Feb. date fixed for Dubsky v Ireland in High Court

by Mick Dooley Tue Jan 11, 2005 10:28 Carlow

On September 11 if you can remember the US was attacked by Al-Qaida. The terrorists who hijacked the planes were Arabs from Egypt, Saudi Arabia and other countries and like thousands of others were trained in camps in Afghanistan with the open support of Mullah Omar and the brutal oppressive Islamic extremist Taliban government.
Unless the US intervened militarily Ossama Bin Laden and his thugs with the help of Mullah Omar could continue to plan and launch attacks against American cities in the future with WMD supplied by states which sponsor terror and Islamic extremism such as Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria and formerly Iraq.
Besides millions of Afghans were living under the backward murderous regime.
Within a month the Taliban were deposed by the Northern Alliance with the help of the USAF and US special forces.
Thousands of terrorists were captured or killed while Ossam Bin Laden and his thugs fled into the mountains. Since then there have been no terrorist attacks on American soil.
In Oct 2004 for the first time in history the people of Afghanistan voted in democratic elections and Hamid Kharzi is now President. Afghanistan is a still a poverty striken war ravaged mess but now Afghanistan has a chance to lift it self out of the nightmare which began long ago with the Soviet invasion of their country.

by Barry Tue Jan 11, 2005 11:55

The United States was attacked by Al qaeda, not Ireland. We are supposed to be a neutral country. The use of Shannon is illegal and an insult to both our sovereignty and neutrality.

Iraq did not attack the US. That is an illegal war of occupation and theft of resources which this country is shamefully collaborating with.

Fair play to this young fella for taking a principled stand. We owe him our thanks.

by Barry Tue Jan 11, 2005 13:16

This country is not an aircraft carrier for a foreign military power. We are supposed to be neutral. The price of oil and what Osama Bin Laden did is irrelevant. If Irish neutrality is being breached, Ahern and co are acting illegally.

by John Tue Jan 11, 2005 13:28

Im sure you have resources that prove Ireland is legally neutral and that this is not just policy and furthermore that this neutrality is being breached.

Could you post them here please?

by Mary Kelly Tue Jan 11, 2005 13:50

Good luck Eoin with this very important case.
Your commitment and tenacity deserve massive support.
This long haul through the courts is vital to clarifying Irish Neutrality and another step to tearing up the landing strip tarmac doomat for US wars of aggression.
Keep going!

by Noel Tue Jan 11, 2005 14:49

The very concept if neutrality is redundant.

Even in 1945, when DeValera offered the sympathies of the Irish people upon the death of Adolf Hitler, Irish neutrality was a sham.

How could Ireland claim to be neutral against Nazism?
How can Ireland claim to be neutral against Islamic terrorism?
Islamic terrorism is certainly not neutral towards the Irish.
The Irish are as much a target of the Islamists as Britons or Americans or Nepalese.

Ireland may not be first on their list.
But it's on their list.

by jeff Tue Jan 11, 2005 17:22

the Irish will certainly be on the Islamist's list if we go poking our noses in Iraq.

So, please, spin docters, readers of the new Magill, and other assorted trash, shut up. Bombing people will not put smiles on their faces. Let Bush's America take care of it's own mess, we have no reason to either allow military aircraft through Shannon or 'defend western values' (yawn) by sending troops there to 'fight the Islamist scourge' Darn, talking to conservatives is frustrating. I'll just see them for what they are; brick walled geeks on level with Star trek nerds. Ponce off.


Funy thing is, a lot of people I hear shouting about our responsibilities to disengage from neutrality are actually the sort that would have difficulty in trying to storm a telephone box. Who are they to be telling Irish soldiers what their duties are? Thankfully they are in a minorety but our right wing press gives them loads of space to rant. Boring.

by Michael Tue Jan 11, 2005 19:05

Now, for people still wondering about this whole "neutrality" business: You're neutral when you're not party to a conflict. Most states are neutral powers during most wars. If you're not fighting yourself or "blunting the sword" of one belligerent side against another, you're a neutral party.

