Dear Reader,
If you saw a large man intend to strike a child with a large club would you simply stop and stare, would you shout out, call the Police or take action? Any of the above is understandable depending on your morals, physical ability, courage and maybe stupidity. If you could plan ahead and prevent the occurence, even to a limited degree, without the risk of any injury bar to yourself, the truth is, many of us would help that child.
You get the analogy.
I love our military, I love our country, I love law and order BUT I too applaude these men, by careful planning they only posed risk to themselves. They have made a serious point and I admire their courage. Maybe they ought to pay for the fence they cut, otherwise put them on the honours list please.

Simon, Kings Langley, Hertfordshire

Mr Olditch

It was your brother who seemed, from his own words, not to have imagined the risk of being shot. But I am glad he could imagine that his actions might have been wrong. I agree with that view.

Despite Mr Blair's many restrictions, we are still a country in which people are free to express dissent. But the ligitimate expression of dissent does not extend to sabotage of aeroplanes.

Stephen Phillips, LONDON, ENGLAND

In trying to make my point in haste (see below) I managed to mix up a key detail. What I meant to say was ‘Their action can only be termed as 'stupid' if you consider it wrongful to value the lives of a great number of other people over and above your own life.’ I never claimed I wasn’t stupid, but the action of these two men most certainly was not.

Katie Wilson, Edinburgh, UK

Instead of merely marching for the prevention of the emergency that would be the carnage of the innocent in Iraq, these two men should be applauded for the guts and balls to put their heads above the parapet. The government was going to order the attack regardless of any protest march. As someone said before, "war is always the choice of the chosen, who will not have to fight."

William mullen, Swansea, Wales

Wyn Thomas
Your comment totally misunderstands the action that these two men undertook. I urge you to read the informed comments of Rupert Olditch, below, that details the careful measures that were taken to ensure absolutely no harm came to military or other personnel. This was indisputably accepted by judge, jury and prosecution and this is why they were not being tried for endangering the lives of others. Indeed, their action was a non-violent direct action, one born out of compassion and respect for all human life, both for those in Iraq and for those at the military base. The only risk to lives was to their own as they knowingly put themselves in danger of being shot. Their action, therefore, can only be termed as 'stupid' if you consider it wrongful to put the value of your own life over and above a great number of others. I, for one, celebrate their courage in what they were trying to do. I believe if you were in full possession of the facts, you would do the same.

Katie Wilson, Edinburgh, UK

The two protesters should have been charged with treason. There is no excuse for putting airmens lives and those on the ground in peril by these stupid actions. They should count themselves very lucky that they were not shot whilst they on the airbase.

wyn thomas, epping, epping

Mr Philips,
They were very well able to imagine the danger that they might be shot, and took what steps they could to minimise the risk. That they were prepared to take such a risk speaks volumes for the courage they showed in their action. As imagination is a prerequisite for compassion, i'd say that if they lacked it they would never have undertaken what they did.
If you make a serious study of the case, as the jury did over the course of ten days, you'll see that the verdict was very much based on the law and the evidence. Of course to be willing to give the matter that much thought you'd have to be able to imagine a world in which you might be wrong.

Rupert Olditch, Oxford, UK

I am happy that a jury has, in defiance of all evidence, acquitted the ‘Fairford Two’ of an attempt to sabotage (May 23, 2007) US Air Force B52 bombers on the eve of the bombing campaign in Iraq. It is the job of juries to reach verdicts based on emotion not on evidence. But one of the “not” guilty, Mr Olditch, who said outside the court: “The worst-case scenario for us would have been prison…” has a sadly limited imagination.

Someone breaking into an airbase and attempting to sabotage planes about to go on a mission of war might easily be shot dead by those responsible for base security.

Stephen Phillips, LONDON, ENGLAND

Mr Bruce,
It has been proved in court that the USAirforce would have known that the aircraft engines were not safe to operate.

Prosecution, jury and judge all recognised that Messrs Pritchard and Olditch had taken great care to ensure that USAF personnel would know of the damage they intended to commit. It was accepted in court that they had prepared notices to attach to the engines, warning personnel performing pre-flight checks that the engines were not in a safe condition to operate, and that the two men would have remained with the planes, to tell the USAF personnel that the engines were not safe to operate.

