Danish High Court to hear citizens’ case re ‘anti-constitutional’ invasion of Iraq

by number 6 - legalise freedom campaign Tue Jan 23, 2007 18:32

The above article is music to my ears.

Maybe the Danes will wake paddy up to the fact that He and his fellow Constituted Citizens have a thing called a CONSTITUTION...hard fought for , only to be forgotten by paddy in times of need.

No members of the Bar needed. Just the Person invoking THEIR Constitution in THIER open Courts.

Wake up there Paddy.

by Deirdre Clancy - Anti-War Ireland (personal capacity) Tue Jan 23, 2007 19:23

Actually, it's you who should wake up, and stop using patronising language to boot. In fact, the Irish have taken its government to court with constitutional challenges way before this Danish case became news. Perhaps the Danes are even copying the people who did this here: Eoin Dubsky and Edward Horgan. Additionally, various anti-war protestors, including myself, have invoked the Irish constitution in court.

Do some homework, Paddy.

by number 6 - lfc Tue Jan 23, 2007 19:43

Deirdre, I have been invoking our Constitution since I was an egg and applaud all who does.

My point , is that the greater mass of People needs to wake up to their Constitution.

Don't take it personal.

by Seán Ryan Tue Jan 23, 2007 19:54

I think you'll find that no.6 has done his homework in what he has had to say. The only word he uttered, that I'd disagree with, was the word 'invoking.'

Both cases that were taken to court, had to do with how the government used and abused the Constitution. Neither argument in either court was based upon the rights conferred to Irish citizens by Bunreacht Na hÉireann and neither affirmed or secured human rights as demanded by our Constitution. And indeed the results of each case was in itself an affront to our Constitution.

For example in the Dubsky case it was ruled that the 'war' in Afghanistan wasn't a war. More interestingly, it emerged in the Horgan case, that missiles had been transported across Irish territory. These misiles used Depleted Uranium as ballast, and are outlawed by most so-called civillized societies, including our own. Dubsky's case has faded into obscurity and the chance to appeal the decision was thrown away. In Ed's case, the financial risk destroyed any chance of an appeal - if there were cohesion of any sort between the various anti-war movements, Ed's case would have been appealed, without the need for Ed to gamble his future on the outcome.

However there was no hue and cry over any of this. Nobody seems to realise that we have a constitution, or that we are empowered to act upon it. No. 6 is very right in telling Paddy to wake up, to believe that the masses are Constitutionally aware, is to be asleep oneself.

You and others like you Deirdre, have indeed done your country proud - but there is a world of distance between envoking one's Constitution and enforcing it.

If Ireland were awake, there'd be no need for any activists of any persuasion. So let's not argue semantics by talking of folks patronising each other. This is supposed to be peer review, not kindergarten.

by anti-war ireland supporter Tue Jan 23, 2007 20:03

I'm sick of these ramblings about the 'constitution', as if it's the answer to our woes. The constitution is a piece of bourgeois nonsense written to legitimise a bourgeois state. I wish lefties would stop sowing illusions in it as a way of stopping Irish complicity with Bush & Blair.

It is fear of the people, not fear of the 'constitution', that will force the government to end the Shannon stopover.

by number 6 - legalise freedom camp[aign Tue Jan 23, 2007 20:53

Saying FXXK to your Constitution is an offence punishable by jail.

I am not a lefty or a righty. I strive for a balance. I am also , not Sean.

This bourgeois rant may be somewhat justified. But use this Draft Constitution as a tool. Use your Head Man.

Reverse the headache on the bastards.
Don't throw out the bathwater. Put it up to them.

Exhibits of this Bunreacht gets results when it is presented to the so called guardians of the peace.
The same bastards swore an oath to uphold it's Laws and your rights contained therein.
Use it.

If you have something better than it , then spell it out.

Let us all know about your wonderful answer. It would probably be ............wrecking the place or getting arrested or shouting or waving a banner or FxxxING the Constitution or whatever.

But please , let us all know yer big plan.

We're all dying to know.

by Deirdre Clancy - AWI (personal capacity) Wed Jan 24, 2007 00:05

"But please , let us all know yer big plan.

We're all dying to know."

Unlike some, I actually don't think one person is capable of devising a 'big plan' or 'strategy' for the anti-war movement, because that is counter-productive. Groups don't react well to individuals breezing in and telling them what the 'grand plan' should be. We're part of a global jigsaw; we can only work on our own turf. The movement is fragmented, yes, but then again, there are many groups doing important work on their own terms and making links with other groups. What is often seen as disunity could also be viewed in a positive light, and totalizing narratives of smashing the war machine as one big revolutionary front are very 1967, and invariably won't work anymore. This is a world of groups and sub-groups, who can get on together and interact, yet have slightly different worldviews.