Your duties and freedoms as a neutral party during a time of war are set out in the Hague Conventions on Neutrality, among other international law texts. The Irish High Court accepted that these duties of non-participant states during a time of war include refusing to allow a belligerent pass through the territory (e.g. refuel at Shannon Airport) on their way to wage war. Unfortunately though the court (J Kearns) said that though the laws of war might say one thing, the Irish government can say another (e.g. neutrality = anything you like it to be). Ireland is not obliged to be a lawful member of the international community if it doesn't want to be -- those passages in the Constitution of Ireland are only "aspirational".

by redjade Tue Jan 11, 2005 19:29

Transcript from PBS Frontline TV Program 'Nazi Gold'
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/nazis/train/interview.html

Quote from 'Elizabeth'

Our own feeling at that time were very ambigious. I don't think we wanted really to deal with this. What would happen... we knew they were going to Germany, we knew they were Jews, we knew about the concentration camps. But we also had a feeling that we had helped them, that we had done good and that the fact that they were now hollering at night, they shouldn't have done that because we had helped them. It was a very strange and ambiguous feeling and the article in a way said that, look we have helped you and now you're making a big racket and now our good citizens can't sleep. And, of course, you know, this was wartime and we were all a little bit warped in our thinking, in our feelings.

That... this type of thing always troubled me. And even today when I have to review it [voice breaks - sounds close to tears] it is very troublesome. And I always wondered, why couldn't we help more? Because if the Swiss wouldn't have left... if the Swiss would have said, all right, we're going back on our word and we are not leaving this people... we are not letting these people go further to Germany then I guess the other transports wouldn't have followed.

Swiss neutrality meant morally neutral

by Common Sense Wed Jan 12, 2005 11:58

Mick said: "The terrorists who hijacked the planes were Arabs from Egypt, Saudi Arabia and other countries and like thousands of others were trained in camps in Afghanistan with the open support of Mullah Omar and the brutal oppressive Islamic extremist Taliban government."

Though he later mentioned the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, he didn't bother to mention America's role in financing those terrorist training camps, and the brutes who managed them, during "Russian's Vietnam" in Afghanistan. George Bush snr was then directory of the CIA.

To be fair to Republicans, as Richard J. Egan affirmed quite rightly on RTE's QandA one night, the Clinton Administration also supported islamist terrorists (to join the KLA). It's not just a Republic Party thang.


Then Mick said this: "Unless the US intervened militarily Ossama Bin Laden and his thugs with the help of Mullah Omar could continue to plan and launch attacks against American cities in the future with WMD supplied by states which sponsor terror and Islamic extremism such as Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria and formerly Iraq."

...Ossama Bin Laden and Mullah Omar were never caught. If we're to believe that Ossama was able to mastermind 9/11 from a cave in Afghanistan in 2001, and that now he's in a cave somewhere between Afghanistan and Pakistan, what's the difference? American airports have finally begun to act like proper airports in Europe and the rest of the developed world, i.e. proper security checks, etc... That's the difference.

And as to the Iraq, WMD, Bin Laden link... just forget it and stop embarrasing yourself.

by .... Wed Jan 12, 2005 21:55

A question for the bould Eoin - what was the outcome of your other case? For painting the plane. Were you fined, did you pay, are you challenging the conviction?

Have heard nothing about this for the longest time. What's happening?

by upthekhyberpass Wed Jan 12, 2005 22:14

"now Afghanistan has a chance to lift it self out of the nightmare which began long ago with the Soviet invasion of their country"
Afghanistan's nightmare did not begin with the Soviet invasion. Our old friends the "Brits" tried to make it part of their empire.
And failed.

by Michael Thu Jan 13, 2005 13:25

Judge O'Donnell found Eoin guilty on Tuesday, 5 October 2004. Same Order as J Mangan made in Shannon the year before (1,000 EUR fine, Clare ban, etc.).

Said threat must be immediate in space and time, certainly not outside the state (e.g. Iraq or Afghanistan).

The judge quoted a passage from the 1991 Criminal Damage Act which was changed in 1997 to remove the immediacy clause -- ignored.

He said Eoin's action was just politics, wasn't linked to protecting anyone's life anyway. Then he went on to explain though that he's not againts civil disobedience in undemocratic countries (sure, a symbolic 'die-in' might indeed turn into a real 'die-in', but whatever).

