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."

save preference

Comments (15 of 15)

where?

by reader

Thu Mar 10, 2005 16:39

what court number is it on in? can you give some directions for the unsure? thanks

THINK ITS 25

by krossie

Thu Mar 10, 2005 16:42

I think its court 25 in the forecourts?

defense testimony

by - -

Thu Mar 10, 2005 17:25

great reporting.

Judge O'Donnell's interruptions of Ciaron's testimony are an obvious attempt to stop the trial becoming a trial about the legality of the war on Iraq. the eminent judge chides the defense for politicising the case, but hides the state political agenda (keep the legality of the war out of the case and out of the papers) behind diversionary accusations which silence the defense. has the good judge dined with any politicians recently?

Visible evidence appears to be a problem for "our legal establishment"

by R. Isible

Thu Mar 10, 2005 17:54

> He repeated that photos of Iraqi children
> killed by a US missle attack on January 25,
> 2003 would not be admissable.

It's hard to see why not. Photographs of damaged property are frequently admitted as evidence in court cases, similarly photographs that establish context so that witnesses can see the physical layout of a crime scene are allowed to be introduced.

What with the attempt to stop Edward Horgan and others from taking photographic evidence of the presence of US military aircraft at Shannon it starts to look as though there's a desperation to hide clear visual evidence.

Great reporting on the trial by the way. The judge would appear to be highly biased and this should be a concern for the public.

just in!

by Conor Cregan

Just received a text from Tim Hourigan:
Reads:

Judge just ruled out a witness who never heard. Said he could not prove what(the barristers say he. But won't let try, even without the jury preset..........

My bet its the mititary logistics guy.

Good Luck Pit Stop's

Day Four - later report

by Fintan Lane

Thu Mar 10, 2005 18:08

The trial ended for the day just after 4pm with the judge to consider overnight various submissions made by the defence team. Unfortunately, the nature of these submissions (which could have serious consequences), and the matters that gave rise to them, can't be detailed at this stage because they happened while the jury was out. In fact, a great deal of the case today happened sans jury.

Contributors should also bear in mind that the DPP today moved to introduce as evidence material taken from internet sites referring to the trial.

The day, of course, actually began long before the trial when the Pitstop Ploughshares and a large group of supporters gathered at 9am by the Spire in O'Connell Street. This gathering occurs each morning and supporters are invited to attend. Following a vigil, a single file procession made its way from O'Connell through Abbey Street to the Four Courts. The attendance was impressive and, on a workday, clearly the depth of support out there for the five 'defendants'. Also, the response on the street was great - lots of supportive smiles and one young man passing myself and others gave a shout of 'Fair play to yis!'

Before entering the court, a number of the five spoke with supporters outside, further reminding people of the reasons for their action and of the need to continue struggling against the war policy of the Bush regime.

The day began with legal arguments, but quickly moved onto defence witness, the first of whom was Ciaron O'Reilly. Some of what Ciaron said is referred to above, but in short he cogently explained his own intellectual formation, the ideas behind the Catholic Worker Movement, and so on.

The judge interjected at various points with comments such as "I don't want it [the evidence] to turn into a political address" and "I'm not going to allow him to go back over a campaign of anti-war."

Despite such interference, Ciaron continued to explain his case and the reasons for his involvement in the action at Shannon. The following are some of his remarks made in evidence:

"I believe that the war did not end with what was known as the first gulf war. It continued with sanctions."

"People were dying slowly and quietly"

"I felt an obligation as a Christian to act".

The judge, however, continued to interject prior to lunchtime insisting that he was "not going to have him [Ciaron] promoting an agenda". He also remarked that the witness was "conducting a propaganda campaign in relation to war."

Indeed, the prosecution made great play of Ciaron's suggestion that the "war is on trial".

Emm...well, yes.

In essence, what Ciaron and the defence were pursuing was their argument of "lawful excuse" and, in explaining the horror of war and the suffering in Iraq, they were simply speaking to the reasons for the action at Shannon. Clearly, the decommissioning of a US warplane on Irish soil did not happen without a context.

These matters were exercised again after lunch, with Ciaron's questioning taking up most of the afternoon. The adjournment occured at the end of a legal argument regarding the relevance of a defence witness.

