Irish Judge Harrasses Anti-War Defendant

by In another world... Wed Oct 27, 2004 11:59

The captain surely knew, as he made his way towards Irish airspace that cold January day in 2003, that his military aircraft would be seized by Irish guards and soldiers when he landed. Ireland, being a law-abiding member of the family of nations, would be obliged to intern the belligerents and seize their aircraft for at least the duration of the war (a war which Dick Chaney said may not end in our lifetime). Just as Ireland had done during World War -- ahem, "the Emergency".

His only chance of avoiding capture would be if he landed on some little-used airfield, hid the military plane near some trees or behind an unused building, and quickly searched for somewhere to find fuel on the black market to make his escape.

The pilot abandoned his aircraft when he left it in Shannon Airport. Indeed, when Mary Kelly got to the plane the Gardai were already on the case, and had positioned a squad car near the plane for when the American crew returned.

by Heckle Wed Oct 27, 2004 15:45

Why that aircraft? Nice and handy (unguarded?)or would any aircraft have done? A 737 is either an unarmed cargo plane or a civilian airliner..RyanAir have a ramp of them.
The only possible way to for that aircraft to be 'on its way to Iraq to kill women and children' would be on a suicide mission..crashing it into something.
Now if Mz K had picked a real military aircraft, C130 transport or Galaxy, Globemaster or whatever happens to be passing then her case would have more credibility.
Refusing to announce the cargo manifest is nothing unusual. I doubt RyanAir publishes the cargo list for all its flights and I might get a short answer demanding to know what the police carry in those big white vans in Dublin that move around in the small hours...

by Michael Wed Oct 27, 2004 15:56

The judge seems to think it doesn't matter what the plane was going to do, could have done, or has done in the past, so whether it's a US Navy war fighting aircraft (like say a Hercules) or just an aircraft they used to transport stuff doesn't matter much.

They say that the plane was only carrying spare tires and such for their base in Italy. If that's so, how come they sent a Hercules to the scene just hours after Mary's action to offload it's contents and scramble away?

When a witness is being cross examined in court they're supposed to answer any question which they're asked and the judge doesn't find unreasonable. So if for the purposes of defending yourself against some charge you need the court to know what you believe someone had aboard their plane or in their car - they must answer.

by ClareFM listener Wed Oct 27, 2004 15:59

Filed at: 7:25am
by John Cooke

The trial of Anti-war activist Mary Kelly continues this morning at Ennis Circuit Court. Ms. Kelly is currently arguing the case for her own defence, but was told yesterday that the war in Iraq and US Military use of Shannon Airport are not relevant to her case.

by Heckle Thu Oct 28, 2004 14:58

Seems natural enough to transfer the cargo..if the 'plane is grounded and subject to a police investigation and will be out of use while repaired.
I agree its highly likely (nay certain) that the the aircraft was carrying arms or war supplies. Being military and treated as a flying truck there could be a load of things on board but not necessarily going to Iraq.

Problem for Mz K is she didn't know what the cargo was, or where it was headed unless with insider knowledge or x-ray eyes. All she could see was a US Navy plane. So the excuses of commiting one crime to prevent another larger one are smoke and mirrors to excuse straightforward criminal damage to a third parties property. As the Judge has pointed out, in law the details of the plane and where it goes or what it might do are irrelevent. Did she or didn't she do the deed?

by i ball Thu Oct 28, 2004 15:22

As the Judge has pointed out, in law the details of the plane and where it goes or what it might do are irrelevent. Did she or didn't she do the deed?

Actually that's not correct.
The Criminal Damage act, - had you bothered to check... allows lawful excuse.
You may damage the property of another if you had an honest belief that your action was to save lives.


Please stop showing your ignorance. Check your facts THEN post a comment. It's a good policy and worth a try...

by Heckle Thu Oct 28, 2004 16:04

How could she have lawful excuse if she didn't know the intentions of the plane?

You may honestly believe in flying saucers and the threat of alien invasion and set fire to the cornfield to prevent them landing but it won't help your defence to criminal damage charges.

Before attacking me, try reading a law book and look up the rulings to 'lawful excuse.' You might learn something, unlikely, I admit.

by Check Thu Oct 28, 2004 16:59

How would any one know what's on these plans with a cop and custom serice so housbroken and sychophantic it doesn't bother checking these planes. they are rewarded thus

...observe the intesnity with which peace activists are hounded down and persecuted, retried, banned from Clare, jailed etc with which the Garda caught framing people in Donegal or bashing RTS dancers in Dame St. are shown the door to walk.