High Court verdict on war expected today

by Matthew Tue Apr 29, 2003 15:03

Presumably your opinion will be unchanged if the Supreme Court reverses this decision. Also I note you did not reply to the articles that were posted proving that tens of thousnads of Iraqis are protesting against anglosphere occupation.

by Josef Tue Apr 29, 2003 13:24

Gives me a warm feeling.....

by gargy Mon Apr 28, 2003 23:31

YEAH!! :-p

by Sparks Mon Apr 28, 2003 22:22

Thanks Daithi, definitely interested in seeing those transcripts.

by Daithi Mon Apr 28, 2003 22:20

I have looked on various subscription services that I have academic-use access too and the case is not available yet - the timelag is bad on Irish cases, unless the Irish Times or whoever make the judgement available on their website. But I will make available (here) anything I get, if that happens any time soon. If anyone in possession of a print or electronic copy wants help from Indymedia in hosting a copy please get in touch.

Are you sure that the royal prerogatives were discussed? They were essentially written out of Irish law with the Webb case (treasure trove) in the 80s and the Mullaghmore/Luggala planning permission appeal in 1993/4 (not sure on date). It might have been more along the lines of 'beyond the remit of the courts' or such similar nonsense that comes up with most of the foreign policy cases.

Just on a meandering side-thought - such a decision is not proof that the courts are corrupt/stacked/undemocratic/whatever. That's Denis Riordan territory. You win some, you lose some - and the least likely judges have given victories to good causes in the history of public interest and constitutional law, so if this case had gone the other way this judge would have been the best in the world. It's also not set in stone, remember Dred Scott (the U.S. case that supported segregation and was eventually overturned - by other judges but also by social activists). Law is just a tool of change like any other method, and there is no shame in trying, as long as you don't fall into the trap of relying on the courts - who get it wrong for honest as well as dishonest reasons, and are often constrained by a Constitution that's weak in many parts. Respecting and using the law is great but changing it is crucial.

by Sparks Mon Apr 28, 2003 21:47

Can we get copies of the transcripts?
I've tried finding them on the web with far too little luck :(

by Eoin Dubsky Mon Apr 28, 2003 20:33

I couldn't make it in time for the reading of today's ruling, but I've heard from a few people who were there. If its true that the judge said that (a) international humanitarian law is being broken by Ireland, and (b) there's no point asking the High Court to stop the state's lawlessness (lookup "Royal Prerogative"), then surely direct action at Shannon Airport is necessary and reasonable.

A few people will be in court later this week. They may like to get a copy of today's ruling off Ed Horgan or his solicitor Joe Noonan. There could be some gems in there...

by tom Mon Apr 28, 2003 16:26

JOE IM JUST WONDERING WILL U BE HELPING ED HORGAN OUT WITH THE COURT FEES IF HE DECIDES TO APPEAL?

by Joe Mon Apr 28, 2003 15:23

USE OF ALL IRISH AIRPORTS TO HELP IN BRINGING DEMOCRACY TO ALL COUNTRIES UNDER DICTATORSHIP!!

Thanks Tom you have given me a good laugh there.

Get rid of one deadly regime by invasion by the US/K regime, who have put the world boot on the throat of Iraq, the country that to quote Denis Haliday has been involved in the "genocide" against the Iraqi people.
They will put there own lackey in place and then make the Iraqi people pay for the privilege of being invaded and having their country destroyed in a 12 year genocidal sanctions campaign.

by tom Mon Apr 28, 2003 14:59

THE WORKERS AND THE LAW ABIDING CITIZENS OF IRELAND ARE DELIGHTED WITH THE COURTS DECISION FOR THE CONTINUED USE OF ALL IRISH AIRPORTS TO HELP IN BRINGING DEMOCRACY TO ALL COUNTRIES UNDER DICTATORSHIP!!

by Deirdre Clancy - Catholic Worker Mon Apr 28, 2003 13:49

I was in court, and had problems trying to follow the mental gymnastics the judge performed in order to justify the government's complicity in wars of aggression. He said that the government is indeed in breach of international law (this bit was translated from the legalese by Joe Noonan). He also seemed to say that it doesn't really matter that the government is in breach of international law, because international law is vague ("woolly" was the word he actually used ... yes, really), and furthermore, domestic law overrides it (this was my understanding of what the judge said).

The articles in the constitution used by Ed in his challenge to the government (28 and 29)were "aspirational", said the judge, and so the government's decisions override the constitution in respect of these articles. It's funny that these aspects of the constitution are suddenly "aspirational", when FF and the PDs are in breach of them. Irish governments have been quite willing to use the constitution to justify all sorts of breaches of citizens' rights in the past. Anyway, even if these articles are "aspirational", isn't the government obigated to attempt to aspire to the standards upheld in them?! The law may not be an ass, but the lawmakers can be pains in the ass. His Lordship's probably having lunch with An Taniste right at this moment.

by Matthew Mon Apr 28, 2003 12:05

Just heard it on NewsTalk106. Victory to Emperor Bush and his Pro-Consul Bartholomew Patrick Ahearne. All Hail!

by Joe Sheehan Mon Apr 28, 2003 12:02

Just on the Radio that suprise suprise a government judge found against Ed, his case has failed.
He is deciding wherther to appeal the case