Tomorrow promises to be interesting. In fact, it could prove to be a crucial day in trial. If you can make, please be there to lend your support!

9am, the Spire, O'Connell Street, tomorrow morning. Be there.

Day 4, part II

by Brian Buckley - Catholic Worker

Thu Mar 10, 2005 18:45

iraqiboy04 at yahoo dot com

Virginia, US

The prosecution resumed its case against Ciaron O'Reilly by questioning the publicity garnered as motive for acting and trying to connect the national publicity from Mary Kelly's disarmament action the week prior to the Pitstop Ploughshares action. Ciaron said his two objectives were to disable the plane and the second was to start a chain reaction that would inspire people to do similar actions everywhere. He felt by acting according to his faith he was repenting for his complicity in allowing the invasion of Iraq to be mobilized without resistance.
From a letter that Ciaron wrote from jail and from an radio interview with Amy Goodman the prosecution asked whether he had acted to change people's mind to his and to cause monetary damage. He replied that his actions came from remebering his humanity. What happened afterwards was in the hands of the holy spirit.
|n the defence's cross examination Mr. O'Reilly was asked to clarify what "bearing witmess" meant. "Bringing light to the presence of God in the here and now. Everyone is invited to participate in this by confronting that which kills and is of death. Pacifism and nonviolent resistence to war is central to my Christian faith." The shrine that was placed before the plane that held the bible, the Qu'raan, St. Brigid's crosses were symbols connecting the holiness of Christianity, Islam and Ireland.
In preparing for the disarmament action Mr. O'Reilly recalled the spritual council from priests in Dublin and England and a four day retreat the group went on to discern. A the St. Brigid's festival, Kathy Kelly addressed an audience before she embarked to Baghdad knowing that it was to be attacked. Mr. O'Reilly and the four accused felt that a disarmament action in a country that was being used as a refueling pitstop while mobilizing for a bombing campaign was an appropriate non-violent action. Mr. O'Reilly affirmed the comparison that he and Bishop Tom Gumbleton had made in an interview of their action to destroying the train tracks that led to concentration camps in Aushwitz as non-violent acts that would have prevented massive loss of innocent life. Believing that the lives of Iraqi non-combatants, men, women and children would end, life enforcing systems of Baghdad would again be targeted and destroyed Mr. O'Reilly said that he was compelled by his Christian faith to act as he did.
A former group captain in the Royal Air Force who is a logistical expert on aircraft was requested to take the stand but the judge object on grounds of irrelevance. The defence insisted that his experience with assessment and damage would give credibility to the disarmament act as slowing down the deployment. Judge O'Donnell upheld his ruling and the court adjourned.

bottom line- a political mistrial

by in court today

Thu Mar 10, 2005 20:16

the bottom line is today judge o'connell played his hand too early :
he was ruling on the admissability of expert witness jeffrey oxley who the defence wanted to bring in to show a possible connection between the act of disarmament and protecting life or property. the results of interruption of supply lines in a war situation was what which oxley could have given evidence on.

this is vital because the prosecution is going down the road of how could the defendants predict the future? the plane only potentially could cause harm etc. while the defence's case is that of lawful cause- damaging property in order to protect the life or property of another.

this law was amended in 1997 and does not require the defendant to prove that they were correct about the threat to a person or property but only that they had an honest belief and acted reasonably in the circumstances as they believed them to be.

the judge while ruling oxley's testimony irrelevant also stated that the oireachtais had not intended the lawful cause in the criminal damage act to be used in this way. he said that an action would have to be one that was capable of protecting life or property and that the act was not designed to hand over , (not sure what word he used so i'll say "jurisdiction" ) to individuals over the government's attitude to other people's wars.

( this meant in effect "your entire defence is useless").

at this point a defence lawyer said the judge was making a sweeping ruling without having heard all the submissions with a restricted application of the criminal damage act & asked if the judge was saying that lawful cause can't be used as a defence in this case.

the judge backtracked and said no.

defence lawyer number one repeated what judge had stated and its implications.

