Tulla trial / war on trial

national | miscellaneous | news report Friday December 20, 2002 12:16 by Eoin Dubsky - Refueling Peace info at refuelingpeace dot org 087 6941060

If you're in Ireland then you may have heard already that my trial yesterday for the Shannon Airport US Airforce Hercules action was a great success. I would like to thank first especially all the people who came along and who helped me refine the legal arguments -- It really felt like we were putting the war on trial! (Photo: "ARMAMENT" converted to "DISARMAMENT" on side of USAF Hercules at Shannon Airport 4 Sept 2002)

The fence-climbing charge was dismissed by Judge Mangan after he ruled
that the prosecution offered no evidence that I had actually climbed the
airport perimeter fence. The prosecution didn't present a case that I
had *without lawful excuse* damaged the aircraft either, but the judge
luckily didn't dismiss that charge right away, so we spent the rest of
the day presenting our defence.

Though we got to make lots of legal arguments (the judge has adjourned
the case to Shannon District Court on January 9th because he wants time
to consider them more fully), the trial was a deeply human and moving
experience too. The testimony of Dr. Manor Hassan Rubaie (a medical
doctor from Iraq) and Farah Mokhtareizadeh (Voices in the Wilderness)
who had recently been in Iraq about effects of United States and British
bombing in Iraq was overpowering. I was also allowed to speak freely and
I'm grateful to the judge for that.

To have a "lawful excuse" basically we had to show that (i) I believed
that there were circumstances threatening myself or others; and (ii)
that under the circumstances as I believed them to be, my actions to
protect myself or others were reasonable. My beliefs could be entirely
groundless and it would still be okay (see to section 6 of the Criminal
Damage Act (1991)), but my actions had to be "reasonable". So for
example, you might be right that a riot can be a life threatening
situation, but stealing someone's car radio probably wouldn't be
accepted as a reasonable action to protect yourself under the
circumstances. :-)

In our defence we refered to the threats to life of American assaults
against Afghanistan and Iraq, and Ireland's collusion in these criminal
acts. It was brilliant! We got to use basically every argument we had --
referring extensively to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal
Court, the Geneva Conventions, the Hague Conventions, the Charter of the
United Nations, the definition of aggression from the United Nations
General Assembly Resolution 3314 (which was acknowledged by the
International Court of Justice as expressing international law in this
regard in the Nicaragua V. United States of America case), the
Constitution of Ireland, the Radiological Protection Act, and a load of
of related materials.

During cross-examination I thought that the prosecution would focus on
the "reasonable-ness" of my action (this is the objectivity clause).
Even under the circumstances as I understand them to be -- I thought
he'd argue -- walking around in an airfield can never be reasonable.
That's why I went over that in detail explaining the way I handled the
action with caution and calm. Do you think he tried it?

Nah! The prosecution's case rests instead on the assertion that I don't
honestly believe the stuff that I've been saying about United States
military conquests and Ireland's part therein! Seriously... It was
hilarious!! :-)

Anyways, I don't want to speculate about what the verdict will be in the
end. We couldn't have hoped for anything better than we already got
yesterday (except maybe if the prosecution had called the US Airforce
pilot to the stand and we could have cross-examined him).

Thank you 10000000 times everyone who has supported me through this.
It has been a wonderful experience and I'd recommend it to anyone. :-)

Have a great Christmas and hope to see you soooooon!

### Links to documents referred to:

# IRISH LAW:

CONSTITUTION OF IRELAND – BUNREACHT NA hÉIREANN
http://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/upload/static/256.pdf

NEUTRALITY (WAR DAMAGE TO PROPERTY) ACT, 1941
http://193.120.124.98/ZZA24Y1941.html

AIR NAVIGATION (FOREIGN MILITARY AIRCRAFT) ORDER, 1952
http://193.120.124.98/ZZSI74Y1952.html

RADIOLOGICAL PROTECTION ACT, 1991
http://193.120.124.98/ZZA9Y1991.html

GENEVA CONVENTIONS (AMENDMENT) ACT, 1998
http://193.120.124.98/ZZA35Y1998.html

# INTERNATIONAL LAW:

CONVENTION (V) RESPECTING THE RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF NEUTRAL POWERS AND PERSONS IN CASE OF WAR ON LAND. THE HAGUE, 18 OCTOBER 1907
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/385ec082b509e76c41256739003e636d/85e344e491c102e5c125641e003934b7?OpenDocument

CHARTER OF THE UNITED NATIONS
http://10.18.65.10/pdf/UNcharter.pdf

UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION 3314 (XXIX). DEFINITION OF AGGRESSION
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/3314.htm

THE CONVENTION ON THE PHYSICAL PROTECTION OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL
http://www.iaea.or.at/worldatom/Documents/Infcircs/Others/inf274r1.shtml

ROME STATUTE OF THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT
http://www.un.org/law/icc/statute/english/rome_statute(e).pdf

# CASES I AM CITING:

CASE CONCERNING THE MILITARY AND PARAMILITARY ACTIVITIES
IN AND AGAINST NICARAGUA (NICARAGUA v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA) (MERITS)
http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/Icases/iNus/inus_isummaries/inus_isummary_19860627.htm

[ NOTE: It'll take me a while to track down the other cases on Bailii.org]

# MISC. DOCUMENTS I AM REFERRING TO:

PAPER: THE UNITED NATIONS CHARTER AND THE USE OF FORCE AGAINST IRAQ
http://www.lcnp.org/global/Iraqstatemt.3.pdf

DÁIL DEBATE: MINISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS' RESPONSE TO QUESTION (138) ON MILITARY NEUTRALITY
http://www.gov.ie/debates-02/23Oct/Sect8.htm

REPORT: COLLATERAL DAMAGE - THE HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL COSTS OF WAR ON IRAQ
http://www.ippnw.org/CollateralDamage.pdf

PAPER: THE ILLEGALITIES OF THE BUSH, JR. WAR AGAINST AFGHANISTAN
http://www.just-international.org/FBoyle-Afghanwar.htm