Shannon Airport 5 have been completely exonorated

Akrasia

The Catholic Workers, a group of anti war protestors who damaged an american war plane 3 years ago have been acquitted this morning of all charges. The Jury accepted their defence that they were not committing a crime in Ireland because they were acting to prevent murder abroad.

On the 3rd of February 2003, Ciaran O'Reilly, Deirdre Clancy, Karan Ballon, Nuin Dunlop and Damian Moran entered Shannon Airport, breached the airfield and made their way to a hanger holding a U.S. cargo Plane. They damaged the airplane and then called the police and waited for them to arrive (it took some time)

While their legal and moral case was always concrete, todays decision was at the end of their third trial, the first two collapsed after the judges were forced to admit that they had demonstrated unfair bias against their cause.

The court decision should put a lot of pressure on the Irish government's decision to allow U.S military Aircraft to use Irish airspace as part of their logistical infrastructure in for their illegal, misguided and catastrophic war in Iraq.

http://www.indymedia.ie/article/77460#comments

silverharp

Thats a strange decision, so we as citizens now have the right to vandalise foreign property located in the state, if it has a teneous connection with war abroad.

I'll be down in the docks with my can of paint the next time a US or Royal navy ship is in port ;-)

Nuttzz

this is a bizarre judgment, can i now take an axe to my neighbours car because he is a new learner driver and might kill someone if he takes it out on the roads?

RE*AC*TOR

Nuttzz wrote:

this is a bizarre judgment, can i now take an axe to my neighbours car because he is a new learner driver and might kill someone if he takes it out on the roads?

That's not a fair comparison. But you can try your luck and see what the courts say.

Great result. Justice prevails.

silverharp

RE*AC*TOR wrote:

Great result. Justice prevails.

Hmmm, all I can see is that the taxpayer is down about €4m, defence contractors up €2m and lawyers up €2m, no lives were saved and a couple of “bleeding hearts” had a wonderful cathartic and self actualising moment.

Akrasia

Nuttzz wrote:

this is a bizarre judgment, can i now take an axe to my neighbours car because he is a new learner driver and might kill someone if he takes it out on the roads?

no you can't, But feel free to break into John Gilligans house and destroy all of his weapons and drugs.
that is the best analogy i can think of.

The War in Iraq has been described as illegal by a huge proportion of the international legal community, including Attorney Generals of this country, and the U.K. Over 100,000 Iraqis have lost their lives and the country has been devastated and cast into a brutal civil war. 1500 people a month are being tortured to death in baghdad alone, and 100 people a day are losing their lives around all of Iraq.
The Catholic Workers are heroes and deserve all of our respect, even if you don't share their religious conviction. they're not evangalists, they are only acting on their own consciences

Akrasia

silverharp wrote:

Hmmm, all I can see is that the taxpayer is down about €4m, defence contractors up €2m and lawyers up €2m, no lives were saved and a couple of “bleeding hearts” had a wonderful cathartic and self actualising moment.

After their action, 3 out of 4 U.S. airlines pulled out of shannon. this was a big blow to American logistics. they only returned when bertie begged them to come back and promised that security would be vastly improved.

BuffyBot

The Catholic Workers are heroes and deserve all of our respect

Ah, respect. Yes, for vandalism. Irrespective of who owns the property, it still boils down to vandalism.

Ronan|Raven

Respect? Why are they deserving of my respect? Glad to see the joke that is our legal system. Apparently destruction and damage to property is ok?

RE*AC*TOR

BuffyBot wrote:

Ah, respect. Yes, for vandalism. Irrespective of who owns the property, it still boils down to vandalism.

We have a government complicit in an illegal war. They were justified (as shown by the verdict). Yes its vandalism - but worthwhile vandalism.

Manic Moran

Akrasia wrote:

no you can't, But feel free to break into John Gilligans house and destroy all of his weapons and drugs.
that is the best analogy i can think of.

