|
|
User Preferences
Blog Feeds
Anti-Empire
Human Rights in IrelandPromoting Human Rights in Ireland
Lockdown Skeptics
Voltaire NetworkVoltaire, international edition
|
Mary Kelly Trial clare |
anti-war / imperialism |
feature
 Friday July 04, 2003 15:39 by IMC Editorial Group - IMC Ireland
 Hung Jury, Re-Trial Possible in October Report by Deirdre Clancy: Speaking to Mary by phone soon after the trial’s end, I asked her for her reaction to this outcome. “It’s a great victory for Ireland,” she said, quietly, obviously deeply moved. “The people, having heard the evidence, could not find me guilty of a crime.” Not only is it a victory for Ireland and for the peace movement as a whole, but it is also a victory for Mary and her legal team, given the efforts of the prosecution, and indeed the judge, to try to suppress both highly distinguished and experienced defence witnesses and evidence for the defence. As an activist who is banned from County Clare for a similar nonviolent direct action, I have relied on several concerned citizens who took copious notes in court each day, and gave me detailed daily phone updates on the trial proceedings. Given the way in which much of the mainstream media have operated on a “guilty until proven innocent” premise with regard to nonviolent direct action in general, it would seem important to give a full factual account of this trial. One might object that this account has as much of an agenda as coverage in any other media outlet, and this is probably true. The “agenda” is to provide a factual account of how Mary Kelly and her legal team spoke truth to power. Day one of the trial (Monday, 30th of June) featured Commander Willam Schneider, pilot of the ill-fated plane. Schneider, when questioned by the prosecution, basically testified that having landed the plane, he didn’t give anybody permission to damage it with an axe. He also testified that the plane in question was carrying cargo and passengers rather than weapons, although he wasn’t aware of how many passengers he was actually carrying. The defence barrister Brendan Nix asked Schneiders whether he was aware of the fact that George W. Bush had congratulated not only the U.S. army but also the Air Force and the Coast Guard on their role in the war effort. Schneiders replied that he would not presume to speak for his president. Nix repeated the question, pointing out that he wasn’t being asked to speak for Bush, just whether he was aware of the specific fact of Bush’s message of congratulations. A rather flustered Schneiders eventually answered “Yes”. There was slight controversy over Schneiders’ failure to name one of the plane’s identifying marks when he was asked to list these, the omitted mark being the “City of Dallas” insignia on the plane (which I can reliably inform you is definitely there, and may even have allegedly been the specific target a bang or two some days after Mary Kelly’s action). Schneiders was ushered out of the courtroom by a superior quite soon after the reality of the effects of U.S. foreign policy began to be discussed by the defence, presumably for fear he would be exposed to “un-American” viewpoints. “Only a pawn in their game”, as the bard might say. Another witness for the prosecution on Day one was the scene of crimes inspector, who it turned out had inserted material in his report that didn’t reflect his first-hand experience of the scene of the “crime” (the crime being the fact that military planes in an illegal war of aggression are landing at Shannon in the first place). The inspector had mentioned damage to a “proximity electronic sensing unit” in his report, and Nix asked the inspector the following question: “If a proximity electronic sensing unit fell out of a tree and landed on you, would you know what it was?” Mr. Scene of Crimes thought for a minute and then replied, “No”. By this time, it was becoming apparent to many in the courtroom that although the prosecution team was deeply anxious to criminalize Mary Kelly, their level of competency was questionable. Perhaps the mistaken assumption that they wouldn’t have to try too hard to win the case was a part of this. There were then several witnesses from the U.S. military, the Airport Police and the FBO (Fixed Base Operators), who all displayed a deep phobia about uttering the words “yes” and “no”. When asked by the defence