[Article] Peace activist cleared of criminal damage charge

Victor

This doesn't go into a whole lot of detail, but I believe a self-defence (defence of others) defence was used, based on an article yesterday. I suspect someone is going to have questions to answer.

http://home.eircom.net/content/irelandcom/breaking/968080?view=Eircomnet

Peace activist cleared of criminal damage charge
From:ireland.com
Thursday, 3rd July, 2003

The 50 year-old formerly of the Peace Camp in Shannon, was however, convicted on a lesser charge of trespass at the airport on the same date, January 29th.

Damage to the plane, which Ms Kelly admitting attacking with an axe, was estimated at USD1.5 million, the court was told.

Sparks

YES!


Right, time for a celebratory drink

Sand

A pity that. Now a precendent has been set that you can break the law if you feel you really have a good reason to.

Sparks

Actually Sand, what you're describing are called the Neurembourg Principles and they form a part of international law. Hence this case is upholding international law in Ireland - which is a needed thing after the Hogan v. Ireland debacle of a decision.

Sand

I dont think the principles cover vandalism as an act of protest - rather it states those carrying out international crimes still have a case to answer even if their domestic laws permit such crimes, and that there are basically no exscuses.

Sparks

I dont think the principles cover vandalism as an act of protest - rather it states those carrying out international crimes still have a case to answer even if their domestic laws permit such crimes, and that there are basically no exscuses.

My bad - what I was referring to isn't explicitly in the Principles, but is explicitly stated by the Tribunal:

"Individuals have international duties which transcend the national obligations of obedience. Therefore [individuals] have the duty to violate domestic laws to prevent crimes against peace and humanity from occurring." The Nuremberg Tribunal 1945-1946.

PHB

"Individuals have international duties which transcend the national obligations of obedience. Therefore [individuals] have the duty to violate domestic laws to prevent crimes against peace and humanity from occurring." The Nuremberg Tribunal 1945-1946.

That is all completely relative to the individual.
If you allow this sort of act, more will follow. By this logic crimes againist peace could be a valid war[if there is such a thing, perhaps an example would have been WW2] and if someone disagrees with it they now have a legal precedent to be allowed to take action.

Sparks

That is all completely relative to the individual.

No, it's not. International law is not a relative thing, it's written down in black and white. As to whether a person was following his duty to international law or some vandalistic instinct, that's why we have judges as well as laws.

If you allow this sort of act, more will follow.

I'm trying to see how this would be a bad thing, but I just don't see how upholding the Geneva Convention, the UN charter and other sections of international law could be a bad thing...

By this logic crimes againist peace could be a valid war[if there is such a thing, perhaps an example would have been WW2] and if someone disagrees with it they now have a legal precedent to be allowed to take action.

The thing is that there are specific rules relating to war in international law. And wars like WW2 would be justified under those rules - and wars like the invasion of Iraq are not.
So you're not talking about opening up a can of worms here.