New Mary Kelly Trial Soon

by Eoin Mon Sep 06, 2004 22:15

My guess is that Mary's charge sheet refers to the Criminal Damage Act, 1991, but to be completely correct it should also say "as amended by the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act, 1997" cause the latter Act changes the "lawful excuse" provisions of the Criminal Damage act at Section 21 (http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/ZZA26Y1997S21.html). In any case, I ran this past my lawyers before and they said that nothing in the law precludes you from using the "lawful excuse" provisions of the 1997 Act in defence against charges under the 1991 Act.

Alas Fergal's right of course -- the judge might direct the jury whichever way s/he likes and it'll still come down to them in the end. Should someone who tries to disrupt a war machine by hand be locked up for her work?

by Fergal Mon Sep 06, 2004 21:45

Written into the statute book means embodied in a statute (i.e. an Act of the Oireachtas). So yes, something can be removed from the statute book, by means of an Act being passed which repeals or supercedes it.

The necessity defence under the 1997 Act is specific to that act, so you can't use use it when charged with an offence under another Act.

Finally, there is no judicial authority that accepts customary international law as binding or even persuasive in this jurisdiction, with the exception of a few long-standing conventions and customs prevailing in shipping (salvage rights and such).

None which means she won't get off. Even if the judge tells the jury that she hasn't a leg to stand on, they still have the final decision.

by R. Isible Mon Sep 06, 2004 20:39

Does it mean that precedent is established that it's an accepted part of law? Can something written into the statute book be removed later?

by Eoin Mon Sep 06, 2004 20:31

The court should allow her use any one of the options under Section 18 of the Act. The "lawful excuse" provisions of the Criminal Damage Act (1991) should be even easier to use cause she's facing charges under that act, and cause there's no need to show that she was trying to prevent a criminal act... i.e. that the US military aircraft was going to be used to help commit a crime.

That said, though she can rely on as many legal defences as she wants to -- and its best to not set the bar any higher than needs be -- it makes sense to refer to the law above too. If the court allows the jury to consider her "necessity defence" in terms of *trying to prevent a crime*, and if she is acquitted, it could introduce international humanitarian law into Irish law via common law.

Judge Kearns' shameful ruling in the Ed Horgan v Ireland judicial review has been reported on Indymedia before (http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=48208 ). Basically he said that the international laws of war, though they may exist, don't mean much in Ireland. Presented with evidence that the United States was preparing, and Ireland was helping, to commit the gravest crime under international law, he responded thus: "This
court is not at all persuaded that any untoward conduct has occurred" (J
Kearns at p. 71 in Horgan v. Ireland) (see http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=48788 ). A jury of ordinary people can undo his outrageous judgement, and help to restore peace and order.

by Eoin Dubsky Mon Sep 06, 2004 17:38

It's called the "necessity defence". It's a common law defence, and has been written into the Irish statute book once or twice before to varying degrees (see Criminal Damage Act, 1991, S. 6 "Lawful Excuses"). The Non-fatal Offences Against the Person Act (1997) put it most clearly (see below) and I believe abolishes the Irish common law defence.

That said, the Customary International Law necessity defence can't be abolished so easily, and is the one which I believe Mary is hoping to use (that the Nuremberg Charter entitles people to stop war crimes).


NON-FATAL OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON ACT, 1997 SECTION 18

Justifiable use of force; protection of person or property, prevention of crime, etc.

18.—(1) The use of force by a person for any of the following purposes, if only such as is reasonable in the circumstances as he or she believes them to be, does not constitute an offence—

( a ) to protect himself or herself or a member of the family of that person or another from injury, assault or detention caused by a criminal act; or

( b ) to protect himself or herself or (with the authority of that other) another from trespass to the person; or

( c ) to protect his or her property from appropriation, destruction or damage caused by a criminal act or from trespass or infringement; or

( d ) to protect property belonging to another from appropriation, destruction or damage caused by a criminal act or (with the authority of that other) from trespass or infringement; or

( e ) to prevent crime or a breach of the peace.
[... See link below for the rest]

by Onlooker Mon Sep 06, 2004 13:30

"committing a lesser crime to stop a higher crime IS permissible under the law."

No it's not. What gave that idea?

by shrewd_beggar - iawm Sun Sep 05, 2004 20:58 stavrevval at abv dot bg bulgaria no

im with you mary,we will fight them,our truth is the right truth.

by Nacho Fri Oct 31, 2003 05:31

Dear Drib,

If yer not already doing so, maybe yer best bet is to go for the jugular, to get a job working for the government.

At least then you wouldn't be wasting yer time condemning people who are busy trying to stop the slaughter of innocent Iraqi people.

Good luck with the State's application. You might want a friend to help you edit it.

by Orwell Wed Oct 29, 2003 18:16

Interesting newspeak take on attack Drbo my man.

Mary Kelly disables a cog in a war machine that is mobilising to attack, napalm, level, occupy and exploi Iraq and she is the "attacker". Depends where you stand I guess and we're not sure what trough you're accessing when you spin a defensivie disabling nonviolent act of disarmament into an "attack".

Could you swillin fromthe same trough as the spinmeister who came up wit the Catholic Worker 5 "assaulting and overpowering a grada" during their pit stop ploughsares action? A lie that was rejected by the Garda 12 noon Feb 4th. while repeated unretracted by several government ministers.

War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery etc etc

by let me explain Wed Oct 29, 2003 08:32

'Yeah but it wasn't like the jury voted her innocent.'

she has admited her 'crime' - that is not the issue.

the jury has to decide if she committed a lesser crime (non-violent, by the way) to attempt to stop a higher crime (read the papers).

committing a lesser crime to stop a higher crime IS permissible under the law.

by Slarti Wed Oct 29, 2003 00:20

Last time I checked we still had the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty which mary wasn't.

Also, the analogy " If a person was to admit murder" is not looking at the same situation. Mary has NEVER admitted criminal damage. She has admitted she disarmed the plane and argues that that is justified. You're not only skipping the entire moral argument but also the entire legal argument and jumping straight to "well, it wasn't hers and the government says she's bad so she must be".