whether they knew that a large number of munitions were going through Shannon, for example, an FBO man replied “Well, I don’t know what you mean by a large number”. All answers from the aforementioned witnesses to this question were along these lines. Further contradictions in the prosecution’s case emerged when Superintendent Kerin testified that several members of the guards had told him that on her arrest, Mary refused to co-operate with the investigation. All of the guards involved in the investigation, among them Garda Liam O’Reilly and Detective Geoghan, denied ever having made such a claim. Day two was a day in which the jury’s patience was tested by the prosecution. They continually had to leave the courtroom while the prosecution team went away to find evidence that they had forgotten to bring to court. According to plane-spotting activist Tim Hourigan, the jury were “up and down like the Assyrian Empire”. However, the comic highlight of the day has to have been when Commander Shady of the U.S. Navy (yes, that’s his real name, by the way) revealed that as project manager for the fleet of C40s (the ill-fated plane was part of a new fleet), he had performed a damage estimate of the plane via video satellite link from Kansas. Now, to me, the chances of achieving an accurate estimate via a video link are about as good as if they got the scarecrow in the Wizard of Oz to do it for them instead. Shady also testified that some of the damage of which Mary was accused wasn’t actually detected until after the plane had got back to Kansas (having presumably clicked its heels three times), which the defense pointed out could mean that this damage was not a result of Mary’s action, but of the action several days later by the Catholic Worker five. The emergency repairs that were intended to make the plane fit to fly to Kansas (for a full-scale repair) involved the radome, the nose landing gear, the link assembly, the metering assembly and temporary patches on the fusilage. Such technical details were sending the jury into a visible state of almost sleep-inducing boredom, until Denis Halliday took the stand and talked at length about the effects of the sanctions, of depleted uranium and of the destruction of Iraq’s infrastructure on the country’s inhabitants. Several people in the courtroom were moved to tears by Halliday’s testimony, and the jury was visibly moved also. Day three began with the defence asking the Judge Moran to install a new jury, because the previous day, the judge had prejudiced them by falsely stating that Mary had “admitted to a crime”. The judge refused to agree to this request, but did retract his statement, asking the jury to disregard it. The sage-like Ramsey Clarke (former U.S. Attorney General and longtime peace campaigner) testified for 30 minutes about the adverse effects of U.S. foreign policy, stating facts and figures about the effects of long-term low-intensity conflict in Iraq since 1991. He expressed deep concern about the sanctions, with at least 585,000 young children dead as a direct result of them. He also compared Mary’s action to somebody removing the bullets from a gun that would otherwise be used to kill someone. The prosecuting counsel strenuously questioned the relevance of Clarke’s testimony, and asked him the following question: “If someone broke into your house and did 1.5 million euros worth of damage, how would you feel?” Clarke replied that if his house was capable of complicity in the murder of innocents, he’d be actively offering invitations to people to come and damage it. Clarke was asked the question several times (apparently the prosecutor felt he hadn’t answered it), and gave the same reply each time. I am sure many bizarre questions are asked in courtrooms, but this one strikes me as similar to asking Rosa Parks “If someone sat in your usual seat in the bus, how would you feel?” Removal of context, universalizing of the particular, seems to be a tool used by empire time and again. And, because we all know that the master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house (to borrow from Audre Lorde), all that a defence can do is to continually push the focus back to the context in which an action occurs. Michael Birmingham gave a similarly powerful testimony, focusing on the current breakdown of law and order in Iraq, which he is witnessing