Silence over High Court judgement on Shannon

national | miscellaneous | news report Saturday May 17, 2003 11:41 by Eoin Dubsky - Refueling Peace info at refuelingpeace dot org +353876941060

Why has there been such silence over the landmark judgement of J Kearns in 'horgan v. Ireland' -- ed horgan's case about the Constitution and helping to kill Iraqi people? Kearns had more power to stop Shannon shenanigans than any individual politician. And yet there's not a peep about it from activists campaigning against the war.

(Picture is of victim from massacre at Fallujah, Iraq - 28 April 2003)

The 72-page judgement, and entire transcript, of ed horgan's recent High
Court challenge against the government and the state for participating
in war against Iraq is now online:
http://www.redbrick.dcu.ie/~slack/rp/ed/judgement.doc (203k) and
http://www.gluaiseacht.org/legal/HorganvIreland/

In explaining part of his judgement (which went in the government's
favour), Judge Kearns explored the possibilities of what horrors may
occur if he had ruled in Ed's favour instead:
"(e) interpretation of the Constitutional principles as argued for by
the plaintiff would clearly permit a challenge to a war declared by the
Executive even with the approval of the Dáil under Article 28.3, on the
grounds that it was a war that did not comply with justice and morality,
or the principle of pacific settlement of disputes, under Articles 29.1
and 29.2.

I accept and hold with the submission of the defendants that the
provisions of Article 29.1 . 3 are to be seen therefore as statements of
principle or guidelines rather than binding rules on the Executive."

...In other words, even if you know for a fact that the government have
allowed part of the country be used for aggression against Iraq (which
itself is an act of aggression), there's nothing the courts will do
about it. If a majority of parliamentarians will support the government
into battle, irrespective of how grossly immoral and illegal it is, war
is what Ireland will get (only they won't call it participation in war,
they'll call it "Irish military neutrality").

...Or to put it another way... The only recourse to justice is to stop
the state's flagrant misconduct directly "by hand" in a peaceful, open
and accountable manner. Then explain it to a jury a few months later.
With any luck they won't be as callous as the judge who declared on 28 April 2003 "This
court is not at all persuaded that any untoward conduct has occurred" (J
Kearns at p. 71 in Horgan v. Ireland), when earlier
that day soldiers and weapons that were passing daily through Shannon
Airport had destroyed at least ten more lives when they shot
demonstrators and children outside school in Fallujah, 50km west of
Baghdad
(http://www.ccmep.org/2003_articles/Iraq/050403_iraqi_rage_grows_after_fallujah.htm
or http://www.counterpunch.org/leupp04302003.html).

How can he get away with making such a shameful judgement
without at least someone dropping a banner from the
bridge outside the courtroom saying "Assisting in mass-murder and armed
robbery is very fucking untoward conduct, asshole!"?