&ldquoWe were marginalised by the mainstream peace movement. We were in jail in Limerick. We weren't mentioned from the stage by the Socialist Worker Party-dominated Irish Anti-War Movement or the NGO moderate groups, who may have perceived us as some kind of political competitor in the Irish anti-war movement at that time. We were pretty isolated and it was also a very new phenomenon to Ireland, a kind of very strong non-violent action. People would put that kind of militant action in the republican armed struggle box very quickly, whereas faith-based action too was kind of new.”

Political parties saw the anti-war protests as a marketing opportunity, he claims. It's a cynicism he sees in the charity industry as well: &ldquoI think a great strength of the Catholic Worker is that it has that practice that connects with the homeless and that informs their social justice work and vice versa. You have a whole charity industry here that doesn't, that is profiting from homelessness and suffering. A lot of people would come into the managerial level [of charities] from a managerial culture without any grassroots formation with the homeless. The homeless are a commodity; they're not the customer … and then you've got all these charities in competition with each other, like the left itself… It's for the dollar or for the recruit … mutuality would be a lot nicer.”

As I have followed their case, it increasingly seems to me that the five are operating with two codes – one legal the other moral. The arguments that support their case in terms of one code are not necessarily intelligible in the other. I asked O'Reilly if damaging property qualified as non-violent protest. &ldquoThe Irish criminal damage act recognises that property damage is valid if you're trying to preserve the life or property of another person and we feel we can prove that in court. In terms of Christian ethics, what property is is what is proper to human life, what is enhancing of human life. Christians are supposed to have stewardship of property and so one would wonder – whether it's Moses smashing the tablets or Jesus overturning the tables or people burning their draft cards or people burning child pornography or throwing heroin in the river – if they can be charged with criminal damage. These things are contraband, really, and the value of property is only relevant to how it nourishes and sustains life. If it threatens life then one has to disarm it. The actions themselves are both actual and symbolic and the symbolism is often the most dynamic part because with the actual metal on metal you are relating to an inanimate object – a US navy warplane – but the symbolism of people disarming a weapons system speaks to the hearts and minds of others. You get all sorts of responses. When we [Editor’s note: Catholic Workers] disarmed a B-52 in New York we didn't find out till five years later that a member of the security forces resigned as a result.”

I ask O'Reilly if it’s enough just to protest against the war on Iraq or should peace activists come up with their own, concrete alternatives. &ldquoViolence is the sister of exploitation and peace is the sister of justice. You're always going to have wars if you have injustice and exploitation so the reasons why wars occur are economic. So yes, we have to build alternatives to feed and clothe and shelter ourselves without exploitation and violence and … empire. Part of the movement has to take the next step to build the 'new in the shell of the old'and I think the anti-globalisation movement has been raising those issues.” And the alternative to Saddam Hussein? How should he have been dealt with?

&ldquoThe war was marketed in three ways. One: it was a war against weapons of mass destruction, which they have not found after two years of military occupation. Two: that it was a war against terrorism and they've created a swampland for fundamentalist terrorism where it didn't exist before. And three: that they were bringing better values to the area. Abu Ghraib betrays that. Saddam Hussein could have been got rid of by not selling him weapons and supporting him through the 80s” (when the Irish sold him beef on credit, even as his armies were marching, he points out). &ldquoIt's interesting to look at Iran when the Shah fell. The Shah, supported by the Americans and the Savac [Iranian secret police], had wiped out the liberal opposition and the trade unions so the only show in town was fundamentalist Islam. You can see how Iranian society has reformed itself and democratic movements have emerged within it challenging the theocracy. That will be rolled back now that you've got the American military on either side of them, in Afghanistan and Iraq. I think a process like that would have happened in Iraq if Saddam hadn't been armed by the British and the Americans for so long. I think they wanted him there even after the first Gulf War. They didn't want a revolution. They wanted to replace Saddam with someone who was less nationalistic and more compliant and that's why they're upset with him. They continue to support Saddams in Saudi and Pakistan, everywhere else. There's been no change of heart in the American administration.”

Ingrid Detter, The Law of War, 2nd ed, 2000

Grimes and Horgan, Introduction to Law in the Republic of Ireland, 1981

Irish Independent, Feb 4th 2003

Irish Independent, Feb 8th 2003

Howard Zinn, A People's History of the United States, 1492 – Present, 3rd ed, 2003

WarOnTrial.com – the Irish Pitstop Ploughshares site