If you were attacked in the street and defended yourself and damaged the attackers property in the process you'd plead self defence and expect a fair hearing. in fact you'd expect not even to be charged. if a friend jumped in to help you and he was the one who damaged the property he'd expect the same. For some reason when the people are foreign and the aggressors are governments it all goes out the window and they try and prevent you even putting the case to the jury.

As for your last paragraph, I don't know what you mean. Who should have "persued" the decision and how? Who should have challenged it?

by Drbinoche Tue Oct 28, 2003 20:27

Yeah but it wasn't like the jury voted her innocent. They were unable to reach a unaminous decision on her guilt. It was a hung jury of jurors who could not decide fully of her innocence or guilt, therefore it would be only right to have a retrial. If she was found innocent without a shadow of a doubt then let her be, but she wasn't. You guys would be moaning if she had been convicted under a hung jury. You can't have it one way and not another. If a person was to admit murder and to then brag about it and claim it was their right to do it and yet the jury were for some reason unable to totally decide on his/her guilt, then was a murder still not commited?? Should that person not have to face a trial at all, even though they are guilty of commiting murder?? Is someone not still dead??

As for the judge that decided it was against the law what the government was doing, then that was his decision and it should have been pursued. There has to be ways of challenging such a decision.

by Slarti Tue Oct 28, 2003 05:14

Funny that, I seem to remember a jury being unable to say that.

I also seem to remember a High Court judge saying that the Irish Government was breaking the law by alllowing the refueling but that he wasn't going to do anything about it...

by Drbinoche Mon Oct 27, 2003 21:10

At what point have I said I was anti-war. I am certainly not anti-war to the extent of some other people. You see I understand that war can be necessary at times. I believe my feelings on the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, have already been dealt with and you have argued them down or against em all you wanted. I might also point out that my last post was cut again, for some reason I cannot seem to comprehend, I do not believe what I said was abusive or insulting, if they were I would appreciate if someone could post exactly what I said and point out where it was wrong. There are comments here that are certainly worse than anything I have said so far.

My motivations is simple. Mary Kelly broke the civil law and should be punished accordingly.

Whether Mary Kelly is smart enought to 'wipe the floor' with someone is beside the point and totally irrelevant. I don't doubt that she has some intellect, and that to her her motivations were totally legally covered, but in reality she broke the civil law and therefore should be punished.

I have to agree with Cabhog here, he has brought up many good points. Where are you guys willing to draw the line with regard to US forces and what ones should be 'dealt' with. Do you agree that by your own rationale, IBM, 3Com etc are all as guilty as any plane that lands in Shannon. Also Sigma Electronics in Limerick would be as guilty as they make some software and electronics that are used in Apache Helicopters etc.

Please tell us where you people would be willing to draw the line on DA??? Who is not guilty and who does not deserve to be dealt with??

by Justin Morahan Sat Oct 25, 2003 15:08

I have just read the thread and wish Mary and the Catholic Workers the best.
Drbinoche, you make me laugh to see you take on the mantle of "anti-war" person. In another thread I answered your points about violence. That you have resurrected them here again makes me wonder about your motivation.
I am very angry at the crude intervention, as Ciaron has rightly called it by "Paul Higgins" and "Cabhog" and "Anti-Fascist Action".
You three are pathetic cowards (or maybe the same coward).
"Paul Higgins" you spoke to Ciaron who obviously doesn't know your true identity and anonymously you engage on this thread with the most vile, disgusting, hate-filled and insulting attack that you could muster up. It reminds me of an anti-black tirade I once heard from a South African apartheid supporter in Hyde Park in London. This with a (pretend?) "IAWM" label to your pseudonym!
"Cabhog", your snide anonymous remark about Mary supposedly not yet being credited with a mind is the remark of an abject coward. I can see from your entry that you regard yourself as superior in intellect to Mary but I believe she would wipe the floor with you (non-violently) in any debate on these matters.
"Anti-fascist Action", afraid to deal with ideas, you choose to deal with the images of the people who have the ideas. You choose to see insanity where I see sanity, character, dignity and courage. Your comments are sick and despicable.
You (three?) ought to be ashamed of yourselves. Please meet me sometime and reveal your identity as the author(s) of these comments as I would love to tell you what I think of you to your face(s).

by pacifist student ("abroad") - strange isn't it how British people don't see Ireland as "abroad"- over there. Sat Oct 25, 2003 13:30 tryingtodiscourage at broad dot org

she's cool.
Hi! Mary!
good magick.

by Big John Sat Oct 25, 2003 00:02

"..to Ciaron's mind (to credit MAry with one yet is debatable).."

Cabhog, If you are going to resort to cheap insults like that, then the IMC editors would be justified in taking the scissors to your comment, both for that personal insult and for trolling.
I'm surprised they have not spotted it yet.

by macdiarmada Fri Oct 24, 2003 23:15

anois is arís...
comhrá.

by Cabhog - ~ Fri Oct 24, 2003 20:46

I am very interested to note the debate with regard to Mary Kelly's attack on a US Army cargo plane. Valid points, to my mind at least, were raised by Drbnoiche. These points however were refuted in a most peculiar manner by another gentleman, Ciaron, who replied:

"After all a good 2/3 of the troops going to Iraq were in a support rather than frontline role. Should we only have been protesting against the 1/3 that were going to do the fighting?

That seems to be the base of your argument, one I find very odd. A C40 transport plane can transport cuddly toys for kids or it can transport cluster munitions. Should Mary have asked for an inventory before she acted? Who should she of asked? The airport authorities seem to be very careful NOT to know what any plane is carrying.

It was going to Sicily you say? Again is this important, even leaving aside that any line drawn from Shannon to Sicily and extended beyond will pass near the gulf."

What concerns me is that Ciaron believes an attack on a support unit of the US army is a legimiate attack, even if that unit has no relationship to the war in the Gulf. If this is so, the Mary Kelly had a perfect right to attack any of the US multi-nationals based in Ireland (the taxation on repartiated profits, pay for the US army and are probably the most importatn support 'unit). Intel, 3Com, Dell, and a variety of other companies were legitimate targets, to Ciaron's mind (to credit MAry with one yet is debatable) as they supported the war effort through taxation but also through the sale of products adapted for military use.


where is the limit drawn, can you attack a civilian airliner carrying troops to Iraq? If do, why not attack any american/british civilian airliner/ferry, as it may be called up to carry troops?