The judge used to be a lawyer in the States, and one of his old friends from the bar in South Carolina came to see him put a hippie right in court that day.

He suggested that knocking a handgun from someone's hand could be acceptable though for the necessity defence. Nobody bothered to point out that the threat from a handgun is only immediate in space (it's close), but immanant in time (you don't get shot until you're shot and you don't know when that might be).

by .... Sat Jan 15, 2005 13:25

Yes Michael, but is he is (or has he) paid the fine or is he going to jail, or is an appeal pending? THAT is what we've heard nothing about.

What's the current situation?

by DF Sun Jan 16, 2005 03:14

Open to correction - but I think Dubsky paid after an unsuccessful appeal.

by Eoin Dubsky Sun Jan 16, 2005 14:41

I've still got some time to pay the 1000 yoyo fine.

Some money was paid as surety for the binding over order and the Co. Clare ban (i.e. I get that money back if I stay out of trouble for two years). A friend very kindly agreed to go surety for me too, so that part of the process was painless.

I decided not to appeal -- though there were ground for appeal -- for a few reasons. Firstly: I'm not based in Ireland anymore, so getting to court isn't as easy as it used to be. I'm involved in a High Court action already (hearing: February 8-11th), so it's not like I'm just twiddling my thumbs. Though I think it's quite clear that the judge was mistaken about the immediacy/immanence requirement of the necessity defence, the Irish high court in it's current configuration might share his opinion, which would be bad news for ploughshares activists and others awaiting trial.

by DF Sun Jan 16, 2005 15:20

But are you paying the E1,000 fine???? Or are you going to do the jail-time? How much time inside would it be? You did say you wouldnt pay the fine.

by Eoin Dubsky Sun Jan 16, 2005 19:11

I might pay it. If I don't I'll get 80 days in prison. When I said I wasn't going to pay Judge Mangan's fine, it was cause I wasn't going to leave it at just that - I lodged an appeal immediately and continued to enter Co. Clare to visit friends, watch planes and protest at Shannon Airport. If a fine can be arranged which involves making a donation to a charity rather than the state, I certainly wouldn't rule it out.

To be fair to Mangan, he showed far more interest in the case and in the law than the Circuit Court judge I had in Ennis for the appeal. Still, I've already entered into an agreement, payed surity, etc., to stay out of Co. Clare for two years and be bound to the peace so I wouldn't need to do the six months sentence. I'll see... Who knows... *cough* I might even make an appeal for donations here. :-)

by John Wed Jan 19, 2005 21:07

...basically you didnt mean what you said when you declared that you absolutely werent going to pay the fine cos of the principle. It was bombast. Oh dear.

by SAMMMM Sat Jan 22, 2005 17:21

Should have been more circumspect. Matters not at this stage anyway. meanwhile...on january 27 Ed Horgan and Shannon boat people are before court in Clare for their protest during Bush visit. All support welcome!!!!!

by Michael Wed Feb 02, 2005 16:01

1. International law:
The Hague Neutrality Conventions (most notably "Hague Convention (V) respecting the Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers and Persons in Case of War on Land, 1907") describe how non-participants -- i.e. neutral powers -- are to behave during a time of war. ( http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/hague05.htm )

It's all very obvious stuff, and has been acknowledged to be still true today by the Irish high court in 'Horgan v Ireland' (do a search here on Indymedia or google). The court did not accept the Irish government's argument that there existed a new international norm whereby states could be partly neutral.



2. Constitutional law:

Whereas the Irish government did receive the assent of Dail Eireann to allow continued use of Irish airspace and airfields for the US assault on Iraq, there was no such (and continues to be no such) permission granted visavie Afghanistan. The Constitution is clear about this detail: the parliament needs to rubber stamp the government's decision to participate in any wars.

Unfortunately in that 'Horgan v Ireland' case J Kearns basically interpreted the Constitution's provisions on international law to mean: Ireland must *aspire* to have a lawful foreign policy, but is *not* under any obligation to obey customary international law. His hostility to the laws of war are quite a la mode in Washington these days, and if he hadn't already been appointed to the bench by the PD's in Ireland I'm sure he would have had a good chance in Washington.