Anti- war protesters to appear in court

by jack Mon Sep 01, 2003 20:29

lets hope they make an example out of them scumbags

by Jacks Friend Mon Sep 01, 2003 21:19

Those feckin peace lovin commies!! Nuthin but pure filth. Tryin to act on somthin they believe in!! Just say the word and I'll be over there fighten then afganies...or who are we fightin now?...oh yeah, those feckin Iraqis!

by Yer Man Mon Sep 01, 2003 21:33

A caution! A real oul' character! Jaysus but yer a terrible man!

by >>>>>Seáinín Tue Sep 02, 2003 01:13

They're not on trial for protesting you numties, they're on trial because they committed an offence.

by trolled out Tue Sep 02, 2003 02:07

a serious mistake was probably made by all those who protested the bush-blair love-in for peace.

outside observers could probably have imformed us of the dire threats to our freedom and well being of attempting legitimate protest in a country which has never been set free through an american invasion.

those of us reared in the US protectorate 'free state' probably didn't realise the dangers we were facing heading into a colonial province ruled by dictat from an imperial power of the old school.

sorry for feeding the trolls, maybe they'll choke on it.

by >>>>>Seáinín Tue Sep 02, 2003 03:41

What exactly are they charged with??????

by Ois Tue Sep 02, 2003 15:09

Protesting is in pretty much all it's forms an offence. An offence that we have a 'right' to commit, but if all our rights were a reality then we'd be living under liberarian socialism today. Disturbing the peace, obstructing public property, disobeying a Garda and property damage are all offences. Explain to me then Seanin how we're supposed to protest without commiting an offence?

Best of luck to the arrestees.

by Seáinín Wed Sep 03, 2003 03:50

Don't thousands of people protest things every year without breaking the law and getting arrested.

by maalox - traditionalist approach to legal issues. Wed Sep 03, 2003 13:26

Seanin said:

They're not on trial for protesting you numties, they're on trial because they committed an offence.


Innocent until proven guilty, or is that too radical an idea for the Protectors Of Democracy? This isn't guantanamo bay after all. Or maybe you were there in Hillsborough? Do you know something we don't?

by Drbinoche Thu Sep 04, 2003 00:22

OK now correct me if I am wrong, they attacked the plane, they smeared blood on the ground around it, and erected some crappy little monument to the dead Iraqi Children, they have admitted this in numerous reports and news articles on this site and elsewhere........where are they disputing if they are guilty or not. They did, they have admitted doing it, to me thats an open and shut case. There is no need to argue whether the Irish Government were right to have the planes there or not, they have admitted the wrong doing, they are therefore Guilty as stipulated by the laws of the land, sentence em to wahtever is justifiable. [Hopefully a few months at the least behind bars!!] If I attacked someones car for something I disagreed with I would not be able to claim any cope out bullshit 'the constitution covers me beacuse' therefore they should not be able to use that excuse. They did, they are guilty.

Actually theres a point, how many people here believe they are guilty. They are either Guilty or not, none of this they are if and they are not But, they either are or they are not??? Who believes what???

by Yossarian Thu Sep 04, 2003 11:27

Of the two in court on Monday, one is accused of assaulting a police officer. This is pure crap and should be thrown out of court. I don't know what the other is charged with, breach of the peace or something. They relate to incidents that occurred at Hillsborough when Twig and Poodle came to visit.

by BlackPope Thu Sep 04, 2003 13:46 BlackPope at operamail dot com

I believe you are referring to the action of the 'Catholic Worker 5' in Feb. at Shannon Airport, where the reverse-aerodynamic-engineering of a US Navy jumbo occurred.

Those fine people who carried out this disarmament/disabling of a warmachine claimed and take full responsability for their action, of which they are justifiably very proud.

They are charged with 'criminal damage without lawful excuse'. They DO NOT admit, but have consistently denied, this wrongdoing - based on their conviction that the damage was done WITH lawful excuse, i.e. to protect the life and property of others threatened by this machine.

In fact, based on the Principles of International Law Recognized in the Charter of the Nuremberg Tribunal and in the Judgment of the Tribunal, affirmed by the General Assembly and subsequently adopted by the International Law Commission of the United Nations, 1950 ................. (see link)

"Principle VI
The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law:

Crimes against peace:
Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;
Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).

War crimes:
Violations of the laws or customs of war which include, but are not limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave-labor or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or illtreatment of prisoners of war, of persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.

Crimes against humanity:
Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhuman acts done against any civilian population, or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds, when such acts are done or such persecutions are carried on in execution of or in connection with any crime against peace or any war crime.

Principle VII
Complicity in the commission of a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity as set forth in Principles VI is a crime under international law."

Bush/Blair conspired to and committed all of the above crimes - top officials of the Irish Government conspired against their own oath of office and electorate to assist those criminally insane foreign despots - they are all guilty of a crime under international law, and are to be punished as such.

These courageous citizens who recognised the situation and stood up to interrupt this crime were actually performing a DUTY imposed upon them by that same international law, namely that

"Individuals have international duties which transcend the national obligations of obedience ... Therefore [individual citizens] have the duty to violate domestic laws to prevent crimes against peace and humanity from occurring."

As to how many people, appraised of all the facts, of which you are quite oblivious, would actually find them guilty of a crime, you can take heart from the outcome of Mary Kelly's trial in July. (She performed a similar 'axe' of disarmament on the same 'plane 5 days previous to the CW's) After 4 days hearing and 5 hours out, the Clare jury failed to reach a majority decision - i.e. at least 3 out of twelve dissented from the rest for a verdict one way or another.

If you would like to learn more about the issue and details, the Catholic Workers are appearing for a hearing at the Circuit Court in Dublin on 24th October, I'd be pleased to meet you there.

Schalom, BlackPope


PS: Yossarian - surely you mean "Chimp and Poodle"?