What, exactly, is your big plan? That we should all run around invoking our constitution to the guards and to the judiciary, whose job it is to interpret the constitution? A constitution is open to interpretation, and it's generally a judge in the High Court who is given the privilege of making rulings. Judges are appointed by the state.

Both Eoin Dubsky and Ed Horgan made courageous stands by bringing the government to court. Neither of them were fools - they both knew that the outcome would probably not stop what was happening at Shannon, but they acted on principle. There were some important rulings in the Edward Horgan vs. the Irish Government case - for instance, the judge did say that we weren't acting in the manner of a neutral state in a time of war. However, he also said that neutrality in the Irish Constitution was 'aspirational', so effectively, Shannon's militarization was only interfering with an aspiration. If you read the Irish Constitution properly, you will see how the judge got away with this interpretation. Unfortunately, there is some ambiguity there. Bringing the case to the Supreme Court would potentially have been a waste of the anti-war movement's time and money. I don't think for one moment that anybody in the anti-war movement would have allowed Ed Horgan to foot the bill if one arose, and the reasons for not going to the Supreme Court were probably more complex than that. For a start, it's unlikely that a government-appointed judge (which most Supreme Court judges are) would make a ruling against the state.

This idea of the Irish Constitution as the panacea for all ills is ridiculous. Those who have gone down the legal route and taken the government on have been wise enough to know how far they should go. Both of them made an impact, and I am grateful to them. However, both Dubsky and Horgan have good, all-round brains - they know there are other strategies needed and have employed those too. They had the humility to listen to excellent legal minds. Neither case has faded into the background, as has been claimed; they were cited at our ploughshares trail and I'm sure will be cited at many legal proceedings in the future.

by redjade Wed Jan 24, 2007 00:56

dubsky, horgan, mary kelly, the pit stop ploughshares 5...

who's next?

the 'Surge' is on, like now, folks.

21,000+ coming through a nearby airport.

bring it on.

or is it all nostalgia at this point?

by Seán Ryan Wed Jan 24, 2007 12:59

Suggesting that the Dubsky case or the Horgan case, or indeed the that the Ploughshares trial have not faded into the background, is wishful thinking and delusional. The Ploughshares trial for instance, was dumped by most of the mainstream media within a few days and the rest of them sought to spin the outcome.

There's no individual dictating to any group that the only way forward is to confront the Gardaí and Judges with the Constitution. Having said that Deirdre, let me point out to you, that you too are an individual and not in possession of the elusive answers. I'd also like to point out to you that you yourself have as of yet to provide any methodologies or answers that allow forward movement. Criticism coupled with a superiority complex just doesn't cut it. And for what it's worth, I find confronting the Gardaí and the Judiciary with the Constitution, a lot more successful than confronting them with the bible.

I take it from what you've said above, that you are inferring that I've no respect for either Eoin Dubsky or Ed Horgan, if so, that's wrong. You also suggest that Ed would have been helped out with the bill if he'd appealed his case. I don't remember hearing of any group helping out with the bill he got for the case he did take - the same with Eoin Dubsky. I would not be confident in your belief that groups would come to financially rescue anyone.

Finally, I'm very familiar with the Horgan case and in particular the judgement. I don't pick bits from it that I like and other bits I dislike. To me the whole judgement is flawed and lacking in intelligence and in knowledge of the Constitution. I disagree with the view you are promoting here, i.e. that the Irish government are only violating an aspiration of the Constitution.

by Deirdre Clancy - AWI (personal capacity) Wed Jan 24, 2007 18:42

Okay, Sean, I'll address your misinterpretations of what I said one by one.

1. "I'd also like to point out to you that you yourself have as of yet to provide any methodologies or answers that allow forward movement. Criticism coupled with a superiority complex just doesn't cut it. And for what it's worth, I find confronting the Gardaí and the Judiciary with the Constitution, a lot more successful than confronting them with the bible."

It's amazing the extent to which you misrepresent what I've said in my previous comment. If you'd actually read it properly, you'd have seen that I viewed the anti-war movement as consisting of various diverse groups of people with different worldviews, all equally valid; and all using separate methods of resistance. I don't think this is a bad thing. If you think that's indicative of a superiority complex, then you have a strange notion of what a superiority complex entails. As for your comment about confronting the judiciary with the Bible, that's just ridiculous, and a simplification of what the ploughshares action was about. I have no claims that the action we took has any monopoly on success or effectiveness (though it did make two troop carriers pull out of Shannon for several months after the action, which is more than many 'strategies' did), but on the other hand, when our motives are misrepresented by flippant comments, I have to object. As far as I'm concerned, I confronted the state with my conscience, not with the Bible, although the Bible was a symbolic element of it (and a powerful one, because we claim to be a Christian country and the Gospels clearly have a pacifist, anti-imperialist bent, which is ignored). Our shrine consisted of a Bible, but also of lots of other items, including a Koran and pictures of victims of US foreign policy. So please do your homework before you seek to discredit us.

