Shannon Peace Action - Trial Report

by Khan Mor Mon Dec 30, 2002 01:17

The U.S. has prevented Irish police from entering U.S military planes at Shannon. In effect the Irish Government has conceded jurisdiction to the U.S. So Mr. Dubsky was outside the jurisdiction of the Irish state when the alleged offence took place, and the State has no case against him. The real question is why the Irish Government has conceded sovereignty over Irish territory to the U.S.?

by Tim Hourigan Mon Dec 30, 2002 17:19

=============================================
Excerpts from the Dubsky Trial.Tulla, Dec 18th 2002.

I was present for the opening day of the case the DPP v Eoin Dubsky.
After a long day of testimony with 13 people taking the witness stand,
and a detailed legal sumbmission by the defense, the case has been adjourned
until next year

The Prosecution was conducted by Inspector Thomas Kennedy of Shannon
Garda
Station.
Mr Dubsky was defended by Mr. Paul O’Shea of Ahern O’Shea Solicitors,
Dublin.

WITNESSES
Prosecution
John Fielding - Aer Rianta Duty Airport Manager
Inspector Chris Hickey - the Airport Police
Mike Ryan, Managing Director of FBO
Garda Oliver Foley,
Garda Pat Keating
Garda Paul Coleman
Garda Deborah Gillespie
Garda Flaherty
Detective Garda Brian Quin
Rose Campbell Forensic Science Laboratory

Defence
Eoin Dubsky (Defendant)
Farah Mokhtareizadeh (US Citizen, - Voices In The Wilderness)
Dr. Manor Hassan Rubaie (Iraqi Medical Doctor)

The case is not over and I wouldn’t want to make any predictions on it, but there have been some very interesting points made by the defence and some interesting admissions made by the prosecution Not least of these revelations is that neither the Garda Siochana nor the airport police seem to take an interest in inquiring into or inspecting the contents of foreign military aircraft even if that foreign military was involved in a war at that time. From the testimony of Gardai as well as a member of the Airport Police, it seemed each assumed the other would do so.

Airport 'Police' Inspector Chris Hickey stated that he did not believe that these aircraft were going to Afghanistan or Iraq as this did not appear on the departure screen as their destination.

(Personally I've never seen ANY information on arrivals or departure screens relating to these flights - TIM)

Airport ‘police Inspector’ Hickey defined the duties of the Airport Police as
“day to day security of the airport, issuing passes for personnel going airside, operating passenger screening, dealing with road traffic in
the aerodrome and general security”
When asked by Mr O’Shea if he knew whether or not the aircraft painted by Mr. Dubsky was carrying bombs or other such weapons, Inspector Hickey
replied that he did not know. When asked if it would concern him if the aircraft was carrying such items he said “No”. When asked if “in the
interests of security of the airport” he would be concerned if the aircraft was carrying such items, he again replied “no”.
He said that anything that would have a license or permission to be there would be ‘above board’ as far as he was concerned.
When asked if he knew if that aircraft had a license he said that he didn’t know.
When asked if he had ever seen a license he replied “That wouldn’t be part of my job”.

Mr. O Shea asked ‘Inspector’ Hickey how many military flights had passed through Shannon in the past year.
'Inspector' Hickey (who doesn't seem to ever actually inspect anything)
said he did not know as he only works shifts as is not always at the airport.
When asked how many he would see on a typical shift, he indicated that there would usually be at least one on an 8 hour shift.
Mr O'Shea then said that it would not be unreasonable to assume, that in a
year there might be over a thousand.

Even though many of the prosecution witnesses admitted that they had NO IDEA what was carried on these flights, Inspector Kennedy of Shannon Garda Station (prosecuting), tried to assure the judge that he was sure that there was nothing untoward.

He assumed that the aircraft were carrying “logistical supplies”

Judge Mangan asked Inspector Kennedy what “logistical supplies” were.

“Equipment” replied Inspector Kennedy

The judge just looked at him.

“Well, I assume they carry American food to the their troops”

“So, you think they’re carrying hamburgers?” asked the Judge.

I didn’t quite hear Inspector Kennedy’s answer due to the laughter in
the
courthouse.

--------------------------------------------------
some very funny moments .

1. The arresting Garda suggesting that perhaps the planes were there for an
airshow
.... loud giggles from the audience.

2. Eoin's lawyer getting the charge of climbing the fence struck out because the prosecution had submitted no evidence whatsoever that he had
climbed the fence.
AFTER this, when arguing about the criminal damage, Inspector Kennedy asked how Eoin got to the plane. "I climbed the fence" - brilliant.
The charge was already dismissed.

3. Inspector Kennedy suggesting that perhaps they were only transporting food and none of them had weapons or anything like that. Judge Mangan said, "You think they're just carrying hamburgers?" -roars
of laughter.... big red face on Inspector Kennedy,

4. various witnesses suggesting that they didn't inspect the planes because the US military would inform them if they were carrying weapons.
When asked if they would expect the US Air Force to tell them if they were carrying nuclear weapons they said "ah, I don't know".
Dark uniforms,,, red faces.

by Phuq Hedd Mon Dec 30, 2002 22:09

Excellent reporting. This is why I keep coming back to indymedia. The courtroom scene sounds like something out of Myles na gCopaleen. Hickey's "Nuremburg defense" is less than impressive, but given that the Gardai are tolerant of criminals within their own ranks that assault citizens in the street it's unfortunately representative of the Gardai.

After this lot have been dealt with it's time to take the issue forward and find out what political instruction Hickey has received. The trial is a good forum to request this information. It is reasonable to attempt to establish exactly what is in the planes, who authorised them and whether or not the State has excercised due diligence with regard to the safety of Irish citizens and maintenance of our neutrality.

Suppose that Eoin is totally acquitted what happens then? So far the government has got away with no formal investigation into whether or not they are safeguarding us in this matter. If they want to keep on suppressing it then acquiting Eoin and stonewalling any need for further investigation would be their best bet. A second line of defence would be to call Yet Another Enquiry which will linger on for fucking ever and at best scapegoat a couple of the most culpable (Non-Inspector Hickey perhaps?).

by Ruairi Tue Dec 31, 2002 04:34

mighty stuff! mighty article....surely this is more worthy of frontpage than a 3 week old anti-war notice?? I know, I know - it's up to me. Well give me some notice of a meeting and I will travel down and attend and get involved, donate money, write articles, please just help me help. But keep her lit in the meantime!!!!!!!!!!!

by corkboy Tue Dec 31, 2002 13:04

I have just read Eoins trial notes and it is truely inspiring stuff. Sincerest congrats to Eoin, his legal defence etc.