U.S.weapons inspectors in south west of Ireland.

by Brian Fri Jun 27, 2003 20:15

so, can i ask the politburo of the IAWM one question. Now that a "carnival of press" is going to arrive in the south west is direct action something the IAWM would support?

Double standards...

by Tommy Sat Jun 28, 2003 01:23

Let's face it people. The so called big guns who are supposed to give evidence next week won't be heard.
If Judge Mangann wouldn't hear Ed what chance does a yank have in the circuit.
It will all be over in an hour.

by Ciaron O'Reilly - Pit Stop Ploughshares Sat Jun 28, 2003 09:48

Ramsey Clarke testified for over 2 hours in our ANZUS Plowshares (disarming B52 Bomber Griffis AFB, Rome, NY 1/1/91) trial in Syracuse, NY in '91.

We were representing ourselves (with advisory co-counsel) so I recall being a little nervous leading him through the quetsions. This guy after all was the former top law man in the U.S. replacing Bobby Kennedy, so I was feeling a little out of my depth. He had also been in Iraq during the first Gulf War and could describle the indiscrimanate nature of B-52 bombing. Something he had observed in Vietnam, Korea and likewise Grenada and Panama.

He was a great witness and is a wonderful human being. Pretty much turning his back on following his father on to the Supreme Court and becoming an advocate for peace, justice and those faced with the death penalty in the U.S. He has defended a number of plowshare defendants in the U.S. as well as being an expert witnesses in such trial.

by Anonymous Sat Jun 28, 2003 10:42

Brilliant that ye got these 2 heavyweights over here. Hopefully they will make a difference to the case - and they will undoubtedly help to win the public more onto your side if publicised through the media widely enough.

by cicero Sat Jun 28, 2003 12:03

The Statue of Justice,
Mark well her station,
Her face to the Castle,
And her arse to the Nation.

http://indigo.ie/~1916/pic_statue.html

by young activist Sat Jun 28, 2003 14:12

during the war the iawm condemned direct action as elitist and refused to allow mary kelly to speak at the big dublin demo. is it true? this is not troll, it's just that i am new to activism and would like to know more from an informed source. i'd appreciate a reply from a iawm member. thank you.

by reader Sat Jun 28, 2003 14:51

readers! enjoy the worldwide indymedia network.
holiday reading?
try hawaii.

by ? Sat Jun 28, 2003 14:54

So what if Ramsey Clarke testified for over 2 hours about what the B-52 supposedly did in Vietnam, korea etc etc... Is Mary Kelly's council going to try to persuade the judge that we should place a BOEING 737 (cargo configuration)in the same class as a B-52.I hope she gets punished accordingly for what she did.

by iosaf (knows how your mind works) Sat Jun 28, 2003 14:58

it was a theology building b4 the okupation...
liebniz
the sanctity of zero.
answers on a postcard.

by Daithi Sat Jun 28, 2003 15:29

Use our new super-flashy search function if you have that sort of question. It's got flashing lights and bells and all sorts of cool stuff like that. Then you shall be in the know and no longer curious ;)

Top left of the screen below the logo.

by joanne Sat Jun 28, 2003 22:41 cork

Are we placing them in the category??? Yes. We call them Warplanes..We call this a Neutral country. I call Mary Kelly a heroin..

by Dave Sat Jun 28, 2003 23:07

But apart from such anal corrections, I agree with you.
Those 747s were carrying troops and other tools of war to a battle field that would be found Illegal should anybody ever get the opportunity to challenge it in any objective court

by p o toole Sun Jun 29, 2003 03:23

if the omah bomb had not reached its destination to blow appart 29 INNOCENT people,because mary kelly took a hatchet to the car it was in,she would be held up as a hero.
If you would have her "PAY for her CRIME",I shudder to think what you would do to any one with a working concience.If only there were a few more mary kellys ......anyway tis impossible to damage a U.S. warplane,especially when there were no warplanes landing in shannon at the time,SEAMUS BRENNAN said so.And as for the estimated 4 mil,the irish govt can take it out of the 50 million bertie got from, bush for the use of the airport.Id think thats a GREAT deal(that is if you dont count all the dead INNOCENT Iraqi civilians),which you obviously dont...anyone who cant tell the difference between the guilty or the innocent dosent posess a concience.

by p o toole Sun Jun 29, 2003 03:30

if the omah bomb had not reached its destination to blow appart 29 INNOCENT people,because mary kelly took a hatchet to the car it was in,she would be held up as a hero.
If you would have her "PAY for her CRIME",I shudder to think what you would do to any one with a working concience.If only there were a few more mary kellys ......anyway tis impossible to damage a U.S. warplane,especially when there were no warplanes landing in shannon at the time,SEAMUS BRENNAN said so.And as for the estimated 4 mil,the irish govt can take it out of the 50 million bertie got from, bush for the use of the airport.Id think thats a GREAT deal(that is if you dont count all the dead INNOCENT Iraqi civilians),which you obviously dont...anyone who cant tell the difference between the guilty or the innocent dosent posess a concience.

by Drbinoche Sun Jun 29, 2003 22:23

Personally I think she should get a lovely fine and maybe some time in jail. She broke the law, and irrespective of whether she was right or wrong in the long run or whether someone believes it is allowable by the constitution, the point is she decided to break onto an airfield and damage a plane or another nationality. Whats next, if Mr Mugabes plane or a plane owned by his country lands at dublin airport we should damage it as well. Why don't we just tear up all social standing so. Hell I don't like some of the people on this site, so maybe I should murder em, because I am sure if I took the constitution a certain way I could argue its allowable. I can just argue I am helping to protect the country from the inside!

by Curley Mon Jun 30, 2003 13:27

By your line of thinking, if your house is burning down and someone was to break down your door to help you get out, then should he or she be up in front of a judge for breaking and entering?

Because "whether she was right or wrong in the long run" they did break the law.

by Curley Mon Jun 30, 2003 13:31

to take issue with the rest of your post a plane from Zimbabwe wouldn't be using Irish airports to break international law and fight an immoral war. If it was then I hope that people would have the conviction to damage it.


Your idea to tear up all social standing is the only thing in your post that I can agree with. I just am disappointed that the rest doesn't reach up to such lofty ideals.

by Badman Mon Jun 30, 2003 15:34

Yes it is true. The IAWM were approached several times by GNAW, before at leat two natioal demonstrations, asking for a 'direct action' speaker on the platform. They refused every time, making such excuses as "we've already agreed the speakers" and "there's no space, all the political parties need speakers" and so on. They also deliberately set out to undermine the GNAW direct action on March 1st through the national media.

It seemed like a good idea at the time, they were the glorious leaders of a hundred thousand, couldn't have them being scared away by lawbreakers. Seems like much worse of an idea now. A lot of people have the date "march 1st" burned into their memories and won't forget it too soon and find it hard to keep a straight face when they hear "one solution, revoultion" coming from those SWP muppets.

by Peace Camper Tue Jul 01, 2003 17:31

When Mary Kelly did her action support from IAWM was no where to be seen now she is in court and the media is paying her attention she is now a "member of the IAWM", strange isn't it?

If I was a cynical person I would almost think that they were jumping on a bandwagon for their own purposes, but that never happens.