at first hand in his heroic work for Voices in the Wilderness. The lack of a police force means that many people now own guns. In a speech in Limerick last Friday, for example, Birmingham spoke of an incident in which a nine-year-old street child was raped near his hotel, resulting in the hotel staff getting their guns to the ready to go out to protect the street children nearby, of whom there has been a proliferation since the latest invasion. He also witnessed a man being fatally stabbed, as a group of U.S. soldiers stood a few metres away and failed to intervene. Toward the end of day three, there were vigorous protestations from the prosecution at the desire of Mary’s legal team to have the jury view a series of videos relevant to Mary’s motivations, among them John Pilger’s documentary on the effects of the sanctions, “Paying the Price”. The prosecution maintained that Pilger wasn’t a proper investigative journalist because he “showed gory details”, which meant he was “too emotional”. The decision on the videos was adjourned until the next day, so that the judge would have a chance to watch the videos at home and make an informed decision. By the morning of day four, Judge Moran had decided that none of the videos were relevant, especially not the John Pilger one, because it would politicize the trial, was too emotional and would affect the jury (and here was I thinking evidence on both sides was actually supposed to affect a jury’s decision). To add insult to injury, the prosecution also wished to know how Scott Ritter (ex-UN weapons inspector and next scheduled defence witness) was relevant to the case, and Judge Moran was very much inclined to wonder the same, saying he felt that the case was becoming much too political. Finally Judge Moran reluctantly agreed to allow the defence to ask Ritter one or two questions. The sum total of Ritter’s testimony consisted of the following question from Nix and its reply: “Did the U.S. have a mandate to go to war?” Ritter: “Most definitely not.” With that, Ritter was urged to leave the stand, and the defence finished with a “fantastic” (Mary Kelly’s adjective) closing speech from Nix on her behalf. When the judge gave charge, Mary became convinced that she was going to prison. Judge Moran’s slant was clearly in the prosecution’s favour and many in the courtroom were convinced that Mary would be convicted. He did not address the jury as to the influences and state of mind of the defendant, who had been affected by work in severely war-torn areas of the world and upset at having seen the destruction of Iraqi society, the effects of depleted uranium and the death of thousands of children in the Pilger documentary. He ignored the defence testimony, directing the jury not to allow feelings or issues of conscience to influence them in making their decision. This extraordinary instruction, when the whole function of a jury is to act as the conscience of society in matters of law, is perhaps an indication of how profoundly the prosecution’s agenda had been shown up by the strength, clarity and truth of the defence. Despite being effectively told to ignore their own human consciences, the jury couldn’t convict Mary Kelly for her efforts to undercut the U.S. war machine. And this outcome is another small but highly significant dent in that war machine. When Ramsey Clarke spoke at Mary Immaculate College in Limerick on Wednesday the 2nd of July, he spoke about U.S. weapons capabilities with great knowledge. He warned that the U.S. had the capability to wipe out any country in the world overnight should it wish to do so, speaking of twenty Hiroshimas. A soft-spoken man who is eighty-one and who Shas seen much destruction and sought to resist it, he made a passing statement toward the end of his speech that made me sit up: “I’m still naïve enough to think that the truth will set you free”. Mary Kelly’s court case has, in its own way, been an example of this maxim in action. Deirdre Clancy, July 4, 2003. |
make this your indymedia front page
printable version
Digg this
del.icio.us
Furl
Reddit
Technorati
Facebook
Gab
Twitter
|
View Comments Titles Only
save preference
Comments (30 of 30)
Jump To Comment: 30 29 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1I wish I had the courage to do what Mary Kelly did. Where can I make a contribution to her defence fund?
