Pit Stop Ploughshares Trial Day 4

international | anti-war / imperialism | news report Thursday March 10, 2005 15:11 by Scott Schaeffer-Duffy - St Francis & St Therese Catholic Worker theresecw at aol dot com 52 Mason Street Worcester, MA 01610 USA 001-508-753-3588

Day 4 Early Report

The case for the defense of five women and men charged with criminal destruction for damage committed against a US war plane at Shannon, Ireland airport began.

Four Courts, DUBLIN, IRELAND

The Pit Stop Ploughshares, five anti-war activists, began their defense against the charge of criminal damage to a US warplane at Shannon Airport on February 3, 2003.

Prior to admitting the jury, Judge O' Donnell raised questions about the admissability of evidence to be introduced by the defense. He said " that there was a potential to contaminate the mind of the jury with totally irrelavent matters." The defense indicated that its case would consist of testimony by the defendants and three other witnesses: a miitary logistician, Kathy Kelly, and an international law expert.

The judge said, " I don't want a logistics man telling me about air traffic in Japan." The defense assured the judge that the testimony would be relevant to the actions of the defendants. The judge deferred the decision as to whether or not he would allow these witnesses to testify.

Defendant Ciaron O'Reilly took the stand and began to describe his backround, with special attention as to how it affected his belief that the actions on February 3rd were justified. He was repeatedly interrupted by the judge, who severely restricted his testimony. Mr. O' Reilly said, "My belief was that Iraqis, especially children, were dying uneccessarily due to sanctions and war." When he quoted the former director of the UN Food for Oil program in Iraq, Denis Halliday, who described sanctions and war in Iraq as "genocidal," the judge angrily interrupted. He said, "This case has to be controlled or we'll be here until Kingdom come." Mr. O'Reilly went on to say, "I had a belief that more killing was going to be done and I had a Christian duty to stop it. The Pope condemned the war. It was the first British war that the Church of England did not support." The judge had the jury removed and accused the defense of "conducting a propoganda campaign against war." The defense admonished the judge. "Your Lordship is not here to conduct this case." When the prosecution rose to object to the defense strategy, Judge O' Donnell said, "I've been waiting for you to comment." At this point the defense angrily accused the judge of doing the prosecution's job. One of the defense lawyer's asked the judge "to take that comment back, to withdraw it." The judge said he would not tolerate "histrionics." The defense accused the judge of politicizing the case. One of the attornies for the defense respectfully said "The defense my client relies on is a right. Your Lordship is not doing my client a favor. I do not need Your Lordship's permission to run this defense...Your Lordship raises concerns about politics. My clients were influenced by political events. I introduce that evidence absolutely and unapologetically." He described the notion that the expression of political views makes this a political trial as a "misconception." The judge apologized "most profusely," but went on to say "I have to ensure a fair trial for the accused but I will not allow the promoting of an agenda." He repeated that photos of Iraqi children killed by a US missle attack on January 25, 2003 would not be admissable.

The jury returned. Mr. O'Reilly discribed how he came to be aware of the specific military uses of the Shannon Airport and how he participated in weekly vigils at Shannon to protest that use. When he said that "ordinary Iraqi people had increasing terror of impending war," the judge again interrupted. When his testimony resumed, Mr. O'Reilly described how he and his co-defendants found a plane with US markings and how they "disarmed it...to preserve life in Iraq as well as property that sustains life." He did this so the plane "would play no further role in killing people and to encourage others to do further acts of disarmament." A few minutes later when Mr. O' Reilly stated that "the war had no UN mandate," the judge again cut him off.

On cross examination, the prosecutor tried to elicit testimony from the defendant as to prior convictions for acts of civil disobedience. Since the introduction of prior convictions is absolutely inadmissible evidence, the defense strenuously objected to the "smear campign conducted by implication and innuendo." The judge mildly chided the prosecution "Don't stray." The prosecutor later asked if Mr. O'Reilly's participation in a TV interview was done "out of ego." Mr. O'Reilly insisted that he "was trying to educate and stimulate debate." He said he had "no agenda to convert anybody." He was later asked, "Did you know that your actions at Shannon would really piss off the military, upset the powers that be? Did you think that this was going to get up their noses?" Mr. O'Reilly concluded his testimony by saying, "I left the consequences to the Spirit. The meaning of prophecy is to bring things into the light."