2. "I take it from what you've said above, that you are inferring that I've no respect for either Eoin Dubsky or Ed Horgan, if so, that's wrong. You also suggest that Ed would have been helped out with the bill if he'd appealed his case. I don't remember hearing of any group helping out with the bill he got for the case he did take - the same with Eoin Dubsky. I would not be confident in your belief that groups would come to financially rescue anyone."

I am not inferring you have no respect for anyone - there is nothing in my comment to indicate that. I have no idea what you feel about either person. So again, a misinterpretation of what I've written. The fact that you didn't hear of any group helping out with the bill doesn't mean it wasn't discussed. It also reflects the fact that Ed wasn't actually pursued by the state for costs ultimately, which clearly you didn't know either.

3. "Finally, I'm very familiar with the Horgan case and in particular the judgement. I don't pick bits from it that I like and other bits I dislike. To me the whole judgement is flawed and lacking in intelligence and in knowledge of the Constitution. I disagree with the view you are promoting here, i.e. that the Irish government are only violating an aspiration of the Constitution."

Actually, I briefly summarised the main points of the judgement, so I'm not sure what point you're making here, Sean. I've read the text and sat through it in the court the day it was made and had it clarified to me by lawyers. It's you who seems to have the superiority complex if you wish to assume you're the only one who follows these things. The judgement is flawed from the point of view of anyone in the anti-war movement, including myself, because we have an interest in the issue. But it's unrealistic to say that the Constitution isn't open to interpretation, or that the judge was unintelligent. The judge made an intelligent and subtle judgement - it just wasn't the correct judgement, from our point of view. The two things aren't always interchangeable: intelligence is not always synonymous with moral correctness. I am not promoting the view that the Irish Government is violating an aspiration - I am summarising what the judgement says: that is quite clear from my posting. As far as I'm concerned, we have always called ourselves neutral as a matter of policy and should be practicing that now as a conscious policy. However, if you read the text of the Irish Constitution carefully, you will see that it is ambiguous on the issue. It is just a fact, not something that I'm actually happy about. I think most trained lawyers would concur with this.

The only reason I have engaged with this is that I hate what I say being wilfully misrepresented by convoluted interpretations, not because I feel I need to justify myself to you. I have no interest is pursuing this discussion any further. I'd rather do what Redjade suggested: keep going with the anti-war initiatives I am involved with, which so far have succeeded in pulling in and engaging many interested new activists and keeping the issue alive. We don't have an ideal media to work with, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't act. I don't need validation from the corporate media to take action, either in terms of NVDA or anything else I'm involved with. If things are off the mainstream radar, so be it. It's up to those of us who are committed to keep things alive to whatever extent we can.

by huh? Wed Jan 24, 2007 18:59

--------- As far as I'm concerned, we have always called ourselves neutral as a matter of policy and should be practicing that now as a conscious policy. However, if you read the text of the Irish Constitution carefully, you will see that it is ambiguous on the issue. It is just a fact, not something that I'm actually happy about. I think most trained lawyers would concur with this.--------

It's not ambiguous at all. It's absolutely silent on the issue of neutrality.

by Hiram Wed Jan 24, 2007 19:03

Very well written. It completely demolishs the web of distortions and downright untruths constructed by Sean Ryan. He seems to believe that not only is he the only person that is right but he also believes that anyone who dares to disagree with him is stupid. Sean Ryan needs to accept that he only possesses a laymans knowledge of the law. He is not a constitutional expert.

Keep up the good work Deirdre and ignore the insults from those who only speak for themselves. Direct Action works a lot better than depending solely on the Constitution.

by AWI Head Wed Jan 24, 2007 19:29

Will the constitution obsessive please leave this thread? You are not impressing anyone by insulting a respected activist like Deirdre. No one takes you seriously. You represent no one. Go away. Stop disrupting the thread.

by Seán Ryan Wed Jan 24, 2007 20:44

Speaking of misrepresentation:

You suggest that I'm trying to discredit the Ploughshares. At best this is intellectual dishonesty. I was speaking of you and to you exclusively. I apologise for my ignorance, I didn't realise that you were the Ploughshares. Also my comment about the bible had nothing to do whatsoever with the shrine that you and the other members of the Ploughshares left at Shannon Airport - and well you know it. My comment about the bible was to do with your withering attack on another poster to this article and your belittlement of his views - and well you know that too. Use whatever tool that works, that is what No.6 was saying, when you chose to try to belittle and condescend to him. The fact that you now admit that there are more ways to act than your way shows that your comments towards No.6 were nothing but an offensive act intended to offer insult, you neither offered debate nor suggestion that there was any way to act other than your way of acting and thinking. That's indicative of a superiority complex and if you find that strange, I'm not very surprised.

