Response to Direct Action at Shannon


"others may feel that the inherent violence implicit in such an act is innapropriate for them" While I agree with the balanced nature of the original post, to automatically equate an extremely limited ammount of property destruction with violence is a bit sloppy. It smacks of 'all property destruction is wrong' when war is , at the very least, property destruction. The constitution (Article 28) is ignored, Hague convention (beligerent troop movements on neutral soil disallowed) ignored, and on Nov 26 ,Cowen told the Dail that there were no arms on the US planes in Shannon! And, to the best of my knowledge , Eoin Dubsky was recently given leave to challange the legal status of our new found lack of actual neutrality. An attempt to prevent a greater crime (pre emptive , non-internationally sanctioned war), as when a fireman kics a door down to put out a fire ,is imo, what will happen with the direct actionists on March 1st. Btw, this is the defense used by the ploughshares women, vis-a-vis Harrier jumpjets which could have been modified for use in East Timor. The Old Bailey agreed with them. Indeed, even the founder of property rights, John Locke himself, would be turning in his grave right now at bertie the bush kangroo and biffo brian. He allowed for some limited property destruction to prevent greater property destruction - his example was tearing down a house to prevent the spread of the london fire of 1666. Also, even Locke, the inspiration for many a neoliberal Pee D, would, at this stage, feel that the gov is rebelling against the people. I don't doubt that the original poster disagrees with the use of Shannon airport by the US war effort. I just don't think the people who engage in the type of direct action planned are being violent.

Created By: o o