They attacked an unarmed cargo aircraft that could just have easily have been used to ferry relief supplies to areas such as the Pacific's Tsunami-hit region or Pakistan's earthquake region, both of which received large amounts of US Aid.

So if you accept the argument that the actions of these people saved Iraqis, you must also accept the argument that these people contributed to the deaths of Pacific Rim denizens, Pakistanis, or whoever.

NTM

RE*AC*TOR

indeed, to quote a T-shirt Hell t-shirt - "what about all the good things Hitler did?"

http://www.tshirthell.com/store/product.php?productid=192

Akrasia

Manic Moran wrote:

They attacked an unarmed cargo aircraft that could just have easily have been used to ferry relief supplies to areas such as the Pacific's Tsunami-hit region or Pakistan's earthquake region, both of which received large amounts of US Aid.

So if you accept the argument that the actions of these people saved Iraqis, you must also accept the argument that these people contributed to the deaths of Pacific Rim denizens, Pakistanis, or whoever.

NTM

that's nonsense.
these planes were being operated by charter companies specifically for the Iraq war.

By your logic, the people who attacked the railways carrying jews to the concentration camps could have been responsible for the deaths of civilians who couldn't escape Allied firebombing of German cities.

civdef

I'm reminded of a Blackadder episode where Edmund faces a court-martial:

Edmund: Ever heard of Bob Mattingburg?

Perkins: Oh, yes indeed, sir! A most gifted gentleman!

Edmund: I remember Mattingburg's most famous case, the case of the bloody knife. A man was found next to a murdured body, he had the knife in his hand, thirteen witnesses that seen him stab the victim, when the police arrived he said, "I'm glad I killed the bastard." Mattingburg not only got him off, but he got him knighted in the New Year's Honors list, and the relatives of the victim had to pay to have the blood washed out of his jacket.

civdef

that's nonsense.
these planes were being operated by charter companies specifically for the Iraq war.

The plane in question was a US Navy 737.



Would be interesting to hear the judge's instructions to the jury.

Manic Moran

civdef wrote:

Would be interesting to hear the judge's instructions to the jury.

What I'd be interested to hear is if the US Embassy will commence civil liability proceedings for financial damages now.

NTM

Benedict XVI

I work for a US company.
Before I leave I will smash up the equipment here because the compnay is making money, paying US taxes and thus helping pay for the war in Iraq.
What time does the dole office open on a Wednesday ?

Crazy decision

lostexpectation

Manic Moran wrote:

They attacked an unarmed cargo aircraft that could just have easily have been used to ferry relief supplies to areas such as the Pacific's Tsunami-hit region or Pakistan's earthquake region, both of which received large amounts of US Aid.

there restrcitions to that aid and only get it if they agree not to associate with certain other groups, USAID is part of the DOD, the aid is condition even for tsunamis.

KerranJast

Akrasia wrote:

no you can't, But feel free to break into John Gilligans house and destroy all of his weapons and drugs.
that is the best analogy i can think of.

The War in Iraq has been described as illegal by a huge proportion of the international legal community, including Attorney Generals of this country, and the U.K. Over 100,000 Iraqis have lost their lives and the country has been devastated and cast into a brutal civil war. 1500 people a month are being tortured to death in baghdad alone, and 100 people a day are losing their lives around all of Iraq.
The Catholic Workers are heroes and deserve all of our respect, even if you don't share their religious conviction. they're not evangalists, they are only acting on their own consciences

UN Resolution 1483 put paid to all the illegal war claims. The "occupation" is now legally recognised by the UN.

lostexpectation

Akrasia wrote:

no you can't, But feel free to break into John Gilligans house and destroy all of his weapons and drugs.
that is the best analogy i can think of.

that is a great analogy, they would have committed a crime but would the jury convict them for it?

Diogenes

lostexpectation wrote:

that is a great analogy, they would have committed a crime but would the jury convict them for it?

Couldn't such a ruling, also be used to justify vigilante violence?