As for what the shrine consisted of, i.e. the Koran, the bible, etc. I'm very familar with it, I've written extensively about it. Please try to remember that just because I disagree with you about something, that it is not an indication of, or an actual attack on the Ploughshares, or the Catholic Workers as a whole. I agree with and actively practice many principles espoused by the Catholic Workers, chief amongst them the idea of witnessing. The areas where I disagree with the Catholic Worker philosophy are too insignificant, to either diminish my respect for the movement, or my friendship with many of its adherants. So please don't deliberately misconstrue a disagreement with yourself as an attempt to discredit the Ploughshares or anyone else.

You also, at many points in you latest piece of disinformation, suggest that I cannot read, or that I do so selectively. This again goes with the superiority complex you possess. If you wish to have the Indy readership, myself included, take a certain point from what you've written, then please include the point or at least reference to it.

Now onto what you've had to say about the Horgan and Dubsky cases. Talking about helping someone and not doing so is neither christian nor helpful. Even publicising the 'talks' would have been beneficial. As for Ed not suffering financial hardship due to his legal battle, this is total shite. There is more finacial commitment involved in running a court case than the bill for the solicitors and barristers. You should be well aware of this, but needing to make some innane point aimed solely at your need to be seen as being right in everything you say, I can see why you'd conveniently forget such a fact. I didn't say that the State had pursued Ed for costs (so it isn't my ability to read that needs looking at). However, it is ignoble to suggest that there wasn't a cost.

As for your suggestion that pointing out that the Judge had allowed that Ireland was in violation of the ideas and laws of neutrality: This was not an act of 'summarising the main points of the judgement.' If it were a summary of the judgement, history would have to reflect that Ed won the case. Unfortunately, both history and reality, show that Ed lost his case. Your summarising of the 'main points' of the judgement was not an act to inform the readership about Ed's case or the main points about the judgement in it. It was an attempt to add authority to your act of attempting to belittle No. 6.

For the record - I've never suggested that the Constitution isn't open to interpretation. I'm a strong believer that it is. I'd argue that the judgement against Ed Horgan, contained no facet of, prudence, justice or charity. This is to say that the judgement was either unintelligent or underhand. I've opted for unintelligent. I don't equate intelligence with moral correctness. However, the Constitution equates law with morality and for that matter so does plain and simple logic.

Before I finish, I'd like to point out a very simple fact. The Preamble of our Constitution says that we are to seek 'Concord' with other nations. Can you or the person who suggested that neutrailty was not enshrined in our Constitution, tell me how this cannot be interpreted as an order imposed on Ireland to be neutral? I'm refuting your idea that the Constitution is vague with regard to neutrality, or rather I'm refuting your 'excellent' and well schooled legal advice. In other words, how can we establish 'Concord' with other nations when we side with a few in order to fuck others over. Also, regardless as to 'intelligent' and 'subtle' judgements, how can it possibly be established that we treated Afghanistan or Iraq (for example) with prudence, justice and charity or indeed that the likes of Ed Horgan, Eoin Dubsky, or even yourself and the Ploughshares were treated in this fashion.

As for not wishing to pursue this further and wanting to continue with the anti-war initiaves you are involved in, that's a fine idea and it's a pity you didn't practice it before initiating all of this.

by me Wed Jan 24, 2007 21:45

Sean Ryan pretty much sums up his problem with the following paragraph:

"Before I finish, I'd like to point out a very simple fact. The Preamble of our Constitution says that we are to seek 'Concord' with other nations. Can you or the person who suggested that neutrailty was not enshrined in our Constitution, tell me how this cannot be interpreted as an order imposed on Ireland to be neutral? I'm refuting your idea that the Constitution is vague with regard to neutrality, or rather I'm refuting your 'excellent' and well schooled legal advice."

See, the problem is that this is the wishful thinking of a "constitutional expert" (ahem) who, with the arrogance of an obsessive, is ignoring what is an absolute fact: neutrality is a matter of government policy and is NOT enshired in the constitution! At some stage in the distant past, a myth began that it was indeed enshired in the constitution, leading people such as Sean Ryan to go seeking the holy grail. When they can't find it, they grub around for something - anything at all - that THEY can interpret or twist to suit their pre-existing belief. Nevertheless, the fact remains that neutrality is not dealt with in the De Valera constitution.

