Is Mary Kelly a felon?

by isobel Fri Jan 31, 2003 13:01

Mary Kellys vandalism has only disgraced the cause. After spending weeks condeming violence and demanding the Government adhere to its own laws, Mary Kelly herself does what she condemed others for doing. Shes a disgrace. Thank God we are not all like her.

by marques howard Fri Jan 31, 2003 13:15

it is troublesome that there is so much financial gain at stake in the current crisis. the Bush family's material petroleum investments create a serious issue of conflict of interests in the current cases of miltary agression. seeing as oil investors (Richard Cheyney, The Bush family)are standing to expand their material riches as regards the Iraqi oil fields, any action that brings international attention to the conflict of interest created is to be lauded. It would be a shame if Mary Kelly were to become a martyr of the courts for courageously striking out against people who value property far more than they have already proven to value human lif (in Afghanistan).

by Tim Fri Jan 31, 2003 13:18

She's no disgrace. And she's no felon (we don't have felony offences in Irish Law). She is in fact not even guilty of criminal damage*

Whatever reservations I may have about the timing or tactics of Mary's actions, I completely understand her motivations.

A US Navy C-40 carrying war materials landed in Shannon en route to the middle east (via Sigonella Naval Air Station in Italy). If you believe it was spare boots or hamburgers then you have no idea of military realities.

Mary has reported aircraft like this to the police previously and asked that they be inspected. She got no answer. She wrote to the Garda Commissioner, and the Minister for Justice.
No answer.

While you may question her wisdom, you cannot deny that she acted in a belief that it was urgent to prevent this military cargo reaching its destination (either Iraq or Afghanistan).
Putting no one at risk other than herself, Mary entered the airfield (which we later found out, was on RED alert following a bomb alert) and walked a few hundred metres, to the aircraft, past a SLEEPING Garda detective (some RED ALERT)
and began to hanmmer on the nose of the aircraft.
She didn't hit a wing or anything else that might contain fuel lines, she hit the nose, where the guidance and radar is housed.
She commited violence towards no person. the plane was empty of crew.
She did cause considerable damage.
*But if you read the Criminal Damage charge,
it does say that the damage must be without lawful excuse.
If you read on you will see that a lawful excuse can be an hoestly held belief that your actions were taken to prevent loss of life to oneself or another.
On those grounds, Mary is in fact innocent of CRIMINAL damage.
She is also not a vandal. Vandals act out of Malice.
Whether you agree with her tactics or not,
Mary's motives were based on love, protection of the innocent, and the frustration that these were ignored by the state.
Ask the innocent people of Iraq or Afghanistan if they think she let them down.
Then 'Isobel' ask what you have done to help those same innocent people, men, women and children, who eat, breathe, love and fear just as we do.

While I might not have chosen to perform this act myself, nonetheless, I cannot condemn Mary.
I 100% agree with her motives.

by Tim Fri Jan 31, 2003 13:22

It remains to be seen if this is accurate.
But I am aghast at Bertie's offer to compensate the US military for the damage. They were engaged in an illegal war. The whole plane and cargo should have been seized and no further landings allowed.

Will he next compensate paramilitaries for any Semtex or AK-47s destroyed by the Gardai?

If Bertie wants to spend 500,000 of taxpayers money compensating people in this war, let him buy food and medicine for Iraqi hospitals.

It's bad enough we already subsidise the military flights by over E1,000,000 a year.
How much more blood money will Bertie spend?

by iosaf. Fri Jan 31, 2003 13:32 barcelona.

Mary Kelly is the latest person arrested by authorities acting within the Irish Jurisdiction to facilitate the use of Irish Defence Resources by the U.S.A.F.
Mary Kelly though is the first I know of who might perhaps not recognise the Irish State or its jurisdiction.
In plain speaking

this is very interesting.

The Green Party have made clear with my complete support their contempt for the Irish Government by walking out of the chamber.
But they recognise the jurisdiction of the Irish government.

I have since the beginning of my comments on Shannon and direct action events there made reference to "old ladies".

