Shannon Airport 5 have been completely exonorated

Manic Moran

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

You are saying that the people who did receive the aid didn't actually need it?

This is notwithstanding the fact that whilst USAID does indeed have restrictions placed upon it, basic aid items as food, and clothing can be sent anywhere.

For example, after the Bam earthquake in Iran 2003, the US government issued a statement saying to the effect that 'We are lifting our restrictions on assets so that in addition to the unrestricted items, the US can send vehicles, satellite phones, computers, etc'

http://www.parstimes.com/news/archive/2004/washfile/us_lifts_restrictions.html

If Iran could get US disaster relief, I don't see why any other country shouldn't. Indeed, I'd be curious to hear a country named which was refused US relief after the Tsunami.

NTM

lostexpectation

Manic Moran wrote:

You are saying that the people who did receive the aid didn't actually need it?

This is notwithstanding the fact that whilst USAID does indeed have restrictions placed upon it, basic aid items as food, and clothing can be sent anywhere.

For example, after the Bam earthquake in Iran 2003, the US government issued a statement saying to the effect that 'We are lifting our restrictions on assets so that in addition to the unrestricted items, the US can send vehicles, satellite phones, computers, etc'

http://www.parstimes.com/news/archive/2004/washfile/us_lifts_restrictions.html

If Iran could get US disaster relief, I don't see why any other country shouldn't.

NTM

the americans were already breaking their restrictions with trade with Iran big deal, its still used a tool to coerce by the Americans.

FlutterinBantam

Wheeeey.... bottom line.....

group of mainly non irish activists did millions of dollars damage to a unit of the US Airforce.

Jury concluded they did not commit a criminal act.


irish taxpayer will have to foot the bill....


Seems to give me the right to take an axe to anything I don't agree with...


Extemely stoooopid decision IMHO

Victor

Hang on. Who is saying that Ireland is paying for anything more than a glass door and three misguided trials?

And why would tsunami aid be brought from the USA via Ireland, the long way around the world, before the tsunami?

gilroyb

This is an issue of International Law. The analogies with vigilantes are not accurate as all citizens are subject to the laws of the State. States on the other hand are sovereign, even when operating in another jurisdiction (within prescribed boundaries).

If there are any reports on the case, it would be interesting to see if a Dr. Biehler was called to give evidence, and if so what he said.

Though the judgment seems odd, it is not to be considered in terms of normal 'justice', but in terms of inter-State interaction.

logonapr

Obviously a freak result from the jury in this case and as with any case we must accept the verdict whether we believe it fair, or not.
No doubt all those that support these loonies who left us to pick up the bill for damage and made no difference whatsoever to events in Iraq were equally as convinced that the jury in the O J Simpson case had got their verdict spot on.
Yes the courts can be wrong but in our judicial system we do accept them but we don't have to agree with them.

Akrasia

logonapr wrote:

Obviously a freak result from the jury in this case and as with any case we must accept the verdict whether we believe it fair, or not.
No doubt all those that support these loonies who left us to pick up the bill for damage and made no difference whatsoever to events in Iraq were equally as convinced that the jury in the O J Simpson case had got their verdict spot on.
Yes the courts can be wrong but in our judicial system we do accept them but we don't have to agree with them.

it's not a freak result by any means. Mary kelly, the other case of an Anti war protestor damaging a U.S. warplane was acquitted as well.
so that's two for two there, and Eoin Dubsky, a peace activist who spraypainted a U.S. warplane a few days before the Catholic workers action got off too.

Manic Moran

Victor wrote:

And why would tsunami aid be brought from the USA via Ireland, the long way around the world, before the tsunami?

You missed the point: I said 'such as'

Unless I'm mistaken, the defense claim was that by damaging the US Navy's aircraft, they saved lives by preventing the aircraft from being capable of delivering military support to Iraqi operations in the (then) near future.
I pointed out that that act also prevents the same aircraft from being capable of carrying out the humanitarian missions that the US also carries out, in the (then) near future.

NTM

eddyc

I wonder how this act can be considered legal becouse it is stopping killing that may occur , but that the use of the airport itself was considered legal also, would this conclusion not mean that there is a case against the government for letting the U.S. use the airport in the first place?

Rozie

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?

Err, there's a difference between MIGHT(extremely low probability) kill someone and WILL(Probability of 1) kill dozens.

It is a bizarre judgement, but in a good way. This means people can damage US Planes all they want, meaning the US can't really land their planes in Shannon anymore, at least not to the same degree. It's the courts way of saying they don't want to deal with any US related issues, but still have the balls to take a moral stand against it.