...I'll tell you none! Since when did this become an act of heroism? Come on I believe both sides are getting killed! It's just that one side is a little better funded, and has a lot more stuff. There are much better people in the war than her. War is not good, but neither is torturing your own Olympic team and making them wallow in their own raw sewage after they have been beaten so they get infected. There are two sides to a war, and neither are lily white. To choose which is more for peace is it really that hard? How could you come up with such a wrong conclusion? Think of it this way. No heaven No hell we are just here, and there is a common bond not exactly the strongest but its there to some of your fellow man. There happens to be a group getting horribly tortured and murdered for no good reason, (those of you thinking Bush is doing the torture think about Uday and his victims which aren't the only ones) Now still thinking that way if you don't do something and keep letting it happen it says its ok and the thought "out of sight and out of mind" strengthens. The best way to change what you don't like is join, you decide, you join an office and face the harsh reality that you only live once and then cease to be entirely. Think of it that way, and then think of the people dying on both sides, and think of the reasons behind both sides. Think of the heroism, think of the fact that soldiers are out their only living once, willing to give their life for citizens they have never meant because they think it’s wrong that they were getting tortured. Now think of the abuse of prisoners for a second also (see NO SIDE IS PERFECTLY RIGHT) No for a second regardless of what you think if someone shoots and kills your friend or someone right next to you your going to be shocked and have a great amount of hatred. By the way this happens on BOTH sides of the war. Now you capture the person or one of the group who is responsible or maybe they did nothing well I do think you would loose control if you had the chance. Well due to some screw ups you get it and you kill him. That tells you what? Or better yet think about you having an 11 year old daughter who a 32 year old rapes, if you think you know who did it you would want them dead and you would want to do it. There are about 50 things to think about leading you to what conclusion? Who knows there is no obvious answer, but time money and energy could have been better spent rather than destroying a plane, the following legal issues and having praise be put on you for what? Something that was more symbolic of a disagreement to the war than anything? If you feel so strongly get out there and do something more successful and appropriate. Keeping in mind what the other side does is doing and will do knowing that no one is doing the "right" thing. And that's not even a fraction of how complicated this thing is. Look just know that we have biasts, but listen and discard what you disagree with what I have typed but the things that have some sense to them listen and try to see things from all of the perspectives.
Honestly expressing a fact that what she did WAS ILLEGAL gets me a ticket to an imaginary place mythical for it's supposed everlasting torture? Come on. Keep your emotions from clouding your head, the law is the law and she broke it so she should be held accountable for her crimes. Why would you say see you in hell? It means your there also! I'm not sure you know what your talking about. I think she should do her time like everyone else. She's a nut, and she didn't actually stop anything big so what was the point? The plane can be fixed or replaced, and the end result is she's a crazy old lady who cost us some money and should pay it back.
You obviously respect a lifeless humongus piece of metal engaged exclusively to kill civilians more than you respect life it self,so theres little point in telling you that the criminal damage laws also apply to firemen who damage property in order to save lives.The 'exemptions' also apply which come in handy,especially if its your life hanging in the balance.Should firemen be charged with smashing hall doors to save children inside? Mabey you think so. But your obviously not looking down the barrel of an m-16,or looking at a fireman trying to decide wether (or not) to hose your burning house down with your family inside,in case you might sue him for water damage.Or your not waiting in the middle of the night with your family for the last time,cos even one tamahawk can ruin your family life
'and for that they should be punished to the full extent of the law'
fine. mary kelly and the catholic worker 5 should be punished only as much as bertie, bush and blair for their crimes.
punished, no more and no less.
you must have one of thoose brains that tells you that you wont burn your finger this time ...do you?
I think, the people whom these warplanes were going to kill, should pay for the damage done to them. Cos if it was'nt for their existence in the first place Bush ,Blair and Bertie wouldn't have to kill them... and they should also be invoiced for the missiles used to kill them ....o wait,I think they have. Or mabey the Irish state should pay the bill, after all George did thank Bertie with a small brown envelope with a few mill. for parking the plane at Shannon, he could just write off the damage as part of the cost of doing buisness. Alternatively ,you spenser could decide who lives or dies and remove anyone else from having to consult their concience in theese matters.But you will need to change the law,because unfortunately as it stands,it is illegal to launch an attack on another country or target civilians,unless of cource you are George Bush Tony Blair or Bertie Aherne,then for some reason you are not bound by law....pity haw. See you in hell spenser..peace, out.
QUOTE: What they did was attack and disable 2 warplanes,
ANSWER: Glad that you admit that they were warplanes. That means that you accept that the USA was guilty of breaching Ireland's neutrality. Mary Kelly is a hero to the plain ordinary people of this island.
What they did was attack and disable 2 warplanes, and for that they should be punished to the full extent of the law. Not to mention tresspassing with criminal intent. These 2 should be in jail for this, and it doesn't matter their reasons they did an attack on planes, and damn the reason. This is not to be tolerated, and I say make an example of them
Congratulations, Mary!
