They’ve had time to put up some detailed reports here. Some excerpts that show even when Raytheon staff are confronted by proof of their work contributing directly to war crimes they affect not to perceive it as unethical or that their conscience is bothered-
…there were legal arguments which centred on the legitimacy of the defence – in short, that the action at Raytheon in August 2006 was not criminal because it was taken in order to prevent the commission of war crimes. In the end, the judge ruled that the defence could be put and that it was for the jury, not the judge, to decide if the Raytheon 9 were acting on the basis of an ‘honestly held belief’. This was a very significant turning point in the trial. It puts the burden of proof on the prosecution.
Wednesday, Thursday and part of Friday were mainly taken up with witnesses from Raytheon. A number of these witnesses were people who happened to be in the office when the action happened.
Two were more noteworthy. Kieran McGivern, who had claimed that his car had been damaged by paper thrown from the office window, was asked by defence barristers about the work he performed at Raytheon (he was working on JETTS, a military contract for the British MoD), which he eventually admitted was a computer programme to enable the targeting of weapons. Asked how he felt about the use of Raytheon weapons in the killing of innocent people in, for instance, Lebanon, he said that he lost no sleep over it.
The last Raytheon witness, was John Reilly, head of Legal Affairs and a member of the Board of Raytheon Systems Ltd (the UK company). He presented the bill of damages, which had been considerably reduced by the Compensation Agency from over £300,000 to £97,000, when it was discovered that the PCs that were damaged were not being replaced.
Defence barristers asked him about his view of Raytheon’s involvement in supplying the weapons used in war crimes, and therefore ‘aiding and abetting’ war crimes. He said that he believed Raytheon was an ethical company. When presented with the findings of a report by the Norwegian government that Raytheon was unethical due to its production of cluster munitions, he said that it did not trouble him. He was shown a BBC TV report about the Qana massacre and said that it was not an issue for him that Raytheon weapons had been used in the killing of innocent civilians.
After a number of questions about his role in the drawing up of letters to Derry City Council, he admitted that he had been present at the meeting in September 2006 with the Council at which Raytheon had decided to ‘come clean’ over its military work, after the work on JETTS was revealed by the Belfast Telegraph. He admitted that JETTS had been worked on in Derry since 2004.
The third week of the Raytheon trial began with Eamonn McCann in the witness box.
Eamonn described the run-up to the occupation of Raytheon during the 2006 Israeli assault on Lebanon, detailing the meetings at which the need to take action was discussed and the reasons this particular form of action was decided on.
A lot of the cross-examination by the prosecution concerned whether this was a mere protest or a serious effort to bring Raytheon production to a standstill. Eamonn argued at length that the purpose had been to save lives by hampering the manufacture of bombs and therefore, at the least, slowing their delivery to Israel. There is an important legal point in this, which, we hope, will have become clear by the time the trial ends.
The public gallery was packed again, with a good contingent from Derry and a couple of car-loads from Dublin as well as Belfast anti-war people.
Colm Bryce will take the stand first thing tomorrow (Tuesday). The defendants will be very pleased to see anti-war activists of whatever tendency or group in court to hear his evidence. It is great for morale, and makes the intervals that bit more enjoyable (if that’s the word.)