Which is refershing. Modern law tends to be a bizarre fusion of Moral Relativism and Black and White thinking, two opposites yet neither one takes into account human understanding on a regular basis. This is a nice change. I'd like to see more decisions made based on what's actually going on and who's really doing the hurting, instead of what rules are being broken.

sceptre

Rozie wrote:

Err, there's a difference between MIGHT(extremely low probability) kill someone and WILL(Probability of 1) kill dozens.

You are aware that the plane was a C40, which is basically a military 737? Short of being driven into a skyscraper somewhere in the middle east, that plane had a probability of 0 of directly killing dozens. Of course indirectly it might (and I stress "might") have been part-responsible for anything I can speculatively name but that's not what I'm addressing.

Leaving aside my view on whether the judgement was good or not or whether the original action was good or not, let's have a half idea about how many people this particular plane was itself going to kill before passing a moral judgement on the particular act based in particular on what the plane was perhaps ("might") or definitely ("will") going to kill.

Manic Moran

Simple legal question:

To acquit, did the Jury have to find that the accused acted to prevent murder, or just that the accused honestly believed that they were acting to prevent murder?

NTM

lostexpectation

Manic Moran wrote:

Simple legal question:

To acquit, did the Jury have to find that the accused acted to prevent murder, or just that the accused honestly believed that they were acting to prevent murder?

NTM

no that the act was reasonable to the degree of lawful excuse

Akrasia

jhegarty wrote:

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 ?

what planet are you from?
The Iraqi people voted overwhelmingly for anti occupation candidates and th Iraqi prime minister asked himself for the Occupation forces to leave. One of his first statements on election was for the U.S. to give a timetable for withdrawal which Bush immediately rejected.

Akrasia

Manic Moran wrote:

You missed the point: I said 'such as'

Unless I'm mistaken, the defense claim was that by damaging the US Navy's aircraft, they saved lives by preventing the aircraft from being capable of delivering military support to Iraqi operations in the (then) near future.
I pointed out that that act also prevents the same aircraft from being capable of carrying out the humanitarian missions that the US also carries out, in the (then) near future.

NTM

Look, this plane was being directly used to support the American invasion of Iraq. It's that simple. They did not target a Red cross transport.

Akrasia

eddyc wrote:

I wonder how this act can be considered legal becouse it is stopping killing that may occur , but that the use of the airport itself was considered legal also, would this conclusion not mean that there is a case against the government for letting the U.S. use the airport in the first place?

Hopefully there will be.

Diogenes

Asked for the judges directions to the jury

http://indymedia.ie/article/77493

The reporting seems like fairly straightforward dictation of what was said in court, without the editorialisation frequently found in indymedia journalism.

Akrasia

sceptre wrote:

You are aware that the plane was a C40, which is basically a military 737? Short of being driven into a skyscraper somewhere in the middle east, that plane had a probability of 0 of directly killing dozens. Of course indirectly it might (and I stress "might") have been part-responsible for anything I can speculatively name but that's not what I'm addressing.

Leaving aside my view on whether the judgement was good or not or whether the original action was good or not, let's have a half idea about how many people this particular plane was itself going to kill before passing a moral judgement on the particular act based in particular on what the plane was perhaps ("might") or definitely ("will") going to kill.

Nobody said that plane itself was going to kill someone, but it was a part of the logistics support for the war which has killed people. If that cargo plane was carrying spare parts for fighter planes or tanks then the lack of those spare parts would prevent those killing machines from operating and save lives.

Manic Moran

Akrasia wrote:

Nobody said that plane itself was going to kill someone, but it was a part of the logistics support for the war which has killed people. If that cargo plane was carrying spare parts for fighter planes or tanks then the lack of those spare parts would prevent those killing machines from operating and save lives.

Do we know that? It was a US Navy aircraft, and the Navy's only devoting a small portion of its efforts to Iraq. It more likely carries ship's crewmen to its Meditteranean fleet in Italy. For all we know, the only correlation to Iraq for that aircraft was the fact that it had a US flag on the side.

Indeed, since they conducted their attack before the US invaded Iraq, even that connection is tenuous.

NTM

Akrasia

Manic Moran wrote:

Do we know that? It was a US Navy aircraft, and the Navy's only devoting a small portion of its efforts to Iraq. It more likely carries ship's crewmen to its Meditteranean fleet in Italy. For all we know, the only correlation to Iraq for that aircraft was the fact that it had a US flag on the side.

Indeed, since they conducted their attack before the US invaded Iraq, even that connection is tenuous.

NTM

The U.S. navy were heavily involved in the bombing campaign at the start of the invasion, and in the year prior to the invasion, the U.S. flew 22,000 bombing sorties against Iraqi targets.

Sgt. Sensible

I'm not referring to anyone in particular here, but there's something patently absurd about a situation where people are apparently more concerned about the morality of vandalising a plane (where no one died) than the morality of their support for the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Lebanon (where many have died).