And to the Kilrush jury whose refusal to convict Mary fills me with pride for the land of my ancestors.
End the Occupation!
Just to say thanks Deirdre for a great report. I couldn't make it down to Clare for the trial, but was very much there in spirit. Mary deserves to be commended for her courage and integrity. Her willingness to compromise her own future in order to defend the future of unknown innocents is truly admirable. Her refusal to despair at a world that can all too easily put the blinkers on, stands as a shining example to us all.
Well done to Mary, her defenders and her supporters. Onwards now.
...Mary Kelly! And to the Jury of Co. Clare for their brave and thought provoking decision. Thanks for a great report Deirdre. And to all others, such as Tim and the many other diligant supporters/activists, who showed no sign of letting this go.
It really was inspiring to see the events of this trial unfold. And to see the people who were willing to back up Mary in the trial.
Las acciones de alguna persona en este mundo me dan la esperanza para llevar mis creencias.
Well done Mary.
I was at the picket of the US ambassadors residence on July 4th.
There were maybe between 60 and 90 people there and 15 odd cops who started off quite aggressive (forbidding the use of megaphones etc) when there was 20 protesters there but quietened down as more arrived. They tried to coral the protest behind barricades set back a bit from the road and 50m from the gate but when enough people had arrived we walked onto one half of the road leading up to the gates to jeer those arriving. I left about 90 minutes after the advertised starting time so not sure if anything happened after this.
Groups I remember seeing people from included SWP, CW, SP, ISN and WSM as well as the Palestine Solidarity campaign. May have been others also.
Anybody know how the IAWM protests in Dublin on July 4th & 5th went? Numbers, report, etc. would be nice, seeing as nobody has published anything on the newswire.
Yeah! Yeah" It doesn't so shut up. Head in the clouds anyone?
Former US attorney general , from the JFK administration, Ramsey Clark summed up Mary Kellys action very well in his evidence:
"Mary Kelly acted to disarm a war plane and preserve the peace. Property is not sacrosanct."
"If the world had her conscience and courage, there would not have been a war in Iraq."
"The plane was part of a war of aggression and Mary Kelly sought to intervene in a symbolic way to disarm one plane."
"What Mary Kelly did was in harmony with the law and was trying to preserve life against US aggression. What she did was like taking bullets out of a gun."
I'm not stalinist or Marxist nor do i belong to any political party
When i said "supposed justice system" it was because a government department of "justice" is the same as a government department of information. it is propaganda.
That some government appointed judges could be capable of dispensing accurately and consistantly "justice" (one of the most difficult of all philosophical issues) is ludricous.
It is a department of law enforcement and nothing more. That the judge would instruct the jurors to ignore their conscience and disallow very relevant evidence because it would have politicised a trial (that was passing judgement on an action intended to be highly political) only goes to prove my point.
The system in this case cared not for justice, it was concerned only about carefully selected points of law. (it seemed to ignore all the international law obligations that would have totally exhonerated Mary Kelly and in fact endorsed her actions)
Well done Mary. Lets hope the empire gives up its case now.
That clown casually refers to '' our 'supposed' justice system''.
This sort of lazythinking off the cuff remark is insidious and typical of Marxist/Stalinist tatics.
The silly woman got off, for Christ's sakes. She'd have been tortured and shot in most countires in the world.
Idiots all.
Anybody would be very insulted at the mental image i have of you.
You're clearly a complete moron who doesn't know what he's talking about. there wasn't even any comment 'the so-called Irish justice system' anywhere on this thread
have censored my opinion (heartfelt as it was) yet again. Why? A little too close to the truth?
If I hear one more glib unfounded unreferenced comment like the one 'the so-called Irish justice system' which the amadán above has posted, I'm going to get really mad and shut this site down, and I can.