Should support troops be attacked (Ciaron seemed to think so)? If so, why not attack intel engineers as their technology allow the US war effort to function?

Since some would argue that the IAWM indirectly sought to aid saddam's duration in power, would it be legitimate for pro-war spporters to destroy the facilities the IAWM use to spread their message?

by R Isible - Indymedia Ireland Fri Oct 24, 2003 18:50

so far they're not listed for November. Thanks.

by Ciaron - Dublin Catholic Worker Fri Oct 24, 2003 06:35 087 918 4552

Pit Stop Ploughshares appear in the Fourt Courts, Monday, Nov 3rd. A call for international solidarity has been made.

Responses so far...
Nov 1 Solidarity Vigil Raytheon, Derry..organised by FEIC

Nov 2 (afternoon)Kila Concert, Mary House, New York Catholic Worker..organised by Kila, NYCW & Kairos

Nov 3 Solidarity Vigils at Irish Embassies & Consuls...
*New York City..organised by NYCW & Kairos
*Washington DC..organised by Dorothy Day Catholic Worker
*Chicago..organised by Voices in the Wilderness
*Houston..organised by Ken
*Paris..organsied by Stefan
*London (12 noon-3pm)..organised by London CW

also..
*Shannon Airport..organised by Ed Horgan
*Galway Top Oil..organised by Terry
*Somewhere in southern Wales..organised by John
*Harewood USAF Base, Chrtistchurch, New Zealand

In Dublin MOnday Nov 3
*Gather at Spire 9 am sharp
*Wear Black
*Process single file to court
*Establish Vigils at Court, Aviation Building, Dail
*Gareth Pierce is hoping to be with us - depending on trial she is involved with in London. If she is with us we will organise an afternoon press conference with sympathetic TD's and a public meeintg in the evening.

Nov 5
Benefit Gig for Pit Stop Ploughshares, Mother Redcaps (near Christchurch) 7.30 pm - 11.30 pm
5 euro/10 euro

**More info or announcements of solidarity actions
Ph. 087 918 4552
pitstopploughshares@hotmail.com

***To check out previous solidarity vigils
-go to www.ploughsharesireland.org
-click "reports" at top of the page

by Fintan Lane - Irish Anti-War Movement Fri Oct 24, 2003 01:35 corkantiwar at hotmail dot com 087 1258325

I've just read this thread and, like others, I'm a bit puzzled as to who this "Higgins" person is. One thing is certain: his use of the IAWM tag is misleading and his views do not reflect the views of that section of the anti-war movement.

The IAWM is fully supportive of Mary Kelly, the Pitstop Ploughshares (aka Catholic Worker 5), and their acts of decommissioning at Shannon airport. Indeed, we have called for a 'Day of Solidarity' on 3 November with the Catholic Worker 5 to indicate our support as they go to court to receive their trial date. All branches and affiliates of the IAWM will be asked to participate in this Day of Solidarity.

I don't know "Higgins" is, but he certainly doesn't represent the IAWM.

by Ciaron - Dublin Catholic Worker Thu Oct 23, 2003 23:53

What we have just experienced is what Trots call an "intervention", where you sabotage a discourse...this one should have been brainstorm on generating solidairty for Mary Kelly facing years in jail for nonviolent resistance to the war.......

So we got another pathetic attempt to whip up prejudice against the Catholic Worker5...probably by a state stooge Higgins etc.

There is a mountain of published work ont he anarcho-pacifist Catholic Worker movement (both academic and movement literature) go read it. Go to your local video store and rent "Entertaining Angels" with Martin Sheen and Ireland's own Moira Kelly (not a great movie, but start).

The Dublin Catholic Worker is embryonic and 40 shades of politicos from the US Embassy to the Special Branch to angry ex-Catholics on the Left are lining up to abort us. The CW is a 70 year tradition, movement and specific communiteis and projects (hospitalityy and resistance) in any given moment of history.

Within months the DCW might be entirely in jail, we'll organise from there.

It would be nice if we can sustain a hospitality house and a network of nv resisatance on the outside. But will leave it to the Spirit to move.

by Phuq Hedd Thu Oct 23, 2003 20:09

as someone else pointed out above I hadn't actually talked to any of you in person and it would be a good idea to do so instead of making assumptions. I should point out that I was not trying to refer to some supposed existing CW "position" on sexual morality. I made the assumption that the Catholic part of the name indicated an adherence to the teachings of the Catholic Church on these matters. Obviously I was wrong.

Again, complete support for what you and others are doing! The attempts to divide the anti-war movement along religious/non-religious lines will fail, and we should remember that probably we're all responding to one or two weirdo trolls.

by anti-war 22 Thu Oct 23, 2003 19:43

The accusation that the Catholic Worker is a religious cult was a laugh! The Catholic Worker has been around in the States since the 1930's. In the US the Catholic Worker is considered to be an anti-war social service, offering basic hospitality to people who are homeless. The Catholic Worker in America as viewed by most people as a mainstream yet autonomous/non-State funded way to be of service to people that much of society steps on and abuses...the homeless, survivors of wars, the elderly. I've even heard some people from the States ask if the Catholic Worker "went out" in the 70's.

The only people I've ever heard refer to the Catholic Worker as a cult or as a threat to peace, have been a handful of ex-Catholic, anti-Catholic anti-war activists in Dublin!!! I write as someone who has been excluded from the church and who challenges church teachings that exclude women, gays, the homeless and others. Yet I am also aware that corporations, the State and the military are exclusive in the same kinds of ways.