The 'concord' with other nations thing can be wheeled out as much as Ryan likes, but this is common to many national constitutions - because most states pay at least lip service to diplomacy rather than war when international disputes arise. It is most definitely NOT a declaration of neutrality.

Sean Ryan is clearly a very rude and arrogant man, but, more troubling, he seems utterly incapable of disentangling his own wants and wishes from the legal reality. The Irish constitution is a deeply flawed document and, much as Ryan thinks it contains the silver bullet, it will not be what dislodges the US war machine from Shannon airport.

On another (related) issue, I'd advise Deirdre Clancy not to respond to his personal attack. It's beneath notice.

by Deirdre Clancy - AWI (personal capacity) Wed Jan 24, 2007 22:18

I decided to respond to this one due to the need to defend my reputation against these personalised attacks.

1 "You suggest that I'm trying to discredit the Ploughshares. At best this is intellectual dishonesty. I was speaking of you and to you exclusively. I apologise for my ignorance, I didn't realise that you were the Ploughshares. Also my comment about the bible had nothing to do whatsoever with the shrine that you and the other members of the Ploughshares left at Shannon Airport - and well you know it."

Actually, no. I didn't know any of that, Sean. What else could you have been referring to but the action I took part in at Shannon? You were addressing me in relation to that action - it's the only time in my life I have every employed the Bible in a public way so I can't think what else you would have been referring to. You are changing the goal posts of the argument to suit your own purposes. 'Intellectual dishonesty' - that is your own projection.

2. "My comment about the bible was to do with your withering attack on another poster to this article and your belittlement of his views - and well you know that too. Use whatever tool that works, that is what No.6 was saying, when you chose to try to belittle and condescend to him."

No, I disagreed with him. It's a different thing, though I disagreed robustly, but then again, that is my right. As for withering, does addressing the general Indymedia readership as follows, 'Wake up, Paddy' qualify as withering? And contrary to your tactics, I didn't initiate the personalising of the argument by accusing him/her of having a superiority complex, or any other type of complex for that matter.

3. "The fact that you now admit that there are more ways to act than your way shows that your comments towards No.6 were nothing but an offensive act intended to offer insult, you neither offered debate nor suggestion that there was any way to act other than your way of acting and thinking. That's indicative of a superiority complex and if you find that strange, I'm not very surprised."

Um, Sean, what do you mean I "now" admit there are more ways to act than my way? I have never, ever claimed there weren't more ways to act - ever. In fact, I have employed many tactics other than ploughshares myself and certainly don't see it as the be all and end all. You are attributing opinions to me that I've never expressed. You are attributing a superiority complex to me, based on opinions I have never expressed!

4. "As for what the shrine consisted of, i.e. the Koran, the bible, etc. I'm very familar with it, I've written extensively about it. Please try to remember that just because I disagree with you about something, that it is not an indication of, or an actual attack on the Ploughshares, or the Catholic Workers as a whole."

I don't really care at this stage what you think of the Catholic Worker or our action, or indeed what you have written about it. However, you misrepresented it earlier and you are now trying to backtrack and say you didn't. That's what I call intellectual dishonesty.

5. "You also, at many points in you latest piece of disinformation, suggest that I cannot read, or that I do so selectively. This again goes with the superiority complex you possess. If you wish to have the Indy readership, myself included, take a certain point from what you've written, then please include the point or at least reference to it."

Actually, you are one of the few people I've ever come across who have a problem with the clarity of the content I've put up on Indymedia. It is always a sign of an argument's weakness when someone resorts to repeated personalised attacks (such as the one about my having a 'superiority complex', repeated now several times), rather than addressing the arguments. You are inconsistent in your interpretations and yes, you are reading selectively. I never suggested you 'cannot read'.

6. "Now onto what you've had to say about the Horgan and Dubsky cases. Talking about helping someone and not doing so is neither christian nor helpful. Even publicising the 'talks' would have been beneficial."

I really don't know what you're talking about here. Seriously. The Pitstop Ploughshares have had a very positive, co-operative relationship with both Eoin Dubsky and Ed Horgan, and both of them have spoken at public meetings we've organised and publicised. I really don't see what you're getting at here, unless you're trying to somehow undermine us again with some nebulous accusation.

7. "As for Ed not suffering financial hardship due to his legal battle, this is total shite. There is more finacial commitment involved in running a court case than the bill for the solicitors and barristers. You should be well aware of this, but needing to make some innane point aimed solely at your need to be seen as being right in everything you say, I can see why you'd conveniently forget such a fact."