It is for these reasons that they were not tried for endangering the lives of others. Indeed in acquitting them the jury recognised that theirs was an action which prevented the loss of life in Iraq, and attempted to protect civilian infrastructure (electricity generation, water purification and sewage treatment plants).

Rupert Olditch, Oxford, UK

To Rupert Olditch:

What you say holds water if the saboteurs had made absolutely sure that the American mechanics would (a) know the aircrafy were sabotaged, and (b) that the mechanics were competent and conscientious.

(a) has yet to be proved; (b), luckily, was not put to the test. One cannot , in these circumstances,call Olditch and Pritchard either responsible or principled. Their actions could easily have had serious consequences, not only for the aircrew and their craft, but also for any unfortunate on whom they came down.

Michael Bruce, Selby, Yorkshire

You write that the intended damage "could have wrecked the aircraft's giant turbine blades", with the implication that the action could have caused danger, but in fact Olditch and Pritchard's action was carefully planned so that nobody would be at risk of harm. The two men had researched their plan thoroughly and knew that by staying with the planes they damaged and alerting the USAirforce to their actions as they intended to, they would necessitate highly rigorous pre-flight checks of the planes including x-ray examination and dismantling of the engine if necessary. Only after their absolute safety was assured would the engines have been started. Theirs was a non-violent direct action, causing no risk of harm to others, for which they intended to make themselves fully accountable.

Rupert Olditch, Oxford, UK

The point K Clark misses is that the jury unanimously agreed that the damage the two men intended to do would not have been criminal, but would have been reasonable and proportionate in order to prevent the crimes that were about to be comitted, in the bombing of Iraq using cluster weapons and weapons containing depleted uranium.
International law on the conduct of war regards as unlawful the use of weapons which cannot discriminate between military and civilian targets, the effects of which cannot be limited to the battlefield, and which will continue to cause harm after the conflict has ended. Both cluster weapons and weapons containing depleted uranium contravene these rules.
The judge specifically instructed the jury not to consider the "legality, wisdom or humanity" of the decision to go to war. The two men's acquittal was on the basis that they acted reasonably and proportionately to prevent war crimes, which individuals are permitted to do under English and international law.

Rupert Olditch, Oxford, UK

The logic might be as follows: they did damage property (no dispute there) but had a legal excuse i.e. that they did what they did to prevent illegal war crimes. Illegal under international law and so under English law. Maybe their belief was mistaken (because the bombing was not going to be indiscriminate) or maybe not.

Either way, if their belief was reasonable they have a legal excuse, other things being equal. In this country, a reasonable but mistaken belief in the need to defend oneself from unlawful attack is, I think, a legal excuse for doing something that would otherwise be a crime in this country (provided that the action is proportionate etc). Similarly, a reasonable but mistaken belief in the need to defend others from unlawful attack is a legal excuse to action which would otherwise be a crime (provided that the action is proportionate etc).

That seems to be the logic.

Dave, Cheltenham, UK

I believe that in the interest of fairness the writer should have added that although nuts and bolts "could have wrecked the aircraft’s giant turbine blades" , Messrs Olditch and Pritchard had taken steps to ensure that there would be no risk of harm to any person as a result of their intended action. The Crown Prosecutor acknowledged thisby not proferring charges relating to risk of harm to USAF personnel or others, and by not referring to such risk in court.
The two men's intention was remain with the aircraft and declare what they had done, as well as fixing notices to the aircraft to warn aircrew performing pre-flight inspections that they were not in a safe condition to operate. Their research had shown them that the consequence of this would have been exhaustive safety checks including the x-ray examination and disassembly of the engines. Their aim to non-violently disarm the bombers would thus have been achieved.

Rupert Olditch, Oxford, UK

I must admit I fail to see the logic here. These guys admit that they did this, so what's left to decide? Were they found not guilty because they didn't actually do the damage they set out to do? At the least, they damaged the fence they cut with their bolt-cutters.

Regardless of your feeling about the war, either then or now, these people's right to protest doesn't include the right to break into a restricted base or to destroy these aircraft.

K Clark, Washington DC,