These state-funded exclusive ways are viewed by the majority as NORMAL, EVERYDAY life, so they remain unchallenged. Then, when a small number of people dare to challenge the state that is not only excluding but MASS MURDERING Iraqi people, the small number is called a cult. The people murdering Iraqis are Not called a cult. They are seen as "just doing their jobs". Explain...what exactly do you mean by the word "cult"? If the CW5 and Mary Kelly are in your eyes, "cultish", what in your view, is the State that continues to kill Iraqi people and damage Iraqi eco-systems? And who are you to knock people you clearly don't know? from: anti-war 22

by Deirdre Clancy - Pit Stop Ploughshares Thu Oct 23, 2003 19:42

This is to clarify something for Phuq Hedd, whose comments I found very clear and coherent for the most part. You say you don't agree with the Dublin CW position on abortion. We don't have an "official" position on abortion, actually - or divorce, contraception, homosexuality, and so forth. We came together to resist the war, pure and simple. As individuals, we all have positions on lots of different issues, including these, but we are not borgs, thinking with the one mind. And I, personally, don't have much time for the official Church understanding of these particular issues. So the assumptions floating about that we have some agenda as a group beyond resisting the war is bogus.

I only clarify this because I don't like being misrepresented. We may be called the Dublin Catholic Worker, but this is a diverse movement, consisting of people from all different creeds, and in many cases no creed. There are people involved in the DCW who don't identify themselves as Catholic, and people who do. This is the way it is when there is enough maturity, and mutuality, about to foster respect for the opinions of peers in the peace movement.

"Higgins'" comments (I am sure this is a psuedonym, hence the quotes) don't really merit rebuttal, except to say that for someone who is so quick to attack another's intellect and ability for self-expression, his isn't all that sophisticated, to put it mildly. Resorting to falsehood and misinformation to attack people one feels threatened by is a sure sign of kindergarten debating skills. These types of taunts are a blight on an otherwise useful and interesting forum for debate.

by Ciaron - Dublin Catholic Worker Thu Oct 23, 2003 16:40

Paul,

The capital letters must indicate that you are really really really serious.

The use of "babe" and "dude" should indicate that I don't take you seriously or your use of indymedia or war (being a housebroken first world boy play your cards right and you'll never know the meaning of that word either) as a cheap amusement arcade.

Paul babe, I can't solve your issues regarding sexuality for you. You're going to have to unhook yourself from this machine and go in to the big wide world and experience and maybe develop some ethics and praxis in relation to sex, war and peace...whatever.

We die alone Paul. You're on your own. Scarey uhhh?

by Paul Higgins - IAWM Thu Oct 23, 2003 16:25

Hey "Dude",
Will you please outline your ideas on abortion, homosexuality, and contraception as you have been asked to do three times already. Your posts have provided me with endless amusement; seldom has someone so incoherent tried so hard...please keep it up. I'd love to read your "philosophy" on a more regular basis. Have you ever thought of hiring a pick-up truck and being driven around in a cage naked while spewing forth your bile. I for one would love to see that. The spectacle may take somewhat from your ideas on international relations dude but fuck it we could all marvel at your baboon arse.
You and your faction have nothing to contribute only your foolishness. You should all be treated as toxic and never allowed to become anything other then mild comic relief. THE CATHOLIC WORKERS ARE A RELIGIOUS CULT THAT WILL DIVERT ATTENTION FROM THE REAL ISSUES.

by Joe Thu Oct 23, 2003 15:14

Drbinoche your right the C40 and C130 are not the same sort of plane and its that C130 that doubles as a bomber.

That aside is this an important distinction for someone who claims to be part of the anti-war movement? After all a good 2/3 of the troops going to Iraq were in a support rather than frontline role. Should we only have been protesting against the 1/3 that were going to do the fighting?

That seems to be the base of your argument, one I find very odd. A C40 transport plane can transport cuddly toys for kids or it can transport cluster munitions. Should Mary have asked for an inventory before she acted? Who should she of asked? The airport authorities seem to be very careful NOT to know what any plane is carrying.

It was going to Sicily you say? Again is this important, even leaving aside that any line drawn from Shannon to Sicily and extended beyond will pass near the gulf.

Isn't the real question here WHY you think raising these irrelevant distinctions is important. Or why you claim to be part of the anti-war movement yet feel a need to criminalise Mary Kelly and others. One could feel that both their politics and actions were stupid and counterproductive but still recognise the political nature of these acts. But you instead call for 'proper jail sentences'!

What is this about?

Is it someone who is really pro-war trying to sow divisions?

Is it about control? You have labelled Mary as mad and unpopular yet you still fear her influence enough to post the above.

Is it simply that you can't deal with people who hold different opinions to yourself?

by Ciaron - Dublin Catholic Worker Thu Oct 23, 2003 14:55

You have confusion about what is property - proper and enhancing of human life and what is contraband - child porn, sack of smack, US military equipment without a UN mandate in a neutral country on the way to war.

Disarming, disabling, whatever dude.

Public image, may have been your/IAWM priority..ours and others were nonviolently resisting the war.

91,000 US troops passed through Shannon on their way to bomb, plunder Iraq. One plane was turned around by Mary Kelly and Catholic Worker 5. It didn't make it to the theatre of military operations as planned.

This plane was part of the US Navy infrastructure...yup the US Navy that has been integral in waging a sanctions warfarare against killing the children opf Iraq (over 500,000 deaths..Madelin Albright said it was "worth the price!").

The weekend peace camp that ran for a month did well until closed in response to Aer Rianta high court injunctions. Having resisted similar BAe injunctions in '96 (£100,000 legal debt - 2 years imprisonment threat for free speech etc)... know how powerful these threats are. Respect to the handful of folks who kept it going that long.

The Peace Camp and Shannon Peace House received minimal support from the moderates, opportunists and careerists running the anti-war scene in Ireland. We were also blacklisted by these people (some who saw us a a threat in leadership of the movement stakes...some who saw as a threat to their Labopr Party pre-selection ambitions etc etc).

Th ongoing war is a drama for the Iraqis, the US grunts on the ground and for those of us who have invested ourselves through nonviolent resitance.

Drb baby, you are basically a voieur to this drama. It maybe a hobby to you...but it's life and liberty to us.