Sad times.

Carry on.

Manic Moran

Akrasia wrote:

The U.S. navy were heavily involved in the bombing campaign at the start of the invasion, and in the year prior to the invasion, the U.S. flew 22,000 bombing sorties against Iraqi targets.

Actually, just sorties. If you're going to quote figures, do it right. A small number of those were bombing sorties, yes. (Reportedly 391 targets were attacked) Either way, the US Navy consists of a lot more than three aircraft carriers. I have yet to see any evidence that the C-40 in question provided (Or would have provided) any logistical support to any warship or Navy combat aircraft that undertook operations in Iraq.

Basically we have a case of speculative, pre-emptive action which has been sanctioned by Jury.

Asked for the judges directions to the jury

"Was their belief that they would save lives or property honestly held - I suggest that it was"

Ouch. A judge telling a jury his opinion on an issue of fact? You could lodge an appeal for mistrial for that in the US.

Looks like my earlier question as to what the Jury was asked to deliberate has been answered by that transcript: The Jury didn't need to agree with the actions, they just needed to find that the actions were reasonable given what the defendants believed. I still think a civil suit should be launched.

NTM

Diogenes

Manic Moran wrote:

Looks like my earlier question as to what the Jury was asked to deliberate has been answered by that transcript: The Jury didn't need to agree with the actions, they just needed to find that the actions were reasonable given what the defendants believed. I still think a civil suit should be launched.

NTM

The Iraq constitution gives US troops immunity from prosecution from local laws, so troops cannot be arrested for loss of life or property damage, but you want to sue someone who damages a piece of US technology possibly bringing weapons/support into that environment.

What do you think a civil suit will achieve? They're a minority split sect of the catholic church, with limited resources. You really think they've got the cash to pay for the damages?

Manic Moran

Not at all. But neither do I think that speculative vigilanteism of such financial damage should go unaccountable either. Fair enough, the Jury decided that no criminal charges should be held. Unless the law provides an immunity, however, there are still potential liabilities under tort law. Obviously there's no chance of any recoup of the $2.5 million or whatever, but just as the acquitted are claiming a victory of principle, I see no reason why the transgressed should not also be able to do the same.

NTM

constitutionus

ya have to admit theres some interesting ramifications of this judgement. i may be wrong but it looks to me that as stated in the consitition all power flows from the irish people. if a group of people perceive the government to be not acting according to the interests or will of the irish people this judgement basically says any of us can do what we want to stop said government and then throw ourselves on the mercy of our peers i.e the jury.

this could lead to a **** load of fun in the future

and i'll be honest, i kinda like the idea of that, it'd certainly do away with the commonly held beliefs by politicians that once they're in power they're safe till the next election. might keep the feckers on their feet.

Diogenes

Manic Moran wrote:

Not at all. But neither do I think that speculative vigilanteism of such financial damage should go unaccountable either. Fair enough, the Jury decided that no criminal charges should be held. Unless the law provides an immunity, however, there are still potential liabilities under tort law. Obviously there's no chance of any recoup of the $2.5 million or whatever, but just as the acquitted are claiming a victory of principle, I see no reason why the transgressed should not also be able to do the same.

NTM

I notice you completely avoided the first part of my point.

Whats the principle the US government are trying to make, that you shouldn't indiscriminately destroy property?

LostinBlanch

I'm surprised no one has mentioned the precedent for this in UK in the 90's where a similar group got into British Aerospaces factory which was making Hawk Fighters sold to Indonesia as "training" planes but which were actually being used by the Indonesian Air Force to kill East Timorese civilians.

The Swords to Ploughshares group (I think that was their name) did the same thing causing damage to Hawk Fighters being sold to Indonesia to protect the lives of East Timorese Civilians. They actually had to go and get the security guards in order to get arrested and charged. Their defence in court was the first time that this kind of defence was used. The jury acquitted them on all counts.

Diogenes

Jack Straw, the home secretary said of the case "This is why trial by jury doesn't work"

oscarBravo

Reading the transcript:

...it is immaterial whether a belief is justified or not if it is honestly held.

Is it just me, or is that a slightly terrifying thing to find in a law?

Dirk Gently

oscarBravo wrote:

...it is immaterial whether a belief is justified or not if it is honestly held. .......Reading the transcript: Is it just me, or is that a slightly terrifying thing to find in a law?

Does that translate as once someone thinks they're right they can carry out actions which they believe to be justified once, as far as the offender was concerned, those actions were carried out for the greater good ?

(If so I'm gonna be busy for the foreseeable future dishing out justice clown bag style )

seriously though, that is a frightening loophole in the law, not neccesserily in the case of the plane at shannon which could be sorted out with increased security, but if it could be applied to other situations too it would open up a rather nasty legal can of worms.