2 defence lawyers spoke, both excellently.
for both bottom line was if lawful cause cannot be used then none of their submissions including proving the honest belief of the defendants would have any bearing and so if their defence could not be used they asked for the jury to be discharged.

the judge had demanded that the defence show a connection between the defendant's action and protection of people as a result but refusd to hear eveidence from oxley who may have been able to show that connection.

a second defence lawyer added that a statute is to be construed in favour of the accused. the oireachtais had not chosen to restrict the legislation. if the bill is wrong so be it. that's not the business of the court , it's for the oireachtais to change.

tomorrow morning the judge will be under pressure to discharge the jury or clarify his ruling.
(i'm not sure what happens if the jury is discharged- whether or not there's a retrial under another judge. clarification on this? )

everyone in the open court today knows what happened except the jury. the jury has been out of the court more than in and has not been present for the legal arguments and so could be in no position to judge this case.

so here we have it. judge o'connell has repeatedly talked about an underlying "agenda"in the defence .

the prosecution has said the war is not on trial and neither are governments or international bodies.

between them they are attempting to shut down all political aspects and implications of this case. namely they're saying it's inconceivable that an individual could take this kind of action lawfully because the implications would be too far reaching .

this is what happened at mary kelly's trial & ed horgan's case against the state for breach of neutrality and came up again in eoin dubsky's case against the state for allowing overflight's during the afghan bombings. bottom line is the judiciary is heavily discouraged from intervening in what are considered matters for the oireachtais. those of foreign policy.

the idea is that public representatives represent the people and have the relevant facts and advice and so should make the decisions and that to interfere with that process, even in ther light of international law or the constitution which was ruled "aspirational" in horgan's case, would cause chaos.

(yesterday the contents of the shrine which were left at the scene, photos of injured iraqi children and documentaries on the effect of sanctions in iraq were yesterday ruled inadmissable by judge o'connell on the grounds of irrelevance. an open letter ciaron wrote & quotes from an interview he did with amy goodman were today, on the other hand ,allowed as evidence.)

The Criminal Damage Act (1991) *as amended* by the 1997 Act

by Michael

Thu Mar 10, 2005 21:44

Just to clarify what the amendment to the "lawful excuse" provisions of the Criminal Damage Act (1991) is...

In 1997 the oireachtais passed the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act, which included an amendment to the "lawful excuse" section (6) of the 1991 Act. The change at Section 20 was to REMOVE from the statute book any immediacy test -- in time or space -- for the defence of lawful excuse under section 6.3.c of the 1991 Act.

Without this amendment, it could be argued that the necessity defence did not exist in the Irish statute book. Take the example provided by the judge in Eoin Dubsky's trial at Ennis Circuit Court a few months back: You might be justified, he said, in knocking a gun from someone's hand (and damaging it) if that person was about to shoot someone when you did it. The trouble with his example is that an unfired gun never hurt anyone, and unless the guy with the gun was counting down ("I'll count to ten and then shoot!"), you can only say that the threat was *immanent*. Not *immediate*. Obviously though we wouldn't like to criminalise people so brave as the judge's example hero, so our fine politicians decided in 1997 to amend the law to protect such good citizens.

Integrity, International Law, UN Mandate etc

by Ramsey Isak

Fri Mar 11, 2005 05:44

Wales

Is there no integrity left in the Irish Justice System? To require that a connection be established between the actions taken and the possible disruption of the military campaign against Iraq and then disallow the very witness with expertise best qualified to establish the connection is nothing short of OUTRAGEOUS!!!

To have a jury trial where the jury is largely excluded is utterly farcical. That is usually reserved for the discussion of complicated legal arguments of too academic or technical a nature to be properly understood by the jury.

Concerning there being no UN mandate for the war, the situation is actually much more extreme than that. The truth is that UNMOVIC had been following a timetable laid down in a Security Council resolution passed before they actually returned to Iraq at the end of 2002. There were two phases to their operations, the first marked by regular progress reports by UNMOVIC (Blix) and IAEA (El Baradei) to the Security Council, ending with the production of two reports: Identification of Key Disarmament Issues
Working programme (to resolve the identified issues)

These two reports were produced on time. The second phase was to last for 120 days during which the key disarmament issues would be resolved in accordance with the working programme. Military aggression against Iraq started before this second phase could commence, effectively disrupting an ongoing UN operation. It is clear that the US had no intention of allowing peaceful resolution of the crisis with Iraq, as they were comitted by act of Congress as far back back as 1998, to 'regime change in Iraq' according to the Iraq Liberation Act of Congress.