Remain seated, sedated, distracted - taking cynical pot shots of the little resistance going on. In all sincerity apply for a check from the state, there is one waiting for you.

by William Small Thu Oct 23, 2003 04:44 Seattle

Here is the article from Minneapolis/St. Paul Indymedia.
The link does not work.


Alliant 28 Found NOT GUILTY. by Jane Evershed 10/17/03

The Alliant 28 were found not guilty today by a jury in the Hennepin County Courthouse in Minneapolis Minnesota. The defendants tresspassed at Alliant Techsystems headquarters in Edina MN to protest the use of radioactive waste or so called "depleted" Uranium used in missile tips. They entered the property on April 2nd 2003 to deliver a letter to the CEO, Paul David Miller to request that Alliant take responsibility for damages caused by "depleted" Uranium and to run the necessary tests to prove that DU is harmless. They represented themselves without an attorney and introduced international law by way of the Geneva Convention and the Nuremberg Tribunals to override the state trespassing laws. They stated that the use of these weapons manufactured by Alliant Techsystems is a crime against humanity as the radioactive waste is indiscriminant among combatants and civillians and continues to cause harm long after the dust of war has settled. They argued "Claim of Right" and stated that they were authorized by the constitution under article 6.

The defendants expressed grave concern about the health of US soldiers who have been victimized with weapons deployed by their own country. Wendi Nauheimer testified about the death of her brother Patrick who the family believes contracted leukemia as a result of his exposure to radioactive waste left by the first Gulf War. He participated in the clean-up phase of the war in 1992.

Four of the defendants had travelled to Iraq and testified about their encounter with the tremendous number of cases of leukemia and birth defects found in Iraq where "depleted" Uranium was used by the US troops in 1991. The defendants testified that these weapons were manufactured by Alliant Techsystems.

Many of the defendants spoke of their deep concern for the gross deformities being born to Iraqi women and US soldiers and also, the devastating effect on the environment. DU has a lifetime of four and a half billion years and has been used in other countries such as Bosnia. Three times more "depleted" Uranium was dropped on Iraq during Operation Iraqi Freedom than during the Gulf War. An estimated 320 tons was dropped during Gulf War 1 and about a thousand TONS in the recent war.

On a more touching note, the defendants shattered the usual solemn ether of the court by applauding the jury as they left, there was a mixture of tears and joy after the verdict was read. Wendi and Carol Nauheimer expressed that they felt some justice had been served on behalf of their son S.Sgt Patrick. "This the first time we have ever had a voice to say anything publicly about what happened to Patrick."

Written by Jane Evershed with contributions from Steve Clemens, defendants

by GreenPartyMike - Green Party USA Thu Oct 23, 2003 02:42 ollamhfaery at earthlink dot net Minneapolis Minnesota USA

Good Luck Mary,
here in the US, a group of activists in Minneapolis, Minnesota just scored a significant success when we WON our jury courtcase here.

We had used international law as our defense, specifically the "right of intent" inheirant in International Law as well as the Geneva Convention on Human Rights and the Nuremburg Principles.

Please feel free to check the Twin Cities Indy Media site and/or contact me for details or even use us as a legal prescident.

by Moi Thu Oct 23, 2003 01:33

Ciaron asked 'Is Paul Higgins a real person or a pseudonym??'

First I want to say that there is nothing wrong with posting under a pseudonym, most of us do so to avoid being abused, intimidated, impersonated etc. However, assuming it is not his real name I wonder what the choice of the name 'Higgins' might signify in psychological terms, some kind of subconscious hero worship, perhaps?

If I recall correctly, Paul Kinsella also used to put IAWM beside his name when he posted under his own name (He now appears to be using his initials 'PK' instead) The attitudes displayed by 'Paul Higgins' also seem reminiscent of aspects of Kinsella's attitudes. Could 'Paul Higgins' and Paul Kinsella be one and the same?

Whoever 'Paul Higgins' is, he seems to want to just knock activists who are prepared to stick their necks out. If he is 'anti-war' as he claims, then he would accept the efforts of other activists who are doing what they can in their own way. He would not be looking for an opportunity to tear them down.

by Drbinoche Thu Oct 23, 2003 01:29

With regards to Joe, the C40, the military designation for the 737 jet transport plane, is not and never has been able to carry either the Daisy-Cutter or the MOAB. Both weapons, have to be dropped from a cargo hold, facing downwards, i.e rolled out the back of a high-tailed aircraft. The bombs could not be pushed out the side loading doors, as the slip stream would push em back into the parent airplane. The only aircraft that has been used to deliver either weapons is the Hercules C-130 transport plane. It has nothing to do with the C40, it does not resemble a C40 and is more suited for the missions using the large area weapons, MOAB etc, then the C40.

Now as for Mary Kellys political aliiances or beliefs, I could not give a damn if she voted for Hitler or for Saddam or Joe Higgins or anybody, the fact of the matter still arises that what she did, covered under the law of the land was break the law and attack a piece of property that did not belong to her. If I was to go to Ciarons/Eoins house/Flat/Car or anything else that they owned and to take a hatchet to it and cause damage to it, I doubt you would sit back and say "Well he did not believe in our beliefs and therefore we should not press charges or seek any sort of retribution!!" She endangered alot of lives doing what she did, including her own. What would her family think if she had gotten something wrong and was hit by a car or a plane or anything like that whilst trying to get to the plane. The plane itself was on the way to Sicily, not Iraq or Afghanistan, whether that was its final destination or not makes no difference. If she believed that all American planes were going to Iraq why was she not attacking any Continental planes at Dublin airport, she doesn't know where they are going either.

Her actions also managed to drive a nice wedge through the Anti-war movement and do more damage to its public image than anything the government could have done. You can claim otherwise but the facts are that most people I know and associate with in work, do not agree with her actions and lost alot of repsect for the Shannon Peace Camp and the IAWM for her and the C5 attacks. You basically gave the government a carte blanche to turn around and do anything in Shannon. 'Put troops on the ground at the expense of the tax-payer, well these guys are invading the grounds, we have to protect all flights.' 'Remove the Peace Camp, well these attackers came from here!'