And you're telling me this, why? After three and a half years of going through the courts, I think I know this all too well. Even you point this out, so why bring it up? If you take an action or bring the government to court, you take a conscious decision to bear some of the financial strain. Usually, you try to calculate if you're able to do it and proceed based on your calculations. You organise fundraisers when you can, and you get the word out. That's the way it works. So again, your point here is lost on me.

8. "As for your suggestion that pointing out that the Judge had allowed that Ireland was in violation of the ideas and laws of neutrality: This was not an act of 'summarising the main points of the judgement.' If it were a summary of the judgement, history would have to reflect that Ed won the case. Unfortunately, both history and reality, show that Ed lost his case. Your summarising of the 'main points' of the judgement was not an act to inform the readership about Ed's case or the main points about the judgement in it. It was an attempt to add authority to your act of attempting to belittle No. 6."

Actually, no, it was summarising the main points of the judgement, albeit briefly. Naively, I assumed most people would know he lost the case. Again, your point here is lost on me. I don't even know who No. 6 is, and have no vested interest in belittling him/her. I just happen to find his posting and its tone problematic, and I have every right to point that out.

I'm not going to address your final points about the legal issues, because you're entitled to your opinion and I think it's fair to say that agreeing to disagree is the best approach to this. I think I've covered that sufficiently. I basically just wanted to cover the issues where, yet again, you appeared to be trying to misrepresent me as an individual and make suggestions as to my personality that were objectionable and untrue.

As regards continuing with anti-war work, whether or not I'm defending myself against unjust accusations on Indymedia or not, I'd be doing that anyway. Don't worry.

by huh? Wed Jan 24, 2007 23:11

Seán,

You ask how the mention of "Concord" in the constitution "cannot be interpreted as an order imposed on Ireland to be neutral?" Well, if that were so, and we were under an order to be neutral, then we couldn't participate in a war, could we? BUT, and it's a big BUT, Seán, Article 28.3.1 of the constitution provides the explicit mechanism by which Ireland can actually participate in a war.

A 28.3.1 "War shall not be declared and the State shall not participate in any war save with the assent of Dáil Éireann."

It could hardly be clearer. If Ireland is allowed participate in a war (albeit with the assent of Dáil Éireann) then we can't be under a requirement to be neutral.

by Seán Ryan Thu Jan 25, 2007 00:10

It's funny that you'd argue that when you have a go at somebody that it's a 'robust' disagreement, but that when you receive an actual 'robust' criticism, it becomes an attack. Your 'robust disagreement' initially contained not a shred of argument to back it up. And indeed you have yet to back it up.

Allow me to elaborate on the bible comment. In your second comment you asked a rhetorical question, where you asked what No. 6's big plan was. You answered yourself by saying, "That we should all run around invoking our constitution to the guards and to the judiciary, whose job it is to interpret the constitution?" I thought this very hypocritical from someone who has a claim to fame to do with invoking the rights and duties contained in the bible. If you wish to extract more from my comment than that, then by all means, you are free to do so - you'll be wrong, but sure, don't let that stop you. Again I note that you are trying to spin the idea that I'm trying to discredit the Ploughshares. That's beneath someone who's been a victim of spin herself. I have never said a bad word about the Ploughshares. The fact that you equate my disagreement with you as an attack on the Ploughshares is a further vindication of my honestly held belief that you possess a superiority complex. You suggest that I'm backtracking, yet you do not suggest what insult or instance of where I've attempted to discredit the Ploughshares. My opinion as already expressed, about the use of the Constitution being a superior tool to the Bible, in legal issues, is a comparison of certitudes, not an attack on one above the other. I've moved no goalposts whatsoever.

When one constantly comes back with the comment 'If you actually read,' one is inferring that the person cannot read or that they are reading selectively. It is only in your latest comment that you've clarified your position on this, and it was only my exploration of the issue that provoked it. As for my being inconsistant in my arguments, you haven't said where this happened or what form it took, you have been very consistant in this approach.

This one just cracks me up, so much so I'm going to quote you: "Um, Sean, what do you mean I "now" admit there are more ways to act than my way? I have never, ever claimed there weren't more ways to act - ever. In fact, I have employed many tactics other than ploughshares myself and certainly don't see it as the be all and end all. You are attributing opinions to me that I've never expressed. You are attributing a superiority complex to me, based on opinions I have never expressed!"

Um, Deirdre, each action you allude to, was an action of your choosing - you are still including yourself in each act that you recognise to be valid. You don't for instance say that there are acts and methodologies that you haven't practiced but yet agree with - this would have indicated other than a superiority complex. The fact that you once again equate all ideas of validity with your own views, smacks of a superiority complex or at the least provides less than a poor argument against having a superiority complex.

