Shannon Airport 5 have been completely exonorated

Akrasia · 25-07-2006 01:16PM #1

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 · 25-07-2006 01:43PM

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 · 25-07-2006 02:05PM

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 · 25-07-2006 02:10PM

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 · 25-07-2006 02:36PM

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 · 25-07-2006 02:40PM

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 · 25-07-2006 02:42PM

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 · 25-07-2006 02:50PM

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 · 25-07-2006 02:59PM

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 · 25-07-2006 02:59PM

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 · 25-07-2006 03:31PM

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 · 25-07-2006 03:36PM

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 · 25-07-2006 03:38PM

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 · 25-07-2006 03:43PM

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 · 25-07-2006 03:43PM

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 · 25-07-2006 04:08PM

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 · 25-07-2006 04:24PM

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 · 25-07-2006 04:24PM

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 · 25-07-2006 04:44PM

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 · 25-07-2006 04:48PM

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 · 25-07-2006 05:01PM

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 · 25-07-2006 05:10PM

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 · 25-07-2006 05:21PM

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 · 25-07-2006 05:44PM

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 · 25-07-2006 06:36PM

Well done to the jury

Manic Moran · 25-07-2006 06:41PM

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 · 25-07-2006 07:06PM

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 · 25-07-2006 07:16PM

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 · 25-07-2006 07:26PM

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 · 25-07-2006 07:53PM

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 · 25-07-2006 08:01PM

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 ?

Manic Moran · 25-07-2006 08:06PM

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 · 25-07-2006 08:09PM

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 · 25-07-2006 08:13PM

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 · 25-07-2006 08:20PM

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 · 25-07-2006 08:31PM

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 · 25-07-2006 08:54PM

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 · 25-07-2006 09:01PM

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 · 25-07-2006 09:03PM

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 · 25-07-2006 09:10PM

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 · 25-07-2006 09:16PM

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 · 25-07-2006 09:35PM

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 · 26-07-2006 12:42AM

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 · 26-07-2006 03:58AM

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 · 26-07-2006 09:28AM

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 · 26-07-2006 09:34AM

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 · 26-07-2006 09:36AM

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 · 26-07-2006 09:37AM

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 · 26-07-2006 09:40AM

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 · 26-07-2006 01:15PM

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 · 26-07-2006 01:29PM

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.

Shannon Airport 5 have been completely exonorated

Comments