I still cannot understand where the basic misconception that there are only sometimes when the word violent can be used to describe any act of forceful attack. I shave noticed that the anti-war movement has a bit of a lingo problem. She didn't act violently, it was direct action. NO it was Violence, she damaged a piece of property not her own!! The plane was 'disarmed', how can you disarm a plane that does not carry any weapon systems whatsoever!! Doesn't seem possible to me. The plane was decommissioned. No it was damaged, if it was decommissioned, it would have been removed and sent for scrap metal, as it was it needed a bit of grease work and a new paint job and off it went on its merry way. She is not a nutter, she is a hero. If some guy went walking up the road, with a hatchet and hit anything he disliked or did not approve of, they'd have him in Portrane inside of two hours!!

C'mon, judges give her a REAL sentence, make her work off what she did.

by by another brother Wed Oct 22, 2003 19:55

To anyone interested in summing up CW5 views, have you tried actually TALKING with all 5 of the Catholic Workers? The CW5 is 3 women and 2men, each one with diverse views on abortion, contraception and the gay/lesbian/bi-sexual and transgender community. Based upon previous conversations with the CW5, this group does not hold black-and-white, dogmatic views. Each individual has various opinions on the above topics. The CW5 is not some kind uniform military unit where everyone thinks in the same way. Why not try talking with inidividual CW's, ASKING about their views instead of making blanket statements and prejudicial assumptions, that from my understanding, are far from the truth??? This basic priciple applies to any group of people. Listening instead of assuming could cut down on alot of prejudicial (pre-judging) attitudes that fuel war. another brother

by Ciaron - Dublin Catholic Worker Wed Oct 22, 2003 19:27

The Australian part of the Irish diaspora isn't too well known for politeness or formality (Life's too short, the weather's too hot, cut the bullshit discourse Paul etc.)

It's not a level playing field with Paul. Some of us are facing years in jail for nonviolent resistance to the war, Paul is not. The posting was to generate solidarity for those facing the courts and probably returning to jail.

Paul's efforts (therapeuticly moitivated or otherwise) have been all about spin, adolescent whining and trying to undermine soildariy in a society where it doesn't appear in abundant quantatites.
Peace & solidarity
withanyone doing some resisting
Ciaron

by a brother Wed Oct 22, 2003 19:09

Looks like you Irish folk need some politeness all around. Mr. O'Reilly "bad-jacketed" Mr. Higgins by calling him some kind of a secret agent. In the USA that is considered VERY impolite.

I suppose pacifists and "global" socialists can both agree that US militarism is a bad thing. Why don't you build on that?

by Phuq Hedd Wed Oct 22, 2003 19:02

1. You fail to point out which parts of Mary Kelly's statements above are false or objectionable

2. You fail to argue why Mary Kelly's actions were wrong

3. You engage in name calling

4. You fail to engage with Eoin Dubsky's points.

5. You attempt to confuse the issue of whether or not we should support Mary Kelly (and the Catholic Worker 5) for their _specific_ anti-war actions with other facets of their belief.

Personally I am pro-choice (for abortion, sexual activity of all sorts, divorce etc) and would probably disagree with the CW5 position on that, but I back their actions in Shannon to the hilt.

Mary Kelly deserves to be supported on this issue, as do all that took direct action at Shannon (Eoin Dubsky, the CW5, GNAW). They were principled, brave and rational and they achieved far more in the cause of protecting Ireland's constitution and neutrality than any whining and posturing. Their actions brought into the media spotlight the data collected by Tim Hourigan and did a little bit to impede the flow of materiel to the illegal war on Iraq.

All the personal insults above should be seen as the desparate struggling of unpleasant creatures revealed in the light of publicity as the protective rock of secrecy, deception and complicity is lifted away.

Try the constitution-shredding politicians, not the constitution-upholding activists.

by Ciaron - Dublin Catholic Worker Wed Oct 22, 2003 18:50

Paul Baby,

I don't mind be challenged but your whining hardly rates as a challenge. You know where to find me, come and challenge me dude! Or does cowardice run through your praxis along with your rhetoric?

You seem obsessed with your dick, there's a bigger world out there baby.

You've got a bad case of the colonised Irish thang confusing being contrary with being rebelious!

Cynicism is the 5th. column of the establishment dude...if your not being paid by the powers that be, apply for backpay asap. Their standards aren't too high...I'm sure you could get a start.

War is a very disruptive phenomenon. It's disrupted Iraqi lives, the grunts who are doing the colonising (10% of US fatalaties have been suicides so far...so it's not party time for those boys either) and it's disrupted the lives of those of us who resisited the war.

If your serious your role is to offer a little solidarity at this stage. To MK, CW5, the military resisters in the brig at Colchester etc...if not Paul - find another hobby or game to play.

Hang in there Mary!
Peace
Ciaron

by Degenerate Wed Oct 22, 2003 18:03

You have put the initials IAWM beside your name. Why? Are you speaking for it as a whole?
It's just I thought that Fintan Lane had been made PRO. Or perhaps the SWers weren't happy with four out of six officers and have set you up as the Provisional PRO.

by Ray Wed Oct 22, 2003 17:39

at least Ciaron was relatively polite about telling you to fuck off, which is more than you've managed in your responses to him.
I think, to the extent that you had any actual points, they've been answered by now. Do you have anything to add, or do you just want to rant a bit more?

by Paul Higgins - IAWM Wed Oct 22, 2003 17:32

Ohhh, sounds like Ciaron doesn't like to be challenged. Can the force of your rightiousness compell me to hell?? Are you as personally conected to God as you are ideologically linked and as such can you ask him to send me down?
Poor old long hair, you refused to say anything interesting, all you did was politly tell me to fuck off and masterbate your own virtues. I expected more (my arse I did)
By the way, are you ever going to answer the initial question about your views on homosexuality, abortion, and contraception? or would the reality of your answers spell a pr disaster for the Catholis Workers. Don't flatter yerselfs you are just as concerned with pr and spin as anyone. And Ciaron, I am a real person who had the misfortune to meet you once. The smell of you self-rightiousness and blinkeered ideology still lingers.....
If a better world is to be realised it will be achieved by a coherent global socialist movement not through the actions of self loving Catholic zealots.....

by Anthony Wed Oct 22, 2003 16:48

Paul: "She is brave and committed but we need more than that."