Interested readers might want to check out the 'Syrian Accountability Act' of Congress, 2004

Were it not for principled actions like those by the CW5, there would be no hope of decelerating the inexorable slide of humanity into the abbyss of chaos.

Court hears antiwar protestor acted 'on philosophies of Isaiah'

by redjade

Fri Mar 11, 2005 09:39

Court hears antiwar protestor acted 'on philosophies of Isaiah'
10/03/2005 - 18:31:44

One of the five protestors charged with damaging a US aircraft at Shannon Airport has told the jury that "acting on the philosophies of Isaiah rather than pissing off George Bush" was the motivation behind their actions.

He also said they hoped gardaí would join them in their protest similar to the way police and civilians joined together to chip away at the Berlin Wall and bring about its eventual fall in 1990.

[....]

Mr O’Reilly told the jury of nine women and three men that he was informed and educated on the consequences of sanctions imposed on Iraq following the 1991 war through material such as the television documentary "Paying the Price" by renowned journalist Mr John Pilger.

He said he and his co-accused left a copy of Mr Pilger’s documentary as well as a documentary produced by Jesuits in the US on the effects of the Iraqi war at the "shrine" they erected at Shannon Airport, along with a cope of the Koran, the Bible and prayer beads.

Photographs that he said depicted Iraqi civilians injured during a missile attack on Basra in January 1999 were also left at the ‘shrine’. He said the pictures had been given to him by someone who had travelled to Iraq and was travelling onto Baghdad to be a human shield.

http://212.2.162.45/news/story.asp?j=136341308&p=y3634zxy4&n=136342068

Day Four

Fri Mar 11, 2005 10:58

http://WarOnTrial.com

Joe Murray (AFRI) and Kelly Dougherty, American Iraq War Vet

Deirdre explains what happened in tourt today

Neutral State.

by David Mullins

Fri Mar 11, 2005 14:52

e_hruk at yahoo dot co dot uk

01707321529

I was interested to hear about this case from the web but I am not surprised that the UK media does not mention it.

I assumed that Ireland was a Neutral State. Since when did Ireland start aiding foreign empire military campaigns? Has the Irish government ministers lost its history and forgotten what all those Irish forefathers gave their lives for. Is Ireland not supposed to be 'peace keepers'?

Do you think switzerland would allow Military planes on their soil?

Failure to Count Iraqi Casualties Is Irresponsible, Say Experts, BMJ

by Activist

Fri Mar 11, 2005 15:44

Failure to Count Iraqi Casualties Is Irresponsible, Say Experts, BMJ

An international group of public health experts has accused the British and American governments of being "wholly irresponsible" over their failure to count Iraqi casualties.

In a statement published online by the BMJ today, 24 experts from the United Kingdom, United States, Canada, Spain, Italy and Australia call for an independent inquiry into Iraqi war-related casualties. "We believe that the joint US/UK failure to make any effort to monitor Iraqi casualties is, from a public health perspective, wholly irresponsible," they write.

Updated Judge's Ruling from last Friday?

by Kevin

Mon Mar 14, 2005 02:32

kdriscoll at gategourmet dot com

2400 Tuna Canyon Rd Topanga, CA 90290

310-455-0974

I attended the trial last week with my wife and four children but we flew home to California today. When I left the court on Friday, defense attorney for Ciaron O'Reily was MIA but his support was handling things well. What I want to know is........Did the judge (after reading his incredible mis-steps in the transcripts from Thursday) discharge the jury?? Is it a Mistrial? The Pit Stop Five are heroes!

Number of comments per page

Upcoming Events

New Events

Other Press

User Preferences

Feeds

Blog Feeds

Anti-Empire

The Saker

Public Inquiry

Human Rights in Ireland

Pit Stop Ploughshares Trial Day 4

Comments (15 of 15)