There were two who acting under a "moral imperative" attacked a Nuclear submarine at Faslane. The Scottish Court practising Scottish Law which is distinct to English and Irish Law acquited them.
They had acted to prevent a greater crime.
a war crime.
They were and are best at such actions.
i repeatedly wrote "old ladies are best at this type of direct action".
There are other "old ladies" they are those of the "purist" tradition of Irish Republicanism based on the 2nd Dail. I regret any confusion that may have been caused by that.

Eoin has made use of Trident´s experience, as well as seeing American witnesses called to the stand.

Will Mary follow that course?

or can Mary and her supporters offer us all experience and precedent and arguments that are requisite to the issues?

I wrote in "little blue books" n article of last week on the weaknesses of the Irish constitution, I asked how far would one have to go before it broke. I was not being cryptic. The article stands on four clear levels. Read as you wish.
I have also qouted "bella ciao" an italian partisan song. It´s first line is "i awoke this morning to find the invador".

We certainly now are seeing many cloaks spread upon the ground.

That is not poetic it is only a reference to ancient irish culture. Flag=cloak=brat

Mary and her supporters have their own agenda in both the USA and Ireland. So I doubt anyone will be trying to ride on their cloak. But Mary now must with her counsel face some serious questions,
will they recognise the court?

is the USA the invador?

Mary Kelly is indeed in Good Company in fighting the US imperialist military industrial complex.
and perhaps she is in good company with a long list of dead.

But it is the living that take more interest in Shannon.

I and Trident and I suspect many in Ireland have our own thoughts and questions on the validity of Mary´s action. But it is a direct action, and one with many consequences. It has brought the felons of Shannon to assembly quorate. It might you could say have brought all traditions of Ireland to the table to discuss Ireland´s role in the Western Alliance War machine.

The words "war machine" are being much used, at the moment, and it is curious because they mean so many different things.
This really is getting interesting.
Mary beir bua!
Nuala ní dhomhnaill wrote a lovely poem (the poem bit) about the bealleasa who chopped down the tree with a black and decker one night. I´m sure you´d like it. But for others who only now see the point in joining or supporting Shannon know this.
Know it well.
We are a global movement.
You may stand on our cloak.
it is larger than yours and we have collected more felons caps than you and got more felons out.

by Tim Fri Jan 31, 2003 14:02

See story 26231 on the news wire...

SHANNON THE TRUTH.

by Andrew Fri Jan 31, 2003 14:53

The situation is simple enough

1. Most people in Ireland oppose the war

2. The government is allowing US military planes to refuel at Shannon

3. Some, maybe even most of those planes are carrying cargo that breaches Irish law

4. The gardai are not only not inspecting planes they are actively harassing those that are tying to monitor them

So called'anti-war' activists who protest Marys actions in respect of the above are simply being door mats for the pro war lobby. Personally I'd support her actions even without 1,2,3 or 4 but frankly given the situation I cannot see how one can be anti-war and attack her, what's your alternative?

by iosaf Fri Jan 31, 2003 18:52

But her oldest cloak is wrought of cloth so fine.
tis the cloak of the feathered cap.
tis a cloak of noble history
a cloak of Bantry a cloak of Ross.

mary you´re welcome to a bit of my cloak if you want.
:-)

by Luke Fri Jan 31, 2003 21:20

What give's her the right to spead 1/2 million euro of tax payers money . Who do you's think will pay for the damage she caused the tax payer.

by she was a jedi. Fri Jan 31, 2003 21:40

she gets jedi cover for the action.
but no pension. cheaper.
now
just coz you´re a jedi one day doesn´t mean your a jedi the next.

by Echo... Sat Feb 01, 2003 03:37

What gives BERTIE the right to spend 500,000 Euro of taxpayers money to compensate criminals? or to spend 1,000,000 of taxpayers money to subsidise military flights?

Are you kidding me? These dickheads are cauing billions of dollars of damage and killing thousands of people for no good reason. And we should compensate them for a disarmament action?
I'd gladly pay my share of 500,000 if the US military would pack up and take their planes home where they belong. It would only be about 50 cents per taxpayer, but only if they stop warmongering.
But we're paying twice that.
Even for me to pay ONE EURO to subsidise their flights is an insult.

HELL NO WE SHALL NOT ALLOW BERTIE TO COMPENSATE CRIMINALS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!