In your second 'refutation' in your comment above you suggest that you merely disagreed with No. 6. When you disagree with someone, you tend to put commands into your argument. This takes it from mere disagreement. In fact you suggest that your brand of disgreement is 'indymedia' policy. As I said in my very first comment, the Indymedia method involves peer review. By all means, tell someone to wake up, tell them not to use patronising language, but, explain why - remember the assumption of infallibility is madness, and is the only methodology and ammunition, our common enemies have to use against us. The only hint at supplying a reasoning you supplied for No. 6 was that you yourself had invoked the Constitution - I'm still not sure what you meant by this - did you mean that invoking the Constitution is a useless act, or, that only 'valids' might use it? Also I'd like to know where and how you invoked the Constitution in Court (I'm not for a moment calling you a liar - I'm curious and would hate to have my education being left lacking).

Going back again to what's been said about Ed Horgan and Eoin Dubsky. Again you wander around and make vague comment on what has been specifically said and you accuse me of using this methodology to boot. Selective reading and moving the goalposts.

I don't know how to answer your belief that the Judge agreeing with Ed Horgan that Ireland isn't a neutral country, is a summary of a judgement, in which Ed lost the case - so I won't try - again.

I also find it interesting that you refuse to address the legal points I touched on, considering that legal points have figured very strongly, in everything you've had to say - up until now, when you're challenged on them.

Finally, I'm glad you are continuing your anti-war work despite what you see as unjust attacks against you, it's a pity that you don't see your own unjust attacks in the same light.

As for the tool who's now calling himself huh?

Even a neutral country has the right to defend itself, this doesn't contradict any stance on neutrality, in fact, if our government and army were to just look on, and act like nothing were happening whilst our populace were being butchered - this might be seen as an act of complicity rather than an act of neutrality.

As for mocking the term 'enshrinement'. Enshrinement refers to something that is held sacred - what could be more sacred in the Constitution than the wishes of those who authorise it? Let me dumb down the idea of the Preamble to answer this feeble attack. We the people of Éire having provided stipulations that govern the subsequent Constitution, give to ourselves this Constitution. Seeking concord with other nations and showing prudence, justice and charity in all of our actions, so that freedom for the individual may be attained and a true social order established. Only a true enemy of the anti-war movement and of freedom of the individual, would argue that the Preamble has no legal merit or that it has no relevance. Indeed the Constitution is a very deeply flawed document, and one of the biggest reasons for this and one of the proofs that this is indeed the case is that the Constitution at many points contradicts the decree 'enshrined' in the preamble as do the Government and the judiciary. So huh?, I hope you're being well paid to sling your traitorous shite.

by 'Respected Activist' - 'Personal Capacity' Thu Jan 25, 2007 07:48

Isn't the term 'respected activist' an oxymoron?

Interesting legal (and other) points here, Sean. And far from being defeated nobody here has actully been equal to what you have been saying. The only person being attacked is you. If you were in a court of law, you'd have your opponents respect.

'Aspirational' is the weasel word with which we justify the transport of soldiers and victims of toruture alike through our country. Nothing subtle about it at all.

From Wikipedia

"While most neutral states do not allow any foreign military within their territory, Ireland has a long history of allowing military aircraft of various nations to refuel at Shannon Airport. Under the Air Navigation (Foreign Military Aircraft) Order, 1952, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, exceptionally, could grant permission to foreign military aircraft to overfly or land in the State. Confirmation was required that the aircraft in question be unarmed, carry no arms, ammunition or explosives and that the flights in question would not form part of military exercises or operations. In September 2001 these conditions were "waived in respect of aircraft operating in pursuit of the implementation of the Security Council Resolution 1368" (Minister for Foreign Affairs, Dail Debate 17 December 2002). Irish governments have always said that allowing aircraft to use Irish soil does not constitute participation in any particular conflict and is compatible with a neutral stance, instancing the transit of German troops between Finland and Norway through neutral Swedish territory during World War II. "

Not for the first time has the great DC arrived magnificently on an Indymedia thread to confer her wisdom on us all! Step back everyone! That's the judge put in his place too - Deirdre approves! - she allows his arguments - the judicial system itself is relegated. Let's hope for their sakes that they are appropriately grateful and humbled. Perhaps we should expose more judges to the Deirdre treatment! She'd trump the lot of them - our secret weapon in the fight against state arrogance :-)

What have I drawn on myself...Oh God!

by Dalek Thu Jan 25, 2007 13:46

This thread is full of personal abuse and debates about people's identity. Please stop this now and respect the editorial guidelines. Any further abuse, sock-puppetry, or accusations thereof, may lead to bannings.

by pat c Thu Jan 25, 2007 14:02

This is a meeting you might wish to attend. Hear about the real situation in Iraq and how women come under attack from both the occupation forces and the "resistance".