The anti-war movement was - and is - much more than that. But if all that is needed is bravery and commitment to carry out one of the most effective actions of the recent anti-war capaign, then that's good enough for me. Obviously being media-savvy will help an activist justify her actions to those who might not understand the reasoning behind the action but what's important is that Mary had the guts to do something that only a few were willing to do.

As long as Mary isn't a facist or something equally objectionable, I don't really care what her views are. She still deserves our support for doing what needed to be done.

Regarding openness, Mary was quite open about what she did in the aftermath of her action. Obviously she couldn't be very open beforehand. It's generally not a good idea to tip off the authorities before doing something illegal - unless you think you can succeed through strength in numbers - and telling any more than 15 or so means a much higher risk of the authorities finding out. Ciaron recently posted an article about how the Campaing Against the Arms Trade in England had been infiltrated for a number of years. So yeah, it would have been foolish to do anything but "act unilaterally". - http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=61543

Finally, I'm not sure what effective actions are supposed be a distraction from but it's a view that was also shared by Trevor Sargent. I myself thought that the central issue was that we were - and are - assisting the US war effort by allowing the US military to use Shannon airport.

by Ciaron - Dublin Catholic Worker Wed Oct 22, 2003 16:24

Paul if you a real person and not another Special Branch probe. It seems that you get a little uncomfortable when the peace movement moves from being a talking shop into direct nonviolent resistance to war. Don't worry dude your not alone...91,000 troops about 50 arrests.

Paul dude, everyone needs a hobby and I respect that yours is left wing politics and your campaign surfing dumped you in the middle of an issue some of us were taking serious enough to undertake nonviolent disarmament and the state consequences.

Paul babe your best move would be to surf on, catch the next wave. We'll handle the tide going out. Leave the ongoing war to us, the grunts and the Iraqis. Your agenda & photogenic prejudices being set by the teev, maybe you should get back to it for futher instruction and life direction.

by Joe Wed Oct 22, 2003 14:48

The C40 is also used to drop the 'daisycutter' 15,000 lb bomb and the MOAB which is even bigger. So yep it's a warplane all right, in the direct sense of bombing as well as the indirect sense of making bombing possible.

Not too sure what Mary Kellys ideas are and from what I've read of the Catholic Workers site I'd have lots to disagree with. But then again I'm no fan of the state capitalist dictatorships Brid Smith or Joe Higgins dream about but I'm still with them against the state when they are in court. It's not necessary to agree 100% with someone to be in solidarity with them.

by AyeAye Wed Oct 22, 2003 14:36

The plane she damaged was a C-40 cargo transport plane, it is by no stretch of the imagination a 'warplane'

by Paul Higgins - IAWM Wed Oct 22, 2003 13:54

I'm glad to read Dubsky's phrase "Perhaps Mary Kelly isn't the greatest debater" which has got to be the best euphamism I've ever read. He asks me, "wWat is the movement's cred worth if it is jeopardised by open, accountable, peaceful acts of disarmement?". The act may well have been peaceful, how it was open is beyound me. She told only a select few and others at the Peace Camp were left totally in the dark. She, and to a far greater and much more damaging extent, the Catolic Workers, took it upon themselves to act unilaterally. If our credability rests of Mary Kellys actions then we are fucked.
In terms of stating the obvious there is surely nothing to beat, "Like Mary Kelly, I'm glad that there are laws which say killing people is wrong. I'm sure you are too, no? So let that inform us when we're looking at her direct actions and court witness". What the fuck does writing that achieve? And you are touted as the a-political factions thinker-extrodanaire!!!!
Also your final point, "What's the point in saying the war/occupation is illegal, if you're not prepared to support people who are trying to put the war on trial?"
I will not support anyone simply because they say they are putting the war on trial. Do you expect people to become robots who slavishly support anyone who claims to be acting so as to end the war? Get real. Mary Kelly is not immune from critisim and she certainly does not have a monopoly on methods to achieve peace. She is, as I have always said, a half wit who has been propelled to an exhalted position within the Anti war movement and her abundant inadequacies will eventually destroy much of what we have achieved. In addition has anyone got the balls to address the last question put by Anti-Fascist Action? Where are the CW now?

by Yossarian Wed Oct 22, 2003 13:12

A peace activist is somebody who promotes peace. A useful way of doing this is to destroy the weapons of war. Lives may have been saved by the damage done to the warplane, it is impossible to know for sure. But at least it made it more difficult/akward for the aggressor to prosecute the war, even if only slightly.
Note also the difference between a peace activist and a pacifist (I'm not saying the people referred to are one or the other).
A pacifist means:
1 : opposition to war or violence as a means of settling disputes; specifically : refusal to bear arms on moral or religious grounds
2 : an attitude or policy of nonresistance
Activism is:
: a doctrine or practice that emphasizes direct vigorous action especially in support of or opposition to one side of a controversial issue.
So a peace activist will use those methods in the pursuit of peace.

Direct action is neither violent nor non-violent action (unless otherwise specified!), it is direct. Direct action means going directly to the source of a problem and solving it without relying on third parties e.g.
Problem: US warplanes in Shannon. Direct action solution: prevent US warplanes from landing in Shannon. Roundabout action solution: ask Bertie to stop US warplanes from landing in Shannon. Another example...
Problem: cars speeding through residential area causing death and injury. Direct action solution: prevent cars from using road. Roundabout action solution: demand that local councillors do something about it.
Get the picture?

It is great to know that you think what you believe in do involve violent actions, not direct actions. Usually violence is pretty direct unless it is being used on a proxy to hurt another; either way it's pretty direct for the individuals concerned.

Mary Kelly, as far as I know, admitted causing damage to a US warplane. She does not plead guilty because she believes that what she did was justified, even necessary to prevent a greater crime, even a war crime. Do you think an Iraqi citizen who smashed a plane to prevent his country invading Kuwait should be convicted of a crime? Of course there's 'bad' repression there so they'd probably be shot whilst here, there's 'good' repression so Mary'll probably be banged up for a few years if found guilty.

by Eoin Dubsky Wed Oct 22, 2003 12:44

Paul Higgins, what is the movement's cred worth if it is jeopardised by open, accountable, peaceful acts of disarmement? Perhaps Mary Kelly isn't the greatest debater, but her actions speak volumes.

