crazy—crazy with love and compassion for the human race). The jury returned a verdict not just on the defendants, but a verdict against the war and our continuing occupation of Iraq, a verdict against gag rules that prevent American citizens from speaking about the constitution in a court of law, and a verdict against the abuse of power from the very folks who are supposed to uphold justice.

As American citizens, we need to remember what our rights are, as well as our responsibilities, and not let the government intimidate us into complacency.