?????????

?????????????

?????????????

??commented?? police officers was ?? ations of some sixteen student ?? tion was at stake. Policemen are more??

??ere was no doubt in the minds of the defendants. De Simone said after his trial, "my feeling is that the judge convicted me of something, and that was a political act." The other defendants were equally displeased with the verdicts, and the political messages they bore.

THE MOST difficult thing to determine in the whole affair is exactly what was at stake, what the precise issue was. Though certain defendants and observers felt that the issue was the destruction of the American court system, the American court system is not destroyed by four minor trials.

Other felt the issue was to fight repression, but that was clearly not a possibility. Repression in the legal system is not fought by bringing twenty observers to watch four small trials, and by screaming "off the pig" as loud as one can from the witness stand. There is no fight, only harder sentencing.

What was really at stake in this political game was how four people would spend the next two or three years of their lives. If they spent the time in prison, one side won. If they spent it free and acquitted, the other side won.

De Simone, Sobel and Pennington did very well, getting suspended sentences. Whitney may have lost very badly. He got a year and a half for assault and battery on a policeman. He will appeal. The real political lesson to be learned from the four trials is in why Whitney's sentence was the harshest.

Two extremse tell the story. In the case of James M. Whitney, the defense fought a long, hard, vocal and impassioned case. It took two days to be resolvesd. This was partially because it was a double trial with Sobel as ?? spectators in?? in twenty minutes. He ?? suspended sentence, and a year ??.

Several participants in the four trials said they expected Pennington to be hit with the hardest sentence. He was the first person arrested in the Ryan trial disruptions, and he seemed to be a central figure in them. He got off with a light sentence.

The feeling was that if Pennington had not pleaded guilty, and if he had put a defense case like Whitney, he would have received the maximum sentence.

THE LESSON to be learned from these trials is that militancy woks sometimes, and at other times it does not. Clearly, the recent trials were not a time for militancy.

The University Hall takeover may have accomplished something, the Panthers are accomplishing something, Cesar Chavez is accomplishing something.

Radical movements in this nation, though, have a tendency to assume that they are the equals of the existing powers, and they often overplay themselves. Where did the seven days of rage in Chicago get the movement? Where did the Wisconsin and New York bombings get it?

Last May, at the Panther Mayday demonstrations, everybody went to New Haven expecting the worst. Paratroop divisions were airlifted in from North Carolina, Yale organized a corps of medics incredibly well equipped. Papers that weekend printed sections on first aid and self defense.

When things started getting hot, though, some Panther leaders went around and told everybody to keep calm and go home. We learned, they said, you can't fight the U.S. Army with bottles and rocks.

The political lesson to be learned from the disruption trials is a simple one, that sometimes the show of force and the long, hard fight are in vain, and the true battle would have been won by a little restraint. Be a nice, good boy, and you'll get a lighter sentence. Which in this case, is what it was all about.