Sgt. Sensible

KerranJast wrote:

UN Resolution 1483 put paid to all the illegal war claims. The "occupation" is now legally recognised by the UN.

Obtained under false pretences.

"Reaffirming the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq,
Reaffirming also the importance of the disarmament of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and of eventual confirmation of the disarmament of Iraq,"

WMD?

Sgt. Sensible

Diogenes wrote:

Couldn't such a ruling, also be used to justify vigilante violence?

Maybe, if the police were content to aggressively protect the vigilantes' target while he was committing certain crimes, eg mass murder.

seamus

Diogenes wrote:

Couldn't such a ruling, also be used to justify vigilante violence?

Not really. One would have to prove or otherwise justify their actions as acting directly in the interests of protecting the life of innocents.
If a vigilante group could prove that they're protecting themselves by destroying someone's home, then surely they would have sufficient evidence to have said person brought to court under some charge?
Does anyone have any actual evidence of what type of plane was damaged and what it was being used for, and the protestors' actual argument in court? They may have argued that they were attempting to discourage the use of Shannon by damaging the plane, and not simply trying to prevent that singular place from going to Iraq.
I can't see the latter being a good argument, but the former certainly warrants some thought.

Remember that in our justice system, the jury can in some cases acquit a person of a crime, even if all evidence points to the opposite. In this way it attempts to rely on the general moral feelings of the population as a balance against the inelasticity of the law.

In the U.S., a jury can acquit a person of a crime even if they have admitted to being guilty. That is, if a person admits to killing someone, but does not admit to murder, a US jury can find the person innocent of murder and manslaughter charges and let them go free, even if directed otherwise by a judge. I'm not sure if the same thing can apply here.

A Dub in Glasgo

Well done to the jury

Manic Moran

there restrcitions to that aid and only get it if they agree not to associate with certain other groups, USAID is part of the DOD, the aid is condition even for tsunamis.

Given that the aid was indeed sent and arrived in those theaters, evidently whatever the conditions were, they were met and presumably the aid was put to good use.

NTM

Akrasia

lostexpectation wrote:

that is a great analogy, they would have committed a crime but would the jury convict them for it?

no, they wouldn't have committed a crime, because there is a provision for lawful excuse in the criminal damage and other legislation that allows people to break one law if it prevents a greater law from being broken (within limits)

Akrasia

Diogenes wrote:

Couldn't such a ruling, also be used to justify vigilante violence?

that would be up to the jury to decide, whether or not the person acted in a reasonable manner. In the case of the Catholic Workers, they had tried to get the Gardai to prevent the use of Irish airspace by the U.S. military and they had tried to push for a political solution, but the politicians and gardai were complicit in the crimes they sought to prevent so they were left with only one option, and that was to act themselves.

Someone said that U.N. resolution 1483 justifies the U.S. U.K. invasion of Iraq, because it gives them a legal status as occupying forces, but how can a resolution passed after the beginning of the Invasion have a retrospective effect? And there was no basis under international law for the U.S. and the U.K. to wage war against Iraq. (even the flimsy WMD lies were insufficient because the Weapons inspections were doing a very good job of preventing him from pursuing Weapons programs)

Victor

KerranJast wrote:

UN Resolution 1483 put paid to all the illegal war claims.

I don't agree. In any case, this plane was attacked before that resolution. I'm sorry its very difficult to considered someone with an inflatable hammer someone of criminal intent.

KerranJast wrote:

The "occupation" is now legally recognised by the UN.

No, it merely recognises the occupation.

lostexpectation

Manic Moran wrote:

Given that the aid was indeed sent and arrived in those theaters, evidently whatever the conditions were, they were met and presumably the aid was put to good use.

NTM

and withheld from others not willing to follow US armies orders?

jhegarty

Victor wrote:

No, it merely recognises the occupation.

There is no occupation now.... Iraq had a free and fair election , and the people elected have asked the US to stay......

or do you think you know better than the goverment of Iraq ?