The authors focus on the case of the “Trident Three”, who boarded a Trident submarine control station on barge on a Scottish loch and, using their bare hands and small hammers, disabled much of the computer equipment in the station, temporarily disarming one third of Britain’s nuclear weapons system. Drawing primarily on a discourse analysis of the case, the authors identify a profound disjuncture between the ways in which the law and religious discourse framed the actions of the Trident Three. They explore the ways in which religious claims are reshaped by legal discourse as isolated actions rather than as actions set in a broader moral context with transcendental implications. Their project is to conduct a socio-legal analysis of competing discourses, paying particular attention to the ways in which power relations are worked out. They also acknowledge the contribution of social movements literature to an understanding of the ways in which groups deploy notions of “the good society” or “the public good” in order to ground their justification of choice of action. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]