Public Seminar in TCD on Iraqi women from dictatorship to occupation

Friday, 26 January, 12.30 to 2pm, IIIS Seminar Room C6.002 , Arts Building TCD

Speaker: Nadje Al-Ali, Institute of Arab & Islamic Studies University of Exeter

What kind of liberation? Iraqi Women between Dictatorship, Sanctions, War and Occupation

A L L W E L C O M E

by Edward Horgan Thu Jan 25, 2007 16:40

Just for the record, the reason I did not appeal the high court decision in my case had nothing to do with money. I had already decided to risk whatever money it took to do what I considerd to be the right thing with regard to that case, and on the issues of justice.
The high court judgement in my case had three main elements and three separate decisions. I lost on the two constitutional issues, that is Article 28 and Article 29. In my view this was an incorrect and perverse decision, because the Judge decided that Article 29 in particular was only "aspirational" which is wrong in law and in fact. The part of the constitution that is aspirational is the preamble. Any article in the constitution was effectively put there by the people, and can only therefore be removed by the people. Judge Kearns tried to remove article 29 by declaring it "aspirational".
I won the third issue in my case when Judge Kearns ruled that Ireland was in breach of the Internatinal Law, particularly the Hague Convention on neutrality, by allowing US Troops to use Shannon airport.
My best and expert legal advice at the time I was considering appealing was that the existing Supreme court would have found in favour of the Government on the issues of Article 28 and 29, in spite of the legal niceties and legal correctness of these matters. In addition I was advised that they would also be likely to try and overturn the ruling on international law, so we would have lost at the Supreme Court what we had gained in the High Court. That was the only deciding factor in my decision not to appeal the decisions. Money was never an issue and I resent any suggestion that it might have been. In fact, before going to the HIgh Court I deliberately decided not to transfer any of my property or resources to other family members, so that I stood before the court as a genuine applicant on behalf of the constitution and for humanitarian reasons.
Just as the Catholic workers place the value of human live above the value of US property at Shannon airport and above the value of their own personal freedom, I placed and still place the value of human live way above the value of any property I have ever owned.
I often wish that all of those "experts" who critices those of us who did take various positive actions on Irish participation in the Iraq war, would have considered taking some such or some other appropriate actions themselves, rather than just playing hurling on the ditch.

The time for action is comming once again. See you all at Shannon airport from 17 March to 21 March for an active peace camp. And this time, dont just stand there, do something.

Edward Horgan

by Deirdre Clancy - AWI (personal capacity) Thu Jan 25, 2007 18:10

"I placed and still place the value of human live way above the value of any property I have ever owned.
I often wish that all of those "experts" who critices those of us who did take various positive actions on Irish participation in the Iraq war, would have considered taking some such or some other appropriate actions themselves, rather than just playing hurling on the ditch. "

Thanks, Ed for your clear and dignified description of your legal action and the motivations behind them. I never doubted that your reasons for not going to the Supreme Court were based largely on legal advice and your own research; and I hope I haven't misrepresented you in any way in my own comments. Really, my remarks regarding this issue were just attempting to correct the impression that had been given out that I didn't support you or your actions, which was based on nothing. I couldn't agree more with your final remark about playing hurling on the ditch. One of the occupational hazards of taking any positive action whatsoever seems to be the constant presence of armchair critics and self-appointed 'experts'. I also appreciate the dignity of your response.

Overall, I kind of regret engaging so deeply with the invective on this thread or trying to impose logic on what is beyond logic. It's definitely not worth it, and I probably should have taken the advice of the contributor who advised against it, because as that contributor said, it's beneath notice and a waste of energy.

by Edward Horgan Thu Jan 25, 2007 21:59

No hard feelings to all concerned in this debate. It is good to air such issues, and in my case it did give me an opportunity to set the record straight. It is vital however to keep an accurate focus on the core issues, and the legal niceties are not the core issues. Mass murder, and especially the killing of hundreds of thousands of innocent children are the key issues.
So far, on the basis of 660,000 Iraqi dead, and based on the Lancet report estimate that over 40% of those were children under 18, then 264,000 children have died in Iraq as a result of the US-led war.

Even if we hold the Irish Government only 1% responsible for the war in Iraq, and that is being over-generous, then Irish Government ministers are responsible for the deaths of 2,640 children in Iraq.
Some of these same goverment ministers have been advocating for the release of murders and rapists from Irish prisoners, while also advocating for the economic benefits of countinued US military use of Shannon airport.