I wish you clowns really learnt to appreciate your freedom, like experiencing your friend Uday Hussein's justice.
You commies just love Dictators, nothing like a 'hard man' to get you hard. You are attracted to those qualities in others which you think are deficient in yourself, like homosexuals.
Congratulations to Mary,the Kilrush jury, legal team, witnesses,& the crew who were down there in solidarity the past week.
In our 23 year history the ploughshares/direct disarmament movement have experienced 3 acquittals ("Seeds of Hope Ploughshares" & "Aldermaston Women Trash Trident " in England "Trident Three Disarmament Action" in Scotland) and 3 hung juries ("Epiphany Plowshares" in U.S. "BAe Ploughshares" & "Bread Not Bombs Ploughshares" in England".
Check out background on the following site
www.plowsharesactions.org
ah swearing, the last crutch of the mentally deficient.
Is being satisfied with ones rather bad lot some sort of a requirement in being a normal Irish citizen?
Kind of like saying to a homeless person
'at least you're not dead you whiney bastard!'
*ahem*
good day.
Fabulous article by the way. quite interesting.
Congrats to Mary and to the integrity of the jury. There is a sense of the David and Goliath story here! The action of the jury, coupled with the marching feet of 100,000 in Dublin represents a real victory. Lift up your hearts!
Deirdre, thanks for the report. Tim and Conor, thanks for keeping vigil.
Stephen Cummins, Co. Cork
Maybe not a win, but an away draw against tuff opposition. Up for the replay!
Yeah, it was encouraging news. I should mention that Tim Hourigan's assiduous note-taking and willingness to give facts over the phone (along with details from one or two others present, including Mary herself) was the only reason this report could get written. As someone with strong roots in Clare, I'm really happy about the lack of ability of the jury to convict Mary Kelly of criminal damage. I'm equally confident, though, that a similar level of well-informed conscience exists in Dublin.
(Oh, and by the way, our action was the result of months of planning and dialoguing, along with longer term experiences which led us individually to it, so the aptly named "load of crap" can retreat back to his/her neanderthal cave now.)
I'd like to congratulate Mary on her non-conviction.
And well done, Deirdre for writing such an excellent report. The account is short and succint yet containing enough detail and depth to convey the most important points. I also like the commentary which has just the appropriate level of wit.
I was delighted to see such well respected people testify on Mary’s behalf. The emphasis on contextualising the action is very important. It's interesting that the judge thought that the jury should be shielded from the reality of what was (and is) happening in Iraq. His worry about the relevancy of such evidence and fears that the case was becoming too political are curious considering Mary's act was both humanitarian and political.
I suppose that since the judicial system is just another arm of the state, we can’t expect it to be too concerned with concepts such as conscience and I’m sure that state would prefer that the deaths of others throughout the world remain as abstract and distant concepts.
Overall, it's encouraging that the citzens of Clare followed their conscience and refused to convict Mary. I'm glad that we have jury trials where defendants have the possibility of getting a fair hearing. I doubt that any magistrate would vindicate such acts of conscience.
well done everyone.
Solidarity to you all.
There was and is a war on Iraq & the Iraqi people.
They may no longer have Saddam but most of the institutions he started have survived, the same middle management class of tyranny is extant.
& not much has changed.
In Ireland. This site and it's affiliates were the first to provide you with key and truthful developments and information on the build-up to that War, the first of this year.
With all the protestors.
with all the iraqis.
Well done to Mary! The outcome is a testament to the truth she represented. Well done also to the jurors who saw that truth! I really do admire their willingness to face down the state, the judge, and their fellow jurors. Gave me a kinda warm feeling I have to say.
Oh, and great report Deirdre! Let's hope the outcome in Mary's case is a sign of things to come. I'm sure it is.
It makes sober reading but at the same time the demonstration of Mary's achievement in spite of such blatant persecution by our supposed "justice" system should fill us all with hope in the knowledge that given the right information ordinary people can be made to accept the truth.