And from what is she a diversion exactly? If there is a lower-risk alternative to citizens' disarmament at Shannon Airport please share it with us all. How can we pull out of this wicked business of killing and robbing the poor?

Like Mary Kelly, I'm glad that there are laws which say killing people is wrong. I'm sure you are too, no? So let that inform us when we're looking at her direct actions and court witness.

What's the point in saying the war/occupation is illegal, if you're not prepared to support people who are trying to put the war on trial?

by Paul Higgins - IAWM Wed Oct 22, 2003 10:42

The sooner Mary Kelly is out of the headlines the better. I have been in contact with most of the people involved in the Peace Camp at Shannon and while they all admire Mary, they all admit privately that she hasn't a brain in her head. One need only read her statement above to realise how incoherent her ideas are. Can you actually imagine her in a serious debate? Her intellectual incapacity limits her to lashing out in what appear to be grand gestures but they are in fact the actions of a frustrated uncomprehending fool. She is brave and committed but we need more than that. If the Anti War Movement venerates people like her and the Catholics Workers, who hold some very dodgy views, then our campaign will fast lose credibility. Does anyone think for a second that the government and the forces of the state are dreading Mary Kelly taking the stand in Kilrush? If I was them, I'd be pushing her onto every available soap box. Please mary, bow out now...

by Drbinoche Tue Oct 21, 2003 21:59

I agree, to the extent that these people are not peace activists and no matter what you claim they cannot be peace activists if they partake in any form of violent action. Which they all did.

Now while I will admit I am certainly not a peace activist, at least I will admit that what I believe in do involve violent actions, not DIRECT action, which is by itself Violent action.

I hope that the Jury this time finds her guilty as she is. She has admitted doing it, where is the debate, she admitted doing the crime, therefore she is guilty and should just be fucking sentenced. Unfortunately she will not be asked to pay back the money the Irish tax payers had to fork out for the repairs that were done to the plane and so once again the Irish people have been stiffed by the Anti-war brigade.

Lock her up and throw away the key.

by BlackPope Tue Oct 21, 2003 21:06

.. you really do need to get out more, kid!

Your cowardice and evident fear of that which your tiny mind will probably never comprehend is simply beneath contempt. How long have you been with 'Special' Branch?

Or maybe you are a reincarnation of Avi.H, worried that actions like those of the magnificent characters you malign above might interrupt the cruise-missile conveyor-belt from YankiaLandia via Shannon to Israel?

That would just about explain, not excuse, the disgusting proto-fascist bile-jet you just sprayed everybody with.

Schalom, BP

by BlackPope Tue Oct 21, 2003 20:30

Why be such a coward, mate? You don't have to be 'suspicious' and fearful - engage them directly in conversation, they will answer your questions - although with the level of reactionary bitterness you spew they will need more patience than I possess, but I do credit them all with that.

Your tiny mind is just too small to even comment on. How long have you been with Special Branch?

Comments like yours are proto-fascistic in tendancy - something quite strange for an alledged anti-fascist.

You're not a re-incarnation of Avi H. by any chance, are you? Worried that the conveyor-belt of missles from YankiaLandia to Israel might be interrupted by the actions of such fine people?

That would just about explain the bile-jet above.

Schalom, BP

by Anti-Fascist Action Tue Oct 21, 2003 19:51

I have long been suspicious that the Cat 5 zealots and Mary Kelly are insane, blinkered, automitons. The picture above proves this. These people are fucking insane and they will lead the anti war movement into the pits. The sooner Mary Kelly is sent to prison the better. As for the Cat 5, these people are hardline Catholics , they should not be seen as comrades. What do they think about Homosexuality? Abortion? Contraception?
Support for them is support for tyranny

by Greg Mallory Tue Oct 21, 2003 19:16

No, in fact it's the opposite.
We are by default, legally prohibited from participating in anyway UNTIL and UNLESS a LEGAL motion is approved by Dail Eireann (and that must meet several criteria).
there's plenty of places to learn more about this (better than asking on this site) start with the consitution, and then maybe the hague convention 1907.

by redjade Tue Oct 21, 2003 18:13

More info later, but here's the latest....

Mary Kelly's next court appearance will be January.

Judge denies judicial review.

Overrules previous defence run at first trial.

by JimboJones Tue Oct 21, 2003 15:30

Yes but doesnt neutrality have to be declared in each case as we are not a constitutionally neutral country like Switzerland. Did the government ever declare that it was neutral during Gulf War 2?

by Ciaron - Dublin Catholic Worker Tue Oct 21, 2003 14:16

High Court rules in the Horgan case that it is loyal to the government of the day rather than the Irish Constitution (should there be a conflict), rules that Ireland is breaking international law as a neutral country allowing 91,000 US troops through on their way to war, rules that elements of the Irish Constitution are merely "aspirational".

Today's Dail solidarity vigil went well, engaged a number of TD's journos, school kidz on excurisons and passsers by.....very cold.

by JimboJones Tue Oct 21, 2003 13:47

What does she mean when she says that our constitution has been torn to shreds?

by Ciaron - Dublin Catholic Worker Tue Oct 21, 2003 10:04 087 918 4552

We have set up a solidarity vigil this morning at the gates of the Dail (Kildare St.) with our "War is Terror is War!" banner, placards against the militarisation of Shannon airport, in support of nonviolent disarmament actions and in solidarity with Mary Kelly in front of Kilrush Court today.

More info 087 918 4552

by redjade Tue Oct 21, 2003 04:48

woo hoo! indy.ie is up and running again!

- - -

Mary asked that these details also be mentioned:

want to help?

call Mick Sullivan at 087 752 2839
email Paul O'Toole pauljotoole@eircom.net

by doug Tue Oct 21, 2003 02:55

solidarity is something you do, not give.

good luck Mary.

D.