Not Guilty - The B-52 Walk Free!


Lawful intent to disarm
This afternoon at Bristol Crown Court, the trial of two Oxford peace activists Philip Pritchard and Toby Olditch (aka. 'The B52 II') concluded with the jury returning a unanimous verdict of not guilty in less than three hours. They were charged with conspiring to cause criminal damage at RAF Fairford in Gloucestershire on 18 March 2003 when they tried to safely disable US B52 bombers to prevent them from bombing Iraq. During proceedings the court heard the two men acted to prevent damage to life and property in Iraq, and war crimes by the aggressors.

War on Trial
This was their second trial; the first, in October 2006, ended in a hung jury, after 12 hours of deliberation spread over three days. The maximum sentence for Phil and Toby was ten years in jail. There are two other similar cases awaiting re-trial, due to hung juries, at Bristol crown court.

Both activists maintain that war crimes were committed in the bombing as cluster bombs, which spread unexploded bomblets that kill and maim civilians (like mines) were used, as were 'bunker busting' bombs tipped with depleted uranium that fragments, spreading radioactive toxins which are harmful to civilians.

During the trial the prosecution accepted that even delaying the bombers would have prevented civilian casualties, as it would have allowed those fleeing cities more time to escape. In his hour and a half summing up today, Justice Crowther explained the legal tests that must be met for the prosecution to succeed, he reiterated the facts and summarised the evidence. A document 'steps to verdict' had been provided to assist the jury.

In their own words
Toby Olditch said "We're overjoyed, and thankful for the good sense of the jurors, for the wonderful support we've received, and for the commitment and expertise of our legal representatives. But hundreds of thousands of Iraqi people have still suffered as a result of the Government's actions. It shouldn't have come to the point that people had to take direct action to try to check the abuse of executive power."

Phil Pritchard "I am delighted that the jury have returned a unanimous not-guilty verdict. Our action in trying to prevent illegal attacks on the people of Iraq in 2003 is vindicated. I hope war of this kind never happens again."

The main characters
Philip Pritchard is 36 years old, and a self employed carpenter and father. Toby Olditch is 38 years old, and a self employed builder. They both live in Oxford. The defendants were represented in court by barrister Edward Rees, Q.C. from Doughty Street Chambers, London. Their solicitor is Mike Schwarz of Bindmans & Partners, London.

Scene of the crime - U.S./U.K. crime, of course!
The two men were arrested inside the perimeter fences at RAF Fairford in the early morning of 18 March 2003, just two days before the bombing of Iraq started. They carried with them tools to damage the planes, nuts and bolts to jam the aircrafts engines, pictures of ordinary Iraqi civilians and paint symbolizing blood and oil. They also carried warning signs for attaching to any damaged planes which would help alert aircrew to their action. The two men acted nonviolently in a way which would not result in harm to anyone,including the military personnel at Fairford. They intended to stay with the planes and tell the operators what they'd done.

A spark of light among the darkness
Civilian casualties in Iraq since the invasion are estimated between 68,796 (Iraq Body Count) and 650,000 (Lancet October 2006). More bombs were dropped in the initial 'shock and awe' attack on Iraq than in the whole of the first gulf war.

Their acquittal is another small victory against war-waging antics that have unleashed an abominable demon of violence in Iraq. Another ocean drop, but a strong indication of how to effectively disrupt the Masters of War from putting into effect their drawing board plans of carnage.

Comments

varus said…
Hi

First of all, i love the new look!

The case at hand is ofcourse similar in legal respects to yours and they seem to have acted honourably in all respects.

The defence was two fold, a) that their actions delayed the planes and therefore the bombs, thus preventing death. This i have to aggree they undoubtedly did. b) that the war was ileagal or that the use of bombs is ilegal. If yes to either of these, then their case stands. However, if the war was legal and the use of bombs was legal then they have no basis for a legal defence of their actions as these actions prevented a legal activity.

Well was the war legal? Big and good question! Is any war legal? Just war theory said yes - some. Whereas Clauswitz would have said yes -all.

Bombing civilians? Legal? Some would say "all is fair in love and war". Me? Well in a conventional war of defence against an aggressor, the civilians act as a source of support, justification and resource for the military and so are a justifiable target. (WW2 scenario), But Iraq? We (US/UK)were arguing that the military/Bathist regime was seperate to the population and so to target civilians would seem contradictoary to out aims. Therefore the bombing was ilegal, as its legality would counteract the legal argument for the war in general.
Damien Moran said…
Thanks, took mw a good while to learn how to sex it up and realised that I am certainly not one for working full-time on computers, due to the brutal headache I had after 2 days on the trot exploring html, java, etc.

I aksed some of my students recently how long they can stay on the computer until they start getting a headache, feeling like their brains are about to explode and pop out - 3 of them said they have quite regularly spent up 12-16 hrs playing computer games, etc. without feeling adverse affects!!!

I think the question whether war is justifiable or not pertains also to the times we live in. Now t hat we have the capacity to utterly change the face (or melt) of humanity with the types of warfare technology, is it even possible to adhere to the traditional 'just war theory' anymore. Interestingly both JPII and Ratzinger have come out strongly against the indiscriminatory aspects of modern warfare. Correct if I'm wrong, but at the turn of the 19th century, those who were directly killed as a result ranged at about 70/80% of army personnel, c. 20% civilians. These statistics have completely reversed in current warfare.

Of course, those who fought at the end of the 19th century were also victims of imperialist brainwashing et al. but they nevertheless had the means to protect themselves and chose not to desert (the harsher penalties then compared to nowadays were, I suppose, the key factor).

Anyhow, we'll have to keep an eye on the other trials in Britian that I mentioned to see if other juries can be convinced of the legality of direct action to prevent the logistics of war from carrying out its' functions

Popular Posts